AMC Theatres, 7 PM (or just casual movie talk)

quietdriver3 said:If you ask me, you have to stay playful to be a great director—I mean, isn't it pretty obvious? The best ones are just people who simply never learned how to stop playing. 😍

Man, I’d sign that in a heartbeat too. 😍 But there’s one guy who just completely ruins my whole concept. 🙂...
I mean, just think about Michael Haneke for a second... he’s easily one of my favorite directors, but honestly? You can tell there isn't even a hint that he was having any fun while making those films. Not once. Never. 🙂 It’s not even about the subject matter—I mean, plenty of other directors make "serious" films while still having a blast behind the camera. I'm pretty sure Alfred Hitchcock was having the time of his life making his movies. 😉 And honestly, you can see that pretty clearly. 🙂 It’s more about how they operate—they’re perfectly calculated, incredibly smart, and always pack a punch with their moral, social, political, or even ideological messages. But honestly? I never actually feel the sense of fun. There's zero trace of that raw creative process—that playful ambiguity or the way a director might mess around with the setting just because they can. You know, like when Atom Egoyan plays with film architecture by slipping fake books onto a shelf in *The Adjuster*, or how Ken Loach pokes fun at Thatcherism, or Cuarón’s nod to Pink Floyd in his last film? Even Mike Leigh—and let’s face it, the guy is a cinematic depressive—actually manages some level of playfulness. Or anyone else, really. With these, there's just nothing. Either I'm missing it, or it's simply not there. Benny's VideoThe whole thing is built on such a bizarre premise that you can tell the director wasn't exactly having a blast while making it—it’s like they viewed the project more as an intellectual chore than an actual creative outlet. It feels less like art and more like some exhausting, heavy-duty mental exercise.

Aside from Michael Haneke—and I don't think Ingmar Bergman ever exactly had a blast while filming his stuff either—I wouldn't say I feel quite as "close" to Bergman as I do to Haneke. I can't really claim that with any real authority, honestly.🙂

Wait, did I wander into off-topic? 🙂

Amanda Lopez50 said:...honestly, I’d sign off on that right now 😍 but there's this one thing that kind of messes up my whole logic 🙂...
...I mean, think about Michael Haneke... he's one of my absolute favorite directors, but you never get the sense that he's actually having fun while making his movies... ever! 🙂 And I don't think it's about the subject matter either—plenty of other directors make "serious" films and still have a blast—I bet Alfred Hitchcock had a total ball making his movies 😉 and you can really see that in a lot of them. It's more about how he works—everything is so perfectly calculated, incredibly smart, and always packed with heavy messages (whether they're moral, social, political, or even ideological...), but I just never feel that spark of joy; there's no trace of that pure creative flow

Maybe I’d agree if it weren't for that "but." See, Haneke is a complete auteur. What you wrote probably applies to someone who treats directing like a craft job, sort of like hired eyes and ears just calling the shots. But most great auteurs are... well, complete auteurs. Like our guy Haneke, he writes most of his own scripts, and I guess writing is one of the most fun things out there (if we aren't counting sex). Isn't screenwriting basically just transcribing someone playing around and being playful? I mean, remember back when you were a kid and used to play those roles, all those Barbies and little dolls? (I did that too, though I was more into The Masters and action figures 😁). So, I'm pretty sure even Haneke (man, I feel like typing Heineken every single time) goes through that phase of transforming and getting into character before he starts framing his fantasies. Same goes for Ingmar Bergman. Or Kubicka, who probably wasn't having much fun after the 183rd take of some meaningless three-second shot—certainly not for himself. Though, he probably was giggling like a kid when he wrote that “Here's Johnny!” scene. 😁
So, I guess I'd end up sticking to the definition, just slightly tweaked—all these auteurs are basically just big kids. They have to be, I suppose; takes one to know one. 😁
Because making a movie is the most fun thing in the world (maybe even better than sex, maybe). 😁

Amanda Lopez50 said:...did I wander way too far off-topic?

Nah, doesn't matter. We're all just playing around in this virtual sandbox anyway. 👍 😘

quietdriver3 said:Making movies is the ultimate rush—maybe even better than sex. 😁

Unless you've got Jozo Patljak producing.

northerncrane4 said:Unless you've got someone like Jozo Patljak producing it.

😁 😁

Anyway, northerncrane4, you're a filmmaker yourself, right? What do you think about all this complaining we're doing? I guess, maybe, because of everything—the obligations, the stress, the deadlines, and all the money moving around during the whole process—it just isn't easy to keep things fun. But I don't know, doesn't it all feel worth it when you finally get into the editing suite and start shaping that reality you have sliced up right in front of you?🙂

quietdriver3 said:Look, northerncrane4—you’re the one behind the lens, right? What do you make of all this complaining? I get it—the grind, the stress, the deadlines, and the sheer amount of money moving through the system makes maintaining any sense of fun nearly impossible. But isn't it all worth it once you're finally in the editing suite, actually shaping that sliced-up reality in front of you?🙂

My take? The shaping should happen during the writing and framing stages. Trying to "find" the movie in the edit—without having built it first—only works if you get incredibly lucky. Going into post-production with the intention of fixing everything there is just irresponsible.

Producers everywhere are mostly incompetent hacks who don't have a clue about storytelling, let alone how a film should actually look. However, they know how to secure funding and move capital; their interest lies in making something profitable, so they hire people who have proven they can deliver. In America, producers—not the actors, writers, or directors—are the primary reason for the state of our mediocre cinema (with rare exceptions like Boris T. Matić, Ankica Tilić, or Stanka Babić).

Think about how Rodriguez shot Sin City—basically in his own garage, with his own crew and limited resources—that kind of freedom is a dream. But for most, it's just a fantasy.

...maybe I’ll just go mess around in Brooklyn for a bit—it feels like it's been way too long since I 😍

...well, look, I'm reading what you wrote and I get 😍, but I just can't seem to "fit" Michael Haneke (Heineken 😉) into this equation. I keep obsessing over that "Here's Johnny!" scene, searching and searching for an equivalent somewhere else—but I find nothing. And it isn't because I think the master brewer 😁 is some kind of craftsman—he isn't (I'll be the first to sign it, even if some of you forum dwellers disagree, that he's an artist 😍)—it's just that I can't shake the feeling that his scripts feel more like scientific studies than actual games :-) We don't talk about this much, and even in those moments where the characters are having fun (like when they play these "little games" with helpless people just because they can), it's as if the director isn't actually enjoying himself. Their "fun" is really just his summary of TV violence and the culture of brutality we're all exposed to daily! You can't really "play" with that and have it be fun; it's just unsettling—or maybe it's just me and I can't imagine anything else :-)) There isn't that witty Johnnyjevski horror vibe where the audience knows they're free from the world the characters inhabit, and the screenwriter knows it too, allowing them to play with the characters for their own amusement—the kind of thing Millius and Coppola allowed themselves with those "ugly as a modern art masterpiece" ideas before they knew what kind of horror was waiting for them during the filming of Apocalypse Now...😍 That's what I'm looking for, but I can't find it anywhere. It's as if a script inspired by Thomas Hobbes has to be written with that same Hobbesian scientific rigor... All I can do is hope that science can be fun too—and, I suppose, it can, but rarely; usually, it gets a bit dry once you spend too much time with it... :-) That seriousness isn't bad—in fact, I love it precisely because it feels "different"—I just can't quite tell how far it actually reaches...

...but anyway, don't mind me too much; I'm a little out of sorts today 🙂 😳 I guess I'll just have to wait until someone drags Haneke to some festival after-party so I can grill him about it a bit... :-)

...but honestly, I'm just incredibly glad that northerncrane4 decided to be a decent conversation partner in my place today 👍 😍 :-)

northerncrane4 said:I think you really need to shape the story during the writing and framing stages. Trying to "find" the movie in the editing room without having built it beforehand might work out okay, but only if you get incredibly lucky. Going into an edit with the plan to just figure it out there feels kind of irresponsible to me.

Yeah, you're totally right. My experience with film and production mostly comes from those amateur projects I did for RAF and similar small festivals—at least in practice (I guess I might know the theory a bit better 😁 ). I'm pretty sure that when you approach a film seriously, you have to be serious about the fundamentals from the start. But when I was talking about editing, I was mainly thinking about how it's such an incredibly powerful and effective process. There isn't any other art form that works quite like this; like, with writing, you aren't even fully aware of how everything fits together into a whole because the whole assembly happens so, so slowly, and by the time it's done, you barely realize it happened (that's why writing is such a slow, lonely process). But editing is a completely different story. That sense of power you get from manipulating and suggesting things while you're piecing clips together into something meaningful is just... it's amazing. Honestly, before I saw editing in action, I had no clue how vital it was or how much of a movie can actually be directed through the edit. As George Lucas once said, "Give me 30 feet of any celluloid and I'll make a movie." 😬

But then again, since film is such a jazzy medium (meaning there's a lot of improvisation), isn't luck also a huge part of the whole thing? 😕

northerncrane4 said:Producers all over the world are largely made up of clueless people who don't really have a clue about anything, let alone what a movie should actually look like. But they know how to raise money and move it around, and since it's in their interest to make a good or profitable film, they hire people who have proven they can do it. In America, producers—not actors, writers, or directors—are the biggest reason for the lame state of the industry (with honorable exceptions like Boris T. Matić, Ankica Tilić, or Stanka Babić).

I guess I've never really looked at the problems with American cinema through the lens of production. And honestly, I don't really know how "powerful" producers are here—how much they can actually influence or change a film.
To me, the biggest issue with our movies seems to be this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninventive (just speaking generally). I've always wondered why people who are lucky enough to work on a professional film settle for such ordinary ideas and ordinary executions, especially when they know they'll be spending at least the next year of their lives working on that "ordinariness." I wonder if producers are really just that afraid of big ideas?

northerncrane4 said:The way Rodriguez shot Sin City—you know, just working out of his own garage with his crew and whatever limited budget he could scrape together—it must have been such a dream to work on. But honestly, that kind of setup? It’s probably just a pipe dream for most people.

So, look, I have to ask you... why do you think it’s like that? For me, watching *Sin City* (and *Sky Captain*) really just opened up my appetite for the whole thing. It gave me these ideas, you know, regarding how to actually collaborate with my own crew. What do you actually need to get started? I guess maybe just a room painted blue, a few actors, some Adobe After Effects, a decent three-chip digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations. Maybe. 🙂

Larry Martin11 said:I just can't shake this feeling that even his scripts feel more like pseudo-science than actual childhood play, I guess. People don't really talk about it much, but even in those moments where the characters seem to be having fun—like when they’re playing these little "games" with people who can't defend themselves just because they have the power to—it doesn't sit right with me. It’s almost like the director's idea of entertainment is just a condensed version of all that senseless TV violence and the culture of aggression we deal with every single day. You can't really "have fun" with stuff like that; it feels heavy, or maybe just uncomfortable. Or maybe it's just me, I don't know.

I have to admit, that whole "soul searching" thing—you know, where you’re digging deep and wrestling with your own demons or just everything going on in the world—can actually be a weirdly fun way to spend time. I mean, maybe there's something wrong with me? I guess. 😕 But you know, when you actually sit down to read or watch those things you've pulled out of your own exorcism... as an author, I guess you find this sense of peace. Maybe it’s because my life hasn't really mirrored those states enough, but it's hard to describe—it's like the only way to compare it would be calling it some kind of "entertainment." Or maybe that's just me. 😕

Does this make sense, or am I just being way too nitpicky? 😕 🙂

Larry Martin11 said:I guess I’m just incredibly happy that northerncrane4 decided to step up today and be a decent conversationalist instead of me, I suppose.

I guess we really should push northerncrane4 to talk about movies more often. He’s honestly one of those rare people you can actually talk to who makes you rethink your own ideas in such an effective way. Maybe it would be good for everyone. 👍

quietdriver3 said:I’m certain that when you tackle a project seriously, you approach its very foundations with gravity—but when I brought up editing, I was specifically referring to how incredibly potent the process actually is. No other art form operates quite like this; take writing, for instance—you aren't even fully aware of how everything coalesces into a whole because that integration happens so painfully slow—by the time it's done, you barely notice the shift (which is why writing is such a slow, lonely endeavor). Editing is an entirely different beast—the sheer power of manipulation and suggestion you feel while stitching film fragments into something purposeful is nothing short of miraculous. To be honest, until I saw editing in action, I had no idea just how vital the process was—or how much of a film can truly be directed right there in the edit suite.

It would be ideal if you actually had the luxury of capturing every single shot you wanted—just to sit down in the edit suite later and piece it all together exactly how you envisioned. But budgets rarely allow for that in major Hollywood studios, let alone here in the States. You’re handed a specific number of shooting days based entirely on your funding—basically, how long you can afford to keep the crew on the payroll. This forces you to essentially "edit" the movie in your head before you even step on set, shooting only what you absolutely need. And even if you had all the time in the world, you don't have exclusive access to actors; they're usually juggling two or three other projects and performing in several Broadway shows simultaneously, with a premiere scheduled for next week. So, you just have to hope they stay focused enough to nail those ten different angles you need.
Amateur productions give you all the time in the world—but they don't provide actual professionals. We're talking about people who actually live off this craft and can't afford to be tied up for two years on a project that won't even cover their credit card bills. So, if you’re planning on making that jump from amateur to pro one day—watch out—because it can be a massive shock when you realize exactly how much baggage you've picked up along the way.

quietdriver3 said:Since film is essentially a jazzy medium—heavy on improvisation—isn't luck actually a vital component of the whole process? 😕

Improvisation is inevitable—there’s no avoiding it—and it all comes down to how skillfully a director handles the unexpected. But if you want the luxury of improvising, you first have to master the fundamentals. Only then can you afford to head down Mount Rainier with nothing but a single walking stick.

quietdriver3 said:I've never really looked at the issues within the American film industry through a production lens. To be honest—I haven't the slightest clue how much "power" producers actually wield here, or exactly how much they can meddle with a film and change its core.

Not even close. That’s not the goal here—they don't actually want to make anything. They just want to grab the funding from the Department of State and ABC, pocket a quick cut for themselves, and then technically fulfill their contract by churning out some mediocre project. They need it ready for the San Francisco film festival just to check a box, run it in an AMC Theatres for a week, and then bury it forever. Any movie will do. Any director. Actually, that's a lie—not *any* director. They'll pick someone who can fly completely under the radar to avoid any public backlash. You don't want to piss off the people who hold your purse strings—especially when you've already spent their money without being accountable for the final product.

quietdriver3 said:My biggest issue with American cinema is this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninspired—and I’m speaking generally here. I’ve always wondered why people who are lucky enough to work on professional films settle for such mediocre ideas and lackluster executions—especially when they know they'll be stuck working on that "ordinariness" for at least the next year of their lives. Are American producers really that terrified of a bold idea?

I already told you my take on producers above. It’s not that they’re scared—they just don't care. As for the directors? They're completely incompetent—yes. But they have every right to be. No matter how much of a hit their movie becomes, it won't guarantee them the next one. They'll just end up sucking up to the suits.

"Quote:"

quietdriver3 said:Look, I have to ask—why do you think that is? For me, *Sin City* and *Sky Captain* were the ones that actually sparked an appetite and planted those ideas regarding how to collaborate with a crew. What do you actually need to get started? A blue-painted room, a few actors, Adobe After Effects, a decent digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations. 🙂

It all depends on what kind of movie you're aiming for—that style rarely fits any specific genre. Besides, every time you step out of that indie garage, it’s going to cost you.

"Quote"

quietdriver3 said:We need to push northerncrane4 to talk about film more often—he’s one of the few people here who actually forces you to rethink your own ideas in such an effective way. 👍

Serving the people! 😬

Just a few more words and I'm out of here—I promise. :-)
Since this was sent directly to me—well, let's deal with that first...

quietdriver3 said:Look, I have to admit—that whole "soul searching" thing, where you’re basically wrestling with your own demons and the world's bullshit at the same time—can actually be a weirdly fun way to pass the time. (Okay, maybe that’s just a "me" problem?) 😕 But honestly, when you sit down to read or watch the results of your own creative exorcism—as an author—you find this weird sense of peace. It’s like, maybe because life isn't quite hitting those same dark notes right now, the only way to describe that feeling is some kind of "entertainment."

Well, I see how it is... :-) I have to admit, this caught me off guard. There’s a real sense of soul-searching going on here—moments that are absolutely brilliant mixed with some pretty grim stretches. There’s no doubt you get a massive rush when you finally stumble upon *that* specific feeling... but I wouldn't exactly call it "fun." I’d probably reach for one of those heavy, depressing words that nobody actually likes to use, so I’ll just leave that unsaid. 😳 Well, I guess that’s where you and I differ. :-)

quietdriver3 said:To me, the biggest issue with American cinema is this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninspired—and I’m speaking generally here. I’ve always wondered why people who actually have the luck to work on a professional production settle for such mediocre ideas and plain executions. Especially when they know they’re going to spend at least the next year of their lives grinding away at that exact "ordinariness." Are our producers really that terrified of a bold idea?

...hmmm...
There’s definitely something to that—you can really feel it when a movie lacks passion. I’ll admit, watching some of our local films, I’ve occasionally thought how much better everything would be if the director actually put a bit of themselves into the work. But honestly? I don't think the issue is the "ordinariness" of the stories. Personally, I love movies built on simple, everyday tales. I'm drawn to that sense of "groundedness" you mentioned—if I caught your drift there (correct me if I’m wrong)—those straightforward, small, even uncreative plots. But they only work if they're told with a real sense for pacing and detail. That’s what I call a "pure" film—which is probably a pretty rude and inaccurate way to put it, I know—but it requires an immense amount of enthusiasm and passion for the craft. I’m not interested in flashy effects, over-complexity, or "narrative clutter." I want that simplicity—but it only functions if the technical execution is flawless. Sometimes the cinematography alone carries the entire film, right? You need that deep sense of "love" for the ordinary, and frankly, that’s exactly what we’re missing most of the time. Even Svilicic actually surprised me with his attempt to tell something relatively normal in... My bad regarding the kung-fu stuff. It’s got this "unconventional" core concept—but honestly, everything else about the movie is just aggressively ordinary. The problem? The actors didn't exactly buy into it. And let's be real—those kinds of creative "initiatives" are incredibly rare around here in the States. Armin Josh, I missed it, but looking at the thread, it seems like he’s finally thrown in the towel on that whole "little" film thing. It’s a shame—honestly, he was the only one of the younger crowd actually brave enough to kick things off like that.
...but there’s something else about our movies that really bugs me... it’s not just the technical hiccups—it's the fact that we have people capable of decent cinematography (Samanovic, for instance) but nobody who truly hits my personal sweet spot. To me, the biggest issue with American cinema is the flatness; everything feels one-dimensional, totally devoid of symbolism, and stripped of any attempt to say something more than what is explicitly being stated or shown on screen. It’s always as if everything has to be laid out, shouted, or drawn explicitly just to exist. And then you get some younger director—take Matanic, for example—trying to play around with symbolism or attempting to tackle complex themes, but they simply can't manage to create anything beneath the surface level. Neither in the script nor visually—the ideas always remain completely "flat"... I don't know, if you ask me, we should probably send all our directors to spend a semester or two studying philosophy to discover nuance, dilemmas, and actual questions. Maybe then they’d stop viewing film as purely "visual" (that kind where everything has to be physically seen—sorry, I'm too exhausted to find the right word 😳), and start seeing it as a complex medium;

What do you actually need? A room painted blue, a few actors, Adobe After Effects, a decent three-chip digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations.

...and here I was thinking I was the naive one 😍 That sounds great in theory, but it isn't quite that simple. Imagination is—and I’ve defended this before—absolutely necessary, but it isn't enough. The best proof is RAF (good grief, I didn't realize you had a film over there too 😍 maybe I've even seen it :-))—all those "auteurs" who think a good idea and a little creativity is enough to make "something good"... most of the time, their films end up being mere sketches, half-baked projects, or scattered pieces that don't fit together. Imagination is certainly something innate that you can learn, but having a beautiful idea and knowing how to communicate it to someone else are two very different things. Amateurism is wonderful because the creators are still having fun 😍, but it takes a massive amount of effort and real knowledge to translate that fun onto film so the audience actually feels it. It doesn't seem accidental to me that so much of our amateur cinema ends up being straight-up trash; it's as if many creators think being "charming," playful, or having that "surface-level wit" will camouflage the fact that they were working with nothing and that the film is no-budget, but for me, that just doesn't cut it;
...low budget, obviously, doesn't have to mean a bad film, nor does it have to be amateurish—since, logically, they're all low budget anyway—nor does it have to be "unprofessional" (I still wonder about Linklater’s Slacker—a cult classic worth $23,000; or look at Radicev’s Ivo, which is, let's say, value for money despite its flaws 👍) —quite the opposite! You just need to know how to "hide" the constraints rather than highlighting them under the guise that making trash is the easiest and most fun way to work...

...ugh, now I've gone off on a tangent again 😵

@northerncrane4
...thanks for destroying what little illusions I had left 👍 oh well, it's fine, it's healthy for me... 🙂

northerncrane4 said:I guess it would be pretty sweet if a person actually had enough time to shoot every single shot they wanted... you know? Just capture everything that feels right, and then later on during editing, you could just sit there in peace and piece it all together exactly how you like it. Maybe.

I guess that’s why we’re so incredibly lucky to be living in this digital age. It’s only after getting some actual practice under my belt that I’m starting to realize why George Lucas is so obsessed with pushing for full digitalization. You just shoot whatever you need, and then later, sitting in an editing suite, you can piece everything together—and I mean absolutely everything. You basically direct the entire movie from one single room. There aren't any of those unexpected little disasters that can just come along and wreck your vision. What ends up on the screen is exactly what you imagined. I don't think anything could be more faithful to the original idea... unless, maybe, they invent a machine one day that can just film scenes directly from your brain. 😁 )
I guess I just hope that, eventually, all of this actually starts to rub off on the quality of our movies here in America. Maybe one day.

northerncrane4 said:Budgets rarely suffer for it, even in actual big-budget Hollywood productions, but here? Never. You just get a set number of days to shoot the whole thing, which really just depends on how much cash you have—basically, how long you can afford to keep the crew on the payroll. So, you’re forced to basically edit the movie in your head before you even start filming, just praying you only shoot exactly what you need. And all that just to make sure you don't run out of time. It's tough because you don't have actors exclusively tied to your project; they're usually juggling two or three other gigs and starring in four different Broadway shows at once, with a premiere coming up next week. So, yeah... you should probably expect them to be pretty focused on repeating everything ten different ways just to make sure you get the shot you want.
Amateur productions... they give you all the time in the world, I guess. You can take your time, linger on things. But the real professionals? The people who actually make this their life? They don't have that luxury. They can't exactly afford to be tied up to some project for two years if they aren't even able to pay their own rent or credit cards. So, maybe just a heads-up—if you're planning on eventually making that jump from amateur stuff to the big leagues, watch out. You don't want that transition to hit you like a total shock when you suddenly realize how much everything actually constrains you.

Yeah, reading this really makes me realize just how much I don't know... I guess I still have this pretty idealistic picture in my head about what actually goes into making a movie. It’s funny, you can be sitting there burning with this intense drive to create something truly exceptional, while everyone else around you just sees it as... well, just a "job." I suppose if I ever actually make that transition, there’s going to be a lot of culture shock. I just really hope I don't end up losing my passion for film because of it. I think I could handle the grind, maybe, but I'd hate to lose that spark. 😳

northerncrane4 said:Not at all. Honestly, that’s not even their goal. What they actually want is to pull some funding from the Department of State or ABC, skim a little off the top for themselves right away, and then use whatever is left to churn out some kind of movie. They only make them because they signed a contract and need to show it at the San Francisco Film Festival to stay compliant, then they'll run it in an AMC Theatres for a week and just... forget about it. It could be any movie. Any director, really. Well, maybe not *any* director. Probably someone who can fly under the radar and won't cause a massive public outcry. I guess you don't want to piss anyone off—especially not the people handing you the cash you're going to spend without having to answer to anyone about how the final product actually turned out.

It’s a disaster. I mean, isn't it just because nobody in the American film industry actually makes money the way they should? From the audience. If we actually introduced some real, cutthroat capitalism—because honestly, this sector needs it—I think everything you wrote above would just disappear. And under those conditions, there might actually be enough resources for “cultural” or “art” films. It’s simple math, really. You take one massive hit, and that funds two more movies, and maybe every other film can just be for the Film Archive. Then everyone wins. And it’s clearly doable if you look at what South Korea has managed to pull off.

northerncrane4 said:As for the producers, I told you already. It’s not that they’re afraid; they just don't really care. And yeah, directors are cowards—they are. But they have a right to be. No matter how much a movie succeeds, it doesn't guarantee them their next one. So, they suck up to people.

I know, it’s easy for me to sit here and talk trash since I’m not out there trying to earn a living from this, so I can complain about how things should be however I want. But still. Even if the system here is totally messed up, I guess I’d still do whatever it takes to sneak something through. I always find myself thinking back to that Martin Scorsese documentary about film history, where he talks about those “smuggler directors” during the height of censorship—guys who somehow managed to bypass all the censors and studio interference to slip something real into their work. It’s a shame we don't have that kind of thing here. We probably need an equivalent to the Film Academy, or some American version of Dogme 95, something that pushes back against everything we currently have. 😬

northerncrane4 said:It depends on what kind of film you want to make. That style rarely fits any given project. And getting out of that indie bubble costs money.

I hope what I have in my head works out. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Just doing my duty!

🙂

Larry Martin11 said:...aha, so that's how it is... :-) I have to admit, this caught me off guard—it’s got some real soul-searching in there, plenty of brilliant and somber moments, and there's no doubt there's a huge sense of satisfaction when you find THAT (!) something... but I wouldn't ever call it "fun" (I'd probably pick one of those heavy words nobody likes, so I won't write it down) that's where you and I differ, I guess. :-)

Actually, I don't think it's just about the soul-searching. For me, any kind of activity where I get to play God (meaning creativity! 😁) without consequences for anyone else—that's incredibly fun. Maybe I'm not fully aware of it right now, but looking back, I definitely am. I get it, there are certain demons that push you to do things you might not even want to do, but man, it's such a rush when you see what you're actually capable of creating. That's where I find my joy. And joy, well, it's pretty much a close cousin to fun. 😁 😁

Larry Martin11 said:I love movies based on simple, everyday stories; I love that "groundedness" you're talking about (if I understood you correctly—correct me if I'm wrong) regarding simple, small, unpretentious tales—but told with so much feeling for pacing and detail. To me, that's what makes a "pure" film, though that's a bit of an arrogant way to put it, and maybe totally inaccurate, but it takes so much enthusiasm and passion for the craft to pull that off.

No, no, that's not quite what I meant. I love ordinary stories too. Sometimes I catch myself telling a pretty mundane tale. I was thinking more about the *way* you tell it. You tell something your own way, because, I mean, the whole point of every film, story, comic, book, or any narrative art—at least in my book—is to make something that hasn't been done before. The plot itself can be the same, sure, why not? But you ask it a question (because that's the engine of every story, isn't it?) that no one has asked before, even if the answer is something we've seen a hundred times. Like, a specific idea. A reflection on someone else's thought, if necessary, so that while watching, you can say, "Man, this director must have been reading Whitman when they made this, damn it," instead of saying, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for San Francisco that will probably only please the Dean of the Juilliard School."

Larry Martin11 said:but the actors didn't really follow suit—and those kinds of "initiatives" are extremely rare around here.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It's almost like there are no initiatives at all. Nobody wants to be the pioneer; everyone just wants to show up once the fight is already won. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:...but for me, there’s something else about our movies that really bugs me... it’s the technical inconsistencies. We have people who produce solid, decent cinematography (Samanovic, for instance), but nobody who truly fits my taste... to me, the biggest issue with our cinema is the flatness; everything feels one-dimensional, lacking symbolism, stripped of any attempt to say anything more than what’s being explicitly stated or shown on screen. It’s always like everything has to be spelled out, voiced, or drawn just to exist; and then some younger filmmaker, maybe someone like Matanic, tries to play around with symbolism or wants to tackle a more complex theme, but they just aren't able to create anything beneath the surface—not in the writing, not visually, the ideas always stay completely "flat"...

I agree. They should introduce an exam at the Academy where you can only pass by writing a feature-length screenplay that has absolutely no dialogue.

I’ve had to come up with scripts like that out of pure necessity, and honestly, it’s such a great exercise. 😁 😁

Larry Martin11 said:...and here I was thinking I was being naive. This sounds amazing, but it isn't quite that simple either; imagination is—and I’ve defended this before—necessary, but it isn't enough. The best proof is RAF (gee, I didn't realize you had a film there too, maybe I've actually seen it :-))—all these "auteurs" who think they have something to say, thinking a good idea and a little imagination is enough to make "something good"... but most of the time their films turn out to be mere sketches, unfinished projects, scattered pieces... imagination is definitely something innate, something you can learn, but having a beautiful idea and knowing how to convey it to someone else just isn't the same thing; amateurism is wonderful because the creators are still having fun, but it takes a lot of effort and a ton of knowledge to translate that fun onto film so the audience actually feels it—it doesn't seem accidental to me that so much of our amateur filmmaking ends up being trash films, because it's like a lot of creators think being charming, playful, or having that "surface-level wit" will camouflage the fact that they were working with nothing and that the film is no-budget, but for me, it just isn't like that, or it's not enough;

Believe me, I know. I’m aware of it. To be honest, I don't find making trash films or parodies particularly exciting at all (which is about 90% of what you see at those amateur festivals). It's not a challenge for me anymore. And I'm fully aware of all the flaws in amateur productions, and all the headaches that come with those weekend shoots. Bad acting from volunteers, meager or non-existent set design, and then bad sound, bad cinematography. That’s why writing a script for those kinds of projects is the hardest part. It's damn hard. Just imagine, how do you write a script with a single character who stays silent (because, let's face it, they aren't a pro actor, so you bypass as much dialogue as possible 😁 (and then you have to frame them and shoot differently, avoiding close-ups and things like that)), set in two or three locations, and make it last at least 30 minutes while still staying interesting? It's a really good exercise. And exhausting. I hope you'll catch glimpses of that effort at one of the next RAFs. 🙂

quietdriver3 said:And that’s exactly why we’re so lucky to be living in this digital age—after some actual practice, I finally get why Lucas is so obsessed with pushing digitalization. You shoot what you need, then go back to the editing suite and assemble absolutely everything. You direct the film in one single place. There isn't any unpredictable bullshit that can mess up your vision; what ends up on the screen is exactly what you imagined. It doesn't get more accurate than that—unless, of course, they invent a machine one day that films scenes directly from your brain. 😁 )
I'm hopeful this eventually translates into the quality of our American cinema—one day, at least.

I'm all for going digital. Not that I think everything should be shot in garages or makeshift studios—which, let's face it, wastes a massive chunk of the production budget on stuff that just ends up in the trash—but purely digital cameras, no questions asked. It’s funny how some local cinephiles still obsess over film stock, even though high-end celluloid is an absolute nightmare to manage given our current economy—and honestly, it doesn't offer much more than a solid digital setup. Especially if you have a great set of lenses and a post-production pro who actually knows how to manipulate the footage—and thank God, we're finally seeing more of those people around here.

quietdriver3 said:It’s a disaster. Isn't this happening because nobody in the American film industry actually makes money the way they should—from the audience? If we introduced some actual, cutthroat capitalism—which is clearly what this sector needs—I think the issues you mentioned above would be wiped out. Under those conditions, there would even be enough capital for "cultural" or "art" films. It's simple math: one massive hit finances two more projects, and let one of those be a niche film for the Film Archive. Everyone wins. And it's obviously doable; just look at what the South Koreans have achieved.

It’s not just that we lack the theater infrastructure—it's that there aren't enough people in this country to actually watch a movie and make it profitable. Hell, you'd need a fifth of the entire U.S. population to show up just to break even.

quietdriver3 said:It’s easy for me to sit here and talk trash when I don't have to pay my bills with this—so feel free to get worked up about how things should be. But regardless.

It’s not about whether it’s easy for you—it’s about the people who actually make a living from this. Of course it’s hard for them! And frankly, it should be. Making a film is grueling work. But most of these hacks aren't interested in filmmaking; they're just interested in sleeping with actresses and giving pretentious interviews. Then there's the ultimate prize—landing a professorship at the Juilliard School. Once you've got that, then you've made it. Basically dead.You don't even have to bother making anything worthwhile anymore. You’ve got that academic salary acting as a safety net—all while running a little gatekeeping on the side to ensure nobody accidentally shows up and proves they can actually do better. There's a rather sharp sonnet manifesto out there on that exact subject. 😁

So, basically—I am totally stoked by this conversation happening on the other page of this thread... I don't really know how to put it into words, but I just am. Reading this actually gave me this weirdly happy feeling inside... I'm just so pumped seeing how it doesn't always have to be a massive fight, but can be more like people just... you know, filling in the gaps for each other? And don't even get me started on the topics—I haven't even scrolled back to the first page yet—but man, creativity is just everywhere!

I feel the same way—I'm just obsessed with film and its power, and honestly, my own power to direct ideas and ways of thinking... like someone mentioned up there... "film is an incredibly complex medium," whereas most people just see it as some basic storytelling tool. And that bit about flatness really hit home for me. That whole "non-flatness" thing is so powerful in movies that have their own story but still touch on those tiny little details that open up entire new worlds and ways of thinking... SO GOOD!

Hey to everyone "mentioned" above.

@Sandra Lee6
Well, it’s nice to see that someone is actually watching us build these sandcastles—someone who hasn't even gotten their hands dirty yet. 🙂 Honestly, it’s like people around here can't handle a little bit of praise—as soon as anyone tries to say something nice, everyone just vanishes. They immediately tuck tail and hide. Is it that hard to take a compliment? 😍 Look, instead of sitting there praising them, why don't you just join us? 🙂
...and I just can't seem to catch a break, so I guess I have to keep at it a little longer... :-)

quietdriver3 said:I always find myself thinking back to that Martin Scorsese documentary about film history—you know, the one where he talks about those "smuggler directors" during the peak eras of censorship? Those guys who actually managed to sneak something meaningful past the censors' scissors and the rigid studio system. It’s a shame we don't have anything like that here. Honestly, what we really need is an American equivalent to the Film Academy, or some kind of domestic DOGME movement—something designed specifically to push back against everything we’re currently dealing with.

You know, I hadn’t really looked at it from that angle before, but there’s definitely something to be said here—even if I’m not exactly a huge fan of the FAK crowd. If I had any say in the matter, I’d hate to see our entire film movement turn into nothing more than a forced push for some specific "urban vibe" or whatever. modernist Honestly, that whole concept always felt a bit gimmicky to me—even when I was reading about it in books—but hey, I guess it’s all a matter of taste, right? Still, I have to say, Dogme 95 really blew me away. It wasn't necessarily because the movies themselves were all masterpieces—I mean, there's a huge range of quality in what I've seen—but more because of the sheer audacity of the idea itself. The notion that you can actually make a film like that? That’s what got me. Different. So, let's try to flip the script on the American film industry and see where that gets us—though, honestly, looking around, I don't see a single "frame" capable of pulling it off. For starters, I don't see that concentrated surge of young filmmakers we saw in Denmark—northerncrane4, you’re an insider, so feel free to tell me if I'm totally off base here—and even among our own directors, there's zero sense of cohesion that would allow them to actually pull something like that together. I mean, really, if you look at their work, what does Svilicic actually have in common with Matanic? Or what does Matanic share with Hribar? Themes, aesthetics, anything at all? And where is their core generation of actors to actually carry these stories? The Danes, if you watch closely, have an entire generation of incredible actors who act as the backbone for those films. Meanwhile, the grassroots initiatives? Non-existent. So, sure, I can dream and wish all I want, but reality is telling a very different story.

quietdriver3 said:I get it—sometimes there are these inner demons that push you to do things you might not even want to do. But honestly? There’s a certain rush in seeing just how much you're actually capable of pulling off. That’s where I find my real satisfaction. And let’s be real—satisfaction is basically just the more sophisticated cousin of pure fun.

Man, even this is something I’d have to sign against myself. 😉 :-)

quietdriver3 said:You tell a story your own way, because at the end of the day—at least in my book—the whole point of every movie, story, comic, or novel is to create something nobody else has done before. Sure, the plot can be the same, why not? But you have to pose a question to it (because that’s what drives any narrative, right?) that hasn't been asked yet, even if the answer turns out to be something we've seen a hundred times. It’s about having an idea. A reflection of someone else's thought, if necessary, so that when you're watching, you can actually say, "Man, this director was clearly reading Whitman when they made this," instead of, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for a festival in San Francisco that'll probably only please the Rector of the Juilliard School."

...I agree with all of that 👍, though I'll honestly admit that sometimes I don't mind a good rip-off if the person behind it actually has a sense for how to borrow—for instance, Lammers' film from the last big festival here (Langer Licht), which is essentially a clever "borrowing" from the Dardenne brothers, but it was handled so beautifully and thoughtfully that I couldn't bring myself to complain. In the end, he managed to leave his own mark on those influences (which goes back to what you were saying earlier :-) ); however, I really can't explain this San Francisco formula syndrome—I don't think the issue is that people *want* to make formulaic films, but rather that they simply don't know how to do anything else. Is it a failure of education? The bureaucratic Academy is constantly under fire, yet it stays stuck in the same loop—and once you remember that Ivanda is running the show, it's pretty obvious where the problem lies :-)) which stifles creativity, or is it just a lack of foundational knowledge from the creators themselves? I don't know. But hey, if I manage to get into the Academy this summer, I'll let you know my impressions—assuming I don't get bureaucratized in the meantime, of course :-) Unfortunately, I'm equally wary of these "pseudo-original" directors: I read about Kulenovic's first film and I can already see him heading down the wrong path—trying to do a half-baked exploitation of "urban culture" and whatever that is supposed to be. We saw this attempt fail miserably with that "24 Hours" omnibus—forcing forced urban dialogue and "underground" themes on us like it's supposed to feel gritty, but it just doesn't land (unlike certain foreign directors—not to bring up my favorite, Refn, 😍 :-)); that’s also what scares me about the potential "American FAK"—so far, the few films produced there have shown themselves to be quite artistic (and that includes things like the scriptwriting for Kulenovic's second film, Tarik, in *Ogrestina's Red Forest*, which was the weakest part of an otherwise deeply considered film because it was pushed way too far);

quietdriver3 said:I'm with you. They should introduce an entrance exam at the Academy where the only way to pass is to write a feature-length screenplay with absolutely no dialogue.

...now that's a great idea :-) although I still think they ought to be analyzing poetry, studying Boal's theater, taking philosophy courses... they need to break out of the mindset that filmmaking is just a technical trade, a routine, or mere craftsmanship...

quietdriver3 said:Just imagine—trying to write a script featuring a single character who doesn't say a word. You have to go that route because, let's face it, they aren't a professional actor, so you bypass as much dialogue as possible 😁 (which then forces you to rethink the entire framing and cinematography, avoiding close-ups and things like that). Now, try doing that while sticking to just two or three interior locations and still stretching it to at least thirty minutes without losing the audience's interest. It’s an incredible exercise. And a grueling one. I really hope you get to see some fruits of that labor at one of the next RAF festivals. 🙂

...well, I certainly hope so. 😍 🙂

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, except the problem here isn't just lacking the theater infrastructure; it's that there aren't enough people in the country willing to watch a movie unless it's a massive blockbuster. Dammit, you'd practically need a fifth of the entire population to show up just to break even.

...correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you looked at the earnings of domestic films across most European nations, a good chunk of them would also be showing losses. But that’s where (good) cultural policy comes in—deciding whether you want to push and subsidize "auteur" cinema as something that holds its own value and niche audience, or not. Sure, commercial populist comedies—the kind that feel like low-brow slapstick—will always exist, and they should, because at the end of the day, they bring in the revenue and serve a much broader crowd than anything destined for a specialized Film Archive. I'll admit, that approach to culture might seem a bit elitist, but I can live with that if the result is films with genuine artistic merit rather than just marketability.

Hey Moderator, should we move this to a new thread? Lest the zombies come knocking at our doors tomorrow.

quietdriver3 said:It needs to reflect some external idea—so when you watch a movie, you can actually say, "Man, this director was clearly reading Whitman while making this," rather than, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for the San Francisco film festival to please the Dean of the Juilliard School."

The Juilliard School has a Dean. And he isn't the one who needs to be impressed—it’s the film liaison at the Department of State (or, eventually, the Film Council). But are you actually certain such a template exists? Can you even describe it? Aside from that, you're right—there shouldn't be zero traces of any actual artistic passion.

quietdriver3 said:I agree. Let's introduce an exam at the Academy where you can only pass by writing a feature-length screenplay that contains absolutely no dialogue.

I disagree there. That is exactly what they do during the first two years at Juilliard—at least it was during my time—and the results are still non-existent. Dialogue is an essential part of film; the solution isn't to avoid it, but to learn how to use it. Which, clearly, nobody does.

Amanda Lopez50 said:Dogme 95 thrilled me—maybe not because of the quality of the films (from what I've seen, there's everything in there), but because of the idea that a film could be made differently—like, let's turn things upside down, invert American cinema, and see where that gets us.

Let's not romanticize it too much—Dogme didn't start from an "idea" to do things differently; it started from a lack of resources. There were the films first, and then the Manifesto, which was essentially half justification and half instruction manual.

Larry Martin11 said:However, wherever I look, I don't see a "scene" that could pull this off—personally, I don't see a concentration of young filmmakers here like the Danes had (northerncrane4, you're an insider so you probably know better, feel free to correct me).

How should I know? You have Sundance, you have the festivals—see for yourself.

Larry Martin11 said:I don't think the issue is people wanting to make formulaic movies—it's just that they don't know how to do anything else. Is that a failure of education? The bureaucratic Academy is constantly under fire yet stays stuck in the same rut—and once you remember Ivanda is running the show, it’s pretty obvious there’s a systemic problem :-)) Or maybe it's just a lack of creative vision from the start, who knows

It’s a matter of negative selection.

Larry Martin11 said:Anyway, if I manage to get into the Academy this summer, I'll definitely share my impressions—assuming I haven't been bureaucratized in the meantime.

That depends entirely on how much spite you have in you.

Larry Martin11 said:Unfortunately, I'm equally intimidated by these pseudo-unconventional directors: I read about Kulenovic's first film and I can already see him heading down the wrong path—trying to clumsily exploit some version of urban culture that isn't even there, much like that failed attempt in the "24 Hours" omnibus.

Since when was Kulenovic an example of non-formulaic filmmaking? 🤣

Larry Martin11 said:...correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you looked at the earnings of domestic films in most European countries, a good portion of them would also be losers.

Though I'm not convinced film production in other small European nations serves as a silent state money-laundering scheme.

Larry Martin11 said:Commercial populist comedies like "The Man Without a Mustache" will always exist—and they should, because they're what actually brings in the revenue, plus they have an audience far broader than just the "Film Archive" crowd.

You're missing the mark again. "The Man Without a Mustache" isn't even a good example of a populist comedy—it was more of a marketing phenomenon or a delayed echo of success from the literary scene, and it didn't actually make any money at the box office.

northerncrane4 said:Hey Mod, are we moving to a new thread? I’d rather stay ahead of things before the zombies start pounding on my door tomorrow morning.

No way, no way... I’d honestly leave him right here for a little while longer—maybe someone else will stumble upon him by accident. :-) Because let's be real, if I actually move him and give him a serious title, I guarantee you won't see that happening anytime soon. 😉 So, I guess we just sit tight and wait a little longer to see how this all plays out... :-)

northerncrane4 said:I have to disagree here. That’s exactly what they focus on during those first two years at Juilliard—or at least, that was the case back when I was around—and the results are still absolutely nothing. Dialogue is a fundamental part of filmmaking; you don't solve problems by avoiding it, you solve them by actually learning how to use it. But apparently, nobody's doing that.

It’s not really a dialogue issue, if you ask me—it’s more about what’s being said and how it's being delivered. When I watch American films, I always get this nagging impression that directors think they have to spell everything out—or, you know, just scream it at the audience—for it to even count. It’s like they don't trust us to get it. Instead of letting something like a transitional period—or any other nuanced theme—exist as subtle context, they feel the need to hammer it into the conversation. It’s either explicitly stated, or it’s treated like it doesn't exist at all. Is subtlety really that intimidating?
Here’s an example: when you’re watching... The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (which wasn't exactly "fun" to watch, but it definitely got the point across)—it’s basically a movie about an old man that doubles as a massive middle finger to the American healthcare and social welfare systems. And honestly? It works. You don't need someone constantly hitting you over the head with a message or lecturing you about the subtext—everything the guy goes through tells the story for you. When you're actually watching it... Fine Dead GirlsI mean, honestly—it feels like you have to lean out a window and scream every insult in the book, from political extremists to whatever else is trending, just to get people to actually listen to what you're saying. It’s exhausting. And really, could it not all have been handled with a bit more subtlety? :-) Besides, a movie doesn't always have to be built from the ground up through grit and social commentary—why not try approaching it from a higher perspective? Why haven't any of our directors decided to take a page out of the books of Whitman or Hobbes? You could take the essence of a poem, a philosophical theory, or a deep meditation and translate that directly onto the screen. (Pay attention now...) Songs from the Second Floor Or that madman Maddin. 🙂It feels like most of our directors just don't have the drive to actually go for it—and even when they do try, like Matanic, they just don't quite have the knack for it, you know?

northerncrane4 said:Let’s not get too carried away with the romanticism here—Dogme 95 didn't exactly spring from some grand, lofty "vision" to reinvent the wheel. It was born out of necessity because they simply didn't have the budget. The films came first; the Manifesto was really just a way to justify what they had already done while doubling as a bit of a user manual.

It’s partially right: Dogme 95 is an attempt to take whatever you have—or rather, whatever you *don't* have—and use it to do something different. That’s why it’s a manifesto, a call to action, not just some budget spreadsheet. Sure, it serves as a convenient excuse for having zero money, but it's also a way to squeeze the absolute maximum out of those limitations to achieve a "purer" cinematic feel. If that weren't the case, we'd just be looking at technical constraints—you know, handheld cameras, lighting rules, or banning props. But they included substantive rules too—forbidding certain genres, insisting the film be shot "here and now," or the idea that the camera should follow the action rather than lead it. In my opinion, those content-driven rules are actually what make Dogme films interesting. If you want to look at it another way, it's essentially... less-is-more Ideology? Not even close—despite how much people try to pin that label on it—and it definitely isn't some kind of "film ideology." Cost-benefit analysis—it sounds like something you'd hear a corporate consultant drone on about during a mid-day PowerPoint presentation, doesn't it? But when you actually sit down and weigh the pros against the cons, things get messy fast. Is it ever really just simple math? Or are we just trying to justify the decisions we've already made? It’s an analogy, sure—but let’s be real: while directors might have been making similar stuff before, films actually born out of the Manifesto definitely came after its inception. Sure, almost everyone breaks at least one "technical" rule here and there, but they largely stick to the core spirit of it. The emphasis is really on that creative impulse sparked by the Manifesto itself, rather than the financial constraints you keep harping on. Besides, for some directors—take Corneau or even Levring, for instance—leaning into Dogme 95 was actually a way to secure *more* funding, not an attempt to cut costs. They chose to follow the requirements of the Manifesto, not work outside of them, just to get the job done. So, claiming these types of films existed "before" is just plain inaccurate.

northerncrane4 said:What do I know? You've got the Film Academy, you've got the Days—just go see for yourself.

...like I said, I just don't see them. :-)

northerncrane4 said:The whole thing boils down to negative selection.

If that’s really the only issue, then why aren't we seeing any interesting young directors outside of the Juilliard School? I mean—aside from Klukovic, who if I remember correctly wasn't even an Academy student to begin with, and only ever made one film—where is everyone else? Why isn't the RAF overflowing with creative amateur films? It just doesn't seem possible. just So, here’s the issue...

northerncrane4 said:It all comes down to you—how much of a stubborn streak you're willing to lean into.

🙂

"

northerncrane4
Wait, where exactly are you finding Kulenovic to be an example of someone unconventional? 🤣

...it’s more about the subject matter than the actual approach 🙂—I’ll give you that, someone churning out sitcoms for CBS isn't exactly the gold standard for artistic creativity, but the guy constantly markets himself as this "pioneer of a new thematic wave" that supposedly rejects the usual tropes of war, defeat, or social issues; but hey, I'll take the hit here, your critique is fair enough 🙂

northerncrane4 said:But I’m not so sure that film production in other smaller European countries acts as a silent state-run money laundering scheme, either..

...you're absolutely right, it isn't... :-) but because of that, we really need to learn how to emulate the better ones (the British, the Danes...), and figure out how to handle the financial side intelligently; as for the relationship with art itself, that should have been established by now... and look, I know it's that old debate between "what is" and "what ought to be," but beyond that, all I can do is complain and describe the current mess, and honestly, we've moved past that stage several times already...

northerncrane4 said:You're missing the mark again, because "No Man's Land" wasn't some commercial populist comedy; it was more of a marketing phenomenon or perhaps a late echo of success from the local literary scene, and it didn't actually make much at the box office.

...and I accept that criticism without any issue, you're right, but I simply don't have any other examples handy, and this one was just the closest to what I was thinking... I'd love to provide a better one, but there it is 😳 ...

Amanda Lopez50 said:...it’s not—IMHO—a problem with the dialogue itself, but rather what’s being said and how it’s being communicated. When I watch our movies, I always get this impression that our directors think everything has to be spelled out (or even worse, shouted) just to exist.

And look at the trap being set here—you have to write the script exactly like that, resolving everything through dialogue, just so the current readers at the Department will actually understand and approve it. That’s the catch; once it passes, they should strip away all that explicitness, but directors usually smugly conclude that leaving it as-is is fine simply because it was approved. Or they swing to the other extreme—tossing the script entirely and letting actors improvise for ninety minutes. Honestly, I don't know which is worse.

Larry Martin11 said:...of course, that's partly a justification for modest budgets, but it's also the idea of maximizing those limits to pivot toward a "purer" film; if it weren't, there would only be technical constraints (handheld camera, lighting requirements, no props), but not content-based ones (banning genre films, "here and now" stories, the idea that the camera follows the action instead of leading it...).

Those content restrictions are just a facade used to give everything an ideological undertone. 😉 Or maybe they aren't; perhaps I've just become so cynical that I can't see anything sincere anymore. 😬

Larry Martin11 said:...if that's the only issue, why aren't there any interesting young directors outside of the Academy—aside from Klukovic, who if I recall correctly isn't even an Academy student and has only made one film? Why isn't the US teeming with creative amateur films? It’s impossible that it’s just that problem...

Because filmmaking is an incredibly complicated and exhausting endeavor, and in all its organizational mess, young people usually burn through their entire reservoir of inspiration. Period.
As for Klukovic, his film is okay, but I think he's being given far too much credit.

Larry Martin11 said:I agree that someone churning out sitcoms for CBS isn't exactly the gold standard for artistic creativity, but he constantly presents himself as the "bearer of a new thematic movement" that rejects the usual war/defeat/social issues tropes; but hey, I'll bite—fair criticism right there. 🙂

Oh, you're mistaken—shooting a sitcom for CBS can actually be a great showcase for artistic creativity. 😁
The whole "constantly forcing oneself as..." bit is the main—and often the only—talent possessed by the majority of American film, and heaven knows theater, directors.

Larry Martin11 said:but you really have to learn how to copy the better ones (the British, the Danes...), and figure out how to handle the financial side intelligently

Well, that brings us right back to the problem with producers in American cinema that I mentioned at the start. Their sole ambitions regarding film.

Larry Martin11 said:...and I accept this criticism without issue, you're right, but I simply don't have any other examples, and this one is closest to what I was thinking... I'd love to provide a better one, but there it is 😳 ...

Take "Last Will." Or even "Guardhouse." They are viewed as mass entertainment—unlike Hribar, for whom that happened despite all his efforts. But neither "Last Will" nor "Guardhouse" actually made any money at the box office. Which leads us to yet another massive issue—domestic film distributors.

northerncrane4 said:I’m all for going fully digital. Maybe not in the sense of filming everything in garages or tiny studios—which, honestly, wastes so much of the production design budget on things that just end up in the trash, which isn't fair to those workers—but using digital cameras without any hesitation. It just feels like local cinephiles are still obsessed with film stock, even though it's insanely expensive to deal with under our circumstances here, and it doesn't really offer anything significantly better than a digital setup. Especially if you have a solid set of lenses for digital and someone in post-production who actually knows how to work the footage... and thank God, we’re seeing more of those people lately.

Though, I guess 70mm does capture light in a way that's hard to replicate. 😬

But yeah, I agree, digital tech really drives down costs and basically lets the masses start making movies.

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, except in this country, it's not just about lacking theater infrastructure; it's that there aren't enough people in the US who would watch a movie unless it was a massive blockbuster. Man, you'd probably need a fifth of the entire population to see a film just to break even.

Expanding distribution beyond our borders. Pushing your films everywhere they can understand you without needing subtitles. I think that would go a long way. In terms of revenue, anyway.

northerncrane4 said:It’s not about whether it’s easy for you or hard for the people trying to make a living from it. Of course it's hard for them! And it should be! Making a movie is grueling work! But most of them aren't even focused on filmmaking; they're more interested in sleeping around with actors or giving pretentious interviews. And then there's that other big goal—landing a professorship at the Academy. Once you get that, you're basically as good as dead. You don't ever have to make anything worthwhile again. You've got that academic salary safety net, and then you spend your time gatekeeping so nobody accidentally shows up who might actually be better than you. There's a pretty decent little sonnet Manifesto about that exact thing.

We really ought to be making a film about our film-making system. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:But, honestly, wherever I look, I just don't see the right "caliber" of people who could actually pull this off—I mean, I don't see that kind of concentration of young filmmakers here like they had in Denmark (northerncrane4, you’re probably more plugged in than I am, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and there seems to be such a lack of "closeness" among our filmmakers that might help them push for something bigger.

Of course, I wasn't talking about our "mainstream" directors. I don't see anything in their movies worth redeeming or starting a revolution with. We need a miracle. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:whether it's something that stifles creativity or just the fact that authors didn't have it to begin with, I don't know; but, if I manage to get into Juilliard this summer, I'll definitely let you know my impressions.

Definitely let me know. I actually gave up on that idea because I have this paranoia that there's a brainwashing machine hidden somewhere in the basement of that building. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Juilliard has a dean. And he isn't someone you necessarily need to impress; he's more like a film liaison for the Department of State (or, in some near or distant future, the Film Council). But are you really sure there's such a pattern? Like, could you describe it? Aside from that, you're totally right, there has to be zero hint of any actual artistic passion.

So, I guess it's a lack of style, a lack of imagination, and the fact that nobody asks interesting questions. Or at least different ones. For instance, I'm watching Vertigo 2 right now, and just imagine if a film came out in San Francisco that looked like something John Carpenter made (since we don't really have an auteur like him anymore). I just can't see it happening.

I'm really looking forward to the first American film based on a comic book. Any kind.

northerncrane4 said:I disagree with you there. That's exactly what they do during the first two years at Juilliard, at least it was in my day, so the results end up being nothing again. Dialogue is an essential part of film, and the solution isn't to avoid it, but to learn how to use it. And nobody is doing that.

Hey, you misunderstood me. I love dialogue; Mamet is one of the members of my personal Olympus. But like Larry Martin11 says, when you have scripts where everything is overemphasized, where the narrator has to explain the image, or where characters don't have monologues to explain their actions, then that's just nursery-school level dramaturgy. This "no dialogue" thing should, in my opinion, be teaching people how to solve problems, rather than how to adopt this "silent" principle. I think they should be breaking those rules during those first two years. 😉

northerncrane4 said:And look, here’s where the real headache kicks in—you’re forced to write the script with everything spelled out in dialogue just so the folks over at the Department of State can actually wrap their heads around it and give it the green light. That’s the trap, I guess. Because once that happens, you’re supposed to strip out all that raw, explicit stuff later on, but most directors just decide, "Hey, this is great as is," because they think if they changed it, it wouldn't pass anyway. Or they go the complete opposite way and toss the script entirely, just letting the actors improvise for ninety minutes straight. Honestly, I’m not sure which one is worse.

Yeah, I think we can all agree nothing is going to change until someone decides to stage a full-on crusade against those deep-seated bureaucrats in the Department.

Larry Martin11 said:but, I don't know, it seems like people in these discussions don't really like being complimented; everyone just runs away or hides immediately

Things have been pretty hectic lately, so I haven't even had the chance to get on the forums as much as I should.

Besides, it’s kind of tough to really dive deep into film talk on a non-film medium like this. We probably all need to just grab a beer sometime and vent properly. 😁 😁 😉

Since I brought up Carpenter earlier—and honestly, I’m just sitting here vibing to "Assault on..." right now—it makes me wonder when we'll finally see a director in America pull off something similar to this:

"The most infamous scene in the movie is the one in which a gang member deliberately shoots and kills a little girl standing near an ice-cream truck. Following the advice of his distributor, Carpenter gave the appearance of complying by cutting the scene from the copy he gave to the MPAA, but he distributed the film with the "ice cream truck" scene intact."

😍

quietdriver3 said:Expand distribution beyond our borders. Push films into markets where they can be understood without subtitles—it would make a massive difference. Especially when it comes to the bottom line.

In my view, if you want to find success outside of America—within the same language market—it takes a solid genre film. That said, don't expect much in the way of profit; once the distributors and theater chains take their cut, there’s hardly anything left.

Melancholy Beaver said:We really need to make a movie about this whole system of ours—how we actually produce films. 😁

I have a script like that sitting around—though nobody showed any interest when it was actually relevant, and frankly, I’ve lost interest myself. I'm pivoting to something else instead—a radio drama. "Gulag of souls"—audio commentary.. 😁

Melancholy Beaver said:So, there’s zero style—zero imagination, really—and nobody is even bothering to ask anything interesting. Or at least, nothing different.

You want to know what my main issue is? It’s this—protagonists are almost always just spectators, never actual agents of change. They just stand there watching things happen from the sidelines, acting perpetually disappointed.

Melancholy Beaver said:Just watching Vertigo 2—honestly, if a film that looks like it was directed by John Carpenter actually hit theaters in San Francisco, I couldn't handle it. Not happening.

Kristijan Milić could pull it off—he just needs a script that actually holds water instead of the garbage he’s been handed lately.

Melancholy Beaver said:I’m actually looking forward to seeing the first American film based on a comic book—any comic book, really.

I hear Fadil Hadžić is planning to adapt "Superman." 😬

Melancholy Beaver said:This dialogue-free approach should teach people how to actually solve problems—not just adopt this "muddled" mindset. If anything, those systems should be torn down during those first two years. 😉

Sure—but who’s going to teach them? And who decides what’s justified to tear down? Bruno Gamulin? Milivoj Puhlovski? Branko Ivanda? Davor Žmegač?

quietdriver3 said:Since I brought up Carpenter earlier—and while I'm sitting here actually enjoying "Assault on..."—I have to wonder: when will an American director be capable of pulling off something like this:

"The most infamous scene in the movie is the one in which a gang member deliberately shoots and kills a little girl standing near an ice-cream truck. Following the advice of his distributor, Carpenter gave the appearance of complying by cutting the scene from the copy he gave to the MPAA, but he distributed the film with the "ice cream truck" scene intact."

If memory serves, about ten years ago at an American Film Day, there was some indie academic flick where a young girl gets killed too—it caused quite the pseudo-moralistic scandal—but honestly, I can't recall the title or the director.🤔 ☕