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

...man, there are just getting to be more and more of us here 😍

Jose Miller17 said:well, that’s just Leigh’s modus operandi... I don't think he's ever actually shot a movie using a classic recipe (at least among his major works, not that he hasn't).... from what I recall, they always used to say you should have a rough outline of a plan, and if something pops up, even better... besides, when you look at other art forms (or jobs), only a tiny percentage of people can actually improvise on the fly (when it actually makes sense, obviously)... you know how it goes—learn the rules so you can figure out how to break them...:-)

...true, true...Naked was just one example of how you can make something fantastic through massive amounts of improvisation 😍 but we have to be somewhat realistic here—I mean, Leigh isn't just at the top of British cinema, he's at the top of global cinema; he’s been making films for three decades now, and it would be unrealistic to expect our "young talents" to break the rules with the same level of confidence and freedom (for instance, it's fine if the actors already know each other during filming, rather than meeting for the first time while shooting a scene together 🙂 ) but having the freedom to play with ideas and conventions should be available to everyone every single day, and I don't see why that should be considered "terrible" (since Mr. Rogers is clearly afraid of the same thing) or "forbidden" to anyone; don't get me wrong, some movies don't allow for much improvisation because their best parts rely on the precise alignment of specific details (I can't think of a better example right now than Prestige, though that’s actually a poor example), then there's that type of "technical perfection" that comes partly from planning and partly from improv (Le Fils, for example), but that third option—creative chaos, if you will—is more than welcome in my book, whether it's in the style of Leigh, the chaotic principle of Herzog, or that slippery ground of free improvisation used by folks like Harmony, or even Doyle in his Away with words, where they pile up material and then literally assemble a film from the best scenes; of course, this third method is the most dangerous—I think Babaja explained it quite well in an interview recently, saying how that whole process of hoarding footage erases the actual idea, and that's the problem with digitalization, where everyone is empowered to amass material and "make a movie," and I completely agree with him—but occasionally, when it works, it yields incredibly interesting results, so I can't help but support all three approaches—though you could probably tell that from less than what I've written here 😳

Jose Miller17 said:regardless of how you look at it, the result is what counts in the end....

...I don't know, I try—whenever I can—to value the process itself independently of the results, provided someone attempted to do something "brave"; judging solely on the quality of the final film feels to me like judging a football game strictly by the score—sure, the team that scores more goals is better; winning matters, obviously, but I care about the beautiful play, the courage to take tactical risks, the willingness to show a moment of brilliance... that's why the match between CSKA and Arsenal in the Champions League this season will remain the most interesting thing I've watched, even if it ended in a disappointing 0-0 draw for Arsenal, just as Linklater's...Slacker and Waking Life will always hold a special spot for me as genuine pieces of cinematic art—even if they aren't exactly "blockbusters," and even though I can appreciate the brilliance of Memento despite the fact that I didn't actually enjoy watching it that much...🙂

Jose Miller17 said:...the issue with ABC is that they’ve started mimicking Fox and NBC instead of the other way around...

...in short, you hit the nail on the head.

Amanda Lopez50 said:...but anyway. It’s just out there. You know, I’ve been thinking lately about how some of the absolute best directors out there don't even follow a strict script—they just dive in and let things happen through pure improvisation. It’s honestly wild when you look at the sheer amount of cinematic gold that comes from that kind of raw, unscripted energy. There are just so many phenomenal examples of movies that hit differently because they were built on the fly like that.

If you’re looking for an American director who really nails that improvisational spirit, I’d have to say someone like Cassavetes comes to mind immediately. He just had that raw, unscripted energy that makes everything feel so much more alive. But man, it’s funny you mention the cost of it all, because even though it sounds paradoxical, improv is actually incredibly expensive—not just when you look at the clock, but when you factor in the budget too. It’s a huge drain on resources, which ties right back into what Mr. Rogers was saying earlier.

Amanda Lopez50 said:So, naturally, you have to wonder about the actual caliber of our actors... when it comes to the talent pool, though, I’m pretty damn sure we've got enough heavy hitters out there to pull off something like that.

So, a younger actor I know—well, he’s probably more mid-career by now—was telling me about this acting workshop he did back during the Aspen Music Festival maybe ten years ago. It was one of those setups where our local up-and-coming actors were working alongside some unestablished American actors. A huge chunk of what they were doing was just straight-up improv exercises. My buddy told me that the Americans absolutely crushed us during those sessions; they just completely ate us alive when it came to improvising. He mentioned that it really comes down to sheer practice and technique, which I totally agree with, but he also added that he doesn't see much point to improv in general. I'm guessing that's pretty much the same mindset you find over at the major drama academies here in the States. Honestly, whatever Matula learned about improvisation, he picked that up in America. I mean, who could you even learn anything about that kind of stuff from at our local academies?

When you really start digging into the whole jazz and improvisation thing, it’s wild to think that even those legendary Louis Armstrong solos actually grew out of pure improvisation—though honestly, I don't know if I'd even call them "improvisation" by today's standards. It feels like what we actually recognize as jazz improv really kicked off with the bebop era—think Charlie Parker—and then just kept escalating through hard bop until it basically became an end in itself during the free jazz movement. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if we’re sitting here wishing we had our own version of someone like Leigh (or maybe a Cassavetes or a Wenders back in the seventies), we probably need to focus on nurturing directors who possess that same kind of foundational, singular genius that Louis Armstrong had.

@zhabotinsky
...honestly, you and I are pretty much on the same page about almost everything—I could probably sign off on nearly every single thing you just said. Of course, improvisation comes with a price tag, just like shooting a movie using a "traditional" script, which is exactly why I wrote

But personally, the whole idea of improvising on film is actually really interesting and appealing to me. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to weave more of it into the curriculum for the programs where Beaver and I have already started incorporating scriptless storytelling exercises 🙂

...as I mentioned above. Good improvisation requires a certain level of talent, but I don't see anything wrong with "practicing" that kind of work. However—and this is where I think we might differ—I don't believe an academy education is strictly necessary for it. Don't get me wrong, I’m a total believer in formal education, but I also think a director needs an inherent level of creativity that can be honed at a school, but certainly isn't taught there. To put it bluntly—and maybe this is a cliché—I don't think anyone ever "taught" Leigh, Wenders, or Cassavetes how to improvise their films. They probably experimented with it way more during their training than what happens here at the academy, but as milk so aptly pointed out, they learned the rules specifically so they could break them. You have to start somewhere; someone has to open the door. And it doesn't mean our directors have to follow the exact same path as Americans—I mean, would Godard or Truffaut even exist if they had done everything exactly like the generations before them? A little rebellion is essential in art, and I like to believe that film is an art form 🙂. But if nobody has the guts to be curious or to actually try things... I just don't get it...
...furthermore, answering the question of which of our directors would make a good improviser feels impossible to me. I don't see any reason why they couldn't; the real question is whether they are willing to go on that adventure. You’ll probably say they aren't because it’s financially impossible—but call me naive, but shooting a short film on a digital camera in your own apartment with a group of actor friends isn't impossible or even that expensive. Yet, they still don't do it. And that’s how you practice; that’s how you learn. Education isn't just what you get from an academy. If they won't do it, then my predictions that someone like Svilicic or Nolan could pull it off are completely meaningless. It's the same with actors, too—if there are generations of young actors who realize that improvisation is a legitimate, viable approach and are open to it, then a way will be found wherever there is willpower. If there is a desire for workshops like those based on Boal's theater (which, let's face it, is essentially just good improvisation, right? And here, we don't just have workshops, we actually have entire organizations 🙂), and if people show up to them—if Coachella can occasionally put on a show that attempts to improvise (I heard their latest premiere was heading in that direction, though I haven't caught it yet 🙂)—then it's impossible that there aren't talented young actors capable of delivering solid improvisation on film (it doesn't have to be "total" improvisation like it is with Leigh, as I said before). Besides, it feels a bit rude of me to talk about what is or isn't happening at the academy as if that's the end of the story. An actor is in a profession where you learn for your entire life; they can always choose to specialize in improvisation. Sure, workshops are pricey, and getting a grant to study abroad is tough, but it's not true that everything here is as utterly impossible as everyone constantly claims and uses as an excuse...
...as for why there isn't any willpower left? Honestly, I wish I had an answer for you, but I really don't 🙂

..sorry if I'm coming off a little heated here—it’s definitely not directed at you, truly 🙂 it’s just that your post got me thinking about the things that actually get under my skin...🙂
...I'm going to stop typing while I'm this annoyed 🙂 😳

Look, I get it... but honestly, formal training is huge because you really need to learn how to improvise. I’m mostly talking about the actors here, not necessarily the directors. It’s just like being in a jazz combo—true improvisation is what happens after you've mastered flawless technique, gained enough experience, and finally find that spark (plus maybe a little bit of luck/circumstance).

Every local filmmaker I’ve crossed paths with seems to be chasing that dream of making some massive, award-winning festival darling (I’m pretty sure most of them already have their acceptance speech drafted and ready to go😁). Their mistake is not realizing that a truly great film can be raw and gritty, something more like >. When you factor in the way film funding works here in the States and combine those lofty personal ambitions (check my previous point) with actual talent, you start to see why things often miss the mark!