It is my biggest belief, that most films posted here have failed far before they have been produced, due to the rubbish stories, poor casting and contrived visual codes used to create the film.
I think many technical elements can be forgiven, even if their quite compromising, if there is something else to keep us interested or entertained. ‘Entertainment’ is a very subjective term I hear you say, true- true, but at this point also, I think the filmmaker on these forum typically lets himself down too. For instead of doing something that could be innovative and entertaining, they do something they feel is ‘entertaining’ to their target audience, (i.e. most usually their adolescent friends who they will get to watch it in their mom’s living room…)
Some of you may say, that filmmakers should make films that are accessible and entertaining, but the mistake in that interpretation, is that filmmakers are not doing that, (some here on the forums think they are) when really they are replicating simply what has inspired them, and at worst plagiarising the works of famous directors
under some dispirited hope that if it looks anything remotely like the work of a genius, they might be so also. I should also add, that the realm of target markets is that of the producer and not the director (and so a director should speak with his own artists voice) unless he is producing material that is either commissioned or (is self commissioned) to be successful in any particular market place.
So lets summarise then, before the cameras even come out, most forum member films suck because of the following.
‘Poor stories’
‘Immaturity of ideas’
‘Choice of Actors’
‘Ways of telling stories visually’ (visual codes)
‘Contrived/clichéd’
Sure I can list them like that, but let’s be controversial now and compare some of the films posted on the forums already to see where things have gone wrong (and where things have gone right!) All the films cited in the comparisons are linked for download so you can compare these points with the material at the bottom of the post.
Casting
Let’s take Gyro first, he’s a good example because his latest film ‘In the Clear’ was technically fairly competent (let down by sound that I hear has since been fixed.)
This film is infinitely superior to most that are posted on the thread; it could with fixed sound even get played in a minor UK regional film festival.
Yet there is no doubt, that this film is showcasing a more sophisticated example of a desire many on these threads have (to play soldier!) I sympathise as I love military history and action, but the teenage actors in this film (and there older than most the teen war movies made on matts) are to an adult audience unconvincing. Not just because of their appearance, but for most of them, there rubbish acting (especially the girl in that particular film.)
Now if you consider that film as the best of the matt’s teen war movies, then it means other films like ‘VietCong’ by Captain America, (not to mention the pre-pubescent brigades seen in the other kids ww2 movies) are far far worse than ‘In the Clear’.
Naturally if ‘In the Clear’ had an older and experienced professional cast, there would still have been issues (which ill discuss later) but the ‘cast’ would at least look more convincing to an unsympathetic adult audience.
When you are a kid or teenager (and all your friends are) and there is just no possibility of getting adults involved, then you must be realistic… and realise, that whatever story you tell, must legitimately have kids play the main characters, i.e. the characters are therefore – kids.
This is what the film ‘Trepidation’ achieves, by Dark Elastic, now true he is an adult, (but only 1 of his cast is – a woman who could easily be your mother!) and the rest are children. While technically competent (in every way) it is still technically (mostly bar the sea shots) not hugely ambitious in it setups in such a way that the teen director could not attempt himself.
But I want to make films with my kid friends as soldiers! (I hear you cry) Well fine, but do not expect them EVER to be accepted as anything other than kiddo self indulgent warporn that nobody wants to see. (Hard but true pill to swallow) – don’t worry Gyro ‘In the Clear’ is not that!
Let’s look at ‘Horrors of War’, there are no (as I understand) professional television or low budget (established) actors in that. Most of Sonny boo’s cast I imagine are colleagues and friends – or acting students/ open auditioned? I apologise if I’m wrong but my point applies, that the cast in this film look appropriate in age (and for its genre film horror-ness) more than capable from what I’ve seen in performance! (After all it’s not trying to be ‘The Thin Red Line’ or anything!
In my own film ‘Chechnya’, I believe very much that my cast too looked inappropriate, but importantly enough of them did not look too young or peculiar to arouse a majority of suspicion among my audience! In my opinion my cast was about the very lowest you can get away with (for such a war orientated film).
Acting
Acting lets down almost the vast majority of films on the forum. This is because directors here fail to realise that actors are the auteur of their own characters. All too often directors grab their mates and crew, rushing them to perform, and of course they almost universally suck.
As an actor I particularly sympathise with this problem, but as a director I’m totally aware of the time constraints and limitations placed on organising rehearsals etc, so in this case I’ve often let myself down, but most here do it continuously!
Lets take ‘ISO 7810’ posted recently by Moriarty. The acting is generally ‘par’ with our interrogator being somewhat ‘campy!’ However, this is a good example of a forum film here, that is performed okay. (If you wanted a kind of bar to look at for what I should aim for at a minimum for professional films.) Then that example is good, however, all too many films are like Mickar’s ‘Regeneration’, I’m not picking on him to say that, it’s a good example of the appalling amateurish disorganised, crappy performances that get done, and we’re expected to endure and critique in the forum – all too often!
Again Gyro is a good example of the other danger in directing performances, that too often replicate those ‘on movies’. Sadly this doesn’t mean they replicate the quality, but just the cheese! Take ‘In the Clear’, who could doubt the soldier conversation scene didn’t desperately wish to replicate the macho soldierly ness of ‘lock n’ load’ style Black Hawk Down. So while cr** performances due to none effort are worse, movie replication performances are only ‘slightly’ above rubbish!
The best performances result from using ‘actors’ or acting students, or those with aspirations to actually act. Of all my films the one I rehearsed the most, ended up giving me one of the best performances. The film ‘Purgatory’, a film that explored male teen suicide. I took unusual attempts to increase their performances, (unfair ones) that included printing the portraits of young people who killed themselves, to form their ‘audience’ while they performed on set. Some actors will not accept this kind of direction (bear in mind) and never kid yourself as a director into thinking – you made the actors act
Kids in any of these forum films could act quite well, if they realised the level of maturity required, rehearsed and such like.
Writing
Most directors start off writing their own material (Most professional directors do not end up doing this!) There is an inherent danger in writing your own material, it is the danger of ‘self indulgence’ and lack of perspective. True, most of you (without realising it or not) will be acting as a producer too as you write, limiting yourself with what you want to achieve because of the associated costs etc. In that case its important to remember just how separate writing is from directing (as is producing though most directors can’t help having to produce their own work too.)
Good writers are more common than directors, and if we consider in our example that the writers are usually 15 (and are gonna make a war epic hrmph) then any writer over 20 could probably save them!
Films that could have been great had they better scripts include, ‘ISO 7810’, in this case the campy dialogue of the interrogator ‘with his 3 levels of pain’. These slight clichés in dialogue are nothing compared to the horrendous writing (if it is even written!) of the films usually posted in the forum.
When writing we must remember that if something feels ‘right’ or ‘appropriate’ in our story or dialogue (especially for genre films) that usually these feelings of security stem from ‘conformity’ we’ve have just applied to our script. In other words we are using familiar clichés, without realising it.
Without giving specific examples, one should examine the works of Ornsack, as comic sketches often require good writing (not that we conceive most comic sketches in front a computer of course.)
To be a good writer however is not a case of being good at ‘english’ in highschool or anything drole like that. It is simply a case of being able to exercise your imagination with word, and remember, that it is in the form of a script that your film will first take shape. That in its script form (read by someone) it will visually create in one’s imagination the most perfect version of your film possible (before it is made with the inevitable production compromises that follow.)
In this case original scripts are vital, and it is EASY (cruel though this is to say) to see which filmmakers have the minds of molluscs and those that are imaginative. Moriarty, Ornsack, Sonnyboo among others obvious have either a skill or an appreciation for good writing. Not just from the quality of scripts but from the background of imagination that comes with their ideas, the ‘intellectual depth’.
If you are some uneducated non-intellectual action-porn movie maker, (then you won’t just not succeed.) but you will also reproduce the tail-ends of other peoples ideas, living within a realm of conformist non-creativity all your life. Hence, writing and intellectual developments are vital pre-requisites of being a director also (even if that director will not write what they direct.)
Lack of original writing is painful too, now here’s an example of one of mine (not a great example of amazing writing but it is original!) – As are some others on the forum, and that is the film, ‘Daddy longlegs & the Black Hare’ which perhaps goes overkill with writing since it even includes poems!
It is this intellectual element I think most filmmakers forget, the need to craft original ideas, and to have those ideas represented in their scripts. There are too many films made by forum members which are puny attempts to copy things in TV.
Visual Codes
The visual code, is in effect the visual language you use to convey your story, in some regard this can be cinematography, to shot structure, and to the edit itself.
Now I don’t mean to lecture on visual codes (its not a way of doing things right or wrong.) The visual codes is simply the term by which we can analyse all this visual stuff filmmakers do to tell stories. However, when visual codes become so established in the audiences mind that they lose their original impact, that is when they become clichés.
An example would be the slow mo shot of an injured soldier tumbling onto the ground, followed subsequently by the shot of his helpless comrade shouting ‘Nooo’.
My point in raising visual codes here is to critique the both the lack of thought many forum makers put into this vital part of their film, and also the prevalence of contrive imagery and clichés.
It is the danger of impotent visual codes that I think poses the worst threat for aspiring filmmakers. This is a difficult problem to realise, but the filmmaker must realise that the commercial spectrum of entertainment produced, is normally produced by skilled directors and producers, (that what you see on television.) However, I would argue, that much of these entertainments are not created with the intention of artistic merit, but for pop corn value (at least that’s what we imagine for ourselves) but for the filmmakers it is for cash.
A good director will only make some ‘actor vehicle’ with loads of product placement, because of his pay cheque. He may then go onto make something artistically sound with the money made.
This happens regularly in the industry (in different forms) but, virtually all the big directors (both commercial or artistic) come from backgrounds where appreciation of artistic and experimental cinema where placed firmly into their beliefs. Even in the biggest commercial films today (the truly most soulless creations of God) there is within their husks, experimental film techniques borne decades ago.
Point being, that the aspiring filmmaker can ill afford to believe that arty film (of the early century) and the films they might enjoy today are not related, for they are. Likewise all the films you watch, are the evolution of more experimental films that came before them. Remember after all that even the ‘montage’ was invented and considered radical in its day!
So, to tell stories with contemporary visual codes, it is important to understand avante guard film, particularly that of the early 20th century that inspires modern film storytelling.
I honestly believe, that for example if Gyro had seen ‘Battleship Potemkin’ or a whole host of others, then his film ‘In the Clear’ would not have looked just like an attempt to replicate ‘Black Hawk Down’.
Because the visual code is a language, and to have an extensive vocabulary as an artist, you need to learn the full language, not just the few ‘word’s hearsay that you might see in the films you enjoy watching.
Wrapping Up
So in the theoretical side, I suggest that forum filmmakers here mostly suck because there immature, not educated in the history of film, have not seen enough films, have not developed their own visual codes.
That when they produce films they do so with no planning, with unoriginal or no scripts, and with children for actors.
Technical?
The great tragedy on this thread is when one naïve filmmaker says to another ‘hey man get off the tripod’ or ‘hey man get a tripod’ as if they have any idea whatsoever what they are talking about!
There are films made without tripods and some entirely with that rank among the greatest commercial and critical successes to be found. There is no right or wrong technical way to produce anything.
It is true that naturally the great majority of films that we experience (on cinema or television) have been produced with amiable efforts towards lighting, cinematography and sound. That said, there are many documentaries made without constant lighting rigs and other concerns of cinematography.
My point here, is really to say, that because so many films such already (before a camera even appears in the production) that no amount of technical gratification can save such projects anyway.
So my suggestion for aspiring films who feel some of what I say applies to them, would be best recommended to work from the ground up (working on the points I raised earlier) before worrying about looking the part of a camera man or director.
Self Indulgence
In a few reviews I’ve made the point that some films are so self indulgent that they are detrimental to the experience of the audience. What do I mean by this?
It’s plain and simple, from the filmmaker who spends shitloads to buy one costume so he can dress up like a marine, to the pack of giggling 14 year old boys who make their own horror movie (for themselves to enjoy and for matts video forum to suffer) they must both be aware, that they are primarily serving their own interests first, i.e. entertaining themselves than instead… the audience.
LINKS
‘In the Clear’
Directed by Gyro http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... e+Clear%22
‘Vietcong’
Directed by CaptainAmerica
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6153605884
‘Trepidation’
Directed by DarkElastic
http://www.undergroundfilm.org/films/de ... id=1023246
‘Horrors of War’
Directed by Sonnyboo
http://www.horrorsofwarmovie.com/trailer_windows.php
‘Chechnya’
Directed by Lawrie
http://www.newagefilm.co.uk/CHECHNYA.wmv
‘ISO 7810’
Directed by Moriarty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbWiFwKDap4
‘Regeneration’
Directed by mickcar73
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... generation
‘Purgatory’
Directed by Lawrie
http://www.newagefilm.co.uk/PURGATORY.wmv
‘
‘Daddy longlegs & the Black Hare’
Directed by Lawrie
http://www.newagefilm.co.uk/DADDYLONGLEGSv2.mpg
