My view of film
I decided to re-post something I posted in the "bio" page of my website a few days ago because I think it offers some clear thoughts of my views on art and film, which in turn, helps me to clarify my own thoughts for myself:
"I would consider myself an art purist. I believe that art has the ability, and in fact, the responsibility, of expressing human reality and nature at its most fundamental core. I believe the best art is brutal, frank, and unabashed in realizing its intentions. I am interested in making the audience feel something when they see my work, whether it is the joy of love on screen, or the pain of loss- most important of all, beyond such functions as plot, characterization, and dialogue, is the elicitation of primal emotion from the audience. This is not to mean that things should be done for effect only, rather that when the basic structure of the film is developed, emotional integrity and truth should always be considered. I would definitely consider my films to be "art house" in nature. They focus on human relationships, human experiences, and real human situations. I am interested primarily in psychological realism and the subtext of communication. I choose to create work based on that which I am familiar with, my desire is to inform the audience of their own selves which they choose to ignore or forget. I don't necessarily believe that conventional format is always the best way to tell a story. I can and will employ jump cuts, shifting narrators, non-chronological sequences, or any other device, to tell the story if I feel it will be effective.
On the set, I like to work quickly, focusing more on spontaneity and emotional realism in the peformance. Before shooting, I spend months in pre-production fleshing out the characters with the cast. Most rehearsals are extended improv sessions, focused on developing and understanding the characters. With these rehearsals, I, in conjunction with the actors, am often able to add extra scenes and enhance the script. Once we are ready to shoot, the actors are intimately familiar with their roles, and I give them lots of leeway to improvise and keep going even beyond the script. I'll often shoot several different takes, ones which are strictly from the script, and then others which are strictly improvised. EVen though I am adept at many technical aspects of filmmaking, I am most concerned with the story and performances, over technical considerations. Many films are made with technical excellence, but with absolutely no story or artistic merit. I see myself as an artist first, and filmmaker second. To be more specific, I am a conceptual artist moreso than a filmmaker or photographer. At this level, where most of my work is funded by myself, it is far more important for me to tell my story exactly the way I want to, rather than do something I don't really believe in or feel passionate about. I have refused funding in the past when it became clear that the investors wanted to change things about the film and would impinge on my creative control. There are many ways to make money, and if that was the focus, I would just work on other people's projects exclusively. If it is my project, then I do it for passion, and nothing justifies dulling or destroying the passion I feel for what I'm doing. When I gear up to make a film, I put all my blood, sweat and tears into it. As a result, I expect nothing less than the same from the people heavily involved in the project, such as main crew and actors. I'm not sure where my films place in the marketplace, but they are emotionally and artistically powerful and I believe in what I'm doing."
"I would consider myself an art purist. I believe that art has the ability, and in fact, the responsibility, of expressing human reality and nature at its most fundamental core. I believe the best art is brutal, frank, and unabashed in realizing its intentions. I am interested in making the audience feel something when they see my work, whether it is the joy of love on screen, or the pain of loss- most important of all, beyond such functions as plot, characterization, and dialogue, is the elicitation of primal emotion from the audience. This is not to mean that things should be done for effect only, rather that when the basic structure of the film is developed, emotional integrity and truth should always be considered. I would definitely consider my films to be "art house" in nature. They focus on human relationships, human experiences, and real human situations. I am interested primarily in psychological realism and the subtext of communication. I choose to create work based on that which I am familiar with, my desire is to inform the audience of their own selves which they choose to ignore or forget. I don't necessarily believe that conventional format is always the best way to tell a story. I can and will employ jump cuts, shifting narrators, non-chronological sequences, or any other device, to tell the story if I feel it will be effective.
On the set, I like to work quickly, focusing more on spontaneity and emotional realism in the peformance. Before shooting, I spend months in pre-production fleshing out the characters with the cast. Most rehearsals are extended improv sessions, focused on developing and understanding the characters. With these rehearsals, I, in conjunction with the actors, am often able to add extra scenes and enhance the script. Once we are ready to shoot, the actors are intimately familiar with their roles, and I give them lots of leeway to improvise and keep going even beyond the script. I'll often shoot several different takes, ones which are strictly from the script, and then others which are strictly improvised. EVen though I am adept at many technical aspects of filmmaking, I am most concerned with the story and performances, over technical considerations. Many films are made with technical excellence, but with absolutely no story or artistic merit. I see myself as an artist first, and filmmaker second. To be more specific, I am a conceptual artist moreso than a filmmaker or photographer. At this level, where most of my work is funded by myself, it is far more important for me to tell my story exactly the way I want to, rather than do something I don't really believe in or feel passionate about. I have refused funding in the past when it became clear that the investors wanted to change things about the film and would impinge on my creative control. There are many ways to make money, and if that was the focus, I would just work on other people's projects exclusively. If it is my project, then I do it for passion, and nothing justifies dulling or destroying the passion I feel for what I'm doing. When I gear up to make a film, I put all my blood, sweat and tears into it. As a result, I expect nothing less than the same from the people heavily involved in the project, such as main crew and actors. I'm not sure where my films place in the marketplace, but they are emotionally and artistically powerful and I believe in what I'm doing."
posted by Michael at 5:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home