THE WORLDWIDE NEW WAVE OF DERIVATIVE SHIT

[N. Foster Tyler]

When, and perhaps more importantly, why has filmmaking become undoubtedly the most popular 'trend' amongst young people in the world? It seems that every second person you meet these days is either a.) Working on a screenplay, b.) Directing a short film or digital video feature, or c.) Dreams of a career in the movie industry.

The problem is..............most of these people are not artists at all. For the most part, I've seen young people with a producer's mentality ($$$). They all just aspire to direct.

My question is, first of all, how do you honestly feel about this? Secondly, what do you feel some of the dangers of this madness are? Is it destroying cinema, or making it better?

Thank you,

-N. Foster Tyler

[Ravenhill]

You raise a couple of interesting points.

To come someone near answering that question, we need to look at a little history. A lot of people in the entertainment industry, certainly in the past, had links with criminals. On the face of it, this would seem to be easily explainable; criminals liked mixing with actors because it made them slightly glamorous and gave them a certain air of importance. Actors liked to mix with criminals because it allowed them to explore the darker side of society and experience a little 'danger'.
However, I feel there is more to it than this.
Anthony Hopkins once said that if he hadn't been an actor he would most likely have been involved in crime. Why is this?
I think that there is a definite link between the two occupations. Actors and Criminals both operate outside of 'the system'. They have money and sundry other benefits which they earn without recourse to 'the life of the normal man in the street'.
It is this desire to operate outside the system that is pushing a lot of young people into the area of film-making.
Crime is too dangerous and there is too much to be lost if it all goes wrong, whereas film is a safer option.
It's all a form of rebellion.

I would like to think that in the world of film, talent will always prevail and win the day. Many people who, instead of being in love with film-making, are in love with the 'idea' of film-making will fall along the wayside because they lack the necessary fibre to continue. If you are trying to make money and you are unsuccessful after a while, the chances are you will give up more easily than someone who is making films because they want to create something.
To an extent, the idea of 'having something to say' is also another factor. Young people, as a rule, are saturated with the idea that they have a lesson to teach the whole world, so this manifests itself in film-making. They are trying to convince the world, and ultimately themselves, that they have something to contribute. It's all part of growing up and finding yourself and they usually tire of it eventually.
Only the truly committed have the conviction to stick with their dream.

Lastly, to answer the question of how this will affect the quality of films, I don't think this is really an issue to worry about too much. As I've already explained, a lot of people will give up along the way, but those that stick with it will be judged by their works in the fullness of time.
Originality and sheer talent preserve films.
The chocolate-box movies of the last few years are already dead - think Independence Day and Godzilla. Big on budget, low on thought, these movies are now largely forgotten and will certainly be a dim memory twenty years from now. Whereas movies like The Shawshank Redemption which received a mediocre response upon release are now regarded as classics of the last decade.
Whether a movie makes $100 million or $1 million, its only time that will tell its true worth.

My apologies if I have rambled a little, and I certainly don't mean to denigrate the enthusaism of any young people who are genuinely committed to film-making, but I really do think that good films are only possible when the creator is steeped in a little 'life experience'.
No-one can be an expert film-maker overnight, and you need experience and insight to create films which will be remembered for longer than a few months one summer.

[N. Foster Tyler]

No apologies necessary, Ravenhill! Thank you so much for your refreshing and erudite responce to this matter. It's all too rare that I've read responces on this other than the typical 14 year old wannabe filmmaker rant, such as "Fuck you, asshole! Why are you trying to kill my dreams!" and the like.

I like to think that it is the important films that will prevail at the end of the day. Trends come and trends go, but what worries me is the consumer availability of
video and digital technology that makes filmmaking that much easier in the long run. Today, ANYBODY can make films for relatively peanuts. Films such as THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, Dogme films such as THE CELEBRATION and DANCERS IN THE DARK, and Mike Figgis' TIME CODE 2000, although all great films, surely are not helping matters much. All of these films were heavily celebrated, and all were shot on formats ranging from Hi8 video to prosumer DV. What the kid fanatics are seeing is an established, celebrabrated and not to mention RICH motion picture director such as Mike Figgis, using the exact same camera that daddy bought them for Christmas! A little too inspiring, I would say.

It's a fucking disaster, and it isn't getting any better. On the contrary.

-N. Foster Tyler

[Ravenhill]

I think you summed it up when you said 'trends come and trends go'.
It seems that some film-makers have got onto their soapboxes and bemoaned the wave of crowd-pleasing, big-budget movies that are sitting heavy in our multiplexes. They've decided that the only way forward is to travel backward and re-discover film by abandoning special effects and expensive cameras in favour of hand-helds.
This in itself is an interesting experiment, but no more than that.
It will not last.
It is, to all intents and purposes, an ego-trip. These directors are saying, 'Look at me. I can make a film without recourse to a huge budget and cgi. Aren't I clever?'.
The simple answer is: No, you aren't.
I went to see The Blair Witch Project and, while liking it, saw it as no more than a gimmick. I think it was one of those films that you were supposed to admire and talk about pretentiously in the pub afterwards.
As far as I'm concerned, I saw it once, liked it, but have absolutely no intention to watch it again. It was a single-viewing film. That is why it will never be a classic.
There is no substitute, and there never will be, for a good story.
It's as simple as that.
Style alone simply doesn't cut it.
For instance, Quentin Tarantino. In my opinion he is a very accomplished screenwriter, but as a director he is, at best, mediocre.
I value True Romance as a far superior film to Pulp Fiction. Why? Because you have a very good story, wonderful dialogue - think of the Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper scene - and an accomplished director, Tony Scott.
But even taking into account that Tarantino is a mediocre director, Pulp Fiction was still an admirable piece of film-making.
This is because, as Syd Field says, if you have a good script you have a good film even if the director isn't that great. If the script stinks, no director in the world can save it.
At the end of the day, Scorcese, De Palma, Spielberg, all know how to shoot a film that is visually interesting. Even now, they experiment with ideas that challenge and excite us. But, if the script is no good, they can fail. Think of Saving Private Ryan. The battle scenes were outstanding, but a large chunk of the script was writing-by-numbers. It built itself on cliches.

To finish, I think there is only one danger at present: Studios pouring millions into advertising for poor quality films.
If enough people see enough advertisements for garbage, they will hand over their money and watch it.
At my local multiplex - this was some time ago - I asked when they were showing Martin Scorcese's Kundun. I was told that they were not showing it. I then asked if they were going to show The Coen Brothers The Big Lebowski. Again, I was told that they had no plans to air it. Lastly, I asked about Oliver Stone's U-Turn. You can guess what the response was.
As I turned to leave, I noticed that they were still showing the Robin Williams vehicle Flubber. It had been playing for 2 months solid.
This is the danger. People, as a general rule, are driven by popular opinion. If they are told by every tabloid newspaper that a certain film is 'the next big thing' they will watch it and it will make big money. The bead-counters at the studio will then say, 'great. Give me another Godzilla.'
I'd like to think that the public will eventually grow out of this and demand better quality, but it may take some time.

All we, as film-makers, can do is to concentrate our efforts and make the sort of films we want to see, not the sort of films that we think are guaranteed to make money.

[This message has been edited by Ravenhill (edited June 29, 2000).]

[N. Foster Tyler]

The problem is, people ARE making the types of films that they would want to see. Maybe 'ripping-off' is a more correct term. And it is mostly Hollywood yarn, aside from your occasional (!) PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS style 'bunch of guys sitting around the table, talking about the job, and talking a lot of shit' movie.

For the most part, young people are making stuff that they would want to see. It just so happens to be, for the most part, mainsteam happy crap.

Ask your average teen wannabe filmmaker who Jon Jost or Jim Jarmusch is. Most will never have even heard of them. They all want to be David Fincher, or the next MTV hotshot music video director.

They are interested in making money, and using film as they're ticket to heaven. They are destroying cinema by celebrating the shit that pours out of Hollywood, which is highly evident in today's 'indepenent' films. Today, most 'indies' are really Hollywood films on a low budget.

-N. Foster Tyler

[Joel Cox]

Excuse me for butting in to your 'debate', but I have something to say.

What exactly do you want? Do you want all of the 14 year old film makers to just piss off to a desk job. You don't have to watch independent films, in fact there is nothing that you *have* to do at all. Trends do come and go, and that's a good thing. You should let film making evolve as it sees fit. If people want to copy someone elses films, let them do it, you have no place whatsoever to say that they shouldn't. If you don't like it, try and avoid it.

Times change, but you obviously haven't changed with it.

Joel Cox

[Matt J Heaton]

Well said Joel.

While they made valid points, lets not pretend films have to be more than entertainment.

I have no desire whatsoever to watch Flubber, though people like it and for that reason alone its presence in the multiplex is worthy.

Filmmaking is a visual medium and visual impact counts for a lot. Sure, a good story is vital but it is not the only thing that excites people. If it is then read a book.

Good films stimulates visually.


What the hell is this topic doing in here anyway? It seems a bit elitist to me.

[N. Foster Tyler]

Damn right! Why are so many individuals with nothing at all to say attracted to the idea of the artistic process in general? They think it's easy, that's why. Anything that will gain them prestige and fame the easest way possible. The attitude is, "Geez, if that's considered "art", and this guy is being called a cinematic genius, by Christ I can do it to!"

I'm sorry, but that's a false way of thinking, especially when making art. Which is why most fail, and will fail. It is the ones who succeed that we should be worrying about. Elitist or not, that is the way it is.

-N. Foster Tyler

[Ravenhill]

Joel Cox, it seems that you point you've made is that there should be freedom of expression for film-makers and freedom of choice for the consumer.
I agree.
However, surely the same applies to newsboards? Freedom of expression exists here for us to air our views, and you have the freedom of choice to take no notice of them.
THAT is what gives us the right to say what we want.
Perhaps we are wrong, perhaps we shall be made to eat our words, but please don't discourage us from saying them in the first place.
It's all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, people are being short-changed and weaned on a diet of inferior quality movies.
Artistic freedom is a valuable commodity but it is being abused. With choice comes responsibility.
To illustrate my point, I will quote something from British Television.
There was a comedy sketch on TV once where a
politician sat in a restaurant having a conversation with the waiter. The waiter commented on the politicians recently passed bill in Parliament which allowed wider coverage by a media company. The waiter said, "The public must be allowed access to 24-hour entertainment. They must be able to choose from myriad channels, programmes, films. The consumer must have more choice."
Suddenly, the waiter looked at the table in horror and snatched the politicians silver-plated knife and fork away. "I'm so sorry," he said, "that this should happen to you of all people."
The waiter then disappeared into the kitchen and brought back an entire box of plastic tea-stirrers which he emptied onto the politicians table.
"What are you doing?", he said.
"Giving you your cutlery," replied the waiter.
"But they're all plastic tea-stirrers," said the politician.
"Well," replied the waiter, "they may all be complete crap, but at least you've got more choice."

[Ravenhill]

Joel Cox, it seems that you point you've made is that there should be freedom of expression for film-makers and freedom of choice for the consumer.
I agree.
However, surely the same applies to newsboards? Freedom of expression exists here for us to air our views, and you have the freedom of choice to take no notice of them.
THAT is what gives us the right to say what we want.
Perhaps we are wrong, perhaps we shall be made to eat our words, but please don't discourage us from saying them in the first place.
It's all a matter of opinion, and in my opinion, people are being short-changed and weaned on a diet of inferior quality movies.
Artistic freedom is a valuable commodity but it is being abused. With choice comes responsibility.
To illustrate my point, I will quote something from British Television.
There was a comedy sketch on TV once where a
politician sat in a restaurant having a conversation with the waiter. The waiter commented on the politicians recently passed bill in Parliament which allowed wider coverage by a media company. The waiter said, "The public must be allowed access to 24-hour entertainment. They must be able to choose from myriad channels, programmes, films. The consumer must have more choice."
Suddenly, the waiter looked at the table in horror and snatched the politicians silver-plated knife and fork away. "I'm so sorry," he said, "that this should happen to you of all people."
The waiter then disappeared into the kitchen and brought back an entire box of plastic tea-stirrers which he emptied onto the politicians table.
"What are you doing?", he said.
"Giving you your cutlery," replied the waiter.
"But they're all plastic tea-stirrers," said the politician.
"Well," replied the waiter, "they may all be complete crap, but at least you've got more choice."