whats the point

[miker]

well, my own personal alignment would appear to side with that of hairbrain on this issue.

i think a film should work on more than just one level. the ones that only have one level IMO are the crap ones you can't be bothered to watch again, be it the latest kick-boxer actor film or the latest art flick. true greats take from both sides and last forever.

as for mystical life force ... we are all stardust and we will all become stardust.

and I have a mortgage, kids, and two cars BTW. my only debt is my mortgage. I have been self-employed two years (took the red pill) and been making films in an amateur capacity since around 1990 (note when I say amateur I mean the true meaning of the word). currently I am waiting to hear back from channel four to see if they want to commission my comedy programme. I am under no illusions. if they don't want it, I'll still make it, but in an 'amateur' capacity.

go watch Fight Club or something ... (shit, isn't that an American film with some big named entertainers it which is directed by some nonsy artsy pop-video director?! Well fuck me!)

------------------

[deanl]

Hey there.

"Not exactly a nice piece of work are you Despin?"

Actualy Im a very "nice piece of work".

Im a nice guy.

Ask anyone.

Despin out.

------------------
"Ive got bad feeling about this."

[SoulJacker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica, sans serif">quote:</font><HR> (I'm not making films to entertain people!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why don't you go and flip some burgers? If you not going to entertain people then your audience won't give a shit about what your doing and in turn not watch it...so what?s the point? You might as well go toss a burger off.

Sure I want to cerebrally challenge my audience but if (and when) I make a popcorn flick that is entertaining then surely I have achieved something positive?

I want to entertain people as that is the sole purpose of making a movie IMO?to positively engage an audience - be it through the medium of popcorn or art house guff ? is surely what every film maker aspires to?????


------------------
Jay & Silent Bob DO NOT LICK BALLS.

[Mods]

Oooooooh, my penis is growing!


Mods

------------------
Mark "Mods" Lovegrove

[hairbrain]

miker... you're proving that where there's a will there's a way. Good on you. I'm kinda in the same boat, holding down a day job but desperately trying to get my visions together in whatever spare time I have.

soul`Jacker`.... what I meant was that I don't make movies for the express purpose of `entertaining` people. A bigMac is like a movie designed to `entertain`. It is filled with mayonnaise, ketchup, all kinds of tastes just waiting to slap your tongue about. In my opinion, however, a bigMac has very little nutritional value and, although somewhat tasty whilst consuming, once consumed it is easily forgotten.

The kind of movies I am truly ENTERTAINED by, not to be confused with `entertained`, are more like an apple. They're not really bursting with 50 different flavours, infact there's no artificial additives at all. They are simple and yet linger with you.

Whereas you profess to want to make movies primarily to `entertain` people... I wish to make movies primarily to haunt people. There is a difference... and neither of us is right or wrong objectively... but in my opinion I am right and you are wrong.... that is the nature of opinions isn't it?

------------------

[SoulJacker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica, sans serif">quote:</font><HR> Whereas you profess to want to make movies primarily to `entertain` people... I wish to make movies primarily to haunt people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ? moron ? you can haunt someone though creating an entertaining movie. Which other way is there? What you want to haunt someone through an un-entertaining movie?

If your Bigmac contained a maggot and you bit into it ? it would scar you for life, you would never eat another burger-in-a-bun again?what the difference? How haunting is that???

Your opinion is based on the argument that a haunting film can?t be mass-market entertainment and 'entertainment' (as you eloquently put it)can?t be haunting. That?s just a big o?pile of horseshit.

Name me your top-ten ?haunting films? and I can guarantee that everyone of them entertained me in some way or another. If not I would have thought they were unappealing piles of crap?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, helvetica, sans serif">quote:</font><HR> The kind of movies I am truly ENTERTAINED by, not to be confused with `entertained?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

EH? Sorry but that statement doesn?t make sense.

------------------
Jay & Silent Bob DO NOT LICK BALLS.

[The Baines Hunt Rebel]

its interesting isnt it. i think that hairbrain has made some very interesting statements, there seems to be a gulf between those who think movies are entertainment and those who want to produce art. to the latter i would say that they shouldnt look at entertainment as a dumbed down version of artistic expression but a medium of it. i sit between the two camps. maybe all of those entertainers should try making an art house movie and vice versa. only by looking at something from more than one point of veiw can you be truely objective, that is the nature of objectivity. and one more thing, howard the duck 2 is worth watching, its just as valid a peice of film making as the highest of high art movies, when you watch something like that you have to look at it for what it is, it might not have anything to say but it depends on how you look at it. i garentee you there could be a lecture at any art college in the country about what that movie says and art students would lap it up, and it would give people an extra dimension in the work because people would stop taking those kinds of movies at face value and look for something else in them, therefore making them art. i think that morecambe and wise is art and there is no reason why it shouldnt be.

------------------

[Rar]

I think the core to why everyone want's to makes films is to control what people see and hear so thay they can affect what people think and feel. Well that's my reason anyway. Artistic expression which is entertaining is a much easier pill to swallow.

------------------

[Vertino]

This is true... its all about control (and the art of story-telling), basically thats what it boils down to...

without stories where would we be? - bored probably!

If you've got the passion to go out and tell your stories, whatever the medium (tv, film, pop-music, radio, etc...) just fucking do it!
We live in a world of consumerism...
nowadays... people want = people get!

Take this... A group of lads on a Friday night, couple of six-packs, what to watch? English Patient or Braindead?!

Why are they're more "film-makers" than any other medium now? because its more dynamic & affordable... digi-cams are getting cheaper (every day), current PCs/Macs are capible of doing loads of cool shit... its easier to make a movie now, than it was 10/20 years ago! (same with Music, Novels, etc...)

blah, blah, blah...

------------------
Exposure Shorts
http://www.exposureshorts.co.uk/

[SoulJacker]

I agree with most comments raised here. But I disagree that mass market films can?t be classed as artistic and stretch boundaries. We have ?classic? popcorn films?

Art IS entertainment. If anything its the oldest form of mass market entertainment going. By its very nature it entertains.

Mass market films - is that what Hairbrain doesn?t want to make???? - Aren?t shit by default ? they are shit if they aren?t well made?

...yawn this is so fucking boring...

------------------
Jay & Silent Bob DO NOT LICK BALLS.