An interesting question:
Should a newbie ever pick up a camera and shoot without a goal or vision?
Printable View
An interesting question:
Should a newbie ever pick up a camera and shoot without a goal or vision?
For me, it was 2 years between deciding to be a filmmaker and actually aquiring a camera.
There's nothing wrong with having a f?nny about with your mates, but if you have serious ambitions to be a filmmaker, it's important to have a vision.
It's just that my vision involves a b?llock load of gratuitous violence and potty jokes. For now, anyway.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 10, 2003 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Untamed Aggression ]</font>
ive seen film makers who just make stupid mess around movies... But then ive also seen people who are 15 and never done anything in thier life and they say they have written the first half of a feature film script and wanna know where to get the 100,000 they need to make it! In fact in general i think most film makers rush into things. I must of met countless guys who have written 3 shorts at the most and are starting on a feature length movie script. I just dont understand it...
i guess in that respect you can say that most film makers actually have too much vision and too big a set of goals.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes.Quote:
Originally posted by Kev Owens:
An interesting question:
Should a newbie ever pick up a camera and shoot without a goal or vision?
I think it's called learning.
When I first picked up a super-8 camera and filmed with no finished goal in mind, I still had set up a goal for the specific shot I was framing.
I was shooting time-lapse and time-exposure footage. I experimented with time-lapse into sunsets, drastic cloud angle time-lapse, streaks of light, long-time exposure with removeable matting, 3 dimensional time-exposure.
After shooting 10 film cartridges over a few months of time, I was able to make my first experimental film.
I'm not exactly sure how one could translate that experience to mini-dv. Although doing sound miking tests does make a lot of sense. And I guess another test would be to practice changing the filter settings and playing with the contrast options and when to do autofocus and autoexposure and when not to do them.
Still, with the film tests I did I was able to make a film that I then blew up to 16mm negative and got a few awards for. So for me, my first filmaking endeavors produced useable footage.
why must we always have this boring debate about film vs video when ever you post?
I just had a meeting with a guy who has $100,000--And looking for a script. So, before I meet him I think "Hey this guy must know what is going on." WRONG!!!
This guy made a bunch of money in the Tech boom and now wants to make a vanity film. He read "Rebel Without A Crew" and now thinks he is Lucas.
His first movie was about a guy getting hit in the balls.
His second movie--Well it was about a guy getting hit in the balls.
Does a Moviemaker in her early days need vision??
It depends on what/how you define vision. If vision is a desire to tell a story then yes--They need vision.
If vision is creating a really dumb story--Then lets hope they decide to take up some other and less public way of expressing their idea.
Good Luck
Was his name Hans Moleman, perchance?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let me refresh your short term memory, as you posted it less than a day ago. [img]eek.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally posted by belovedmonster:
why must we always have this boring debate about film vs video when ever you post?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you really read my previous post, you would see that I phrased my comment as a question. You could have added to it rather than come off with the "same old same old" type of negative response that doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand.Quote:
Originally posted by belovedmonster:
A few people will suggest to try using film not video but just ignore them. Film is far too expensive to make mistakes on and the benefits are nominal at this stage in your development as a film maker.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 11, 2003 03:57 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">DaDa is art too, lolQuote:
Originally posted by Nigel:
I just had a meeting with a guy who has $100,000--And looking for a script. So, before I meet him I think "Hey this guy must know what is going on." WRONG!!!
This guy made a bunch of money in the Tech boom and now wants to make a vanity film. He read "Rebel Without A Crew" and now thinks he is Lucas.
His first movie was about a guy getting hit in the balls.
His second movie--Well it was about a guy getting hit in the balls.
Does a Moviemaker in her early days need vision??
It depends on what/how you define vision. If vision is a desire to tell a story then yes--They need vision.
If vision is creating a really dumb story--Then lets hope they decide to take up some other and less public way of expressing their idea.
Good Luck
When I first started experimenting with Super8 it was in an attempt to expand the abstraction of my work throughout art college.
I soon found that scraping off bits of film emulsion from the frame was far more fun than doing a painting.
If I write I want it to mean at least something, I want the viewer to think about it.
But if I film I usually want the viewer to laugh. That's just for now. The next project will be a bit of both, so I'm getting there.
The first film I shot, "Attack of the killer teddies" was a bit of fun over a weekend using my dad's camcorder... There was no script, no planning and we made up the plot as we went along.
HOWEVER, I took this tape, (which was basically rushes), to a TV company, and with this, I managed to end up working with them. They could see the film was terrible, but they also realised that if I had access to better equipment, trained crew, etc, then I could do something better.
From that, I've gained experience working in TV which a CV on it's own wouldn't have got. So, even if you shoot without planning, you can use it to get somewhere you DO plan to be.
I think most people at least have a dream (maybe its not even a vision) of what they want to do. But in order to get there, you have to **** around with your camera to learn the basics.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">lol, "Aargh, my groin!!!"Quote:
Was his name Hans Moleman, perchance?
Miker, I'd agree it is one way of learning, but wouldn't that learning be far more efficient and better quality if there were a goal involved?
Alex you can try and take the high road if you want but the fact remains even if it was an attempt at creating a debate rather than the blatent stab at video it appeared to be... then all you are doing is bringing up the god damm exact debate you try to bring up in every post of yours...
can we not discuss movie making in terms of narrative and themes... more general stuff like that instead of this constant debate over which medium to use. I appreciate that you love 8mm and thats fine but im sick of it being rammed down my throat all the time asif it vastly better than video and we all have to account for why we use sh1tty video.
You could of mentioned how you did time lapse stuff and how you were just messing about essentialy with no clear goals and that it won you awards. That alone would of been a good piont in light of the actualy topic here... newbies having goals and vision... you could of even gone on to say its a shame that people with video cant really learn how recording frames and how that sorta thing works... but you had to add a dig at video, which doesnt contribute to the debate at all.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 11, 2003 07:28 AM: Message edited by: belovedmonster ]</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">lol, "Aargh, my groin!!!"Quote:
Originally posted by Kev Owens:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Was his name Hans Moleman, perchance?
Miker, I'd agree it is one way of learning, but wouldn't that learning be far more efficient and better quality if there were a goal involved?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that once you get past the hosepiping stage, then having a goal in mind becomes the natural extension.
My 'goal' originally was to make abstract art on super8 - but I had nothing in mind other than 'playing' with the medium.
My goal now is to get Crooked Features out of production **** . I haven't touched a camera in months. And I'm more likely to be involved in an edit or sound design on other people's projects.
When you're starting out (and after 10 years it still feels like I'm starting out!) the important things are to enjoy it, learn from it, or get paid for it. If you can manage one of those three, you are ahead IMO. Those are goals in life, not in filmmaking.
The workings of cause and effect apply of course.
Everything begins with the will.
The will to do is the initial conditions.
The effect is the result of acting on the will.
If the will is lacking, or directionless then the effect (and hence results) will be lacking and directionless, and ultimatley dissapointing.
If life is a performance art, no matter that you are improvising, no one improvises from a completely blank sheet, a little thought is always required. It is satisfying when you witness that thought sculpted into a reality.
The alchemy of film making can only be improved on by applying the will. Even the DADAists appreciate that structure is nessescary, even if it is there only to be destroyed.
Go! Hosepipe!
But apply your intention before hosepiping, rather than excuse it after the event.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It sounds to me that by shooting with a title in mind, you did have a goal.Quote:
Originally posted by Littlerich:
The first film I shot, "Attack of the killer teddies" was a bit of fun over a weekend using my dad's camcorder... There was no script, no planning and we made up the plot as we went along.
From that, I've gained experience working in TV which a CV on it's own wouldn't have got. So, even if you shoot without planning, you can use it to get somewhere you DO plan to be.
Congrats.
Hey there.
You guys always talk about Film making in a real cold and mechanical way...
Some of the threads on here lately have been like reading huge chunks of text copied right out of books.
Sure there have been a whole bunch of interesting conversations. But there seems no heart in anything being discussed. It's like a competition to prove who's the biggest intellectual.
From the first thing I EVER did to the thing I'm about to do... It has ALWAYS been about fun and enjoyment. About loving doing it. About enjoying the process.
Just enjoying what you're doing and enjoying watching other people enjoying what you've done...
I get the feeling too many people on here spend more time trying to make sure what they do is "important" before even thinking about anything else.
It's like the direct opposite to the often slammed "Dumb Hollywood Machine". It's the Pseudo Intellectual Art House "crew".
Now I like to think I could choose a cool middle ground there. But push comes to shove. I know what group I would rather be in.
Granted everything I'm saying now could be complete *****cks. I don't know any of you guys. I haven't really seen any of your stuff. But I get the feeling everyone is too busy following a text book and a set of "rules" to even consider making something just for the **** of. Because you had a "cool idea" Because you think it would make people smile.
I just don't think that every shaft of light in a shot has to have connotative meanings in relation to the protagonists inner most feelings.. And that every decision has to have major reasoning behind it. I would rather follow my heart over a book any day of the week.
If that means my movies "**** ". Then so be it. At least I had a good time.
Of fuckin course a newbie can pick up a camera without having a "vision" or a "goal". And THANK GOD they do.
Erm... Right. Not sure where all that came from... Or if it even makes any sense.
Sorry for the rant.
Despin out.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 11, 2003 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Despin ]</font>
Very good points, Despin.
Despin, you might be narrowing the definition of the word "vision" more than those whom you think you disagree with.
Vision can be nothing more than having a title in mind and then shooting whatever you think might be fun in that regards.
Does Shooting teach one anything if they never edit the footage?
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 11, 2003 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
yes becos continuity and editing between shots is totaly different to composition and lighting and the other things you can learn from shooting... thats why you have people who are called editors and people who are called DPs.
I can't remember the exact amount of beer consumed during that escapade--However, I do remember drinking a lot that day.
Good Luck
I'm only 15, but I've already written two feature scripts. Whether they're good or not is yet to be seen (I write a story that would interest me, not with a specific adueince in mind)
Yes, I have a goal. I hope that by the time I'm 30 I would have made a movie, and a movie that people will like.
For now? Well, Robert Rodriguez didn't make El Maraichi straight away did he, so as it stands, I'm just trying to do a lot of stuff.
I am going to get a camcroder, adn try a few different things, an 'action' movie, a horror, **** , I might even try comedy.
Even if they don't have a particular vision, for now, it's about getting experiance.
I'll bother with the deep vision thing later.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Good.Quote:
Originally posted by thelaughingduck2001:
I am going to get a camcodder, and try a few different things, an 'action' movie, a horror, **** , I might even try comedy.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What does "Particular" vision have to do with vision? The word Vision should not be bundled with the word Visionary. The Word Vision allows for a lot of latitude.Quote:
Originally posted by thelaughingduck2001:
Even if they don't have a particular vision, for now, it's about getting experiance.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Deep" Vision.Quote:
Originally posted by thelaughingduck2001:
I'll bother with the deep vision thing later.
No, just having a vision is all that I'm suggesting.
[quote]Originally posted by miker:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would have been a great contribution to the mis en scene discussion from a couple of weeks ago.Quote:
In my opinion lighting continuity is by far the most important to keep a grip on. Any other continuity error is easy to hide in the rhythm of the edit.
Having a great vision and lots of fun doesn't mean people will like your stuff though.
I think a big aspect with filmmaking is that you're making the film not for yourself, but for others to view. If you'd be making that film only for yourself because you'd be following your own vision, you really woulnd't have to make that film in the first place. You already have that vision. I think, with visions in your films, you want to show 'the truth' to others. And you're doing it YOUR way, because it is YOUR vision. People might agree or disagree, but if you've done it right, they'll at least acknowledge yours.
Kicking balls might seem silly to some, but to others it might show the truth about not taking responsibility for your actions. If the filmmaker's vision was that you should just laugh, no matter what, and all that was happening in his film was people kicking each other in the nuts, then, uh, hmm, yes.... what?
Am I making a point? Oh, my point: it's hypocrite to say you're just making your own vision for your own self, because the intention of film is to show it to OTHERS.
Hey that's deep.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the best thing that's been said so far.Quote:
Just enjoying what you're doing and enjoying watching other people enjoying what you've done
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the best thing that's been said so far.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unless you just made Saving Private Ryan, lolQuote:
Originally posted by Untamed Aggression:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Just enjoying what you're doing and enjoying watching other people enjoying what you've done
Hey, Saving Private Ryan is pure entertainment...
I love experimental film.
There was a point where I thought it was the best way for me to express my feelings and views. I played with home processing of film and what different dyes and chemical would do to the emulsion--H?ll I even soaked film in my urine for a week to see what it would do. So in no why am I making a judgement about DaDaism or exprimental film/video.
What I am saying is that just because you read a book, made a video about a guy getting kicked in the balls and have a good chunk of cash to spend doesn't mean you are a good movie maker.
Good Luck
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But if Andy Warhol had made a a video about a guy getting kicked in the balls would it have been any better?Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel:
I love experimental film.
There was a point where I thought it was the best way for me to express my feelings and views. I played with home processing of film and what different dyes and chemical would do to the emulsion--H?ll I even soaked film in my urine for a week to see what it would do. So in no why am I making a judgement about DaDaism or exprimental film/video.
What I am saying is that just because you read a book, made a video about a guy getting kicked in the balls and have a good chunk of cash to spend doesn't mean you are a good movie maker.
Good Luck
I get your point though.
I think it just comes down to being true to yourself. That's why I personally hate all the back-slapping that goes on in low/no-budget circles. Rarely is the film subject to a wider critique than peer review. And if your peers value working with you again rarely will you hear a bad word.
Taking criticism of your work is another important part of the learning process.
I dare say that the maker of a vanity film would not take kindly to negative criticism.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your point sounds logical but after editing other peoples stuff for 10 years I would disagree. (no, not features, but everything from straight to video release to photo montages,).Quote:
Originally posted by belovedmonster:
yes becos continuity and editing between shots is totaly different to composition and lighting and the other things you can learn from shooting... thats why you have people who are called editors and people who are called DPs.
I think you would learn more by editing other peoples visions than shooting your own stuff but never editing it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">s'funny, in my opinion lighting continuity is by far the most important to keep a grip on. Any other continuity error is easy to hide in the rhythm of the edit.Quote:
Originally posted by belovedmonster:
yes becos continuity and editing between shots is totaly different to composition and lighting and the other things you can learn from shooting... thats why you have people who are called editors and people who are called DPs.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">After how many [img]graemlins/beer.gif[/img] s? [img]wink.gif[/img]Quote:
H?ll I even soaked film in my urine for a week to see what it would do.
when you say "pure entertainment", does that mean it was only entertainment and nothing more?
originally posted by alex
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How can art be more than entertainment?Quote:
when you say "pure entertainment", does that mean it was only entertainment and nothing more?
Art is merely for the purpose of escapism- whether it's immersing out selves in thought's on something, trying to understand the charachter's, or learning- it's all about amusing ourselves and forgetting about big problem's.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is an excellent point. However, Saving Private Ryan does not have any sort of moral debate; the moral is that "war is bad" and that's it. Well, duh.Quote:
...and if there is no moral debate in the tale, what is the point?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is an excellent point. However, Saving Private Ryan does not have any sort of moral debate; the moral is that "war is bad" and that's it. Well, duh.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bad, and necessary in the face of great adversity. The ultimate sacrifice should not be flippantly cashed in - and, yet, so often it is.Quote:
Originally posted by The Cavity:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...and if there is no moral debate in the tale, what is the point?