i think that the direction of intimate, small stories, when you WANT to have organic look, not a hollywood look, but more rough, 70's small movies (think of Nicholas Roeg?)
the GH2 and dslr are a very good and exact target.

Maybe that's why I find it hard to find the special stuff. I don't want to see things that try to be smart, or try to look good. I want to see something that is smart and looks good because of it, if you understand what I mean.

Of course, target is the most important for anything. Though the number one target audience is most always oneself (this does not mean to dismiss the audience). Because people have certain personal things to tell, certain ways of seeing the world. I hope. Best is to focus on something specific to you, and really hone in on it. That's a craft, to have that one thing that defines you, and repeat it in different ways.

@brianluce

Yeah, heroes journey is ingrained in our every day existence, trying to escape it is trying to make something that is alien to you, and will be alien to most people. Even esoteric experiments like RUBBER fall into this convention eventually.

>Miniaturize it, camouflage it, reimagine it, but abandon the master narratives?

Yep. Abandon and bury them deep.
As you need to move from the animal side to the human side.
And "saving the princess, the incredible journey" is all about animal side of things.

Can you tell me story of inventor who worked 5 years on new thing, solved hundreds of problems in the way?
Yes, you can. But it require differen skill.
And no, big guys can't do this, as big crowds won't look at this.

@VK "Idea to mimick big studios on lower level with inappropriate crew.
Idea to use same main script ideas, etc.
You can find much more interesting and specific idea, as your film can be aimed to small and specific audience.
Big guys can't do this, as it means instant cut in their income."

I wrote a thread about this on another forum an people got really offended.

People who aren't creative and innovative love to mimic the "professional" work flow, because in the end, they really don't have a vision and use "the industry" as a crutch and scapegoat.

These days we finally have the opportunity to merge jobs into what they should be and move production models forward... but everyone is stuck with the "that's how THEY do it" mentality. It's so stupid. The idea that the director, cinematographer, and editor are all different people on films blows my mind. There's just no way you should be directing if you do not understand cinematography and editing first. You're then, basically, just "opinion" giving. Which is sadly what most modern directing is. Given enough time, the director should be able to do everything on set... you hire a DP to save time, not to make your film look good. If you can't make a film look good on your own... you don't deserve it to.

Those who can't create... imitate. It's the catalyst of the industry "obsession".


I've been on a shoot in hollywood-land where I've actually heard a director say "I like having a DP, because I can just blame them if it doesn't look good."

This is the epitome of hollywood. It's all a big game of people hiring other people to blame when something fails. The last thing on people's mind is making something original.

Indeed Mark. There are a thousand different ways to be an artist or a filmmaker without resorting to a crew or Hollywood narrative.

My flatmate is a musician, what I find is he needs feeding with images to use to promote his music especially online, and because he is an audio guy not visual, it comes down to us to provide them for him.

@Vitaliy

Yep. Abandon and bury them deep. (referring to a commonly used narrative)
As you need to move from the animal side to the human side.
And "saving the princess, the incredible journey" is all about animal side of things.
>>>>>>>>>
I'm not sure what you mean by "Animal" side. If you mean that classic narrative structures are designed to provoke visceral reactions from the viewer, such as laughter, fear, excitement, sadness, then yes, of course, but I then don't know what the "Human side" would mean. If you mean making some political statements or social observation, you won't find much interest from viewers. Great art is never about such things, high level art is inherently unpolitical.
I have no issue with classic narrative structures, I think they've lasted so long for a reason: They work! Just like 24p works! The problem is when these structures become predictable, gimmicky and cliche and that's the challenge to the filmmaker or writer or musician, to keep things fresh and unpredictible. "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" felt fresh to me, yet it was an obvious version of a Homeric Epic Poem.

I'm sympathetic to Hollywood, I'm not happy that every thing they produce is an existing brand -- be it a book, theme park ride, or comic book. But at the same time, the typical feature is North of 100 million to produce. That's a pretty big bet, one or two duds and your career is over. So they manage the risk, hedge their bets, and that is why we get Pirates of the Caribbean 5.

@kholi, it's a good counterpoint. You'll notice a lot of the names I mentioned weren't American - I don't think it's because we Americans lack something artistic that our European friends possess solely on their own. It probably comes down more to economics, state funding for cinema, having more of a social safety net, and so on. Of course there are cultural differences too, but...

That having been said, there are a lot of working filmmakers in the U.S. too - working in the sense that they are not earning a living with their films but instead create in their free time. Especially in the experimental cinema world, people like Brakhage always made a living teaching and maybe eventually touring as guest lecturer. Even Cassavetes was a working actor, it's not like he got rich off the receipts for A Woman Under the Influence or anything.

In the case of Godard, he did indeed come from a moneyed background but had more or less broken with it by the time he was making films - it was more the fortuitous meeting with certain producers after working as a critic for a while that made it possible.

But today I think we're already so far ahead on a lot of fixed costs - like the camera, the editing equipment, post-production, the distribution channel (if we're talking online, not theatrical) - that there are less excuses than ever to not be making interesting work. Not at the level of a major Hollywood filmmaker, but on a small regional indie kind of scale. Kind of like what Kentucker Audley is doing - now there's someone I think most DSLR filmmakers will cringe when they see the work, because it's very technically raw, but I find it interesting, especially his film Holy Land (which you can see on Vimeo, btw).

Anyway. Good discussion everyone.

Art is not a pastime but a priesthood.
Jean Cocteau

The problem with the mother of 3 is, chances are she's boring as hell. But to be fair to her, most people are as well.

To me...."non traditional narratives" are usually code words for "boring", kind of like "alternative comedy" are code words for not funny.

While a certain amount of "truth" is important in art...I like my fictions to be fictitious...for the most part.