How important is knowing any kind of cinema history? I don't feel it's necessary, but I do feel strongly that I benefit greatly by comprehending the importance of contributions by Edwin S. Porter, D.W. Griffith, Orson Welles, etc.

The French New Wave movement came from film critics, who deeply understood what was done before them and they pioneered a film movement by taking what was done before and turning it sideways. They had a deep understanding of what was done in the past and re-wrote the book. None of them were ignorant of what was the norm and the standards.

The American film renaissance of the late 1960's starting Ezy Rider opened the door for people like Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Spielberg, etc. and shaped films into a new age of "realistic" portrayals. Large sets were replaced by all location shooting and method acting.

The benefit of knowing cinema history is understanding it's impact on the audience. Having the ideas of what have worked for over 100 years to effect a viewer is like having a rubber band versus a shot gun.

But that's my opinion for me, and doesn't necessarily reflect what's better for someone else. What do you think? Is cinema history important or unimportant to you as a filmmaker and why/why not?

I imagine that every experience you have goes to shape how you approach your own creativity -- that would have to include your exposure to other creative mediums, including film. You can't help but be influenced by them. Whether the experience is positive (re-inforcing what you like) or negative (confirming what you don't), it all goes into shaping who you are as a creator. Eventually, it comes down to the question "what type of artist/director do I want to be?" If you want want to be the guy who breaks all the rules -- then Sonnyboo makes a great point -- you'd better KNOW the rules in order to know when you are breaking them. If you want to feel that you were able to create something WITHOUT having the influence of the cinema history, then by all means...avoid it. Because once you experience the history, it becomes a part of you -- whether you want the influence or not.

The American film renaissance of the late 1960's starting with Raging Bull opened the door for people like Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola, Spielberg, etc. and shaped films into a new age of "realistic" portrayals. Large sets were replaced by all location shooting and method acting.
This is a little confusing because Raging Bull was released in 1980 so the
"renaissance" of the late 1960's didn't start with Raging Bull. The renaissance
of American independent films started with Cassavetes who was among
the first American filmmakers making films on his own, without any studio
or distribution. In some cases taking prints he paid for himself from city to
city in the trunk of his car. He shot in the apartments of his actors and in
the streets of New York.

So I think we agree - just not on when it started.

The benefit of knowing cinema history is understanding it's impact on the audience. Having the ideas of what have worked for over 100 years to effect a viewer is like having a rubber band versus a shot gun.
So you do think it's necessary. Just limited to what you feel is necessary.

I feel any - in fact all - knowledge is necessary, including the knowledge of cinema history.

I agree with Directorik, I have a long history of shooting and developing all sorts of film, digitizing film, and lots of other experiences that would now be considered obsolete. However, that knowledge and experience still serves me well and people who start today with digital seldom develop the disciplines we developed when we $paid$ for each shot. Also, you learn to be more in tune to lighting setups when you don't get instant feedback from your digital camera or camcorder display. In the days of film, you had to learn to see like a camera sees, and that's a huge advantage.

I think the same thing applies to the process of making movies. When resources were limited and/or expensive, movie makers learned disciplines and developed skills that may seem unnecessary today, but just as often the creative solutions they produced are often applicable to our current methodology. Ignoring the wealth of creative ideas, techniques, and disciplines developed over the years is guaranteed to put you at a disadvantage when you find yourself working out a problem (that has probably already been solved), or in need of inspiration, creative techniques, etc.

My problem is that I don't have time to watch all of the great movies that have been made, and I'd really need to go back and watch some of them again, just before shooting something in order for the ideas to remain fresh in my mind. I suppose I retain the things that I practice, but there are so many wonderfully creative techniques that have been incorporated by the great movie makers of the last century, I'll never remember them all. You've simply got to have a passion for it.

You can never know too much... unless, of course, your head explodes. That's messy.

Doug

I meant to type EZY RIDER, which is a commonly accepted differentiation from Cassevettes because it was a bigger success financially than most of his films. Don't get me wrong, artistically, it's impossible to say which one is "better" etc., but this is a common notation that the studio system started seeking out the young filmmakers and their ideas to revitalize Hollywood and they did after Ezy Rider.

As I stated, I think cinema history is necessary FOR ME, not necessarily anyone else. Some people watch movies and get NOTHING from them. Others can extrapolate a lot and use deductive reasoning to find something from it to use for themselves.

Funny coincidence. I just bought this book YESTERDAY --

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood by Peter Biskind (http://www.amazon.com/Riders-Raging-Bulls-Sex-Drugs-Rock/dp/0684857081/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203969522&sr=8-1)

Aww, what's wrong with knowing how things were done before you? I think old films are great and to me it is interesting how things were done with much much less than what we have today.

But what I like the most about old films, mainly pre-80's would probably say more about the screenwriters. Old films give you such a wonderful look at how things used to be and were portrayed. In old films you see what women were like and how they were treated and what they thought. The B&W film "The Women" comes to mind, a Norma Shearer film. They show what men were like, what kids were like and to me that is great fun, but I've always been an anthropology type of person anyway.

I recently saw two interesting films: "The Sweet Smell Of Success" and "A Face In The Crowd". When you are used to seeing happy endings to films, you forget that sometimes the writers had and interesting look at society that wasn't always so cheery. I find that I love that sort of thing. (Don't get me started on Tennessee Williams movies, we'll be here for weeks.) "Chinatown" is another. I think the way they handled 'touchy' subjects says alot about the dexterity of the writers.

As for "Easy Rider" type films, well it just goes to show that even in the 60's/70s they were looking at a different way to end a film. "Sometimes A Great Notion" and "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" also come to mind.

Well, that's just a couple of the things that I like about looking at old films. How they handle issues because at the time there were certainly things you couldn't say...

-- spinner :cool:

I'd be more interested in hearing from the people who DON'T think Cinema History is important to them. It's an equally valid point of view and I'd like to hear more about that perspective.

History is important no matter what field you go into.

I'd be more interested in hearing from the people who DON'T think Cinema History is important to them. It's an equally valid point of view and I'd like to hear more about that perspective.

...me, too...:hmm:

-- spinner :cool:

I put "moderately important"... mainly because I don't think it's important to actually break down and study older movies... (like, the shot-types, acting styles and reasons for the success of "gone with the wind" "Casablanca" or "the wizard of oz" probably wouldn't apply to today's "market"), but I do think it's important to EXPERIENCE them.

What kind of Director would Sam Raimi be without the influence 3 Stooges? Would the Evil Dead series have become such a big deal if there was no slapstick?
Where would Tarantino be without Kurosawa? Probably in a video store watching porn or something...

My point would be that movies are not only "entertainment", but art that reflects culture and time.... with what Spinner said in mind, I don't think you'll get much "movie-making" knowledge by popping in "Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein", but what you WILL gain is: influences, styles, inspiration, culture, ideas, knowledge, character, etc...

That's something called "life", which exists outside of movie-making. I know I'VE learned most things in life from electronic images on TV and in the cinemas- movies like "Jurassic Park", "The Lion King", "Monty Python's Holy Grail", "Donnie Darko", "Terminator 2", (to name a SCANT few), etc, SHAPED portions of my mind and left lasting impressions. Based on that, I'd say that MOVIES are a great way to gain LIFE EXPERIENCE, which in turn, makes you a better, more rounded writer/director/actor/human-being...

Breaking down scenes and shit like that will give you technical knowledge, sure, but you could get that same knowledge experimenting, or training with veterans, or reading, etc.... it's the FEELINGS and REACTIONS to films that allow us to grow as HUMANS (imagine- before movies, the only way to jump into a whole other person's skin was to READ! PAH! Reading, lol, so outdated...)... but if we concentrate on growing as HUMAN BEINGS and telling stories that inspire us... well, that's the process that creates NEW cultural influences for others and continues the cycle of creation.

Of course, that's not to say that there's NO knowledge to be gleaned from watching old flcks... of COURSE there is... screenplay structure and similarities... studying interesting characters and editing techniques... but when I watch movies, I'm not looking for J-cuts or Cross-fades.. I'm just absorbing the story and let it take me for a ride... and frankly, that's the best thing you can get out of movies. It's the difference between a text book and a book-book... the text book will feed your head with information, but really, who cares? The book-book will feed your mind with the same material that dreams are made of- Egyptian Cotton and monkey-flesh.

And that's scientific proof. I saw it in a movie. Look how smart I am.... WAAAAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHA

That's something called "life", which exists outside of movie-making. I know I'VE learned most things in life from electronic images on TV and in the cinemas- movies like "Jurassic Park", "The Lion King", "Monty Python's Holy Grail", "Donnie Darko", "Terminator 2", (to name a SCANT few), etc, SHAPED portions of my mind and left lasting impressions. Based on that, I'd say that MOVIES are a great way to gain LIFE EXPERIENCE, which in turn, makes you a better, more rounded writer/director/actor/human-being...

Oh! So, that's what's wrong with you! That explains alot! :D

Seriously, though, I do look at camera angles when I watch old movies. I look at the cinematography and see if I can not so much copy them, but get ideas of how to create something of my own...

-- spinner :cool:

I've always loved film history...even before I thought about getting into filmmaking on my own...and I seem to love it even more now...all aspects of it...if only for the information...though studying it and trying to apply it to what I'm trying to do makes it even more interesting.

The History of American Cinema is only one small part of the whole picture. The rest of it is the history of world cinema.

Hollywood has always paid a massive amount of attention to trends in world cinema, because looking for new talent outside of the studios didn't start in the 1960's, it's always happened.

Fritz Lang and Hitchcock were both established directors in their home countries before Hollywood bought them. There hasn't been any phase of Hollywood's history where they didn't cherry prick the best International talent: directors, cinematographers, actors.

On top of that, there are very few "trends" in Hollywood, in terms of directorial style or cinematic evolution which didn't start somewhere else in the world. The most successful American producers and directors have always paid "tribute" to the world of lesser known (in America) international film makers.

I guess what I'm saying is any director who isn't paying attention to cinema's history and also current international trends is definitely at a disadvantage.

I don't think anyone ever specified "American cinema history", as that would negate the influence of the French New Wave, Akira Kurasawa, and the UK's most influential players. Most newbie, camcorder microcinema "directors" don't know or care about this stuff, which is why I'm surprised more people haven't offered the opposite point of view.

Just curious who said "American Cinema History" only... Was this an issue for anyone?

I know no one specified "American Cinema History," but, as your post so eloquently demonstrated, in general American indies have very little knowledge of world cinema... except where it appears as a foot note of American Cinema. The two examples you give are both international directors who were influenced by and had a major influence on American cinema. Kurosawa was heavily influenced by John Ford (and vilified in Japan for doing so), Goddard was obsessed with American gangster movies. Both French "Nouvelle Vague" and Kurosawa's movies are also cited by dozens of American directors as being their primary influences.

Your point would have carried more weight if you'd talked about French "Cinema du Luc," Spanish "Blood Cinema" or even Italian Social Realism. The truth is each of those movements were driven by genuine indie film makers, often created with radical new technology... and more importantly created without reference to American Cinema.

And, on top of that there are the two strands of Indian film making, Bollywood and the Indian independents who favor social realism... and then there is African Film making, especially from the French speaking African nations. Did I mention Russian film making? Pretty difficult to talk about intelligently about cinema without having an in depth knowledge of Tarkovsky.

I know no one specified "American Cinema History," but, as your post so eloquently demonstrated, in general American indies have very little knowledge of world cinema....

Petty insults aside, the effect of the Russian movements on ALL of cinema in the realm of editing is hardly a footnote and relates to all cinema worldwide. Let's not discount German films from the silent era and it's effect overall on cinema history.

This is also a topic relating to ALL cinema, not just independents. If we want to break down into semantics of the history of each genre of cinema and every budget level, then cinema history may have different meanings and levels of interest.

Maybe most American's don't know about world cinema, but I don't really see how that relates to cinema history and whether or not people find it important to their own individual endeavors.

I try to take a look at many different kinds of films. I don't know much about Bollywood. I have seen a number of Asian films -- no not just the horror stuff. :lol: I was surprised to find that there are Asian actors that I recognize on sight, not that I can remember thier names with the exception of Gong Li -- she's really good in everything. I have on occasion suggested a film or two that I thought was at least cool in its stylized way. "Kontroll" being one of them. A Polish film, I think.

But I wonder....why do you suppose Americans have so little knowledge of world cinema?

One of my guesses is that sometimes when you have a film from a different culture, if you don't understand the culture, there are things you miss in the movie. I had to stop trying to figure out why certain things and attitudes were in Asian films because it was making me crazy. It took me a while to figure out that it appears that alot of Asian films take for granted the existance of ghosts and spirits. This seems to run throughout even the films that are not horror. There are societal things that rub Americans the wrong way, the appearance of unwarranted rudeness, a coarse handling of people who are different or not as affluent. This sort of thing pisses me off to look at and I would assume that considering the way Americans live, maybe I'm not the only one who finds it hard to watch. You can't sell subservience because of your "station in life" to an American audience.

I don't know if "Bend It Like Beckam" is Bollywood. I do know that the ONE Bollywood film I did see, I didn't like because of the spontaneous dancing. The kind of "beach party" stuff that NO ONE in the U.S. does anymore. It was just...strange. Okay, maybe that is what they like in Bollywood, I can respect that. I don't find it compelling (I'm sure that some people do)

My observation is also that alot of American fare is very linear. Many people said they couldn't follow "Pulp Fiction". I could just imagine those who couldn't, trying to follow Oxide Pang's "Tesseract". I liked that film, but I have no problem saying that it took me a couple of viewings to catch everything. People still want to be able to follow a storyline.

And in terms of foreign films, let's just face it. Americans speak english. Its hard enough to keep Art and Music classes in American schools let alone offering language classes. Many people just don't want to read a movie. Even if it is "Pan's Labryinth".

Plus, part of the problem is we aren't offered alot of things. "Pan's Labryinth" was in the theaters for maybe a week and that was the week after the Oscars. If people can't get to a film, exposure will be low and there is less exposure and therefore less knowledge about World Cinema.

People talk about what they are familiar with. Thank God for Art House Movie Theaters or we wouldn't have what we do get.

-- spinner :cool:

Spinner, you are right, for a person to be able to understand the other side of the culture, the viewer should at least understand the cultural background...

One thing that many Asian films failed miserably here in the US or any other western countries, is due to the subtle and the lack of cultural understanding and hence 'communication'. it's probably all due to how each one of us were raised.

for example, when you watch any era epic Asian flicks, like HERO, do you know that the soldiers or a person's society class ranking is easily being noticeable by the thickness of their shoe's sole? the thicker the sole is, the more 'notable' or high rised ranking they are... or how 'rich' they are...

Similarly to the film Dragons War, a disaster here in the US (bad review, no one understand, etc), but if you live in Korea, it's a blockbuster and everyone there - or the majority of people, loves it, because the film talks about Korean's mythology, which I happens to understand.

Similarly, a film like xmen and such in Asia, it is treated as thus the western culture is full of thinking they are better than anyone...

At the end, it's all boils down to understanding culture. So.. would world cinema history help? yes, but not mandatory, although but before that, I think one must first understand the culture.

Johnny Wu
www.mdifilm.com
www.rapturethemovie.com
PS: I really hate that pop-up crap...

Similarly, a film like xmen and such in Asia, it is treated as thus the western culture is full of thinking they are better than anyone...

At the end, it's all boils down to understanding culture. So.. would world cinema history help? yes, but not mandatory, although but before that, I think one must first understand the culture.

...see here is a good example of that.

When you say {X-Men} is treated as though western culture is full of thinking they are better than anyone: Does that mean: because the X-Men have "superior powers"? Because the reason why I liked the X-Men idea, is because of an underlying anti-racism attitude. The word 'mutant' has very few positive connotations and the characters are ostracized. I guess here the cultural line between 'superiority' and 'persecution' are pretty fuzzy.

No understanding of the culture leads to alot of misinterpretation....

-- spinner :cool:

...see here is a good example of that.

When you say {X-Men} is treated as though western culture is full of thinking they are better than anyone: Does that mean: because the X-Men have "superior powers"? Because the reason why I liked the X-Men idea, is because of an underlying anti-racism attitude. The word 'mutant' has very few positive connotations and the characters are ostracized. I guess here the cultural line between 'superiority' and 'persecution' are pretty fuzzy.

No understanding of the culture leads to alot of misinterpretation....

-- spinner :cool:


hey Spinner, I was meaning the x-men as a whole in movie wise, not as the insight if they have power or not, but in Asia, they would see it as t"hese is a western movies that trying to make themselves look more they are superior than anyone else", they wouldn't care about the plot or whatnot...

Recently I was involved in a production where we shot a manufacturing company, in a scene, we showed a bunch of motors... For the script, it's tryint to say that these motors were made, tested and used to make healthy machines for families... And that the thought was to help provide a healthier family environemnet... (saving you the whole detail of what this is about)...

Now, when this video was shown in Asia, the ONLY thing they see is that the showing of motors means that a lot of motors were made and that the company is making a lot of $.

Totally different from the original intention of these motors were shown.

So yeah, like I said, world history in cinema is good to know, but if you don't know the culture, it's useless.

IMHO anyone who doesn't think and study cinema history in some fashion won't ever ascend above the level of some guy/girl with a camera. If you want to make movies, you study movies in some fashion...even if you don't realize you're doing it. Whether it's catching some BHS featurette on HBO or on a DVD or watching their favorite actor or director give an interview on Letterman or Leno.

I guess what I'm saying is that you probably won't get many dissenting voices on this one.

On understanding world cinema:

I have to admit that I have very little understanding of the majority of it. I have seen a lot of influential foreign films -- the ones THEY tell you to watch, but I don't place it as a high priority. I'm not sure if I am right or wrong in doing so. But I think it's an important discussion.

IMHO anyone who doesn't think and study cinema history in some fashion isn't ever gonna ascend above the level of some guy/girl with a camera.

...you probably won't get many dissenting voices on this one.

Okay, well...here's one (with all due respect, Mr. Pink! ;) )

No artist is under any obligation to study the history of his/her craft, nor is it a requirement to do so in order to have an impact on the craft and on society.

I would venture a guess that the original Delta bluesmen of the United States did not have a familiarity with many different styles of music throughout history. Likewise, members of the 70s punk movement would also probably scoff at such a claim.

Peter Bogdanovich intently studied the work of the early film "masters," yet he was criticized ealry in his career for failing to infuse his films with any sense of originality -- rather he was noted as creating "copy-cat" film that mimic the looks/styles of specific former directors.

(just to stir the pot a little... ;) )

There is no history. There is no future. There is only right now. Thought that is transcribed into words or pictures or audio is a record of the "now" that was. The only reason we know of the past is through records, and the only reason we know of the future is because we know of the past.

In my opinion, true art in film is when some essence of the "now" is captured. Whether it be dramatic scene or concert clips or documentaries or news clips or comedic animation... if it invokes a memory which SURVIVES the moment of "now", then you've captured the past, in a way. Even if it's all fiction and performances, it's a real moment.

Now do you need to know of the past to understand the now? Not really... by knowing the past, you might look too far into the future and be unable to stay in the now! Then, suddenly now never happens and you become stuck in the past. So I say, to hell with it. I'm going to go get some tasty-ass burgers down at Licks.

Good to see no one's voted for the fourth one...

OK, the burger was REALLY tasty. Just wanted to let everyone know. MMMMM.

Both Spatula and Poke picked up on the point I was making... which is that film history doesn't really exist, except as a point of view or a cultural perspective.

Poke hit the nail on head when he says he's watched the international films that you're supposed to watch. Film history is the same... there are "significant" films and significant movements which some people believe make up film history.

So, for instance, when Sonnyboo talks about the Russian film industry's contribution to cinema being "editing technique" this stems from film historian's pre-occupation with "The Battleship Potemkin"... which is fine, but the work of Sergei Eisenstein is only one small fragment of Russian film production. Russian film makers are some of the world's greatest cinematographers... and until the fall of the Soviet Union Prague was where all the best people trained.

The same is true of French "Nouvelle Vague" and Kurosawa... people trot them out as significant aspects of film history... but at the same time other movements and the work of other writers and directors fade into obscurity. And yet, as I said earlier, Nouvelle Vague is much less interesting than Cinema du Luc... anyone who watches "Breathless" and then watches either "Diva" or "Subway" is going to realise that Goddard's film isn't anywhere near as interesting or enjoyable.

The original question in this thread was "how important is a study of film history to a film maker?"... My response to that is another questions "Whose version of film history?"

What bothers me is people believe that merely by watching a few German Expressionist, a handful of Nouvelle Vague, one Russian film made in 1905, a couple of UK films made in the 1960's, five Kurosawa films (Seven Samurai, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Gate of Rashomon and Ran) that they have a perspective both on cinema history and world cinema... when in fact all they've done is follow the paper trail set by a group of academics whose agenda is to put American cinema history into some kind of perspective.

As someone born and raised in the UK, my perspective on film history is different. Basically, after the second world war the Hollywood studios bought up almost every single cinema chain in Europe. Once they owned and controlled the distribution networks they systematically starved out all the major European studios and film producers.

Before the war the UK, France, Germany and Italy were all major film production centres. In the pre-war period it was Europe that was the major creative strong hold for film...and Hollywood was a parasite that lived off the talent produced there. Post war Hollywood was the only game in town... and the current dire state of film making is a result of that.

If indie film making means we have to operate outside of the studio system, then it should also give us the freedom to take our influences from outside of the conventional story of film history, which is exactly what some directors have done. Tarantino has built his entire career on a geeky obsession with Asian Cinema.

I'm currently taking A film history course, so I may be looking at the term history differently than it's being referenced here.

For me as a filmmaker, the historical context of the films and their relevance therin (this is the specific definition of film history in the field of film studies) isn't as important as exposure. I don't need to know Porter or Griffith to know that using editing to tell a story can greatly impact the emotions of an audience. I know from watching films that I generally have a stronger affinity for the connection to character that tighter framing gives without having to learn about the 1950's studio system and their rules of continuity editing.

I don't have to know the reasons behind the french new wave movement to know that I can't stand watching films from it.

That being said, as a film geek and a film student...I love knowing those things. I said moderately important as well.

When you see films like Mutual Appreciation and Funny Ha Ha then I see some unique film making. Although still struggling to decide if this is the beginning of a new genre or just ultra low budget student filmmaking.
I wonder if the Director Andrew Bujalski was reading up on his film history before he made these two films, or just decided to pick up a camera and film his friends....

Personally i believe that film history is important as if you don't know where you came from then how do you know where you are going? although i hate blatant copies / imitations. whats the point ?

Andy

When you see films like Mutual Appreciation and Funny Ha Ha then I see some unique film making. Although still struggling to decide if this is the beginning of a new genre or just ultra low budget student filmmaking.
I wonder if the Director Andrew Bujalski was reading up on his film history before he made these two films, or just decided to pick up a camera and film his friends....

Personally i believe that film history is important as if you don't know where you came from then how do you know where you are going? although i hate blatant copies / imitations. whats the point ?

Andy

Andy... eventually I'll manage to get over to you that this kind of "fake referral" marketing ALWAYS goes badly and creates a negative reputation for the person involved.

This is twice now... :no:

An interesting case of the Bette Davis classic "Dead Ringer" where a poor twin kills her rich twin and assumes her identity. This movie was shown on television about two weeks before a twin in California attempted to have her identical twin sister killed with the goal of assuming her life. A coincidence? When I heard the news story, I thought this person saw this movie (maybe for the first time) and maybe didn't realize the popularity of the the movie, the stars, etc. Perhaps, if she had been a little bit more into Cinema History, she may not be serving time in prison today. Cinema History has so many facets for study, including orginal stories that are being remade in some form or fashion.