my previous topic got rubbed off, but all i was basically asking was whether anyone had any points of view on the director and his female muse. Stanley Kubrick is of interest for me ... for example, all the explicit content in his films. does anyone have an opinion on the role of the director with the female? apparently john cleese said, the only reason he got into the business was to get women, but he still hasn't succeeded. Tarantino also said on the Johnathan Ross show in England that old directors fizzle out because they start to make limp d*ck movies. - i duuno if I agree with him, but there we go... it came from his mouth! oh well, he worships peckinpah after all, and we all know what he's like.

A director's muse should come from the universal energy of the cosmic dust...

A man's dong has a lot to do with filmmaking, yes, but there are limits to what a dong can do- you have to find the other part INSIDE you, because that's how the universe gets you- it gets you from the INSIDE - out.

How it gets in there, I don't know.

i understand what ur saying, but i'm doing my dissertation at the moment and i'm thinking about focusing on this relationship between the male director and women. So far it is obvious to say that women are attracted to directors... many actresses have fallen for their director... is it a power thing? and in turn many male directors seem to importalise, an almost lustful dipiction of women in many of their films, especially art house directors such as Lynch, Kubrick, Allen, the list goes on... the relationship is very interesting and obsessive, and it appears vital to some directors(...REFER TO MY 1ST MESSAGE). A successful screen writer once told me that a director enjoys 3 main things.... 1) projecting his vision onto the screen 2) the financial benefits (if obtained) 3) and the power... these are obviously very attractive qualities that no woman would refuse.

I have no idea what you're asking here. You want to know whether its wrong to use full frontal nudity or sex scenes in film?

IMO no of course not. Certain audiences want certain things out of the movies they view. There are many films that have done very well without sex scenes or nudity. If it is necessary to the film to tell the story then by all means use it (be careful not to cut yourself out of your desired rating though), but if it is for superficial appeal, then it is nothing more than a Hollywood gimmick. Throw some more T&A in there they say. Well I believe if you fell compelled to get sex scenes or full frontal nudity into your film BEFORE you even write the script your storytelling skills are not quite there. That said, having a love interest that heats up in a typical romance comedy, drama or other can make your story more interesting than a guy who happens to have a girlfriend but his main focus is on the cars he sells at work... or something else like that.

Getting into showbiz for fame and glamour and becoming rich is unrealistic and dangerous. Filmmaking is the same as choosing professional gambler as a career but with slightly better odds. Many more filmmakers go broke and are forced to work for minimum wage than those that make it in the industry. And simply becoming a success doesnt guarantee you social success, that comes from who you are and whats in your heart. Ask yourself, how many truly successful filmmakers can I name off the top of my head? How many filmmakers submit to Sundance in ONE year? Kind of scary when you put it in that perspective.

But is it possible? Yes, and thats all part of the allure of filmmaking. Ask yourself whether deepdown you have what it takes to become a filmmaker. Whether you have the commitment to hang in there for 10-15 years before you'll have success. Whether you can tell stories with motion pictures and understand the technicalities involved in doing so. Then pick up a pen and write a script. Plan it, cast it, crew it, shoot it, edit it and watch. Do you have what it takes to do that for the rest of your career? Does what you made show as much promise as you think it should? Can you make it better? If what you made looks good, yopur next one can be better and thus you are on the road to success in filmmaking. But again dont confuse this with success in personal life, the two are so radically exclusive that to misconceive such a thing would be devastating.

So far it is obvious to say that women are attracted to directors... many actresses have fallen for their director... is it a power thing? and in turn many male directors seem to importalise, an almost lustful dipiction of women in many of their films, especially art house directors such as Lynch, Kubrick, Allen, the list goes on... the relationship is very interesting and obsessive, and it appears vital to some directors(...REFER TO MY 1ST MESSAGE).

My problem with this line of thought is the assumptions.

1) All Male Directors are basically horny men with the power to control women.

Where does the women's power to control herself come into it? You act like the director commands an actress to remove her clothing, and so it is. But it doesn't work like that at all. A serious nude scene by an actress is usually a major decision for said actress. Look at Natalie Portman in Closer. After shooting a nude scene, she requested that it not be in the final cut, and Mike Nichols honored that request. Did he exert power over her? No, he allowed her to have the power over her own appearance in the film.

Do some male directors control their actresses? Sure. But I don't think it's the norm.

2) All Female's are only attracted to power.

Yes, many actresses have fallen for directors; but is that about power; or is it simply about two people meeting, spending time together, and falling in love?

Poke

im not really asking anything, just trying to understand.... from the evidence i have given and films i have watched there is ine thing that is common between most directors and that is this exploration of sexual tension... this therefore must play a role in the directors mind and why they first become directors. Peckinpah for example only cast beautiful girls, and had prostitutes hanging round set. The book easy riders, raging bull's says it all. It is almost like an obsession, and Tarantino's comment about old directors make rubbish when they start making limp d*ck movies intrigues me even more. I dont know what I am trying to find out, but there is definitely something here.... no?

poke you could be right. it may not all be about power, but actually falling in love. true true. i never knew that about mike nichols. interesting.

I agree with both of those points Poke.

I believe Ive seen far more males that are working at fast food joints that attract far prettier girls than random directors that have some supposed power. Its all in the personality (and looks) much more so than perceived social class.

Do girls sleep their way up the ladder sometimes? Absolutely, but that isnt what Id term social success. Actors fall in love and marry actors or directors or whatever... love knows no boundries.

And yes, I think a major portion of it must fall from how most actors and/or directors never really spend much quality time with other people because of their hectic schedules, so when they find themselves getting along with and chatting with someone they are even the slightest bit attracted to for weeks at a time all day long... that goes a long ways towards them potentially becoming a couple in the future or even on set!

anyway, any other points of view, i would find very interesting to read. thanks
p.s. POWER must be a very attractive to people, and very people for people who are considering becoming directors... i think. no?

power and woman seem to have a lot to do with this, and i think this is heavily reflected in their films and private lives!

maybe its nothing to be ashamed of.... if it produced thought provoking work....

For the rest of this discussion:

Let us be mindful that women are not play things. They are humans. We have many fine members that are female, and I'd be interested to hear their ideas on this subject. But let's not talk about the fairer sex as if they are objects and not equals.

Poke

VERY well said.

POWER must be a very attractive to people, and very people for people who are considering becoming directors... i think. no?

Not in my case. I am married and have no desire to ever display power in order to win the heart of an actress (or any other on set female, for that matter).

Some people are attracted to the power, yes. But I think the filmmakers we all respect and admire find so much more to it than having power. I personally feel that if you try to achieve anything solely for the purpose of gaining power, you will either fail or your achievement will pale in comparison to what it should have been.

Poke

Would an actress not see the brilliance in said director and realize the beauty inside his universal?
Horn dog directors end up making "meatball" movies. Brilliant directors make beauty.
I happen to find the female body to be one of the most beautiful things in the universe, but my girlfriend has flat out told me that nudity would not be an option for her. I have to respect that, because that is her choice... it really depends on the reasons for having nudity. It's a differnce between a breast being a horizon with a sunrise, and a flopping bountiful close-up during a sex-scene.
Sex IS a mysterious exploration, but too often it is misused. I admit... I am a "nympho". I'm a sex-crazed maniac, but that stems partly from my phallus, and partly from my desire to partake in the myserious act. If I were to put it on film, it would be from the part of me that desires to explore the mystery, not the phallus.
You have to keep your pecker under control!!! Use your mind; that's what women want... minds... they want minds...
Oh my god... women are here to steal minds... they are here to eat our brains... that's the secret!! They eat brains!

Of course, I am joking. You have to respect the ladies, because they are more than equals... they control our minds, and phalluses.

In the end, women and men want the same thing - LOVE. Sex is the happy side effect.

An actor or actress's decision to appear nude in a film (if the film is not Skinemax night fare, or porn) ultimately has little to do with sex. It's usually about the character and the story.

Of course, I am speaking about the serious actors and actresses.

Poke

Cameron Crowe wrote and directed an entire movie about his muse (Almost Famous). A muse is the unattainable that drives an artist to push himself in the effort to gain what he ultimately can't have. It's the elusiveness of inspiration.

Many artists/people have a person that serves as a muse -- the one that got away/the one that never was -- that helps drive them to prove themselves, to succeed.

Many artists/people have a person that serves as a muse -- the one that got away/the one that never was -- that helps drive them to prove themselves, to succeed.

I am assuming you mean that rarely does power over another have anything to do with the term "muse."

Poke

Also, sex doesn't really have anything to do with the relationship between an artist and his muse -- it infact oftentimes does not include it and may be ruined by it.

The artist probably will screw everything in sight while still being smitten by his muse -- kind of like Love in the Time of Cholera.

I am assuming you mean that rarely does power over another have anything to do with the term "muse."

Poke

Yes, and if there is power/control in play, it's that of the muse over the artist.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poke

I think that there are any number of serious flaws in your thesis.

Firstly, there is no evidence in either Kubrick's work or in critcal theory that suggests that Kubrick was a director who was fascinated by sexual tension. Eyes Wide Shut and Lolita dealt with sexual obssesion but where's the female muse in Dr Strangelove, 2001, The Shinning or Sparticus. Where does the Tony Curtis, Lawerence Olivier gay sex scene fit into your thesis? Kubrick is primarily known for his cold detachment and lack of communication with his actors.

The same applies to David Lynch, Lynch is more interested in the tension between how America sees itself and how it actually is. I've seen no critical readings that see him as sexually obssesed or a director who got into film making to "Get Girls."

Woody Allen is a sexually obessive director who has a often cast his current female partner as the lead in his films and visa versa, but it's the least interesting thing about him as a director. I mean here's a director who made a whole film based on Brecht (Shadows and Fog) and still managed to get international distribution. His work is complex and has many, many facets.

The relationship between director and actor is a complex one and the one thing I can guarantee is that it isn't about power. The relationship is about vunerability, trust and empathy. The primary tool a director uses in order to achieve this is listening. The director listens to the actor, not just when they are delivering lines but also in the process of forming the character, in between takes, over lunch and at the end of the day. Not only that, the director is the person who creates the safety for the actor to work, both physical and emotional. This level of emotional intimacy creates real and genuine friendships. My best freinds are usually people I've directed. These relationships are complex, deep and very, very real and at the same time has nothing at all to do with "getting my leg over."

Frankly I find the idea that "directors are powerful, women swoon at the feet of powerful men and therefore directors do this job to pull chicks" kind of insulting. Not just to women, but also to directors.

Directing films isn't a glamorous job. On set I work 18 hour days for three four weeks at a time, without a break. I've stood in freezing cold water in the middle of December at 3am in the morning just to complete a shoot. I've spent literally thousands of pounds suporting film projects, gone without new cars, holidays, to fund projects. This week I sold my house to pay off the debts on my last feature.

Film making isn't a game that boys play to get laid. It's a lifelong and frankly savage journey.

A muse is the unattainable that drives an artist to push himself in the effort to gain what he ultimately can't have. It's the elusiveness of inspiration..

that doesn't have to be about the opposite sex/power/sex at all.

No, in fact I don't think it has to do with power or sex at all. But sometimes (often?) a muse is manifest in someone of the opposite sex.

To me, a Muse is creative spark personified. It's human nature to project that compulsion (psych) onto something of beauty.

I have to agree with Clive....your premise that 'men become Directors to get women' is at the best, stereotypical, at worst, insulting. Besides, everyone knows men become ROCK STARS to get women :lol: :weird:

i'd say that you don't project it onto something of beauty, but rather that you make that thing beauty by the projection.

i would just like to say also that the point that you have made about 'directors directing to get girls' (which Clive and Bird talk of) is valid ONLY if you consider it from the POV that we discussed above - that 'the girl' is a manifestation of the muse - or the desire that pushes one to create - the very basis of directing. in my opinion, that is the only defense that can be made of that position, and save it from being considered insulting.

I think some directors do seek the power, not the artistic merit or satisfaction of filmming. I've heard many young, flashy, Hollywood directors talk about "scoring chicks." So I don't think Gavin's theory is entirely off. But I don't find the filmmakers he mentioned to be in that group.

Poke

But really, is this what directing has come to?
Is this what the world has come to?
Are we really just here for a quick lay, a spot of cash, commercial endorsements, pats on the back, recognition and eventually immortality through our egos?
I would like to think better of the world. Directors who embrace the above are hollow and... POOPY-HEADS!! It's not about that whole "image" thing. It's not about objectifying women and casting them to get down and dirty... Those are by-products of pop-culture, and I think, Gav, you need to turn off your TV, read a few books, watch a few "fringe" movies, and start looking at natural things. There is an insurmountable amount of beauty in life, and being a director is just one job where you are given the ability to capture some of that beauty and preserve it. It is a selfless act- not the preservation of oneself, but the preservation of what it is you are capturing.
If you score a chick on the side, it isn't the power, it's the beauty.

It is a selfless act- not the preservation of oneself, but the preservation of what it is you are capturing.
If you score a chick on the side, it isn't the power, it's the beauty

whilst i see that we have both revealed ourselves to be silly niave ideal-living concept-eating youths, i would like to just say that i think it is a selfish act. firstly - there are alot more altruistic things we could all do with our time. 2nd - you are, as a director, judged according to what you direct. the beauty people try to capture is an effort to make themselves part of the beautiful on the some level.
oh, damn - there i go eating concepts that are not even on the plate again......

Are we really just here for a quick lay

i'll see you in chat......
;)

whilst i see that we have both revealed ourselves to be silly niave ideal-living concept-eating youths, i would like to just say that i think it is a selfish act.

I see it as both a selfish and unselfish act. Pursuing inspiration is on a certain level a personal quest, often times replacing what one gets from personal relationships... it's giving of yourself to a mass of people instead of one or a few. And you're not actually interacting with those who you are giving to, so there's a sense of self-fullfillment involved.

Real intimacy can sometimes be elusive to artists/writers/directors because they put so much of themselves into their work... or something like that.

i would just like to say that i am a, mostly, selfish person - i didn't mean to suggest i am anything but that.

on 'giving of yourself to a mass of people instead of one'

a) i don't think its right to quantify the worth of acts of intimacy on how many people are touched. i don't even think you've done that. i don't even know why i put that down. nevermind

b) the base of your giving to people is your desire. if you (hypothetical you, not having a go at anyone at all) didn't want to make movies, then you wouldn't - irrelevant of what a mass of people wanted from you.

i would like to make a comment on the real intimacy point here because it touches on a very important issue to me - but you'll have to excuse me, i am swimming in deadlines tonigth - so i'll post some day soon

How selfish Zool!! Making us wait!!

I am also selfish and possesive of my projects... But in a way, it allows me to release them from my body and put them into the world, thus appeasing other people.
It boils down to this- If you see an old person hobbling along the street, and you stop to help them, there are two factors at play. One, is your desire to do some good for someone else. The other is to do some good for someone else to feel better about yourself and get praise.
To deny the latter is untrue- everyone is selfish... it's in our nature.
The best we can do is embrace that nature, and apply it as often as possible for the purposes of good. If you are doing good for a selfish reason, you are still doing good... as long as you don't abuse the rewards.

I don't choose to be a filmmaker because I want to reap the benifits, I choose it because it is what I want to do. THAT, in itself, is selfish, because like someone else said, there are many other altruistic things I could be doing... like volunteering at the hospital.
Unfortunately, I was not constructed to do altruistic things... that's why I'm not at an old folks home forging pottery and talking about the golden days. So the best I can do within my own interests, is promote others to do altruistic things... starting to get it?
Essentially, I can use my selfishness to promote SELFLESSNESS!!
Does it negate my selfish nature? No. It enforces it, because I'm being selfish in the process.
So what's the whole point here?
I don't know.
But I'd like to say that a director has a vision, and whatever that vision is, it's HIS vision.
If his vision is one of money, fame and women, then maybe he will get it... but it probably will never live up to his standards... most things never do... so REALLY, the point is, if you are going to direct to score chicks and cash, then maybe you will, maybe you won't.. but chances are, people will see your selfish nature as NOT helping others, and you will be just another leaf in the wind.
I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but hopefully SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE gleaned SOMETHING from this rant.

everyone is selfish... it's in our nature.

i try to think of human nature as a vault.
take a piece of paper, write on it two words


INSIDE OUTSIDE

now - this is human nature.
you can be anything.
now take the pen/pencil and draw a circle around inside. that circle is your conditioning.

i don't want to get too involved in Sartre and all that existentialism stuff but to believe that there is a human nature is to hold that something decides the Nature of humans for us. i like to think that our nature is what we do/don't do - and by that we are free.
it is 5:30am!!!

i don't want to get too involved in Sartre and all that existentialism stuff but to believe that there is a human nature is to hold that something decides the Nature of humans for us. i like to think that our nature is what we do/don't do - and by that we are free.
it is 5:30am!!!

The proof of nature is that in similar instances, people react similarly. The gushing river that is history literally repeats itself, because there are some people who cannot help but take the course of nature.
I believe there is a chosen path, but only the weak and ignorant can follow it.
There are people that will follow the course of the river, and there are people who will get out and sit on the shore, watching the bodies float downstream.
Fate is an option for people with no motivation to have responsibility for thier actions.
This would be an interesting discussion for a general forum... I am currently writing a script dealing with responsibility for one's actions, and the question of "are we other-directed?". I think I may start a thread soon.
We are of free will simply because we can see right and wrong and choose wrong. That's free will. The ability and choice to be morons.

LOL.
Gavin, you are a beautiful person for sparking a thread starting with sleazy directors, and leading to the latest theories on existentialism. I get the feeling your posts have more than meets the eye... almost as if you were collecting and amassing data...

Gavin, you are a beautiful person for sparking a thread starting with sleazy directors, and leading to the latest theories on existentialism. I get the feeling your posts have more than meets the eye... almost as if you were collecting and amassing data...

Spatula...you seem to be the sharpest person on this group so far ....

Gavin, not to sound too snarky, but I believe EVERYONE has figured out you're compiling research for some kind of thesis or behavioural study (esp. based on ALL your previous posts).

its ok Bird....me and D have got it sorted.....we've been plugging him a load of poop for three days now.... ;) yes - i managed to turn my apparent foolishness into hidden genius, pick that one out Gav

eh?

i don't want to get too involved in Sartre

Why not? We could even move on to Kant! Sounds like fun :D ;)

Kant never left his home town. That always reminds me of the George Harrison song... "the farther one travels, the less one knows."

I have been thinking more about relationships with women and directors, the idea of the muse and so fourth. I have realised that the attraction is not about power, well it is, but not all the time. It also, alot of the time is about women falling in love with the (directors) work, rather than the actual person... is this bad? what do u guys think? And don't start banging on about love grows in time, because it sometimes never does.... but anyway, then we are going to have to start defining love if we go down this path, and i dont care who u are because no one has been able to do that! I watched this Ken Russel film called Delius. A bio-pic about the classical composer Delius. I remember what he said.... "It is best to find a girl who loves you for your work".... and after seeing that film I have realised that ones work does not always reflect the personality of its creator.

Fantastic, if we're going down this route can we spend a little time looking at post modern critical theory?

There is no muse and no message. The director who attempts to talk through his or her work talks to no one but themselves because there is no content in the message. The language has no meaning only usages and the usages differ from curltural facet to cultural facet.

This is similar to ideas in zen where the person before you is not another individual but a mirror of yourself. In cultural terms the film you see is not the creation of the director but a mirror in which you see facets of yourself. This is not a retreat into subjectivism because the individual does not stand alone, but is merely a cell within the organism of the culture. The film therefore becomes the culture reflected back on itself.

So from Sartre we move to Derrida and Foucault, history is dead and so is literature.

To quote American existential poets the Beastie Boys "What you see is what you get and you ain't seen nothing yet"

woah - this is one huge explosion in my face! its all going off now.
i have an essay due in on the end of history referring Kant, Hegel, Marx and Fukuyama (due in 2 days ago) which I have not done yet, but just asked for more time to do it. My defence was in quoting Derrida. i said 'how can one be late to the end of history?'. they laughed in my face.

'history is dead, so is language'. - they are constantly alive as they are constantly in flux

'history is dead, so is language'. - they are constantly alive as they are constantly in flux

Ahh, the same thing in different words, that really is post modern.

"A history that is constantly in flux is no history at all, but the mythos of nationalism"

To quote American existential poets the Beastie Boys "What you see is what you get and you ain't seen nothing yet"

:lol:

Poke

Ahh, the same thing in different words, that really is post modern.

"A history that is constantly in flux is no history at all, but the mythos of nationalism"

its only shown to be mythos by the past failures of man to construct the world according to their histories. its only shown to be not history, by the past'

deconstruct that!

Where does Star Wars and Lucas fall into this?


....



What!? I was trying to at least make this somewhat interesting for us Americans.

Poke

Where does Star Wars and Lucas fall into this?



I don't know, but Kevin Smith posted a rave review of ROTS on his site. I don't like his movies, but I respect his opinion when it comes to "geek" films.

deconstruct that!
That - That which is that, the object of discussion, is a cultural artifact. It is also the English language's most powerful perjorative.

So, "I ask you to take this" a gift, a present, an offering is tranformed in "I ask you to take that" into the passing of a burden.

"Take That" the foot in the face, the insult, the bullet from 9mm delivered to the heart, the apotheosis of boy band culture.

So, "that" is the key to understanding cutlural objectification. If you can name turn them from "this" into "that" you can then do anything to them. "That that thing out of here."

This brings us back to the discussion that spawned this debate. Compare "I want that girl" to "I want this girl" the difference (Derrida) between possesion of object and adoration of equal. :hmm:

This is fun :lol:

megalothymia (object desire) and isothymia (desire for equal).

the 2 manifestations of thymos - the burning inside

this is fun - but i have a date with the end of history - and i have don't even know what to say yet.

on star wars -
if zen is true -
then Lucas is reflecting into himself in Star Wars, and this is not subjectivism because Lucas is simply one part of the dialectical nature of the organic ontology of society
than this leaves Star Wars

up our communal/universal bottom.i think.

megalothymia (object desire) and isothymia (desire for equal).


this is fun - but i have a date with the end of history - and i have don't even know what to say yet.

What's the rush? When else are you going to have a chance to put off the end of history?

megalothymia (object desire) and isothymia (desire for equal).

If only Stevie Wonder had used those fine, fine words in his song ebony and ivory. I'll sing it for you

"megalothymia and isothymia working together in perfect harmony, the notes on my piano keyboard etc. etc"

What an instant classic that would have been

you've still got it Clive, you've still got it!

And here's the T-Shirt

http://www.cafepress.com/filmutopia