I'm using the term to mean films which stand a realistic chance of earning more money than they cost to make.
That's good, because of course if someone makes a lower budget film then they need to earn less money than a big budget film to reach that goal.
But, these two statements are mutually exclusive! If a film is intended for screening in a movie theatre (to paying audiences) then it will need to have sound and to be economically viable it will need to have good sound. A movie theatre is a specially designed room which integrates a theatrical screen, a theatrical projector, a theatrical sound system and seating for an audience. If a film does not have sound designed for a theatrical sound system then the film is by definition not designed for a movie theatre!
I never said that film has to be intended for screening in a MODERN movie theater. Movie theaters in the 1890-1930's period were not even equipped with sound. Would you go as far as to say that the films made in that period are not cinema? Again, all my "definition" sets out to do is include cinema from its very earliest stages until the present cinema.
My advice/opinions are aimed at those making films today, not at already dead filmmakers who made films 100 years ago.
That's good but my definition only intended to include all of cinema. I guess then that we agree, because I agree that your opinions are fitting for the contemporary filmmaker. My only problems with it is that both theoretically and in practice when one includes all of cinema's history then your opinions are not ALWAYS true (and even I agree that there are very few exceptions to it).
My objection is to you separating what can't or shouldn't be separated. The artistry you are quoting only exists because of the technology. Without the camera, lighting and sound technology of it's day, Citizen Kane would be an utterly different film or wouldn't even exist. The "artistry" of filmmaking is in how the technology is used.
But I do believe that the "artistry" stands on its own, I think that's why people continue to watch older films that are exceptional. Of course the artistry is in how the technology is used but I am saying that that is what matters most in the end. You can take Citizen Kane and a mediocre film made in 1941, and a discerning audience can tell which one was better. Likewise you can take Citizen Kane even today and even though it is "obsolete" it is still considered one of the greatest films of all-time. My argument was only that it is how the technology is used that is more important than the technology itself. Now of course, I never meant that filmmakers today should go back to mixing in mono and filming in black and white film stock, all I mean is that filmmakers today should make most of what they have in order to create great art just like Orson Welles did, just like Akira Kurosawa did, just like any great filmmaker.
So as a generality, I would advise identifying those elements which do not pertain to your specific target demographic and study, learn from, use and/or adapt those filmmaking tricks which apply to all demographics. Blockbusters like Transformers have the budget to not only employ the most talented filmmaking personnel but to provide the equipment, facilities and time for them to express their talent. To dismiss, or worse, to fail to even recognise all this talent simply because certain (albeit important to us personally) elements of the film were not aimed at our specific demographic is IMHO, arrogant and narrow minded. As I said, I'm not a fan of Transformers personally but I sure recognised and learnt from many of the excellent filmmaking talents and skills it contained!
I agree with all of this! My only objection was to how you said before that you don't know any audience that seeks to be "bored" or "unengaged" by a film. Transformers as a specific example has nothing to do with that for every target audience. I think that ALL films have something to learn from, ESPECIALLY those that succeeded in reaching its target audience. With that opinion I think that there is much to learn from Michael Bay's films since they succeed in reaching his audience.
I won't dwell on the fact that you are arguing that film is a visual story telling medium and you were the one who brought up Citizen Kane in the first place! You now seem to be dismissing it as a representative example though, whereas I'm quite happy to stick with it. While most other films may not have the same degree of abstract visual art, the basic underlying principle in Citizen Kane (relative to most films prior to Citizen Kane), of the story, parts of the story or specific characters in the story being told primarily through sound rather than through visuals is not only common, it's pretty much a prerequisite of modern commercial filmmaking!! This is the reason why I said that in some respects Citizen Kane can be considered the first modern film
I agree with this when we talk in terms of "modern commercial film" and most "modern film" in general. I think we were just speaking in different terms. I was speaking about an inclusive "cinema" that includes every single film ever made. When we talk about "modern films" I definitely agree that sound is a key component, and even a necessary one in "modern commercial films." Theoretically of course these 'rules' can be broken but I don't believe they ever should be broken.
I really appreciate your knowledge of Sound Design and its importance to the history of film. Seriously thanks for all of the insight. Another great filmmaker who used sound was Akira Kurosawa who utilized counterpoint with Fumio Hayasaka's film scores, sometimes his music would 'contradict' his images in order to enhance emotion. He discovered this when he heard that his father died, he took a walk and heard cheerful music that made him feel even worse.
Another example is Howard Hawks with His Girl Friday and the way the dialogue was edited. That film would definitely not be great if it wasn't for the crazy dialogue and especially the way it was edited and timed.
There's probably only one filmmaker I knew who eschews a lot of sounds that I consider a master and his name is Tsai Ming-liang. However, it can be said that he also masterfully uses sound by eliminating music to enhance the alienation of his characters. That is actually my point of view.
Yasujiro Ozu, even though he was really minimalist with sound used music as a transition (along with his signature 'pillow' shots). And his sound films were very dialogue-driven even though they didn't experiment much with sound.
Recently I saw Une Femme Es Une Femme by Jean-Luc Godard which masterfully uses sound in an experimental way. It mimics a musical without even having singing and dancing and it is all because of the way the sound is edited (and the way the movements are 'choreographed').
Master filmmakers like Wong Kar-Wai and Martin Scorsese use music very effectively by often choosing pieces that already exist (usually from pop music) that fit the feeling/tone of their movies really well. I don't think Tarantino is a great filmmaker but he does this well too.
One of my favorite films
In The Mood For Love can bring me to tears with its mix of imagery and music. Although I think that both the images AND the music are great on their own, when put together they make some of the greatest cinema I have seen.
Even in 'silent' cinema I loved the way Charlie Chaplin used sound effects in his films, along with the music he composed for them. The Japanese silent filmmakers also made great use of benshi narration and original soundtracks when released. I am really saddened that these films have no recorded soundtracks or narration (in fact there are only a handful of benshi narrators around performing). In fact one of my life's goals is to record soundtracks with music and narration for these films, in order to provide cinephiles the authentic Japanese 'silent' cinematic experience.
Of course the Musical genre was born out of the use of sound in film. And I love musicals!
I really appreciate sound in cinema! If I didn't, I would turn off the sound while watching films and I've never done that LOL. I feel that the moving image and sound were almost made for each other, there is just so much that happens when they are done right together. I could write more specifically about it but I would have to write a LOT lol, and being an AudioPostExpert you probably know more about it than me!
Of course you and every other indie filmmaker are entirely free to make films however you want and to experiment with different techniques, working practises and methods of artistic expression. I think this type of experimentation and artistic innovation are of vital importance to the future of filmmaking but, I personally don't see anything particularly experimental, innovative or artistic about using an approach to filmmaking which was already an outdated cliche 60 years ago.
Experimentation is almost necessary to create great cinema for me. Quite simply, most contemporary commercial film does not seek to explore what film as a medium can do so I am really bored with it. I don't see why most commercial films even have to be films, they can just as easily be mediocre books or plays with the conventional way they are constructed. When the medium of Film (currently moving images AND sound) enhances the vision then I'm interested in the film. I agree that making films as purely moving images (in narrative films) is outdated, and working from that perspective ignores the other tools we have, and the other sense we are appealing to (since we work with both sight & sound). IMO the commercial method of working with film is doing little to advance the art, so I do not seek to work within its mode. There was a time when certain filmmakers transcended commercial film's limits, but I believe that today's mainstream audiences wouldn't support it. Of course, a great story told through the cinematic medium is always appealing, but I think it has been done before and better by the Old Hollywood masters.
You are of course also free to use a definition of film which is many decades out of date. But I believe if one attempts to apply that definition to one's filmmaking today, the chances of making a commercially viable film are pretty much zero.
My "definition" of film is not out of date, in fact it is one of the most universal "definitions" of cinema because unlike yours it includes the earliest cinema ever made all the way until the present. Will I apply that definition to my filmmaking? Of course not, because I am a filmmaker in the year 2014 and I feel that using all of the filmmaking tools I have available needed to bring my vision to life must be used. I was speaking in more theoretical terms than you were, and I think that as a film viewer my "definition" still stands. When one is to make a film of course one must think of what should be done with today's filmmaking tools.
I think we agree on a lot of things really, maybe even everything really LOL just because we were kind of speaking about two different things (theory and current practice). I don't quite appreciate that you said that I don't "love cinema as its own artform" because I think that I do (more than most people) but I understand where you're coming from. I also don't appreciate some of your views on older cinema or arthouse cinema, at least some of the implications made with your comments. But I learned a lot from you really, and just so you know I do aim to make films with great use of sound. I'm no expert on sound design but I really look forward to working with a sound designer and a composer to achieve an excellent aural quality that fits my visuals, not even "fits my visuals" describes this process really. I want to build films around the "audio" sometimes. I think a vision for a movie can arise from an idea, a story, a visual, a sound, music or anything. Its necessary to make sure that every element works together perfectly to bring that vision to life, in order to make a great film.
