MUMBLECORE!!!

Cracker Funk

Cracker Funk

You know, I've mentioned this topic on many occasion, in many different threads on this board. Not once, not once, has anybody responded in any way whatsoever.

I think this filmmaking movement is very much worth your attention. I'm not saying it's the way to go, but I think it is one legit option for how you might might make a movie.

Have any of you seen "The Puffy Chair"?! Fucking watch that movie, already! I'm tired of recommending it, with nobody responding.

God damn, will somebody at least acknowledge me? I'm trying to tell you something that I think is important; something that most people on this forum should at least consider. Will you at least let me know thay you're listening?
 
Im listening.

I think mumblecore is one way of making a movie but the percentage of good movies coming out of the method is going to be even lower than the percentage of good movies coming out of hollywood. and that is a loooow number.

So i think mumblecore would be more useful for experimenting than for serious filmaking, although one time we may be surprised by something made out of that method.
 
The trailer looks good. It looks like they have solid actors, solid sound design, and...other stuff.

The majority of (ie 95%) of mummblecore films stink to high heaven...they are unwatchable. Only rarely do you get something like Puffy Chair. I think you first have to know how to make a good movie with great production value, and then you can dial it down to mummblecore and make it work.

One thing that I'm not a huge fan of is the new 'improv' style of acting. Yes it makes your film look a little more natural because you don't have actors, so improv is a good way to hide that...but in the end, most of the improv is covered up with 'fuck' and filler words that get annoying in five minutes. Also, it's incredibly hard for the editor to work with improv mummblecore. Also, in the end, you don't have a talented writer behind the precise words that are said to provoke emotion and usher the story along. Even the best improv artist can't think-up the perfect thing to say all the time...that's why writers sit in rooms...in cabins...and think about the perfect way to say something while sounding natural. Some even go as far as counting syllables and beats...there's no way you can get that level of architecture from improv. Improv has it's place, dont' get me wrong...but this 'movement' does not excite me. I think it's...a little lazy actually.

So, I can rent this on NF?
 
Last edited:
Is UPS late again with the Canadian Meds?

You crack me up.

Oh, and for pete sake, I'm listening.

Cracker Funk said:
You know, I've mentioned this topic on many occasion, in many different threads on this board. Not once, not once, has anybody responded in any way whatsoever.

I think this filmmaking movement is very much worth your attention. I'm not saying it's the way to go, but I think it is one legit option for how you might might make a movie.

Have any of you seen "The Puffy Chair"?! Fucking watch that movie, already! I'm tired of recommending it, with nobody responding.

God damn, will somebody at least acknowledge me? I'm trying to tell you something that I think is important; something that most people on this forum should at least consider. Will you at least let me know thay you're listening?
Click to expand...
 
I am a fan of low budget filmmaking, and thus I find that people who break the aesthetic rules of studio-filmmaking make a step into the right direction; however the Dogme 95 movement (though mostly a publicity gag) did this already 15 years ago, preaching exactly the same thing, namely "naturalism"; I don't see a point in calling something a "movement" that aesthetically mimics another movement, especially when the "shaky camera" is also used in studio productions today.
 
bhikkhu said:
I am a fan of low budget filmmaking, and thus I find that people who break the aesthetic rules of studio-filmmaking make a step into the right direction; however the Dogme 95 movement (though mostly a publicity gag) did this already 15 years ago, preaching exactly the same thing, namely "naturalism".
Click to expand...

True.
 
I'm interested in good movies. Period.

I'm interested in good stories well told.

I don't care too much about genres or movements or subgenres or labels.

I think symbols are for the symbol minded.

Whatever movement a movie comes from is of little interest to me if the film is bad. And if its good, it seems to me this information would be more useful to a film historian than to a filmmaker.

Furthermore, I think the main problems with movements and scenes like Mumblecore or Dogme 95, et cetera, is that they lead to too much artistic inbreeding. The same thing happens with music. If ALL your influences are from the most recent 5 years, well...your palette is limited. Your choices are limited. Your solutions to storytelling problems are limited.
 
@ Cliche: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=mumblecore

@ Everyone else: I have never come across a Dogme'95 film that I would class as 'good'. As for Mumblecore, I've barely come across any of it, I like the idea and from what I've heard there are some very good Mumblecore films around, but in England they are rarer than a virgin in a maternity ward.

@ M1chae1: Have you watched a film called Rec??? Probably not, you have probably watched Quarantine (the vastly inferior American cock up... I mean re make). You have to put up with it being in Spanish with English subtitles, but trust me, it is worth it. A lot of the acting was semi improvised, and it was done extremely well. The actors were only given a brief outline of the script so the scares were more scary as they scared the actors as well. Plus, out side of The Blair Witch Project it is the best justification for hand held camera in any film I have come across *cough* Cloverfield *cough*... Don't get me wrong I liked Cloverfield, but the justification for the queasy cam was arse.
 
Last edited:
Yay, we're finally talking about mumblecore! Thanks for listening, guys.

Okay, here's what I like about mumblecore -- it bridges the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots. A movie like "Puffy Chair" proves that ANYBODY can do it.

I have about as basic a setup as anyone on this forum would want -- a T2i, a Rode NTG2 and a Zoom H4n (audio equipment borrowed). That's a really inexpensive setup. However, it's inexpensive to me, because I'm a professional bartender. It's inexpensive to the vast majority of the people on this forum, most of whom have full-time "day jobs".

It's not even slightly inexpensive to that snot-nosed kid in the inner-city, or that rural small-town, or that trailer park. That kid who loves watching movies and dreams of making them some day. But his dream is a pie in the sky, because he finds it ever so difficult to muster the money needed to get even this basic setup.

To that kid, I present "Puffy Chair". You don't need expensive equipment to tell a good story. All you need is a passion for filmmaking, a desire to learn the craft, a cheap camera, and a solid story.

"Puffy Chair" didn't have sound design, M1chea1. The entire thing was shot with a camcorder. That's it. No lights. No audio gear. No nothing. Just a dude with a camera. And now that dude is in Hollywood, working with professional crews and professional actors, getting paid professional dollars. And he started with a cheap camcorder.

Mumblecore offers an alternative. It seems to me that most indie filmmakers spend a heck of a lot of time working on their production values. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But that doesn't have to be the only way. Mumblecore is that other way. Anyone can make a feature, and if you really apply yourself, you can make something not just "watcheable", but solidly entertaining. "Puffy Chair" grossed $200,000 at the Box Office.

Yes, I know that the vast majority of mumblecore films are horrible. So what? The vast majority of indie films are horrible. Same difference. The fact that there is even one solid mumblecore movie is proof that it can be done, and I find that inspiring.
 
Oh, yeah. One other thing I forgot to mention -- somebody brought up Dogma 95.

Mumblecore is totally different. Dogma 95 is exactly what it sounds like - dogma. Proponents of that (thankfully) short-lived movement argued that their methods were how films should be made.

Mumblecore filmmakers, on the other hand, would probably all really like to have professional crews, professional equipment, etc., but are willing to make a movie with nothing but a camcorder, if that's all they've got. It's more of a yes-you-can mentality.
 
My problem: why does it need a name?

Isn't this the same thing that many of us have done since the dawn of cinema? You have a story to tell cinematically, you only have access to certain tools, so you somehow figure out how to solve the problem of telling your story with creativity and ingenuity. That's how I got started.

Why is it suddenly a "thing"?

Too much inbreeding. Someone who wants to make movies and who doesn't have access to large crews and equipment will look at this thing called Mumblecore and strive to copy it.

I'd rather have someone who wants to make a movie and doesn't have access to large crews and equipment figure out how to transcend that problem and just make their movie.

Without it being the latest thing.

"It wasn't a thing to do because it was a 'thing to do'; it was a thing to do because it got you high." -Willie Nelson
 
Uranium City said:
My problem: why does it need a name?

Isn't this the same thing that many of us have done since the dawn of cinema? You have a story to tell cinematically, you only have access to certain tools, so you somehow figure out how to solve the problem of telling your story with creativity and ingenuity. That's how I got started.

Why is it suddenly a "thing"?

Too much inbreeding. Someone who wants to make movies and who doesn't have access to large crews and equipment will look at this thing called Mumblecore and strive to copy it.

I'd rather have someone who wants to make a movie and doesn't have access to large crews and equipment figure out how to transcend that problem and just make their movie.

Without it being the latest thing.

"It wasn't a thing to do because it was a 'thing to do'; it was a thing to do because it got you high." -Willie Nelson
Click to expand...

The people who are doing it didn't give it a name. That's what film critics and others watching what they were doing dubbed it.

I can't tell you why it's suddenly a "thing". All I know is that, for whatever reason, a few people have decided to buck conventional logic, and just make a feature movie, without having access to all the stuff that most people think you need to make a feature.

You say you'd prefer that people find a way to trancend their problems, and just make their movie. Exactly! That's what mumblecore is all about. Just DO it!

P.S. I think yours and my mentalities are actually extremely similar -- we're kinda just debating semantics, in my opinion.
 
Cracker Funk said:
Oh, yeah. One other thing I forgot to mention -- somebody brought up Dogma 95.

Mumblecore is totally different. Dogma 95 is exactly what it sounds like - dogma. Proponents of that (thankfully) short-lived movement argued that their methods were how films should be made.

Mumblecore filmmakers, on the other hand, would probably all really like to have professional crews, professional equipment, etc., but are willing to make a movie with nothing but a camcorder, if that's all they've got. It's more of a yes-you-can mentality.
Click to expand...

Dogme was above all a marketing gag; advertisement for the involved directors. The idea that a film does not need more than a camera and actors is there in Dogme 95. In both "movements" however, the "look" is because of limitations, in the "mumblecore"-movement because of financial reasons, in Dogme 95 because of the set of rules they decided to conform to; they are not "totally different", it's only the motivation that's different.
 
Cracker Funk said:
"Puffy Chair" didn't have sound design, M1chea1. The entire thing was shot with a camcorder. That's it. No lights. No audio gear. No nothing. Just a dude with a camera. And now that dude is in Hollywood, working with professional crews and professional actors, getting paid professional dollars. And he started with a cheap camcorder.
Click to expand...

When I say 'sound design', I'm talking about audio levels and smoothing out the audio in general. I'm sure it had a lot of sound design in that respect, especially for being shot with an on-board mic as you say. It's going to require MORE sound design in regards to levels and quality control.
 
M1chae1 said:
When I say 'sound design', I'm talking about audio levels and smoothing out the audio in general. I'm sure it had a lot of sound design in that respect, especially for being shot with an on-board mic as you say. It's going to require MORE sound design in regards to levels and quality control.
Click to expand...

Oh, word.
 
Woah, no offense meant, I just found out about lmgtfy a couple of days ago and have been using it at every opportunity cos it kicks so much ass its feet smell of fart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top