What Is It That Makes Great Film-Makers So Great?
by Matthew E Carter
Do you have to be a film buff to be a great film-maker?
I think the better question is “What does a film buff have, that
an average enthusiast doesn’t?”
Having an awareness of a crafts history would have obvious
benefits; surely the best way of understanding techniques is to
understand why they were used in the first place?
When biologists research into the evolutionary history of the
natural world, they try to understand an organism by exploring
how it reached its status in the first place. Cinema is similar
to natural selection in regards to its gradual trial and error
development, methods that worked, continued and the ones that did
not fell into extinction. Despite this over simplification, what
must be taken from this is the idea that to gain a better
understanding you must have some knowledge of experiments of the
past.
I feel the reason most dialogue sequences in films use the over
the shoulder shot, is a result of film-makers conforming to a
convention. It is not about the effect it creates, but a way of
adhering to a consensus. Can film be fully utilised and develop
if film-makers are not aware of the effects of their own
techniques?
Film-makers like Ozu, Godard, Lubitch, Parajanov, Tarkovsky,
Bergman, and Jancs, all use(d) diverse ranges of dialogue
techniques that have numerous effects. With all this variation,
it seems artistically counter-productive to comprehend why so
many filmmakers solely use the over shoulder shot.
However, It would be naive to dismiss natural talent and
creativity has nothing to do with becoming a great filmmaker, but
why do a majority of auteurs have an incredible knowledge of the
cinema?
To further this enquiry, we must not overlook one key question
“Are there any great auteurs that do not have film buff
knowledge?”
The answer is yes and one of the most famous is modern master
Terence Malick. It is a notorious fact that one of Malick’s
favourite films is “Zoolander (Stiller, 2001)”, for a filmmaker
that has made a career out of exploring the philosophical core of
his characters, it seems like an unlikely choice.
Nevertheless, when you look at Malick’s films it actually makes
sense. His love for nature, German/French philosophy, classical
music and astronomy, shows that his passions have a greater
influence on his filmmaking than cinema itself.
The fact a life passion can be just as effective as an
encyclopaedic cinematic understanding, really makes the original
question void.
Of course good knowledge will always provide a solid foundation
for a film-makers work, but without a creative sensibility the
film will always be impotent of visionary value.
Copyright (c) 2014 Peter D. Marshall / All Rights Reserved
Recent Comments