quote:

go for some ****ty-ass cheap camera, it will force you to make a better film

I like, totally agree with you. I'm making a 90-minute flip book that I'm going to set up as a giant stack of post-its, then skydive from space next to it every time I want to watch it.

quote:

I care about a lot more than the presentation and visual quality of a film, but I will say that I am less likely to watch a film that looks like crap, because to me it's less enjoyable and also tells me that the filmmaker doesn't care about how he presents his work, which is a problem to me. "Filmmakers" with that kind of mentality should be working in a non-visual medium, like writing. Anyone who doesn't care about the visual quality of their work like that has no business with a camera.

I'm not saying that a good film cannot also be visually stimulating (though I will admit to liking few films that are like this), but I feel that if we as filmmakers simply select a target, or supply a demand, no new ideas or concepts will come out. I've always compared film more to the theatre, or what you see on broadway rather than actual photography. The benefit of film or course is that it's immortal. In making a film it's easier to stop and think things over, to ask questions. Try stopping right at the end of Romeo and Juliet in some live play and convince everyone that the two lovers should live this time just to see what happens, I don't think they'll go for it. I don't think it matters where you sit in the theatre either. Do you really need a front and centre view to enjoy the play? This is the same in film. I feel this way because I fell into the trap at film school, along with everyone else of thinking that better equipment, cameras, lighting would magically make our work better. But the problem was that we spent half as much time on the substance of the film and twice as much on the style. I saw actors in the middle of their performances get cut in the middle of a line because we didn't need them from that angle. There were far more better performances from the actrs simply reading over their lines in between lighting, because they weren't acting by the wip. When I make a film, if I **** up a shot (which happens most of the time) but the performance is right, I wouldn't dare ask the actor to do it again, it would just be too big of an insult to say, "I fuct up, now you have to pay for it." If my film suffers because some people don't want to look at anything that's not "pretty" than I guess that's too bad for me, but at what cost do sacrifice what your film is about? And as far as choosing a non visual medium instead, their are far too many illiterate people who I think may be interested in what I think for me to change my methods.

quote:

HDK said:
...their [sic] are far too many illiterate people who I think may be interested in what I think...

The literacy rate in the U.S. is 97 percent. Where do you live and where do you distribute your films?

quote:

...I fell into the trap at film school, along with everyone else of thinking that better equipment, cameras, lighting would magically make our work better. But the problem was that we spent half as much time on the substance of the film and twice as much on the style.

It sounds like instead of learning from your mistakes, then, you've reverted back to the most primitive methods you know - back to your "angry brains of infancy," you might say. It seems you could find a compromise and make a film well-rounded, instead of shunning all asthetics in favor of pure substance.

And anyway, if you're afraid of alienating the illiterate, shouldn't you also be concerned about alienating those who prefer professionally-made films? If Joe Froe who can read a book doesn't like the way your movie looks, what are the odds that Joe Bloe who can't read a book will like the way your movie looks? Just a thought...

Dam Dirty Apes!

quote:

And anyway, if you're afraid of alienating the illiterate, shouldn't you also be concerned about alienating those who prefer professionally-made films? If Joe Froe who can read a book doesn't like the way your movie looks, what are the odds that Joe Bloe who can't read a book will like the way your movie looks? Just a thought...

It was obviously a sarcastic comment made to a stupid suggestion.

Hill Dawson, it doesn't sound like film is the right medium for you.