Technology and story-telling

[dvazp]

I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers.

I find it very shocking and very sad. You have all heard this before, but technology is not the most important thing to making a great movie. The most important thing is having something to say. I recently saw an amazing film directed by 19-year old Ryo Nakajima which was made on a budget of about $10000 and which has been winning awards at film festivals around the world. That budget is for everything from actors to props to equipment. It's less than what most of us would spend on a camera/edit suite combination.

My advice would be: if you really want to make films don't spend thousands of dollars on equipment promising to make you the next Spielberg or Scorsese. Think about what you've got to say, develop a story and work around your limitations. You don't need an expensive camera or a professional editing suite. You need creativity and a story, and if you don't have that no technology can help you.

Btw, go to the film's webiste at http://peijafilm.nightfall.jp/ You can contact the director and he'll send you a copy of the film.

[Richard Lackey]

I've got a great directing book sitting on a shelf that I picked up last night that I haven't read for six years. It's called "Directing, Film Techniques and Aesthetics" by Michael Rabiger. I started reading through it, and within the first few pages it said exactly what you have just pointed out. I think it's a very important point.

Too much excitement about the tools, but perhaps not enough excitement about good storytelling.

This is however a technical forum not a filmmaking or scriptwriting forum, but that said, I was thinking that the Red and Scarlet could potentially result in a lot more really bad indy films, only shot in 4K, and a lot more disillusioned would be filmmakers wondering why the camera hasn't propelled them to superstardom.

A camera is a camera, doesn't matter what it is, who made it, what it shoots. If the story isn't there, the best camera (and even the best cinematography for that matter) won't make a shred of difference.

There have been a number of these discussions on Reduser before I think, not sure that they ever get anywhere.

To be fair though, I think there are a large number of seasoned professionals who are loving this camera and telling great stories, they just tend not to be so vocal on Reduser... they are too busy making movies.

[P Andersson]

the trailer of the film he mentioned was interesting to watch

http://peijafilm.nightfall.jp/e_trai..._21Lg_Prog.mov

[wardovision]

why be so concerned about it? If the stories are weak then no one will see the film. Doesn't mean they can't have an excellent piece of equipment. I find it odd that the 'Scarlet needs to be more' camp keeps going back to this. Like they're the only ones able to grasp the concept but the same principle applies to million dollar budgets.. IF anything that film is an excellent example of the other side of the fence. Just imagine what less fortunate gifted individuals will now be capable of. Finally those with vision have a quality product they can afford to deliver that vision.

Actually the more I think about it I believe some people might feel threatened with what Scarlet brings to the table. Scarlet is ground breaking and sure to bring a lot of hidden talent out of the woodworks possibly costing others a paycheck.

[rarthur]

Not to mention that fact that the people not making great films, but still buying the equipment are what make the equipment available in the first place! Manufacturers are not going to make only 325 cameras for those who are really going to tell a great story. If EVERYONE was making great movies on incredibly accessible equipment, it would make it that much harder for the so-called gifted filmakers to get attention (as I'm assuming you consider yourself). "Good" is incredibly subjective anyway. I think you're under the assumption that all the people of whom you speak have aspirations of a major theatrical release. There may be some guy in Terra Haute who's church production makes his congregation think it looks like a "Hollywood Movie" and that's what he's looking for. Let's also not forget that your first story is never going to be your best. I'm sure even you made a few horrible films when you were first starting out. Are we only allowed to shoot those stories on a Bolex?

[Andrew Madu]

I'm a little bit concerned because it seems there are a lot people on this forum who do not make a living from film/tv production and yet are willing to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on technology they think will make them into great filmmakers.

How can what another decides they wish their vocation to be, and in whatever direction they wish to pursue it, effect the quality of your own life experience?

I find it very shocking and very sad.

May I recommend a book for you to read, 'A New Earth: Awakening to your life's purpose' by Eckhart Tolle.

My advice would be:

Everything is exactly as it is meant to be at precisely this very moment.

Some will buy cameras, some will not. Some will go to film school, some will not. Some will become directors, some will not. Some will have fun, some will not. Some will...ad infinitum!

[WesVasher]

Thank you Dukeswharf!

This is like going on a BMW forum and telling everyone they should be driving a Ford Taurus because they aren't professional drivers. Uggg.

The topic of a high quality camera not improving your storytelling has been absolutely beaten to death here ever since the Red was born.

[Yannick Hagman]

That's seems to be a very good piece, I will see if I can visit this film somewhere. However, Arthouse is not the only form of film. Of course storytelling is highly important and there's a lot of only stylish-looking contentless rubbish especially if you look at music videos out there. But who cares? You always will stand out if you have something to say. Because soon everyone can make good looking images.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Democratization always bring up lots of junk.

Of course everybody will buy a Scarlet and shoot palm trees put some music and call themselves directors.

It's up to who really want to make films to study, and plan, and dedicate themselves to something they believe to come up with a great film.

I could only buy an FX7 and I will make the best films I can with it till Scarlet comes out or till I have the money for Scarlet (whatever comes first).

If you're a really dedicated professional It doesn't matter if you have a BMW or a Ford, you'll make it happen.

[Matthew Bennett]

My personal list in what needs to be in a film to make it 'great'

1. Perfect direction/storytelling
2. Perfect acting
3. Technically flawless sound recording

I think if any of these three elements are not present in the film then it has no chance of being great. I also think that if these elements are all present and perfect, then you can conceivably have poor lighting, shots, etc, and the effect of the story will still be the same.
Now, if you have good directing/storytelling, then the shots will have to at least be clear and concise insomuch as what they are presenting is 'well told', ie the right angles, movement to tell the story. But they don't necessarily have to be well lit, or hi-res.

That said, I also have the greatest respect for cinematography, and believe that the DP should truly 'be at one' with his machine. There is never a downside to being obsessed with technical issues. Just as long as you remember the first three things that have to be delivered in a 'great' movie, then everything else will be fine, its all just levels of excellence after that.

my .02