Monday, October 31, 2005

Message movies

Article from World Magazine:

Message movies
Images tell a story, but it takes words to tell the story | by Gene Edward Veith

Chariots of Fire is a powerful tribute to a Christian athlete who refuses to run on the Sabbath. Tender Mercies is about a washed-up country music singer who comes to faith.

Other movies are packed with Christian content: O, Brother, Where Art Thou? hinges on the death and rebirth of baptism and is punctuated throughout with lovely gospel music. The Matrix movies constitute a parable of incarnation. The Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking, Hoosiers, The Apostle, The Mission, Amistad—all have explicit Christian themes and references.

All of these movies effectively express Christianity. Yet none were made by Christians. Thom Parham makes that point in his chapter "Why Do Heathens Make the Best Christian Films?" in Behind the Screen: Hollywood Insiders on Faith, Film, and Culture (Baker). By contrast, Mr. Parham observes, Christian-made movies intentionally designed to convey a Christian message tend to be preachy, of poor quality, and box-office bombs.

One reason he offers is that Christians tend to be preoccupied with sending a message. And visual art just cannot communicate overt messages effectively.

Instead, he says, film works metaphorically. Language can communicate with clear propositions, but film communicates instead with symbols. Visual media are suggestive rather than clear-cut. Movies are not good at logical explanations; rather, they provoke emotions and evoke mysteries.

In her chapter "What Kind of Stories Should We Tell?" Linda Seger, a Christian who is considered the creator of the job of script consultant (whose craft is to doctor scripts that do not quite work), concurs. "Film works on a subtextual level," she explains. It has to work by suggesting, not telling. Thus, by film's very nature, any overt message will tend to be unclear and somewhat beyond the filmmaker's control.

This also means that sometimes the imagery will end up communicating something very different from what the creators intended. Ms. Seger points out that Christian filmmakers may actually—unintentionally— express non-Christian ideas. An example would be when the characters are so morally pure that they do not need salvation, a moralism that is humanistic rather than evangelical. This also accounts for what Mr. Parham cites, a non-Christian just telling a good story and inadvertently expressing the Christian faith.

Certainly Christians can—and have—created good movies that effectively convey Christian ideas. That is evident from Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. But what carries the message is a good story. And the message is indirect, inherent in the film's emotional impact.

While The Passion of the Christ is certainly a message film, it shows the story of Christ's suffering and death, rather than explaining it, going so far as to eliminate language altogether (except for the subtitles) in using a script in Aramaic. Because of its overwhelming visual imagery, Mr. Gibson's movie is much more powerful and evocative than, say, The Greatest Story Ever Told. And yet, as Ms. Seger might have predicted, The Passion did provoke wildly different reactions.

Christian moments in film—the depiction of the kingdom of heaven in Babette's Feast; the hint of resurrection at the end of Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal—are priceless, whether or not they were made by Christians. Since the biblical worldview is so much bigger, richer, and truer than narrow little human ideologies, no one should be surprised when non-Christian storytellers express something that corresponds with God's created reality.

But the incapacity of visual imagery to convey specific meaning effectively demonstrates why God chose to reveal Himself not by means of a tangible image—as with the pagan deities, with their mystical and emotional appeal—but with the Word. To know God, you have to read the Book.

Review from the cloud ten forum

This is from the cloud ten pictures forum about "World at War". This is what die hard fans are saying...

There was an interesting article in World Magazine just a couple of weeks ago that talked about almost this very same thing. That Christians need to do a better job making movies if they expect to be taken seriously as entertainers. This is something I have been speaking out on for years. Yes, the main purpose is getting the message of Christ out. But no one will hear your message if no one is willing to pay attention. Hence the reason why I did concentrate on special effects, entertaining, lines, etc, etc, etc. Because that is part of what makes good filmmaking. And that is what we were watching. A film, designed not just to preach Christ, but to hopefully be entertaining while doing it.

Theres more...read it here
This is what someone responded to this guy:

"Personally I thought it was entertaining but why are we looking at special effects, entertaining, lines not good etc etc etc etc.
THE MAIN PURPOSE WAS THE SALVATION MESSAGE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS AWESOME."

More Cheese from Cloud Ten Pictures

From the Cheese factory that brought you "Revelation" and "Left Behind" comes two new films.... "Waterproof" starring Burt Reynolds??? and "The Second Chance" with Micheal W Smith? What the crap? WHAT THE CRAP!! okay who gave cloud ten pictures money?

Left Behind: World At War

I just finished watching "Left Behind: World at War." where do we begin? I am speechless. I should begin with the positives I suppose. The film is the best of the three. That's it. now for the negatives. This film was more of a TV drama. Not a feature film. Its a talking movie. Its just a bunch of scenes with people talking.

The visual FX were TERRIBLE! Fake fake fake.

There was no real sense of war. No real sense of anything. The whole movie was small, and bland. Did I mention the sub-par FX?

The story though was the worst part of the film. How did this story become a best selling book? Its boring, contrived and biblically inaccurate. Where in the Bible does it say that the antichrist cannot be killed? Then again where does it say in the Bible that the antichrist is Darth Vader? Yes you read that right. Remmember the scene from the first Star Wars where Vader chokes someone and lifts them up in the air without touching them? Well apperently according to Left Behind the antichrist will have Darth Vader's powers. I cant beleive someone actually thought it would be cool to do this? The worst part is that it didnt make the antichrist seem evil, he just seemed like a cliche.

This film was the highest budget Christian mistake. It suffered from creativity anarexia and should and will be ignored almost as quickly as it has premiered . Did I mention the terrible FX?

Demo Reels of famous commercial directors


rsafilms.com check out the demo reels guaranteed you've seen most of these commercials.

TRANSEXUAL FILM


WHAT THE CRAP?! A TRANSEXUAL MOVIE? This is gonna be bad. Here is the plot summary from apple:

Stanley is a perfectly adjusted, conservative trans-sexual who’s about to take the final step to becoming Bree, the woman he always wanted to be - until he finds out that he is the parent of a long-lost 17 year old son. Afraid to tell the rebellious teen-ager the truth, he embarks on a journey with him that will challenge and change both their lives while bringing them closer to the truth of their connection.

Monday, October 24, 2005

MTV on Music Video Directors


Very interesting article on music video directors. It appears that many filmmakers have delved in the music video world, or vice versa.
Heres an excerpt about Mark Romanek:

"I think I really torture people," Romanek said. "It's my job to be the prick that keeps pushing them and they get mad at me sometimes, but this is the only time we're going to capture this moment. You rest later; this is forever on film, and when they see the finished video I think they understand." On torturing Reznor on the dirty and depraved set of "Closer": "He was a willing victim."

Romanek has placed Five hundred calls to the LAPD re: the monstrous fireworks in Audioslaves's "Cochise" video; clipping Beck with a car with faulty brakes and injuring his knee during a "Midnight Cowboy" take on the "I'm walkin' here!" scene in "Devil's Haircut"; inducing Trent Reznor to puke on the set of the "Closer" video due to the smell of rotten meat and having Reznor spinning upside down for too long; and almost prompting the Red Hot Chili Peppers' sensitive John Frusciante to flee the set because of his obstreperous, forceful orders.

This is great stuff check it out.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Good-Bye BMW Films

The series of the the greatest short films ever made on the entire planet is no longer available as of Oct 21. A moment of silence must be observed. The BMW films are by far the coolest short films ever made. Don't mean to get to saccharine. Anyways I would say check it out if you can, but you no longer can. Good-Bye BMW films! We are not worthy!

Friday, October 21, 2005

Cool Sound Design Site

Box office info site

Box office info site its interesting how much money movies actually make. The number of theatres is the obvious credit for high number of sells.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Good article on Speilberg vs Lucas

Really good article
Here is a quote:

Spielberg talking... THX 1138, he said, made him "jealous to the marrow of my bones. I was 18 years old and had directed 15 short films by that time, and this little movie was better than all of my movies combined." Lucas, for his part, had seen Spielberg's short film Amblin' when it was presented at USC and thought it "saccharine." The 20-year-old Lucas ignored his new fan until 1971, when he caught a screening of Spielberg's TV movie Duel at Francis Ford Coppola's house: "Since I'd met Steven, I was curious about the movie and thought I'd sneak upstairs and catch 10 or 15 minutes. Once I started watching I couldn't tear myself away. ... I thought, This guy is really sharp. I've got to get to know him better."

Famous Filmmakers Comparison

I was curious about how many movies it took filmmakers to make it big, and how old they were when they did so. I was also interested in seeing what kind of stuff they made before they made it big.

Francis Ford Coppolla
He made 8 films before Godfather, his first film was a re-edit of a russian movie. The 2nd,3rd,6th were nudie movies, He was 33 when he made Godfather

These are his first nine films:

9 The Godfather (1972)
8 The Rain People (1969)
7 Finian's Rainbow (1968)
6 You're a Big Boy Now (1966)
5 Dementia 13 (1963) (as Francis Coppola)
4 The Terror (1963) (uncredited)
3 Tonight for Sure (1962)
2 The Playgirls and the Bellboy (1962)
1 Nebo zovyot (1960)

Rainmmaker was his 37th film


Spielberg was 29yrs old when he made jaws
31 when he made close encounters
35 raiders
36 ET
War of the worlds was his 44th movie


Micheal Bay was 30 when he made Bad Boys


Scorsese made 7 movies before Mean Streets (his first hit) he was 31
Taxi driver he was 34
Raging bull he was 38!

The aviator was his 38th film

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Predictions of the Future of Filmmaking

Haven’t written in a while hoping to make time to blog more!

So here begin my baseless predictions of the future of filmmaking.

I think that action films with fighting will progress to a more realistic representation of fighting. What I mean by that is that after watching fighting in film progress, I see it as being very fake looking. It’s nowhere close to being realistic. I think that fighting will become more hard, more realistic, and less stage-y. I know what you’re thinking, I don’t see anything wrong with the fighting in movies. Let me tell you I think that in the future we will look back and think, oh remember when everyone knew kung fu? And look at how they punch, fight, etc. it looks so fake! I've closely observed real fighting, and have come to the conclusion that real fighting is viler, much harder, and a lot less forgiving. That’s the best I can do to explain it.

Second I think that maybe we will begin to see more movies that are really short films, like seeing three movies instead of one. Granted this has already been done by Sin City, but I think maybe a fad will arise where this happens more. The traditional 120-minute movie though will still be around.

A new genre will be created, or an old one will resurface. Maybe its westerns? Don’t know. If I knew what it was I would be rich. If you think this is crazy consider the fact that the action movie didn’t rear its head till the 80’s. Likewise I think something new will emerge. Hopefully it isn’t musicals. I have my own ideas about what it could be, but I'm not going to reveal those.

A major movie will be made dealing with the gods of Grecian times, it’s too good to not do it. This may be the new genre, “god” type movies, where people become gods etc.

Women will begin to be portrayed a little heavier, not a lot just a little more than right now. I believe that we are getting close to being fed up with women being too skinny.

Digital, and HD will take over, but everyone knows that.

Sex and nudity will become more acceptable, and it will be hard to go watch a movie without having a porn scene in it.

Occultist movies will be another sub genre. They will be very popular too. And they will be unforgivingly occultist.

Homosexuality will become more mainstream, and having a sex scene with gay lovers will be more common. Ewww.

The old filmmaster will be systematically replaced for newer ones, with fewer morals.

Movies may become sloppier, with the ease of making more, less time will be spent on them.