There are four kinds of filmmakers, whether your field be narrative, documentary, or animation. There is the arthouse auteur, folks like David Lynch or Jim Jarmusch who make films purely for artistic purposes. Then, there is the classic auteur, the Martin Scorsese's of the film world, who make films first and foremost for artistic reasons, and their films tend to be very prestigious and occasionally make a profit due to things like Oscars and such. Then, there is the respectable studio director, the Steven Spielberg's of the industry who make films primarily for entertainment, and rarely think of their work as art, but they still hone their craft to the height of their abilities to maximize entertainment value for the audience. And finally, there is the studio slave, the drones of the studios who make films that have no real personification to them and are made for entertainment only, these directors often just do what the studios pay them to do for some fortune and glory and that's it.
I've been in a big think tank this whole Summer since I finished my last film back in late April. I was not satisfied with my last film, and I knew it deep down all along making it. To be honest I've never been fully satisfied with any film I've done, but this was the worst. I knew I had to figure out the question as to what kind of filmmaker I needed to be.
I knew I never wanted to be a studio slave, I love movies too much for that, and I never wanted to be an arthouse director, so that left me flip-flopping between the classic auteur and the respectable studio director. I once thought I wanted to go down the route of the classic auteur and be Martin Scorsese, but the more films I make, the more I realize I can never be that. I could continue down the path of a classic auteur, try to be an artist, but I don't think I would ever find satisfaction in anything I make. I would rather be happy with what I've done than always be frustrated whenever I think about my films, and that's how I am now when I look back at all of my auteur-wanna-be films. And when I really think about what kind of filmgoer I am, I would rather watch a film by someone like Spielberg or Christopher Nolan any day of the week, they're just more fun to watch, and to be honest, they were probably a whole lot of fun to make.
What I've learned through all of my deep thought and soul searching over the Summer is that entertainment matters way more than art. I'm not a real deep person, I'm a what you see is what you get kind of guy, and that's how I want to make films from now on. I'm gonna be myself, and see where that gets me as a filmmaker rather than trying to be something that I know I'm not. There's the cliche of the frustrated artist for a reason, art tends to be about suffering or something real profound that can't be explained in words. I, like all, hate suffering, and I hate not being able to understand nothing, so as it is, I'm striving for face value.
I just love movies, and I never even thought about them as pieces of art until about two years ago when I started college. Thinking of film as art, just kind of ruins the great illusion of the movies for me. The larger than life figures on the screen, the mystical powers of the dark, crowded movie theater and its ability to transport you somewhere else. I had forgotten, and now remembered, and I never want to forget again. Cause I mean, let's face it, art can last forever, but if you're bored to death by it, why's it matter. The first storytellers did not tell their stories to be artists, they did it to entertain, and when I look back at my life, the happiest I've ever been was when I was entertaining. So I've figured it out. The true art of storytelling is entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment