We at Moving Pictures Magazine are delighted to facilitate debate on issues related to film's impact on and place in our social culture. We encourage you to share your views on subjects that appear on our pages. Please email your letters to editorial@mpgcorp.net.
From the numerous letters sparked by our Oct/Nov 2005 issue, we have chosen to share the following along with Guest Editor Ron Underwood's response.
Dear Mr. Underwood:
I greatly enjoyed your article in Moving Pictures Magazine. I'm surprised to discover a magazine that is more interested in substantial topics instead of the disappointingly predictable Hollywood gossip fête too much in abundance these days. Question for Mr. Underwood: Do you feel the latest, affordable high-quality digital video cameras available in abundance will change the way films are made?
Anonymous
There is definitely a sea change going on in motion pictures right now, with digital technology allowing more people to have access to filmmaking tools. These new digital cameras and software are opening doors to many who could not have made films in the past.
As you probably know, digital cameras are already the camera of choice for some mainstream "Hollywood" films as well as independent films. Michael Mann's Collateral and George Lucas's Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith were shot using digital cameras for aesthetic reasons. For low-budget filmmaking, there are some advantages to digital shooting because the raw stock is less expensive and the image is more sensitive to light, requiring smaller lighting units.
Movie-making is a technology-driven art. But the crucial mechanism is the storytelling. The key element to starting a production is a screenplay worthy of the time, expense and energy of the artists involved. Technology is a means to that goal and should be a tool to the art.
Dear Mr. Underwood:
I found your article in Moving Pictures very interesting and relevant. Reading your comments prompted numerous questions. I appreciate this opportunity to actually address you. My questions:
1. By what process does material you're considering making into film come to you?
2. What's your opinion regarding the notion that critics control what viewing audiences consider "good" cinema?
3. Is the United States in jeopardy of losing its dominance of the motion picture industry?
Wendy Malse,
Inglewood, California Ideas for films can come from many places: original screenplays, books, plays, poems, theme park rides - almost anywhere. The screenplay for Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life was based on a story that Philip Van Dorn Stern originally sent to his friends as a Christmas card. Most of my films have started as original screenplays submitted to me by my agents.
Critical acclaim is always preferable for any film; however, many films that do not receive critical approval are still popular with audiences. It is true that some people are dependent on critical approval for their own positive judgment. In fact, some "art house" films are totally dependent on good critical reaction to secure any exposure. Other mass-market films seem to be critic-proof. Like the films themselves, criticism is part of the cultural heritage of any given time.
American movies have been a major force in the international film community for many decades. However, there have recently been rumblings in some countries about the strong influence American pictures have on other cultures. Some countries have threatened to limit the number of films shown. American film, however, has historically been influenced by artists from around the world, including "our own" filmmakers: Ernest Lubitsch, Billy Wilder, Milos Foreman, Ang Lee and John Woo among so many others. The reality is that foreign films influence Hollywood, just as Hollywood impacts the international community. Through this exchange of ideas, we have a better chance to understand and consider other viewpoints. Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood: Your recent article in Moving Pictures Magazine was enjoyed. The opportunity to ask you questions is one I choose to act upon. I read that you also work in television. What is the main difference between working in those two diverse mediums? Do you find there is a significant difference between working in television and working in film? Which do you prefer?
Stephen Bell
Denver, Colorado I enjoy working in both television and theatrical filmmaking. Each is a visual medium for storytelling. In the current climate, stories for older audiences can more easily find a home on television. My TV movies, Stealing Sinatra, starring David Arquette and William H. Macy, and Back When We Were Grownups, starring Blythe Danner, Jack Palance, Peter Fonda and Faye Dunaway, would not have been made as theatrical films. Also, I enjoy the writing and character work being done in television series today. I have been fortunate to direct episodes of "Monk" and "Boston Legal." And in motion pictures you get the amazing communal experience of having your work projected in front of a large audience. However, whatever the medium, it is the process that really gets me excited. And for me the process is very similar, from my earliest student films to my largest theatrical motion pictures. Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood: I read with interest your recent contribution in Moving Pictures Magazine. As a subscriber, I found your comments reinforcing and encouraging. I would have liked to learn more of the ClearPlay controversy. My question is, do you feel censorship is a benefit in making films considered too coarse "tranquilized" so they may be seen by a wider audience? Sincerely,
Brenda Parkinson
Chicago, Illinois I don't believe censorship is a benefit to anyone. In our country, we have been blessed with the brilliance of our forefathers in establishing our freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our free society. However, filmmakers do have a personal responsibility to use the power of the medium wisely. Each individual will have a different perspective on what this means, but the power of film is such that it should not be used without great thought and consideration of personal ethics. That is not censorship; that is our filmmaking responsibility. Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood: Your recent article in Moving Pictures was relevant. It made a strong impression. I am curious to learn your opinions on related topics. What types of film do you watch for personal enjoyment? Are you writing a screenplay? Do you read critics' reviews of your work? Sincerely, William Kendall
Baltimore, Maryland I love all kinds of movies. Some of my current favorites are Good Night, and Good Luck, Capote and Proof, and I am really looking forward to King Kong and Munich. Also, I try to keep up on documentary films because I love that form as well. I am not writing a screenplay. I am a director, not a writer. I enjoy working with writers, and I wish I was a gifted writer and admire them greatly. The best screenplays are like poetry - extremely concise, with a depth that goes far beyond the words. A good screenwriter is a wordsmith who utilizes visuals and sound in the writing along with a mastery of language. My job is to interpret the writing and bring the story to life. I try not to read reviews of my films. After eating, sleeping and breathing a project for a long period of time, it is completed and is sent out into the world for the critics and the public to judge it. We would all like great reviews, but it cannot be the basis for picking projects. So you have to let the dice fall as they will and move on to the next film. Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood: I found your article in Moving Pictures interesting and relevant. I enjoyed your previous films and look forward to your next. I have a couple of questions. 1. Is the cost of producing a contemporary full-length film instigating a change in how films will be produced in the future?
2. What's your favorite film?
Thanks, and keep up the good work. Daryl Trevorton
Los Angeles, California There are those who feel that the high cost of production and marketing of films will ultimately destroy the motion picture business. If piracy is not stopped, that very well may end the business as we now know it.
Films don't have to cost so much money. Steven Soderbergh has shown that a filmmaker can make good films at many different production levels. It comes down to a story that is worth telling - and making that a truthful experience for the audience. That does not have to cost a fortune. If you want a movie star in the film and to release it in thousands of theaters, though, that takes big bucks. However, if one doesn't spend a fortune, one doesn't have to make a fortune. It is true that good films can be made on budgets of all sizes.
I have too many favorite films to pick just one. I love Francis Coppola's The Godfather. And it's hard to beat seeing a great David Lean film like Doctor Zhivago, a Billy Wilder film like Some Like It Hot, Frederico Fellini's The Nights of Cabiria or Akira Kurosawa's High and Low. There are way too many great films to pick just one. Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood:
I enjoyed your recent article in Moving Pictures Magazine. It's a publication I haven't heard of until recently. I thought your comments on the film industry at large were well phrased and interesting. I'm curious of several thoughts your article inspired. a. How would you define the difference(s) between a mainstream film and an "art" film?
b. Name films that influenced how you direct.
c. Have you a professional mentor? Sincerely, Roger Whittlestone
San Francisco, California Mainstream films are what the studios produce and distribute. They are films that generally are of a certain genre, whether comedy, drama, horror, action or science fiction. They can be clearly marketed to a mass audience. What we think of as "art" films are usually smaller budgeted, more personal films. While this is the perception of mainstream as opposed to "art" films, it is my feeling that there is great artistry and craftsmanship in many of the films made of all sizes and types. It doesn't have to be labeled an "art" film to be a work of art. It has more to do with truthfulness of storytelling and the effect it has on the audience. Films of all types have their place in society and in the marketplace. Thank goodness for the independent movement of the '90s which has demonstrated to studios that money can be made with what is considered an "art" film.
I am inspired by Preston Sturges films (Sullivan's Travels), Billy Wilder (The Apartment), Hal Ashby (Being There), George Lucas (American Grafitti), Steven Spielberg (ET) and so many others. Certainly I have been influenced by countless movies. However, when it comes time to make a film, you just let what is inside you from all your personal experience bubble to the surface, using the screenplay as the map to guide you.
I would have loved a professional mentor, but I never was so lucky. Directors rarely get the chance to work with other directors. When asked about his relationship with other directors, Alfred Hitchcock jokingly said, "I don't know any." Ron
Dear Mr. Underwood: I recently read a copy of your article in Moving Pictures Magazine. I feel you touched upon several topics that don't receive the kind of attention they should. Thanks for that. Since the magazine invited questions, I'm curious to learn what kind of content do you feel producers should be making that they're not? Thanks for a different point of view... Sincerely, R. Clark
Los Angeles I believe in the positive power of cinema. Each time a film is made, there is great potential to entertain and to deal with themes that are positive for the human spirit. These opportunities should not be wasted. We all want to be making films - there is a seductive quality to filmmaking so that all of us pursuing this craft yearn to do it. But we should not waste the opportunities we get; we should not move forward with a film without a worthy idea. This goes for producers, directors, writers, actors, cameramen and all the talented artists who collaboratively make films. Ron
Dear Ron,
As a screenwriter, producer, director and consumer of DVDs, I'd like to comment on the controversy regarding the ClearPlay technology highlighted in the Oct-Nov issue [of Moving Pictures Magazine].
When I buy a DVD of a feature film, that technology gives me the ability to watch the scenes in any order I want, to skip scenes that I don't like or to fast forward through scenes I find slow or predictable - effectively re-editing the film. I can watch it on my 7-inch mono portable DVD viewer, even though the filmmakers intended it to be seen on a much bigger screen with 5.1 digital stereo surround sound. I can stop the movie in the middle and finish watching it a week later, even though it was intended to be seen in one sitting. I can turn off the original soundtrack and listen to someone else (sometimes the filmmaker) talk about the movie while it plays, even though I wouldn't tolerate someone talking over a film in a theater. I have done each of these things at various times with various DVDs, and have thereby altered the filmmaker's "original vision" of the film. But doing these things is not only legal, it's encouraged: These are some of the selling points of the DVD medium.
If I choose, I can pay someone else to operate my DVD player for me with instructions as to the type of scenes I want to skip, speed up or low down, as well as when I want to "mute" the sound. And that's the concept behind ClearPlay: The viewer is, in effect, paying ClearPlay to electronically operate their remote and mute buttons according to
certain pre-determined instructions while watching a commercially
available DVD which the viewer has purchased or legally rented. A viewer can also choose not to use the ClearPlay technology and simply watch the DVD just as it is. This is called freedom. As the saying goes, "You pays your money and you takes your choice."
If Joe Smith buys a DVD of my film Back to the Future and chooses to watch it in a different way than we filmmakers intended, it's his right. And although I'd prefer that he see it in the way we intended, I will defend his right to watch it at home with ClearPlay technology, or with the sound turned lower than I think it should be, or while exercising on his treadmill, or even while standing on his head, just as I would defend his right to wear his shirt inside out, or hang a picture upside down or eat cold pizza for breakfast. He bought it, it's his house and he's the audience. If Joe hates the DVD and wants to melt it in his oven, that's his right, too, as long as he paid for it. I know that, regardless of what Joe does with his copy of "Back to the Future," the original negative and masters of the film will remain unaltered and preserved in the vaults of Universal Studios. I'll fight like hell to stop him or anyone else from going into those vaults to tamper with the originals, but I'm not about to go over to Joe's house and dictate the conditions under which he can watch his copy, no more than I would tolerate anyone coming into my home and telling me how I can watch my DVDs.
Ron, you and many of our fellow members of the Directors Guild believe that ClearPlay represents the start of a slippery slope that could have dire consequences in the future for altering filmmakers' visions. I believe restricting a viewer's personal choice as to how he can experience a DVD in the privacy of his own home takes us down a
different and far more dangerous slope. Yes, filmmakers should be able to provide the viewer with the ability to see their work in the way they intended, in theaters and (thanks to DVD technology) at home. But, should filmmakers have the "right" to tell audiences how to experience that work in the privacy of their homes? If so, how will this "right" be enforced? Should we disable everything except "play" on DVD remotes? Should we have a "big brother" system of surveillance to spy on people in their living rooms to make sure they don't skip any scenes, hit the mute button, answer the phone or fall asleep? Wouldn't that rationale apply to theater viewing? What happens if someone wants to get up for popcorn, or to go to the bathroom or simply walk out of a film? Will an armed guard force him to stay in his seat and experience the "filmmaker's vision"?
Art and commerce have often been uncomfortable bedfellows. Personally, I accept the fact that in our society, people may see my films improperly, at home and in theaters (can you say "out of focus"?). Although I hated the way NBC edited Back to the Future for its network airings (to say nothing of the commercial breaks), I'd like to think that some new viewers enjoyed what they saw enough to seek out the uncut version. And as long as the uncut version is available and protected, I think there's room in our society for ClearPlay - to me, it means there are more choices for more people, even though these may be choices I disagree with. Personally, I find the guy whose cell phone rings in the movie theater far more objectionable than the one who uses ClearPlay in the privacy of his own home.
Sincerely,
Bob Gale
Co-writer, Producer Back to the Future Trilogy
Writer, Director "Interstate 60"
Pacific Palisades, California Dear Bob,
You don't have to convince me that I am free to watch DVDs at home or on a personal mobile device the way I choose. In the privacy of my own home, I can use the remote, as you suggest, to make my own "fast forward theater." I can watch while I play the drums. I can use the DVD to put me to sleep. However, I see a clear distinction when a corporation that is not in any way connected to the original film hires an editor to make a different version to sell to the public.
Would you say that it would be acceptable for a publishing company to reprint a copyrighted book - say Tom Wolfe's latest - with deletions they feel are appropriate and then sell this version in competition with the original publisher? If I wanted to buy the book myself and cross out words and passages, I am free to do this. But if I choose to sell this new version, I am violating the protected work of the author both legally and ethically.
Music is another artistic form that could be used as an example. I happen to like hip hop music. However, I am sometimes shocked by the lyrics in songs. I believe that there are artists who should responsibly clean up their act. But that does not give me the right to edit and sell a "cleaned up" version of someone else's song on my special MP3 player.
This is what ClearPlay does. They audaciously re-edit my movie without any input from me. And without any input from the studio that paid for the film and owns the copyright to the material. They make this "version" of the film to be sold, although they have no connection with the original film.
Of course, as you point out, TV emasculates our films every day. This is a painful reality for filmmakers. However, directors have a contractual right to cut their film for television. As difficult as it is, I take this right very seriously. I edit all my films for their television play dates. I supervised three versions this month of Mighty Joe Young for various TV sales.
And as you know, Bob, television standards and practices' guidelines are not set in stone. Through discussion and negotiation, certain important scenes in a film can remain uncut.
However, with the ClearPlay version, there is no discussion. Some editor in Utah is cutting as he pleases, under the guidance of a company not associated with the film. They say they are not creating a new "fixed copy" of the film since it exists only in the software program that plays the DVD. Yes, it's a loophole that has made their practice legal, but it does not make their company mission ethical.
There is no doubt that films are being watched in vastly different ways than the filmmakers intended. Viewers can do as they please on their own DVD players. And I would not want to stand in the way of those personal freedoms. However, corporations should not be allowed to make those choices and sell them without regard to the copyright holders and the involvement of the filmmakers.
This isn't about Big Brother controlling your living-room TV; it's about the corporation who will hijack your work and alter it according to its will, no doubt capitalizing on your name regardless of whether or not it resembles the work you created. Best regards,
Ron |
