succès d'estime

Musings On The Oddity of Cinema

what defines success... well... as i am about to go into school and enter the area at least of the epicenter of the industry of the west i figure it is the best time to start this. i shall speculate on what appears to me to be on some level absurd or amusing. in fact i shall ramble and you might read, i doubt it... but who cares. im just writing. emotional release perhaps. what defines success? i am looking in on the industry from the perspective of not only a nobody but a nobody who knows nothing about it from the inside. so i guess im saying... i should start this now before i actually learn anything. i view myself as a filmmaker, philosophically... but maybe in the future i will be one literally. so as of now, this is merely the noobs conceptual perspective on what he loves but does not know. and hopes to find if that love will turn sour as he begins to actually acquaint himself with it.

a film should speak for itself, but it is still entertaining to go behind the scenes and find out where it doesnt speak or where you dont listen (depending on your ego). i tend to enjoy the experience and the discovery of a story. but there is great confusion over whether story should dominate or whether audience appeal should dominate how the story is written and told. perhaps i should say that there was confusion. now the majority of directors have decided that success is numbers. and there maybe some joy in the process but that is the extent of a movie's success.

there are however those 'happy few' who strive for a higher level of storytelling. those who understand that money is necessary to live and to pay your cast, crew and other such associates but also realize that does not necessarily define success. now my argument is that success is relative to your vision. success being... the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. yes? so every director will judge his/her success on a different level than the thousands or few reporters who analyze his/her work. a filmmaker has vision and the success if the final product should be judged according to that vision. michael bay's transformers was obviously a success based on his obvious intentions. i need say no more. guillermo del toro's lower budget feature Devil's Backbone was a success based on his intentions but probly very few are familiar with the title. there is nothing wrong with raw entertainment or with huge explosions that could very well have possibly killed megan fox or the better looking optimus prime... but... that doesnt mean that there is no place for a variance of direction (in directing).

judging success on such specific terms is not accurate to the definition of success and i HATE it when words are abused on such a massive scale. (my blog hurts the eyes, doesnt it?). when you attack something, you need to attack it on its own terms. Success is a goal met, a goal completed. though this logic may make sense, some will say that since it is all so relative how can you judge the quality of a
director. how can you truly know his intentions for a film? that is a good point. but maybe success is the wrong word to use? if you want to judge a director on his ability as a story teller perhaps you might judge him on his critical acclaim? or if you would like to judge him on his ability to sell a movie, base it on his income? the point is... success is not what everyone thinks it is. now others will argue that the dictionary definition of success is also attaining popularity and profit. and this is true. but once again, success is relative to the standard on which you judge the subject. so there is no reason that gross income should be the only standard for success in cinema.

success should also be judged on the quality of the story. story will truly never die, the question is will it remain an afterthought to the average viewer. will ppl begin to realize that the true success of a feature film does not always rest in the digits, or the dollar signs. to paraphrase what i once read, story is a marvelous thing, hollywood is story as prostitution. but for realz... sometimes prostitution is really fun no matter how cheap it makes you feel (have you seen the prices for 3d these days?). its just pretty right? you give them money, they make your eyes happy. but it should never replace the real beautiful and original concept of story. maybe that doesnt raelly make sense but i think the point goes across. im not tryin to sound edgy, and i dont think hollywood is in any way committing anything as volatile as prostitution but it sorta does transfer. its all about instant gratification and no afterthought, no greater sense of walking away and feeling moved, feeling touched, inspired... a mainstream appeal feature will give as many ppl as it can as much of what they want which makes it so that the story itself retains no form or direction... people pleasing is for the weak of heart who lack resolve.

let the world judge as she may, i am not her's to enslave. and when i do submit myself to the authority of the majority of the audience i make a compromise. i have no freedom in my storytelling. writing on the basis of emotional appeal is in so many cases suicide. i have gotten quite side tracked here but i guess these are ramblings... do you ever watch a movie and know what you're supposed to be feeling but dont? thats what happens when writers present a 50 pg attempt at appealing to your emotions instead of writing for the sake of good story that isnt based on theories of whether 35 year old males will be too depresssed to take a romantic comedy seriously.

you define success. rember, im just a noob ;)

Taylor J. Gates (iguessyou already knew that)