Week 5

Before my photo storyboarding class began, I over heard a conversation between a few students about their thoughts on Hollywood's progress today. There was an inevitable agreement about the lack of fresh ideas the industry has been coming up with lately. One of the students stated that "we've already used every idea" in motion pictures and television. That was a bit discouraging to hear.

I truly hope that this isn't what we've come to think of our modern day cinema.

The films that started it all (Citizen Kane, Kurosawa, your favorite Hitchcock movies) are generally loved for what they've accomplished and created-- the many genres we've come to know and love today. While great films have still been made to this date, there is no doubt that Hollywood has lost grip of original projects year after year. Now, we all so often hear: "Movies aren't like what they used to be." It doesn't have to stop there.

I really hope that we're not forgetting the fact that there are filmmakers out there who are greatly improving the genres. Filmmakers like Welles, Coppola, and Hitchcock have all pushed forward in creating new feats in filmmaking; much of the following generations have followed their footsteps. There was really nothing new, except people learning how to do things faster; for example, the use of computer graphics. There was a time when the use of CG animated landscapes, and characters became a breakthrough in filmmaking/visual effects. However, the use of CG in a film has quickly been abused. We've forgotten the importance of balancing the use of CG in a story.

Hitchcock's achievement with Psycho, the widely known film which has popularized the horror genre, parallels to the creation of CG and it's once successful breakthrough in filmmaking. What we now see today are horror flicks overusing the same forumla, and the constant need to resort to CG for our stories.

Movies aren't what they used to be because we've been recycling the same concepts over and over again. Great movies didn't end before the day I was born. As a person growing up in the "MTV" generation, I won't limit my appreciation to the good fellas who started it all. I can't say that "[they've] already used all the ideas."







Onto some other related (and somewhat tangent) notes:

I guess like many others, the films I favor are the ones which grab a hold of me. A film that evokes the strongest emotion out of me, or strongly engages my mind, are the ones I enjoy. However, the films which absolutely stun me are the ones which take up the challenge to improve a genre.

Judging from the large amounts of criticism coming from the IMDB boards, It's safe to say that Paul Greengrass isn't widely accepted as a "good" filmmaker. It always bothers me to hear complaints about his documentary style or shaky cam technique. It's an unfamiliar form of filmmaking which definitely goes against the medium, but it works. I see no other filmmaker capable of mastering that technique ( If it's not your preferred method of looking at somebody's painting, or listening to somebody's music, or watching somebody's method of cinematography, then that's understandable. Mocking a filmmaker for not being able to use a tripod is just absurd.)


The reason why I'm inspired by filmmakers such as Greengrass, Nolan, Boyle, (Spike) Lee, and (Ang) Lee is because of how they constantly make an effort to approach their stories differently. They seem to better understand how to tell a story without falling into a redundant rhythm of repetition. (What further deepens my appreciation for filmmakers like Greengrass, and Nolan, is how they work with their actors, and production crew.)

As a beginning film student, I am eager to pursue the same languages in improving storytelling. I want to start doing this by learning more about how any person chooses to live. With no regard to class, ethnicity, or any kind of background, there is a biography worth telling for every person on this planet. A story about a person's life never falls short of becoming interesting.