Reflection: The School Film Generation

According to Francois Truffaut, a French director, there are two kinds of directors: (1) those who have the public in mind when they conceive and make their films and (2) those who don’t consider the public at all. For the former, cinema is an art of spectacle; for the latter, it is an individual adventure.

Well, if I will take into consideration the video “The School Film Generation” that we watched last meeting, then maybe I could point out those directors who, in my personal viewpoint, belong to either of those two classifications. For easier identification, let’s call them the “Former” and the “Latter” kinds.

On one hand, Brian de Palma, who is known for quoting and referencing other director’s work, is someone I can consider a director for the “Latter” kind. Same with Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppola and John Millius as these filmmakers created movies that moved themselves or something that they find self-gratifying without really thinking if their audience would rant and rave about it.

Well, there's a cliche that everybody has one good story to tell, the story of their lives. John Millius, for one, was totally imbued with his own past and experience that he was able to make a film out of it which is entitled Big Wednesday. Then there’s Francis Coppola who wants to own everything that he needs to make a film: from the camera, lights, to the editing machine and even the building! Those are the manifestations that he wants full control of everything which includes the nature of the story as he went in directions unanticipated by his critics. For Martin Scorsese, the essence of directing was self-expression especially to those that would make their movies the first time.

On the other hand, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are those directors that wanted to make movies that would move everybody or the people around them. Hence I can consider them under the “Former” kind. This is at least based on how I perceive the context and message of the video.

The MOVIE BRATS.from L-R: Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Brian de Palma, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola

photo from Google.com

I have always viewed Steven Spielberg as a man who has influenced us all in some particular ways. He has created magical worlds and we have embarked on journeys throughout his films. But I guess that is an understatement as this man has an intuitive sense of hopes and fears of his audience. We didn't just grow up on his films, but his films became a part of our lives. E.T., Jurassic Park, Schindler’s List, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln and The Adventures of Tin Tin are just few of his movies on top of my mind.

And George Lucas, though rather unfairly to compare the two, is also influential to his audience since Star Wars proved to be one of the most successful films of all time.  That’s at least based on the general information that I grew up with. Though I wasn't at all been born yet in the 70s but my point here is that Star Wars is a classic even to people who don't know Casablanca from Scooby Doo. It has everything you could possibly want: action, romance, midgets, cool creatures, quotable dialogue, midgets in bear suits, and many more midgets. It takes place in a fictional galaxy wherein many species of alien creatures are depicted. Star Wars features elements such as knights, witches, and princesses that are related to archetypes of the fantasy genre in which many moviegoers are excited about. Along with Spielberg, Lucas is credited with (and even blamed for) establishing the blockbuster approach to film making.

According to Peter Bart, editor of Variety as seen on the video, “people didn't really talk about blockbusters much then. That was an idea that began to take shape in the early to mid-70s. The public doesn't realize that the character, what makes the picture a blockbuster is the willingness of people to see it two or three times.” So that’s what basically happened. The creative works of those directors who went to film school eventually evolved in its most delightful prominence possible that audience can’t help but to watch them in a rousing movie tradition. And Truffaut is right. There is nothing intrinsically better between the two kinds of directors. It’s the approach.

Well, now, regardless of which type of directors they are, one thing is certain. They are those film makers who created remarkable prominence in Hollywood. For sure they won't be called the "Movie Brats" for nothing. And I'm thankful that they did partake in the film making industry.

Reflection: “What is the Hollywood style like?”

What makes a hollywood movie a hollywood movie? Is it the story? Is it the style? Or is it the director?

Well, according to a man named John, the one who appeared firstly on the video we watched, “…It's all of these and more.” During the one-hour video viewing, I was able to jot down some notes. And here’s a few of them that both my ears and pen were able to capture:

• Hollywood style is almost invisible. That the audience wasn't to notice cuts; the audience wasn't to notice camera movement.
• It makes the audience so involved with the story and to identify with the characters.
• Business people and storytellers once collaborated to create a style of storytelling that could capture the whole world.
• American film is all about story and narrative.
• Characters can substitute the story.
• It has an illusionistic style.
• Once a camera angle is chosen, that would be the only camera angle. They just have to work on long and closer shots.
• Style is in the surface of the story.
• Camera’s moves were designed to sweep an audience into the drama.
• It has a grand style of storytelling.
• Hollywood still employ the basic principles and style based on what was established in the studio of mass production.
• Directors and actors design the actual movie.
• Everyone is involved in rewriting the story.
• American directors are influenced by European films.

On the latter part of the video, it was mentioned that Hollywood is flexible and its directors were encouraged to bring their own individuality in every movie they produce. That seemed to be pretty obvious nowadays as different Hollywood movies and a whole lot more are trying to compete one another when it comes to style and eccentricity. In fact, I had to watch Casablanca (1942), The Way We Were (1973) and The Ten Commandments (1956) over the weekends to make sure I understand what I’m about to write in this reflection paper. With today’s technology, I don’t think it would be fair to compare the movies of then and now in the essence of “style.” But for me, old and new Hollywood movies are pretty much the same if we’ll take into consideration the bulleted points aforesaid above. Hence, with all due respect to the style of Hollywood cinema – as elaborated on what was listed above – it all boils down to passing down the legacy of creating good movies that as an audience you would want to feel as though that scene is taking place in front of your eyes as you speak. The classical Hollywood style has not ended. The heart of the technique was always there. You may always try to do something that was never done before. But Hollywood didn’t change. What changed are the tools that you use to work.

(Below are the posters of those movies I mentioned earlier that I had to watch over the weekends.
Credits to Google.com for the photos.)