Do you have to be a film buff to be a great film-maker? I think the better question is "What does a film buff have, that an average enthusiast doesn't?" Having an awareness of a crafts history would have obvious benefits; surely the best way of understanding techniques is to understand why they were used in the first place? When biologists research into the evolutionary history of the natural world, they try to understand an organism by exploring how it reached its status in the first place.
Cinema is similar to natural selection in regards to its gradual trial and error development, methods that worked, continued and the ones that did not fell into extinction.
Despite this over simplification, what must be taken from this is the idea that to gain a better understanding you must have some knowledge of experiments of the past.
I feel the reason most dialogue sequences in films use the over the shoulder shot, is a result of film-makers conforming to a convention.
It is not about the effect it creates, but a way of adhering to a consensus.
Can film be fully utilised and develop if film-makers are not aware of the effects of their own techniques? Film-makers like Ozu, Godard, Lubitch, Parajanov, Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Jancsó, all use(d) diverse ranges of dialogue techniques that have numerous effects.
With all this variation, it seems artistically counter-productive to comprehend why so many filmmakers solely use the over shoulder shot.
However, It would be naive to dismiss natural talent and creativity has nothing to do with becoming a great filmmaker, but why do a majority of auteurs have an incredible knowledge of the cinema? To further this enquiry, we must not overlook one key question"Are there any great auteurs that do not have film buff knowledge? The answer is yes and one of the most famous is modern master Terence Malick.
It is a notorious fact that one of Malick's favourite films is "Zoolander (Stiller, 2001)", for a filmmaker that has made a career out of exploring the philosophical core of his characters, it seems like an unlikely choice.
Nevertheless, when you look at Malick's films it actually makes sense.
His love for nature, German/French philosophy, classical music and astronomy, shows that his passions have a greater influence on his filmmaking than cinema itself.
The fact a life passion can be just as effective as an encyclopaedic cinematic understanding, really makes the original question void.
Of course good knowledge will always provide a solid foundation for a film-makers work, but without a creative sensibility the film will always be impotent of visionary value.
Cinema is similar to natural selection in regards to its gradual trial and error development, methods that worked, continued and the ones that did not fell into extinction.
Despite this over simplification, what must be taken from this is the idea that to gain a better understanding you must have some knowledge of experiments of the past.
I feel the reason most dialogue sequences in films use the over the shoulder shot, is a result of film-makers conforming to a convention.
It is not about the effect it creates, but a way of adhering to a consensus.
Can film be fully utilised and develop if film-makers are not aware of the effects of their own techniques? Film-makers like Ozu, Godard, Lubitch, Parajanov, Tarkovsky, Bergman, and Jancsó, all use(d) diverse ranges of dialogue techniques that have numerous effects.
With all this variation, it seems artistically counter-productive to comprehend why so many filmmakers solely use the over shoulder shot.
However, It would be naive to dismiss natural talent and creativity has nothing to do with becoming a great filmmaker, but why do a majority of auteurs have an incredible knowledge of the cinema? To further this enquiry, we must not overlook one key question"Are there any great auteurs that do not have film buff knowledge? The answer is yes and one of the most famous is modern master Terence Malick.
It is a notorious fact that one of Malick's favourite films is "Zoolander (Stiller, 2001)", for a filmmaker that has made a career out of exploring the philosophical core of his characters, it seems like an unlikely choice.
Nevertheless, when you look at Malick's films it actually makes sense.
His love for nature, German/French philosophy, classical music and astronomy, shows that his passions have a greater influence on his filmmaking than cinema itself.
The fact a life passion can be just as effective as an encyclopaedic cinematic understanding, really makes the original question void.
Of course good knowledge will always provide a solid foundation for a film-makers work, but without a creative sensibility the film will always be impotent of visionary value.
SHARE
