I was watching a video clip of Michael Parkinson interviewing Orson Welles earlier this evening & about 25 minutes into the interview Orson said something that made me realise why I feel a certain way about very certain circumstances. Let me be more specific; do you know people who are musicians who always want to play you their own music? Well I’m not one of them, no matter how I feel about music I have made, I very very rarely ever want to play it to anyone…. I will happily give them a copy & say check it out, but its usually under the one provision that they never play it in my presence… Sometimes people think I’m joking or being overly/falsely humble but I’m not; I really fckng mean it!!!!! The same way I mean dont walk into my studio, pickup my acoustic guitar & start playing strummy open chords… because I will really have to work hard to suppress the overwhelming desire to dash over & snap off all of the fingers on the offending chording hand. I DETEST hearing those strummy numbskull chords as much as I DETEST playing you my music. But what does that say about the people who DO want do either of those things? Well, other than that they shouldnt visit me…
I always wondered about the latter, primarily as some kind of ego complex ie some musicians obviously must believe that their music should be heard by everyone, whether you are even vaguely interested or not….. And then I watched the aforementioned interview & at a certain point went ‘ah RIGHT! I understand!!!’ Heres the part:
It also explains a post production phenomena that I know well ie no matter what the budget or schedule you COULD always make it better…. We could easily continue working on any film project for an extra six months, but would it make it better? maybe… but its only worth something through finishing it, and the most important thing to make that happen? A DEADLINE!!!!!
Once its finished ‘You can’t change it…’
….. but will that always be the way?
To paraphrase Picasso, “great art is never finished … it is abandoned” also sums it up to those who “get it”. (I can’t count the number of times “less is more” and “form follows function” has fallen on deaf ears).
Anyway, pity George Lucas has diluted his great art to a laughing stock, cos frankly he’s one of the few not afraid of progress. I’m hoping Cameron doesn’t flunk it with his next flick like Zemeckis already did his “WTF?” attempt at progress.
Rambling? Yes!
Now to watch the video (perhaps I should’ve done that before commenting!)
One aspect with these ‘great’ modern directors is some become very dependant on CG/VFX and wow that stuff just does not age well! If I go back & watch say an old Sergio Leone movie, the cinematography & direction are as fantastic now as they were the first time I saw the movie, but some of these CG heavy films look bad/fake very fast, ie a matter of 3 or 4 years…
Recently saw the final cut of Blade Runner. Been quite awhile since seeing the original version with voiceover & tacked on happy ending. I could find something to like about either version, while some really hate the V.O. or miss it.
So one factor in improving or perfecting is what people will get used to as The Version They Know. If you try to alter or tweak something that’s already gone out in the world, it’s like saying “Pardon, I actually meant to say this . . .” And that may or may not find an warm reception from the original audience or from a new audience than gets the new version. Or it may do both.
BTW also got to see World’s Fastest Indian. Great sound FX. Which to say I was too well pulled into the moment of what was happening to notice how great they were. Like riding with Burt/Anthony. Thanks for your part in the storytelling.
True – and technology has a lot to answer for, in the sense that while advancing many aspects of film it also often undermines others. For example when I was at the Berlinale Talent Campus, at the pictue editing workshop there was a discussion about cutting digital vs analog (ie Avid vs Steenbeck) and a comment was made that is very telling. with the advent of dgital picture editing the thinkign tiem ahs been reduced/removed. When cutting actual 35mm film on a Steenbeck it was much more difficult to undo an edit, so the decision to make an edit was much more considered. Whereas now with Avid etc decisions have far less gravity, command Z & they are undone, so less thought is often involved as there is no commitment to necessarily making the ‘right’ edit, and often its a case of making an edit & nudging it around until it feels right.
As post production has become increasingly more sophisticated the cocnept of ‘fix it in post’ has taken on epic proportions. I always like that saying ‘worry about it later’ as despite it often being said in an offhand manner, you will inevitably have to worry a LOT about it later – something easily fixed at the time will become a major/costly mission to fix later (ADR being a good example)
A relevant ‘advance’ for sound post that does not necessarily benefit the art of film making is conforming. Years ago, the schedule and mroe improtantly the decision making process was such that locked picture HAD to be delivered at the start of sound post. Nowadays the cut is in a state of flux, sometimes until even AFTER print master, and I am not sure that it results in better films.
But dont worry, I haven’t become a Luddite or anything… its just with every little thing gained often there is also something lost… And some of those traditional disciplines are very important.
& thanks Kevin re Fastest Indian – I think that is the ultimate compliment!
It was such a great positive film to work on. Before we worked on it I knew a little about Burt Munro, but the more I learned the more impressed I became as to what he achieved in his lifetime – what an inspiration! And truly a great NZ character too
No I wonder…did I ever play you my music? hehe