Film is for Fucks

With ignorance my ally, I used to proudly claim that film was the 'ultimate' medium. Because it combined all the other mediums into one super-medium, I naturally assumed it was the best. There was writing, I would say, in the script; there was music in the score; there was art in the storyboards and pre-production sketches; there was theatre in the performances; photography in every shot; put simply, every distinct brand of creativity was poured into a single product. How could it go wrong?

Well it did go wrong. Sure it's like writing, but it's worse; sure it's got music, but most of the time you wouldn't want to listen to it outside of the film; yes, there is art in the pre-production stage, but it's not there in the final film; the acting is like theatre, but it's more commercial and requires less talent; and yes, there's photography, but it's seldom used effectively. Film takes all the mediums and compromises them.

Film has severe limitations. Unlike most of the other mediums, film operates under strict time limitations. You don’t have the freedom of, say, reading a novel when you’re watching a film. With a book, you can read it as quickly or as slowly as you like, but with film you are virtually forced to endure it in a two-hour lump — at least if you want the experience the director desires. (Albums also have this time constraint, but it's not asking as much from the listener.) This limitation also inflicts on the filmmakers because two-hours isn’t very long to explore the complexities of ‘the human condition’; and if they try to go over that limit — 4 hours, for instance — then the audience will suffer. Watching a film can often be a very draining experience; you have to be really good to make a film over two-hours watchable.

All right, so if you can’t properly explore ideas as well as a novel, what does that leave? It leaves the all-important experience of image and sound. (And I’m not saying your film shouldn’t have ideas — I’m saying it should have something more as well. After all, ideas can be written down; you don’t need a film to express them.)

As I've stressed before, when you're making a film you have to use the medium to its full potential. Otherwise, you're just doing a second-rate novel. Why bother making a film if you're not going to invest any care in the only elements that separate film from everything else. You have to give it a reason for being a film; you have to justify the medium’s existence. Don’t make the audience think that the only reason you made your film was because you couldn’t write a novel. It’s true that it’s easier to make a ‘good’ film then a ‘good’ novel, but that’s no excuse. Make something uniquely filmic.

Filmgoers are fucks. Those crowds at film festivals who rail against Hollywood are fucks. Those people who want things about people are fucks. They hide their stupidity and ignorance ‘neath a veil of intelligence. The films they watch are those moving stories that explore relationships and all that rubbish. In reality, they are just watching dumbed-down literature. These sorts of films are the idiot’s novel. They don’t want to have to endure two-hundred odd pages of intimidating text; they just want the ideas compressed and displayed at 24 frames per second with a soundtrack to help it run along smoothly. Then, in the foyer, they can discuss the meaning with their wretched friends and interject other people’s conversations when the subject matters cross. Film is for fucks.

As a medium to express profound ideas, it’s secondary to a novel. As a medium for absolute sensual pleasure, it works. Films like 2001: A Space Odyssey are among a select few which have the right to be films. And no, Hollywood films don’t usually have this right; its films are hollow, badly-shot airport novels. Though when they’re good (which is very rarely), they’re preferable to uninspired independent dross.

But don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to do away with stories and turn the medium into a sight-and-sound wank. You still should try to tell stories — no matter how cryptic or vague. It’s just that there should be more to it then that.

Cinema is still a medium I like, but it’s been sabotaged by the independents. I like it because, unlike writing, it’s a group thing. There are a lot of people who contribute towards the finished product, and, under ideal circumstances, this makes it a joy to make. It’s not lonely like writing; you’re not holed up at a computer all day. Ironic, really: film is fun to make, but not as fun to watch; whist literature is generally the opposite. Maybe we should just make films amongst our friends and never release them.