Some standards of film(movies) production (2)

Some standards of film(movies) production (2)

2、 Business? Art? How to evaluate a film

Having said so much above, it seems to draw a clear line between American independent films and Hollywood films. OK, even if the achievements of independent films are recognized, it seems that a group of literary and artistic young / middle-aged people will still bite hard: so what? Tacky Hollywood commercial films are still the mainstream of American films. These films can't compare with those in Europe and Japan! That's art!

Note that there is a keyword, "commercial film". As long as it is a public release film, you have to sell tickets and discs. Which producer dares to say that he has no commercial purpose - even if he doesn't want to make money, at least you have to recover the cost? Howard Hughes, who shoots Hell angels, can invest endlessly regardless of how much money he makes, but can everyone do it? Moreover, the hell angel, which was made at a sky high price at that time, was a standard commercial production according to Wen Qing / Zhong's point of view. Two more examples: one is the last subway that won n Caesar awards but was regarded by French critics as a retrogression to traditional high-quality films, which was the box office champion of France in that year; The other is Feng Xiaogang, who is known as China's first commercial film director. His big name is released in art theaters in Japan. What does this mean? First, different markets have different needs. It is regarded as an extremely artistic thing here. Perhaps it is regarded as a commercial film in the country of origin, and vice versa. This is the cultural difference. Hollywood's commercial production can be popular all over the world. It is not so much a cultural invasion as it captures some universal things; Second, art films, or films considered "art", do not contradict the success of the box office. At least, they should not be proud of the failure of the box office. Even kieslovsky doesn't think it's a glorious thing (so Godard's words are completely wrong for people's children!), You can't please the audience, but you don't have to be an enemy of the audience.

Therefore, the way we distinguish between commercial films and art films here is actually a false proposition, because the two can't form an opposition at all. Maybe you can find a film that is completely commercial and not artistic without too much effort, but it's not easy for you to find a film that is completely artistic and not commercial at all, not to mention, Is there no merit in the former - even without the indiscriminate analysis and deliberate promotion of Wen Qing / Zhong's favorite way - for example, Pearl Harbor, which is recognized as a rotten film and will hardly be recognized by "art", even if you disdain the film, the scene of the fart chasing the bomb must still impress you, That's enough for a work with bad box office reputation (although producers don't think so).

This leads to my criteria for judging films: kitsch and author. Needless to say, the former follows the old routine, tells chewy stories and deduces them again in a mediocre way. The latter, in addition to the stylization originally defined in the film manual, I pay more attention to innovation, innovation, or the expansion, supplement and best play of the used methods, which is the soul of all art development.

This kind of author consciousness is not only reflected in the director, especially for commercial films that often do not focus on the director's ability. Witty dialogue can be an author's innovation. The use of lens can reflect the author's innovation, such as lighting, art and music... Even in action design, Jackie Chan, yen, Yuan Heping, etc. still play this author with full oriental flavor（ If you look at Jackie Chan's films in the past, you will know that Tony dregs are nothing at all) films. As films, rather than novels or others, technology plays an incomparable role in other arts. Therefore, even if technology cannot be regarded as the main director of films, at least it should not be ignored as a secondary factor by Wenqing / Zhong. By the way, I have seen very little pure commercial production now, not to mention that I am too high minded to touch those "vulgar things", but I went crazy watching videos during the holidays in high school. Almost the top ten box offices in the summer will not fall. The routine of commercial films is too clear, and it is rare to see bright commercial production now, Just keep cooking cold rice. So, the movie I most enjoyed last year was hot fuzzy, which combines almost all male favorite genre factors (police bandits, gangsters, thrillers, suspense, horror, black, comedy, action, and even road and war films can find some shadows), but it creates something completely self characteristic. After the zombie Shawn subverted the zombie film, They continue to subvert genre films with this film. At the same time - unlike Quentin's films, they are very rough with more money and full of workshop flavor - they are very exquisite and compact, and no lens or line is redundant. Although this film is difficult to get into the eye of Wen Qing / middle school, it has nothing to say except a few sentences of criticism from "everything is for the overall situation" (when I taught a group of children to write exam oriented film reviews last year, I directly told them that if they can't find words, they can talk about human nature. Any retarded film can talk about the darkness or goodness of human nature...), But that doesn't hurt the fact that it's a great film.

3、 Hollywood movies?

I believe that having said that, after reading my evaluation criteria above, I should have a clear answer to this question. In fact, in a sense, Hollywood is the most open film production base in the world. In the 1920s and 1930s when French, German, Danish and Swedish films dominated for a time, Hollywood's charm was still difficult to compete with Europe. However, with the stupid national cleansing of the Nazis, a large number of filmmakers of Jewish descent or dissatisfied with Nazi policies came to Hollywood, The significance of this to its strength is self-evident. Even though it experienced the terror of McCarthyism in the 1950s, it did not affect Hollywood's open attitude. Even directors from the Soviet Union did not matter. For example, bondalchuk went to the United States to shoot the epic film Waterloo.

However, opening up does not mean good adaptation. After all, making money is the first important thing here. If you can make money and art, it is the best. However, if there is a fierce contradiction between the two, the former must be the primary consideration. Although there are many successful adapters, such as Hitchcock, Polanski, Milos foreman, etc Louis Mahler returned to his motherland after a little attempt - even so, Mahler's Atlantic City in the United States is still a rare masterpiece. On this issue, foreman said well: in the film industry, you will always be under pressure. In communist countries, you are not under commercial pressure, but strong ideological pressure. In the United States, there is no ideological pressure at all, but there is commercial pressure. To be honest, I'd rather have commercial pressure, so I'm driven by the tastes of the audience. Under the pressure of ideology, I have to be manipulated by others. Moreover, it is wrong to regard Hollywood as an entity. There is not only one Hollywood - but hundreds of Hollywood. Behind each door, you will find a different Hollywood. If you are lucky enough to find the right door at the right time, you can do a lot of interesting things in the United States.

Only by establishing such a powerful film industry, rather than relying on the master who knows when to be born and the emergence of long-term and continuous excellent works of art, can it be possible. In other words, without this foundation, the master has starved to death before he has been breastfed. Some people despised Luc Besson's later commercial operation. Who knows that not only in France, where narcissists came out in large numbers, he was not a literary youth, but also he really made great contributions to European films. A large group of cutting-edge European directors grew up under his guidance and provided a good source of funds for the continuation of the context of European art films. If art films can only be supported by state relief, not only art films and independent production will die, but the whole film industry will not survive - just look at the current situation of Taiwan's films.