How do you feel about improving your completed works or, if you are a consumer, about other people changing their films? For example, I read that Ridley Scott decided to have the sound design in Blade Runner updated for its 25th anniversary, citing technological assumptions (e.g., hydro-electric power sources) not being in tune with today’s world. I do not know if the article is true, but it would be disappointing if so. Blade Runner to me represents a projection of the future; a possible one… an interesting one. So what if it turned out differently? Besides, mistakes are fun to catch, so long as they do not distract.

I tweak my work all the time from festival to festival, but if I had a feature I would draw the line at theatrical release. After that, one more cut for DVD (the director’s cut) and move on to the next film.

I posed this question to Zeki Demirkubuz at this year’s Boston Turkish Film Festival and he said the notion of never completing a film made him restless. How do you feel?

Last month Eugene and I helped shoot a zombie film by Max Bowen called Survival Instinct, as gaffer and second cinematographer (me), and boom operator (Eugene). In between takes we took pictures. Here are two of mine:

Thanks to Eugene for the group picture; check out my hat:

While watching La Dolce Vita last week, one thought was always in the corner of my mind: why are old movies so indecipherable? Has storytelling progressed, or have movie-goers become dumber? To give another example, I didn’t even know what to make of Kurosawa’s version of Gorky’s The Lower Depths. Mark and I attempted to watch it but we had to give up not far into the movie (he left before me hehe). Also on my list of weirdos/pioneers (take your pick): Stan Brakhage and Godfrey Reggio.

Perhaps the grammar of film has changed? Movie-making is not as mature an art as writing, after all. What was once understandable is obscure now.

Should films be easy to understand? From a commercial perspective, I think so considering how expensive films are. The very structure of film almost dictates it; the viewers are held captive in a cinema with no option of rewinding to comtemplate a challenging scene. Thus the basic story has to be understandable in the first viewing. Unlike a book, which you can reread at leisure, you have to pay to watch a movie twice—something that people do not do as a matter of course.

Digital technology has the potential to change the status quo by enabling producers to make movies for less, and thus take greater risks. Risks like alienating the audience or exploring niche subjects. This happens to some degree, but then what? They languish for lack of a distributor. Again, this is where technology may come to the rescue. If cinemas won’t show the films we want, we can stream them off the Internet. Not as satisfying as watching it in the cinema, but you can’t have it all, yet.

The dilemma with film is between treating it as an art and as a commercial product. Hollywood tries to do both, leaving more towards the latter. Their marketing gurus say it is more lucrative to make a few blockbusters than a lot of little projects so that is what they produce. The blockbusters can then subsidize riskier projects like those readers of this blog might enjoy.

Maybe it makes sense to churn out a potboiler before embarking on one’s magnum opus?

Did you know that father Coppola publishes his musings online? I don’t remember what chain of links I followed to get there, but I found this year-old diary on the Web site for his latest film, Youth Without Youth. Apparently, it is an adaptation of a novella by the same name (Tinereţe fără de tinereţe) which concerns an old man who is struck by a bolt of lightning and becomes young again. Now endowed with a fantastic memory and comprehension, he receives thought messages from the supernatural.

Along similar lines, Coppola comments:

I’ve been thinking about what seems to be a repeating pattern: artists who distinguish themselves when they are young, and then never can quite reach those levels again…
Why is this? What are the reasons? Is it only that genius at the level of Shakespeare, Verdi, Kurosawa and Picasso is as rare and precious as it would seem, or are there other factors as well? More on this subject will come …

The film appears quite autobiographical; Coppola has taken Woody Allen’s film-as-therapy approach. To me the problem is clear: eventually one runs out of interesting things to say. I think the best antidote is a healthy curiosity, and a desire to learn. I know I spend a lot of time reading the news (just watch it fly by you on the blog’s sidebar).

The movie, starring the great Bruno Ganz (from Der Untergang), was supposed to be out by now, but the IMDB lists it as being in production for reshoots as of today.

Even better was a video of him with his notes from The Godfather! He goes over each section of the notebook:

1. Synopsis. If you pause the video, you can read a whole page.
2. The Times: Establishing the scene, based on when the story is set.
3. Imagery and Tone.
4. The Core: What the scene is about.
5. Pitfalls: What not to do when directing the scene.

Tracking pitfalls is one habit I am going to copy; you can never be too organized. One of his concerns was avoiding the cliche of “Italians who-a, talka like-a dis”! Didn’t, uh, Brando commit that crime, once or twice?

The most recent festival in which TFII participated has drawn to a close. Thanks to everyone who came. It made me remember just how important it is to watch films in the theatre. I know they are becoming increasingly expensive, but do treat yourself to it occasionally. Unless you have a real home theatre—a big, dark, quiet room with a projector and surround sound system—there is a notable difference. As a film-maker I like to watch the audience's reaction so I have an additional incentive to go, but it is worth it even without that.

I just received an e-mail from the organizers about the results:

Best Documentary: The Play
Best Short Film: Crash

Best Documentary Audience Award: The Restorer
Best Short Film Award: Crash

Crash is a Tarantinoesque heist film—a perennial favorite genre—with intersecting plots. Congratulations to the director, Umut Aral. No doubt he will be using his prize money to pay off his debts and fund his next film.

The festival was concluded with Nuri Bilge Ceylan's latest film, İklimler ("Climates"), which won the FIPRESCI (the film critics) Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. His last film, Uzak, was a hit there too. I think his sensibilities are aligned with those of the French. I doubt any of his films would fare well in the States. The moral for film-makers is simple: know thy audience/critic.

A superb series of panoramic photographs, titled Turkey Cinemascope, taken during the scouting of the film, was present at the Thessaloniki Film Festival. Having seen them, I conclude he is better at photography. He has a truly gifted eye, but visuals alone do not make a good film. Can anyone honestly say they enjoyed the acting in Uzak (Distant)?