Gotta Love Those Indie Studios

United Artists, lead by Paula Wagner, (who made the deal according to Nikki Finke) negotiated a separate deal with the WGA. leaving them the pick of all WGA screenwriters with no competition from all the other struck studios. Yeah, all of them.

Juno

Just saw this. Awesome film. I would have overlooked it since it's a teeny PG13 but it's up for the Indie Spirits. This film is a great example of every character being deep. Some of them have only a few scenes, like the father and mother, but they really bring them out. The plot is cool too. Ellen Page is great. But I think the real genius is Diablo Cody's script. She has the greatest witty dialog.

The great thing about her is how she can hit gen x, still be relevant to other markets, and do a quality job of it without the typical gen x trashy gratuitous action, sex, and farcical comedy.

Interpersonal Internet Communication or the Good Thing about Flame Wars

I studied interpersonal communication in grad school along with mass communication and communication theory, the three majors areas of study in my major. One of the tenets of interpersonal communication is feedback. Interpersonal communication is a two way street. We say something and a listener responds to it. But there are steps along the way. The listener has to first hear and listen to what is said, then process the information, and this gets into perception and a number of other big words. All that is more communication theory, my weakest area. I was most interested in mass communication having been a filmmaker.

On internet message boards we have flame wars, the heated arguments that get out of hand between people who post messages and disagree, sometimes on the most trivial points. To me this is interpersonal communication. Yet it's mass communication. Well which is it? This question, I think, could be at the heart of why we have flame wars. When we read stuff in a magazine, newspaper, or see it on TV, we come to believe whatever it is is mostly true or at least has been well researched by the writer. When we read stuff on a message board posted by anyone who happens to me a member, we should expect their words to be any more researched thane we would the words exchanged at a dinner conversation with an acquaintance we've met for the first time. Yet, I think board readers expect what they read to be reliable and when they detect that this isn't so they lash out with name calling or citing references to belittle the message poster.

People wouldn't do that at a dinner table. For one thing they have to face the respondent in person, as well an anyone else present. But this is also true on a message board. The people reading just aren't in person. So somehow we feel we can get away with making verbal attacks that we'd never do in person.

But what I really want to get at is the whole feedback cycle of interpersonal communication. It is a cycle. Person A says something to person B who processes the information and then responds with feedback to person A. Person A may then respond with a updated version of their original statement revised perhaps upon being enlightened by feedback from person B. Or person A may rephrase their statement to better clarify for person B what it is they meant.

The whole cycle breaks down in flame wars because we have person B telling person A how it is, not giving person A a chance to process their feedback and perhaps revise the original statement. We might have person A come back with a restatement to clarify their meaning and then person B will respond with charges of person A being a liar or phony because they change their meaning to fit the responses. Well that's what interpersonal communication is. If you can't understand this the don't ever bother getting married. It won't work out.

Something else I learned in class was that the concept of 'not' is exclusively human. That is to say animals and other creatures can't understand 'not'. They do know what not being hungry is. They don't know what not being loved is. They may want. But that is a positive concept. Only humans can put together that when you want something it means there is 'not' something there. What does this have to do with interpersonal communication?

Well, especially on message board debates, you get people taking stands and saying what something is while someone else says what it is not. So the 'not' concept is alive and thriving in debates and certainly on internet message boards, and this is a good thing. Debate is a great thing. It's a human thing. It's a freedom of speech thing. A freedom people have died for. So we should welcome debates and those who have their 'not' points of views. Flame wars are not pretty. But they are a symptom of a healthy society and we should condemn them and be too quick to ban people for getting into them. The internet is a new thing and we aren't used to it or fully understand what it is.

Youth Without Youth: Understood

Dana Stevens, a screenwriter and Slate.com reviewer seems to be spot on when she cites that Coppola is emulating his own mentors, like Bertolucci. Here's a excerpt from the review:

All this mystical ooglety-booglety is handled straightforwardly and completely without camp. It's difficult to describe the tone of Youth Without Youth, which is based on a novella by Romanian philosopher of religion Mircea Eliade (who was a bit of a Nazi himself, but that's another story). Despite scene after scene of maddeningly arcane dialogue ("In metaphysical antinomies, empirical proofs lose their value," Dominic's double tells him solemnly), the movie remains lyrical, emotionally engaging, and a pleasure to watch. You can laugh at Coppola's pretensions, but he's clearly in dialogue (however haltingly) with directors like Bertolucci, Visconti, and Tarkovsky, who saw no reason that film shouldn't take on the big questions right alongside literature and philosophy. Even Alexandra Maria Lara's sad-eyed, gazellelike beauty recalls that of an actress from the heyday of European art film—Monica Vitti or Dominique Sanda.

On my first (and only so far) viewing of Youth Without Youth, I didn't like it too much. it was bogged down and seemed overly cerebral to me without meaningful heart or emotional provocation. But the more I think about it, the more I want to see it again. This kind of film has so much in deep references to philosophical questions that it hard enough just to try and follow it. But having done that now, I think I could enjoy it much more.

By the way, Bertolucci also took a long hiatus from making films, like Copolla, and came back with his recent The Dreamers, a beautiful film.

Scape: My New Film

My new film, Scape, is in post and will be something different with Amanda Carneiro and Kristen Hepinstall.

Writer's Strike: Age Old Issues come to Light

The writer's strike has brought to light some very interesting issues. Though these issues have been plaguing filmmakers since the start of the industry. You can boil this down to the age old debate about whether film is a business or film is an art. Producers generally treat it as a business, while writers and other creative contributors treat is as an art. They have to. Otherwise what you get is crappy films, which may account for the other age old debate about how so many films are trash. Even the producers will tell you that 98% of the stuff produced doesn't turn a profit. But then there are those corrupt accounting practices that make every expense imaginable part of a film budget, probably including the studio execs' nooners.

The ultimate idiocracy is the perpetual sequels and parodies, obviously based on a simple retarded business logic that if a certain film production was successful all you need to do is make the thing over again with new packaging. Duh.

Don't work too hard there, studio execs. We don't want you to break a sweat or anything over having to take a risk on something too original.

But hey, isn't art supposed to be original? Isn't that pretty much necessary? I think it's something like this, to put into simple studio-exec-ease. When you make cars they have to have wheels and roll down the road. When you make art it has to be original. O-RIG-IN-AL. Sound it out. Lots of syllables there. I know it's a big word with lots of implications. But look it up. Add it to your vocabulary. It can make you money! $$$$$

Historically we had Chaplin splinter off from studio control to form United Artists. Now Cruise is rejuvenating that entity. Coppola and Lucas formed American Zoetrope, and along with numerous other great filmmakers, went to northern California's bay area to escape the Hollywood rat race. They all have the same complaint. Studio execs get into creative control over the art they know nothing about.

Now we see some WGA writers and colleagues, out of work over the strike, forming up their own new media companies based on the United Artists model. Way to go WGA.

There's no argument that great artists are great because of their unique talent. So then why must studio execs take creative control or impose upon artists to bend to their business logic based on marketing concerns? They're not the ones with the talent. Why do this, especially when we see that the results are this 98% failure rate in the industry. Even if it's not 98%, it's not better than 50%. Just look at the-numbers.com. For 2007 you see 200 to 300 films making over one million USD, out of a total of over 700 films. Making a broad assumption that a film needs to make at least one million to be profitable, you can see that much less than 50% are successful.

So clearly, the business people don't know what they're doing. But most of us have known that, since, like forever.

You can't sell art by having business people control it based on marketing strategy. You have to first allow artists to do what they do, on their own, with full creative control. Then when they have a product, you sell it. If you go with the conventional business model that business people apply across the board to any industry you end up with cheap crappy films that amount to what MacDonald's does in the food industry. Coppola, Lucas, Chaplin and most any artist won't be happy in that world, no more than Wolfgang Puck would be content running a MacDonald's chain. It's just good business sense.

Why is this so hard to fathom?

Youth Without Youth

I ran across this NY Times article on Coppola's new film and it stirred up some of my long held thoughts on the subject.
It amazes me how complacent people are in accepting the ingrained age discrimination that goes on. When you look at the industry infrastructure that exists to supposedly help filmmakers start out on a career, it's almost always assumed that an upcoming filmmaker is also a young filmmaker. When Spielberg introduced On the Lot, his words were that it was to help these young filmmakers get their start. So right there he excludes anyone who's not young, whatever that means. We all know that On the Lot contest entrants ranged all over the age spectrum. Yet the oldest one chosen was in their 30s. Of course, it didn't take long to see him eliminated. I think it's safe to say the remaining entrants were in their 20s and very early 30s at most. Fox has to maintain this image of giving young filmmakers a start. Oh the horror of giving an old filmmaker a start.

Now it's a little tougher when it comes to screenwriting contests. There you don't have to provide a bio or filmed intro of yourself to see how well you look on the screen. Still if your age becomes known and you're over 40, it's likely to be a liability. The Nicholl is one I think that makes an effort to not do this.

But even if I'm wrong about other contests, there's no arguing the fact that generally the business world expects people to live a certain life pattern. They expect you to be something by the time you're in your 30s. When you go to a college graduation ceremony accolades are given to those students who not only exceeded in their studies, but also started out on their own business or became successful in the working world. We cheer when someone really young make a great accomplishment, like write or direct a Hollywood film. What’s so great about the fact that the person is young? Is it not also great for an older person to do these things? And then look at the people who do these great things at an early age. What happens when they’re older? Like child stars. It ain’t too pretty. And then what kind of young people pull off these feats? They have to be on speed, have no other problems in their lives, and come from independently wealthy families; or at least some of that.

The point is, what's so bad about starting out on a career, later in life; or what's so bad about turning the clock back and reinventing yourself. Cher has certainly proved it can work. Why should people have just one career that starts at 20 something and ends at fifty or sixty something. When you're fifty you still think and have the same, if not much better talent than you did at twenty. The one difference may be physical stamina. But that too is questionable. Then there’s that element of risk that young people take, having nothing to lose

But when it comes to writing and directing films we are usually dealing with profound subject matter about love and life. This is the stuff that having decades of living experience is almost a requirement for, unless of course you intend to make a career of writing fart jokes or teen horrors, which may account for the lowly state of the current industry.

Chance Encounter

A man and woman on a train. Sexual implications and language.

Just made it through the sliding doors.
No seats. Have to stand.

All aboard. This is a local train. Please check the emergency procedures.

How many fucking times do I have to hear that?
Crunch. Train pulls out. I’m almost off my feet.
Take a stance and get solid.

Hmm, girl in the corner. Was she looking at me?
Do I look alright?
Next stop, Chinatown.
Oops. Almost off my feet as we stop.
Who kicked me? Not a kick really. Kind of soft.
Oh, there are legs there. Nude. Right next to me.
Didn’t see her before.
Ok, I can’t look. What’s the point anyway? We’re on a train.

Passengers are reminded to keep their feet off the seats.

The PA is blowing my ears out.
God, I have to get a pack of those ear plugs.

Someone gets up. Open seat. I’ll take it.
Oh shit. There’s the girl. Nude legs, or stockings, I guess.
Nice legs. Jesus.
Alright, what’s the point? We’re on a train.
I’ll just close my eyes. Sleep like usual. She doesn’t notice me anyway. Does she?

Please report any unattended packages to the sheriff at 800-800-8888

Whatever.

Next stop, Horrace avenue.
Did I nod off.
Everybody’s gone. Except her.
She’s still there directly across from me.
Nice legs. Gees, I can see the tops of her stockings.
God, she is hot. She takes out a compact. Fixes her face.

‘Hot date?’, I ask.
She just smiles. I close my eyes.
‘Is that supposed to be a pick up line?’, she responds.
Eyes open. She’s looking right at me. Nice eyes. I should say something.
So, I go over, sit next to her. ‘No’, I say.
I’m close enough to smell her. She looks into my eyes.
‘Do you like to fuck?’, I say. Her eyes widen. Then she smacks me.
That hurt.

Final stop. Please take all your belongings.

‘Sorry’, I say. She looks at me again.
I continue, ‘It’s just I have a back seat in my Chevy, in case you’re in a hurry.’
She just stares at me. ‘Pack of condoms too’, I say.
She smiles.
‘Do you use this approach with all the women you try to pick up?’
‘No. Never’
The sliding doors open. Everyone left shuffles out. Just we two are left.
‘Ok. Take me for a ride.’ She says.

Indie Film: Ignoring Quality

I saw the premier of an indie film a few weeks ago, How to Rob a Bank. This wasn't too bad of a film. But, nothing to write home about. Then maybe it'll grow on me. But, I got the feeling I was watching someone's cousin who had the right connections to get something produced, and not a diamond in the rough, as we'd like to think are found at indie fests. It's a shame, because the story is good, the premise is good, the acting is good, the camera and sound are good. The execution is lacking.

If I had read the screenplay that I'm assuming this film was made from, I can imagine it wouldn't get too far in terms of what you'd expect typical prodco readers want to see in a good screenplay, if there are typical prodco readers.

It has holes in it. It lags in places. A few people actually walked out of the theater. I think the guy next to me fell asleep, and he was on the crew.

We hear so much about how a screenplay has to be a good compelling story. If it's a comedy it should keep you laughing every few minutes. The action should keep up a pace. Then you go to a fest and see some sophomoric B film like this.

I think the cast and crew put forth an admirable effort. But, the script clearly wasn't ready, unless you don't mind competing with stuff like 40 Year Old Virgin. Even that was more polished.

But, this isn't the only film at the fest I thought violated high standards. Some of the others were slow and lagging too. There seems to be a lower bar at fests where filmmakers can put out lower quality stuff that you know could be improved if they'd just put more effort into it, and I mean effort into the story, screenplay and editing. They shine in the production phase. But, films are so much more than working 20 hour days on the set, no matter how good of a job it is.

Festivals

Something I do notice at festivals is that although almost every film is amateurish and has obvious flaws, there is always something redeeming there. Sometimes, it's just the passion of the director, cast and crew that shines through, and you can forgive the flagrant violations of things like poor angles, lulls in the story, static shots, and more. A lot of that is due to low budgets, maybe an inexperienced DP or inability to do re-shoots.

I saw an Iranian film that repeatedly had long shots holding on one character in a two way dialog, not showing the other until at the end as a quick reaction. I could tell that rated very low with a lot of viewers. But, if you could look past that, you might see some great merit.

The things I can't forgive are things fixable with just a little more effort, like weak or slow stories, pacing, or editing.

There are always those with high standards in terms of a finished look. They don't think of themselves as snobs, but that's what they are, because they criticize based on what they expect to see in a Hollywood film. Just breaking a few conventions will throw these people off. They're missing the point. The same people would consider 40 Year Old Virgin a good film. I'd take a decent story with unmotivated angles over that film anytime. In the context of indie filmmaking criticisms concerning the polish of the work really aren't valid. When there is polish there it's icing. It's what might win the fest instead of placing.

There aren't many great films in all existence, let alone at a festival. How many at the LA Film Fest would you say stack up to any of the IMDB or AFI top 100? I'd say, exactly none. So, there's plenty of room for criticism on any of these indie greats. No matter how much you liked How to Rob a Bank or think it was pretty much flawless, and I can see how some could say that, it ain't no Saving Private Ryan.

It's a matter of relativity. Relativity to trailer versus the actual short, relativity to something done on little to no resources. Relativity to your particular prejudices and notions about quality.....

I'm referring to things in pre and post, the story, script, editing. I know the masses of cast and crew work diligent 20 hours days. But, that's not all there is to making a film. The most important part is the script. You might say in terms of man-hours, 90% of the work is done in production. But, in terms of importance to the project 90% is done in pre and post. I always get the feeling at the fests that the directors and producers lag in the area of polishing the script and making sure they have a good cut, even if it means spending another year at it. They seem to be playing to the cast and crew, who are their anxious audience waiting with baited breath for the premier. That's not the place to focus your energy.

Rules?

To clarify my meaning, I feel that great artists need talent and must know a craft. That doesn't mean all artists who are great in a given discipline, like writing, have to know the same craft and all apply the same tools to their work. It means they need to know their own craft, which could be unique. So, to make blanket statement like 'never break the 180', 'use motivated angles', 'use a three act structure' and on and on, is like saying artists must apply certain rules or conventions to be successful.

This is a fallacy. It may be useful for artists to use similar tools if the tools work for them. But, there are no tools, rules, or conventions that are mandatory for success, except maybe something more abstract and blanket like the rule that art must be compelling or interesting. But even that is optional. Art can be disturbing, repulsive, disgusting. It may have a limited audience but it could still be successful. It worked for Lynch to get him an AFI grant and launch his career.

It's just plain wrong to say you need any conventions. You may need them. But don't project your needs upon others.

Now, if you look at a work and say, "it just isn't compelling, I couldn't get past the first page, no one will ever watch that, people walked out after the first 10 minutes", and if others agree with you, then I think you might have a good argument that something isn't working. But, you still don't know that it's these conventions that are missing, unless you can take the work and point out specifically how a certain tool works to make better. But, in doing that you've applied your craft, not the artist's craft and it becomes your work and not theirs. They must agree and apply the tool you suggest, if they find it valid. But, they could just as well make an alteration with their own tools, like a fluid camera for example, that will make it work.

When you and others apply certain conventions or tools across all work, it then takes on the attribute of being a rule. It's seems you think certain things are always necessary and must be done, just as with laws, people must always do certain things that are mandatory, like drive on the right side of the road. When you do this you are creating rules. But in art no rule is mandatory. Every one of them is optional. So, effectively there are no rules, only guidelines.

David Lynch

I think Lynch's shorts fall into the category of art that some would define as bad art. The thing about them is originality. If something is original enough it is interesting and it's quality doesn't matter. If you look at Clerks, you could say quality is lacking, yet it's highly original. Lenny Bruce might be another example.

I'm curious what the critics here would have to say about Lynch's shorts. Look at the reviews of them here. Most here would probably say he sucks as well. What people are missing is that consideration has to be given to the circumstances and restrictions under which the films were made. Another consideration should be originality. one implied my trailer is no more original than a thousand others they've seen. But, I feel there is originality there that is interpreted as bad craft disguised as artsy technique. It's no more that than Tarantino's Death Proof is as unoriginal as the grindhouse films he is paying homage to. Oh, pardon me if you think I'm comparing myself to Tarantino. It's an analogy, not a comparison. But, of course, those who think I suck largely think he does too.

But, I don't think Lynch had a movie audience for his short films, as we'd consider one when we write. He may have had an art community audience (God forbid). His first one Six Men Getting Sick was a continuous loop played at galleries. So, while the audience matters, which audience matters? In this case it's the one that got AFI to consider his work. The point is audiences differ quite a bit. You must know this well. That audience would call the work of probably anyone here passe, unoriginal, and they'd likely sneer at us.

But, when we make a film and put in into festivals, that's a specific audience too, one that I think likes originality above all else and forgives technical problems, taking resources into consideration, and looking for passion and promise in the filmmakers, not polish.

This topic has been discussed in detail here.

Originality

It's an interesting point that filmmakers who watch too many films based their films on other films and not on life.

When I was in film school, I came into film as a photographer and artist, and wasn't very educated or aware of film history or how films were written or made by others. But, I really liked photography and adding the elements of motion and time to my photography was very exciting for me.

When people asked me what films I thought were great, my reply was that no great film had yet been made, and I was on a quest to prove that with my own work. But, that wasn't really true because I had always loved films and as a child stayed up late nights watching movies on TV. So, I was probably very influenced by them and didn't realize it.

To compare my work to other filmmakers back then seemed ludicrous to me. I was my own person and I did my own art and the whole thing about art is that it has to be from the individual and it has to be original above all else. To take the concept of originality to an extreme, you could say that any influence from any other existing work is a potential corruption of your originality. You should come from a place within and from real life, not from what you know about what others have done.

So, when a new writer asks if it's ok for a screenwriter to not watch other films, it makes a lot of sense and is a legitimate question, to which I would answer, absolutely not, you'd don't have to watch other films and doing so will undoubtedly impeded your originality.

On the other hand, you can learn a lot about craft, technique, and even ideas that other filmmakers use. But, note that there are so few original filmmakers, likely due to the fact that they all watch and love other films. This may sound strange. But, give it a minute to sink in. It's really very logical. If you haven't been exposed to all the stuff that's been done, it's less likely all that stuff will influence you and shape how you think films should be written.

But, I'm not an extremist. I'm not saying never watch another film. I'm just saying doing so can influence you and hinder originality. In fact, I watch films every day, probably at least three a day. But, that's not how I started out. I think to both write and watch films you have to separate your own works from others'. It's not so easy or obvious. Subconsciously, other films will influence you. Stories should be written from your imagination, your research, from real life; but not from other stories. I think you can develop a tough skin by consciously keeping aware of what you watch to keep it from influencing you subconsciously. But, you first have to come from a place of originality.

When I started in film, I had been into photography and art. I wasn't an avid film watcher at all. So, my first film was a visual experiment without actors. Later when I tried using actors my film resembled a forties film. I had been subconsciously influenced by all the Late Shows I watched as a kid.

David Lynch is one of the few truly original filmmakers, probably because he came into film as an artist looking to add motion to his paintings and knew nothing about filmmaking, as far as I know. Look at his work and this is so very apparent. I suspect as he got more into filmmaking his originality became more corrupted by other filmmakers' influences, and indoctrinated into Hollywood. I'm curious about what he'd have to say about this. If he did watch films before making his early short film, it wasn't at all apparent.

Great films always seem to have some strong original aspect to them. Tarantino used time line manipulation and emulation of past film genres, which is ironically original since he's redoing what's been done. But, to do that is part of what's original.

Then as technology progresses it adds more originality by making things possible that were not possible before. Those who exploit this alone are simply using gimmicks to sell their snake oil.

Now we have the industry paradigm of doing movies that have strong elements of stuff that has sold in the past, which is the exact opposite of being original, and what you end up with is a lot of crap films. The crap films sell to growing retarded audiences who love them. Meanwhile, good writers can't get their stuff sold, and so we have a market full of crappy screenwriters and gimmick filmmakers while the potentially great ones work their shitty day jobs, thinking they're no good because they can't get sold. I wonder if it's retarded audiences that are attracted to these films or the films that condition people into being retarded, since there's so little choice unless you get IFC or the Sundance Channel or live near a limited release art house type theater.

The film business is the business of selling art. Before you can sell art, you have to have art to sell. So, I put it to you that the first order of business is to make the best art that you can.

The Numbers

Here are some numbers

Out of 718 films screened in 2006 here are some gross figures:
Five made nothing or less
15 grossed less than $1000
118 grossed less than $10,000
280 grossed less than $100,000
about 440 grossed less than one million

That leaves 171 out of 716 that grossed 7 figures or more, and it's likely these were the only ones profitable by any worthy margin, since most films cost over a million to make. But, since getting or compiling a listing of the costs of these films is almost impossible, i can't be specific.

Anyway I think it's safe to assume about 23% were decently profitable. That leads me to believe that the business practices leave something to be desired. The industry gets by on the top few money makers and can then afford all the other failures.

What would be better would be to have more films making money than these 23%. I think to do that you have to hit the untapped markets, which I think are people who are largely turned off by the inane subject matter of the top selling movies. Not all of them but most. Notice many on top are kids films, leaving the adult market untapped.

It doesn't take an MBA to realize this model isn't working as well as it could be.

Here is a breakdown of the market in genres.

As you can see, they clearly are not getting much out of some genres, specifically, dark comedy, which I think has a huge untapped adult market, which execs are afraid to take risks with. But, it would make more sense, knowing that most good screenwriters write in that genre along with some others that are overlooked, to take that risk instead of pushing for more of the the genres that get the most play, comedy and drama.

The numbers I'd really like to see would be a list of movies made in a year, their budgets and their profits. Remember, distribution takes a big chunk of the gross. Now look again at that list, pick out the films made in 2006. Count how many would be considered profitable and compare that with the number 350, which is approximately how many movies are made in a year. Even if you only count the movies that are profitable, the ones making over 6 figures, you come up with only 171 out of the 350. That's just slightly less than half, even giving it the leeway and benefit of the doubt.

I'm not necessarily saying Hollywood is passing over diamonds in the rough, or that there are many un-produced great writers that aren't getting a shot. Though, that's probably true.

I'm just saying Hollywood's convention of looking for what makes money instead of looking for quality work and then using it to make money is the wrong way to go about doing business. It is a reactive stance to take. Finding quality work first is a proactive stance. As you know, an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The drive should be to find the best creative talents that can be found, let them and help them use their talent. Let them tell us what people want, regardless of what people have wanted in the past. Nurture their talent. then when they're ready for prime time, exploit them for money.

Whether these talents exist or not, or are passed over or not is an unknown until the industry actively seeks them out, instead of dictating what sells and what doesn't sell, how to structure stories, how to write in genres, what genres to write in, or how to be marketable. If no one in Hollywood knows anything as Goldman says, then obviously the business isn't working as well as it could. Why don't we wake up and decide to learn something about what people want, instead of trudging along like the blind leading the blind.

Artists have that vision to see into the future and write stories about things they know people will want in the future. Successful Hollywood writers even now do that. But, often in doing so they are going against the grain and fighting uphill battles with conventional wisdom.

The Music Analogy

Keeping with my state of mind in film school, I'd say even what we now consider classics will one day be looked upon as the crude beginnings of the medium. Look at music, which has been around for hundreds of years. Look at the the classics. When did music start and how long was it before the classic composers came on the scene, hundreds, maybe thousands of years?

Film has only been around for a hundred years or so. If filmmakers could just let go of convention, tradition and always thinking inside the box, we might see some break through into a higher state of art in movies. But, these things take time, lots of time, eras of time.