And Other Bullshit
There's a saying that I've oft heard creative people say. Something about how creativity is grown from restrictions and barriers. I can't remember the wording but that's the gist. The idea's a nice fancy one. If Bruce the Shark Puppet had worked correctly we'd see a shit ton more of a fake ass looking shark instead of the terror that is Jaws as we know it today. That restriction created a better movie.
Well, that's the general idea.
I respectfully disagree. In Jaws's case the obvious answer to that would be....no they'd just cut out what didn't work. The movie wasn't better because the puppet actually sucked, rarely worked right, and was nonthreatening in the extreme. It worked because it was well acted, directed, written, and most importantly EDITED. The editor and director would see all the footage and if they're good and not full of themselves they'd simply cut what didn't work. Saying the movie's better because you see the shark less is a rationalization and actually undermines the hard work the editor put in. But it makes for a better story. It's a fun piece of trivia or an anecdote for small conversations. But it's not true.
There was an old film experiment that took a piece of footage of a person's blank expressionless face. Just a person staring at the camera. Then they took footage of other things....a cat, some food, a photo, different things. They edited the footage together in multiple different combination with the blank face. The result was that people would perceive different things about that person depending on the footage shown. If it was food the person was obviously hungry. If it was a cat the person missed their pet. If it was a photo they were lonely. But it was just a person ordered to do make a neutral face. The message, the emotion, and the intent were totally artificially added later through editing and allow the viewers brain to do the heavy lifting and make sense of it. That's the power of the editor. So if something didn't work....odds are likely the editor would know and cut it...or arrange it in ways that it would work. All the nonworking puppet did was cut scenes from the movie.
But I'm not here to talk about Jaws or editing, despite numerous words to the contrary. I'm here to discuss that restrictions do not necessarily breed creativity. A funny note would be to mention Plan 9 From Outer Space and the fact that Bella Lugosi was dead and that was a restriction that was not resolved with creativity. More like a guy who looks nothing like Lugosi holding a cape to hide his face.
I began thinking about this because I've just watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for the first time. It's meh-sauce. Fun at first but overstays its welcome by about 15-20 minutes. But that movie had a ton of resources behind it. It had multiple production companies behind it, the US army helping it, and millions and millions of dollars. I feel such an endeavor should have resulted in a better product. It's not because it had so much that it fails. It fails because it lacked discipline. It's a very indulgent movie. You could make a drinking game out of taking shots whenever any military department takes off or prepares to move out with action music behind them. How many jets taking off should we see and still think shit's about to get real? Once. The cavalry can only arrive to save the day and be awesome once. Any more and they're not saving the day...they're inept and lead by Zapp Brannigan. (Sending Wave after Wave after them) Things have to be different once they arrive, it's a game changer, a turning of the tide. If they keep sending more and more and eventually win...well...that's just not as interesting. See the Battle of Pelennor Fields, where the cavalry arrives three times before the battle finally just peters out.
Also what did Peter do to make "peters out" a saying?
Oh.
Anyway, I've written shit for Geekers to film and once for a play. Those are very tight restrictions, especially the play which had to be cheap, one location, and did we mention dirt cheap? I cannot say that these things I wrote were any more or less creative than anything else. In fact, I'd love to make a movie with an endless budget just to make something freakin sweet....damn imaging Peter Griffin. But as if I needed to further illustrate this concept I bring up novels. Are you saying short stories and novellas are more creative and artistic than novels or the multi-book stories simply because they have a restrictive page count? Is a haiku more creative than a sonnet?
No.
So this whole belief seems rather flawed to me. It seems like rationalization for directors, writers, painters, and the like who fuck up, fail, and generally disappoint. Or for bragging about how independent they are and how much more artistic that makes them and their art.
Fuck you and your excuses. You ever see Creation of Adam by Michelangelo? That's the fucking roof of the goddamn massive Sistine Chapel. I mean look at it!
You see that thing behind God? It looks like a brain and a brain stem, right? What does that mean? That logic and reason are God? God's gift to man was reason? Is God all in our head? It's art! And it had Church money behind it and a whole large ass area to cover!
"But the ceiling is an absolute, Fools. It only has so much space."
....yeah. But so is everything. Everything is absolute. Creativity and art are not borne from limitations. It's borne out of hard work, discipline, talent, and imagination. And in film making editing and problem solving things like managing a budget all fall under imagination. You have to use everything you can for as cheap as possible. That takes imagination.
No, I do not know why I felt the need to rant about this.
Thanks for Reading.
|
|
|
|
