I think this issue may cut to the heart of a lot of things, for instance how subjective cinema really is. Being a Nolan-hater, I came across this passage in a blog Ebert wrote right after Inception, about White's review:

White never illustrates how Nolan's compositions are lacking. He cites no shots that are badly canted. He assumes artistic gifts are "natural," implying filmmakers are born, not made, thus coming down on the side of genetics against environment. Maybe he's right, but it would take an essay to defend that sentence.

So who's right? Say, hypothetically, that we all considered Nolan to be a hack. Would that be because he simply chooses to thumb his nose at certain principles of filmmaking (casting, composition, pacing, staging of action, etc.) or because he was literally born without an ability to become any better than he is?

Filmmakers are made. The idea that such a craft-oriented medium can be populated with geniuses and hacks by accident of birth is preposterous.

Nolan is part of a trend that reacts against certain rules of film grammar, but that doesn't mean it's because he's simply incapable of comprehending those rules. In fact, I'd say that's one of the less likely explanations.

Okay, then WHY do they react against those rules? Unless the reason is, as I suspect, that they're simply not good enough to adhere to them, what the hell is the reason? Why wouldn't they WANT to be good at following the rules of their own chosen profession? To put it another way, if Spielberg wanted to make The Dark Knight, all he'd have to do is get drunk every day on the set and leave to the rest to his crew. If Spielberg wanted to make Inception, he wouldn't show up on set at all; he'd hire some action teams and call it a day. If Spielberg wanted to make Memento, he wouldn't; he'd make Minority Report. If Nolan wanted to make Munich...see how that question has no answer? Unless someone else has one.

Spielberg was always going to be who he is from the moment he watched a movie...and by extension, I think, from the moment he was born. Nolan could never be that good if he lived for 200 years. Some people got it, some don't; filmmakers are born.

Spielberg is undoubtedly a genius, but he also started the learning process very early on and soaked up a lot of lessons from childhood. While he still in grade school, his very indulgent father got him into secure locations for filming, helped him to organize his projects, and otherwise acted as a driving force for his aspirations. Spielberg seemed to come out of nowhere in the '70s with Duel, Sugarland Express, and Jaws, but he'd been involved in serious-ish film projects for probably about 15 years by that point. That's a long time to soak up lessons, learn what works, and discard what doesn't work.

I don't doubt that there's some raw storytelling talent there, but as far as film goes specifically, every Spielberg film has the benefit of years of observation, experimentation, and failures learned from. It takes talent to tell stories, but it takes a big box of tools to be able to tell stories on film, especially as well as Spielberg does.

If you were to ask Christopher Nolan (for example) why the 180 degree rule is important, I'm sure he could tell you. It is not incapability that makes him what he is. There is a school of thought in modern action filmmaking which dictates that sloppiness, messiness, and confusion are all positive characteristics. It's a reaction against techniques that are viewed to be staid, overly formalistic, too artistic, or whatever. There are directors who believe that film grammar is either unimportant or downright bad.

I can only speak for myself, but I believe this stems partially from a feeling of rejection among action filmmakers by the critical community. These directors are thinking, "If we're never going to be good enough to satisfy those standards, then let's grind the standards under our bootheels." The catch is, there are some action movies that I'd say meet and even exceed those standards.

I think action directors who reject the rules are too hasty for doing so, but I also believe their sense of rejection by critics has a basis in reality. If more film reviews took the time to trumpet the genius of (for example) the pre-Hollywood work of Jackie Chan and spent less time licking the balls of innocuous Oscar bait like The King's Speech, we'd all be much better off--all of us, including the moviegoers, the filmmakers, the money guys, and even the critics themselves.

Fun Spielberg fact that I was unable to work into my tirade in a more natural way: I am very slightly taller than he is, even though I can only imagine him to be enormous.

You realize, of course, that if no one ever broke the "rules," we'd be left with some awfully vanilla films. In other words, we'd be left with Spielberg and a bunch of Spielberg-lites. Spielberg is a master craftsman, certainly, but his best film (Schindler's) is remarkable specifically because Spielberg reels himself in from the pomp and flashiness that decorate the rest of his work. He's a classical filmmaker, and near the peak of that group, but I think you could make a case that he often limits himself by those boundaries. He's a great movie storyteller who doesn't always make great movies. They're generally solid and well-crafted and splendidly entertaining, but for me, they're rarely more. One of my personal favorites of his is Private Ryan, and the way he captures the chaos of the beach landing coupled with the clarity of the final battle is insane. Again, master craftsman in every sense. He's absolutely stayed within the rules as you said, and I don't think he should be slammed for that. Malick breaks all kinds of rules, but is a great filmmaker. Do you dismiss every abstract painter? Not all rules are made to be broken, but some artists are born with the understanding of why some rules should be ignored.



I think everyone is born with some measure of artistic ability. Spielberg would not have made films if he'd been born 1,000 years ago or on a deserted island, but he would absolutely, I think, have told grand and big stories, focused on flash and sweeping epicness, less so on character. I agree with you there.

That said, I firmly, resolutely believe that no one gets to their individual artistic peak without work, perseverance, and a willingness to consider what breaking the "rules." The word "peak" is important here: clearly we have had great artists in all mediums who for whatever reasons (personal demons, etc) didn't reach their peak although they did leave us with great art. I believe that everyone, with work and effort, can get better at any form of art they desire to. Now, I think everyone's ceiling is different, and work will only carry anyone to a certain point.

The problem I have with the notion of being a "born filmmaker" or born-anything else is that it sometimes implies that they were just there. I don't think that happens.

The problem is, Jackie Chan is not a viable alternative. His work is inherently niche, and in a way that neither critics nor casual viewers would ever accept over the latest Batman film. Proper solutions to the hack style of action are more along the lines of Casino Royale; it's baffling to me that more filmmakers haven't tried to adopt Campbell's style in that film. Just replay the Miami airport chase over and over and over again, and you'll never have to know who Jason Bourne is or was; very little handheld, very large emphasis on the violent energy emanating from the actors (largely through sweat)...most importantly, you always know who has what weapon and how and why they are using it. Without that knowledge, the climactic joke of the grenade going off on the villain's waist would not work.

Shade, I think the person you describe is more along the lines of Campbell; he has a passion for old school craftsmanship, but sometimes the movies just don't work. In what way does Spielberg limit himself? He's made films for all age groups, in color and black and white, ranging from Oscar bait to box office gold. His take on violence, for example, ranges from playful to caustically harsh and graphic; who else can make that claim? His take on sex ranges from schoolboy fantasy to hardcore pregnant shit (not that that's especially kinky, but how often do you see it in a Hollywood film?).



Then, by literal definition, they have no genuine passion for film.



You say that as if I'm referring to an over-emphasis on political correctness. I'm not. Plenty of edgy, anti-mainstream films came from the noir movement of the 40s and 50s, but those guys still followed the rules that people like Wyler and Hawks prided themselves on. Although, I'd actually make the case that Maltese Falcon puts far less emphasis on good craftsmanship than most lesser-known noirs, such as those by Preminger, Siodmak, Welles, Mann of course, and hell, even Aldrich. But that's for another thread. What I'm talking about is a complete disregard for what film has always adhered to: yes, going all the way back to the Griffith model. The very concept of a shot, or a close-up, as Griffith saw it, is completely lost on the group to which Ken refers. Maybe you could make a case for them if Griffith's method had already been abandoned decades earlier...but it hadn't. Nolan and others of his generation are literally the FIRST time Hollywood has disregarded the real method of craftsmanship.



Yes, and this is a concept worth fighting for. No matter what century Shakespeare had been born in, he would have found a way to be just as influential and popular every time.



Absolutely. Mann didn't make a good film until he was 40, and he made 10-15 pretty bad ones before that. But that good film was always going to happen eventually.

I don't disagree with any of that in terms of what defines Spielberg. I agree he's made everything from Oscar bait to box office gold, but I don't think he's gone outside either of those boundaries. On the one side I don't think he's really pushed the limits of what films can be, and on the other side I don't personally feel that he's approached real, believable, everyday people in his work. If he's the Dickens of film that's no slight, but everything and everyone in his films are grand and sweeping and larger-than-life. Some of this goes back to taste and our personal differences there, but it's hard for me to imagine Spielberg trying, or being able to, accomplish something as close-to-the-ground and intimate as Lilja 4-Ever or Floating Weeds or even 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. In the same way that 99.9% of people are incapable of what he does, he's among the large percentage of those incapable of doing what smaller filmmakers do. Again, that's not a slam, I'm just trying to define what I mean.



I get what you're saying and there's elements I agree with, but the problem is that this view would hold that Pollock had no passion for painting, Dylan has no passion for making music, etc. Now, I didn't use the example of Dylan's singing, because respect for vocal grammar, if you will, is different than simply having a less-than-traditional voice. Dylan, by and large, sticks to the grammar of singing. But his songwriting strayed from that in important ways at times (as did many other musicians), and that's the only problem I have with this view. I do disagree with Ken in that directors should find film grammar important in that if they don't know it they don't know what they're breaking or not breaking, but I don't think they have to adhere to it in all cases.



Fair enough, to wanted to be sure.



Yes and yes.

My answer is that your whole sentence there is one of the most incomprehensible loads of bull I've read on the forum in a while. "Simply not good enough to adhere to them"? For someone who stands so far above pretension, that has to be one of the most pretentious things to make it on to Reelviews in a fortnight or three.

What's wrong with a filmmaker rebelling against the "rules"? Modern cinema, at its best and worst, was made by coloring outside the lines. If you're too focused on the "rules", you're just as boring a filmgoer as Joe Blow Classicism is a filmmaker.

There are certain sensibilities a filmmaker has by the time they make their first film from years of studying their favorite movies and filmmakers: Paul W.S. Anderson wasn't born a shitty filmmaker, he got that way from years of bad taste building up to his big break, same as Werner Herzog (a rule breaking trailblazer if there ever was one) studied for years and tweaked his films beyond and against the norm, and is considered one of the greatest filmmakers to have worked with the medium. Many filmmakers have matured as they progressed through their career, many others have spun down the pot.

Filmmakers are not born, they are made. Film is an art form, and what has art done since its inception? Evolved. Much as you might not like certain filmmakers and their work, without their contribution to cinema, film as we know it would not exist. Support your favorite filmmakers and cinematic styles, denounce those you're against, and for the love of god stop choosing targets as if they're gonna tear down the whole institution.

Bull and shit. They just don't share the same passion as you do in the same way.

Far be it from me to jump to MGames' defense.............but................

To the bolded part: Film is art. Yes, absolutely. And yes, no one filmmaker is going to tear everything down on their own. That said, although the playing field has been leveled considerably, the sheer excess of film as a for-profit endeavor runs the potential to obliterate everything that attempts to be art in pursuit of bucketloads of cash through fast food-level entertainment. In that sense, I think we should stand up against not just Nolan (MGames' focus is indeed too narrow) but rather against some of what he represents. When Nolan is being touted as an all-time great or even as the greatest filmmaker going by some, that's a problem that potentially endangers the films that are actually art if people start to think that Nolan is making art. Again, I think MGames takes the hate way too far at times, and I have little problem with people enjoying Nolan. The problem starts when people think that Inception is a great, important film. If people think it's great entertainment, by all means consume it.

To the non-bolded part: I completely agree.

Well, Shade has summed up the problem I've been describing all along. I guess the only differences we have involve how great a problem it actually is.



The bold statement is incorrect. Modern cinema was made by bringing new and exciting colors, original patterns etc., but keeping them INSIDE the lines. That's what people want to see, and that's what they've always wanted to see. That's the art form. Pollack, unless I'm mistaken, didn't get any paint on the museum walls, floors, and ceilings; that's what people like Nolan and Godard have done, but Pollack kept the paint on the canvas. James Cameron through the paint in your face and got you wet. Without the rules, anyone could say anything is good and never be questioned or criticized for their opinion. In fact, no movie could ever be legitimately criticized without the rules. And when you bring the idea of a boring filmgoer into the mix, it just sounds like you're trying to justify the lowered quality of Hollywood's output in recent years. You don't have to force yourself to like something just because there's almost nothing to like.



Watch, or rewatch, The Birth of a Nation. You'd be surprised how little has changed, and how strongly certain directors, including Spielberg, have adhered to that fundamental tradition. I would describe that movie as a pilot for a series that's still running to this day. You can't make that claim for the other art forms, except perhaps theater. All you're really saying is that that series isn't enough to quench your thirst for movies.



Eh, I don't think it really works that way. I think film is a form that, for the most part, exists in the moment. No matter how deeply we delve into the classics, we're really just waiting for something new. The main reason I watch the classics, for the most part, is to learn those "rules" for myself, and to learn their history. I watch foreign films just to gain a greater perspective in order to better evaluate the latest releases. Yes, they're entertaining and emotionally viable in themselves, but that doesn't mean they're still relevant. All those contributions you refer to just won't be relevant forever. Spielberg's whole generation had a profound obsession with Howard Hawks, and to a lesser extent, John Ford. The next generation will find new obsessions, and new influences that are entirely removed from those figures. But the boundaries set down by them will, or should, remain in place. The best kind of art is achieved by pushing hard on those boundaries without truly breaking them.

Like any highly skilled vocation, a combination of the two. Of course you have to learn a massive amount, no matter who you are, but some will be born with more artistic talent than others. With all the practice in the world I could never become Marlon Brando's equal as an actor, but that doesn't mean he never busted his balls working on becoming the Marlon Brando we know.

And your anti-Nolan rhetoric is now lightyears beyond tedious.

And yet it becomes a light-year more relevant each day next year's release draws closer. We should be getting another trailer basically any day now. I do agree with the Brando analogy...those who fall into the former must still abide by the latter.

OK. We agree on one and not the other.

Fine my me.

Well, at least there's discussion in this topic now. When it was this:

MGamesCook: I wonder if filmmakers are born or made.
Ken: Made.
MGamesCook: YOUR OPINION IS NOT VALID I'M RIGHT FUCK NOLAN.
Ken: ........

I considered closing the topic on the grounds that a guy too obsessed with his own opinion does not qualify as meaningful discussion.

For the record, I think filmmakers are made, but in order to elaborate, I'd like a dialogue. An abrasive forum member telling me how wrong I am isn't a dialogue.

I'll cite Nolan as evidence for my side of the case. He obviously has some raw talent, and it's forceful enough that it comes through in his work, but the way he's developed that talent as a cinematic storyteller is very underwhelming. In different circumstances, he might have flourished as an artist. As it is, he's a manufacturer of cool ideas that go on to become deeply flawed movies. That's the difference between what a filmmaker is born with and what a filmmaker gains.

Spielberg is, at times, almost the opposite. Like Nolan, he clearly has an inborn passion for storytelling. Many of his works are predicated upon strong initial ideas--but not all of them. In fact, some of the films in his back catalog are fairly bland from a cerebral standpoint. But his films are all expertly crafted. You can always count on Spielberg to do an excellent job of telling the story, whether the story itself is interesting or not.

Nobody was born an artistic prodigy. Unless they were autistic...sometimes. Not really.

Is this true?

Just off watching Amedeus and knowing a little of the history of the composer, I'd have to say that he was born with more than most, prodigious at minimum.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought "Yes. They are."

Karma, predestination, fate... all imply that the path was present before the artist arrived. Natural talent is a great thing, but I'm not sure it can be valuable without an understanding of the medium. -Was Da Vinci born knowing how to mix colors to get other colors, or even knowing WTF paint was?

Mentorship, education, apprenticeship... are ingredients that can build a workman filmmaker. My guess would be that the director had to look through a camera or arrange lighting at some point in their career. This gave them the trellis upon which their talent could climb.

To say that one was "born" to do something says that they've no need to apply themselves to their craft. I'd have to say that elements of both need be present to be a "great" film maker.

Mozart--another undoubtedly creative person from birth, but one who was nurtured like hell by his father (a great composer in his own right, though overshadowed by his famous son) almost as soon as he could reach the keys of the piano. Mozart wasn't born knowing how to construct a symphony or improvise modally. He was given those containers and he poured his creativity into them.

Again, a tremendously creative and passionate person, for sure, but that's not what made him a composer.

This post was very insightful, Mr. Mod. Thank you for your contribution. I'd honestly like to hear your thoughts on the subject, but based on this post it doesn't sound like you have anything to say.