Are you Picasso or Tarantino?
October 24, 2007 by clive
One of the most common reactions I get when I write anything about screen writing technique is anger. Some people just get furious about high-concept, livid about formal screen play structure and rabid about any suggestion that there maybe a methodology to creating a successful screen play and therefore a successful film.
The arguments against are pretty much always the same… “there are no rules; formula is bad because it creates mediocrity and stifles originality; real artists strive to be true to their vision and therefore have to actively avoid even looking at “the rules;” and finally, there is no such thing as a workable formula.”
As a screen writer who believes in method and technique, but also sees himself as an artist, it would be easy to just ignore those who challenge that world view; but, because I’m a screen writer, I’m fascinated by two things, people and screen writing… it’s therefore no surprise that I’d spend some time thinking about these issues.
And, I’ve come to some conclusions…
Basically I’ve decided there are three different kinds of film makers: the iconoclast, the artist and the craftsman.
The iconoclast is the kind of savant film maker, whose approach defies analysis. Quentin Tarantino, Woody Allen and David Lynch leap to mind. In each case you’ve got a unique vision that works on screen, but springs from their own fierce (and in my opinion quite geeky) individuality.
These kind of film makers often turn out hugely original visions and become the heroes of indie film makers. These are the kind of film makers who achieve a cult status, the kind of film makers it’s fun to parody, but insane to emulate… simply because any attempt to copy their style immediately shouts “fan film.” (A concept I’ve never understood or been attracted to)
The artist is the kind of film maker who has a unique perspective on film making, but whose roots can be seen in traditional film making technique. I’m thinking of film makers like the Coen Brothers, Luc Besson or Julie Delphy. These are the kind of film makers who have a unique style of production, but whose work can be understood and reverse engineered, if you have an understanding of story telling technique.
Finally, you have the craftsmen. The kind of film makers who make great films, but whose films could have just as easily been made by any other craftsman. I tend to think of Tony Scott, Spielberg and Michael Bay as craftsmen… along with Ron Howard.
Now, there is nothing wrong with any of these film makers. I’m as likely to enjoy a Ron Howard movie as I am a Julie Delphy or a David Lynch. However, as indie film makers and as screen writers I think it’s worth a little bit of soul searching to figure out what kind of film maker you are.
I happen to believe that iconoclasts are born… and once hatched there is an inevitability that they’ll turn out the kind of stuff they turn out. I also believe that iconoclast are beyond training. It’s counter productive. I also happen to think they’re extremely rare.
At the other extreme, I think craftsmen pretty much always know they’re craftsmen. They never have any problems with embracing technique… and ironically, they often tend to achieve the most successful careers (if you’re measuring by box office and cash earned).
The problem group, tends to be the artists. It’s the group I most naturally fall into. And, the problem is… most artists want to be, or believe they are iconoclasts.
Or, in other words, artist film makers who should be embracing technique to make great films, end up making bad films because they see themselves as iconoclasts and therefore beyond technique.
I think this is a shame and it also flies in the face of art history. Picasso is without doubt one of the most innovative artists of modern times, his work was both ground breaking and changed the course of art history. Yet, Picasso’s work all originates from a foundation of flawless technique. He spent his childhood perfecting his figurative drawings… and from that foundation developed cubism. The same is true of Salvidor Dali and my favorite “bad girl” of modern art Tracy Emin’s drawings are exquisite. In fact, most of the artists perceived as iconoclasts, developed their individualistic styles from their understanding of the past, not by ignoring it.
Somewhere in the 21st Century the idea has arisen that you can only be a true artist if you flout convention… and by extension, the easiest way to do that is to ignore any suggestion that technique even exists.
However, I’m convinced there is a better way to be an artist film maker. Learn the conventions, study the techniques, work with them until you know you can make movies that way… and only then decide what you want to keep, because it works, and what you want to reject, because there is a better or more interesting way to do it.
I know my argument will probably fall on deaf ears… because deciding you’re an iconoclast is easier in the short run and more pleasing to the ego… but, if like me you try it for seven years and discover you’re actually not the natural genius you always assumed you were… well, don’t hang yourself or quit film making, there is another way… the way of the artist.
[film making] [indie] [artist] [screen writing] [Tarantino] [iconoclast]
[...] Original post by clive [...]
Clive,
Great post. Seriously. As we’ve said so many times before… You gots to KNOW the rules before you can break ‘em.
Unk
I guess I’d be a craftsman with a little bit of artist. I believe firmly in certain rules, though I let each scene dictate what it will be based on the necessities.
One thing I always do is have some type of imagery to punctuate the scene’s intent. I especially like it in screenplays because I love it when readers miss an important image and I can say, “yeah, that’s what the shadows were for” or “that’s why he/she tilts his/her up slowly.”
But then that works best in character-driven stuff. Anyway, cool post.
Unk… thanks, that means a lot.
Christian… good point and reminds me to write something about set-ups and pay offs soon.
Now you’ve made me angry!!
… just kidding. Quite a good summation of the different genres of filmmakers. Do write something on set-ups and pay-offs soon! I was just getting into inserting those into my structural thingy… technique… aw shit, I hope to hell I turn out to be an Iconoclast!
What a terrific post. Will keep an eye on this website for the future for sure.
Hey
great post. I couldnt agree more with your analysis. Although my ego likes to think it is an iconocalst, (and i have many internal battles with it), the reality is that im an artist, by that i mean that study all and every technique, i devour all knowledge of out art no matter how trivial. I love it, i love knowing how something works. Rather than making intinctive choices, which can be hit or miss, i like to know WHY i make a creative choice. This approach has slowed down my progress as i takes time and energy to learn but i think that over the long run it will pay off as there are very few holes in my general knowledge, Im beginning to notice that this is giving me a competetive edge over my contempories.
Most people i work with think they are iconoclasts, and they sneer at me for my studious and methodical approach. I belive that there ego keeps them denial and allows them to remain lazy.
I have a unshakeable conviction that you must learn the rules before you can break them……well unless you are an iconoclast!
Larry
Couldn’t agree more Larry.
I just believe a great many artists fail to become the great creatives they should be, simply because they think only iconoclasts are real artists.
They see only the chasm between the craftsman and the iconoclast and don’t feel able to live in either camp.
I know that’s true for me.
I don’t quite understand the distinction between “artist” and “iconoclast” (if that’s even a good term to use for it). Tarantino self-admittedly borrows heavily from films of the past in extraordinarily blatant ways that slip past most current filmmakers out of ignorance of the older material. That borrowing, and the study required to work it into an attempt at an original script, requires study of people who’ve most likely followed more traditional filmmaking technique, a definition you also attribute to the “artist.” So, in their obsession and study of movies of the past they can really be figuring out ways to lift ideas directly, as opposed to the artist’s unique vision devoid of overt theft. Tarantino loves to go on about how validated he is in just lifting another filmmaker’s work and making it his own with the cliche (and in his case inappropriate) defense of the fact that “real artists steal.” I forgot who originated this thought, so I apologize in the unlikely event that he’s reading this, but that phrase was coined to describe work whose origins might have come directly from something else, but not something well-known enough to cause any kind of an uproar or accusations of plagiarism. Tarantino borrows from movies that are fifty years and fewer years old, that millions of people are familiar with, so the sentiment isn’t as accurate, I guess is all I’m trying to say. That was a little out of nowhere and I apologize; I enjoy some of Tarantino’s movies and in truth it really doesn’t matter what I think because who the fuck am I, but it’s irritating that for some reason he’s allowed to take ideas and be considered some kind of an eccentric genius (which I’ll concede is not a universally held thought).
Don Juan,
To quote the Wikipedia… iconclast:
“People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who breaks or disdains established dogmata or conventions”
For the sake of this discussion, the difference between an iconoclast and an artist, is difference between a creative person who follows existing structures and techniques, when it comes to story telling… and, someone who doesn’t, but instead follows a unique internal compass.
Tarantino may approach the work in a post-modern way, by stealing from existing films… but, that’s besides the point. It’s the way he writes, that makes his work iconoclastic.
Now, I’m pretty ambivalent about his work. Some of it I like, some of it, I don’t. I’m not that keen on his geeky, fan-boy approach he takes to dialogue. I’m also not that keen on his two-dimensional, comic book characters. But, again, that is besides the point.
The point is, he makes a product that sells… and, he does this without using conventional story telling techniques.
Now… if you compare that with the Coen Brothers or Paul Schrader… where you also have a strong artistic vision, but their work conforms to accepted thinking about story telling and script development techniques.
Personally, I prefer the work of Paul Schrader to that of Tarantino… and I certainly don’t equate the word “iconoclast”, with the word “genius.” My belief is that he has an almost autistic relationship to film, where his stuff works… but it’s tough to figure out why.
What I’m trying to get over to people here, is it’s possible to use good technique and still be an artist. I’m not interested in the iconoclasts… I’m interested in those who have to work at what they do.
I think “iconoclast” and “artist” and the third one are pretty arbitrary categories for an extremely subjective and difficult-to-argue topic. And why are you only interested in those “who have to work at what they do,” as if the iconoclasts which you seem to simultaneously despise and be in awe of don’t have to work (and grouping Woodie Allen in with Tarantino’s a bit of a stretch, even in the most tangential of ways; Woodie Allen’s movies are pretty straight-forward for the most part, with the exception of well, exceptions like Annie Hall). And just as a curiosity, and to get a better understanding of what you’re trying to say because that’s not going to happen reading the article, how are Tarantino’s movies such a departure from the “accepted” way of story telling? Because Pulp Fiction’s out of order, or what else? I don’t think the order in which a movie’s scenes are organized sets a director ahead of his time, a fact which I’m sure you’ll both agree with and contest with whatever other evidence you think applies. And the condescending Wikipedia quote was unnecessary, it was your understanding of “iconoclast” I was questioning. Heated arguments about movies, which this could probably turn into for unknown reasons, are useless, but I just think you speak your opinions and theories with a little too much confidence and not enough openness to the fact that not only could they be misguided, but not worth mentioning. These considerations as pertaining to movies have been discussed for as long as more than one pretentious prick had a movie idea, and I don’t see what advantages come from their being continually brought up. That’s not a specific jab at you, but anybody who divides anythiing into convenient cliques and thinks they’ve got it figured.
Phew, movies are just not worth so much fuss.
And I meant “Woody,” and “anything” respectfully.
Don,
Thanks for the lengthy investment of time in attempting to teach me a little humility. A pretty futile exercise, at the best of times. LOL
And after all this my blog… and if a person can’t be over confident in their opinions in their own vanity publication, where can they be? I don’t expect people to agree with me, but I figure I’ve the same right as the next guy, to hold and express those opinions.
You might also be right, my definitions may be arbitrary, my examples poor… but actually, that’s besides the point, because this isn’t an article about Tarantino… it’s an article about spec screen writers and indie film makers attitudes to script development.
My twenty years experience of running professional writing teams and eleven years experience as an independent film maker have shown me there are a growing number of writers and film makers who believe it’s impossible to be an artist if you use structured approaches to your work. They believe that only an iconoclastic vision is required… and, that they have it.
My only purpose was to remind people that there are plenty of artists whose work is based on technique. That’s the reason I’m not interested in the iconoclasts. I am interested, however, in technique.
What I’m really not interested in, is an academic debate over whether Tarantino is an iconoclast or not… because I don’t think there is anything to be gained from that debate.
You’re right, there’s definitely nothing to be gained from that debate. But it just seems to me, and I don’t mean to spark anything, that you shouldn’t voice an opinion in a response-enabled venue (such as this site) and be surprised or offended by a little debate. I probably took it a little far and for no reason, really, so I apologize for that. I’m just tired of Tarantino’s being considered such a trail blazer in film.
And as little as I knew about you to begin with, I’m still surprised to hear you’re been writing for twenty years. Is there an IMDB.com page on some of the work you’ve done? I’d be curious to see it.
I’m neither offended or surprised… and actually I’ve been pretty polite and light about the whole thing.
I’ve also taken the time to clarify my position, without being either personal or offensive because after all, you’ve taken the time to read my piece and comment on it… and, I genuinely appreciate that.
I also hope you appreciate the fact that I’ve published all your comments, unedited… simply because I think you’ve a right to your opinion as well.
Now, if you’ve something interesting to say about screen writing technique, micro-budget filmmaking or the business of indie film distribution, I’d welcome further comments.
… if not, well, don’t let the door bang your ass on the way out.
And there’s where you cease being being pretty polite and light.
Yep