Regarding Motives in Creative Endeavors
It’s my hope that this doesn’t come across as a pretentious I’m-better-than-you sort of thing. It certainly isn’t a personal attack either. I’ve just had growing, strong, feelings about a “project” (I think I’ve decided that this is the best name for it) that I’ve continued hearing about and so this is my response to the issues that it has raised in my head.
There is a group of people on campus working on a feature-length documentary entitled “Me and My Shadow” (not to be confused with the ambitious Dreamworks project) about two people handcuffed together who go on a road trip to pick up the key and unlock their handcuffs. The road trip takes them from Muncie, IN to Canada, where the key has been mailed. It sounds like an interesting concept, but I have some serious problems with multiple parts of their process, namely how much emphasis they are putting into marketing the film, and the suspicions I have regarding their motives in making this. I could be entirely wrong, and I certainly won’t spend the entirety of this post discussing issues I have with them; rather, I’m hoping that by providing some backstory their film will serve as a jumping-off point for the rest of my thoughts.
One of the first things that bothers me is the fact that they took an idea that they already had (they began talking about this online in September) and condensed it into a 7 minute “documentary short” for a 72 Hour Film Contest sponsored by the Emerging Media Living/Learning Community on campus. This contest required that entrants be from one of two dorms on campus, and that all content be conceptualized, written, filmed, and edited in the allotted 72 hour time frame. Not only did they start with a pre-conceived idea, their film—which won first place—broke one of the most prominent rules about the contest:
“Film must include the three items designated. Items must also be integral to the film’s plot.”
This rule is in place in the hopes of deterring teams from using pre-established plots, characters, etc. in their films; however, even the judges overlooked this when awarding a film which broke several important rules first place. To make matters worse, the team of “Me and My Shadow” began to flaunt this “win” about their various social media outlets—except of course, their website, www.meandmyshadowfilm.com, which is referenced at the end of their first trailer, but doesn’t actually exist. Why they would display a URL for a domain that hasn’t even been registered is beyond me, but I guess when you are trying to saturate as much of the internet as you can with the same posts about your film, you might tend to forget to do a few things.
They used some very clever selective omission to make winning this “festival” as they refer to it (although it’s actually a contest, if you read any documentation about the actual event) seem like it was a school-wide achievement, proudly displaying a Sundance-esque badge—which they made themselves—on their fundraising website.
But, never mind the fact that there were only fifteen entries to the contest, and forget the fact that they didn’t have permission to use Ball State’s name in any promotional context with the film, what really gets me upset is that they then used this win as a springboard to get onto not one, but two, local television stations, where newscasters introduced it as “an award-winning film,” which, while true, is blown so out of proportion that it is staggering.
The thing is, that I can’t get this bad taste out of my mouth, a taste that says that they aren’t really committed to making a good film, and they don’t really care about the final project. I could be 100% incorrect, but the way that everyone involved in this project is behaving makes me feel as if they wanted a way to fund a road trip and become famous. I have yet to see the film, as they haven’t completed it yet, but they are spending so much time with publicizing this film, that I wonder how much better the finished product would be if they invested all of that time and energy into the film itself. One of their ads is a desperate plea for funding, and they seem to view money as an insurmountable obstacle to any creative endeavor. At one point they state of the project:
“This is the most ambitious project we could imagine for ourselves as collegestudents. We are two individuals driven towards making art, hoping to make our first foray into feature-length film.”
And then, only sentences later, they say:
“To be completely honest, we’re on a limited budget. We’re working students and cannot afford to make this film…We’re tenacious enough to make this project happen - we just need your contribution to get the ball rolling.”
These, to me, seem like totally contradicting thoughts. Someone who is “tenacious enough to make this project happen” and “driven towards making art” would not view money as an obstacle. They would do whatever it takes to make their film, and they would make it regardless of who did or didn’t support them. I will reserve judgment regarding the final film until I actually see it; if their first premiere is on campus, even if it costs money, I will attend it. But I think about their focus on publicity, on spreading the word, and I wonder where their hearts truly lie.
I’m learning something important about myself.
I’m learning that the commercial aspect of film—the focus on money, on pageviews, on box-office success, on catering to the masses—is something that I find disgusting. Disgusting.
That isn’t art.
That isn’t creative.
That is selling out.
Yes, I know that we need money to make things happen, that money is important to day-to-day life, and that there is certainly nothing wrong with commercialism. But a specific phrase they use in their fundraiser—”This film will live and die by word of mouth”—is something that makes me really uncomfortable. I think of people like Woody Allen, who don’t care at all about what reviewers say about his films, and continue making them regardless, or people like Ed Wood Jr., whose films are infamous for being terrible who continued creating regardless of critics said. That’s what’s important for artists. For creativity. To CREATE. Regardless.
To say that an artistic endeavor will “live and die” based on popularity shows a lack of drive. Individuals who are driven will accomplish whatever they set their mind to. Was Ed Wood Jr. a talented filmmaker? Were his films revolutionary? Were his films good? Yes, most of the answers to these questions are in the negative, but he was, without contention, an incredibly driven filmmaker. He, like Woody Allen, are not in “the business” to make money. To gain fame. They are in “the business” to express themselves in a way that no other medium of story-telling can.
I don’t think that any self-proclaimed artist should be out to make money. Or achieve fame. An artist—be he a painter, filmmaker, writer—needs to create out of a passion to create. Yes, it is possible to make money doing what you love, but you shouldn’t do what you love with the sole intentions of generating money or fame. That narrow frame of mind will hinder creativity in a way that a budget never could. A great film, a film with heart, doesn’t rely on fancy equipment, the best-quality cameras, state-of-the-art special effects. A great film touches the viewer, evokes in them some feeling, some emotion, which is meaningful and then sticks with them.
I understand that there are many different branches of filmmaking. Industry, independent, experimental. And I get that not every filmmaker (or director) will (or should, for that matter) share my opinions. I am speaking based off of my journey. I am still learning. Learning about filmmaking, learning about story telling, learning about myself. Some people might be in this game to achieve fandom. I don’t like that. People should do things that enrich them. That fulfill them. An audience will see through all the smoke and mirrors, all the edits and lens flares, and judge the film based off of one facet: content.
Many people seem to think that technical specifications of footage are a major contributor to audience reception of a film; after all, independent films are being directly compared with their multi-million dollar cousins, but I don’t think this is true. I don’t prescribe to the idea that audiences are dumb, that they’re fickle, that they need to be spoon-fed recycled plots and sequels. I think that there are educated audiences out there. People who appreciate cinema, and want to see something truly creative. What makes audiences coming back to films are memorable characters and interesting storylines, and having ulterior motives in creating some work of art will obscure the very things that are integral to the art itself.
I will never dumb-down anything for the audience. I am not making films for an audience, for commercial success, to become famous. Some people certainly are, and those people would probably have serious problems with aspects of my films. But I’m not creating for anyone else. It’s all me. My personal satisfaction. My creative vision.
If one’s motives for creating something are pure, than they needn’t worry about commercial success. All that matters is if you achieve what you want. If you can look at a piece of your work, and say to yourself, “This is the best work that I could have done. My artistic vision has been realized,” then nothing else should matter. For some people it doesn’t matter. Others need to get constant positive feedback in order to feel validated. Fulfillment should derive from the creation of the product, not the responses the product creates.
There are people who want to make movies, and there are people who need to make movies.
LOVE,
BRENT
