Much like how Jon Stewart created Conan O’Brien (ergo Jon Stewart created Mike Huckabee), I too can take credit for creating this morning’s Film Flunkie blog post – the new retirement home for unpaid commentary from one of Hollywood’s most liberal elite, executive producer Michael J. Knowlan.
Mike Knowlan is someone I have endured as a friend since his final days at the New York Film Academy, back when his only dream was to be the next Brett Ratner. I was something like a mentor to the poor kid; I basically taught him everything he knows. Prior to meeting me, Knowlan’s only acquaintance was Carl Johnson – Hollywood’s most prodigious production assistant. He was on a fast track to nowhere before I shaped him into the power-hungry egomaniac he is today.
And this is how he repays me? Is it not enough that this vile taskmaster verbally whips me into submission to do his bidding for The Projectionist, but now he must also steal my thunder in the blogosphere as well?
Well then, I’ll just have to bring a ‘lil bit of the lightning.
Mike actually spends the better part of the morning talking about Legend, a film that he admits (and rightfully so) that nobody really likes. The gist of his argument is that Ridley Scott and his production staff accomplished a slick-looking visual effect shot using nothing more than a fishing rod and a light bulb; a feat which would undoubtedly be computer generated if produced today.
This discussion actually stems from a phone conversation the two of us had about a week or so ago (I forget when, we honestly chat like teenage girls every other day) when I aped a talking point from Ain’t It Cool News of all places – back when the juvenile media outlet posted a new trailer for the rather unnecessary A Nightmare on Elm Street remake.
Quint complained that he hated seeing some of the shot-for-shot stuff, because it highlights the disparity in production techniques. For example, the scene where Freddy starts to come out from the bedroom wall; in 1984, this was accomplished with some paint and a nylon sheet, but nowadays, it’s painfully cheesy-looking CG.
TWENTY SIX YEARS LATER, SPECIAL EFFECTS HAVE SOMEHOW GOTTEN WORSE. I find it mind boggling that a director or producer would voluntarily opt for the visual effect shot that is not only less believable, but more expensive. I just refuse to believe that even with today’s union rates, that it is somehow more efficient and cheaper to digitally recreate the same scene on a render farm rather than let some stage hand jury rig a similar setup to the one they used in 1984.
If it’s good enough for Wes Craven, it should be good enough for whatever overrated music video director Michael Bay found to direct this piece of garbage.
But when I spoke to Mike over the phone about this very subject, it dawned on me that maybe it wasn’t just a case of a director or producer foolishly picking digital effects over practical effects, but rather that the art of creative problem solving is all but dead. That the knowledgebase for young filmmakers just isn’t there anymore.
Let me backtrack a little bit.
For me, the film that awoken the itch was Jaws. I remember being about six or seven-years-old, popping in the VHS and being so blown away that I immediately put it in the tape rewinder (remember those?) and watched it again – back to back. My mind was at a loss to explain everything, but I had to know how they made the movie.
So I went to the library (remember those?).
At that age, I loved magic. I had maybe two or three magic kits, including a magic hat with trick doors and all kinds of neat tools of the trade. At the same time, I was being groomed on a steady film diet of Hitchcock and Spielberg. It was at the library that those worlds began to collide.
I remember picking up a book – perhaps Movie Magic – and reading how Hitchcock would pull off all these clever shots. Directors back then, and even in Spielberg’s heyday, couldn’t rely on computer imagery to get the job done, so they often had to come up with optical illusions and practical effects to get the desired effect. They also had to be cheap. Some of the techniques that early directors developed were astounding; these guys weren’t just making movies, they were making illusions.
That’s when I realized that directors weren’t just filmmakers – they were magicians. It was a stunning revelation.
And like magicians, their circle was a closed one and their craft was passed down from generation to generation. Entrance was limited and with the industry’s Darwinian approach, few could survive. Still, what an exciting world.
Then came the digital convergence.
Now filmmakers’ visions are only bound by computer processing speeds and money, but it’s come at a great loss. That apprenticeship that used to shape a raw director into a great one is no longer required; all you need is a student loan for a film school of choice and a decent handheld. Nobody bothers to learn anything but the fundamentals, because everything else can be done in post.
Post-production is where a film is made nowadays, not on the set anymore. It’s kind of a sad state of affairs, but these young guys honestly don’t know any better.
So there you go, Mike Knowlan not only steals my thunder, but also my theories on contemporary film production – all without the courtesy of a reach around.
Chivalry is truly dead.
I'm sure if the tech was avaiable back then they would if they could.
Reply to this
I like to spend time in the internet and surf Google looking for something worthy to read or at least look through... There's so much garbage nowadays ( and that's why I'm glad to have found your resource. Simply wanted to say that this site is one of my favorites, there's always something to read. I wish you good luck and many devoted readers ) My resource for you – rapidshare SE( http://www.rapidsharemix.com/trends/id/13-06-2010.html ) with huge database
Reply to this
I really liked the special effects of those days....but today the technology is fast but the classic movies were much better than todays....
Reply to this
Let's hope things don't stay this way, movie production is about art and not about digital effects. The better we understand this the greatest the productions will be whether the director is young or old. Inspiration is all that matters.
Reply to this
hes heart hoop earrings these beautifully-crafted white watches are fantastic accessories to capture a particular style when spring is on its way and winter gradually say goodbye to usRecently the Tag Heuer announce their new mouthpiece C Karun Chandhok and Ho-Pin Tung replica breitling Known as the first watch brand ever to sponsor a racing driver with Jo Siffert in 1969 TAG Heuer has a unique and legitimate tradition to support drivers This season for the first time fake rolex Tag Heuer MONACO F1 driver Karun Chandhok replica concord watches the 26 years old Indian driver
Reply to this