Print

Print


>your post, you are suggesting that unless a filmmaker has a "more
>well-rounded liberal arts education, often with more knowledge of classic
>literature, theatre, music or film hisory..." he or she is somehow
 
This is an issue to me. I'm still in college, getting that "classic" education,
and unfortunately I'm not as well-viewed in the film classics that Tarantino
seems to be - which is why references to New Wave styles famous directors
and siilar remarks seem self-serving and masturbatory to me.
 
>inferior.  This is just a lot of hot air.  Anyone can and should make a
>film who can get their hands on a camera.  The last thing we need is to
>have all of our films (cannonized or whatever) come from a certain "elite".
 
This is true - but at the same time, a goo filmmaker is not a film specialist.
Few other careers draw upon psychology, sociology, literature (of any kind),
and writing as the director's career. Whether these disciplines were learned
in school or the Real World is irrelevant - a filmmaker brings *experience*
to the screen, weaving connections between all that interests them.
 
>So Tarantino worked in a video store...big deal.  His literature is the
>films of these so-called great directors you listed above.  Simply
>viewing their films is or can be film school enough.
 
I agree that it doesn't matter where you get your experience from - but
a good director will have a broad vision - and I think Tarantino does.
 
 
 
J Roberson