A Perfect Movie?

[888seed888]

This is just a little fantasy of mine.

What if a team of writers, artists, musicians, directors, and photographers got together and just said fuck it. What if they made a movie JUST for the sake of making an amazing artistic movie. Like, think about it. They ignored ALL restrictions in movie making. Anytime they needed to impede copyright laws, or butcher modern taboos they just did it.

And they made the running time the RIGHT running time for the story, not the finances. They didn't push for any rating. If its meant to be a G rated movie, it would be. If it's meant to be NC-17, it would be.

They ignored the popular trends and cliches of todays movies (unless they actually belonged in the scene) even if it meant it would flop at the box office. They definitely ignored our pop cultures version of "witty," "smart," "intelligent," or "non stop thrill ride." (maybe im just lashing out at critics now.)

What kind of movie would it be? What rating, and how long? How many times would they be sued, and for what? Would it kick ass, or suck it?

I know there are a hundred million other restrictions involved, but I don't really know that much about the film making process. In my defense, I am very tired, and already know that this message is poorly executed.

[seanie blue]

there are thousands of movies just like you described.

[NikeeGoddess]

thousands

[888seed888]

Oh ok then nevermind.

[Joe Calabrese]

Most films are made the way the filmmakers wanted it to be. It is usually only later, that a studio or distributor will buy the film and say, trim the length so more screenings, or cut out this nude scene to make it a pg13 versus r, etc... Many time it is the rating board that chimes in and forces the film to be changed (if they want to maintain a certain rating).

Also, when test screened, the audience can force a change. My Best Friend's Wedding is a good example of this. After tested, the audience hated Julia Roberts, so they changed the ending and brought Julia back in for reshoots.

I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that studio driven films have a watchdog or line producer hovering over the set, making sure it conforms to studio expectations and budgets.

But even still some producers and directors have said to hell with you and made the film they wanted and the studios had backed down. Titanic's budget was way above what the studio allowed, but because Cameron threatened to walk (I think he actually did a few times) they allowed it. He also fronted his own money.

With Scream, Wes Craven threatened to walk because the W brothers wanted a different mask than what was picked. In fact they wanted Wes to do several takes with different masks so they could pick one later. Also they were sure about the rough cut of the opening and wanted it changes. As I said, Wes threatened to walk and W's back down and let Wes do it the way he wanted.

And with Waterworld, the studio were too afraid to check up on and argue with Costner because of his star power. I imagine they regretted that decision.

[zeprosnepsid]

A lot of directors/filmmakers are given free reign, even within the studio system. And certainly in the independent world. Movies play at festivals all the time even without rights cleared stuff.

If you read Biskind's 90s film book, I can't remember the title right now, he talks about Warren Beatty making Bulworth and it's really really funny, it's like no one at the studio remembered even greenlighting it or knew it was being made. Beatty is a funny guy. Knows how to work the system.

But a lot of films that I think of as 'perfect movies' have a lot of studio oversight and a lot of problems. I mean Casablanca's shooting situation is pretty much the exact opposite of the situation you describe, but the film is pretty perfect.