world cinema

Watch a movie you think captures the essence you're looking for, then search for it on the net. This is the place I go for reading scripts.

http://sfy.ru/scripts.html

what's a world movie?

preyer said:

what's a world movie?

Click to expand...

Beats the heck out of me, that's why I kept my response non-specific.

preyer said:

what's a world movie?

Click to expand...

Anything not made in USA

See the definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_cinema

nielsty said:

Anything not made in USA

See the definition here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_cinema

Click to expand...

Thanks for the definition, nielsty.

yep, thanks for the definition. i stopped reading after the term 'anglosphere', though... just something about that rubbed me the wrong way.

what i'd do is watch some 'world cinema' (assuming that's just not synonymous with 'foreign movie') and check out not only it's box office take but its reviews. if that's not a deterrent (and it seems that it probably won't be regardless of the results), just write whatever the hell it is you want and let the chips fall where they may.

okay, ace, so you don't wanna do formula. no complaints from me. i do have to mention however that as un-formulaic as some of those stories may appear, that's not necessarily the case. there are plenty of 'formulas' chinese cinema uses that most of us don't grasp because we're not part of the culture. it seems to me 'hidden dragon, crouching tiger' (? ~ i'm always getting that title messed up) follows one of chinese cinema's formulas (sorry, i can't remember what it's called. check out some documentaries about this stuff on IFC. this one was called 'chop socky,' among a few other docs dealing with certain styles of movies from particular times. for example, rest assured that the MC in any early 70's japanese gangster movie is going to die).

the idea here is that don't assume that's no 'formula' exists merely because you don't see it: it may be there but since you're not privvy to that culture's conventions.... not saying, either, that a formula *does* exist just because you can't see it (though the chances that it's there is pretty good, imo).

why do you need the scripts? i mean, if you can write a script, is there something therein that's going to show you something you don't already know how to do or can glean from a 'formula' script?

i suppose you can visit the production company's website of a movie you liked and request a sample script.

what is it about a 'formula' that you're trying to avoid? i assume you don't mean an act structure... or do you? okay, so you're not aiming for one of those 'four quad' movies that fits into a beat sheet. but, have you compared a movie you admire to a beat sheet? i'm not saying you will, but you might be surprised. just an idea. when you say you want to disgard any kind 'formula,' i think that's worth asking about what constitutes 'formula' for you.

or do you have it in mind to do something more akin to 'southland tales'? (which, btw, is awful and i advise people not to be fooled into watching it.)

aceinc1 said:

it just hit me after watching a few world movies that what I really wanted to do was the world cinema. the kind where in you get to do what you wanna do, no formula nothing, I knw money might not be there but I wanna do it anyway.

where can I get these kinda scripts to read? I don't know spanish or chinese but I loved watching those sutitled movies.

plain and clear I don't wanna do formula.

anyone with any suggestions as to how to go about it.

regards,
Ace.Inc1

Click to expand...

I think you have good intentions but your hopes are a little naive, I think.
You might like watching subtitled movies but unless you speak Chinese or Spanish you're not going to be able to read the scripts.
I would doubt very much if you'll find the translated version anywhere.
The translated scripts are often not always accurate, as the nuances of language are not always easy to reword in English.
Other countries have very healthy film industries that you'll have to battle to be a part of unless you miraculously speak the language.
Also - these films are produced like any other.
It is true that European directors are afforded more of an individual voice and a more openly artistic attitude, but they have to fight for it like any film maker.
It is wonderful that you have had your eyes opened.
Try examining some independent film makers from English speaking countries too: Ken Loach, Gus Van Sant, David Lynch, Rolf De Heer.

Well he is in India so his work would fall under that catagory anyway.

Perhaps study Bollywood films that fall outside of the norm in India itself and would have somewhat more of a world appeal.

Part of the problem is that many foreign films are financed by tax schemes meant to support local film industries. Part of the requirement to make such schemes work is that the majority of the cast and crew be natives of the given country. That means the screenwriter, too. So a foreign writer is going to have a hard time being hired in many of these countries.

There's also a comment to be made about the original post. There is often a unique quality to the creative products of other cultures, including their cinema. I find it odd to assume that someone from one culture can or should jump in and essentially mimic "world cinema." Yes, take what you can from those cultures, but don't assume there's room for another foreigner to occupy the limited space in their film industry.

I actually think that aceinc1 hasn't quite explained himself properly (although I could be mistaken).
I think he's taken with the seemingly independent nature of foreign film making rather than a cultural participation.

Oh, Lordy, where on planet Earth is the dollar "very good"? I'll take my vacation there.

kullervo said:

Part of the problem is that many foreign films are financed by tax schemes meant to support local film industries. Part of the requirement to make such schemes work is that the majority of the cast and crew be natives of the given country. That means the screenwriter, too. So a foreign writer is going to have a hard time being hired in many of these countries.

Click to expand...

I totally agree HOWEVER it is possible. I am currently writing a script for India a non "Bollywood"!!!! I landed the job coz i have been to india and have had 1st hand experience with the street kids. I worked with them for a short while! It can be done but as you said it is very hard to get in!

Kevvers

Ah, the answer: GO THERE. Connections are invaluable.

Dil Se did really well. And Rang De Basanti did pretty well. I thought I was the only person who liked Asoka. That movie did tank. I liked it though.

All of those are formula movies though. They follow regular movie rules. They're not unorthodox unstructured surrealist pieces. Just because something is formula doesn't mean it's not good.

Hi,
I am new here and would like to contribute my two cents worth.

There seems to be a minor misconception here regarding the definition of the phrase “formula film”. There is no “American Cinema” and “World Cinema” as such. Films are divided into two categories, Commercial Cinema or formula films as ace describes it and Parallel Films also known as Art Films. Ace, I guess lives in India, just as I do, but unfortunately failed to cite Bollywood films as a perfect example of formula films. Let me do it on his behalf.

The first Golden rule of making films in India is to include six song and dance sequences. Boy meets girl and proclaims his love to her and girl coyly accepts him. Smash cut to location in Switzerland where boy and girl sing and dance for the next five minutes and then we smash cut back to location in India and the story proceeds. Conflict arises in their love and our hero belts out another song, this time filled with pathos and so on and so forth.

Second rule: There has to be a comedy track running throughout the length and width of the film with preferably, a well known comedian in the lead. The comedy track need not be in any way connected with the story, the audience will not mind, believe me, so long as you make them laugh that is.

Third rule: There has to be two fight sequences in the film with the hero shown beating up anywhere between ten to a hundred baddies, single handedly of course.
There are more Golden rules but I am too tired to describe them. The point I am trying to put across is this. You cannot approach a producer in India and tell him you have a script for a film without any songs or fights. You will be liable to be shot in the head. The audience demands films to be made this way and the producer and the film makers oblige. This is commercial cinema.

Coming to Hollywood, the same malaise of formula film making exists here. Let me elucidate with a few examples.

Create conflict in your screenplay and resolve it in the end, the Gurus of Screenplay writing proclaim. The greater the conflict the better your story. What if I decide to write a screenplay without any conflict? Boy meets girl, both fall in love and live merrily ever after. End of film. You think any prodco will accept this script? Of course not! Simply because your audience will not like it and what your audience detests your producer loathes.

Here is another example. Introduce your protagonist as early in the film as you possibly can and show his pretty face as long as you can, Hollywood dictates. What if I decide to make film where the protagonist affects everyone and all events in the film yet appears in the film for a bare five minutes? Will any one accept this? Or, better still what if I walked into a major studio in Hollywood and said; “hey guys, here is a script of one incredible action flick tailor made for Brad Pitt. The only problem is Pitt never appears in the film, we just get to hear his voice”. No awards for guessing what the reaction will be. The script will be probably thrown in my face and my ass booted out of the office.

Why do I need a character arc? What if my film were to be set in an Utopian Eden where the incentives to mature intellectually and evolve spiritually simply don’t exist?

Got that? This is the difference between Commercial / Formula Films and Parallel / Art Films. In any situation where an artist lets his creativity be bound by chains, his authorial expressivity lost, he stops being an artist. He is simply creating a commercial product for the sake of money and fame.

Years ago I watched one of Francois Truffaut’s films which had quite a bit of erotic content. Truffaut was justifiably worried that the audience would get too caught up with the eroticism and guess what he did? At the start of the film one of the lead ladies walked to the center of the screen and slowly removed all her clothes. After this she proceeds to sit on a chair with her legs spread out for a full five minutes. No movement, no sound, no music, no nothing. At the end of the five minutes most of the audience were looking elsewhere and not at the screen. It was almost as though the Director was telling, “hey, I have a good story to tell, concentrate on the story, the sex scenes are incidental. You want to watch I woman naked? Here she is, feast your eyes and be finished with it”. I mean the Director almost nearly insults, castigates and antagonizes the audience at the very darn beginning of the film. Can you imagine a Hollywood screenwriter doing this?

A Hungarian film that I watched had a very dark, moody theme and the entire film was shot in black and white to add to the atmosphere. See this happening in Hollywood?

Show me a writer who has the balls to write a screenplay straight from his heart and I will show you a true artist. Show me a producer who has the guts, the gumption to film this script and I will show you a true hero. Screen writing with a formula in mind, with rules and regulations to be followed is akin to prostituting your creativity, you turn into a whore. Hollywood and Bollywood have, it seems, turned us screen writers into sluts. Salvation lies in Parallel Cinema but we cannot delve deeper into this subject, since there doesn’t seem to be a section dedicated to Parallel Cinema in this forum.

Raghu said:

Hi,
I am new here and would like to contribute my two cents worth.

Click to expand...

Welcome!

<snip>
The first Golden rule of making films in India is to include six song and dance sequences.<snip>

Click to expand...

Sounds like Disney on crack! I would absolutely hate it if every single one of our movies were like this. It's a good thing I don't live in India because it would drive me crazy. I'm a variety kind of person. But if it works for you guys it works, it's just not my thing.

I hated all the Land Before Time sequels simply because they started singing! The first one they didn't sing, why did they have to sing in all the others?

Coming to Hollywood, the same malaise of formula film making exists here. Let me elucidate with a few examples.

Create conflict in your screenplay and resolve it in the end, the Gurus of Screenplay writing proclaim. The greater the conflict the better your story. What if I decide to write a screenplay without any conflict? Boy meets girl, both fall in love and live merrily ever after. End of film. You think any prodco will accept this script? Of course not! Simply because your audience will not like it and what your audience detests your producer loathes.

Click to expand...

This is a formula for pretty much any story anywhere. If there's no conflict, there's no plot, if there's no plot, there's no story to tell, and you will bore the heck out of your audience whether it's movies, books, or a kids book, educational books aside, which are boring.

Here is another example. Introduce your protagonist as early in the film as you possibly can and show his pretty face as long as you can, Hollywood dictates. What if I decide to make film where the protagonist affects everyone and all events in the film yet appears in the film for a bare five minutes? Will any one accept this? Or, better still what if I walked into a major studio in Hollywood and said; “hey guys, here is a script of one incredible action flick tailor made for Brad Pitt. The only problem is Pitt never appears in the film, we just get to hear his voice”. No awards for guessing what the reaction will be. The script will be probably thrown in my face and my ass booted out of the office.

Click to expand...

I can't exactly disagree, Hollywood loves a pretty face, but at the same time there are movies that break out of this, there are some pretty powerful movies that don't show the pretty actors but they narrate or whatever. Cartoons for example. Also there are movies that don't focus entirely on a pretty face. Horrors are one, though they do like to throw in pretty stupid girls. But there is "Monster" also "Ugly Betty", and "Super Star" where they take good looking stars and dress them up to be ugly.

Why do I need a character arc? What if my film were to be set in an Utopian Eden where the incentives to mature intellectually and evolve spiritually simply don’t exist?

Click to expand...

Short answer, because people hate characters that don't grow. Also without a character arc, you're likely to have flat, meaningless characters that no one cares about and your story will fall flat. If you do live in Utopia, then what's there to see? No one wants to tune in to the daily life of perfect. It's boring.

I mean the Director almost nearly insults, castigates and antagonizes the audience at the very darn beginning of the film. Can you imagine a Hollywood screenwriter doing this?

Click to expand...

A Hungarian film that I watched had a very dark, moody theme and the entire film was shot in black and white to add to the atmosphere. See this happening in Hollywood?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen the first, it looks like he accomplished what he wanted, it also sounds rather stupid, but hey.

On the second, actually it has happened and will happen some more. There are grind house films, some rather popular near black and white ones ones that only use a bit of color here and there are Sin City and 300. Anything goes in the film world as long as it works. And that's the biggie one there.

Show me a writer who has the balls to write a screenplay straight from his heart and I will show you a true artist. Show me a producer who has the guts, the gumption to film this script and I will show you a true hero. Screen writing with a formula in mind, with rules and regulations to be followed is akin to prostituting your creativity, you turn into a whore. Hollywood and Bollywood have, it seems, turned us screen writers into sluts. Salvation lies in Parallel Cinema but we cannot delve deeper into this subject, since there doesn’t seem to be a section dedicated to Parallel Cinema in this forum.

Click to expand...

It's a hard thing to judge, really. I don't see how working in a field you love and making sure all the elements work is prostituting, or making a lot of money is acting like a whore or selling out. I think it's all rather bullshit. It's a job. Like everything else. Would you call an Accountant who using a certain piece of software instead of doing it all by hand a sell out and a whore? Would you call a Lawyer who follows the rules of court the same? Why is it only creative fields are antagonized so and by their own ranks? Not everyone's hearts and minds are the same. Maybe "Heavy Metal" was that person's life's work. Maybe Spiderman 3 was his greatest accomplishment and he's proud forever. Maybe Dare Devil what what he always wanted to see on screen and that writer will never forget the experience.

I just don't feel it's our place to judge, not to mention it is their life's work. Being a writer is tough, being a PAID writer is beyond tough and if I have to follow certain conventions to make it, so be it. Often times you see writer/directors/and/or producers do films they don't necessarily like or have their hearts put into it, build their rep, so that they can finally do the project that is there.

George Lucas had to go through a few movies before he could have the clout and resources to do Star Wars. That was his movie, that was his hearts work. He had to go through some motions though to get there.

Are you then going to judge him negatively because of the movies he did before that? Or worse, are you going to judge him negatively because you may not like Star Wars and consider him a whore for it?

It's not right.

I don't believe only Artistic films have merit. I don't believe only Artistic films are pure. I don't believe that only Artistic films are the ruler line. And I think all writers should be free to do what they want to succeed or otherwise without being harassed and called hacks or sellouts or worse.

Just my 2c.

This is a pretty interesting thread.

The only comment I have about Hollywood & probably Bollywood is that the powers-that-be are (major studios, buyers and sellers of entertainment) are almost all owned by/or are corporations who run their businesses like wall street investment companies. Money, profit, expense, risk, box office sales . . . this is pretty much all that matters. It would be like approaching a Coca-Cola and asking if you could sell them this new drink idea (heck you might even make them some samples) which they will pay you a triple or quadruple digit figure to acquire and then it's up to them to do everything to produce, market and distribute this new drink but it really doesn't taste very good, the target consumer is only one percent of the total market and you won't really make a lot of money on it. Coca-Cola isn't going for it. Their investors won't tolerate the loss. Yeah, maybe they might go for loser product (I'm thinking of Vanilla Coke, which I found A LOT of when I was in India) once in a decade but to do it over and over? It's a business, it requires the investors make a profit and they just don't take risks on projects that they are pretty certain won't make back their money. That's the bottom line. So if you love art, make art, if you want money, go commercial and lose yourself to the biz. It's a hard thing . . .

You sound more Hollywood and less what you started talking about, which is indie. Indie started out with 2 guys and a camera - Truffaut yes, and Bergman and Roger Corman too. Now indie studios in USA and elsewhere are garnering bigger budgets, more screens to show their work on, and stars who want to prove their acting mettle.
Indie studios, like international studios, also serve as training ground for the next generation of studio hacks. The occasional guy like Tim Burton and David Lynch get to work in the big studios with their vision intact, but generally they do sequels and remakes. Actually, come to think of it, Tim Burton has done 2 remakes out of his last 4 projects, and David Lynch made his last movie on a cellphone, from the looks of it. Maybe Danny Boyle.
Does that sound like fun?

I was really struck as ur excitement towards world cineme.....sorry but it is a completely biased part..where the oscars are given to the movies which are not deserving beating the movies that r the masterpieces...some of the industries are not even recognized yet...like BOLLYWOOD...they hav sent a movie name LAGAAN to oscars ....it was a masterpiece....but it achieved nothing.....so,sorry i doesn't mean world cinema.....there is only biased cinema..

C'mon - how could you say that Bollywood is unrecognised?

Gaelic Cinema is unrecognised - but who hasn't heard of Bollywood ?

Lagaan picked up an Oscar nomination in 2002, but was beaten by 'No Man's Land'. Why do you think that 'No Man's Land' was so undeserving?

When I saw Lagaan all those years ago, it didn't grab me any more than other Bollywood films. I suspect I missed a lot, but it seemed to follow the standard Bollywood formula but was about a game of Cricket.

(I liked the final moment when the English guy catches the final ball, though I'm not sure that the people who don't follow cricket would appreciate the reversal in that scene)

Mac

I really really love Lagaan, but I don't have a problem with it being beaten by No Man's Land. It beat 100 other films/countries just to get nominated in the top 5 and that's a pretty big deal. That's the Academy saying, we liked it.

Bollywood would get more nominations if their system wasn't so corrupt. Each country nominates a film from their country and then the Academy chooses from those. Last year they put up Eklavya:The Royal Guard. Seriously India?

While not Bollywood, it was put in as a Canadian film after the production got pushed out of India, Water was largely an Indian film (mmmm....John Abraham.....), and it was nominated for best foreign film two years ago. It also didn't win. But it's hard to say that the Academy completely ignores Bollywood.