Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Nov 25, 2005 0:26:42 GMT -5
Because all musicians are druggie bastards.
|
|
|
Post by tomservo92 on Nov 25, 2005 2:28:52 GMT -5
Because all musicians are druggie bastards. But they're talented druggie bastards... well some anyway.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Nov 25, 2005 4:34:31 GMT -5
yes, they adhere to a formula....
see also:
The Buddy Holly Story La Bamba Great Balls of Fire Coal Miner's Daughter The Rose Sweet Dreams etc.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Nov 25, 2005 10:45:42 GMT -5
You could add Bird in there, too. Not a singer, though...
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 2, 2005 13:39:59 GMT -5
yes, they adhere to a formula.... see also: The Buddy Holly Story La Bamba Great Balls of Fire Coal Miner's Daughter The Rose Sweet Dreams etc. How are those movies formulaic? I've seen a few of them, and they seem pretty dissimilar to me. What is the formula? Most of the musicians who are the subjects of those movies are quite different in culture, genre, upbringing, personality, the era in which they lived, and the major events of their lives. And the movies I've seen in that list don't have all the things Forrest listed in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 2, 2005 14:13:18 GMT -5
Over the last month I saw three movies: Ray The Doors Walking the Line Has anyone noticed that: A) They are all filmed in the generic emotional scene/montage with era's music/emotional scene/montage with the era's music/emotional scene/music/etc... B) They always take drugs C) They always ruin their career... D) ...only to redeem themselves at the last minute...and then they die for whatever reason E) They cheat on their wives F) They always meet somebody that was at the time a nobody but eneded up being a big star like them Not only that but Ray Charles brother dies when he was a little kid AND Johnny Cash's brother died as a little kid too. The withdrawl-from-drugs scenes in both films are identical. Now, of course I can't say these mvoies ripped each other off, because they are true stories with coincidences - however, these movies feel the same. Why is that? If you make a biopic on a musician does it automatically come out this way? A lot of what you listed happens in a lot of people's lives. People take drugs. People do things to screw up their careers. People commit adultery. People correct their mistakes. People die. I don't see what your objection is to these things being shown in a movie about a musician. Most musicians who become stars started out not being a star, and have musician colleagues of the same generation that they knew before they were famous. Again, the same thing happens with most people who become famous or successful in what they do for a living. The "emotional scene/music" sequence of storytelling you described was quite broad. I mean, it's a movie about a musician's life. You could broadly describe any musician's life as consisting of emotional "scenes" of their personal life and music performance. Just as you could broadly describe anyone's life as emotional stuff followed with whatever they do for a living, back to the emotional personal life, and so on. Most people's lives consist of a personal life and a working life which alternate. Of course there are mundane things in a person's life that are not emotional, nor have anything to do with their work, but do you really want to see a movie filled with scenes of Johnny Cash picking up groceries? As far as "redeeming themselves at the last minute", I'm not sure if you're talking about their actual lives or the movies about them, but if one of the main conflicts in the story was about how they were messing up their careers, it makes sense that the conflict would be resolved toward the end of the story.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 2, 2005 16:21:43 GMT -5
yes, they adhere to a formula.... see also: The Buddy Holly Story La Bamba Great Balls of Fire Coal Miner's Daughter The Rose Sweet Dreams etc. How are those movies formulaic? I've seen a few of them, and they seem pretty dissimilar to me. What is the formula? Most of the musicians who are the subjects of those movies are quite different in culture, genre, upbringing, personality, the era in which they lived, and the major events of their lives. And the movies I've seen in that list don't have all the things Forrest listed in the first post. It's the look style and feel, as Forrest says that is similiar. I think the directors feel they have to be "true" to the subject, which is usually iconic, and therefore don't bring anything personal into the film. There's a kind of reserved distance, or should I say reverent distance that causes most of these films to be quite banal to me. Some of them are really quite good like Coal Miner's Daughter, but they really feel like they were all made by the same director to me. More or less. In this sense they seem formulaic....it's not just a plot point thing.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 2, 2005 16:37:31 GMT -5
Hmm, okay, so you're both saying that the directing style is very similar in these movies, and there's not enough of the director's "personal touch" or unique flair, or something? This may be true. I suppose I don't much care about the director's personal signature in a musician biopic. I care more about the musician's life story and their music being portrayed with authenticity and emotional impact. It's the musician's story and unique artistry that I'm interested in, not the director's personal style.
However, the similarity in style, feel, and look that you see in Ray and Walk the Line may be partially a coincidence and partially an artifact of both movies being made close to the same time. Don't movies of the same era often have a distinctive look, style, and feel? I think they are both fine films that serve their subjects well.
I dunno, I'm just not seeing the "formula" here. Maybe I just don't care so much about the director telling the story with a wildly unique personal style.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 2, 2005 16:42:04 GMT -5
Hmm, okay, so you're both saying that the directing style is very similar in these movies, and there's not enough of the director's "personal touch" or unique flair, or something? This may be true. I suppose I don't much care about the director's signature in a musician biopic. I care more about the musician's life story and their music being portrayed with authenticity and emotional impact. It's the musician's story and unique artistry that I'm interested in, not the director's personal style. However, the similarity in style, feel, look and subject that you see in Ray and Walk the Line may be partially a coincidence and partially an artifact of both movies being made close to the same time. Don't movies of the same era often have a distinctive look, style, and feel? The How can any movie be "authentic" in terms of telling someone's story? It's always the filmmaker's interpretation. An impressionistic take on a rock star's life would be much more interesting to me. Now someone made a film like that.....who was it? I can't think of the film.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 2, 2005 17:00:45 GMT -5
Since it's based on a real person, the movie can strive to portray the particular culture that they existed in with authenticity. Can it be absolutely "authentic"? No, since as you say it is ultimately an interpretation. But it can come close. Perhaps I should put it a different way. Like displaying an understanding, or capturing the nuances of the culture they rose to fame within.
I wasn't quite finished with my previous post before you read it. I think the director should stay out of the way of the subject of a biopic.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 2, 2005 17:26:03 GMT -5
I wasn't quite finished with my previous post before you read it. I think the director should stay out of the way of the subject of a biopic. How can this be done? Even if you're shooting a documentry like Don't Look Back--Bob Dylan movie--choices are made, esp. in the editing room later. It's always the director's vision or version that person. Plus actor's interpretation in fictional film...which is of course an extension of the director's vision. I just can't see how an artist can stay out of the way of a subject in any medium since the subject is always secreted in style...how can you seperate the two? Through distancing? But that's a choice of style.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 2, 2005 17:30:51 GMT -5
Since it's based on a real person, the movie can strive to portray the particular culture that they existed in with authenticity. Can it be absolutely "authentic"? No, since as you say it is ultimately an interpretation. But it can come close. Perhaps I should put it a different way. Like displaying an understanding, or capturing the nuances of the culture they rose to fame within. I wasn't quite finished with my previous post before you read it. I think the director should stay out of the way of the subject of a biopic. I agree that the director should stay out of the way of the subject in a biopic, but that doesn't mean that they have to use the same style. For example, Tim Burton's Ed Wood is a reasonably accurate biopic, or Milos Forman's Amadeus (which is more of Salieri's biopic now I think about it)...my point is that overall these biopics are ultimately personal interpretations no matter how objctive you try to be, fact will be mixed up with fiction - and so why not try to do something to the "biopic" that's a bit different, such as Ed Wood, where Burton is true to Ed Wood's story and personality, while at the same time directing it in a way that's not hackneyed or banal. Personally, I'd like to see a biopic that sees objective reality through the subject's subjective point of view, not the formula of following the character throughout his life, while strangely distancing something that losingmydignity talks about. This has never been done before, and it's something I'm trying to do with a script right now... Agreed. Though Burton could have taken it a step further and shot the film on an Ed Wood budget which would have been cool. I like Ed Wood but wouldn't pretend for a second that anything I saw was "authentic" or really about the man himself.
|
|
|
Post by losingmydignity on Dec 2, 2005 19:41:20 GMT -5
Yes, and see Andrei Rublov
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Dec 2, 2005 21:22:16 GMT -5
See "Beyond The Sea", about Bobby Darin. The singer's life with some of the interpretation through the songs he sang. And some truly FABULOUS! dance numbers.
Another fun one is "Elvis Meets Nixon", a truly funny movie about the incongruity of a singer hooked on prescription drugs wanting to be a drug marshal.
|
|
|
Post by Blurryeye on Dec 2, 2005 21:33:24 GMT -5
I wasn't quite finished with my previous post before you read it. I think the director should stay out of the way of the subject of a biopic. How can this be done? Even if you're shooting a documentry like Don't Look Back--Bob Dylan movie--choices are made, esp. in the editing room later. It's always the director's vision or version that person. Plus actor's interpretation in fictional film...which is of course an extension of the director's vision. I just can't see how an artist can stay out of the way of a subject in any medium since the subject is always secreted in style...how can you seperate the two? Through distancing? But that's a choice of style. Then I guess I like that "distance" style better than you do, although I'm still not sure exactly what you're talking about. I don't find Ray or Walk the Line to be banal, hackneyed, or distant. The directors and actors of those movies obviously cared a great deal for their subjects and crafted a richly-texured, intimate portrait while showcasing the power of their music and drama of their lives. There is some mythologizing, but they are certainly not sentimental or air-brushed. It's just a matter of preference for me. The director should be in service to the story and characters, not the other way around, especially in a movie about a great musician. Perhaps that's what you call "distance". I also like Amadeus and Ed Wood, but I think those movies have more of the director's personal worldview than the subject's. Especially in Ed Wood, you can tell Burton is putting a lot of his own views in Wood's character. Yet Ed Wood is one of Burton's least "Burton style" movies, and is one of my favorite films of his partly for this reason. He served the characters of Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi, no matter how imaginary and mythologized his view of them may have been. Burton was not the number one presence in Ed Wood. Amadeus I don't even think of as a biopic, more of an historical drama loosely based on Mozart and Salieri's lives.
|
|