The Mythology of George

It is interesting to see how we associate the characteristics of the movies George Lucas makes to his own personality. I think to an extent this is true to some movie makers. This is because a lot of movie makers influence their works by their own life experiences and their characteristics. In the case of George Lucas, we would think that he a scientific technological junkie because of the technology and the images we see in Star Wars. Star Wars is filled with spacey images, technology beyond our own, and digital effects that amaze us. However, as we read in the article, this is not true. George was just a normal high school student who was into fixing cars and racing them. He was more into editing and writing rather than effects and visuals. He learned these things throughout his college career, but they were not his main passion in movie making. I think if we see the variety of the types of movies that George has made in general, we should get a more general idea of what kind of movie maker he is. Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, and American Graffiti are three totally different types of genres that Lucas has made. All three were made by the same person, but they all have very different atmospheres to them. Star Wars by itself should not be used to describe George's movie making characteristics.

Press Junket Interview

Q: Hello mister Park how are you doing today?
A: Hey! I'm doing great! Glad to be here!

Q: Good to hear. Now I just had some questions about the upcoming short film you worked on. Rhythm is the title yes?
A: Yes that is correct.

Q: Now, what part did you take in making this short film?
A: I did lots of things, from costumes, photography, audio, production assistant, and even cinematography.

Q: Wow, that's a lot of roles to partake in. How did that happen?
A: Well we were limited in staff to begin with, so we did whatever we could to help.

Q: That's great! What would you say was the hardest role, if you had to take one?
A: Production assisting was definitely the hardest part. Making sure things get done on time is not an easy task since things go wrong all the time.

Q: What were some of the things that went wrong?
A: I think the biggest thing was that all of still had a second life to live. We were all busy doing other things, and it was hard for us to make time to shoot.

Q: What are your personal thoughts on the movie?
A: Well I have yet to see the finished product, but I think the short film will be great. It'll get the viewers to think and feel pretty good at the end.

Q: How were the actors?
A: They were great! They were so open to help, and cooperated very well. I think they did an excellent job seeing as how they didn't have much experience.

Q: Do you have any regrets making the movie?
A: Hmmm, I wish we had more time haha. I think we could have broken up our shooting schedule so we didn't have to shoot too much in one day. It tires the actors and us, when we have to shoot a lot in one day. I think breaking the shooting days up gives us more ideas and energy to go on!

Q: Well this has been an awesome time being able to talk to you!
A: Yes me too! Let's do this again sometime!

Filming vs. Screenwriting

In retrospect, I think there are many similarities as well as differences between film making and screenwriting. For one, I initially thought filming would be easier than screenwriting because the story was already laid out, and we just had to visualize it. I was wrong. Film making takes much more coordination, planning, thinking, and creative process. Film making is very cooperative. You can't make a film alone. You may be able to write a story alone, but you won't be able to film it alone. You need actors, make up artists, costume artists, cameramen, audio men, props, production assistants, etc. It's a very cooperation driven process. Everyone needs to be on the same page and the same vision to make good progress. I also think film making needs more creativity than screen writing. This is because you are somewhat limited in what you can do, but still have the freedom to visualize the story as you want it. One scene can have dozens of cuts, angles, transitions, shots, not to mention the lighting and audio. I also like filming in the sense that it is very hands-on. Although it was a lot more work, I enjoyed being outside and filming, rather than being stuck indoors with a piece of paper. There were however, similarities between filming and writing. I think the similarities are very essential and significant in that both process is a way of telling a story. Screenwriting and filming ultimately tries to tell a story in a particular way. This is the part in which we as writers and film makers have to think the most. I also think they are similar in that there are many ways to approach creativity. For writing, you can take walks, free write, have dreams, read other stories, etc. to get ideas. For filming, actors/actresses may improvise on the scene, directors may decide to change things up in the middle of a shot, or be very methodical. It all depends on how the director or the writer wants to tell the story. I also believe that you have to have patience for both process. There will always be things that go wrong whether you're trying to write or trying to film. I think its the ability to have patience and working around a problem that make a good writer or film maker. Overall both process were hard but rewarding.

Tim Burton's 9

This was a movie made in 2009, directed by Tim Burton. The movie was an animation but had a different feeling than Nightmare Before Christmas. The shots were much smoother, and felt 3Dish. To be honest, I had high expectations going into the theater. The commercials looked good and intriguing, but the movie itself turned out to be a disappointment. The synopsis of the story is that humans have created machines that turned on the humans and destroyed them. The scientist that made these machines left behind 9 doll like figures to destroy the machines. Many parts of the movie were very strange and mysterious, which is very much likely for Tim Burton's movies. I think the story was good, but in my honest opinion, there were many loops in the story that made the plot confusing. I liked how the characters were developed and their relationship with others. A little bit more explaining, and I think the movie would have been great. I also think the movie played too much with the audience's emotions. Just when you think there's closure, more events keep happening that makes you feel empty. As for visuals, the movie was very well made. The explosions and the character designs were very very good. It felt like Burton made this movie out of obligation. I didn't feel much depth to it. The script had a good potential, but the presentation was just not thorough enough.

David Cronenberg Masterclass

Personally, I do enjoy watching horror movies. I was hoping to get a glimpse of how Cronenberg came up with his ideas for his visuals, and what he is thinking of when he wants to put fear into the hearts of people. Nevertheless, the article was a good one. I thought interesting to see that Cronenberg was a writer before he became a director. He also emphasized that a complete filmaker would have to know how to write and be able to shoot. I may argue with this, in the sense that I think writing the script only makes the movie perosnal to you. If you can find a script that you didn't write, that is just as personal, I think a director can make it into a great movie. I also got the hint that Cronenberg made his movies for the audience since he was talking about how the movie must make sense for the audience in order for his message to get across. If the movie only pertains to the director, people may very well be confused. I also thought it was very interesting how he talked about the movie set being a three dimensional space. Cronenberg stressed that the camera acts like another person on the set, and should be considered as to how it will move within the set. I think that was a good advice for us as to where to set up our camera and how to move it.

Martin Scorsese Masterclass

Again, this was a great article by a great a director. I thought it was very interesting to see the different ways each directors approach their movie making. As for Scorsese, he was the type to plan out everything, and know everything before coming onto the set. I personally think this way describes me better. I would like to know what exactly I am doing for that shoot, where, when, and how to shoot it. Another reoccurring theme was telling a story. Scorsese emphasized that a director must tell a good story, and must choose who to tell it to. In Scorsese's case he made movies for himself, which meant he made the films personal. I can agree with this that movies will probably tend to have more meaning or have more depth if they are personal. I also thought Scorsese gave a good advice when he said not to be redundant in making a point. Having an actor/actress give away the meaning of the title, or the meaning behind the movie is probably the worst thing you can do. I also thought it was very interesting to know that each director liked to use certain type of equipment. I think this comes down to personal preference. A director should use the tools they like best to make a good movie. I think Scorsese's view on cinematography was very interesting as well. What and how he shot had meaning behind them. He also talked about how each shot is connected to the next one to make a point. I think this is a great advice since we are limited in terms of our ability for visuals. Our shots should have a lot of meaning behind them to tell our story.

Wim Wenders Masterclass

Wenders' article was a good short read. I also enjoyed reading on his view on movie making and got some pretty good advice as well. I agree very well with Wenders when he says that movie makers these days focus more on visuals rather telling a good story. With all the special effects and computer graphics, it is so easy for us viewers to get sucked into the visuals of a story. I am not saying that visually stunning movies have bad story lines, I just think it doesn't allow the viewers to think about it. I think it's great that we as college students don't have a lot of money or the ability to make special effects. This allows us to focous more on story telling rather than trying to make something look good. There seems to be a reoccuring theme within these masterclasses: we should not be afraid to make changes, be cautious with actors, and things will NOT go as you planned. I also thought it was very interesting as Wenders mentioned for WHOM and WHY we made movies. I think this is a great question to keep in mind as we make our movies. I think the movie will have a better success if we aim to make a movie not for ourselves, but for the peers around us.