Ha! One of those discussions abt content and technique. The most famous word in today's times when it comes to filmmaking would be 'presentation'. WHAT THE HELL! The film was presented well..they say! What is then, the meaning of presentation! I think they mean cinematography (angles...lighting.... colour), re recording (effects and background score)and so on. Style a.ka MTV STYLE means good presentation? I disagree.
Someone was talking about presentation...that some filmmakers have good content but they dont present their film well...that some filmmakers have strong technical skills but don't concentrate on the content... ! And there are eternal arguments about content and technique..
'That film was technically good ' they say but 'they story was bad' they also add.
I personally think the word content and the word technique are one and the same. If you feel the content of a film is very strong , that means the technique through which the content was conveyed was good and viceversa. Filmmaking is an art...filmmaking is also a technical art. Its like tabla versus electronic tabla..for example. Some people play the regular tabla and make music. Some play with the tabla....as in...change the way the tabla is played (electronic) and also make music.. Some make films to explore the medium...some make films to tell stories...
I hope very soon people stop attaching words like 'presentation' to cinema. SOUNDS SILLY.
Its not done to present a perfumed gift wrapped box of ....you know what. We all have seen what happens in the film PUSHPAK ...haven't we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have a different perspective over here. For me content is like the raw material, technique the process and presentation the end output or the frutification of the intent. Lets take the example of rice...here the uncooked rice becomes the content....though the rice is in its raw stage, quality matters a lot....thats why we say good quality rice...that means the content we r speaking of should be strong and qualitative......next we cook the rice...again there r different cookings...some cook in a bad way and some in the apt manner....so here we say the technique of cooking the rice is good or bad.....next u take the well cooked rice and granish it for the final presentation....thats nothing but the packaging part in the films....so, as i see there are three departments for a project and each department has to work its USPs individually...also collectively for a common goal. This is my perspective and am sure everyone has there own...my due respects to them all.
hey santhosh
i agree with u on dis. All m trying to say is...
content for a film need not mean story alone...or a film does need to have a strong story alone to qualify as a good film...
Like in any art form , content and technique merge in cinema too..
What m talking abt is the misuse of the word presentation...
When u say presentation, i think the wrapper and the gift are equally important. People have false ideas abt presentation...that's y the pushpak example
I guess there is not much scope of argument here so let me close the circuit from diff side and see how the current flows through that channel :)
Wokey, now what if I as a film maker, am not interested in content at all. I am only interested in hitting the opponent marble and enjoy watching how far it runs as it gets the shot but I don't care how my marble reacts to Newton's all the three laws. I enjoy the play in a different dimension and I am sure people who r watching me are also enjoying though they openly accept it or not as i am deviating myself from the actual game.... What if i wanna take the worst quality of rice and cook a delicious dish which can be cooked only by using that worst quality rice. Take for example 'District Banlieue 13', an amazing film with zero content(I am considering Zero defined by Ramanujan, U might have ur own definition) but still u will watch it again and again just because of the way it was made. So guys think about it........ I think if we can make people to sit and watch the film (Entire film) with no content in it can also be an awesome challenge....... R u in to play some Marbles?
haha!!....thats cool raks...ya i do accept ur angle too.....its more or less like a challenge to give out a fantastic output from absolute crap.....i think ur creativity is put to the best test (for urself ofcourse)in such a scenario....it becomes a sort of easy when u get a pre-defined content thats good and already ready to use know-how where u know it works and awards are waiting for u.....dishing out something out-o-box and making ppl think on just ur directorial skills makes the fun more exiting and thrilling. as u say yes making ppl enjoy a badly cooked rice :D. this is like ur an ace marketing executive who sells a fridge to an eskimo in alaska......way to go guys...lets get on to our labs to experiment....hope we hear some eurekaaas shortly.
Absolutely Santosh :)Just hope that let the cry come from the right person who has spilled right amount of water........ There are many fake ones here too, who think just by crying eureka eureka, they will get noticed and people will accept them. They have forgotten it takes much more than that, they need to be naked too when they cry out :)
what's wrong with u guys? Why are u sounding so intelligent and all? hahaha...! Jus kidding
Nywz...ma point was... content and technique merge at one point..technique also is content for a film....
EUREKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
I feel content should define form. In fact, a film should so "whole" that one shouldn't be discussing form and content as separate entities at all. I have often thought about the 'form' and 'content' debate when it comes to newspapers too. That certain newspapers don't know how to "lay out" stories. For me, you can make a good story better with the help of a good layout, but whatever you do to a bad story, it remains that: a bad story!
Btw: I agree with you when you say technique is also content for a film. In fact, like I said before, a film should be "whole".
No. Content and presentation are not necessarily the same. Reminds me of Lankesh,a wonderful storyteller when you read him. But look at his films -- his presentation and technique (more precisely, the lack of it) were so poor that they failed to make a mark. Saw Yojimbo recently again -- a fine example of content and presentation at its best. I agree with Kaushik when he says content & technique merge (it should always) at one point. This is true of most art forms, not cinema alone.
Post a Comment