TV Writer.Com Message Board - "Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

TV Writer.Com Message Board

Television writing is a collaborative effort!
This is the place to trade tips, tragedies, and triumphs!

First time at TV Writer.Com? Don't forget to check out the rest of the site HERE

"Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Printer-friendly version of this topic Archived thread - Read only
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Home Conferences The Art of TV Writing (Public)

Original message

"Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Posted by Prof on Nov-10-02, 09:07 AM (PST)

Salon.Com has an interesting interview with Brian DePalma in which he defends his up and down career, one which I believe needs to defending.
Two Q. & A.s in particular stand out to me. This first one illustrate the difference between writing and directing for television and writing and directing for films.
Q. A lot of people are calling "Femme Fatale" a return to your earlier works like "Dressed to Kill" and "Sisters." Do you agree?
A. Yes, in the fact that it's written and directed by me like those pictures were. It's very much a movie that's driven by visual ideas, as opposed to character-driven or story-driven. This is kind of a meditation on film noir. I don't think I've ever done anything quite like that before that.
Prof again: The reason I find this a valuable insight is because while TV has experimented with visually oriented shows (Michael Mann's two series come to mind) that has never become the accepted way to go. (It also shows the difference between writers who think like directors and writers who think like writers, but I think that's too complex a subject for a message being posted on a Sunday.)
The next Q. and A. are creatively important to me because they express a basic truth about all media, answering the question, "Why are so many films and TV shows about cops and/or robbers?" Here it is:
Q. Voyeurism and violence are two recurring themes in your work. Why?
A. Well, these are two things I've been talking about for close to 40 years and everything I say about them, I feel like I'm throwing a paper airplane against the wall that keeps bouncing back. I will explain it for the nine-hundred-thousandth time and maybe when you write it down and somebody reads it, it will get through. I haven't been lucky so far.
The reason violence is interesting to me is because it's filmic, it's action, it's movement. And sometimes movements can lead to death and sometimes they can lead to chases -- whatever. It's visual. That's why I am drawn to it. And since I'm a visual stylist, I have people following each other, running after each other, stabbing each other, stalking each other. I use situations that have these kind of musical beginnings which get faster and faster and onto some kind of crescendo which works very well on film. It's the only forum that you can use these kind of visually violent images.
Voyeurism is just one of the primary tools of cinema. Hitchcock and directors before him in the silent era, when you shot a close-up from somebody's point of view, you were tying the audience very directly into the experience. It's the only art form in which you are showing the same piece of information to your character and the viewer in the audience simultaneously. That's what's unique about it and that's why people are drawn into film -- because they're experiencing the same visual information as the character.
Prof back to say goodbye.
'Bye,
Prof

Top

Table of contents

RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity, Larry Brody, Nov-10-02, (1)
RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity, Christine Bollerud, Nov-10-02, (2)
RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity, alX, Nov-11-02, (3)
RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity, Julius Rosenblatt, Nov-12-02, (4)

Printer-friendly version of this topic	Archived thread - Read only Previous Topic \| Next Topic
Home Conferences The Art of TV Writing (Public)
Original message

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

1. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Posted by Larry Brody on Nov-10-02, 10:17 AM (PST)

I always think of DePalma as a director who writes, as opposed to Larry Kasdan, who to me is a writer who directs. I'd rather see a Kasdan film than a DePalma film any day because Kasdan always presents a truth I can aknowledge.
Do we have to create a new set of criteria for DePalma films? One where instead of judging it by the reality and depth of the characters and the logic of the story we just look for great shots? God, I hope not.
LYMI,
Brody

Top

2. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Posted by Christine Bollerud on Nov-10-02, 10:27 AM (PST)

It also shows the difference between writers who think like directors and writers who think like writers,

What defines either and which is better for what medium?
C

Top

3. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Posted by alX on Nov-11-02, 03:06 PM (PST)

I've always liked De Palma's films. Even the so-called bad De Palma films because even those are visually interesting and while many who come to this board may not like, film is, first and foremost, a visual medium. But that's not to say that I don't also enjoy Kasdan's films. Body Heat is a personal favorite. But when a Kasdan film falls flat, it tends to lack the visual style to hold my interest during the lulls. And I can't say that I've ever been bored during a Brian De Palma film. As far as his creativity goes though, he does have a tendency to repeat himself. But it's been years since Raising Cain and Dressed to Kill, so most of the audience today probably won't be too upset to see similar aspects of those in Femme Fatale. I should add that I can't defend nor criticize that film yet, since I have not yet had time to see it. But it's on the list ... the ever growing list of movies I want to see when I finally have some time to again.

Top

4. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"

Posted by Julius Rosenblatt on Nov-12-02, 05:18 PM (PST)

Brian DePalma isn't fit to hold your camera case, Prof. If he wants to create images he shouldn't be working in a storytelling medium. He should become a painter. However, he doesn't really want to create images. He simply wants to repeat images he's already seen created by other directors.
I have enjoyed some DePalma films, particularly The Untouchables and Carrie. But can you spell..."charlatan?"
Orange (County) Julius (thanking the message board for this break and going back to work now)

Top

Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Powered by DCForumLite Version 3.0 ©1997-2000 by DCScripts. All rights reserved.

cialis cialis cialis viagra
cialis cialis drug generic levitra

"Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"
Posted by Prof on Nov-10-02, 09:07 AM (PST)
Salon.Com has an interesting interview with Brian DePalma in which he defends his up and down career, one which I believe needs to defending. Two Q. & A.s in particular stand out to me. This first one illustrate the difference between writing and directing for television and writing and directing for films. Q. A lot of people are calling "Femme Fatale" a return to your earlier works like "Dressed to Kill" and "Sisters." Do you agree? A. Yes, in the fact that it's written and directed by me like those pictures were. It's very much a movie that's driven by visual ideas, as opposed to character-driven or story-driven. This is kind of a meditation on film noir. I don't think I've ever done anything quite like that before that. Prof again: The reason I find this a valuable insight is because while TV has experimented with visually oriented shows (Michael Mann's two series come to mind) that has never become the accepted way to go. (It also shows the difference between writers who think like directors and writers who think like writers, but I think that's too complex a subject for a message being posted on a Sunday.) The next Q. and A. are creatively important to me because they express a basic truth about all media, answering the question, "Why are so many films and TV shows about cops and/or robbers?" Here it is: Q. Voyeurism and violence are two recurring themes in your work. Why? A. Well, these are two things I've been talking about for close to 40 years and everything I say about them, I feel like I'm throwing a paper airplane against the wall that keeps bouncing back. I will explain it for the nine-hundred-thousandth time and maybe when you write it down and somebody reads it, it will get through. I haven't been lucky so far. The reason violence is interesting to me is because it's filmic, it's action, it's movement. And sometimes movements can lead to death and sometimes they can lead to chases -- whatever. It's visual. That's why I am drawn to it. And since I'm a visual stylist, I have people following each other, running after each other, stabbing each other, stalking each other. I use situations that have these kind of musical beginnings which get faster and faster and onto some kind of crescendo which works very well on film. It's the only forum that you can use these kind of visually violent images. Voyeurism is just one of the primary tools of cinema. Hitchcock and directors before him in the silent era, when you shot a close-up from somebody's point of view, you were tying the audience very directly into the experience. It's the only art form in which you are showing the same piece of information to your character and the viewer in the audience simultaneously. That's what's unique about it and that's why people are drawn into film -- because they're experiencing the same visual information as the character. Prof back to say goodbye. 'Bye, Prof
	Top

1. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"
Posted by Larry Brody on Nov-10-02, 10:17 AM (PST)
I always think of DePalma as a director who writes, as opposed to Larry Kasdan, who to me is a writer who directs. I'd rather see a Kasdan film than a DePalma film any day because Kasdan always presents a truth I can aknowledge. Do we have to create a new set of criteria for DePalma films? One where instead of judging it by the reality and depth of the characters and the logic of the story we just look for great shots? God, I hope not. LYMI, Brody
	Top


	2. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"
	Posted by Christine Bollerud on Nov-10-02, 10:27 AM (PST)
	It also shows the difference between writers who think like directors and writers who think like writers, What defines either and which is better for what medium? C
		Top


	3. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"
	Posted by alX on Nov-11-02, 03:06 PM (PST)
	I've always liked De Palma's films. Even the so-called bad De Palma films because even those are visually interesting and while many who come to this board may not like, film is, first and foremost, a visual medium. But that's not to say that I don't also enjoy Kasdan's films. Body Heat is a personal favorite. But when a Kasdan film falls flat, it tends to lack the visual style to hold my interest during the lulls. And I can't say that I've ever been bored during a Brian De Palma film. As far as his creativity goes though, he does have a tendency to repeat himself. But it's been years since Raising Cain and Dressed to Kill, so most of the audience today probably won't be too upset to see similar aspects of those in Femme Fatale. I should add that I can't defend nor criticize that film yet, since I have not yet had time to see it. But it's on the list ... the ever growing list of movies I want to see when I finally have some time to again.
		Top

4. "RE: Brian DePalma Re His Creativity"
Posted by Julius Rosenblatt on Nov-12-02, 05:18 PM (PST)
Brian DePalma isn't fit to hold your camera case, Prof. If he wants to create images he shouldn't be working in a storytelling medium. He should become a painter. However, he doesn't really want to create images. He simply wants to repeat images he's already seen created by other directors. I have enjoyed some DePalma films, particularly The Untouchables and Carrie. But can you spell..."charlatan?" Orange (County) Julius (thanking the message board for this break and going back to work now)
	Top