A Dreamer Walking

Hanging Leafs

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 29, 2011

Here is another picture I took on my outing the other day. I am surprised that these leafs have survived the winter so far. I used the sun as a centering device, taking the picture with the sun directly behind the main leaf pointing down. This gives us a very nice silhouette. One of the difficulties was figuring how much to crop the picture. I wanted it to feel balanced between the background and the leafs. I took away some of the blues in order to make the color scheme more worm and inviting. Over all I think it was a good picture. I still don’t know if I like the house in the background, seeming to cut into the tip of the main leaf.

(Click on the Picture to get a clearer image. I don’t know why it is not as clear on the main page)

Brick Wall

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 28, 2011

click on image to get a clearer picture

Went out the other day and took a few pictures. This was one of them. I liked the texture of the bricks and the different patterns many of them seemed to have. I used photoshop to bring out what I felt were the key elements in the picture. The red/orange brick really stuck out to me, so I enhanced it slightly so it really stuck out to the viewer. I wanted the eye to be drawn to that brick. Also, I added some texture. Texture in my opinion tends to give most pictures more character. The grain you see I think really adds to the picture. It is almost as though you can touch it.

(P.S. Click on the picture to get a clearer image)

Taxi Driver-Extra Features Review

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 27, 2011

Taxi Driver:

Collectors Edition 2-disc DVD Review:

Martin Scorsese On Taxi Driver: 8.5 out of 10: This is a very good 16 minute interview with Martin Scorsese. He explains his feelings on the project as best as possible. Martin talks about why he wanted to direct Taxi Driver and what he got out of it. He also goes into detail on what influenced him. Martin names several directors, from Francesco Ross all the way to Alfred Hitchcock, as being strong influences for Taxi Driver. This feature is not about how Martin approached each shot or how he got the film accomplished. The feature does have a tremendous amount of information of what Taxi Driver meant to Scorsese. I think it is good that this interview is taped many years after the making of the film. He seems to have had time to think about the reasons to why he did Taxi Driver and why it was a success.

Producing Taxi Driver: 7.5 out of 10: A good 10 minute look at how the Taxi Driver film was started. You hear mostly from producer Michael Phillips on what the movie meant to him. We are told that the movie was very controversial but sadly do not hear of much detail to why. We also see why some of the filmmakers were attracted to the film. There is a nice little look at the new generation of filmmakers that were coming up from the 1960’s and 70’s.

God’s Lonely Man: 9.5 out of 10: This is a great 25 minute documentary on the origins of the Taxi Driver film. We go into the life of the screenwriter Paul Schrader and see how the film was created from his own personal experiences. He talks about the foundations of the main character Travis why he was appealing to him. Paul gives us a lot of insight to what the philosophy is behind the screenplay. He talks in detail about what he thinks the job of a screenwriter is and what it is not. This documentary is a must for anyone studying screenwriting. The documentary helps us understand Taxi Driver in a much deeper way.

Influence and Appreciation: Martin Scorsese Tribute: 8 out of 10: This is a great 18 minute documentary on Martin Scorsese. It talks a little about how he got associated with Taxi Driver. They talk about him as being a student of film who always had a independence and exhilarating energy for filmmaking. We hear a lot about the kind of influence Martin was on the rest of the Taxi Driver crew. It is a documentary about why Martin is such a good director, only concentrating on the making of Taxi Driver and before. I wish they used the Taxi Driver as an example more often. I wish they went into more specific examples of how Martin’s shooting was revolutionary for his time. All in all a very good documentary. It was very well told and I liked hearing about the revolution in the 70’s for Hollywood filmmaking.

Taxi Driver Stories: 7 out of 10: A interesting look at a few New York taxi drivers. They talk about what taxi driving is all about for them. We hear how the business has changed from the 70’s to the present times. They explain what drew them to the job and some of them explain why they chose to leave the profession. It is a 20 minute documentary on some unique peoples lives as taxi drivers. Does not really have anything to do with the making of the actual film Taxi Driver.

Making Taxi Driver: 8 out of 10: This is a well made 1 hour and 10 minute documentary on all the stages of making Taxi Driver. All the way through the documentary we hear about the philosophy behind the film and how it resonated with the cast and crew. Many people talk about their role in the film and specifically how Paul Schrader, Martin Scorsese, and Robert De Niro pushed the film to be the classic it is today. Jodie Foster has some good things to say about her role as a 12 year old prostitute. She talks about what both Martin and Robert did to take her acting to a whole new level. Paul brings us a lot of insight into the meaning behind the movie. I would have liked to hear from Martin a little bit more. They never really get into much detail about the conflict that came with the film. I did enjoy hearing about Robert De Niro’s contribution to the film and what his attitude was as an actor back then. A good all a round look at the film making process.

Travis: New York: 5 out of 10: This was a okay look at New York in the 1970’s and how it has changed to present times. The documentary was very short however and not nearly enough of an explanation was given on how Now York has changed. We are told by some high up officials that the City has changed from back then to now. But, we don’t hear how it has changed or much of why. We are told that the City is Rich, but never are given a explanation. We also are not told why New York City is the place of opportunity, even though there are some interviews who say it is.

Story-Boards by Martin Scorsese: 8.5 out of 10: This is a fantastic 4 minute explanation by Martin about the beauty of storyboards. I really enjoyed it and think he explains well the general benefit of self made storyboards. We are given good explanation to how the storyboards help both him and his cinematographer understand how to go about shooting the film.

Commentary: By Professor Robert Kolker: 8.5 out of 10: Professor Kolker seems to have done his research on Martin Scorsese and Taxi Driver in this commentary. He makes us understand to a much higher degree why Taxi Driver is considered by many to be a great piece of Cinema. He goes into detail on how Martin uses the camera to push the story and it’s meaning forward. He talks about Travis and explains his view on many of his scenes for us. Sometimes it feels like he is trying to put meaning into things that never had any. But, for the most part we dissect the Taxi Driver movie and see a lot of the fine details that make the film great.

Commentary: By Screenwriter Paul Schrader: 7.5 out of 10: I have some mixed feelings about this commentary. First off, Paul does a good job giving us his unique and valuable perspective on the film. He mostly sticks to his thoughts on the script. One of the frustrating things was the long gaps without him saying a word. It really felt like he was only talking half the time or less. There were several scenes I very badly wanted him to talk about that he just skipped over. He does a good job when he does talk. Paul is very honest. He tells us what he thinks a screenwriters job is and what he thinks is not a screenwriters job. He has experience with both directing and writing, so his comments on what the directors job is and what the screenwriters job is, are very valuable. Overall I did get some valuable information from him, but wish he talked and discussed much more then he did.

From these extra features I think we get a very good view on the making and importance of the Taxi Driver. We hear a fair amount from all the major people who took part in the making of Taxi Driver. For me it was a great introduction to Martin Scorsese. I was able to see some of his passion for film. I was also able to see what got him started in the film business and how his philosophy started to change the rest of Hollywood. Paul Schrader and Robert De Niro were also interesting people to look into. Paul Schrader’s screenplay really was something else. This is just as much Paul’s movie as anyone else’s. I respected the trust that Paul seemed to have with Martin, it is a good look at how a screenwriter and director should work together. These extra features explain very well the reasons to why Taxi Driver is considered one of the greatest films ever made. It also inspires the independent artist to make his own film, no matter how gutsy the story is.

Scorsese: Interviewed by Charlie Rose

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 25, 2011

Charlie Rose is one of my favorite interviewers and I think he does a splendid job interviewing Martin in this hour long video. I am posting this video because Martin does a good job talking about his career up to 1997 when this interview was taken. Especially in the second half of the interview, Martin goes into detail about what got him interested in film in the first place and why he has done some of the projects he has done.

Martin Scorsese – An Observation – Perfecter Of The Elements

Posted in Film and Filmaker Studies, Observation Series by Jacob on January 24, 2011

Martin on rightI have just begun to appreciate Martin Scorsese’s ability to use both visuals and sound to enhance our understanding of what his characters are feeling. We are not just told what emotions the character is going through, we see it. The most vivid example of this is in Raging Bull during the fight scenes.

In many ways Scorsese is at his best in Raging Bull. We are literally transported inside the main character Jake LeMotta. During the fights when Jake is doing well we are right in on the action with him, as if seeing most of the fight from Jake’s point of view. The camera is steady and the image is clear. The lights glamorously applaud Jake as if he is the king of the world, or in boxing terms “The Champ”.

This clip from Raging Bull is a perfect example of how the camera, sound, music, and lighting, are all glamorizing Jake’s climb to fame.

This section of the film represents Jake’s professional career at it’s best. Martin tries to stay in the moment as long as possible by doing a continuous shot from the locker room to the ring. The farther down the hall we get the more we are able to hear the glorious applause for Jake. On top of that we have music playing romanticizing the moment. Everything is smooth and there is no extreme close ups. Jake is in total control and thus the visuals and sounds are supporting that control. It almost ends as quickly as it starts. The opponent gives up and Jake is now Champion with all the elements of cinema supporting his victory.

Now take a look at this scene, where Jake finally falls and gives up his title.

Immediately we can tell the audience is not quite on Jake’s side anymore. The punches to Jake seem louder and the lighting is much more dim. We even see steam coming from the fighters and the ring, as if we left the real world and are in some kind of hell. Finally we see Jake has given up. He drops his hands and beckons his appointment to come and finish him off while leaning against the ring. Then it happens. We leave reality completely. We get a shot of Jake in the middle of the frame, a abnormal, wide angled, and uncomfortable perspective. Everything  goes quiet (Martin understands sometimes the greatest sound is silence). Then the camera does a tilt down covering the opponent in shadow. The opponent sounds more like an animal then an actual human now, breathing in and out slowly. Behind Jake the steam is more visible then ever before. Jake looks almost distorted in the frame.

The beating begins. Everything seems to go extremely fast now. For the audience the fast abrupt cuts are just as painful as the punches. The camera lights go off like they are attacking Jake along side his opponent. The sounds of the journalist’s camera lights going off are like machine guns emptying out clips. We get extreme close ups of Jake’s face and the blood spurting out in all directions. It no longer matters whether the scene is realistic or not, what Martin cares about is the feelings and emotions he is expressing. We finally end seeing Jake completely destroyed yet still standing.

These are just a few examples of how well Scorsese uses his cinematic skills and experience to further the journey of the viewer. In his movies we will not always see deep attention to plot. All of Scorsese’s cuts will not match up flawlessly. Sometimes we might be frustrated with the characters he is trying to express or the story he is telling. But one thing is for curtain, Scorsese knows how to use the camera. He knows how to literally express emotions through the medium of film. Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Aviator are just a few other movies of Scorsese’s where we really are able to explore the inner being of one of his characters.

I think Scorsese does not care if we do or do not like his films. What he wants is for the audience to experience something unique and different. He wants to express himself through his films. He knows the best cinema comes from within.

(He is the LINK to my first Martin Scorsese “Observation” post)

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 23, 2011

I watched Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World the other day. I think it highlights both the skill that I see coming with this generation of filmmakers and the greatest weakness of this generation of filmmakers.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was a extremely inventive movie. We are taken on an abstract ride through a world that can only be expressed through the medium of film. In the movie Scott Pilgrim is a twenty three year old with a very low self esteem. He is going out with a seventeen year old who he does not really like. He is also still trying to get over being dumped by a popular music star from more then a year ago.

The movie is flashy and loaded with special effects. Edgar Wright, the director of this film, tries to express the movie like a video game. At times almost every noise heard is expressed through bold font. If there is a knock on the door or ring of a phone, we get the sound literally spelled out for us. Usually the sounds in the movie remind you of of arcade rooms from the 80’s and early 90’s. When introduced to new locations or new characters we see a small title card pop up giving us their name and basic function. For example: when we are introduced to Scott’s roommate Wallace Wells, under the title of his name we see “roommate”, under that “25 years old”, and under that we see “Status: 7.4/10”.

About ten minutes into the film we are introduced to one more character, Romona Flowers. Romona is the girl of Scott’s dreams. Quickly Scott loses all interest in his seventeen year old girlfriend and goes after Romona. However, Scott soon finds out that if he wants to date Romona, he needs to fight and defeat her “Seven X’s”. The “Seven X’s” consist of people Romona has gone out with in the past. From this point on Edgar really plays the movie like a video game. Every time a boyfriend or girlfriend (she went out with one girl in her past) comes to face Scott they dramatically announce their arrival with some title cards expressing who they are and their basic fighting ability. After this we see a big “VS.” pop up on screen between the two opponents. Scott then is able to use anything he could get his hands on to defeat the “X’s“. Amazingly Scott inherits expert kung fu skills making most of the fights very entertaining to watch. After the “X’s” are defeated they blow into handfuls of coins and a big “K.O” looms over where they once were.

I found the expressionism very interesting. I liked seeing sound effects expressed through stylized font. I liked the exaggerated fight scenes where we literally saw characters get thrown through walls and thousands of feet into the air. However, all this does not necessarily make for a good movie. You need to fall in love with the story and the characters if you want the movie to go any farther then the highs you can get from playing a video game. For me, the story and characters were extremely shallow.

Why is it that a movie done in such a unique and expressive way, could only go as deep as a Saturday morning cartoon show? The relationship between Scott and Ramona is never really explained. There is nothing that seems to get us interested Ramona except for the fact that she looks hot and dyes her hair different colors every week and a half.

Because the characters can not express themselves very well, there are scenes where we just get a lot of yelling and low blow humor. We see a very disturbing character in Scott’s roommate Wallace. Wallace is gay and he seems to not have any morals when it comes to sexuality. Wallace will sleep with any man even Scott’s sisters boyfriend. There are times where he has three partners in bed at once. In almost every scene Wallace is trying to get his hands on some man. Of course this is all done for comic relief, but I really want to know why someone like Wallace is supposed to be funny?

As I said, Scott does have some epic battle scenes where he is fighting for his girl Ramona, but it is hard to understand why. Scott never really explains why he likes Ramona. The truth is Scott does not seem to know why he likes Ramona and he does not spend any time trying to figure it out.

The movie is also full of cliche’s. We of course have the time where Scott thinks he has lost Ramona forever. Then he decides to go and fight to get her back, which results in him getting within a inch of victory and then “unexpectedly” falling to defeat. But never fear, he  miraculously gets up from his defeat to beat the very cliche villain who wants Ramona for himself.  The result is all the good guys say they have learned their lesson, however it is very hard to understand exactly what they have learned. Scott gets Ramona and they walk into the next “level”, most likely to live happily ever after.

The filmmakers of this generation seem to think that they should just be able to say , “These two are in love”, and expect the audience to buy into it “hook line and sinker”. Maybe that is the case for the majority of audiences these days. We don’t need to go deep anymore. Shallow if fine, as long as we have a few laughs and see some cool special effects. The reason why immoral people like Scott’s roommate Wallace are funny is because we really do not care what that portrayal is saying about the homosexual life style, we just care that it’s “funny”.

In Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, cool fonts try to hide shallow characters and special effects try to conceal a cliche plot line. In essence, the breakthroughs of the movie are used as a cover up for the weak story. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a perfect example of a “cool movie” that is quickly forgotten. And, along with Scott Pilgrim Vs. The world, this generation of filmmakers will be easily forgotten if we do not choose to put story and vision ahead of cool camera moves and special effects.

Martin Scorsese – An Observation – Where is the Arc?

Posted in Film and Filmaker Studies, Observation Series by Jacob on January 20, 2011

martin-scorsese_M_jpg_627x325_crop_upscale_q85After recently watching three of Martin Scorsese’s most critically acclaimed films, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, I have noticed one key factor that seems to be true with each one of these films. The main characters stay the same. This is very different from the normal Hollywood film. Or at least the normal critically acclaimed film. Usually we are taught to create an arc for the main character. We need to see them start one way and through their journey learn something new and change because of it. Not really the case with these three Scorsese films.  (If you continue you will hear spoilers for all three of these films).

I am not saying the characters don’t change at all. But all the change we see seems to be a outward change. The soul of the characters stays the same. A good example is Henry Hill in Goodfellas. At the beginning Henry loves the life of being a Gangster. We see how Henry was introduced to the Gangster life and his voice over gives us all the details to why he likes this way of living. At the end Henry rats the gangsters out. However, it has nothing to do with him not liking the gangster life anymore. He even tells us strait up that he misses it. The problem for him is the circumstances changed. He needs to leave the gangster life to save his own neck.

In Taxi Driver the movie ends the same way it began. In fact this was the filmmakers intention. We are introduced to a paranoid man in Travis Bickle. The paranoia becomes so great Travis goes on a killing rampage. Somehow he is hailed as a hero in the public’s eye and starts the cycle all over again. The reason why we know the cycle is going to start all over again is because on the inside nothing has changed with Travis. In Raging Bull the only change in the main character Jake LeMotta is he goes from a famous boxer to a washed up showman.

To be honest, Martin is being more honest to reality in showing these characters with faults that do not really change. For the most part we are unwilling to look at ourselves and make the changes needed to transform who we are on the inside. Martin also is a skilled storyteller and is able to tell intriguing stories even though the his main characters don’t have an arc.

It is interesting to see how the characters life styles and who they are on the inside effect how they deal with outside situations. Seeing Travis’s self loathing and paranoia effect the way he judges situations was interesting to me. Seeing how Jake LeMotta’s mistrust and his obsessions took a hold of him and caused him to lose everything, was also intriguing. For me however these things by themselves leave me unsatisfied.

No matter how good the filmmaker is a story still needs an arc both in the the plot and the characters. I am not nearly as interested in the outward alterations as I am in the inward change. If you are not going to have any change on the inside you should be able to get done with the story much sooner. I knew Travis was crazy in the Taxi Driver thirty minutes into the film. I knew Jake was a good boxer with relationship issues fifteen minutes into the film. I realized that Henry liked the life of being a gangster within the first five minutes of the film.

We only need to go outside to see people who don’t have any inward change. Sadly, the world is full of those kinds of people. However, for me the movies should be different. They should show us growth, both good and bad. I am fine with films that have good people choose to go bad based on the circumstances. That is a interesting observation that if told right will make me think. I also am fine with films that have bad characters change for the good. I am not saying there needs to be a huge change. Not saying  they should go from completely bad to completely good. Just, I want to see a difference the story made on the character. I want to see the inner transformation that takes a master filmmaker to express.

Wall-E: Andrew Stanton Interview

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 18, 2011

I stumbled upon this very informative interview with director Andrew Stanton talking about some of his thought process behind the movie Wall-E.

Wall-E is not my favorite Pixar movie but I think the movie’s storytelling is superb. We are introduced to the robot Wall-E and find out exactly what kind of character he is and what he is longing for in life within the first seven minutes of the film. The first twenty to thirty minutes of Wall-E consist of some of the greatest animation I have ever seen. The Pixar guys had guts. They trusted that the audience would not loose interest, even though there was little action and hardly any duologue at the beginning of the film.

Wall-E also represents a break away from the typical Pixar visual style. Andrew used lenses and brought in a color schemes that were different from movies like Cars, Finding Nemo, and Monsters Inc. He shot for a more realistic look. The movement of Wall-E was very limited compared to most of the Pixar characters. This allowed for the animators to stretch their skills and learn how to communicate a lot with a little.

Anyway, here are the video’s. Enjoy!

(Go to the site beta adikted or their youtube page for more interviews of popular filmmakers)

The Pen of a Filmmaker

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 16, 2011

Making a movie is sort of like creating a piece of literature. Your pen is the camera and the paper is the canvas for the world you are going to create. It is the filmmakers job to figure out what to write and how to space it. You can even say something like “cutting” is the equivalent of  “periods” and “exclamation marks“ in writing.

What a good filmmaker tries to do is create a rhythm or a flow to his or her movie. We need to not only have a good story but also be able to express it in a way that is interesting and unique. Literature has many different ways of expressing itself. There is plain factual writings (text books), fictional and non-functional writings, poetry, journalism, ant etc… All of these types of writings can take a subject and express it in completely different ways.

One of the beauties of filmmaking is we have many ways to express ourselves. In fact the tools for film are getting more extensive every day. It is like we have paint brushes today that filmmakers in the past could only dream of having.

The extensive amount of tools we have today to express ourselves do not make the films of the past look like armatures however. It is good to study the great filmmakers of the past if not for the sole purpose of understanding how they could express so much with so little.

It is a common mistake for most young filmmakers today to care more about the tools then the actual subject matter. I have worked with many fellow students who seemed so caught up in making a cool shot or pulling off a cool effect that they forgot about the core of what filmmaking is about. In literary terms it is like writers who are so interested in using sophisticated words that they forget to think about the meaning behind them.  The core of filmmaking is and must always be the story. The meaning behind the effect or cool shot is what matters. Everything should be done to support and express the story in the best way possible.

Even if your story is just some factual information that you want to get across to the audience (News), the first question should be, “how can I best communicate this information to the audience?”. The cool shots and fantastic special effects should only be used to make the information more clear and more acceptable to the audience.

Figuring out the different ways we can express ourselves in film is like looking into the different ways people express themselves in writing. Even if something like poetry is not your thing it is a good idea to try to understand it. The ways filmmakers can express themselves is endless. The more I look into film the vaster the medium seems to get. I personally think this is a good thing.

I want to be a great filmmaker like any writer wants to be a great author. I think that the similarities between the two mediums are fascinating. Looking at the camera like it is your pen is a good analogy. We have the potential to make mistakes and create masterpieces. However, nothing will happen until you are able to build up the guts to put pen to paper.

(By the way, this is post 100! Thank you so very much for everyone who has been checking out this blog. I will try my best to continue to improve my writing and push my dreams forward. I am glad you are can share in my experiences. Do not be afraid to comment and tell me what you think 🙂 )

What Makes a Great Film?

Posted in Uncategorized by Jacob on January 14, 2011

What makes a great film?

Is it cutting? The music? Many people say that it is the actor. Or maybe, maybe it is the idea that makes for a great film. Of course the idea can’t be expressed very well if you don’t have a good director. So is it the director?

Actually, you sort of need all of them.

I am trying to tackle a pretty untouchable subject here. There have been people who have devoted their entire lives to discovering what makes a great film. How possibly can a twenty one year old explain it?

Actually the question arises after researching a broad range of directors. Through out the last few months I have devoted my studies to understanding filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock, David Fincher, Frank Capra, and Marin Scorsese. All these guys are considered good. In fact, by many they are considered masters at the craft of filmmaking. However, the more research I put into these guys, the more I realize that they have completely different styles of filmmaking. So I guess the question is; if all these guys are great filmmakers but have completely different ways of going about making films, then what is the magic formula? What makes for great films?

I will tell you one thing, I certainly like certain directors movies more then others. Frank Capra’s movies speak volumes more to me then Hitchcock’s. David Fincher, has curtain movies that speak to me more then others. Scorsese’ style is completely unique and stimulating, but the heart can sometimes hardly be seen. I can see the true talent in all these directors, but why do they not impact me in the same way or to the same extent.

Of course every movie you see should not impact you in the same way. The beauty of movies is that they all give you at least some kind of different way of thinking of things. However, realizing that all movies are different and make you think in different ways, makes the question, “what makes a great film?”, all the more complex and hard to answer.

All I can give you in this personal blog is my opinion on what makes a great film. A great film is not necessarily created through epic actions scenes, a happy ending, or a complex story line. A great film is a film that has stayed true to the heart of the director. With all the directors I have researched, one thing is consistent; They all have a visions that they will not allow to be altered.

A great director makes a film that is personal to him or her. The reason why the films are unique is because each one of the directors are unique. All of the great directors I have studied have a rich education. They learned to perfect the way they deal with camera, acting, music, and editing. But that is not what makes them great. They have learned how to separate themselves from other filmmakers and movies. They takes risks and create stories that the producers and even themselves are not completely sure about.

Some of the greatest movies ever made are the ones were said to never be able to make it. Whether it is Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life, or Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, the directors pushed through and made their movie no matter how many doubters they faced.

What I look for more then anything when I am studying directors is the origin of their passion. I want to see the vision behind the movie’s they made. What made them push the envelope? What made them convinced something completely unfamiliar was going to work? If you want to know what makes for a great film, you need to figure out what makes for a great artist.

A great artist consists of individuality more then anything else. As a Christian I believe God gave us all a unique vision. The great filmmakers fallow that vision whether they know the author or not. We as filmmakers need to be able to figure out the technique. We need to know how to deal with the camera, acting, music, and editing. But all this is worth very little if you do not have a vision. The vision dictates all the other things. And, following the vision is indeed what makes for a great film.