The influence of music video on filmmaking: good or bad?

I admire well-made music clips (are we still to call them music videos?), but - in the context of a full-length film - fast cuts in self-contained stories often seem to weaken structure, particularly when they're set to contemporary music.

This is a good example: it's a bravura piece of filmmaking, but in the context of the film itself has the unfortunate effect of making everything around it seems like filler.



So has the influence of music videos crippled the well-paced film? Or has it been a positive coming together of forms?

I think the problem is less about the music video technique and more the variety (lack thereof) and in some cases wisdom of application.

Music video's are relatively short in duration they need to engage you urgently but with little real need to retain your interest long term. Because the approach is somewhat heavy handed and obvious (ie quick and dirty), when it lingers too long or else is used at an inappropriate moment, inevitably you become desensitised to the techniques and effects used.

The real point is that good film techiniques all have their time, duration and place but the longer the film the more important becomes variety, to be satisfied over the longer runtime of a movie the production needs to keep viewers engaged as such you can't keep bludgeoning them in the same relentless manner, they will either pass out or simply become numb and once disengaged the effort needed to recover them is much greater second time through.

I think QoS is a decent example in that part of its appeal is curtailed by a lack of variety in its presentation - the frequent bursts of action are all delivered with pretty much the same few techniques, (echoed by David Arnold's dogmatic scoring approach). The worse two examples are sadly right at the head of the movie, these end up flavouring what comes next because the subsequent action is presented in so similar a manner.

We all have different susceptibilities of course but sooner or later the lack of presentation variety starts to wear you down, the film making process intrudes and obscures the story and performances - all the effort aimed to involve you quickly in events works begins to exclude you over the longer term, whole sections of film can become omitted effectively giving rise to a perception of being disjointed even where the literal script is quite simplistic and linear.

Yes, music videos' short duration is only one aspect of this. After all, the British Invasion of Hollywood in the late 1970s/early 1980s was by ex-TV advert directors, generally used to filling timeslots of less than 30 seconds.

I think digital edit-room technology may have something to do with this seachange; it's much easier to do fast edits with AVID than a razorblade.

Erica Ambler wrote:

I think digital edit-room technology may have something to do with this seachange; it's much easier to do fast edits with AVID than a razorblade.

I'd say it's probably partly the ease with which anyone can do these whiz-bang editing styles. I say this as someone who has never made or edited a film.

Erica Ambler wrote:

So has the influence of music videos crippled the well-paced film? Or has it been a positive coming together of forms?

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That music in GHOST SHIP, for example, completely ruins the pacing for me. It's also incredibly tacky. With a bit more creativity, I think that scene could have really been pushed further to make it successful.

Tarantino's another music video artist that many love, but gets it all wrong. His music videos within his films completely take me out of scenes and feel incredibly gimmicky and show-offish. Plus, many of his fans act as if no other director has the skill to throw a catchy Morricone track onto a scene and cut it so the music syncs. This "Tarantino Trademark" is nothing more than what countless idiots post on YouTube. The projection scene in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS completely fails because of its music video quality. In context, the main character in the scene is about to take down the Third Reich, but Tarantino needed to infuse a half-assed "love" scene, equipped with a Morricone track (and Tarantino doesn't even have the courtesy to let it play out). A lot of his music video work within his films just gets in the way of telling the story. I don't care for it.

On the other hand, one instance where the music video approach worked extremely well was at the end of TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY. And who would have thought that concluding such a great spy film with a Julio Iglesias cover of "La Mer" would have worked so well? The pacing and continuity in this sequence were nice, too, with Alfredson cutting between the party sequence/Hayden and Prideaux exchanging glances, Prideaux taking care of some unfinished business, and then cutting to the key characters and the somewhat depressing aftermath of the film's events. This all fit well within the context of the film and smoothly moved the film forward, and to the end.

Most of the time, I think the music video approach to cinema is a bottom-of-the-barrel option which comes in the way of telling a story.

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos? I ask the question because I cannot immediately think of another. Of course, that is also an indictment of how few current-day directors are actually creating any art that is worthwhile.

I think Michel Gondry started off with music videos.

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

What qualifies as "relevant" cinematic work?

I dislike The Die Another Day Icepalace party scene (aka re-meeting Jinx)

I think QOS can have show more from a distance. But in general i don't make a to big isue from it. I dislike the boat chase and the dogfight can be better. But the Airport scene with Fields is whyle i have liked to see litle bit more very good and nice reference to FRWL. I hope England in Skyfall wil be more like Twine. If you ask me a good other reasen to re-consider to make movies in the 1;85:1 format again. Batman 1-4, Titanic, Spider-Man and Avatar be made in this format, also Dr No (Europe) format be 1:77:1 and LALD is 1:85:1. For Skyfall it is to late, but for Bond 24.

From Casino Royale i don't like the hard cuts, also thanks to David Arnold his music.

From the thread Action sequences you want to see in BOND 23 (and beyond) on Mi6forums, from September.

Quote :

Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUbzTzaY14w

With of course some big changes. No sound effects like those. Less camera angels to to give it a more wide look what should made it les nerfes. The fall in the glass is also a bad idea. If possible to film it with 2 camer's or 1 camera or 1 helicopter. Directers created the widescreen for showing more from the left and right but in the mean time there creat small action scene's. There should created something to film from above and don't swith to soon to another camera as seen in between 1.43 and 1.49. In others words i think the camera is sometimes to close. I whant to see where there fight.

A example where i like the camera angel be Madagascar crean scene in CR who started with showing it wide and include water.

MBalje wrote:

If you ask me a good other reasen to re-consider to make movies in the 1;85:1 format again. Batman 1-4, Titanic, Spider-Man and Avatar be made in this format, also Dr No (Europe) format be 1:77:1 and LALD is 1:85:1. For Skyfall it is to late, but for Bond 24W.

When I saw AVATAR at the cinema in 3D, it was in 2.35:1 widescreen. On DVD and Blu-ray, it's 1.85:1 (I'm not sure why).

At any rate, I'd love another 1.85:1 Bond film, although I don't think we'll ever get one again, probably because people wrongly believe that films in 1.85:1 can't be "spectacular", and that the public "demands" James Bond in widescreen.

The fiftieth anniversary and SKYFALL would have been a perfect time to return to 1.85:1, if only for one film (harking back to the aspect ratio of the first three Connerys, of course), and I'm surprised that Mendes and Deakins didn't do it, if only to make their Bond film stand out more.

Mind you, given that CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and (I presume) SKYFALL were shot in Super 35 as opposed to Panavision, doesn't it make them 1.85:1 films as much as they're 2.35:1 ones? (Albeit that they're usually shown in 2.35:1, excepting TV broadcasts.) I'm not a cinematography buff, so I'd welcome some clarification on this one.

Bond in 1.85? No. I generally prefer that ratio though it depends on the film, but Bond should be in 2.35 these days. Or 2.39 or 2.4, or whatever the hell.

Just not 3-D.

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry.

Loomis wrote:

MBalje wrote:

If you ask me a good other reasen to re-consider to make movies in the 1;85:1 format again. Batman 1-4, Titanic, Spider-Man and Avatar be made in this format, also Dr No (Europe) format be 1:77:1 and LALD is 1:85:1. For Skyfall it is to late, but for Bond 24W.

When I saw AVATAR at the cinema in 3D, it was in 2.35:1 widescreen. On DVD and Blu-ray, it's 1.85:1 (I'm not sure why).

At any rate, I'd love another 1.85:1 Bond film, although I don't think we'll ever get one again, probably because people wrongly believe that films in 1.85:1 can't be "spectacular", and that the public "demands" James Bond in widescreen.

The fiftieth anniversary and SKYFALL would have been a perfect time to return to 1.85:1, if only for one film (harking back to the aspect ratio of the first three Connerys, of course), and I'm surprised that Mendes and Deakins didn't do it, if only to make their Bond film stand out more.

Mind you, given that CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLACE and (I presume) SKYFALL were shot in Super 35 as opposed to Panavision, doesn't it make them 1.85:1 films as much as they're 2.35:1 ones? (Albeit that they're usually shown in 2.35:1, excepting TV broadcasts.) I'm not a cinematography buff, so I'd welcome some clarification on this one.

SKYFALL is actually being shot in digital format, making QOS possibly the very last Bond film shot on 35mm.

Harmsway wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

What qualifies as "relevant" cinematic work?

Movies that might still matter in 15-20 years? I'll give you a tip: no one will care about Michael Bay's Transformers then.

Sharky wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry.

So in short, quirky indie directors (both overrated as well, if I might add).

Salomé wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry.

So in short, quirky indie directors (both overrated as well, if I might add).

Compared to David Fincher they're giants.

Hardly. I won't deny that Fincher's output has been uneven in quality, but I'd wager history will remember his work more kindly than Jonze and Gondry's.

Then history can suck my balls.

Salomé wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Is there currently anyone other than Fincher doing relevant cinematic work having had his origin in music videos?

What qualifies as "relevant" cinematic work?

Movies that might still matter in 15-20 years?

Difficult to predict. Today's trash often becomes tomorrow's treasure, and today's treasure often becomes tomorrow's trash.

For all we know, after his death, Roland Emmerich will be considered one of the great filmmakers of his time.

Influence of music video on filmmaking -- Good.
Evidence submitted - Cidade de Deus
QED.

CITY OF GOD'S a heap of shit. The film and the city.