VIDEODROME - FORGING THE NEW FLESH
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 фев 2013
- A documentary supplement we produced some years back for The Criterion Collection's DVD release of David Cronenberg's 1983 unnervingly prescient classic, VIDEODROME - in which we look back at the making of the film from the perspective of Rick Baker's make-up effects team and our own visual effects unit. (This documentary and lots of other cool stuff is included on The Criterion Collection's gorgeous new Blu-ray release of VIDEODROME. You can and most definitely should by it here: www.criterion.com/films/240-vi...)
Кино
Fantastic short, I adore this film and it’s so wonderful to hear the crew members talk about the work they do for, see their excitement, and the ingenuity. This really brought me back to my childhood obsession with SFX makeup and practical effects-might have to revisit that interest.
damn I miss these kinds of effects....
Long live the new flesh!
It's incredible how much ingenuity these people had. It's almost unreal to this how they made these ideas come to life using real life effects.
Thanks! Crafting this featurette after all those years was almost as much fun as working on the film itself. (Almost.) Though I must also point out (especially if Criterion is listening) that my real purpose in posting this video was to help sell some DVDs. Their blu-ray transfer is truly extraordinary, as is the cornucopia of special features.
I still can't believe that Rick Baker retired
He is the kind of artist that never lost its touch
woods is still in character...
Fantastic insight into one of the most unsettling movies ever made. Great stuff.
Excellent movie and documentary. Thanks for sharing!
These guys are true artists .the ingenuity is tremendous.well done.
love practical effects! This movie was so good, and the effects are awesome. Wish they had shown how they made the tapes! I am so obsessed with this stuff ❤❤❤️ It really is better than CG - it will always feel more real, and be incredible. The talent it takes to do that stuff and the way it actually feels like magic - you can't replace that. Try to have HALF as much fun working at a job doing CG...
Agreed 🎉
so good. watch it now.
the power of 80's
the best effects ever..not like nowadays
stupid CGI
Truth. Videodrome holds it's own today against 90% of the shitty movies Hollyweird has produced since.
Totally agree!! Cgi pulls me out of any movie immediately... it all just boils down to stupid nerd shit
kaicooper87 agreed death to videodrome love live the new flesh ☄️
Thanks for the upload.
The narrator should do audiobooks, very soothing and nice voice.
Yikes, that was me! (The guy who made this short for Criterion after working on the original film.) I ended up narrating it at Criterion's insistence - and also because we had no budget to hire anyone good. Thanks for the unexpected (and I'm pretty sure, undeserved) compliment.
Michael Lennick
You're welcome. Thanks for the insightful documentary.
Thank you. A very enjoyable job and fun diversion from the work we usually produce. You might be interested to know we've just done a new one for Criterion's just-released "Scanners" blu-ray ("The Scanners Way"), and are currently working on another (so far untitled) for their up-coming (and as-yet unannounced) release of "The Brood".
Michael Lennick I agree with Melvinwacko. Your narration is really nice.
Very cool. Great to learn more about the classic!
It is a great movie. I saw as a kid for the first time and had no clue what was going on but I liked it.
VIDEODROME !! 🫦🧠👁👀 🇧🇷
Really loved this featurette Thank you very much Michael. I wanted to add this was one of the first really intelligent horror films I watched as a teen growing up, and wanting to work in the SFX make up industry myself.
Thanks CB! Much appreciated.
I have to ask.... Did you end up working in the industry?
Not on the level above, but I ended up writing and directing theatre shows :)
CherryBlossom
I started in live theater and still think it's the most rewarding (if evanescent) of all media. Videodrome was the most enjoyable feature project I've ever done, but I got out of the F/X game years ago too, and have been writing and directing science and history documentaries for the past 20 years. I suspect you and I are both happier for our decisions.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly. I love writing, even more than directing. But am taking three years actively out to do my degree in art history and Psychology. BUt I have a project in the pipeline I have already started working on. For me the art is my release. Everyday spawns a new idea or creation possibility. :)
classic film.
Thank You!
THANK YOU
Thank You
This is my favorite movie this days
Great stuff!
Great video, thanks for posting it!
Glad you enjoyed it. We're currently filming two new documentaries for the Criterion Collection, including one for their upcoming "Scanners" release. (You heard it here first.)
Wow, that's great news!
*****
I think it hits stores on Tuesday. (We're still waiting for our copy...)
Awesome
So this is what egon did before busting ghosts
this image bring STEREOGRAMS to mind. They starting to show up in GAMES Magazine several years later.
CLEAREYES!!!
Practical effects. Now they want to do EVERYTHING with CGI and it gets boring pretty quick, but films like Videodrome can be watched again and again.
15:32
Awake C3F69R!!! Shhhh!!!
I come to you from ze computer, ahh lol
We are inter greated~ now ohh so freaky ::)) I love it
TheJennRogue haha
spooky new radiation
Peter griffin said something about this James Woods,but cant remember xD
Ahh that's why the end is so poor in what is otherwise a incredible film.
Still haven't seen it, but this movies looks pretty fucked up.
Louis Minett it is
What bugs me about Cronenberg films is that they feel like half creations. Just as they get into the true heart of the story it abruptly stops. Videodrome is among the more frustrating examples. It seems as if something great is about to happen and then, bang, roll credits. I enjoy the film very much as well as many of Cronbergs earlier works, but find his latest stuff very underwhelming. My favorite has to The Dead Zone. I remember exiting Dead Ringer in a numb state of shock. I didn't care much for Spider. I moderately enjoyed ExIstenZe....but it too had an abrupt ending just as it was getting interesting. I wanted to see how a "war" would be waged between these two factions in the movie. It would have been fascinating and surreal....but we were denied it sadly. Crash is one I want to enjoy and appreciate but something alienates me from entering that world. I thought the J.G. Ballard novel was actually better and had a more satirical tone than the relentlessly grim film. History of Violence is the last Cronenberg film I have through in its entirity. I understood the "theme" of the film but it made no great impression me. I attempted to watch Eastern Promises but the violence was more than I wanted to tolerate. I was mildly excited by A Dangerous Method and the idea of Cronenberg taking on the subject of the origins of psychoanalysis, Freud, and Jung, but sitting in on it when it played at the theater where I work I was just bored and cannot understand why anyone casts the untalented Kiera Knightly in anything other the a Pirate of the Carribean movie. I passed on Cosmopolis. He used to a great stylist who made movies that eplored the dark interiors of humanity by the material of late seems bland and beneath his talent. I wish he'd go back to science fiction or do another horror movie like Rabid, The Brood, or Scanners. They were so original and created their own bizarre worlds that totally absorbed me into them. Anyhow, Long Live the New Flesh.
Arnaud Drouin And, by the way, I don't think that all stories (and the films from which they derive) have to express a theme. I know I've put a lot of emphasize on this subject, but I really don't believe all films should express themes. As a matter of fact, I believe only 1 or 2% of films should express theme, because 98% of people can't come up with a vision during the course of their entire lifetime, so they shouldn't try in the first place.
All I mean is this: If you're part of those who want to express something, pay your dues. Don't just come up with mysterious pseudo-intellectual theories and leave it at that (i.e. Videodrome).
If you're going to take this road, do it well. If you can't do it, don't take this road, write for another reason.
All stories should not have a theme but all (quality adult original material made for people who have an IQ of at least 105-110) stories should, at least, attempt to show a BELIEVABLE process through time. Because that's what storytelling bring to the table of arts, it's able to show a process (a character process) through time in a way that no other story form can. Cronenberg's Naked Lunch, for example, is a film with no theme but it successfully attempts to show process of someone coming to recognize his homosexuality (again, this story comes from a novel). But that's not all! He shows the process using surrealist methods (I wish it was David Lynch that tackled this book), whether through imagery, atmosphere or dialogue. Now, I think any smart person would agree that this piece of work is worthy of it's existence.
With the progression of TV serial storytelling, where we are able to show a process not only for a duration of 90 to 120 minutes but for 5-6 seasons, the value of storytelling is emplified (see Breaking bad for an actual believable process of some everyday Jo becoming a mastermind criminal).
When I say: a believable process, I mean that the character is not a pawn to the plot which eventually leads him to the end of the process without him noticing, I mean that the story is written in such a way that one can identify with the whole mental process of the character that are going along as he's going through plot.
If you believe that I've said anything of value, I highly recommand you to watch Dennis Villeneuve's Enemy. Now, I won't tell you what kind of process is going through the film, and I highly suggest you don't watch any trailer or read any reviews and go see for yourself. This a particularly emotionally powerfilm if you have any experiences regarding the subject that this film touches.
You should read three books. Cronenberg on Cronenberg, Lynch on Lynch, and David Lynch own book called Catching the Big Fish.
I have grown very disappointed by both directors over the last few decades as their work seems it drifts into repetition or just dull pretetion. It has een a lng time since I enjoyed a film by either director. I'd have to look at their filmogaphy to tell you what was the last, but I think it has been a lot longer for David Lynch. I read somwhere that he is going to pick up Twin Peaks for the Showtime channel. Why? The second season was terrible. I used to be a great fan of Lynch and could not wait for his next project but Ijust don't care any more. The same for Cronenberg. I passed on Casmopolis (attempted to watch it on Netflix but quickly baile out) and have no interest in his new one. I don't know if you have ever watched movie reviews by ark Kermode but he quite enjoyed it. A movie abut vapid Hollywood stars has satirical possibilities but I'm not picking up a good vibe from it.
I think Cronenbrg's early films did have a good balance of the cerebral and visceral. I do not ask too much of movies other than to create a world in which I can disappear for ninety minutes or so. They do not get the same mental attention as a book. Films can be a great diversion but they do not warrant the intellectual attention as Nitzsche, Camus, Sartre, Darwin, etc. Some people get overly passionate about a medium is mostly visual with a little intelligence to keep the eggheads showing up. If I were given the option of one or the other and had to totally give up the other I'd choose books in alf a heart beat. All the true geniuses of cinema are gone and all we are left with now are showmen who put on a performance that entertains and distracts but it is totlly hollow in the center. All the men in molded rubber cannot fill that mediocre center. I rarely go to movies nowadays. It ha been at least three months since I saw anything in a theater and usually they are documentaries.
Gad you enjoyed the comments.
GREG FREEMAN Thank your for your answer and your book suggestions, I will certainly look at these books.
I agree with pretty much all you said, most precisely about cinema being total crap nowadays, that's true. The only thing I'd like to take to your attention is that cinema is not primarily a visual medium, in fact, I believe it's one of the biggest misconception about this art and this explains why it's never been used to it's fullest potential.
Cinema is, first and foremost, a narrative medium. That means that the author, the writer, is the true artist of a film, not the director. A true piece of cinematic work would start with a fantastic story from a talented writer(1), translated into a workable script (2) taken from a director with talent who would realize the script audio-visually without compromising the original vision (3), if there is any. American Beauty and Apocalypse Now are such films. Unfortunately, this is understood by pretty much no-one, or the people who understand that cinema is mostly about stories are working at Hollywood, pumping useless narrative about superheroes saving the world for the Nth time. A lot of authors think that structuring their story and coming up with it before the production process will jault their creativity, what a stupid idea.
Since this notion is misunderstood, coupled with the fact that cinema is a collaborative medium which demands that all people on board know where they are going and have the talent to go where they want to go, the result is that it is almost impossible to create a pertinent film. I've often said that the art of cinema is too complicated for the human mind and that great films are a result of chance. Maybe i'm too pessimistic, and my idea of it is certainly, like yours, a result of the terrible time we live in regarding to the creative productions.
Novels and music are generally regarded as superior art forms (even Sam Mendes, the director of American Beauty said so, ironically) because: a) People know what is the essence of these art forms and b) These art forms have already known their golden age, so enthusiasts and scholars have something to look and admire. I would also argue that the human brain is more receptive to music. Cinema still have not live it's golden age, but I don't think it's because of its relative yougness, people just don't know what's cinema's purpose in the first place so it'll never be truly exploited. It's no wonder, because it's really a combination of art forms, so it requires the authors in charge to master each of the art form in a certain way. That's almost impossible.
Strangely enough, video games (which is definitely an art form in my mind) are way more novel and complex (it's everything movie is + the interaction) and they've already lived their golden age in the 90s with the Nintendo 64.
It was a great artform and there were a handful of directors who treated it as more than a mere entertainment (as it has degenerate into). I just (out of morbid curiousity) watched the teaser trailer for the next Jurrasic Park flick and thought: Why? I have yet to see ANY of the other, nor shall I. It's just people running away from CGI dinosaurs for two hours. Boring.
To respond to an early comment you made about themes in films. I am not wholly against them. Stanley Kubrick's films are loaded with themes---some obvious and some you have to dig for. They can be deadly pretentious in the wrong hands or it might start with an interesting theme (or concept) and devolve into a routine action flick because the director does not have the intellectual stamina to stay focused or perhaps interference from the studio to "dumb" it down for profit's sake. I can never imagine a film like 2001 being made today or embraced by a modern audience as it was in the 60's. Once upon a time there were artists in cinema. Kubrick, Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, Altman,Godard, Bunuel, Russell, Roeg, Polanski (early), and then in the early 80's there was Sayles, Jarmusch .
The last three films that made me go WOW were Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Punch Drunk Love, and (especially) Richard Linklatter's Waking Life. When I go see of movie I am looking for an out of body experience and not a superficial passtime. Let me just throw it out there that I haven't the slightest interest in the upcoming Star Wars flicks. JJ Abrams is a hack director. I will go the step further to state that Star Wars (the original trilogy) has ruined science fiction forever and it has now been degraded into "sci/fi" (a term Harlan Ellison loaths). But that is all I have to say about that matter. I grew up into 70's so the original trilogy has some nostalgic basis but not very deep.
I enjoy films that don't answer all questions and allows the audience the opportunity to interpret. This can be good thing (Eraserhead, Last Tango In Paris,The Man Who Fell to Earth, 2001, etc) or it can very annoying (Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, Tree of Life, To the Wonder, etc). There should be enough pieces of the puzzle to draw some conclusion but inregards to any David Lynch film within the last twenty years he seems to have a growing contempt for his audience and goes not seem to care about anything but that momentary flash of "pop surrealism" that really nothing to do with nothing. If you read his book Catching the Big Fish he pretty much makes up his films (at least the last few) while he makes them without much structure. It is lazy and sloppy. Eraserhead and Blue Velvet created a world that supported the strange ornamentations and I loved going into those manufactured worlds. Art is about pretention. Art without a measured amount of pretention is dull. Reality is killing modern movies. Why do I want to see a movie where all the ugliness of reality is rubbed in my face. I avoid movies like Human Centipede, Requim For a Dream, anything involving drug, alchohol, or sex addiction like plague. These movies literally depress me. Just a single clip from A Serbian Film disturbed me deeply or a clip of the human centipede "feeding". I am not against tough subjects but these border on being snuff porn and seem to wallow in it's own filthy excesses without having any grand overall insight. A Clockwork Orange was condemned for its violence but it had a point and purpose. It presents a character who lives this very violent existence, he goes throught a treatment and then released into a world that is just as violent as himself. He is a cat declawed and thrown into a kennel of rabid dogs. The point ultimately presented is: Do we feel sorry or sympathy for this vile character or does he deserve his fate? Kubrick leaves this question in the air for the audience to ponder. Great art should have a certain "incompleteness" to it. It is like difference between Norman Rockwell and Salvador Dali.
I'm just flabergasted at the quality of your last comment because I share 90% of your ideas, it's so very rare I almost feel like your spying on me, I'm only nearly joking.
I feel you when you say that you don't want to watch movies like the Human Centipede and such. Those are vile, useless, disgusting excuses for porn gore. I wish that, even within their liberty to watch it, most people would have the good sense and dignity to stay away from this putrifacting shit. I'm not a really progressist pro-social kind of guy, but I rebel against the existence of snuff movies. If I were the prime minister of Canada, I would send to jail those who share Magnotta's terrible murder film on the Internet. Excuse me for my language, but I despise anyone involved in this project.
Requiem For a Dream was quite an intense movie too, I agree. I saw it for the first time at the age of 14 or 16 and I was nearly traumatized by the last portion of the film, and while some think the film made it's point with those last couple of moments, I think the value of this film is only in the intensity of the individual scenes, not in the overall structure itself. The film hit second base, nothing more. I wouldn't say this film disgusted me so much as it shocked me, so I respect it and much of Aronosfky's work, but there are not enjoyable movies by any mean. It is true that, in a sense, such films are quite useless, because they limit themselves to showing the vices of men. In that sense, I would argue that film must show a certain degree of optimism, that's why American Beauty is one of my favourite film. Even with a tragic ending, the author is able to put a positively spiritual twist on the event and leave the audience with a deep-down, genuine feel-good vibe with thematic proportions.
As you said, A clockwork orange is underservedly controversial because it gets his point across. That's why Kubrick is one of the great. He's one of the few American director that does not fall into moral complacency, and this gives pretty much each of his film a unique moral vision that one can think about for years. It also has the benefit of offering multiple viewings as you age and your perception of life and the subject matter portrayed in the film changes. In that regard, I would agree that, yes, in some ways, the oppenness of a film, permit the term, have it's benefits. I've even heard of the notion that this oppenness is a guarantee of excellence because it allows different interpretations, but I think that's the kind of intellectual catch-22 that too many authors fall in. I wish I could develop my comment about A clockwork orange more, but I was 12 or 13 when I last saw this film. I'll definitely check it again as you mentionned it and my father always hailed it as one of the great films, much to my confusion, I must admit.
Pretty much all the directors you mentionned could be ranged amongst the great, but strangely enough, I don't feel or think too much for any of these guys films, Roeg's The Man who fall to earth might being an exception due to the experimental nature of the film. It warps your mind in a unique way, and, as you say, I'm all about being transported. Mindless entertainment doesn't cut it for me either because, well, I'm not entertained by the platitudes shown in the Marvel or in the Star Wars film.
Polanski is a man of talent but his work terrifies me for some reason. His movie Repulsion, which deals with some sort of mental disorientation had quite an impact on me (so the film worked) but that's also my problem with it, it worked it's way into my mind. I respect him and, as a result, I can't watch his material. I'll probably never watch Rosemary's baby. His landmark film was the Pianist for me. Completely shattering experience.
I can't believe you mentionned that Star Wars is not sci-fi because I've long held the opinion that they are nothing but fantasy film set in space setting. I believe George Lucas even said it himself. And they are the lowest form of fantasy, one which serves no other purpose but to show an entertaining world. Real sci-fi, as you certainly know, shows a different vision (a modified/alternate vision) of our world which gives a better understanding of the world in which we live in right now, or, at least, the world in which we may live very soon. First and foremost, it poses a premise that conjugates the big theme of human existence with some sort of scientific/technological theory. Blade Runner is such a film, although I never felt really preoccupied by the whole question of: Where does a human begin and end? Is a semi-human gifted with memories and emotion a real human? There again, the theme is theoritically interesting, but it has no practical purpose. This question does not seem too complicated to me and, like it's the case for most film, I'm not really reflecting on those questions after watching the film, I'm more in a state of coma watching thesepeople reflect on problems of a subject that may bear no incidence on my life or in the life of humans for the next 100 years.
Bergman is one of the greats, although definitely too preachy, he showcases the feeling of nightmares like no one can. I just like him, especially for the nightmare scenes in Wild Strawberries. Good little film, although my intuition tells me that I'm still too young to fully appreciate that movie and it's minimalistic approach. I'll have to get back to it when I'll be way older.
Bunuel and Fellini, like Bergman, Lynch and Cronenberg are all interested in the subjects of subconscious, dreams, nightmare, surrealism etc, you get it. This made me realize that one of the big purpose of cinema may be to develop big issues by the vehicle of surrealism, because, not only do you not just mechanically recreate reality, but you make the visual aspect of film relevant because the audience has a sense that the author is recreating the feeling of dreams/nightmare, subconscious. I argue that no other form can deal with those subject matter better than cinema, correct me If I'm wrong.
This predilection that those authors have, and that you may noticed I have, comes directly from the idea that you mentionned (and I'm glad you mentionned it): films can't simply show life for what it is: a meaningless reality (unless you believe in some deity, life is pretty much meaningless and absurd). I believe that films from our era represent 2-3% of what cinema can do. Surrealism is an answer to that problem because it emphasizes on fantasy that comes directly from the human psyche, it's a strong cocktail, I think you'll agree. You have your bread and butter: you show anything BUT reality but you ground it in emotions and memories. Unfortunately, a big part of the audience may be alienated by this approach as it often falls into unintelligible nonsense.
As you said, David Lynch is one of those who may be alienating his audience, and it's so obvious why, but I keep coming back for more because I listen to the man's interview and I see that there is a deeper meaning than what may appear on the surface. Or so I believe. Blue Velvet was certainly one of his most simply told story, relying more on the physical than the psychological thriller, it was grounded in reality and it became one of his landmark films. Eraserhead was, I believe, all the contrary, so I'm quite surprised you got into it. I certainly did, as I'm pretty sure my interpretation of the film is right (but maybe that's the not point).
Mulholland Drive is actually very simple when you understand that the first three quarter of the film is the protagonist's dream and nightmare and, as such, it's a subconscious representation of the character's ghost: her guilt for having commanded the murder of her former best friend from which she was jealous. When you look at the film with those glasses, I think it makes sense, with few exceptions of scenes that don't fit in. Having seen some of Lynch interviews and being familiar with his metaphor of catching the big fish (i.e. catching ideas, in the tradition of Plato's world of ideas which states that ideas basically float around and are waiting to be picked) I knew he was not a man of great structure and cohesion. He's all about the individual scenes, and it's a shame. But somehow, his intuition is sometimes spot-on and the structure comes naturally from those idea. They are not structured traditionnaly within the plot (in other words, the events are not causally connected) but they are structured by some sort of vague intention to showcase the deeper workings of the human mind. In other words, the process is sloppy and lazy, I'm on board with you, but his talent is such that he eventually comes up with quality content that is truly original, albeit sometimes meaningless. One of his greatest scenes is the love scene between Alice and Pete in the Lost Highway, a truly mesmerizing representation of a sexual fantasy, I'm amazed every time I see it. It does not have any particular reason for being here, but it's so well directed that any of my criticism wouldn't do justice to that scene's greatness.
I won't comment on Inland Empire because I don't think much can be said about this film. This is the one film where you go: If everything bad about Lynch could be condensed into a film, it would give you Inland Empire. It's a sad, depressing, badly photographed puzzling nightmare.
I've had long discussions with my father about the Tree of Life and I too agree that this film's approach is frustrating. I get it that the film wanted to showcase the redemption that a person may go true in his life by making sense of events from the past, but I believe that, for doing that, the writer needed to incorporate at least one scene which could have truly get the audience on board as a moment which would have deeply troubled the developpement of that individual. I don't think Mallick did that, I don't think that a little brother's death occuring during the childhood can have a lasting impact until your 40s. If it did have an impact, why is it only at this age that the protagonist goes through his self-revelation process? The film seems to answer: Lord knows... And I'm tempted to conclude similarly.
As you said, the incompletedness of film may be one of the key element to trigger the audience into digging into themselves to seek and find something more.
Honestly, I don't know. I have developped a tendency to distance myself from this incompletedness nature, but, at the same time, my intuition knows too well that you should not, or can't simply show all the pieces of the puzzle without losing creative potential.
And don't get me started on those new Star Wars and Jurassic Park films, I feel you. I know exactly what's going to happen and I know from experience that the fight scenes are what's emphasized in these films. I have a certain curiosity and I might check it up out of boredom, but I know I'll be leaving the theater or the living room more empty than I was before watching the film. Maybe I'm sado-masochist...
Richard Linklater is one of the great american independant film-maker, a visionnary. I respect his work a lot and I've heard great things about The Walking life, from what I've seen, it's quite a dialogue and philosophically heavy film, so I hope it delivers. His latest film Boyhood seems very ambitious and apparently, it pushes the enveloppe of film in that it shows the entire process of an actual real-life boy becoming an adult. It's a grand-scale coming-of-age story and I'm eager to see it.
Jarmusch's ability to create a nice and welcoming mood is second to none, but that's about all I have to say about his material, unfortunately. I like the guy more than the films he makes I guess.
I still haven't seen Punch Drunk Love and, I'm not really proud to admit it, but it's because Adam Sandler is in the lead role. I've really got to check it because PT Anderson is a great director though.
I'm surprised about the praise Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind has received. I believe it was too front-loaded. The premise was great and, at first, you don't see it coming, but as soon as the spotless mind portion of the film kicks in, it's the same plot beat over and over: the memories are fading away and the Hero now wants to stop the process and keep the memories at all cost. Definitely a great idea, no question about that, but then again, where do we go from here? Film is hard, because you have to make your subject relevant for at least 90 minutes (if we give value to that convention, it does not have to be 90 minutes of course), if your attempting to make a feature film. This implies that your idea should have the potentiaI to be played with for that amount of time.
I believe most authors should try their way into short films and see if their idea would benefit from it before considering a feature film. Wes Anderson's Bottle Rocket is a valuable lesson because it is a film that has been made both as a short film (in the first place) and then as a feature film (you can find the short film on the Criterion blu ray). Both are very similar, but the former is clearly better because it knows where to end according to the amount of material it has. The conclusion of that short film you will not believe, it's so particular and surprising, I highly recommend it. As I said, I think going for the 90 minutes format is more of a reflex coming out of a convention than a creative choice for most people. I believe it shows and it still has not been adressed. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to make the money to pay for the rent by doing nothing but short movies, so the choice of making long feature film is obvious.
I hope you don't mind the long comments, I don't think you do, but you give me so much opportunities to develop ideas that I can't help but to seize them. Again, thank you so much for your great mind, it's really appreciated to have this level of discussion.
Booooo...