Cinema Myths Debunked

Here, I gather a few ideas about the art of cinema that are widely accepted by the godfathers of the independent film industry, and I try to debunk them (some of which I have already done in my other posts).

“Cinema is a Combination of Various Artistic Disciplines“

The idea of cinema has been adopted as a combination of various artistic disciplines such as theater, music, literature, painting, and photography by many filmmakers. Surely, as cinema is a baby in the world of art, it has borrowed from many of them until discovering its unique voice (which it may still be searching for). But, at its core, cinema is just about image, sound, and rhythm, which means we can remove anything that could be excessive, like characters and drama. We can simply make a film with only images and sound in a particular rhythm that would position cinema as a purely distinct audiovisual medium. Therefore, viewing cinema as a synthesis of other arts reflects the practice of many (or perhaps most) filmmakers, but it does not define the medium.

“Filmmaking is Storytelling“

Undoubtedly, cinema is an art that includes storytelling. But there is no rule that every film must tell a story. Cinema, as visual and auditory art, allows us to make non-narrative films, too. In this sense, it would be wrong to say filmmaking equals storytelling. Of course, since storytelling is an older and deep-rooted practice it dominates the structure of films. And, naturally, most audiences pay attention to the story aspect of them. Moreover, most filmmakers identify themselves as storytellers.

But let’s not forget that there are also filmmakers who are not storytellers. I think James Benning is one of them. Most of his films consist of static shots without any particular story, something we can call experimental narratives, which I find more compatible with the core of the cinematic medium. Yes, it is ironic that we still have to use the term narrative (how a story is delivered) to describe his works, as this shows how strong the concept of storytelling is and how difficult it is to debunk it. But don’t miss this detail: although Benning is still involved with narrative, he doesn’t tell a story. Instead, he provides us with elements to create a story. In other words, he acts as a story catalyst or story architect. He considers that every image has its own story without imposing one, and he invites viewers to make their own interpretations and connections. But I prefer to use another term to describe his films. While some of them have narrative elements related to environmental and political themes, I would call most of his works simply audiovisual experiences without referring to any narrative aspect.

Of course, any depiction will lead viewers to impose some sense of narrative meaning or structure. So, any sequence of images/sounds can be interpreted narratively as the audience may create connections even if the filmmaker doesn’t intend them. Also, external information that explains the filmmakers’ intentions or motivations is often imposed on the audience, similar to explanatory captions accompanying photographs or paintings in museums. All of these factors inevitably expand the concept of storytelling. However, I still believe cinema has the ability to challenge and break that perception.

To me, the art of cinema fundamentally involves the projection of a direct experience, similar to sitting on a bench and observing a landscape and hearing the sounds. The early films by the Lumière Brothers are great examples of it as a basic medium even if they lack sound. Of course, those filmmakers were not thinking about the deeper meaning of the medium, they were just exploring what was possible. But, today we can specifically focus on this aspect. Here’s a basic example for you: Think of an ambient video on YouTube, for example, waves on a beach that last for an hour. I believe this repetitive video, from beginning to end, simply reflects the core aspects of cinema. Because it has those basic elements that are tied to only the cinematic medium. It purely conveys an audiovisual experience and certainly lacks a narrative or at most, contains minimal elements that hint at one. Yes, it does not reflect a strong artist’s perspective, which is why we perhaps would not classify it as cinematic art, but it is still a great example to understand the medium.

“A Screenplay Meant to Tell a Story“

A screenplay is not a literary work, such as a novel or a storybook. It consists of images and sounds transferred onto paper. Think about composers writing musical notes on paper to convey their creative vision to musicians, similarly, screenwriters write screenplays to communicate their vision to their collaborators like directors, producers, actors, or funders. While storytelling might be a key component of screenwriting, it is not the only way to approach it. A screenwriter could simply depict images and sounds without considering any particular story or narrative structure (but, of course, most decision-makers or evaluators in the industry would likely not be happy with this).

“A Good Film Requires a Good Screenplay“

Screenplays might be important but not every film needs one. Take Swedish director Roy Andersson. Instead of writing a screenplay, he just paints simple sketches for his films. Many documentary, docu-fiction, and experimental filmmakers start production without a screenplay and still can create exceptional pieces. So, good films don’t always need the written word. And, the necessity of a screenplay just depends on the filmmaker’s working style and vision.

“Making a (Good) Film is All About Inspiration and Instincts“

Making a film, while undoubtedly fueled by inspiration and instincts, also involves many tangible assets. It’s like being a craftsman. Most of the process resembles the work of a carpenter, which has a significant portion of the analysis. So, in fact, beneath the surface of every creative attempt, a certain mathematical elegance lies. But people who proudly proclaim themselves as artists often only emphasize the more attractive and romantic aspects like inspiration and instincts, which are just small pieces of the larger picture.

Creativity in filmmaking also needs technical expertise. The more we master our technical understanding the more our imagination expands for new inspirations. That’s why the roles of a cinematographer, colorist, or sound designer in a film are way more crucial than most realize. Because all the technical details that the audience might not notice play a huge role in the final work. They might be not visible, but their impact is there. So, whenever I hear filmmakers say, “I just followed my instincts”, I can’t help but think they are lying. Perhaps they fear losing their sexiness. Believe me, they look like surgeons more than artists when they are in the editing room. No matter how poetic the result seems, many calculated factors lie behind a film.

“Breaking The Rules is a Must to Make (Good) Films“

Looking for a rule to break is a narrow perspective that leads to the illusion that breaking a rule automatically makes a work original or exceptional. Festivals are full of such films, and many filmmakers do not understand the purpose of doing it, as if they do it just because it is cool or a must. And if filmmakers start with a plan to break a rule, they are already making it too important. It becomes a game of action and reaction. If they could explore their true intentions, it wouldn’t matter whether they align with the rules or not.

“Originality is Uniqueness“

Art history is not just a series of periods that differ from each other, it’s a continuous evolution, where each new style absorbs and transforms the previous. And these transitions are like subtle shades of gray. But if we rush through the timeline, it is likely to miss how one artist adopts the other. Our mistake is viewing these long processes as if they were brief moments. Artists always take from the past to create today. They absorb the previous pieces to discover the new. The more they absorb what came before, the better chance they have at exploring the next big thing. Therefore the avant-garde is just a remix of yesterday’s brilliance with a contemporary artist’s vision. And each new work has to be inherently original because it has the imprint of a new individual.

It’s like cooking with a set of ingredients and creating a flavor unique to the chef. And it is this individuality that serves as a significant spice. It could be perfectly blended, it could be a bit off-balance or it could be the creation of a taste so distinct that it stands out. All those variations are acceptable in terms of their originality.

So, in this sense, it seems ridiculous when people claim that they are entirely self-taught and unaffected by any external sources. If they are drawing, let’s say an illustration, did they stumble upon some examples somewhere and use them as references? Or did all knowledge just descend upon them from the sky? To me, referencing is inevitable. Even if you started drawing without knowing a single artist’s work, your reference point is likely some kitsch painting hanging in your grandma’s living room that caught your eye as a kid.

That’s exactly why the pictures created by artificial intelligence horrify us as a competitor to human creativity. It simply performs similar tasks as we do. It just remixes the references. Surely, we are still not suffering from this challenge as our originality lies in our individuality and personality (if we have one). However, when AI evolves into a personal entity, then we might be forced to adopt new approaches, which I actually find a positive thing to boost our artistic advancement as humans.

“Symbols and Metaphors are Essential for (Good) Films“

Using symbols in artworks is a practice rooted in religious paintings. While its form dates back to ancient times, it evolved from the 3rd and 4th centuries onwards with the Christian iconography tradition and has influenced visual arts throughout art history. Simply, it involves placing or interpreting elements within an image as representations of something else. Personally, I prefer not to view paintings from this perspective, even if they are produced with a symbolic intent. To me, it’s a narrow lens that restricts our imagination and personal interpretations. And, the idea of applying this method to films is completely absurd.

This approach is more common among those with art or film education, who might see it as a trendy thing to do. Most film courses promote this narrow perspective, which I believe is a flaw in education. Viewers who look for symbols (or metaphors) and overanalyze every detail simply miss out on the pure experience cinema offers. They try to read the films instead of watching, experiencing, and reflecting on them. To me, the art of cinema does not need this kind of evaluation at all. And, in fact, those who don’t have this approach may actually have a better chance of understanding the films as they come in with a fresh perspective, free from preconceptions.

But this is not only about the audience’s perspective, surely it is also the fault of the filmmakers. Some directors either adopt this tradition or are unable to break away from it. Many argue against the existence of symbols in their films and promote a more direct experience, but they fail to create films that support this view. They find themselves making films suitable for symbolic interpretation. Even some master directors struggle in this regard.

“(Good) Films Make Us to Take Action“

Activist or socially critical films don’t really wake us up or move us to action like we think it does. Instead, it gives us this false sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, like we have done something just by watching a film, sharing it with a few friends, or posting about it online. But we don’t actually act for real problems. We just act as much as we already do, not because we watched a film. Plus, the people who are causing these issues or those who have the power to make change are not the ones consuming this art anyway. It’s like we are all playing pretend in our echo chambers.

The best thing about a good film is that it gives us another life: quick, affordable, and easy. We get to see the world through someone else’s eyes for a while. It is like gaining a new perspective, a third eye, that helps us see the world in ways we never could before. We live a bunch of lives we’ll never actually live. Films build empathy, expand our view, and let us see things from above, like looking down from space.

Films give us so much, but because we have already experienced so much through them, we hesitate to put in the same effort in the real world. Yes, we learn from them, and we become more understanding individuals but also more passive ones because of this fulfillment, much like how playing a video game makes us feel accomplished without actually doing anything in reality (by the way, some video games are definitely art too).

Films are also like an emotional refuge for us. It’s a contemporary belief for many, to ease our feelings or find some divine inspiration. Films become our pit stop, a place to recharge when the world feels overwhelming. We watch them, the sad ones to sink deeper, or the cheerful ones to lift us back up. We turn to it like a prayer but we are just getting crushed under the weight of it all as if we are trying to bear the burden of a god we worship. In the end, we are reminded that while films can soothe us, they don’t solve our problems, they just help us feel them.

Films are powerful, no doubt. They can shift our perspectives. But thinking of them as a remedy or call to action is just asking too much. And, you know, filmmakers who adopt such notions are masters at stealing credit. Think about it. People struggle, mess up, and figure things out. Then filmmakers come along, take all that effort, polish it up, and say: Look what we did. Then, they give performative speeches about those issues at festivals or award ceremonies. They seem convinced they have done their part, and then retreat back into their daily lives. It’s a trick that always SELLS and never gets old.

“Awards Represent the Highest Achievement for Filmmakers“

Festivals or awards are not the only measures of a film’s merit, many are just promotional platforms that prioritize trendy topics and personalities. To me, the true prestige of a filmmaker lies in their ability to connect (or interact) with individuals on a personal and universal level, the discussions that masters or emerging talents have about them in (private) conversations, how their films influence one another, what extent they remix each other and contribute the cinematic evolution. If these aspects are recognized in the awards, it will be the icing on the cake, but that may not always be the case.

Surely, those points focus only on external achievements. In fact, a filmmaker’s true success is simply bringing their vision to life (finishing what I started, in my case) and finding personal satisfaction in their work, regardless of any of these external factors (but this would be only in an ideal world).

Note: When I think about it, what I wrote might come across as know-it-all and antipathetic, but I am not going to hide my thoughts anyway. Consider me one small voice in the spectrum of diversity, though that’s another myth waiting to be debunked.