Creativity and Originality in Film

I've been thinking a lot recently about what it means to be creative. Pre-production does that to you, apparently. Am I creative? Should I be more creative? Are there even levels to how creative somebody can get, or is it just like this big, overarching bubble of creativity that once you're in it, you're in it? Is creativity the same thing as originality? Does any of it even matter?

Those aren't rhetorical questions either. If someone has an answer, feel free to let me know.

You can find tons of articles online about how different writers and directors go about their personal creative processes (here's one that talks about how it took Chris Nolan 10 years to finish writing Inception, while Steven Soderbergh knocked out a script for Sex Lies and Videotape in 8 days - neither of which makes me feel particularly good about myself) but I've found very little about how to inspire creativity in yourself. There'll always be clickbait-esque pieces like this, suggesting different activities that might open your mind to new ways of thinking - thus bringing about creativity - but there's no tried and true formula. 

Because in the scheme of things, it's almost impossible to have a truly, never-before-thought-of idea. And that's kind of a bummer. It's an issue I've run into time and time again when working on scripts. Last year, I co-wrote a script about a washed-up TV star and had to listen to people go "oh, so you're making Bojack Horseman?" 

No. Dick.

But that's understandable. With so much media constantly getting thrown in our faces, it's impossible not to regurgitate some of that back out into our own work. It even happens to people who have already made it big, like the whole confrontation between Dane Cook and Louis CK - reenacted and dramatized in this clip from Louie - about how Dane might have, possibly, maybe, stolen a teensy bit of a joke from Louis. We all strive to make something that people think is "new" and "refreshing," but how do you do that when literally everything has already been done, one way or another?

The more time I spend writing, the less time I spend thinking about being original. After all, every story you tell - no matter who you are or where you're from - is going to have the same basic structure when you get down to the bones of it. There's no breaking away from that. And I don't know if that's awesome or horrible. Instead, I just focus on making something to the best of my ability, with characters that I find interesting and a plot that ties things all together, with the hope that it will all culminate in some tiny spec of originality. 

I guess I'm not really sure how to end this blog post, apart from giving what I - rightly or wrongly - assume to be the definition of being creative with a film. Creativity can't be quantitatively measured, despite what Cinemetrics seems to think. Films should make you feel something: whether it's happiness, love, fear, or anything in between. Shot lengths and camera settings and color palettes and every other "technical" aspect can be a part of this as well, as long as you play them to the overall effect that you're going for. You don't need to do anything groundbreaking. You don't need a 10 minute tracking shot (but oh man they're so cool). Emulate good films, take the techniques that you think will best help tell your story and use them.  In the end, as I've slowly learned, all you need is a camera, a story, and people willing to work their asses off to make something good. The rest will come. 

Bringing life to the past again

In the spirit of October and Halloween and zombies, I thought I'd make a post about movies that are being re-animated (no pun intended) and why.  Finding Nemo hits theaters again, but this time in 3D; The Lion King and Titanic, both huge successes originally at the box office, came back for round two with an added dimension.  The list continues on, and the future has even more in store (Little Shop of Horrors, The Birds, Dirty Dancing...see the rest here), both in our regular 2D movie experience and in pay-an-extra-four-bucks-for-glasses 3D.  Why not just make something new, though?

The fact of the matter is, even these "classics" are just imitations of other stories that came before, and I'm not entirely sure that such a thing as an "original idea" even exists these days.  It's sad to think of the world of creativity in that way, but really, what are we left with?  Directors, producers, and screenwriters therefore must come up with ways to manipulate the same old song and dance into something that another generation can enjoy, with updated pop culture references, soundtracks, and images.  Plus, with the relatively new frontier of 3D available for exploration, ticket prices rise (in a fair ratio to the increase in cost of making a 3D film, on average about 18% according to the MPAA) to add to the climbing cost of living in today's world.  There has to be something flashy and new to add to the old storyline to attract an audience back to the theater, whether it's in the technology or the talent (you know that you see some movies just for the actors, admit it); otherwise, viewers just won't be pulled back in to see a plot they've watched unfold seven times before in various formats.

I'm not saying that this isn't a decent way to make up for a lack of new ideas; after all, it is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Still, I wouldn't mind seeing filmmakers give a little more effort in the way of creating something at least slightly new, rather than spending more money to jazz up the same shots from the "original."  If you want an upcoming generation to think outside of the box and to try new things, you've got to inspire them through what they see on the big screen, because who doesn't want to be just like a movie star?