“This is a bit of an unusual position for me as a cinematographer,” says Slawomir Idziak, renowned Polish cinematographer and frequent collaborator of both Krzysztof Kieslowski and Krzysztof Zanussi, as he stands in the spotlight, an unusual place to be for a person of his profession. Thus begins his talk on the current state of filmmaking in the world as well as the possibilities the future holds in collaborative filmmaking. Collaborative, you say? But isn’t filmmaking already a collaborative art with its crews of thousands, etc.? Hardly, according to Idziak. With 40 years of experience working as a international cinematographer in nearly 70 films, Idziak is nothing if not a suitable figure to dispel his observations on the development, or lack thereof, in filmmaking. Although cinema has been an art form for more than a century, Idziak believes that the creation of the cinematic arts can still be “more interactive, more creative.”

He begins his talk by describing the life of young scenarists, or cinematographers. For aspiring filmmakers in Poland, the fate of their development as filmmakers can be incredibly daunting as 50% of students are expelled from Polish film schools after their second year. This cruel and somewhat unjustified form of judgment against creativity is followed by the equally shocking fact that upon leaving film schools, many of Idziak’s “simply could not find a place in the existing (film industry).” The competition in the film industry is incredibly competitive, with the first production they’ve worked on being either their calling card into the industry or a signal for their unemployment. This is not an entirely new situation in the world of filmmaking as film graduates in my country, Singapore, suffer from these situations as well, though only 10% of students get kicked out of my film school and not 50%. However, this is still a very unpromising situation that film schools have created due to their obvious deficiency in supporting creativity.

Idziak has learnt that a primary problem in filmmaking is the lack of encouragement of artistic cohesion in both the film schools and the film industry. The director was, and still is, widely considered to be the primary auteur of the film. The auteur theory that governs this judgment has hurt the creative fruition of many filmmakers. Why should only one person decide the vision, shape and tone of a film? What is the definition of a filmmaker? Better yet, what is the definition of a director of photography? In Poland, not only is the director considered an auteur, but so is the director of photography. A director of photography is the artist behind the creation of the images we see on the screen, though the decisions of what is put on screen may not be entirely his. But a creative input is definitely present. Based on his experiences working in Hollywood, with work there ranging from Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca, Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down and the new Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a director of photography is a person who lights the scene, nothing more.

Film schools, he believes, “should be a place that allows for failure and experimentation.” His experience as a teacher at a the Lodz has allowed Idziak to witness the pain and frustration of film students in their struggle to define who they are as artists because of their fear of failure and experimentation, which is, as he says, “an invitation towards disaster.” Students in film schools are trained to excel in specific production roles, not encouraging an understanding of each production role.

This is a situation that I will have no problem identifying with next year as I venture into my third and final year in film school. After three years of film education, each student is expected to either participate in a short film production or gain industry experience as an intern at film companies. However, each student is allowed to choose only one aspect of film production to study during the third year before actually participating in film productions. I chose directing studies as my curriculum for next year, but I wanted to learn more about editing, cinematography and documentary production as well. Sure we learnt about these in our first two years, but hardly in a sufficient manner that would prove us to be efficient in these aspects of film production. After my three years have ended, I will be making my first foray into filmmaking. That our job on each film production is designated according our selected curriculum, as a director, I wonder how I will be able to communicate with my fellow crew members effectively?

Thus, these currently existing predicaments probably explains the lack of artistic cohesion that occurs in modern filmmaking. People with different production roles frequently overlook the responsibilities and expectations of other production personnel, creating an unnecessary chaos that hinders the production. Furthermore, many directors believe that because of their label of ‘director’, they should know what should be done in each aspect of production, which is untrue as various individuals from various creative departments would probably know how to get specific jobs done better than the director does. Their ego supports their belief that they are artists in the, as they believe, singular craft that is filmmaking. “Cinema is not a place for artists,” says Idziak, but rather for craftsmen, engineers of human emotion. It is a firm belief of Idziak’s that a resolve to these predicaments is for film schools to teach in a more well-rounded, collaborative form of education by giving students the opportunity to take on different roles in film production to create an understanding of all aspects of film production.

It is through his giving working relationship with Krzysztof Kieslowski that Idziak was able to truly understand the importance of collaboration. Idziak has often been given the opportunity by Kieslowski to collaborate on the shooting script of his films, of which allowed them to give birth to some of their most creative ideas. The process of pre-production, says Idziak, should be a sharing of a wealth of ideas coming from people working in all departments of filmmaking, preventing the ‘christmas tree’ syndrome he describes as the situation of having many crew members with the unclear motivation of even having them on set. Idziak believes that these collaborations can lead to the interesting result of creating a distinct style for each film.

This ‘christmas tree’ syndrome which Idziak has described is a very common situation in the Singaporean film industry as well, with the students from my school that later becme interns frequently experiencing working situations at the film companies they work which require them to do nothing but serve the director a cup of coffee or buying the crew lunch. If they’re lucky, they get to set up a c-stand or two. It is because of this that I initially though of Idziak’s ideas of creating an ideal collaborative platform for filmmaking to be both unrealistic and foolish. Fortunately, “filmspring” says otherwise. “filmspring” is a project developed by Idziak to get filmmakers from all over the world to get together to make films despite of their vastly different cultures and languages. A 30-minute film has already been created from this project, which Idziak is very proud of because it is a film that is, though “no masterpiece”, both emotionally successful and commercially viable. The filmmakers of this film knew each other before meeting in Poland, the meeting place for the project’s productions, through the project’s website which can be found at www.filmspring.eu

In a week’s time, I will be leaving Berlin to return to Singapore to begin work on pre-production for my short film. I believe this talk has been truly beneficial to both all the filmmakers around the world who were present and myself in learning about the ethics of filmmaking as well as the responsibilities we have as filmmakers in creating a giving working environment for each other.