Lynn Pareja’s recent Saturday Special article on the first directorial effort of screenwriter Susana de Guzman has apparently gotten some film buffs interested in the debut movies of other directors. At a group discussion last month, we were asked to recall the first movies megged by other ace directors.
The interest in first movies is merited, because a film artist’s initial directorial attempt is usually quite different from his subsequent works. The logic goes this way:
When a film talent is tapped by a producer to meg his first movie, the first-time director may be knowledgeable and schooled, but much of what he “knows” is theory, and has yet to be tested in actual production. Thus, quite often, a director’s first movie is both exciting and stressful, because it requires him to, for the very first time, go beyond book knowledge and prove that he actually has what it takes to make a feature film.
Creativity
For the first time, not just his talent and creativity, but also his ability to work with other people, is on the line. Quite a number of would-be filmmakers may be gifted artists, but they don’t know how to work with and bring out the best in others.
In addition, first movies are special—and especially problematic—because the new filmmaker tries to put everything he wants to “say” in it—thus making it too long, ambitious, complicated, verbose, etc.
First movies also test directors’ ability to work with actors. Quite a number of new talents fail this test, because they’re “theoretical” storytellers who know little about motivation, actor psychology, film versus stage acting, etc. As a result, many of the performances they elicit from their actors are either too wooden or too florid—and just plain bad.
We recall the sad instance of a new director who invested all of his savings in a big production with the best and loftiest intentions in the world—only to fail, because he didn’t know how to motivate his actors to come up with natural and felt portrayals.
Due to these and other factors, first films are generally heavy-handed, ponderous and unnecessarily complex and prolix efforts that tend to rely too much on reams of “explicatory” dialogue to communicate what they want to say.
Visual nature
Only later, after reviewing their first productions in a state of shock, do directors realize that the visual nature of the film medium is key, and that selectivity and rigorous thematic focus are everything.
All told, therefore, a director’s first film is a great learning experience for him (if he can be objective about his own work, warts and all).
It’s also a great way for film buffs to get an overview of what the director’s overall “oeuvre” will turn out to be—the major concerns, issues and themes that he will more or less consistently develop and further explore in his subsequent productions.
Expectedly, those “primal” themes are huge and deep, because they need to contain the seeds of many other future efforts to clarify them. And they should be charged with importance and significance, at least to the filmmaker, because these are the “engines” that must sustain his interest, energy and commitment through the many decades of his entire career.