A Lesson From Shakespeare For Writers And Filmmakers To Purge Mistakes And To Boost Their Success

A LESSON FROM SHAKESPEARE FOR WRITERS AND FILMMAKERS

You would think that artists and art lovers know what in art so captures humans, but no one can explain why making strange noises and moves in the name of singing or dancing so pleases these purposeful intelligent beings, humans. Filmmakers readily admit that they have no formula to help them choose the right stories to produce with guaranteed success. However, this new study for the first time shows the attractive power of all brands of arts that is essential for artists to elevate their craft to the highest levels that would also help the writers to write better stories and producers to weed out bad stories.

For too long erroneously we have tried to understand art through studying art objects in our material world. A deeper understanding of art can only be achieved through knowing what in the mind longs for art. This would take us to the very root of art, the human mind. Art consists of the varying brands of writing, music, paintings, acting, sculpture, films, poetry and so on. Yet novels and songs or poetry and sculpture have nothing in common to belong together. Thus, we should not be surprised that the world of philosophy admits that we have not even been able to define art in a way that would be acceptable to all.

Yet the oldest musical instrument found is a flute made of bone that is estimated to be well over 32,000 years old. Aristotle penned the first book on art, “Poetics.” Tolstoy cataloged the gist of the teaching of many great philosophers on art in his book, “What is Art.” Then, he critiqued all and refuted each for a different reason, but his own ideas were the least acceptable. Thus, we have been enjoying that, which we do not understand. This study 25 years in the making, “The Interactions Between Instincts and Intellect and its Impact on Human Behavior,” shortened for, “Meet Your Mind,” ends this confusion.

This studying reveals that a different mental faculty corresponds with each of the three categories of arts: rhythmic art, imitative art and abstract art. Rhythmic arts consist of music, poetry, dancing, a vast category of architectural work and Persian rugs. The rhythm in them becomes their attractive power and their center of gravity, as it satisfies the instinct of rhythm. Imitative art consists of films, acting, painting, sculpture and writing stories where the artists use their skills and talent to imitate and to replicate real objects and real life. For example, painters create images of real objects, stories mimic real life examples and in acting, actors imitate characters or real people.

To understand this we need to know how instincts work. Each instinct creates a different sort of hunger from within which can only be satisfied by their pertinent external means from our material world. Hence, different instincts for different reasons compel humans to cling to world and to life, and the instinct of rhythm strives for rhythm from the material world with an unquenchable appetite. Rhythmic arts satisfy this hunger and we enjoy this process as pleasure at instinctive and subconscious level. This is why people cannot identify how they are being pleased through music, nor can they ever get enough of it. This is how all the 17 instincts of sexuality, greed, adventure and all the rest work.

However, in a sharp contrast human intellect strives for perfection in everything we do. Imitative art pleases this attribute of intellect by producing excellence in artistic imitation of real life in painting, sculpture, writing stories and acting. To distinguish imitative arts from rhythmic arts, we need to know the differences between instinct and intellect that correspond with rhythmic and imitative arts respectively. Because instincts have been with humans from the inception of the species, they are basic, strong and are more easily excited than intellect that we have acquired in time, through evolution and is secondary.

This huge inequity in the excitability of these two corresponding mental forces is why most humans enjoy rhythmic arts and music far more than imitative arts. Hence average local singers so excite people that they scream, cry and some even faint, but they never react that way in museums by being exposed to the works of true masters of art such as Rene, Picasso and others. Seeing what in the mind quests what category of art enables artists to elevate their creations to higher levels and deepens our appreciation on art.

In writing, stories are but imitations of real life and the same instincts that manufacture all human needs, wants and desires and make people cling to life, also make us to cling to stories. Shakespeare mastered this concept and detecting it reveals one of his secretes.

All great classics are charged with energy that forcefully drives the story to unfold while holding the audiences fully engaged. It is the provoked instincts through stories that charge the stories with energy and then these awakened instincts demand to be satisfied through the same story. Just as the real life satisfies our 17 instincts and make life so delicious and we cling to it, good stories mimicking real life provoke the same instincts and make us to cling to good novels and films and we perceive them as being great. The stories that lack this cannot sustain human interest and are doomed from the start.

Using Shakespeare’s stories to validate this theory shows how brilliantly he used this concept either consciously or unconsciously in all of his stories. In “Hamlet,” for example, he provoked the instinct of curiosity through the ghost talking to Hamlet and profoundly energized the story. Then, he provoked the same instinct when Hamlet observed his uncle’s reaction to his father’s murder on this staged scene in the court and people want to know now that he knows the truth, how he is going to deal with him.

In “The Merchant of Venice” he used the instincts of tribalism and the tribal chauvinism by setting Christians against Jews as two hostile tribes in which Christians dominated Jews. Then, he provokes the instinct of curiosity on what the three boxes contain that would determine who would marry this beautiful, rich and young lady. And then, it peaks in the court of law highly charged with hostility, as Shylock demands to enforce the contract and cut off some flesh from a Christian debtor, although he is willing and able to pay the debt twice over. Shylock’s belligerence endlessly agitates the audience and all desire his defeat, but the law is on his side and he proceeds to cut off the flash. The two speeches Shylock gives in two different occasions justify his anger and seeking revenge. But still, the sudden turn of fortunes between the antagonist and the protagonist soothes this visceral anger and Shakespeare profoundly pleases the audience by feeding this very instinct he brilliantly had instigated.

In “The Taming of the Shrew,” he sets two indomitable spirits against each other and provokes the instinct of curiosity in the audience which of the two characters would ultimately prevail. To use another example, in “Romeo and Juliet,” he set the instinct of chauvinism between two powerful, rivaling families as tribes, each striving for supremacy. Then the instinct of sexuality reflected in the most beautiful love story is added to the events that charge the story with endless energy. His stories change, but his method stays the same. To be sure, learning this would not make any writer another Shakespeare, but it would hugely enhance the appeal of their stories.

Using this formula requires a deep understanding of this grossly under-studied and utterly misunderstood phenomenon, instinct, and how it interacts with human intellect. This new study for the first time solves the mystery of all instincts and renders it naked. Because instincts recognize no boundaries, properly applying this in stories and films gives them timeless universal appeal and this is what classics are made of.

A young woman is faced with an unexpected pregnancy, and in her desperation makes an astonishing discovery. Title: Not Alone a Two-Edged Sword Production – Writers/Producers: Rebekah Cook and Nathan Bittner – Directed and Filmed by: Nathan Bittner – Directors Assistant: Anne Bittner – Editing: David Cook, Nathan Bittner, Amy Jarvis – Sound: David Cook, Nathan Bittner, and Amy Jarvis – Music: Kevin McLeod (incompetech.com) and Amy Jarvis – Catering: Anne Bittner and Claire Escobar CAST: Rebekah Cook as Karen Bailey Nathan Bittner as Boyfriend Amy Jarvis as Friend Anne Bittner as Counselor Special thanks to: Advent Film Group (AFG) 1rst Choice Bittner family George and Claire Escobar Chris Tigges Kylene Arnold
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Question by Dimitri: Do you think Christian filmmakers are too overly religious?
I’m sure some Christian filmmakers like Sherwood Pictures (Courageous film) and SAICFF (San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festivals), but to be honest, I rather much prefer films like the Narnia Chronicles or Lord of the Rings than their films.

To me, Hyper Christian (I call them that so don’t take it as an insult) filmmakers are too focused on Jesus and being born-again very too much. I always preferred religious fantasy like Narnia and LOTR because it makes room for the imagination and even some mythology. But sadly, some hyper-Christians hate CS Lewis and Tolkien because they believe mixing Christianity with magic and fairy tales makes it idolatrous and pagan.

SAICFF in particular makes nice (too nice actually) films but are biblically centered and Calvinistic and stereotypical of atheists, Pagans, Buddhists, Women and ethnic groups. Not to mention they are owned by Vision Forum Ministries; a very conservative and frighteningly extra-biblical cult that preaches misogyny and lead by a very effeminate and grossly male-centered pastor Doug Phillips. If you ever heard of this lot, be careful of them. They’ll lure you in with their alluring pictures and sermons of family and traditional gender roles and Classism (prejudice against Class)

Best answer:

Answer by Señor Burrito
Martin Scorsese, a Catholic, made the best film about Jesus Christ that I’ve ever seen. People seem to think that the content alone (the “greatest story ever told”) is enough to carry a movie. Scorsese got that a movie still needs things like plot, character development and conflict. I’m sure it just depends on who the director is.

What do you think? Answer below!

[wpramazon asin=”6137710521″]

Three men play a game of poker with an opponent against whom they cannot win. In the midst of their futile attempts, a new player arrives. Starring: Mark Pederson as Death Rick Mori as Winner Wayne Wilson as Loser Damonn Bacon as Proud Ryan Perea as Addicted Crew Director/Producer: Luke Jimmink Writer: Luke Jimmink Producer: Stephen Bunch Assistant Director: Matthew Jimmink Director of Cinematography: Joshua Jimmink Sound: Darryl Williams, Mike Mori Editing: Hans Bluedorn Casting: Neeva Pederson Grip: Rick Jimmink Continuity: Brielle Jimmink, Rebekah Carbajal Storyboarding: Neeva Pederson, Joel Pederson Makeup: Wayne Wilson, Rosa Pederson Catering: Charmaine Jimmink Soundtrack: Luke Jimmink Hat Check Girl: Elspeth Jimmink
Video Rating: 4 / 5