Our obstacle is that we live in an attention-deficit culture.  We are bombarded with more and more information on television, radio, cell phones, video games, the Internet.  The constant supply of stimulus has the potential to turn us into addicts, always hungering for something new and prefabricated to keep us entertained.  When nothing exciting is going on, we might get bored, distracted, separated from the moment.  So we look for new entertainment, surf channels, flip through magazines.  If caught in these rhythms, we are like tiny current-bound surface fish, floating along a two-dimensional world without any sense for the gorgeous abyss below.  When these societally induced tendencies translate into the learning process, they have devastating effect.

It’s interesting because a few years ago, I thought being able to multi-task was a good thing.  Certainly, it is a good skill to have at times, but when it comes to learning something or getting things done, single-tasking is FAR more effective.

I think most people know this, but so few actually apply it.  How often do you work on something for ten minutes then check your email?  And how many people do you know who’ve actually mastered something? Anything?  If you want to master something, you’d better be passionate about it because you need to let it consume your life.  It takes a lot of work in a concentrated period of time to be great.  It takes even more work over many years to become a master.

1. What is the writer trying to do? 2. How well does he succeed in doing it? (…) 3. Does the work exhibit “high seriousness”? That is, does it touch on basic issues of good and evil, life and death and the human condition. I would also apply a fourth criterion (…) Write about what you know. More writers fail because they try to write about things they don’t know than for any other reason.

I know I’m guilty of doing this.  Just because you might be well-read when it comes to a certain subject, it doesn’t mean that much unless you have some real world experience to back it up.  Meticulous empirical thinking complements theory, and will make you into an expert on a topic.  And that’s what you should write about.

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is therefore not an act but a habit.” – Aristotle

I’m a fairly inventive guy when it comes to creating things. This is especially applicable when it comes to editing/directing/writing short films that I make. I have always loved watching and analyzing films, and find myself constantly drawn towards making movies. This is why I’ll be making another movie soon for a national film festival.

Anyways, I’ve gotten significantly better at making movies over the years because I love it and keep doing it. If I didn’t love it, I wouldn’t find myself poring over film books on my own time, or starting a DVD editing business, or watching “There Will Be Blood” three times in the theater because I was so enraptured with the cinematography. I love it and keep going back to it, even though I know it’s not a particularly viable career path. But it’s because I keep working on it and researching it that I’ve gotten to a point that I know I’m much, much better than I was four years ago.

But auteurs like Alfred Hitchcock keep me (and pretty much every director in Hollywood) humble. After analyzing Hitchcock’s work for a semester, it’s hard not to be thoroughly intimidated by his career. This guy not only knew every single technical aspect of filmmaking, he also manipulated the system to get past censors time and time again. He knew how to control his actors to get them to show the emotion he wanted. He drew every single shot in great detail so he wouldn’t have to worry about the camera crew screwing things up. On top of all that, he consistently made great movies with great stories. Countless directors have emulated his work (some have shamelessly, especially Brian DePalma), scores of movies have incorporated Hitchcockian elements, and every single filmmaker has somehow been influenced by the man. He was a storyteller, an artist, and a great strategist.

There was a period when Hitchcock unleashed masterpiece after masterpiece. Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, and finally, Psycho. Each of these are iconic works, but it seems to me that, after having watched all of these in sequence, Psycho was the pinnacle for the director. It seemed to incorporate all of his famous motifs and visual elements into one brilliant film. But this was after working hard for almost 40 years. Hitchcock was not always a genius. He worked hard at becoming one everyday, building an impressive body of work that got stronger as he went along. He created his own unique style while harnessing every film skill he could pick up. Psycho was the culmination of his greatness, and it proved once and for all that Hitchcock was the master of suspense.

My point is that when you find something you love, you’ll keep coming back to it. Hitchcock loved telling stories and he loved turning his films into works of art. He kept working at it, and as a result, became great. Expertise breeds expertise. The more you do something you love, the better you’ll get at it. It’s a simple message that everyone seems to know, but few actually live by.