60 second movie

[J.R. Hudson]

Re: 60 second movie

Just had to express myself I guess. lol Yeahm the sound didnt stress me out. Didnt love or hate it. It worked for me. Its all perception.

 

[Ronald_Raven]

Re: 60 second movie

Hey, SamG

I guess one of the good things about discussion boards is being able to talk back and forth, so it would probably be rude of me to not respond to your post. Please allow me to share some of my own observations.

I agree with a lot of what you say. The concept that you described of the moving picture as an art form and the idea that technique itself is merely a platform through which to convey one's message are notions that I, too, share. Yes, the joy of videography is great, but communication seems to be another powerful motive for creating art. And, indeed, one must learn to accept the varied criticism that develops in reaction to publicly displayed material. However, my opinions differ from yours in the matter of how to interpret criticism.

Obviously, there is both "positive" and "negative" criticism. For me, "negative" criticism is that which is made to intentionally disrupt and offend the artist without the desire to help or reveal anything other than a personal distaste for the material. This type of criticism offers no justification as to its purpose and does not offer suggestions for improvement. Luckily, I am glad to say that DVXuser.com has little to none of this type of criticism (Or does it? It's just my opinion).

Much of the criticism on these boards is what I would call "constructive" criticism. This type of criticism is rather varied. Sometimes, the criticism emphatically praises a work and qualifies this admiration. In other instances, the critic will disagree with the artist, and propose ways to remedy what he or she may see as a problem. Indeed, the artist may not like to hear such criticism, especially after working so hard to make an artistic vision become a reality. However, despite such opposition, I personally consider this type of criticism to still be "positive" because its intent is to offer not only judgement but a means of improving. Of course, it is the artist himself that holds the ultimate power in deciding what criticism to take and which to ignore. It is just as much a right of the artist to disregard as it is the critic's right to criticize.

At one point, you said that you do not much care for criticism that involves the technical aspects of filmmaking and that you are most interested in hearing "how a work makes you feel" or "what you were thinking while you were watching." I apologize that my initial response to your work did not contain these sentiments. However, please allow me to explain why.

This website is a forum made up of people that own a particular type of video camera. These people are videographers at heart, be they professional or amateur. It would appear, at least to me, that such a forum would lend itself to discussion that involves technique and the practical aspects of filmmaking. If I were to write up my criticism at a site like AtomFilms.com, it would be very different. Also, I didn't think that hearing how I felt about the piece would be helpful to you. I consider this type of criticism to be "neutral" criticism because its purpose is neither to help nor harm. It is sometimes nice for the artist to hear this type of criticism, especially when a critic can eloquently describe an emotional reaction to a work of art. However, at the time, I did not feel it was appropriate for me to do this. I think it would be beneficial to you if, when you introduce a piece, you specify what type of criticism you are looking for, be it technical or artistic.

(cont...)

 

[Ronald_Raven]

Re: 60 second movie

Certainly, when thinking in context of an artistic response, things like camera angles and tripods are of negligible concern. However, I must disagree with you when you say that one can not critique an artist's technique. You said:

When discussing painting we do not say of a cubist work, “I think he should have [used] pointillism.”

Yes, that is true. But I believe you are misjudging the intent of technical criticism. When one critiques various elements of your work, he or she is not is not suggesting that you alter your work in such a way that could be likened to altering its genre or style. That, of course, would be ludicrous. Instead of thinking that critics are trying to make you switch from using pointillism to cubism, think more in terms of the idea that they are trying to give you their ideas as to how you may better exemplify the better aspects of pointillism to improve how you use that style to portray your message.

It is actually very common among artists' circles to critique both technique and emotional response. When an artist puts work up in a forum for a public audience to see, THEN it is generally inappropriate to criticize technique. However, when an artist puts up work to be critiqued by a community of his or her peers, as this website would appear to be, then technique and other elements often come under the radar as far as judgement is concerned. This is true even for finished pieces, because the criticism is meant to help in future endeavors. Think of DVXuser.com as a community of your peers trying to help you improve. Also, when constructively criticizing your technique, the intent is generally not to make you conform to any one idea of how to do things, but to help you in better communicating your ideas. This goes more along the lines of what you said here:

If the artist’s intentions are known, did he/she realize those intentions? If not, then why? If yes, then why? Was the appropriate medium used to express those intentions?

I am sorry if I didn't make it more clear in my response to your work, but I believe I was trying to address these very questions in my criticism. Before responding, I read your explanation of the work, in which you described the idea of "pollution" affecting the corn harvest and rising above adversity, etc. Perhaps my idea of what the work means is not exactly the same as yours. However, given my personal views on the visual impact and meaning of the piece, as well as the description of your personal intent, the suggestions I gave are what I felt at the time were what could most help the piece. In effect, it was my way of showing the degree to which the piece moved me, as well how I felt it could have moved me more.

In my opinion, a film is most resonant when its technique is done so well that the audience forgets about it entirely and is concerned only with the impact of the sounds and visuals of the piece. However, as I watched your film, there were a few aspects of it that stuck out and prevented me in some ways from concentrating simply on how the piece made me feel. I thought I should inform you of these things. However, some of the suggestions I made may have referred to my own personal style of making movies. This, of course, is your movie, and you are welcome to disregard how I would do things.

You must remember, when thinking in terms of professional movie critics, few of them can get away with talking only about an emotional response to a movie and not at least mentioning the technical aspects of it. Technical aspects of movies include the cinematography, the screenplay, and other such things. If this component of the medium were overlooked entirely, it would almost discredit the idea that film is an artform. Certainly the form may follow function, but form is still important. Technical mastery of a medium is just as laudable as an emotive final product.

Oh, and believe you me, I have long ago disabused myself of the idea that handheld video is bad. Certainly, there are some fanatics out there that feel that handheld cameras are a travesty, but I am not one of them. As I said before, I believe the technique should follow the matter of the film. Consequently, in my humble opinion, handheld did not work for me in your film. It's just my opinion and nothing more. Of course, you did not have access to a tripod where you were filming, and that counts for something. Don't feel that saying details like that puts you in the category of artists that commit the "atrocity" of speaking directly about their work. It's not like you're bragging about it or trying to pose your judgement on us.

Well, scrolling across what I've wrote, I guess this response has turned out to be rather long. If you have had the patience to read it to the bitter end, I thank you and apologize for being so long-winded. I hope you do not feel that I am trying to antagonize you in any way. That is not my intention at all. I'm just sharing my opinions and responding to what you wrote to me. Feel free to make your own responses or refutations to this post. It's only fair. Thanks again for your time.

Peace.

 

[SamG]

Re: 60 second movie

Hello Ronald_Raven.

Thanks for writing back. Some good/interesting points you make. I will skip over most of the areas in which I believe we are in agreement and clarify points where we differ.

However, my opinions differ from yours in the matter of how to interpret criticism.

Having read your post, I’m not sure that the interpretation of criticism is something we differ over, but rather the criticism itself. I hope I can clarify what I mean.

Obviously, there is both "positive" and "negative" criticism. For me, "negative" criticism is that which is made to intentionally disrupt and offend the artist without the desire to help or reveal anything other than a personal distaste for the material. This type of criticism offers no justification as to its purpose and does not offer suggestions for improvement.

Exactly. You’ll get no disagreement from me there.

Much of the criticism on these boards is what I would call "constructive" criticism. This type of criticism is rather varied. Sometimes, the criticism emphatically praises a work and qualifies this admiration. In other instances, the critic will disagree with the artist, and propose ways to remedy what he or she may see as a problem.QUOTE]

A quick example. Let’s say a film is posted—Lord of the Widget: The Fellowship of the Widget.

DV-WIDGET: OK folks here is my latest multi-million dollar dv epic. Enjoy!!

DUDE127: Hi DV_WIDGET. Interesting story with the magical widgets and all. I noticed in one outdoor shot (a static landscape with the bad guy fortress in the mid-ground) that the sky was blown out. Completely white. Nowhere else in the film is this blown out look used. I thought it detracted from the otherwise dark and mysterious fortress and really did not serve to emphasize that the fortress is a bad place.

more...

 

[SamG]

Re: 60 second movie

cont...

DV-WIDGET: Yes you’re right. I wanted to expose for the evil fortress. We shot it at noon. The sky was really bright and there wasn’t much we could do about it. You’d think with the millions we had at our disposal…

DUDE127: Oh I see now. Next time try a graduated ND filter. It will “take down” the brightness of the sky while still allowing you to have a well-exposed evil fortress. Make sure you put the darker portion of the glass at the top of the frame!

DV-WIDGET: Thanks! Will use that on my next dv epic-- Lord of the Widget: The Two Widgets.

That is a good round of what I believe you would consider “positive” criticism. I think it’s positive. And a very welcome kind of criticism too.

It would appear, at least to me, that such a forum would lend itself to discussion that involves technique and the practical aspects of filmmaking.

Oh yes! I agree. I agree. Completely. I have picked up more than a few tips/tricks/ideas myself.

But here is where it gets fuzzy for me-- when we begin to play the part of armchair videographer/director/editor/etc. and offer what to me sound less like technical solutions and more like definitive aesthetic statements. Emphasis on definitive. Hang with me a sec…

DV-WIDGET: Wasn’t sure we’d get it finished, but here it is-- Lord of the Widget: The Two Widgets.

DUDE127: Wow, you managed to make another multi-million dollar dv epic. One scene bugged me. It’s the one where the ageing Widget King is speaking to the magical Wizard of Widgets. It had too much cutting between them. You should have just used a split screen with the Widget King on the left and the Wizard of Widgets on the right.

CONTRARY742: No dude. King on the right. Freaky Wizard on the left. It’s obvious…

yet more...

 

[SamG]

Re: 60 second movie

cont...

The problem as I see it with that type of criticism or suggestion is that the suggestions are potentially endless. Why not use one long take? Why not project each character on his own screen? Why not run the dialogue at the same time? It could go on forever. We are lucky to have such a flexible medium. But these are subjective suggestions which crossover from the world of the purely technical (technique).

It would never occur to me to make such suggestions to someone who has posted a movie here. Perhaps that is my own personal limit or sense of decorum. I may comment on pacing, rhythm, lighting, acting, but would never say that a particular shot, for example, is flat out wrong. Am I making sense her at all? It is perhaps a fine difference, but it’s a difference all the same.

It is actually very common among artists' circles to critique both technique and emotional response.

Sure. I get that.

I don’t think I’m misjudging the intent of technical criticism.

My hang-up here is with your use of the word technique. You are using technique as a synonym for craft. Which is correct. For example, your panning shots could have been smoother; the camera was often not focused; etc.

However purely subjective suggestions, such as the ones illustrated in my second mock post, do not address technique or craft, but personal aesthetics. Personal aesthetics are what makes our work different and are of course extremely important. However I think we need to be careful about imposing our own tastes on others.

As I step back from this post I do realize the slippery slope that is this criticism/aesthetic/technique/preference mumbojumbo. One can get enmeshed in it easily. Lest I sound like I’m contradicting myself I would add that I am very interested in hearing opinions from the point of personal taste, but again I think we need to be careful about imposing our own tastes on others.

I am reminded of a line in the movie Amadeus where someone (the king?) complains that the music has too many notes.

Think of DVXuser.com as a community of your peers trying to help you improve.

Right on.

I hope I haven’t made more of a mess here and was able to clarify some of my thoughts. Are you still reading? Wow. Good chatting with everyone! Take care.

 

[Zoomforce]

Re: 60 second movie

[quote author=booggerg link=board=Clips;num=1073499533;start=0#16 date=01/18/04 at 19:10:27]. In fact, I found it disturbing and irritating to listen to, and switched off the volume. [/quote]

This is kinda wierd.. because I ended up doing the same thing. I actually thought something was wrong with my computer.

 

[Ronald_Raven]

Re: 60 second movie

SamG,

Point taken. I see where you're going with this. I can definitely see what you mean about "endless" criticism and what not. I guess the fine differences in how people percieve what is helpful and what can only serve to hinder one's personal style are what are at stake here. It's really no big deal, I suppose. Perhaps I've made too much of all this. Thanks for reading what I had to say. After submitting and looking back at what I wrote, I realized how insanely long it was! But it's interesting to exchange ideas in this sort of rhetoric. And thanks for not taking it the wrong way.

You have your own style and I have mine. I guess it's all in the perception of things. Several people voiced their hatred for the sound in your movie; I enjoyed it and thought it added a lot to the piece. Some liked the way you used camera movement to show that feeling that everything was sort of "off," I thought it didn't get the message across. It is a myriad of opinions that we find in the public forum. Some people can never be pleased with our style, and we disregard their views so as not to adversely affect our work. However, it is my feeling that to be able to communicate your work to the widest audience, as many opinions as possible must be considered when creating it. I think that you, too, believe this. But, of course, you weren't going for a national release with this work. This was an artistic piece that was meant to be judged on its own merits among a (relatively) limited group of people. But you know what? I'm rambling like a drunken sailor.

Alright, well that about does it for me on this insanity. I really made this into a lot bigger of a deal than it should have been. What the hell was I thinking? Thanks, again, for reading. I just start writing sometimes, and like 10 minutes later I snap out of it and realize that I've written a friggin' 50-page thesis. Thank you for your time.

Peace.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Re: 60 second movie

Personally, I like the long thought out responses. But it is true, (film) art is a medium and in the medium are a hundred different ways to do something. Some people like the indi lesbian films, I want to kill myself when I watch them (unless its like Mullholland Falls

I think it is great to hear everyones opinion good and bad, technical and taste.

 

[Jay_Blanchard]

Re: 60 second movie

This is one of those posts that could go on forever....I'd say just agree to disagree. You're coming from two very different approaches, both with equal amounts of merit, but I doubt you'll ever come to a consensus. I'm not a big fan of narrative filmmaking, and I have been involved in god-knows-how-many drawn out debates with people who think experimental filmmaking is just what people do when they don't have the technical skill to make features. If only I had the time I wasted in those tail-chasing debates back--I'd be more prolific than Brakhage!

We've all been to film school, guys. We know the difference between constructive and non-constructive criticism. Let it rest & get to work.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Re: 60 second movie

I never went to film school but agree with you nevertheless.