D.U.M.P.S.

Re: D.U.M.P.S.

I love the "Director Pointing" shot. You know, when you've got the director pointing at something on screen, and again, trying to look cool at the same time, in a non-chalante sort of way...
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

Good ****. It would actually be fun to try and include every violation into a project and try and make it work. As long as you justify every shot that goes into your film you could use nothing but dolly shots and it could work.

It's so true when you see a minute of pretentious opening credits you know the film has already set itself up to suck.
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

lol! david :) my daughter has a "care bear" video where "grumpy bear" is the director on a movie set.. and guess what hes donning... a beret, and a megaphone! ..ahhhh - slices of life i tell you.. good stuff..
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

Hey, nothing wrong with dolly-zooms...

The most famous one I can think of is in Jaws... when the kid gets eaten. Cuts to a shot on the beach of the sheriff and WAM dolly-zoom...

This is Spielburg too... :P
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

There's nothing wrong with a dolly-zoom if you know when to do it. The D.U.M.P.S. list is griping about it because every student filmmaker does it because it "looks cool". A shot should never draw attention to itself, it should serve to make the subtext of the scene stronger. If you're putting in a shot just because it looks cool, you're most likely telegraphing that you're a student filmmaker, which is what the D.U.M.P.S. list is talking about.
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

And, it *did* say on the DUMPS list that "if you're a genious, you can break these rules, but if you think you're a genious, you're not" (or something like that anyways).

But either way, they're even saying it themselves, that if it feels right, it still can work! Just trust yourself :P
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Directing;num=1085280711;start=15#27 date=05/27/04 at 11:02:20]A shot should never draw attention to itself, it should serve to make the subtext of the scene stronger.  [/quote]

Bingo!

Here's what I do. I have no formal cinematography training. But I've done some dramatic stuff and a lot of event stuff. Anyway, I "go to school" by watching successful cinematographers and emulate them. And I find if I emulate the great ones, the cinematography does not call attention to itself. We so easily forget that people watch for content (storyline and acting), not cinematography.

Consider this. Outstanding content, weak (but not horrible) cinematography. My guess is average viewers may feel a bit put off at first, but find the production engaging. Later when they describe it to a friend, they may have forgotten about the cinematography and recommend it to their friends.

Then consider grippingly outstanding cinematography, but lousy content. Viewers may at first be fooled into thinking something really cool is going to. But eventually they lose interest and definately don't recommend it to friends.

This juxtaposition of cinematography and content is NOT intended to suggest we be lax on cinematography. It's only to set DUMPS into it's context - young moviemakers trying to create something out of nothing--no script and no good acting, but let's propel it by using a bunch of cinema effects.

This reminds me of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin had skimped on his bug report. But he kept accentuating his nice title page and acetate cover.
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

Hey all...just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

Just like most of you, I'm in love with visual storytelling, but at the end of the day, it's good to remember that it's more about the story than the visuals. Obviously, you can't have one without the other, but sometimes I get so wrapped up in the "tools" (and it's hard not to with tools like the DVX) that I forget that it doesn't really matter what shots you use, or what techniques or theory or whatever you follow, as long as it effectively communicates your message to the audience. The writers of D.U.M.P.S. point out repeatedly that thosee things are terrible not because they're used effectively, but because they are simply used. If they told the story in the absolute best way possible, I think that it would be ok. My goal, although I'm not there yet, is to learn to tell visual stories that attract people subconsciously, so that only those who are consciously watching for it think, "Oh, cool shot." For the majority of the audience, it's more like "wow, good story."

But that's just me :)
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

OK, since this topic is still alive, I just have to say that although that D.U.M.P.S. site is a bit funny, it's also very wacked.

Almost all of the things they talk about being evil or cliched can be done well. Have you ever enjoyed a film with a lone piano or cello score? Or a film with a minimalist percussive soundtrack? Or a film with a garage band soundtrack? OK. I could go on, but darn it, I love lone pianos, cellos, and garage band soundtracks. Heck, I love a well-done synth soundtrack. Tangerine Dream is cool.

Anyway, I know I'm not the only one around here that likes student films. Yeah, a lot of them lack emotional maturity. Some of them are technically shoddy. But the bad ones make you say, "I can do better." And the good ones make you say, "Wow, that worked on a shoestring."

There's an art to filmmaking and a craft. The art, in my opinion, has to do with communicating human emotion. The craft -- all the technical knowhow -- is best when it supports the art. And I believe that art always trumps craft.

There are few things in life as enjoyable as looking for art in student films. Who really cares if a film starts with a few too many credits or an alarm going off? People should forget about lists of arbitrary rules based on other people's opinions and go out and make a movies that have that elusive spark of human experience/emotion.
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

They say that any of them can be used effectively.

Probably not all in the same movie, though . . . ;)
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

Yeah, I know they let themselves off the hook by saying that they could all be used effectively. And in a comedy with filmmakers as the audience, they could probably all be used in the same film.

Anyway, my point is that lists like that are wacked even more than the authors admit that they are wacked and people shouldn't pay too much attention to them.

Although, I guess a list like this might be useful in getting people to think less about all the technically cool things they could do and think more about actually saying something.
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

[quote author=Everdene link=board=Directing;num=1085280711;start=30#35 date=06/15/04 at 16:22:23]
Although, I guess a list like this might be useful in getting people to think less about all the technically cool things they could do and think more about actually saying something.[/quote]

Whoa . . . that cuts across SOOOOOO many lines (and professions!) . . .
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

hey Everdene, I totally agree. I also love watching student films. And what you just said pretty much nailed it. We kinda get too excited with our new toys we forget why we have them in the first place!
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

HAHAHAHA!!! Barry, have you watched any festivals here in northern CA? Almost every movie here has a white guy pointing a gun wearing sunglasses--but to add more to the list--INDOORS!!! Doesn't get more scary that, kids. 8)
 
Re: D.U.M.P.S.

I've seen festivals from Newport, Nashville, Vegas, all over... plus traveling festivals from NY and CA... the films are all the same everywhere. Drama = "we need a guy with a gun". And all films have to have angst and suicide... they're the same everywhere. ::)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top