Does a film look really exist?

Since we are making soup... for all the criticism of 'hollywood', or 'things america'... why was it, when I visited Hungary shortly after the fall of the Iron Curtain... I counted at least 4 or 5 US name brand fast food concessions from the airport to Budapest?

I eventually did get a good goulash... in Vienna... at a restaurant owned by a hungarian... who had worked for the Interncontenental Hotel Group to get his seed money... to head west to Vienna...

Is it time for 'De Düva'(1968)...
 
To me, I think the most important thing is just achieving exactly what I'm seeing in my head. Despite barely having an education in any of this, I'm very perfectionist in my writing style and I know the exact atoms of every tiny thing I want for my shots as though I were seeing them in real life or as though they were already a created film that I'm watching. In my writing process, I picture every sort of depth of field, every sort of lighting type, every sort of perception, every sort of distance and framing, every sort of clothing design, ect ect. Someone's probably just not the greatest set and script writer for film unless they are able to visualize a complete film in their head, even basing everything off even a consumer's standpoint of what has been seen in thousands of cinematic films worldwide, although the main disadvantage of this takes it's emotional tolls when you find out it's impossible to line everything up perfectly, the biggest pain being when the perfect actor for your film ends up ditching the entire thing. So it's also important to master a film look in your camera settings, knowledge of focal lengths and apertures, and lighting designs going into set so that even if things don't turn out exactly as you picture (I think Hitchcock once said that films end up being 75% or less of what you envision going into it.), you'll still end up with something that strikes an audience emotionally on the same level as the shots you were originally picturing. You really shouldn't settle for less than 75% of what you were picturing, unless something gets created that is 10x better than you originally expected. Then the process of surprise can end up being a blessing.

Also, I think it's important the target audience and story. I don't think there's anything wrong with a bunch of depth of field on Youtube, if someone can make a 5 minute video of a girl walking around in a supermarket with depth of field out the wa-zoo, as long as it's pretty, who's to care? Half of the time, it's more or less because such open apertures are needed for run-and-gun style anyway. Heck, it's free entertainment, Youtube was a grand invention just like Wikipedia, and if any of these people become DP's, writers, or directors, I'd sure rather see films made up of Korine-style pretty shots, than super-lames trying to immitate a James Bond film. Now that type of filmmaking gets on my nerves, the super horrible action flicks, although when it comes to zombie ones, I admittingly try and watch them as zombie creations tend to purposely overload the cheese and/or have hot actors. And then, the most talented of us are creating extremely entertaining, well directed, and downright amazing shorts like Uncle Jack, although videos like that tend to truly come from the heart of a true blue short-film dedicated creator, as opposed to how most people are geared toward writing full lengths. Sort of why we occupy our 'short film training' not really putting much script effort into it, at least, that's my reason. It's the simple need to train for scenery practice, which half of the time requires extreme depths just to pick up light. It's not like anyone seems to be truly purposely using neutral densities to get depth of field in broad daylight, seems more of just a bi-product of not caring to have a lighting set.

At the end of the day, I think the least important thing in filmmaking is frame rate, everything else, in my opinion, actually tends to pop up and look ugly if not done right. And in the beginning, there's so many extreme factors to professional, theater-grade filmmaking, next, there seems to be so many set in stone rules that follow, but then, next, it seems that the true difference between theater films and user films is that the professionals even take the extreme set-in-stone rules and tweak them in so many specific personal secret-kept ways. It all seems to be very savant type stuff, making a theater quality film isn't an easy thing to do, the best bet is writing a story that actually requires a less professional look, something that is supposed to be told from a camcorder's perspective, or something that looks very natural and somewhat flat like retro-film. Getting that Mission Impossible look, for example, seems like it'd be quite tough, and so many people miss the mark with all those color grading techniques that seem to make the image all brown or green. Even things like changing the picture style on Canon's series seem to make a difference between something that looks aesthetically very unnatural and bad toned, to something that looks outstanding. I think the main point of a good film is to make sure "nothing looks stand-out ugly or distracting", then the rest's purpose is to distract the watcher with storyline and good acting.

Personally my goal in filmmaking is to not touch a color editor, while I'm sure it can produce great results and help get rid of things like noise and flat looks, thing is, it'd be easier just to achieve the biggest part of that in-camera. I love sensing that a great looking video came straight from the camera itself, rather than automatically sensing that it was run through a color scheme. Sometimes Pictures Styles look so bad that it looks badly colored, and sometimes color editing looks so good that it looks extremely natural, but I just wish I had the education of Picture Styles to know exactly how to get great stuff without any editing, as the best-case scenarios of non-edited footage straight from the T2i look outstanding to me. Yet it's so hard achieving that given that something simple as 4 color options in like 8 different levels each has extensive combinations that also differ in result depending on the ares's lighting. We truly do need websites dedicated to that sort of thing...
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Good film making is the film look.
Click to expand...
Nope. For amateurs film look is the LOOK that comes from the film stock! They tweak colors in the sreenshot taken from the video and asks "Does this looks like filmlook, o should I tweak more?". You know, "flat" colors, low contrast and so.
Screenshot from movie allways has film look. Screenshot doesn't have acting, story or good sound! Video film allways looks like video. Remember "F.R.I.E.N.D.S" the series? It had somewhat good lighting, good sound, story but it never looked like shot on film, it never had The Film Look. Topic about frame rates, progresive vs. interlaced also goes here. "Friends" was not progressive, was not in 24 frames per second.

Come on! When amateurs talk about the film look, they don't give you to hear a sound from video with the question "Do you hear the film look here?".
Does amateurs buy adapters for better acting or better set design? No! They want DOF, because movie cameras has it.
Does cropping frame to 2.39 ratio fixes lighting or supports story? No! Many film look recipes tries to emulate only the film stock.

Advances like "better lighting", "you need set designer", "use real actors" makes your VIDEO way better then home-movie or I-was-in-Italy, but it is still LOOKS like video, because it was shot on video camera.

I have my childhood on 8mm film stock. It is totally silent, 4:3, only natural lighting, no acting, no composition, allways handheld. And EVERYONE who sees agree that it has film look, because it was shot NOT ON VIDEO.

I am done! :)
 
Last edited:
I would add that the biggest difference between film and a "film" is the experience of people behind it... with the director having the most responsibility. Truth is until you've done at least a dozen of productions (preferably in your chosen genre) your film WILL suck. I don't care if you are Steven Hawkins who just finished writing yet another book about Universe and have in mean time read up every book there is on film criticism and film making... your first, second, third film will suck. Period. The reason for that is that despite having all that knowledge without the practical experience none of that knowledge is internalized thus when in question you will reach for the most obvious solutions to a problem. Time on the set is so precious and the problems so frequent that you can't really take time to figure out the best solution, it all has (and is) instinctual. You end up depending on your most basic emotions to make a choice thus the one with most ambition (to do something out of ordinary) AND experience (to support that ambition) wins.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Time on the set is so precious and the problems so frequent that you can't really take time to figure out the best solution, it all has (and is) instinctual.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the thesis of a book I read in one of my management classes, Deep smarts. The point of the book is that an "Expert" knows something so well that he subconciously goes through the problem solution evaluation process and comes out with the right decision. What appears to be some sort of intuition is largely the breadth of experience an expert has at his disposal in calling up similar situations he has encountered in the past.

I think this is part of wht "Just go out and shoot" is such good advice. The only way you're going to learn how to make good films is by making bad ones.
 
djkarn105 said:
I think this is part of why "Just go out and shoot" is such good advice. The only way you're going to learn how to make good films is by making bad ones.
Click to expand...

It's also great advice because some things simply can't be taught. After all, filmmaking is an art. It's self expression. Sure, you can throw out general guidelines like the rule of thirds for composing a frame, but one only comes to know good composition by going out and shooting and seeing what makes good composition first hand.
 
djkarn105 said:
The only way you're going to learn how to make good films is by making bad ones.
Click to expand...

So, if I apply what you're saying to my situation, I'm about to make some good films then? Awesome!

Seriously though, I've always had this problem. In art I finally got to the point where I was proud of some of my drawings and sculptures. Music, I knew I could carry a tune and copy songs off the radio. Photography and video however, have really brought out some insecurities in me. I know what good film looks like but, I'm always let down with my final product. My actors and other creative friends rave about it but all I can do is pick out things I should have done and avoided.
 
a lot of artists have that insecurity. It means that you are taking that form of art very personally. It's a good thing. Many of the greatest artist of many forms hated their end products while they are classics now. Eventually you'll learn to just let it flow. There will always be fans and critics but the most critical person of your work will be yourself.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
... Truth is until you've done at least a dozen of productions (preferably in your chosen genre) your film WILL suck. ...
Click to expand...

While for the most part this makes complete sense and as a general observation is borne out time and again, I've also seen there are exceptions*. Just like winning the lottery, someone does actually do it, but I wouldn't recommend people rely on it.

*ie. I've been following Faith Granger's Deuce of Spades thread and ordered a copy of her DVD. Its her first feature and I believe only her second attempt at producing anything. From the few snippets, grabs and other related items I've seen so far it didn't appear on the surface to "suck". I'll know for sure once I've seen it for myself.
 
Olaf99 said:
I know what good film looks like but, I'm always let down with my final product.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find this series of videos heartening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidvElQ0xE&feature=related

Olaf99 said:
My actors and other creative friends rave about it but all I can do is pick out things I should have done and avoided.
Click to expand...

Something I truly strongly believe is that being an artist means chronically being dissatisfied. How many fantastic artists have totally lost that magic after they didn't have to struggle to get their work up on screen.

I think it was Roger Deakins who said "Every Film I've ever made has been a compromise."
 
Talking about European films.

From a European perspective it´s just the other way round.
Most Europeans think, that typical European films suck.

Most of us filmmaker over here always try to rather achieve a Hollywood look (and most of us fail, that`s why our films suck even more).

When someone tells you, "wow, looked just like a Hollywood Film" that´s the biggest compliment ever.
When you hear, it looks like a German or (god forbid) a French film - almost everyone I know, hates French films (except maybe Amelie) this is a downfall (pun intended).

One of the differences is dialog. In European films people don´t talk much, but they look much at another or (classic) sitting back to back on a bed and staring at a wall for 3 minutes.

In US movies people don´t talk only when they are alone (detective is searching an apartment). But whenever there is more than one person in the room, there is not much "looking" going on, they talk to each other.

Student films tend to have a more European approach so you can tell, it´s a student film when there is less talking but lots of looking going on.

There is also:

- A Vertigo effect somewhere in the 3th act.

- A so-called “man vs. himself” struggle which is guaranteed to put you to sleep in the first two minutes. Related to this is the “introspective shot” which usually features the main character staring into space for a good minute, usually smoking a cigarette - so French.

- Time-Lapse Montage

- did we mention bad audio?

- Slow dialogue with long pauses between the lines
 
Last edited:
stop being a video hater

stop being a video hater

alot of times what people call "film look" is just basic cinematography.

If you study 5 C's of Cinematography and actually apply it, and learn about lighting, and have some moody lighting going on, your movie will look like a movie and noone will care that you shot on video. Video doesnt have the stigma it once did. Theres movies shot on video everywhere. Most are not that great because they are not that great. Not because they were shot on video.

oh yeah your sound needs to be good tho.
 
I can watch comedies shot on iphones without problem but serious stories need better cams and prooblem with shooting wide open with 5D is more on the user side than camera, people are still using their cams like camcorders not like film cameras and they dont have the knowledge about light, they just have new camera, it doesnt make them cinematographers over one day, that needs good trained eye so you enter the room and you know already where to put cameras when you see the lightsource and using natural light or you know where to place lights.
Shallow DOF can be distracting but my issue with flood of amateur 5d vimeo vids is that they have bad lighting, theres camera, there are exensive lenses but theres lack of talent behind camera.
 
bwwd said:
people are still using their cams like camcorders not like film cameras and they dont have the knowledge about light, they just have new camera, it doesnt make them cinematographers over one day
Click to expand...

Exactly, I specifically make it clear when I get credited in work I do not be 'Cinematographer', because I am simply not one, there are so many people with DSLR cameras (and low-level video cameras) going around thinking that they are actually a cinematographer because they have shot there friends short film, no.

For me the film look is simply a combination of thing's which I think have been mentioned here, lighting, good camera work, sound, experience, which is what makes it so exciting, those endless attempts at trying for the perfect look are never going to end, what may look like the perfect film look to me may be completely different for someone else, you will always be able to make your work better, no matter what you think, if you think you have found perfection, you will stand back and realize how to make it better, and that's half the fun.

The film look is merely a figment of our imagination, look at movies back in the 1920s, that was the 'perfect' film look, AT THE TIME, do we shoot movies to that standard anymore? no we have surpassed it and we will keep pushing the boundaries trying to find that non-existent heaven of perfectness.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I do you think you need to amend that 'Amateur' label, and make it 'Amateur/EuropeArtFilm'...(The latter being what many 'film school' students are subjected to as 'the quintessential of 'Film Art'...)
Click to expand...


yeah, but over here in backwards old europe we simply call "europeartfilms", films. they appeal to our cultural sensibilites which have been devolped over 1000's of years, not a couple of hundred like in the states. all that long boring drawn out dialouge contains characters that we know, slang that we use and can identify with, places that we've been to or lived in. what may seem odd to you is the norm for the french, spanish, british etc.
 
Last edited:
Joshbalti said:
yeah, but over here in backwards old europe we simply call "europeartfilms", films. they appeal to our cultural sensibilites which have been devolped over 1000's of years, not a couple of hundred like in the states. all that long boring drawn out dialouge contains characters that we know, slang that we use and can identify with, places that we've been to or lived in. what may seem odd to you is the norm for the french, spanish, british etc.
Click to expand...

I understand completely. Here's one famous German filmmaker's approach to dealing with critics.

 
Maybe we should acknowledge that the "European Art Film" isn't really centred on Europe anymore... the Antonionis and Godards of 2011 aren't from France and Italy--they're from Taiwan, Korea, Romania, Turkey and most notably in recent years, Argentina. I think its an important point here because a lot of people hate on the arthouse because they see it as elitist navel-gazing. Whereas a film community committed to new ways of seeing (a new "film look") often emerges from a developing film infrastructure (ex. Romania, Turkey... or the "nation within a nation" of "microbudget America".) After all, the "European Art Films" we all know and love from FILM 101 were made within film industries recovering from having the sh*t bombed out of them in WWII.

As for todays arthouse: check out 90s Hou-Hsiao Hsien for novelistic blocking, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Distant) for flawless, diamond-cut framing, and Lucrecia Martel for colours and sound--these people aren't neurotics smearing poop on a wall, they're committed CRAFTSPEOPLE too, they care just as much about the grammar and tools as oh... whoever, Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg--they're just on their own trip, going after something else--and their work definitely screams "film look".

Sometimes it seems like the marketing of DSLRs et al. adopts this revolutionary language about how this kit is going to allow filmmakers to develop new stories, new syntax blah blah blah and all we ever see are sub-Hollywood genre exercises.

Oh what I would pay for just a bit more talent...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top