Great Interview with Geoff Boyle
- Thread starter Razz16mm
- Start date
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
He kinda sounds like more of a technician then an artist.
Side note: did i just see the close up of his hands as a cut away (the very FIRST example used to illustrate what a cut away is in filmmaking 101)???
Side note: did i just see the close up of his hands as a cut away (the very FIRST example used to illustrate what a cut away is in filmmaking 101)???
Let's put down Boyle and the people behind the interview, cus that's how good we feel about ourselves.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0102240/#cinematographer
Cinematography is a technical craft. You can't make art effectively if you don't intimately know the technologies of your chosen medium. But entertainment movies rarely rise to the level of fine art anyway.
Cinematography is a technical craft. You can't make art effectively if you don't intimately know the technologies of your chosen medium. But entertainment movies rarely rise to the level of fine art anyway.
BrianMurphy
Veteran
Its nice to hear him put "film" in the proper perspective. As someone from his generation, I am often frustrated reading the posts here and elsewhere wirtten by people who wage the film is ultimate war. He is right. What looks good is what matters.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
To say as he does that what matters is what looks good show either 1.) incredibly misunderstanding about the potential for the art of cinematography (as many times it's what does NOT look good ends up "looking" good = meaning works for the scene); 2.) the interviewee realizes they are talking to someone with limited experience so he delivers banal one-liners as the interviewing person doesn't know any better; or 3.) the person putting this video together is relatively inexperienced so they only choose simple-minded one liners for the final edit (happened to me on a few occasions when giving interviews).
So your definition of looking good is What works for the scene but his looking good means something else?
And as for picking on the people who made this 6-minute "interview"; The video is what it is and hopefully it is what they set out to make. IMO, it's not really fair to be calling people inexperienced and saying they don't know any better when we're not sitting on all the facts. It doesn't say this is an interview at all, and less so what kind of interview. For all we know it could just as easily be a plug for FilmConvert. In any case I enjoy hearing what Boyle has to say.
It always gets me down seeing uncalled-for negativity, especially within the filmmaking community.
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
What, in turn, gets me is the lack of appreciation for language in some filmmakers (both actual and implied - what it all means based on verbal and non verbal cues). Just because YOU read into people's words as negativity doesn't mean it actually is that. Please re-read what i said when i made a LIST of potential meanings (two of which have more to do with the makers of the video then the guy) and then ask yourself could it be your narrow interpretation of people's words that's limiting the potential for meanings. Nothing personal, as i see this happening very often even among very smart people - they get one idea in their head and anything else they perceive as negativity or being wrong.
My Digital Bolex has creative aesthetic possibilities far beyond any film stock I ever shot, and better usable dynamic range than all but the most modern film stocks. It was nice to hear Boyle praise the old Agfa stocks. It was my preferred negative stock for stills and 16mm film when it was available.
As far as I'm concerned the only thing of interest in this simple video is Boyle's thoughts. The production quality of it is irrelevant. Content is king as so many are fond of saying here to excuse poor technical quality.
I agree with his preference for uncompressed raw and his recognition that we have so much more creative room to play in this digital age. But the really top notch cinematographers still have an intimate knowledge of the physics of light and color behind their creative skills. That is something that never changes, regardless of the technology
Last edited:
Egg Born Son
Veteran
I didn't have a problem with anything the interviewee said. It all seemed straight forward and his responses imply that all the questions were about technical aspects. I agree with Patryk about the construction of the interview though. The visual choices they made seemed completely arbitrary with no guided purpose or motivation. Some quite jarring cutaways and inserts which had little to do with the moment of discussion. A locked off camera for the entire interview would have been fine. Some inserts that actually illustrated points of interest instead of random shots of someone doing or pretending to do things would have been better. The wringing hands cutaway - why would you use that at that point (or at all), even if he had been wringing his hands at that moment? What purpose did it serve? He wasn't conflicted or presenting as overly nervous. Why make the talent look bad? The interview (audio) was okay, the image and lighting was fine but I feel the visuals did not tell the story.
Criticism is searching for understanding and progress. Not necessarily negativity. Constructively tell me how these things worked for you and maybe I'll learn something.
Last edited:
I apologize if my post was unclear, what I thought was negativity was Patryk calling the filmmakers Inexperienced and saying they Don't know any better and that Boyle would have simplified his answers because he felt this himself. We can't know that and therefor I felt it was unnecessary to even hint at it. The cutaway of the hand I agree could have been done better and that's not something I'm disagreeing with.
Ebrahim Saadawi
Carbonite Member
I like all the cutaways and dynamic shots, makes it un-boring for normal audience.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
No need to apologise and your point of view is valid. Patryk can be blunt, believes in the artform over any other concern, strives for perfection and doesn't pull punches. I used to think he was a bit harsh but when he criticises my work I always appreciate these qualities and he generally offers solutions along with his criticism. While I don't always agree with his zealotry, I also strive for perfection (at least as much as my knowledge and my producer/director/AD will allow) and I've learnt important lessons from him that have been immediately useful on future shoots.
I personally liked the content of the video and to me as the audience that's the most important thing. As a filmmaker however I thought the medium could have been used better.