How Steven Spielberg relates tension.

[im.thatoneguy]

Lol I just started laughing when "Lynch" came up. Yeah, there's a director who never made a mistake.

Anyway, the reason I haven't posted yet was, I wasn't sure what to discuss on his camera movements. I'm hoping I'll have an opprotunity to watch WotW on slow motion tommarow, and this topic (pre-film-snobery) got me actually pretty excited to make a day of it, and inspired me to try to get into the habit of doing this with a movie per week, just to study scene construction. (We should start a club, the "SloMos" with a film per week, where we all have to watch it at, at fastest 1/2 speed. Then we discuss what we thought. I'm game if anyone is interested.)

Back off topic... In my opinion, Spielberg has the most consistantly "solid" films on the market. They just work. I don't think you can quantify whether or not his compositions and camera moves "break rules" or whether he "executes the scene properly" (I think givemefood, is the only soul on earth who knows what that means.)

Directors are storytellers. If they're incredibly popular, and people thoroughly enjoy listening to their stories. It doesn't matter if they shot the whole film using their ass as a tripod, and it ended up with a 45degree dutch tilt. I love Tarkovsky's 15+ minute static shots, because it tells his stories well. I love Michael Bay car chases, because they communicate the scene well.

People watch story, people enjoy story, mission accomplished. Steven Spielberg in this respect is a genius.


P.S. At 2 in the morning, when you're really really hungry, and are too lazy to cook anything, McDonalds is the best food on earth. Ditto after a 100 mile bike ride.

 

[dougspice]

CineAlta: let's discuss. I have a truly poor memory, and I don't know where this will go, but here's one example.

Saving Private Ryan
Mrs. Ryan gets the news

Near the end of the first act, there is the one-shot scene of Mrs. Ryan receiving the news that her sons are dead. The entire thing is shot from behind her, if I'm not mistaken, and we never even really see her face. She is washing dishes, and in the distance we see a lone car approach down winding roads. As the car pulls to a stop she walks to the front door and opens it. The camera slowly follows her over, and stops as she steps through the door. We see that the car belongs to an Army chaplain and she simply falls down, crying. End of scene.

I think that's one of the most stirring scenes in the entire movie, and it's accomplished with a truly magnificent economy of shots. We see nothing but what we need to see, and yet there is a LOT of information here. We learn just enough about this character that we will never see again. We firmly establish the period and the locale in a few seconds of a single shot, and see the remoteness and loneliness of her position. We also see the hesitation and sadness of the chaplain's job. All in one shot which moves very simply and carefully.

 

[CineAlta]

Wow, great example! I remember that scene vividly. As you say, so much was related with what we didn't see. I think he started doing that back in "Duel," where we only see the truck's grill, and not the driver's face. You're right, he really does use an economy of shots (I think he said he shoots 4:1 ratio), and works very fast (40-50 days for principle photography).

There are so many great examples of his camera movement over the years, but one random one is from "Catch me if you can." There was a scene, I think where Leo comes home, and his mom is in the bedroom with another man. The camera follows him (parallel to him), from floor-level (as a cat would see), from the living room to the bedroom door. I believe that was the scene. Anyway, it just struck me how so many films would have just panned a tripod from the corner, or Steadicammed over one, or both, shoulders. But Steven showed us a floor-level dolly. Who would have thought?

Thanks for reminding me about the SPR scene!

 

[givemefood]

yeah but my dad is still better than yours

what the **** does that mean?

 

[givemefood]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but unless his films are about something slightly political or hostorical and in black and white then they're not good films in your books.

People need to get off their high horses and stop masturbating over "film" "art" and all that bollocks.

I've been scared in his films, cried in his films, laughed in his films - that's enough for me. Who cares about his "execution" having "flaws". ****, the day I become someone who only goes to the movies to watch a film to analyse it's execution, is the day I give up and shoot myself.

And no, I don't just watch Hollywood movies, I watch all manner of "films".

Aza

You just didn't read my messages i presume.

 

[givemefood]

I'm with Policar on this.

Give some specifics, or don't bother commenting.

We're scratching our heads, wondering if you're watching the same movies as we are.

On the other hand, if you're an film-snob then this is probably the wrong place for you. This is a film-making forum, and many of us know what's involved in making a film -- and know good film-making when we see it.

I'm sure your posturing gets you a lot of emo chicks at Borders, but it's not impressing any of us here.

I can't imagine how you'll take criticism of your work when you can't take criticism of Spielberg. Stop making personal remarks if you can't provide your argument.

This is a forum to discuss movies and movie related. If you can't have a discussion, i suggest you take the road to Fargo...

 

[im.thatoneguy]

http://www.peaceandhealing.com/criticism/constructive.asp

 

[dmitriandsnow]

This thread was supposed to be specifically about Steven's camera movement. It's too bad it has degenerated into a subjective argument over the value of his films, which was not the intended purpose (hence, I posted under "Cinematography," not "Directing"). Oh well, I guess no one wants to discuss his camera movement techniques.

But isn't cinematography an expression and a language? And can't we discuss and critique Spielberg's technique? Spielberg's camera dynamics is only a fraction of what makes up his expression. Some like it, some do not. I don't believe the thread has degenerated. I just think it became more elaborate.

To givemefood, i was just trying to carry on a debate in your manner. I see no other way of communicating with you.

 

[mmm]

*sigh* ... what in lords name has that good to do with good filmaking ???? All it proves is that his films appeal to the medocrity, like I say, sun readers... and in my book thats a bad thing. Ever heard teh expression "where there's a crowd there is untruth ?" Are you going to now tell me that Mcdonalds is the best food you can get, an ipod is the best dap player you can buy ??? Mass consumerism of something has ZERO correspondence to its actual quality or substance.

My point was that his audience's aren't just made up of "Sun" readers as you suggest. It is completely different to Mcdonalds which is a price and convenience driven market, cinema is nothing like that.

And yes, I think BO can be a good objective view of good film making over time (I agree that this isn't always true for single films, Phantom Menace anyone). It shows where people have choosen to spend their money and history shows a massive 30 year repeat business on Spielberg films, so my guess is that people are liking what they see overall.

Just because you don't like his films and seem to think they are below you, doesn't mean he is a bad filmmaker. To make such a suggestion is pretty arrogant IMO.

 

[LoveDVX]

......Spielberg thinks out all his camera moves himself, too. Kaminski merely lights, chooses filters, and helps with lab work. (Although "merely" is the wrong word; he's amazing, too.) His use of aperture framing is pretty fantastic but less so than his use of reflections, in my opinion.

...."A lot can be said about Steven's framing, or Janusz Kaminski's beautiful photography and lighting etc, but has anyone been noticing how Steven moves the camera!"

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's is a toy camera forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings that ended up only partially accepting the fact they have no talent for real film work.

Whoopsee!

 

[CineAlta]

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience.

Do you guys have any clue

statements are very depressing

shows how stupid most people truly are

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings

the fact they have no talent for real film work.

Wow. Really valuable contributions to this online community. Why are you even here?

 

[Lawsuit_Boy]

Take anyone who's been creating art for a period as long as Speilberg in any medium (novels, albums, paintings, film, etc.) and you'll see a partern of exactly what makes that person tick.

That's natural IMO.

I totally agree with you, Krestofre. I know that a lot of myself ends up in the things I write and other things I make. And I dive into similar themes and ideas often. There's nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

Everybody relax. There's some good points here but a lot more detritus and the direction is drifting towards personal attacks. If you have a point to make back it up, simply saying you like or don't like his films isn't enough. And calling people who like Spielberg films "Sun readers" is just provoking an argument.

As for Tarrantino, his films are just cheap contrived regurgitations of other peoples films. The junk he churns out is nothing more than prefabricated pig swill for the lobotomised mediocrity. Sensationlist, depersonalised and seemingly originating from someone who has not yet lived... cinema it is not.

And statements like this offer nothing to debate with. It's a verbose meaningless and vague assertion that sounds smarter than it actually is.
Cease with the crap and personal attacks and discuss the work in detail, otherwise I'll put this puppy to bed. :kali:

 

[Lawsuit_Boy]

I'm not enjoying this 'positive applause' of Spielberg's works.
IMO, he's not an artist. And i have not seen imitators of Spielberg.

Personally, I believe people can be great artists without considering themselves to be. Does an artist have to fit the horrible stereotype as shown in Wedding Crashers by the character Todd? Or do they have to be strong, silent types with long hair like Viggo Mortensen in A Perfect Murder? I think Spielberg should be considered an artist exactly as a painter or a songwriter should. He takes stories and brings them to life (with the help of his amazing crew, of course) and he does it with very few flaws.

If you take part in creating something, you're entering the realm of art, whether it be motion pictures, music, literature, paint, pencil, arcitecture, still photography, or anything else you can think of.

 

[dmitriandsnow]

CineAlta, it has degenerated, you are right. There are hardly any comments on previous two pages that touch the subject of cinematography. I understand exactly why; Spielberg is a very well-known figure and there is no way to have an "only favorable" discussion when every second person is long-familiar with his work.

Spielberg an artist? Of course he is and aside from that he is a craftsman. His craft (as many quoted) is superb. I don't like his expression therefore his craft is weightless to me. I entirely agree with Lawsuit_boy.

 

[mmm]

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

You seem to be making a valid point, but I'm not sure why you feel it needs to be put in such an agressive and insulting way?

 

[Aaron Koolen]

Err, OK, and your credential are? Post us your real name, and your list of work. Then you have somewhere to start from, but even then, abusing everyone else and assuming they are wannabe's or students or frustrated 30/40's is arrogant and won't get you very far.

Aza

It's these type of quotes that really show off the wannabes and those with no feature experience. Do you guys have any clue how much a Cinematographer contributes to a film? You think a director makes a movie what it is? You think a director is the one that frames all the shots? Did you know that it has more to do with the DP and the operator (sometimes the same person) in the end? Those kinds of statements are very depressing to see. It just shows how stupid most people truly are.

Kaminski is one of the top five DP's on earth and he has quite a bit to do with how those films turn out in the end.

These boards need some kind of screening process before people should be allowed to post on them.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's is a toy camera forum populated with students and frustrated 30/40's somethings that ended up only partially accepting the fact they have no talent for real film work.

Whoopsee!

 

[jackal2513]

And statements like this offer nothing to debate with. It's a verbose meaningless and vague assertion that sounds smarter than it actually is.
Cease with the crap and personal attacks and discuss the work in detail, otherwise I'll put this puppy to bed. :kali:

*shrugs*

I didn't feel like writing a 2 page document on his films. No, i felt like summing up my feelings toward him in one swift sentence. Don't try and construct rules about language, communication, intenet forums, the things that people say and do.... this is life and we are people.... deal with it.

Verbose... yes perhaps, but primarly because in a succinct summation of my view it's better to be a bit more articulate and use a few choice adjectives rather than just say "i think he's crap". Yes, every word I chose is very suitably apt and has *PLENTY* of meaning. I'm sorry that such language makes you feel the user is simply trying to be 'smart' .. believe you me if that was my intention then I would have written the 2 page essay instread. Finally, if you don't 'get' any word that I said or don't see how it could accurately describe QT's work then pm me offline and I will more than happy to elaborate.

 

[jackal2513]

My point was that his audience's aren't just made up of "Sun" readers as you suggest. It is completely different to Mcdonalds which is a price and convenience driven market, cinema is nothing like that.

And yes, I think BO can be a good objective view of good film making over time (I agree that this isn't always true for single films, Phantom Menace anyone). It shows where people have choosen to spend their money and history shows a massive 30 year repeat business on Spielberg films, so my guess is that people are liking what they see overall.

Just because you don't like his films and seem to think they are below you, doesn't mean he is a bad filmmaker. To make such a suggestion is pretty arrogant IMO.

1. And my point was that his mainstream films primarily are designed for safe middle mainstream america. As such, they have huge popularity with a very large number of people and hence make a lot of money. Cinema *is* convenience for some people. They watch films in which they dont have to think for themselves, or confront themselves, or face the frightening prospect that in some way the film might make them grow as a person.... films like Spielbergs films. If art and cinema has become nothing more than putting a model spaceship over a night's sky, or a robot inside a whining kid's teddy, then God help us.

2. BO takings being some sort of yardstick. Sorry, I am not even going to get into this one again.. i find it embarrasing and insulting to your own self. I suggest you read up on cinema and discover whats actually gone on over the last 70 years or so and find out EXACTLY what and who has been important, defining, revolutionary and genius and then go and look at BO takings.

3. If you go and reread my posts carefully you will see that I never said he's a bad filmmaker. In fact on 2 occasions I acknowledeged his skill and talent.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

*shrugs*

I didn't feel like writing a 2 page document on his films. No, i felt like summing up my feelings toward him in one swift sentence. Don't try and construct rules about language, communication, intenet forums, the things that people say and do.... this is life and we are people.... deal with it.

Actually, this is DVXuser. There are rules on this forum that members abide by, one of them being no personal attacks. People are also expected to treat each other with respect. Looking over your posts I see confrontation and a lack of respect. If you want to continue being a part of this community I suggest you change your tone or find another forum better suited to "deal" with you.

I sent you a PM. I want to read your 2 page document that you feel sums up Tarantino's talent.

Since this isn't really a discussion of cinematography or a specific film I'm moving this to the cafe.