Given that line of reasoning, then there are never mistakes in films, just choices. I don't agree with that conclusion, and feel you are making your point solely on the issue of semantics.
Les Misérables: Wide Open Lenses and Lost Horizons
- Thread starter Gary Huff
- Start date
Given that line of reasoning, then there are never mistakes in films, just choices. I don't agree with that conclusion, and feel you are making your point solely on the issue of semantics.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Liam Hall
Veteran
No. There are lots of mistakes in movies. The things you have highlighted as mistakes are not mistakes, they are creative decisions.
Creative decisions that result in mistakes. Entire shots out of focus. Mistake. Hugh Jackman misses a mark, causing him to fall out of focus unexpectedly and the focus puller has to compensate on the fly. Mistake. The camera starts to lean at an angle and the operator corrects it abruptly mid-take, which ends up in the finished film.
Mistake.
I also reject your notion that films are so meticulously planned as you seem to believe they are. Sometimes, yes, but often there are completely unexpected things that are unplanned, both good and bad, and to think that the above-the-line crew has some grand plan that they flawlessly execute is laughably naive.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The Wife and I like to sit at the very back of any theater, so, some set of 'problems' that some people may 'see' closer up, are integrated out in many cases at that distance...
However, in the particular theater we saw Les Mis in, the theater had taken out the comfy theater chairs to make space for wheel chairs. However, for us they provided regular straight back chairs (fortunately not folding chairs...),
and it sort of reminded me of being in Vienna where we saw musicals... in straight back chairs...
Anyway, the Wife loved the film... I liked it, as I don't give the 'loved it' appraisal ever...
I must say I did notice the shallow DoF a lot. I suspect the director may have had the idea to make the film 'far more close up', as when viewing a live musical/opera in a ordinary theater, the audience is rather distant from the actors, and only brought into the performer's 'face' via opera glasses.
Liam Hall
Veteran
The idea from the outset was to give the viewer an experience they cannot have in the theatre. Jerky camera moves, "missed" focus are part of the style chosen by the director to give that experience.
Gary, I don't need to list my credentials to refute your naive jibe. Of course not all movies are planned, of course A list crew make mistakes. That's not my point.
Thank you for not listing your credentials, because frankly, they don't mean anything to me. I can only go on what you say, which was:
So I assume that the director or DP went to the camera op and said,"Hey, while you're doing this tracking shot, let the camera slowly angle down towards the left and then suddenly correct it as quickly as you can."? I highly doubt that.
or maybe, "Hey, in this profile shot of Eddie, just leave it a bit out of focus for the entire shot."
or how about, "So Hugh Jackman is suddenly going to step backward an inch at this point in the song, so count to two and then pull him into focus. You may even want to pass it slightly and come back."
Yeah, I don't think so.
Liam Hall
Veteran
The camera technique is called "loose bowl". The operator will deliberately let it fall off frame, and deliberately put nervous twitches and wobbles into it. It's not a new technique.
And you were on set and know first-hand that this is what they were doing?
I give up
I take that to be "no."
Were the camera operators bumping into each other also part of the plan? (I apologize for not directly linking the article, but it's apparently not online yet)
maranfilms
Veteran
I have not had a chance to see it yet. But I had a couple questions based on Gary's opening statement.
I would think they would be more apt to get away with breaking the 180 rule due to shooting steadycam, Seems odd they wouldn't show the cross over to the audience being that it's so much easier on a steadycam.
I didn't know there was a way to motivate a dutch tilt, I was under the impression it's an artistic choice, at least it is when I use it. Can you tell me how a dutch tilt is motivated? I'm curious to know.
I would think they would be more apt to get away with breaking the 180 rule due to shooting steadycam, Seems odd they wouldn't show the cross over to the audience being that it's so much easier on a steadycam.
I didn't know there was a way to motivate a dutch tilt, I was under the impression it's an artistic choice, at least it is when I use it. Can you tell me how a dutch tilt is motivated? I'm curious to know.
Two of the actors were facing each other at the moment, one was in a different location. All three close ups had their faces scrunched up against the right side of the screen. I thought it looked crappy.
Dutch angles are commonly used to show a world out of balance, but the main one I saw here came out of nowhere and wasn't used in the kind of scene it is commonly used in. It was pretty severe too (and followed up by that terrible shot of the mostly gray wall with the close up of Jackman dwarfed in the frame).
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet. So I can't comment on that.
I can certainly comment on why a Steadicam shot might have a horizon wobble. It's happened to every Steadicam operator, even after years of practice when such things become pretty rare; various circumstances can lead to a little off-bubble moment (and as anyone who has operated any kind of gimballed stabiizer knows, such a thing takes a mere twitch of the fingers or wrist). Maybe the actor surprised you and you tensed up slightly as you compensate, possibly an errant gust of wind, maybe you brushed the rig with your leg or snagged a cable momentarily. All you can do is to hope that you get another take and that one doesn't get used.
Over the years I was occasionally asked to purposely dutch at a given point in the shot, but you can generally tell the difference between that and a fumble. Actually the worst thing to do with a horizon mishap is to immediately correct it; the smart way is to wait until the next point in the shot where something lively happens (panning with a character or someone crosses the frame) and you hide the correction there.
For an example of truly audacious dutching (and overall incredible Steadicam work), see here. If you really want your mind blown, click on the linked commentary to find out just how much input Larry had on the design of the shot (if you think the Steadicam through the Copacabana shot from "Goodfellas" was genius because of Scorcese, this might enlighten you).
I can certainly comment on why a Steadicam shot might have a horizon wobble. It's happened to every Steadicam operator, even after years of practice when such things become pretty rare; various circumstances can lead to a little off-bubble moment (and as anyone who has operated any kind of gimballed stabiizer knows, such a thing takes a mere twitch of the fingers or wrist). Maybe the actor surprised you and you tensed up slightly as you compensate, possibly an errant gust of wind, maybe you brushed the rig with your leg or snagged a cable momentarily. All you can do is to hope that you get another take and that one doesn't get used.
Over the years I was occasionally asked to purposely dutch at a given point in the shot, but you can generally tell the difference between that and a fumble. Actually the worst thing to do with a horizon mishap is to immediately correct it; the smart way is to wait until the next point in the shot where something lively happens (panning with a character or someone crosses the frame) and you hide the correction there.
For an example of truly audacious dutching (and overall incredible Steadicam work), see here. If you really want your mind blown, click on the linked commentary to find out just how much input Larry had on the design of the shot (if you think the Steadicam through the Copacabana shot from "Goodfellas" was genius because of Scorcese, this might enlighten you).
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
I'm not going to continue our little debate, I've said everything I need to, but here's a good article on the making of the film on FXGuide. The second video is worth a watch for a glimpse behind the scenes:
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/making-a-musical-les-miserables/
paulears
Veteran
It does seem that almost every area of this movie sadly has negative comments from the specialist communities that the others don't comment on. Apparently the audio people are accepting the often poor vocal performances and commenting on the tuning with the orchestral score added afterwards, and the actors are complaining that with a few exceptions the live vocal performances wouldn't have been accepted by the musical theatre fans. The set and design people seem to feel the attention to detail was missed by the cameras with all the shallow dog content, and the costume and makeup people didn't like the treatment applied to the prostitutes. So if all these 'departments' find problems, then maybe it's production and direction we should be looking at - as the 'whole' is their responsibility. A bit like small issues everywhere being commented on in isolation, but the other issues being ignored. Rather a shame in fact. So as an example, audio people happy with the quality of the audio recording, but revealing the flaws in the people attempting to sing live.
Well, there are flaws in every single film, because the best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry. I don't have a problem with the audio so much because it was recorded properly, regardless of the vocal quality. There's so much a pursuit of perfection in singing these days that I like a bit of rawness to the human voice because its real.
The problem with the visuals is that this is a visual medium, and so I agree that that the technical presentation of the film was flawed visually and the set designers work went awry because you often could not get a visual sense of the scenery.
I think Hooper's biggest problem is that his choices don't reflect a well-considered approach to the material. Why shoot with longer focal lengths and wider apertures for this film? What is the thought-process behind it? Is it anything more in depth than. "Hey, the DSLR look is popular, maybe I should use it for my film!" It seriously looked like the 5D with how shallow it was, and the problems I have with that look are exactly mirrored in why I think the second season of Sherlock is much stronger visuall than the first (a change of DPs brought on someone who I felt took a more reasoned approach to the shots and properly alternates between shallow DOF when approrpiate and deeper DOF when appropriate).
The problem with the visuals is that this is a visual medium, and so I agree that that the technical presentation of the film was flawed visually and the set designers work went awry because you often could not get a visual sense of the scenery.
I think Hooper's biggest problem is that his choices don't reflect a well-considered approach to the material. Why shoot with longer focal lengths and wider apertures for this film? What is the thought-process behind it? Is it anything more in depth than. "Hey, the DSLR look is popular, maybe I should use it for my film!" It seriously looked like the 5D with how shallow it was, and the problems I have with that look are exactly mirrored in why I think the second season of Sherlock is much stronger visuall than the first (a change of DPs brought on someone who I felt took a more reasoned approach to the shots and properly alternates between shallow DOF when approrpiate and deeper DOF when appropriate).
Egg Born Son
Veteran
le woof :beer:
The film certainly jerked a few man tears, but I also have to agree that the Dutch angles and Dof pulled me out of the experience. I believe the motivation here was as previously stated, to pull people into what they rarely get to see in stage productions: the facial expressions and mannerisms of the actors. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it felt me wondering why the heck they chose that option. Vocal wise, I felt everyone gave it their best, though some (crowe mainly), would not have been my first choice.