low dof can kiss my rear

nycineaste said:
Mickey Rooney made some good movies.

Quicksand is awful tho, thats my point
Click to expand...


There are several categories of film that make it into the 'classic canon'.

1) Kick off films. Films that diverge from previous film 'styles', in a distinct and identifiable way.
2) Films that to 'many' express the 'ideals' of the moment, either in 'film in general' or in specific 'genres'.
3) Films that stand outside of the then current 'mainstream', but foreshadow future trends.
4) Films that stand outside the then current 'mainstream', but never generate later emulators.

And of course there are subcategories for all these general considerations, such as specific 'camera work', or 'acting style', etc. where the actual film may or may not be listed as classic in its own right.

Back in the olden days, before I grew old and would now only be considered a lecher invading college campuses... I use to know a woman who's masters work in 'literature' centered on Louis L'Amour novels.

This of course was before 'pulp fiction' rose to the level of newvoo scheek... and of course... L'Amour's stories were made into quite a number of 'pulp fiction westerns'... of the 50's, 60's and beyond.

In any case, from my point of view, a 'classic' can only be evaluated in terms of its context. Whether it 'works' for different eras is immaterial.

I also think watching the classic canon is profitable, especially if one goes beyond the 'top 100 best' lists... such as my example of 'The Maltese Falcon'(1931), which was not seen after 1934 time frame because it did not match up to the limitaitons of the Hays Movie Code. It was only in the mid 60's that it was 'viewable' by the public again... of course a woman adjusting her stockings would probably not raise an eyebrow now... in that era that was tantamount to 'I just had sex', when exiting a man's office...
 
DOF (or really what we're talking about is selective focus) is ONE tool in the kit. Having it or not, using it or not, isn't the be all end all. It's a tool, it can be useful, it can be overused, it can be underused.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
DOF (or really what we're talking about is selective focus) is ONE tool in the kit. Having it or not, using it or not, isn't the be all end all. It's a tool, it can be useful, it can be overused, it can be underused.
Click to expand...

When I first tuned into Planet DVXUSER, shallow DoF was the rage... people would buy expensive adapters to put in front of their digital video cameras, notably the DVX100... to get that all holy shallow DoF that was the touchstone of 'film look'...

I sort of felt 'guilty' for not going out and buying such a rig... but then I thought back... when had I ever used shallow DoF, except as a class exercise... never... what films did I 'love' that had obvious shallow DoF used in a noticeable number of shots... none...

I therefore decided that this search for the shallowest DoF was sort of not for me... and on looking at a number of major Hollywood productions... it would seem not for them either...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top