Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
everyone play nice.
everyone play nice.
Jay_Blanchard
Well-known member
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
I think the thing to keep in mind is that hardly anyone who is shooting MiniDV is trying to make the audience think they're shooting film. 24P has gotten this bad reputation as a "replacement" for 16mm or something, when that's not what it's about at all. it's just a different form of video, a unique aesthetic all its own.
When the early video artists of the avant-garde emerged on the scene in the 70's, they had no ideal of eventual getting video to meet the same technical standards as film--they simply embraced what is unique about the video aesthetic, and to try to get the audience to embrace as just as viable a medium for motion picture creation as film.
As for wanting "pretty pictures," well, what do you deem pretty? is glossy, pretty 35mm your only standard of a pretty image. i personally find "julian donkey-boy" to be one of the most beautiful movies ever made, and i can't imagine it having the same psychological impact if had been shot on glossy 35mm.
plain and simple--you want your movies to look like film, shoot them on film. if you don't have the money to shoot film, shoot video. just don't shoot video and expect to get "pearl harbor". and remember, there's nothing wrong with letting your technology dictate your content, instead of the otherway around. if you know that you have little hope of making the $200 million blockbuster you have in your mind, that the perspective of "what kind of story can I tell effectively with a $3000 video camera that can do...."
I think the thing to keep in mind is that hardly anyone who is shooting MiniDV is trying to make the audience think they're shooting film. 24P has gotten this bad reputation as a "replacement" for 16mm or something, when that's not what it's about at all. it's just a different form of video, a unique aesthetic all its own.
When the early video artists of the avant-garde emerged on the scene in the 70's, they had no ideal of eventual getting video to meet the same technical standards as film--they simply embraced what is unique about the video aesthetic, and to try to get the audience to embrace as just as viable a medium for motion picture creation as film.
As for wanting "pretty pictures," well, what do you deem pretty? is glossy, pretty 35mm your only standard of a pretty image. i personally find "julian donkey-boy" to be one of the most beautiful movies ever made, and i can't imagine it having the same psychological impact if had been shot on glossy 35mm.
plain and simple--you want your movies to look like film, shoot them on film. if you don't have the money to shoot film, shoot video. just don't shoot video and expect to get "pearl harbor". and remember, there's nothing wrong with letting your technology dictate your content, instead of the otherway around. if you know that you have little hope of making the $200 million blockbuster you have in your mind, that the perspective of "what kind of story can I tell effectively with a $3000 video camera that can do...."
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
Well put Jay.
I think as much as we want to talk/debate endlessly over DV/HD/35mm/Super16 it will always go back to the story.
Case in point:
The Terminator
I think this is one of the coolest movies ever made. Fresh, original and ground breaking in Sci-fi. I was watching it last night and noticed how low-budget the lighting was. Plainly obvious that it was a low-budget film with minimal lighting. Very grainy and not polished at all.
But the story is what sinks you in. Compare original with T2 and it is painfully obvious on what film is slicker. what film had the budget, the crew, the lighting, etc.
It goes back to the story and as long as the film is technically competent no one is going to care.
Well put Jay.
I think as much as we want to talk/debate endlessly over DV/HD/35mm/Super16 it will always go back to the story.
Case in point:
The Terminator
I think this is one of the coolest movies ever made. Fresh, original and ground breaking in Sci-fi. I was watching it last night and noticed how low-budget the lighting was. Plainly obvious that it was a low-budget film with minimal lighting. Very grainy and not polished at all.
But the story is what sinks you in. Compare original with T2 and it is painfully obvious on what film is slicker. what film had the budget, the crew, the lighting, etc.
It goes back to the story and as long as the film is technically competent no one is going to care.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
it just felt like i was being attacked- so i was going that direction- sorry Jarred.
but maybe I was misunderstood. the fact that I know of the productions that InDigEnt had done- and that I only criticized their work was because I was familiar with their approach- should have been more clear. all in all, I still agree with what everyone has said.
This is an ongoing debate-- and I really didn't mean to go into it. In fact, I would say shut up to myself too.
Besides, November does look good- not saying I could do better myself-
also because it's probably the first DVX100 film (to come out) that InDigEnt has done- and that's probably all I did want to say- and I was glad that it was the DVX that did it.
Even the director thinks it doesn't look like video! I just wished he didn't quote "consumer camera" I don't care how much money they have.
it just felt like i was being attacked- so i was going that direction- sorry Jarred.
but maybe I was misunderstood. the fact that I know of the productions that InDigEnt had done- and that I only criticized their work was because I was familiar with their approach- should have been more clear. all in all, I still agree with what everyone has said.
This is an ongoing debate-- and I really didn't mean to go into it. In fact, I would say shut up to myself too.
Besides, November does look good- not saying I could do better myself-
also because it's probably the first DVX100 film (to come out) that InDigEnt has done- and that's probably all I did want to say- and I was glad that it was the DVX that did it.
Even the director thinks it doesn't look like video! I just wished he didn't quote "consumer camera" I don't care how much money they have.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
You werent being attacked.
I just at the time didnt want to debate on the specifics of 35mm/DV/24p etc etc etc etc.
LOL
You werent being attacked.
I just at the time didnt want to debate on the specifics of 35mm/DV/24p etc etc etc etc.
LOL
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
I'm pretty sure InDigEnt used Magic Bullet Suite in post to get their 29.97 footage down to 24p on Tadpole - The Orphanage made a big splash with that software, at least in terms of the buzz, a couple years back... they must hate the DVX! NOT ME! ;D
I'm pretty sure InDigEnt used Magic Bullet Suite in post to get their 29.97 footage down to 24p on Tadpole - The Orphanage made a big splash with that software, at least in terms of the buzz, a couple years back... they must hate the DVX! NOT ME! ;D
G
Guest
Guest
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
understood, Mr. Hudson.
and of course they consulted with The Orphange. it's always about
bringing it down to 24p. I always think it looks better than watching 60i.
but then again, a few weeks ago, I was watching this Dogme film on SUNDANCE CHANNEL .. forgot the title.... it was about this girl in a new town... and the film drew me in. no music, no lights. plain 60i even. really shakey camera and much camera awarness caused by.... the camera operator!
and dogme is another issue/problem that I might have... but the fact that it worked.. and that I even bothered to watch it... interesting.
understood, Mr. Hudson.
and of course they consulted with The Orphange. it's always about
bringing it down to 24p. I always think it looks better than watching 60i.
but then again, a few weeks ago, I was watching this Dogme film on SUNDANCE CHANNEL .. forgot the title.... it was about this girl in a new town... and the film drew me in. no music, no lights. plain 60i even. really shakey camera and much camera awarness caused by.... the camera operator!
and dogme is another issue/problem that I might have... but the fact that it worked.. and that I even bothered to watch it... interesting.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
What is this, how you say "Dogme" I keep hearing about.
Anyone?
What is this, how you say "Dogme" I keep hearing about.
Anyone?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
You missed the whole "Dogme 95" movement?
www.dogme95.dk
It's basically 9 years old now, so it's no big deal anymore. It was an extremely radical "manifesto", a certain group's rejection of the hollywoodization of movies. They listed their manifesto and their Vow Of Chastity, which any dogme95 director was required to adhere to. Read the site, it's quite interesting actually. I first thought it must be a joke. I mean, some of the rules include "the camera must be handheld at all times" and "there must be no artificial lighting, no "props", no contrived scenes of any sort," and "no music allowed unless it's clearly generated on-scene" etc.
Dogme95 introduced some severe restrictions on the filmmakers. In return, they came up with some mild hits and caused quite a stir. Unfortunately, a lot of DV "moviemakers" latched onto the "Dogme" bandwagon as an excuse for why their horrible crappy DV videos were horrible and crappy... "we were doing a Dogme film", they'd say.
Nonsense.
The genius (if there was one) behind Dogme95 is simply this: if you could make a watchable, interesting movie with that many restrictions on you, then you are one heck of a moviemaker. After all, creativity does not spring from our freedoms, it springs from our limitations. So Dogme imposed serious limitations. But this wave of DV crapmakers (oops, I mean "filmmakers") would instead point to the rules and say "of course it's shakycam, Dogme said so" instead of trying to find a way to use that energy to make the story more compelling. The crapmakers instead would look at the rules and say "oh, no artificial lighting allowed? Great, now I don't have to learn about lighting!" instead of crafting the scenes to take advantage of the natural beauty of the world around them, or carefully picking their spots for shooting so that the available light would suit their scene appropriately.
Sorry if I'm bitter, don't mean to be, but this was a major source of discussion a few years ago, and it's sometimes quite frustrating to see so much energy, so much spirit, just flushed down the flusher. If these people would put 1/100th as much energy into learning the basics of story structure as they do into making their "movies", there would be a whole lot better movies out there. But I digress.
I always found it interesting that the crapmakers would get so hung up on what camera to buy, and how this camera or that camera would give them the better picture for their Dogme film, when the first "hit" Dogme film, Festen (or, The Celebration) was shot ON A SONY PC7, which, at the time, had arguably the LOWEST quality picture of any DV camera. The filmmakers chose it because it was the tiniest camera available, thus offering them new opportunities to make their picture in new ways. But the crapmakers said "see, they shot it on DV, so now anyone can shoot on DV and it's legitimized." Totally, completely, utterly missing the point.
Nothing about Dogme says it has to be, or even should be, DV. In fact one of the rules in "The Vow Of Chastity" says the film has to be Academy 35mm format! (but that doesn't mean you have to SHOOT in 35mm, just that the film (if there is one) has to be Academy 35mm.)
Anyway. Along came The Blair Witch Project, the crapmakers ditched Dogme in favor of their new standardbearer, and Dogme has kind of faded into the background now.
You missed the whole "Dogme 95" movement?
www.dogme95.dk
It's basically 9 years old now, so it's no big deal anymore. It was an extremely radical "manifesto", a certain group's rejection of the hollywoodization of movies. They listed their manifesto and their Vow Of Chastity, which any dogme95 director was required to adhere to. Read the site, it's quite interesting actually. I first thought it must be a joke. I mean, some of the rules include "the camera must be handheld at all times" and "there must be no artificial lighting, no "props", no contrived scenes of any sort," and "no music allowed unless it's clearly generated on-scene" etc.
Dogme95 introduced some severe restrictions on the filmmakers. In return, they came up with some mild hits and caused quite a stir. Unfortunately, a lot of DV "moviemakers" latched onto the "Dogme" bandwagon as an excuse for why their horrible crappy DV videos were horrible and crappy... "we were doing a Dogme film", they'd say.
Nonsense.
The genius (if there was one) behind Dogme95 is simply this: if you could make a watchable, interesting movie with that many restrictions on you, then you are one heck of a moviemaker. After all, creativity does not spring from our freedoms, it springs from our limitations. So Dogme imposed serious limitations. But this wave of DV crapmakers (oops, I mean "filmmakers") would instead point to the rules and say "of course it's shakycam, Dogme said so" instead of trying to find a way to use that energy to make the story more compelling. The crapmakers instead would look at the rules and say "oh, no artificial lighting allowed? Great, now I don't have to learn about lighting!" instead of crafting the scenes to take advantage of the natural beauty of the world around them, or carefully picking their spots for shooting so that the available light would suit their scene appropriately.
Sorry if I'm bitter, don't mean to be, but this was a major source of discussion a few years ago, and it's sometimes quite frustrating to see so much energy, so much spirit, just flushed down the flusher. If these people would put 1/100th as much energy into learning the basics of story structure as they do into making their "movies", there would be a whole lot better movies out there. But I digress.
I always found it interesting that the crapmakers would get so hung up on what camera to buy, and how this camera or that camera would give them the better picture for their Dogme film, when the first "hit" Dogme film, Festen (or, The Celebration) was shot ON A SONY PC7, which, at the time, had arguably the LOWEST quality picture of any DV camera. The filmmakers chose it because it was the tiniest camera available, thus offering them new opportunities to make their picture in new ways. But the crapmakers said "see, they shot it on DV, so now anyone can shoot on DV and it's legitimized." Totally, completely, utterly missing the point.
Nothing about Dogme says it has to be, or even should be, DV. In fact one of the rules in "The Vow Of Chastity" says the film has to be Academy 35mm format! (but that doesn't mean you have to SHOOT in 35mm, just that the film (if there is one) has to be Academy 35mm.)
Anyway. Along came The Blair Witch Project, the crapmakers ditched Dogme in favor of their new standardbearer, and Dogme has kind of faded into the background now.
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
..sorry dvboy.. wasnt trying to start anything,just more or less trying to stop talking about it. just didnt have the energy to try and present my viewpoint anymore. the specific topic has been covered to no end, and seems silly to spend any more breath on it. my demeanor was a bit lacking though, and im sorry for that. anyway.. i never heard of dogme either.. seems like that a good thing.
..sorry dvboy.. wasnt trying to start anything,just more or less trying to stop talking about it. just didnt have the energy to try and present my viewpoint anymore. the specific topic has been covered to no end, and seems silly to spend any more breath on it. my demeanor was a bit lacking though, and im sorry for that. anyway.. i never heard of dogme either.. seems like that a good thing.
Jay_Blanchard
Well-known member
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
In response to Barry's post, I think it's important to view dogme95 as a reactionary measure, that was meant more as a dadaist experiment than a total revolution for the future of movie making.
If you're going to say that Dogme95 was "limiting", it's only because they were taking a completely opposite approach to studio filmmaking, which is about the most oppressively limiting "art" there is. the beautiful images that sometimes came out of dogme95 films never would have made it into a hollywood production pre-95, and are now acceptible (21 grams, 28 days later, etc.) and that is a testament to dogme's success in their attempt to introduce a new aesthetic/narrative approach to cinema.
dogme95 was nothing more than an experiment, which in my mind was a absolute success. it resulted in one of the most beautiful films of the past decade (julien donkey-boy), helped a lot of talent filmmakers & cinematographers get into the movie business who otherwise may not have made it, and has opened the door to make cameras like the DVX a viable tool for creating a motion picture that will actually show in a theater.
so while there may be some negatives to Dogme95, at least the so-called "crapmakers" have the courage to pick up a camera and make something now. Filmmaking can be an incredibly intimidating & non-democratic method of art creation, especially under hollywood's restrictions, and the freedoms of Dogme95 gave many the courage to pick up a camera and go make a movie, which is really the whole point anyhow.
and, no offense barry, but who made you the grand arbiter of cinematic quality?
In response to Barry's post, I think it's important to view dogme95 as a reactionary measure, that was meant more as a dadaist experiment than a total revolution for the future of movie making.
If you're going to say that Dogme95 was "limiting", it's only because they were taking a completely opposite approach to studio filmmaking, which is about the most oppressively limiting "art" there is. the beautiful images that sometimes came out of dogme95 films never would have made it into a hollywood production pre-95, and are now acceptible (21 grams, 28 days later, etc.) and that is a testament to dogme's success in their attempt to introduce a new aesthetic/narrative approach to cinema.
dogme95 was nothing more than an experiment, which in my mind was a absolute success. it resulted in one of the most beautiful films of the past decade (julien donkey-boy), helped a lot of talent filmmakers & cinematographers get into the movie business who otherwise may not have made it, and has opened the door to make cameras like the DVX a viable tool for creating a motion picture that will actually show in a theater.
so while there may be some negatives to Dogme95, at least the so-called "crapmakers" have the courage to pick up a camera and make something now. Filmmaking can be an incredibly intimidating & non-democratic method of art creation, especially under hollywood's restrictions, and the freedoms of Dogme95 gave many the courage to pick up a camera and go make a movie, which is really the whole point anyhow.
and, no offense barry, but who made you the grand arbiter of cinematic quality?
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
I made him the Grand Arbiter!
I can see the pointof Dogme, but ater hearing about it and looking at some sites, I'm glad I missed it. I personally am into the Hollywood type films (at least technically.)
I made him the Grand Arbiter!
I can see the pointof Dogme, but ater hearing about it and looking at some sites, I'm glad I missed it. I personally am into the Hollywood type films (at least technically.)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
Sorry, it was late last night, guess I was cranky. And I am certainly not the "grand arbiter" of cinematic quality. In fact, I made two of the worst video "movies" ever, total pieces of crap, back in 1997 because I bought into the idea that cheap DV cameras were somehow making a difference.
What I guess I was trying to say is, or what I should be saying is, you cannot short-circuit the learning process. And you can't clamp onto the Dogme manifesto as justification for why you didn't bother to learn. You ESPECIALLY can't do that, because making a good Dogme film would require you to be so much better a filmmaker than to do any other kind of movie!
Dogme seemed to inspire a movement among DV filmmakers that would be like someone saying "hey, I want to be a musician. I've decided to record my first album. I've never played an instrument before, but I've listened to a lot of records and I know I can do better than those guys. I start recording next week. Which guitar should I buy?" Does anyone, anywhere, have any doubt whatsoever about how that guy's "album" is going to turn out?
To be fair, I guess there's a one-in-a-million chance that that particular guy will be a play-by-ear prodigy who will make a good album. But there are a million guys trying it. 999,999 of them will be, well, not very good. And the odds against him are a million to one.
Even Bill & Ted decided that if they wanted The Wyld Stallyns to be great musicians, they'd have to take lessons and learn how to play their instruments. Granted, it wasn't until the end of the second movie that they figured that out, but eventually even they figured it out.
I've spent the last seven years trying to learn everything I can about moviemaking and filmmaking so that I can avoid the mistakes of the past, and really have a good shot of success next time. I even spent a whole lot of money putting on The Independent Cinema Expo last year, to teach aspiring filmmakers those lessons (through the eyes of experts, the lineup was at http://www.icexpo.com/conference.html).
So. My apologies to everyone, everywhere, for any association with them being a "crapmaker". That was wrong to say. As long as their intent was sincere and they wanted to make a good movie, whether the end product was good or not, they still tried, and that effort shouldn't be dismissed. So, I do apologize for that. I do believe that for anyone wanting to make a movie, their efforts would be better channeled into getting an education on how to do it, rather than just leaping into it. People have been making movies for over 100 years now, and they've learned a lot. It is not something you can just pick up (like just picking up a guitar and playing) -- it takes study, it takes practice, it takes hard work. Put in that effort, and your resulting movie will stand heads and shoulders above the rest. Don't put in that effort, and it will show in the final product, and there's no blanket like Dogme that you can wrap yourself in to justify your lack of preparation.
My apologies to all who were offended by my late-night rant.
Sorry, it was late last night, guess I was cranky. And I am certainly not the "grand arbiter" of cinematic quality. In fact, I made two of the worst video "movies" ever, total pieces of crap, back in 1997 because I bought into the idea that cheap DV cameras were somehow making a difference.
What I guess I was trying to say is, or what I should be saying is, you cannot short-circuit the learning process. And you can't clamp onto the Dogme manifesto as justification for why you didn't bother to learn. You ESPECIALLY can't do that, because making a good Dogme film would require you to be so much better a filmmaker than to do any other kind of movie!
Dogme seemed to inspire a movement among DV filmmakers that would be like someone saying "hey, I want to be a musician. I've decided to record my first album. I've never played an instrument before, but I've listened to a lot of records and I know I can do better than those guys. I start recording next week. Which guitar should I buy?" Does anyone, anywhere, have any doubt whatsoever about how that guy's "album" is going to turn out?
To be fair, I guess there's a one-in-a-million chance that that particular guy will be a play-by-ear prodigy who will make a good album. But there are a million guys trying it. 999,999 of them will be, well, not very good. And the odds against him are a million to one.
Even Bill & Ted decided that if they wanted The Wyld Stallyns to be great musicians, they'd have to take lessons and learn how to play their instruments. Granted, it wasn't until the end of the second movie that they figured that out, but eventually even they figured it out.
I've spent the last seven years trying to learn everything I can about moviemaking and filmmaking so that I can avoid the mistakes of the past, and really have a good shot of success next time. I even spent a whole lot of money putting on The Independent Cinema Expo last year, to teach aspiring filmmakers those lessons (through the eyes of experts, the lineup was at http://www.icexpo.com/conference.html).
So. My apologies to everyone, everywhere, for any association with them being a "crapmaker". That was wrong to say. As long as their intent was sincere and they wanted to make a good movie, whether the end product was good or not, they still tried, and that effort shouldn't be dismissed. So, I do apologize for that. I do believe that for anyone wanting to make a movie, their efforts would be better channeled into getting an education on how to do it, rather than just leaping into it. People have been making movies for over 100 years now, and they've learned a lot. It is not something you can just pick up (like just picking up a guitar and playing) -- it takes study, it takes practice, it takes hard work. Put in that effort, and your resulting movie will stand heads and shoulders above the rest. Don't put in that effort, and it will show in the final product, and there's no blanket like Dogme that you can wrap yourself in to justify your lack of preparation.
My apologies to all who were offended by my late-night rant.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
I got your point and didnt misinterpet for the record.
I have to agree with BArry on the education part. In fact, that is what consumes me currently, is the basic foundation of Cinemtography. Why things are done a certain way, techniques tried and true.
I think if one knows the foundation fundamentally, then they can bend the rules and experiment as oppossed to not knowing jack about it and trying to do it.
I got your point and didnt misinterpet for the record.
I have to agree with BArry on the education part. In fact, that is what consumes me currently, is the basic foundation of Cinemtography. Why things are done a certain way, techniques tried and true.
I think if one knows the foundation fundamentally, then they can bend the rules and experiment as oppossed to not knowing jack about it and trying to do it.
Jay_Blanchard
Well-known member
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
"Dogme seemed to inspire a movement among DV filmmakers that would be like someone saying "hey, I want to be a musician. I've decided to record my first album. I've never played an instrument before, but I've listened to a lot of records and I know I can do better than those guys. I start recording next week. Which guitar should I buy?" Does anyone, anywhere, have any doubt whatsoever about how that guy's "album" is going to turn out"
Yeah, it's called "Never Mind the Bollocks" by the Sex Pistols. And it basically influenced the entirety of popular music since it's creation.
I'm just saying they're are thousands of modes of artistic creations coming from a thousands of different types of traditions. I agree wholeheartedly with refining one's skills and the importance of education. But not everybody is interested in having their film look a Steven Spielberg production. It's like someone criticizing a Stan Brakhage film for it's "lack of stylistic refinement".
And say someone who's never picked up a film before & makes a crappy movie using the Dogme95 tenets--is that any worse than someone who makes a crappy movie using standard ASC approved cinematography setups, etc. I think the great failing of modern cinema is this overemphasis on antiquated ideals of technical "beauty" in film. I personal find Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography in Julian Donkey-Boy to be just as a meaningful and beautiful to me as anything in "days of heaven".
there are many differents ways to acquire an image, and it really comes down to finding what equipment best tells the story, or provides the type of look, that you want to achieve. And it's important to remember that what appeals to your eye may not appeal to others. To condemn one aesthetic over another is the equivalent of condemning a watercolorists for not painting with oils, or saying a dekoonig painting is crap because it doesn't look like a rembrandt. different strokes for different folks....
"Dogme seemed to inspire a movement among DV filmmakers that would be like someone saying "hey, I want to be a musician. I've decided to record my first album. I've never played an instrument before, but I've listened to a lot of records and I know I can do better than those guys. I start recording next week. Which guitar should I buy?" Does anyone, anywhere, have any doubt whatsoever about how that guy's "album" is going to turn out"
Yeah, it's called "Never Mind the Bollocks" by the Sex Pistols. And it basically influenced the entirety of popular music since it's creation.
I'm just saying they're are thousands of modes of artistic creations coming from a thousands of different types of traditions. I agree wholeheartedly with refining one's skills and the importance of education. But not everybody is interested in having their film look a Steven Spielberg production. It's like someone criticizing a Stan Brakhage film for it's "lack of stylistic refinement".
And say someone who's never picked up a film before & makes a crappy movie using the Dogme95 tenets--is that any worse than someone who makes a crappy movie using standard ASC approved cinematography setups, etc. I think the great failing of modern cinema is this overemphasis on antiquated ideals of technical "beauty" in film. I personal find Anthony Dod Mantle's cinematography in Julian Donkey-Boy to be just as a meaningful and beautiful to me as anything in "days of heaven".
there are many differents ways to acquire an image, and it really comes down to finding what equipment best tells the story, or provides the type of look, that you want to achieve. And it's important to remember that what appeals to your eye may not appeal to others. To condemn one aesthetic over another is the equivalent of condemning a watercolorists for not painting with oils, or saying a dekoonig painting is crap because it doesn't look like a rembrandt. different strokes for different folks....
Michael_Lieberman
Active member
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
In many ways, the "Dogme 95" movement has influenced the way I've thought about movies.
In a way, the movement was utter blasphemy: somehow wanting to reinvent a medium by only stating that black and white was a "stylistic choice" and "superficial action" meant weapons and not EVERYTHING which is contained in every narrative motion picture since day one. Staging reality makes it superficial, no?
But I'm with Jay on this one (as the newbie). I think this camera (which I got two days ago) opens the door for dazzling images both of perfect lighting or not, but still looking decent. Visual beauty means images by Toland, Storaro, Dodd Mantle, Brakhage, Howe, Zsigmond, etc. I don't consider beauty in the cinema to be just of the redundant crane shots in LOTR or the wheatfield scene in "julien donkey-boy," but of whatever matches the content. Each individual person has their own look, why assign "a look" (or THE look) to everything, when there's so much more to be invented?
I think we've barely scratched the surface in film, be it narrative, documentary, and experimental. But new technology, even if it sways from what film began as, will allow EVERYONE to make films, which I think is great. But we need everyone to be unique, not to follow in "what is", but "what can be."
In many ways, the "Dogme 95" movement has influenced the way I've thought about movies.
In a way, the movement was utter blasphemy: somehow wanting to reinvent a medium by only stating that black and white was a "stylistic choice" and "superficial action" meant weapons and not EVERYTHING which is contained in every narrative motion picture since day one. Staging reality makes it superficial, no?
But I'm with Jay on this one (as the newbie). I think this camera (which I got two days ago) opens the door for dazzling images both of perfect lighting or not, but still looking decent. Visual beauty means images by Toland, Storaro, Dodd Mantle, Brakhage, Howe, Zsigmond, etc. I don't consider beauty in the cinema to be just of the redundant crane shots in LOTR or the wheatfield scene in "julien donkey-boy," but of whatever matches the content. Each individual person has their own look, why assign "a look" (or THE look) to everything, when there's so much more to be invented?
I think we've barely scratched the surface in film, be it narrative, documentary, and experimental. But new technology, even if it sways from what film began as, will allow EVERYONE to make films, which I think is great. But we need everyone to be unique, not to follow in "what is", but "what can be."
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
Hey, I'm condemning any aesthetic over another, far from it! My gripe was against people not wanting to pay their dues.
"Never mind the bollocks"... yes, there is that example. The one, out of a million. Yet there are still 999,999 garage bands trying to do the same thing, and failing. You could also point to "The Blair Witch Project". One success, 999,999 failures. No matter how you slice it, that's not good odds.
Instead of Eduardo Sanches and The Blair Witch Project, let's look at everyone else's favorite indie poster boy, Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez had made, what, fifty short films before attempting El Mariachi? He made short movies nonstop from age 13 to 23. He was also a comic book artist -- i.e., he'd trained himself in telling a story through pictures. He studied in the film program at the University of Texas at Austin. He had made short films that won national awards, before ever attempting his feature. He paid his dues. He did his homework. He knew what he was doing. He set out to make a little movie that could sell to Spanish TV stations for $25,000. His goal was realistic. Of course, he ended up getting far more than he ever hoped for, including his Spy Kids 1 ruling the #1 spot at the box office for, what was it, eight weeks in a row? I think filmmakers would enjoy a better chance of success if they would follow his example (note, I mean follow what he DID, not what he SAYS to do. He tells you to take his 10-minute film school, grab a camera and start shooting, which of course is the exact opposite of what he actually did and what I'm advocating).
As far as condemning any particular aesthetic, who's to say what's good? William Hung is enjoying quite a bit of popularity and definitely has his 15 minutes of fame going for his "American Idol" audition. Is he good? Is he an artist? Some don't think so, some do, but that's what makes this country great -- heck, not even this country, this world, because apparently they love him in South Korea. Still, there were, what, 100,000 auditions, and 117 were selected to go to Hollywood... that means that the odds were only 1000 to 1 against -- much better than the odds against indie filmmakers. And I'd dare say that it's a whole lot easier and less effort to audition for American Idol than it is to make a movie. And I'd say that those who could actually sing stood a better chance of making the "117" cut than those that couldn't. Still, there's William Hung, who didn't make the cut, and is probably more famous and popular than all of them, certainly getting more press than last season's winner Ruben.
All I'm saying is, if someone really wants to be the next Rodriguez, there's nothing wrong with that. Just do what he did, make four or five dozen short films, study film theory and practice, win some contests nationally, and then go make your feature.
If instead, someone's plan is to be the one-in-a-million breakout hit, with no training, just with passion and desire, well, there's 999,999 guys & gals competing with you. Best of luck, because each year (or it seems, every five years or so) only one of you will make it through. I live in Vegas, and I've learned not to take bets like that. I've also attended the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival (which is where so many of these projects will get their only screening) and seen what comes of that business plan all too often. If that's "art" to someone, well, I guess it could be. But to me it's a crying shame that so much energy, so much passion, so much spirit and effort get poured into these misguided efforts, and the filmmaker (who may very well have proven to be a good talent, had they trained properly) gets disillusioned and crashes on the rocks, simply because they didn't understand or take the basic effort to learn the structural concepts of storytelling, why stories work and why they don't, and how to tell a good story.
Hey, I'm condemning any aesthetic over another, far from it! My gripe was against people not wanting to pay their dues.
"Never mind the bollocks"... yes, there is that example. The one, out of a million. Yet there are still 999,999 garage bands trying to do the same thing, and failing. You could also point to "The Blair Witch Project". One success, 999,999 failures. No matter how you slice it, that's not good odds.
Instead of Eduardo Sanches and The Blair Witch Project, let's look at everyone else's favorite indie poster boy, Robert Rodriguez. Rodriguez had made, what, fifty short films before attempting El Mariachi? He made short movies nonstop from age 13 to 23. He was also a comic book artist -- i.e., he'd trained himself in telling a story through pictures. He studied in the film program at the University of Texas at Austin. He had made short films that won national awards, before ever attempting his feature. He paid his dues. He did his homework. He knew what he was doing. He set out to make a little movie that could sell to Spanish TV stations for $25,000. His goal was realistic. Of course, he ended up getting far more than he ever hoped for, including his Spy Kids 1 ruling the #1 spot at the box office for, what was it, eight weeks in a row? I think filmmakers would enjoy a better chance of success if they would follow his example (note, I mean follow what he DID, not what he SAYS to do. He tells you to take his 10-minute film school, grab a camera and start shooting, which of course is the exact opposite of what he actually did and what I'm advocating).
As far as condemning any particular aesthetic, who's to say what's good? William Hung is enjoying quite a bit of popularity and definitely has his 15 minutes of fame going for his "American Idol" audition. Is he good? Is he an artist? Some don't think so, some do, but that's what makes this country great -- heck, not even this country, this world, because apparently they love him in South Korea. Still, there were, what, 100,000 auditions, and 117 were selected to go to Hollywood... that means that the odds were only 1000 to 1 against -- much better than the odds against indie filmmakers. And I'd dare say that it's a whole lot easier and less effort to audition for American Idol than it is to make a movie. And I'd say that those who could actually sing stood a better chance of making the "117" cut than those that couldn't. Still, there's William Hung, who didn't make the cut, and is probably more famous and popular than all of them, certainly getting more press than last season's winner Ruben.
All I'm saying is, if someone really wants to be the next Rodriguez, there's nothing wrong with that. Just do what he did, make four or five dozen short films, study film theory and practice, win some contests nationally, and then go make your feature.
If instead, someone's plan is to be the one-in-a-million breakout hit, with no training, just with passion and desire, well, there's 999,999 guys & gals competing with you. Best of luck, because each year (or it seems, every five years or so) only one of you will make it through. I live in Vegas, and I've learned not to take bets like that. I've also attended the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival (which is where so many of these projects will get their only screening) and seen what comes of that business plan all too often. If that's "art" to someone, well, I guess it could be. But to me it's a crying shame that so much energy, so much passion, so much spirit and effort get poured into these misguided efforts, and the filmmaker (who may very well have proven to be a good talent, had they trained properly) gets disillusioned and crashes on the rocks, simply because they didn't understand or take the basic effort to learn the structural concepts of storytelling, why stories work and why they don't, and how to tell a good story.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
I dont think the Sex Pistols is a good example on our subject. The members of the Pistols had experience prior to the formation of the group by producer of the SEX boutique.
Steve Jones and Paul Cook had experience. They knew how to play their instruments. Sid Vicious is the one who didnt know how to play BASS. Also, given the genre of music, that style of PUNK is the most basic form of music to play (AND LEARN) comprived of mainly bar cords.
Looking like a Spielberg production is not whats at stake here. What is at stake are the basic rules and principles of Cinemtography. Take out that fact and you will get ****. Period.
A film can be done on a no/lo budget, using existing light and minimal resources, but the basic rles and principles better be there to support it.
I dont think the Sex Pistols is a good example on our subject. The members of the Pistols had experience prior to the formation of the group by producer of the SEX boutique.
Steve Jones and Paul Cook had experience. They knew how to play their instruments. Sid Vicious is the one who didnt know how to play BASS. Also, given the genre of music, that style of PUNK is the most basic form of music to play (AND LEARN) comprived of mainly bar cords.
Looking like a Spielberg production is not whats at stake here. What is at stake are the basic rules and principles of Cinemtography. Take out that fact and you will get ****. Period.
A film can be done on a no/lo budget, using existing light and minimal resources, but the basic rles and principles better be there to support it.
Jay_Blanchard
Well-known member
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
"What is at stake are the basic rules and principles of Cinemtography. Take out that fact and you will get sh*t. Period."
I'll agree on the most abstract of levels--the basic rule and principal being that you need some form of light and a camera. other than that, I don't really agree. It really comes down to what your definition of "****" is here. I'm personally in agreeance with Brakhage when he stated that there is no such thing as an incorrect exposure--all images are simply either emulsion on celluloid or variations in the magnetic tape, and it's only the human mind that makes the limitation of what constitutes a "correct" image. god knows our eyes don't always see correctly--been poor vision, astigmatism, dark rooms, closed-eye visions, etc. there are many times when we don't see the world under a three-point lighting setup. why does the cinema have to be any different?
there's a time and a place for any image in the world, and it's just a matter of having that particular image work for what you wish to say. what might be a horrible shot for one scene could be utterly brilliant for another.
and, before you ask, i did do my duty studying cinematography for four years in film school. and i do commercial shoots all the time that require "proper" lighting techniques. however, philosophically, i'm in opposition to any dogmatic way of thinking that supposes supremacy of images. it limits the medium & the way with see our world.
"What is at stake are the basic rules and principles of Cinemtography. Take out that fact and you will get sh*t. Period."
I'll agree on the most abstract of levels--the basic rule and principal being that you need some form of light and a camera. other than that, I don't really agree. It really comes down to what your definition of "****" is here. I'm personally in agreeance with Brakhage when he stated that there is no such thing as an incorrect exposure--all images are simply either emulsion on celluloid or variations in the magnetic tape, and it's only the human mind that makes the limitation of what constitutes a "correct" image. god knows our eyes don't always see correctly--been poor vision, astigmatism, dark rooms, closed-eye visions, etc. there are many times when we don't see the world under a three-point lighting setup. why does the cinema have to be any different?
there's a time and a place for any image in the world, and it's just a matter of having that particular image work for what you wish to say. what might be a horrible shot for one scene could be utterly brilliant for another.
and, before you ask, i did do my duty studying cinematography for four years in film school. and i do commercial shoots all the time that require "proper" lighting techniques. however, philosophically, i'm in opposition to any dogmatic way of thinking that supposes supremacy of images. it limits the medium & the way with see our world.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: November... Sundance winner.. 25 cameras...?
Chiming in:
I agree fully with Jay in that he said
But I must add this:
I'd say that the main reason that we have our 'standards' as three point lighting set ups is because most of the time, we WANT to be taken into a dream world while watching a movie. Sometimes, we want a gritty, naturalistic feeling, but MOSTof the time, lets admit it, we go to the movies to be taken away. This surreal lighting, "too perfect" for real life, helps add to this. It's what helps us remember that we ARE watching a movie. So, by that rationale, we DO want to have this surreal look to everything, it gives us a sense of security, sort of. It kind of in a subliminal way keeps you knowing that you're simply being told a story, not living in one. This is what most films try to do! The fun in watching movies isn't thinking that you're 'looking into a window of someone's life', but rather more you're dreaming.
The more I think about it, the more I realize how convoluted it all sounds. I apologize, lol. But I do believe it. The "Hollywood style" is used by Hollywood because it works; Thinspirit posted a while ago a message saying that they've come to this standardized form after over 80 years of figuring out what works and what doesn't. He couldn't have been more right
Chiming in:
I agree fully with Jay in that he said
But I must add this:
I'd say that the main reason that we have our 'standards' as three point lighting set ups is because most of the time, we WANT to be taken into a dream world while watching a movie. Sometimes, we want a gritty, naturalistic feeling, but MOSTof the time, lets admit it, we go to the movies to be taken away. This surreal lighting, "too perfect" for real life, helps add to this. It's what helps us remember that we ARE watching a movie. So, by that rationale, we DO want to have this surreal look to everything, it gives us a sense of security, sort of. It kind of in a subliminal way keeps you knowing that you're simply being told a story, not living in one. This is what most films try to do! The fun in watching movies isn't thinking that you're 'looking into a window of someone's life', but rather more you're dreaming.
The more I think about it, the more I realize how convoluted it all sounds. I apologize, lol. But I do believe it. The "Hollywood style" is used by Hollywood because it works; Thinspirit posted a while ago a message saying that they've come to this standardized form after over 80 years of figuring out what works and what doesn't. He couldn't have been more right