Spielberg. The formula. Busted.

Is it me, or do people look way too much into movies? At least, the people who have no idea how to actually make them, I mean.
 
It's actually not a bad way to illustrate that the reaction shot tells more to the audience than the object/person/event that the subject is looking at.

Sort of the Jaws/Alien thing, not seeing the monster is more powerful than seeing it, but by watching the reaction shot the audience knows what to feel.

It's a really hard concept for n00b film makers to grasp, especially with horror/violence, and it's one reason why Indy/student films are often so bad.

I give it a +1
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
We all know you love to hate the film industry pookie. We get it.
Click to expand...
Excuse me...I have nothing against the film industry, only their inability to produce anything original in any form whatsoever.Remakes, sequels, video game movies, cartoons made into movies, crime scene investigator shows, reality shows, Tom Cruise pretending to be Irish, the existence of Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, 3D movies.... These are what I hate, and if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.So... What is it "you get"?
 
I suppose the posts of yours that stick out in my brain the most are usually along the lines of 'hollywood is dead', or announcements of remakes you think are awful, or pointing out videos which show that some idea is stolen from another, such as this.

That is my perception anyhow. Perhaps my post sounds aggressive, that was not the intention. It was in a jesting or light-hearted spirit. I apologize if it came off as critical. You do provide many other threads filled with the random, humorous and odd.

But I must say I do detect a reoccurring motif of anti-hollywood / anti-industry posts. Like I said, maybe it's just me.

Nothing wrong with it. Perhaps you see why I thought my comment was funny.

Just for fun. These are all threads started by you... and that is just from search results for "Hollywood is Dead"
A one hour drama????? Hollywood is dead kiddies. Dead.


Same formula, same characters, and even the same camera angles. Hollywood. Dead.


Hollywood. Dead dead dead deadliy dead dead. Dead.


I miss Hollywood, too bad it died.


Proof Hollywood is dead, very very ......................dead.
 
Last edited:
So... CU on a face is a Speilberg signature, and everything else out there is a copy of it? Now it's cliche? I'm not buying it.

Yes he makes a strong case for movies like Close Encounters, ET and Jurrasic Park. They extensively use the 'pause for awe, dolly into CU on face,' because they're looking at aliens and dinosaurs. Clearly this is a device Speilberg like to use consciously. However IMO the other examples are weak by comparison. They're a mixed bag of emotions and camera movements. Sometimes a close-up is just a close-up, and sometimes Speilberg may just like using a dolly for an emotional punch (this is basic film school stuff).
 
This is VERY interesting. I've never thought of that before, but it makes perfect sense considdering his relationship with Kubrick, and one of Kubricks signatures was the "Stanley Kubrick Crazy Stare".


I still prefer the Kubrick stare to the Spielberg face though, but this is very interesting and inspiring.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
This is VERY interesting. I've never thought of that before, but it makes perfect sense considdering his relationship with Kubrick, and one of Kubricks signatures was the "Stanley Kubrick Crazy Stare".


I still prefer the Kubrick stare to the Spielberg face though, but this is very interesting and inspiring.
Click to expand...

Just watched Kubrick's early noir, "The Killing," last night. It has an early version of the Kubrick face near the end.
 
Pookie said:
Excuse me...I have nothing against the film industry, only their inability to produce anything original in any form whatsoever.Remakes, sequels, video game movies, cartoons made into movies, crime scene investigator shows, reality shows, Tom Cruise pretending to be Irish, the existence of Paris Hilton and the Kardashians, 3D movies.... These are what I hate, and if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.So... What is it "you get"?
Click to expand...

You just listed everything I love about movies.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

I love games, updates of older movies, Tom Cruise pretending to be Irish (one my favorite films like... ever!)

My wife adores reality shows, we watch 'Bones' and 'Fringe' and 'SCi' religiously and even buy collectors editions where possible!

I even stomach the odd Uwe Boll Banta Pudu here and there! (The last thing with Dolph Lungren was a bit much though, thank God for ye olde fast forward function).

I seriously don't get what people like about those old crappy drawn out 'classics', that doesn't mean I judge em though.
To each his own.
 
Pookie said:
OK, I'll give up the "Hollywood is Dead".

Humanity is Dead.
Click to expand...

Humanity? As in all of us, everyone?


7 Billion potential viewers for the next Spiderman reboot :D

As long as humanity is watching reboots and Uwe Bollocks movies there is hope for the rest of us wannabes to make awegasm (copyright Ted Spencer) original, wonderful, epic movies!


I doth lolleth with glee.
 
OK, back on track. What I do notice about Spielberg CU's. Or is signature shot. And yes, it has been known as this around the industry since the early 90's. At least that is when I first heard mention of it. Anyway, what he does do often and well is a slightly lower or higher than a natural eye line and then dolly in. It works for him, no debating that.
 
This is ridiculous. Those shots are used by a variety of films and filmmakers. It's called a reaction and good story telling. It shows instead of tells. The lack of a defined emotion makes us wonder, curious. It's a great tool.
 
The fact that he skips the "Vertigo" dolly/zoom shot in "Jaws" shows one of the basic holes in his argument. I do feel that some of the later Spielberg films are commentary on some of his earlier work, as he has grown as a filmmaker. What that means for "retro-Spielberg" films Tin-Tin & War Horse remains to be seen.

But this whole presentation is really just to show that he is a humanist filmmaker, much more concerned with emotional connection than a visual effect.

Here's an example: "Empire of the Sun." Iconic image #1 -- Slow motion shot of the American pilot waving from his plane to the boy during his bombing run. Importance within the film -- it signifies the moment when the boy has finally lost all of his innocence and connection to his past, as made clear in the scene that continues from this moment, when the doctor joins the boy on the roof, pleads with him to "stop thinking so much" and the boy responds that he cannot remember what his parents look like. When does the "Spielberg closeup" happen in this scene? At the end with the boy's realization and then response. (Change in lighting there too, as we go into tighter shots a silk was strung overhead to soften the light on the faces.)

Another example is the stadium scene where the lady dies at apparently the same moment the Hiroshima bomb detonates. The shockwave in the clouds may be the Iconic image, but the closeup on the boy's face is what gives it meaning in the context of the narrative.

I could go on.
 
The other thing to consider is that these shots are a direct result of the types of stories Spielberg prefers, ordinary people stuck in extraordinary circumstances. Moments of overwhelming awe and/or terror are inevitable in these narratives and Spielberg shoots those moments in a manner that maximizes the emotion for the audience. Form evolved from content in a natural, organic way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top