The New film language - what looks mean

[Guest]

totally-

the film look" question always boiled down to cinematic technique, ie learning to shoot a movie

Also, join the INDIE tradition.

At our best we make up (in spades) for lack of money/polish by making movies hollywood doesnt dare to. Alot of us forget that. Think of Pi, Following, Memento, Eraserhead, Primer, Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, anything by Harmony Korine- these are all bold, daring, challenging movies that used non-hollywood structures and techniques . Hidden here is the answer to the "question of quality" alot of us are still asking.

I have to at least mention this, even though I am aware there is more to it.

The Hobbit was for the most part put together by some very talented craftspeople. However, the use of 48fps alone, was the major complaint against the film. 48fps is a technical element. 24p is still widely associated with Cinema. At times a novice on vimeo can look cinematic simply by using bon over and shallow dof, meanwhile peter jackson and an army of experts can ruin many viewers experience simply by using 48fps. WHy?


Film language. The viewer is still conditioned to suspend dibelief with 24fps, but be more critical with higher (reality) frame rates. So when the viewer sees that there are a bunch of computer animations, and dwarves with wigs, and it is shot with a modern high frame rate, they expect reality, and the judgment becomes very critical of the illusion. The illusion is revealed for a fake, and the viewing experienced is diminished.

 

[yoclay]

I don't have much personal historic perspective because I'm a 90s child, but what seems to be the case is that those two spectrums have now been combined. The resulting persona is what David Brooks called the "Bourgeois Bohemian," and it's my opinion that these are the people deciding what's cool.

That term has been around a lot longer than David Brook's book of 2000.
It was invented in France (as was the Borgeoisie) and these people are known as "BoBo's" (Bourgeois Bohemian's)
They have a code about what is cool, but they are not necessarily regarded as "hipsters", in fact they are as reviled as "yuppies" were in the 80's. In Paris, you will find them congregating along the Canal St. Martin.
In NYC they would be the ones that helped raise the rent's in the East Village and sipped latte's before Starbucks and probably buy Agnes B for their toddlers. They live in Williamsburg today.
Cool ? Probably. Original ? Definitely not.
They are happy capitalists. They don't create original things, they buy them.

 

[greymog]

I find that kind of thing pompous, and solely reliant on the ability for the viewer to express appreciation because of the need for conformity. So if the film is covered in the aura of "This is a work of art, and you must take meaning from it yourself" then people will take meaning from it, even if they didn't, because to do otherwise is to announce that you think the Emperor is naked, and that's an incredibly hard thing to do.[/QUOTE]

- omg yes.

 

[greymog]

I hate finding something I like one page one of a thread, liking/quoting it, and then going all the way to page 3, forgetting i wrote something, and then wondering why some guy sounds like a moron talking about some point two pages old, and realize it's me.

 

[Gary Huff]

Film language. The viewer is still conditioned to suspend dibelief with 24fps, but be more critical with higher (reality) frame rates. So when the viewer sees that there are a bunch of computer animations, and dwarves with wigs, and it is shot with a modern high frame rate, they expect reality, and the judgment becomes very critical of the illusion. The illusion is revealed for a fake, and the viewing experienced is diminished.

Are you perhaps referencing the complaint that things started to look fake with the "dwarves with wigs" comment? Because I feel that partially why people's minds reject it isn't necessarily that the "seams" (of the sfx) are showing. First, I will agree that the high frame rate is problematic for purely CG elements at this time. Motion blur can help mask some of the imperfections that our current level of technology still deals with. But as far as swords and Gandalf's staff looking like props, and the makeup showing, I don't know if I agree, simply because I didn't notice. I think people are confusing what looks out of place with issues concerning the props, effects and makeup for the physical elements of the film. I think it has to do with the fact that if it look utterly real, our minds will still reject it because it doesn't fit with our reality.

Take a CGI dinosaur, modeled absolutely perfect in every way to the point where, objectively, it legitimately looks real. It would still seem fake because it's not our reality. We don't have live dinosaurs.

However, the tiger in Life of Pi looks ridiculously damn good. Our minds don't reject it because there are tigers out there.

So the dwarves aren't going to look "right" because they don't exist in our world, yet the framerate sells a kind of reality we're not use to seeing.

 

[Gary Huff]

On the flip side, things like shallow dof and lens flare, while still beautiful are beginning to betray an adolescent shallowness and hipster content.

Something that I find absolutely pompous and a display of a total ignorance when it comes to production is the use of matting to 2.40:1 aspect ratio (sometimes even the inclusion of the optical flares plugin!) for event videography. Sure, you'll leave the noise, the poor skin tones (with Canon DSLR), no color correction, or audio leveling, or any of the other processes that you should do to make your video stand out, but damn it, you will throw on black bars for YouTube-destined content just to sell your "cinematography" as you video some girl's sweet sixteen party.

 

[Guest]

Are you perhaps referencing the complaint that things started to look fake with the "dwarves with wigs" comment? Because I feel that partially why people's minds reject it isn't necessarily that the "seams" (of the sfx) are showing. First, I will agree that the high frame rate is problematic for purely CG elements at this time. Motion blur can help mask some of the imperfections that our current level of technology still deals with. But as far as swords and Gandalf's staff looking like props, and the makeup showing, I don't know if I agree, simply because I didn't notice.

Agree with you here. Although, I might add that, eventhough Jurassic Park was not as good, CG wise, I believed it more than The Hobbit. We have a more critical eye for recent films. Meanwhile, I am fine with projected backgrounds for car rides in old Cary Grant films. Vintage allows us to withhold judgement.

I think people are confusing what looks out of place with issues concerning the props, effects and makeup for the physical elements of the film. I think it has to do with the fact that if it look utterly real, our minds will still reject it because it doesn't fit with our reality.

I agree and disagree (for the sake of forum banter)

The dwarves looked fine in the earlier films. Maybe because they were not doing makeup for 3D. But I think it has quite a bit to do with the frame rate. With a frame rate that we associate 'reality television', we begin to expect everything to be absolutely authentic, and not by any will of our own, we become very critical of authenticity.

Context is everything.

So, in a way I am agreeing with you, but also not. Haha.

The frame rate revealed to us that it was a bunch of grown men playing dress up on stages. Because that is what it is in reality.

Take a CGI dinosaur, modeled absolutely perfect in every way to the point where, objectively, it legitimately looks real. It would still seem fake because it's not our reality. We don't have live dinosaurs.

However, the tiger in Life of Pi looks ridiculously damn good. Our minds don't reject it because there are tigers out there.

So the dwarves aren't going to look "right" because they don't exist in our world, yet the framerate sells a kind of reality we're not use to seeing.

I will have to see Life of Pi now. One of my good friends is going to meet him soon. I'm jealous.

 

[j]

"UPLOADERS"... Love it!

 

[Guest]

^ =)

In the video below is a view of a f/.07 lens.

This is a good watch. Nothing revelatory, but shows how Kubrick thought about the realty of things, rather than just following a style. I like the part about his ideas on making a period piece (costume drama), and taking it to another level. I was reminded of the way they copied kubrick's style in Pride and Prejudice with zooms and all(knightly version).

The other aspect of this video is how much importance kubrick put on the tools (don't twist my words here, we all know he went beyond tools). He went out of his way to get a low light beast so he could use candle light. Of course, there is always a preoccupation with tools, but at the end of the day, a tool makes the difference.

A: A tool can make the difference between getting a shot and not.

B: A tool's inherent flaws generate a style around them. Which later become intrinsically associated with the quality of the artist's work itself, become a part of that artist's language.

 

[Inprogress]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant and do excuse my long winded addition. When I was young sitting around the dinner table or along with the parents at their friends, or merely my dad talking about his experiences, I often wished I was able to tell stories like them - because I couldn't. I can't delivery a punch line either - I will be great as an actor who says hilarious things but says it in a nonchalant way.

As the years went on, I watched movies and I think the whole thing for me started when I saw the movie Cocoon back in the 80's - as a child mind you! I was in awe, I wanted to be part of what the people do that made that movie. They told a story.

"Story". That is an important thing today for me at least and it is starting to relate to everything about the cinematic language in my mind - which really started when I thought about the 24p vs 48p thing.

Every aspect of the language must help to tell the story - in most cases, create the world in which the story resides. 24p helps create the world IMO. Our minds fill the gaps using our imagination - why 48p seems real cause our minds has to do less "filling the gaps".

In the words of the chef in Ratatouille "Anyone can cook" but as properly explained by the character Anton Ego, "not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere"

In this discussion it comes down to the internet allowing a ton of people to tell their little stories and for the most part we find it entertaining cause it is a story. But, the cinematic language allows those of us who pay attention to it, use it and apply it properly and in new ways, to become great story tellers. Plus, as story tellers we have, or we should have a responsibility to tell the stories that evoke discussion in the world. I mean, if you really have nothing to say about something, why bother. If you don't want to tell a story in the best way you possibly can, why bother. Times may change but standards must remain otherwise we sink into a cesspool of garbage where a huge number of movies are made which carry no real story, no real weight, and is only entertaining but forgotten once you walk out the theatre or return the DVD cause the movie only followed the recipe of the new movie which was largely privately funded. Just like many thin shallow DoF is cinematic, many Hollywood movies think a good story is one which was made in the same way as the privately owned one. However, now we enter the discussion of art over life, or art whilst being able to eat.

It could be and probably is selfish and egotistical cause I really want to be remember one day when I leave this life as being at least a good story teller. Many people I hope will remember me and reference me in the future after my death, but hardly anyone will reference Nancy Catvideo on youtube.

Alas, verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me just say it is a very interesting discussion which does not answer all of my questions on the cinematic laguage and its application in this modern consumer world.

 

[Guest]

Not sure if this is entirely relevant and do excuse my long winded addition. When I was young sitting around the dinner table or along with the parents at their friends, or merely my dad talking about his experiences, I often wished I was able to tell stories like them - because I couldn't. I can't delivery a punch line either - I will be great as an actor who says hilarious things but says it in a nonchalant way.

As the years went on, I watched movies and I think the whole thing for me started when I saw the movie Cocoon back in the 80's - as a child mind you! I was in awe, I wanted to be part of what the people do that made that movie. They told a story.

"Story". That is an important thing today for me at least and it is starting to relate to everything about the cinematic language in my mind - which really started when I thought about the 24p vs 48p thing.

Every aspect of the language must help to tell the story - in most cases, create the world in which the story resides. 24p helps create the world IMO. Our minds fill the gaps using our imagination - why 48p seems real cause our minds has to do less "filling the gaps".

In the words of the chef in Ratatouille "Anyone can cook" but as properly explained by the character Anton Ego, "not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere"

In this discussion it comes down to the internet allowing a ton of people to tell their little stories and for the most part we find it entertaining cause it is a story. But, the cinematic language allows those of us who pay attention to it, use it and apply it properly and in new ways, to become great story tellers. Plus, as story tellers we have, or we should have a responsibility to tell the stories that evoke discussion in the world. I mean, if you really have nothing to say about something, why bother. If you don't want to tell a story in the best way you possibly can, why bother. Times may change but standards must remain otherwise we sink into a cesspool of garbage where a huge number of movies are made which carry no real story, no real weight, and is only entertaining but forgotten once you walk out the theatre or return the DVD cause the movie only followed the recipe of the new movie which was largely privately funded. Just like many thin shallow DoF is cinematic, many Hollywood movies think a good story is one which was made in the same way as the privately owned one. However, now we enter the discussion of art over life, or art whilst being able to eat.

It could be and probably is selfish and egotistical cause I really want to be remember one day when I leave this life as being at least a good story teller. Many people I hope will remember me and reference me in the future after my death, but hardly anyone will reference Nancy Catvideo on youtube.

Alas, verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me just say it is a very interesting discussion which does not answer all of my questions on the cinematic laguage and its application in this modern consumer world.

very relevant.

 

[Guest]

90 Years of film together again 1922-2012

90 Years of film together again 1922-2012

These two clips are 90 years apart, and share an eerie similarity.

Some of the psychological reactions are obvious, and at the forefront of our minds. Like old footage evokes a certain nostalgia, reminds us of people passed. This can creep me out at times, but there is still a heavy dose of nostalgia:

This clip tells a story. It may not have intended to, because it was a film stock test.

Then there is this one which comes from about a year ago. Reading some of the description below the video on vimeo will give it more meaning, but even without context it is still powerful imagery: