The Social Network - David Fincher's next!

vcassel said:
I've only seen it the once, and I don't remember the framing, but are you sure this wasn't used just on the close-ups and medium close-ups when it's conventional to cut a bit off the top in order to frame in thirds?

Usually, a lot of upper space above the characters indicates an oppressive heaviness on the characters; the opposite indicating a carefree quality or lightness to the film. A filmmaker's visual strategy can run against these conventions and be easily grasped by an audience as long as it's consistent.
Click to expand...

I did note that it was to include the rule of thirds, but you could still back the camera up (or zoom out I suppose) and reframe including the rule of thirds. I am not sure, but I guess it is just from my stills background that I would shy away from doing that. Maybe I just haven't noticed it in enough other movies for it to "feel" right to me.
 
JPM Photography said:
Quick question:

after watching this I noticed that the ENTIRE time people's heads were chopped off at the top. I have seen this some in some movies, but not so consistently. Any specific reason or just that they wanted that framing?

I would tend to think that I would leave a bit more room up there (but that is me coming from a stills background)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I've been watching the DVD all week and nothing seems wrong. The very tip-tops of people's heads are cut off very slightly in close-ups, but that's it. It's not as if the frame ends at people's eyebrows. Did you see the film in theaters? Because that could just be the projectionist's fault for not matting it properly.
 
JPM Photography said:
I did note that it was to include the rule of thirds, but you could still back the camera up (or zoom out I suppose) and reframe including the rule of thirds. I am not sure, but I guess it is just from my stills background that I would shy away from doing that. Maybe I just haven't noticed it in enough other movies for it to "feel" right to me.
Click to expand...

It's a typical framing convention for close-ups and medium close-ups depending on where in the face the compositional focus needs to be--usually the eye in the upper left of the screen, but sometimes the mouth.

Excuse my possibly talking down to you by saying that cinematography and photography are the same but different. In cinematography you have additional layers of context that photography simply can't aspire to. You have a lot more freedom to crop in a close-up in order to focus on an emotional reaction to something that happened in a two-shot or master. It's all the shots together that count, not the single one.
 
Last edited:
JPM Photography said:
Maybe I just haven't noticed it in enough other movies for it to "feel" right to me.
Click to expand...

Nah, they got it right. These guys are professionals, you think they'd hire someone who didn't know how to shoot the thing? :Drogar-Kriz(DBG): Check out the book Cinemetography by Blain Brown for more on why they give actors haircuts.

All kidding aside, I saw this last night. Enjoyed it and will probably watch it again tonight. It's an interesting tale, and I daresay a tough subject to make into a film, as it's an unfolding story.

It wasn't absolutely riveting, but I believe someone mentioned they could have watched another half hour or so. I felt no need for the film to end and was kind of bummed when it did.
 
JPM Photography said:
Quick question:

after watching this I noticed that the ENTIRE time people's heads were chopped off at the top. I have seen this some in some movies, but not so consistently. Any specific reason or just that they wanted that framing?

I would tend to think that I would leave a bit more room up there (but that is me coming from a stills background)

Thoughts?

SPOILER?:
(BTW, I did think it was a good, interesting movie. I love the way they told the stories via the court cases. And the actor who played Mark (idk his name) was great.)
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the film since it didn't show in my hometown, but I used to work as a projectionist.

If you saw it on 35mm, it could be that the film was just loaded one peg off, and the projectionist working that night was either too lazy or too busy to check it when the 35mm trailers or when the actual film started depending on the routines of that particular theater.

It's a simple mistake to make.
 
^ Every once in a while I've seen films where boom mics are visible in the shot. (American Gangster) Jawa, I guess that might be if it was loaded one peg off the *other* way?
 
Deepfocus88 said:
^ Every once in a while I've seen films where boom mics are visible in the shot. (American Gangster) Jawa, I guess that might be if it was loaded one peg off the *other* way?
Click to expand...
Yeah. If it happens, just let the projectionist know somehow by talking to the staff. It's a quick and easy fix, turning a knob slightly. They don't have to stop the film or anything.

Sometimes the projectionist that loaded the film before that one loaded it wrong and adjusted with the knob. If the next projectionist doesn't check this when he's loading the film (because he's in a hurry or lazy or simply forgets), you get these problems. Or he just simply loads the film wrong himself. That's also a simple mistake to make because you have to meassure by eyesight.
 
Last edited:
I'd be ok with this going home with the best pic and best director oscars this year. I think Fincher deserves it. I loved Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and CCoBB.
 
The Social Network came out on DVD this week and I've been watching it about three times a day, every day since Tuesday.
Click to expand...

I took this post from another thread. When I originally saw it I found it absurd……but having bought the bluray, I really can't believe how this film has grown on me.

There's some really nice BTS stuff on disc two that I'm just getting into. A good 90 minute piece on the making of where you see the interactions of Fincher, Sorkin and the actors. Check it out!
 
Deepfocus88 said:
I took this post from another thread. When I originally saw it I found it absurd……but having bought the bluray, I really can't believe how this film has grown on me.

There's some really nice BTS stuff on disc two that I'm just getting into. A good 90 minute piece on the making of where you see the interactions of Fincher, Sorkin and the actors. Check it out!
Click to expand...

What can I say? Some films are just very re-watchable for me. The only thing the DVD is missing are the trailers, but they're probably still floating around the internet. One of the rare instances where the trailer does the film justice.
 
I agree, the film is extremely re-watchable. I've watched it many times now, with the commentaries on/off, the BTS were fantastic as well. There's so much more to what makes The Social Network my favorite film of 2010 than just how amazing the film is. I think Fincher will find this film of his slowly but surely working its way into the homes of many as it catches word and continues to pick up awards (like it could gather many more anyways!). Fincher has said many times he would prefer not to become super famous or make a big hit because of all the bad that can come with it, but I don't think he'll have a choice on this one. It's no 800 million dollar blockbuster, but it's still a masterpiece for him...and that's enough to leave a lasting mark.
 
Ogrus said:
Boring crap about a nerd that made a website...
Half way thru the movie fell asleep
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a brilliant and interesting film about an anti-social nerd who, rather ironically, finds success creating the most popular social networking website in the world, destroying his relationship with his only true friend in the process. It simultaneously tells a dramatic human story and comments on the way social networking websites have changed the way people interact with each other.
 
I enjoyed Social Network so much I decided to rent a film along similar lines: Pirates of Silicon Valley. Guess what? It doesn't really hold up from what I remember 11 years ago. I enjoyed the acting and characters, but there's not enough content and the film has many shortcomings. (made for TV, dammit, every scene is constantly dipping to black!)

So I got to thinking, this would be a great remake. the mac/pc story is obviously compelling (and like Facebook, still unfolding as we type) I think it would be cool to see Pirates redone in a much longer, edgier, big screen rendition. And really try and drive home the (alleged) betrayals and wrongdoings. (And give the film better visual effects.) :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

You know, you watch a typical bio pic, "Gee this Howard Hughes guy, boy was he eccentric." And that's great. But when you're dealing with something that's unfolding around us, I just find whats going on with the technology boom and the internet fascinating. And worth making movies about.
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
I agree, it is a brilliant and interesting film about an anti-social nerd who, rather ironically, finds success creating the most popular social networking website in the world, destroying his relationship with his only true friend in the process. It simultaneously tells a dramatic human story and comments on the way social networking websites have changed the way people interact with each other.
Click to expand...

Teeheeheehee :thumbsup:
 
Billy Pilgrim said:
I agree, it is a brilliant and interesting film about an anti-social nerd who, rather ironically, finds success creating the most popular social networking website in the world, destroying his relationship with his only true friend in the process. It simultaneously tells a dramatic human story and comments on the way social networking websites have changed the way people interact with each other.
Click to expand...

Dont know how much of this movie is based on real life. But for me the movie was about a guy who was trying to get rid of people standing in his way ...or that he did not need anymore.
He never had any friends he made Facebook to impress a chick(, which is universally OK !:) who called him an A- hole. You can even see his face polarized on the site. Is this part true !?
How much "airtime" did facebook get the site probably just 5 minutes or less. The effect that is Facebook doesn't come over very strong in the movie.


Deepfocus88 said:
Teeheeheehee :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
:)




Great movie though !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top