Will this type of filmmaking bore modern audiences?

[ironpony]

Porn is actually one genre, where in my opinion, the one take does not work, or at least they are not making it work. I saw one where a guy tries to ejaculate in a woman's mouth, misses, then is flies onto the carpet. She scoops it off the carpet and then eats it. They were too cheap to reshoot, and they seemed to have no coverage to cut too, to get rid of that. But now that I've made my point about how I hate porn master shots, back to me...

I do plan on getting coverage, aside from the mastershot. Close ups of the characters and to throw into the editing, when the emotion of the story calls for for certain reactions. So it's not like I will just be getting the mastershot only. As far as what some indie filmmakers are doing, and getting lots and lots of shots, I don't really have time on my low budget, and am actually limited to my number of shots. But still want to get close ups as well as a few takes of the master. However, in those scene examples I showed, they seem to have a smooth enough dolly to roll wherever they want in the master. I will not have locations with that smooth of floor, so I will either have to steadicam it, or just make it a still, static shot. Still figuring out which gear I will need. The thing about the steadicam is I would need a separate focus puller, since the operator of the steadicam cannot do both, or I will have to make sure that the operator and actors do not step out of the focus zone as they all move around, which will be tough!

 

[jghenderson]

Porn is actually one genre, where in my opinion, the one take does not work, or at least they are not making it work. I saw one where a guy tries to ejaculate in a woman's mouth, misses, then is flies onto the carpet. She scoops it off the carpet and then eats it. They were too cheap to reshoot, and they seemed to have no coverage to cut too, to get rid of that. But now that I've made my point about how I hate porn master shots, back to me...

Ironically that "mistake" probably says a lot more about human sexuality and pornography than 99% of porn out there.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

"Long takes" and "long establishing takes" are two totally different beasts. Long establishing shots are just that while long takes need the drama of the take justify lack of cutting. Tarkovsky is awfully boring to me but also awfully amazing at how he stages his scenes.

For instance here at 00:06:50:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCTMM1iZ5Lw

Guy walks down a field then stops walks up to a girl and ask for a light. All in one take and all truly amazing. It starts very wide, he stops and ask a question then walks close to the girl (the shots turn CU from wide) as the camera pans. The camera keeps on panning and the shot becomes CU of her until he enters the frame and the shot is a double. He leaves the frame (single of her again), the camera starts dollying concentrating on seemingly insignificant detail of her hair, camera stops when the shot gets medium wide, he enters the frame (double again) and she looks into the camera. Amazing!

Now the above was done for a very specific reason. If the scene was simply about a guy asking for directions, flirting then asking for a cigarette then there is no reason to create such complicated dance of actors and camera - all you had to do was typical wide, OTS to her, OTS to him, maybe a CU then splice it all in the edit but then the scene wouldn't have the poetry as it has now.

 

[jghenderson]

I adore that scene Patryk. There's another scene from Zerkalo, the reveal of the barn on fire. Simply stunning. I would agree Tarkovsky can qualify as boring, but he's also probably the most poetic filmmaker in history and made some of the worlds greatest films. He's the guy that completely changed my view on what cinema could be.

 

[mail4joeg]

Well even the guy who loves Tarkovsky admits he's "boring." Whew.

"Tarkovsky talks about how long takes allows the viewers mind to wander, to make connections, to develop a relationship to the work that is much more spiritual than intellectual."

And to wander to lots of other stuff NOT related to the movie.

The guy is seriously hit and miss. Reason: he often doesn't have enough going on at a given interval to hold attention. The takes where he meticulously stages action can be interesting. The takes where the camera lingers and lingers -- cut!

Once the audience is thinking about their everyday lives, you've failed. They have a "rule" that always gets bandied about in the US: Don't be boring. Most filmmakers go the opposite extreme and throw everything they can in, which is also a mistake (Bay?), but they get their **** made. And distributed.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well even the guy who loves Tarkovsky admits he's "boring." Whew.

"Tarkovsky talks about how long takes allows the viewers mind to wander, to make connections, to develop a relationship to the work that is much more spiritual than intellectual."

And to wander to lots of other stuff NOT related to the movie.

The guy is seriously hit and miss. Reason: he often doesn't have enough going on at a given interval to hold attention. The takes where he meticulously stages action can be interesting. The takes where the camera lingers and lingers -- cut!

Once the audience is thinking about their everyday lives, you've failed. They have a "rule" that always gets bandied about in the US: Don't be boring. Most filmmakers go the opposite extreme and throw everything they can in, which is also a mistake (Bay?), but they get their **** made. And distributed.

Not watched much of Tarkovsky, but much more of Peter Greenaway... same feeling... shots well constructed but too damn long to keep me in the film... Kubrick almost gets me there as well, but I think he's shot length was slightly shorter... and so did keep me 'in the movie'... mostly... except for "Barry Lyndon"(1975)... and that was mostly Ryan ONeil's fault... there are just some actors who I just plane can not stand...

 

[jghenderson]

The guy is seriously hit and miss. Reason: he often doesn't have enough going on at a given interval to hold attention. The takes where he meticulously stages action can be interesting. The takes where the camera lingers and lingers -- cut!

Once the audience is thinking about their everyday lives, you've failed.

That's a very narrow minded view of what film can be.

And Tarkovsky doesn't have enough going on? I find it to be the exact opposite. Tarkovsky's films are filled with more depth and meaning than 99% of other cinema out there. So much so that you can watch his films dozens of times and still not catch everything he is saying. On the other hand, a lot of "entertaining" films can be figured out first run, and have nothing more to say. Sure, the first time watching a Tarkovsky film can be much more boring than the first view of an "entertaining" film, but on the 5th watch you will still be getting something out of the Tarkovsky film and the other film will be stale.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

That's a very narrow minded view of what film can be.

And Tarkovsky doesn't have enough going on? I find it to be the exact opposite. Tarkovsky's films are filled with more depth and meaning than 99% of other cinema out there. So much so that you can watch his films dozens of times and still not catch everything he is saying. On the other hand, a lot of "entertaining" films can be figured out first run, and have nothing more to say. Sure, the first time watching a Tarkovsky film can be much more boring than the first view of an "entertaining" film, but on the 5th watch you will still be getting something out of the Tarkovsky film and the other film will be stale.

YUP! With smart films you do get more for your $.

 

[mail4joeg]

I can't agree that "don't be boring" equates to a "narrow minded view of what film can be." Way to put your ad hominems out front and center though. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is "narrow minded" by definition.

There's a million ways not to be boring. Deliberately being boring, however, isn't one of them. I find Tarkovsky tedious and mostly unwatchable. Perhaps I've only seen a small sampling of his work. Not chomping at the bit for more though.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

I can't agree that "don't be boring" equates to a "narrow minded view of what film can be." Way to put your ad hominems out front and center though. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is "narrow minded" by definition.

There's a million ways not to be boring. Deliberately being boring, however, isn't one of them. I find Tarkovsky tedious and mostly unwatchable. Perhaps I've only seen a small sampling of his work. Not chomping at the bit for more though.

I think he meant that boring doesn't necessary mean unwatchable - one doesn't exclude the other. Myself including i find Tarkowsky boring but brilliant at the same time. Sure he's not my first go-to guy when considering what film to watch tonight but he still resides way above many "non boring" filmmakers.

 

[ironpony]

If that youtube clip was Tarkovsky, than that is really not at all what I am going for. Sure that is a mastershot, but they are not at all like the mastershots I want. The mastershots I want are shot from possibly different angles to convey different tones, depending. But also their is a lot more dialogue and plot going. The script I want to do, is a fast pace police thriller (micro-budget of course), but still the dialogue is a lot faster in most the scenes, cause people have to talk in a hurry. So I don't think that even though they are mastershots, that the audience will be bored, but I could be wrong...

 

[Ken Hull]

Since someone mentioned "deliberately boring", I'll mention a scene in Lawrence of Arabia. You know the one, where the Sherif Ali (Omar Sherif) character is introduced. He starts out in the far distance, barely a spec on the horizon. The shot seems to go on forever. The audience is lulled into a sense that nothing is going to happen. Then when he gets close enough to clearly identify Lawrence's guide, BANG! :kali: Sherif Ali shoots the guide (and shocks the audience).

Come to think of it, I've seen that technique used in horror movies. There's a long boring shot that causes the audience to relax, thinking that there is no monster; then BOO! :shocked:, the monster attacks.

-- Ken

 

[jghenderson]

I can't agree that "don't be boring" equates to a "narrow minded view of what film can be." Way to put your ad hominems out front and center though. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is "narrow minded" by definition.

There's a million ways not to be boring. Deliberately being boring, however, isn't one of them. I find Tarkovsky tedious and mostly unwatchable. Perhaps I've only seen a small sampling of his work. Not chomping at the bit for more though.

Of course someone is not narrow minded just for disagreeing with me. That would be ridiculous. However I wont' hesitate to call a belief narrow minded when it so quickly dismisses a body of work because it's just not "entertaining" enough. I believe cinema (and art) has a greater purpose than merely distracting someone for a view hours and imparting a cliche'd and shallow view of the world.

 

[ironpony]

Well thanks people for all the input. You know what I haven't dealt with much yet... wheeling a dolly around would cause noise to be picked up by the mic. How do you pros avoid it?

 

[mail4joeg]

“I believe cinema (and art) has a greater purpose than merely distracting someone for a view hours and imparting a cliche'd and shallow view of the world.”
​

Straight from Ad Hominems to Straw Men.

Do you intend to check off a list of logical fallacies, Henderson?Here’s a hint: “merely distracting someone for a view hours and imparting a cliche'd and shallow view of the world”

No one is arguing for this. No one. Not here. Probably not anywhere. It’s all fine and well to respond to points that no one makes, but that’s not an intelligent discussion, now, is it?

As for the Lawrence of Arabia shot, it’s apples to oranges. That shot is not one where nothing is happening, quite the opposite. A far-off figure approaches, in the desert, in a war zone no less. That is classic suspense, obviously leading to his eventual arrival. Every moment increases the tension as he gets closer. The comparison is invalid.

There’s this “narrow minded” snobby attitude that pops up here from time to time that slow boring films where not a lot happens somehow are “intelligent” by virtue of their sluggishness. Not quite. Pretentious, I’ll agree. But intelligence demands more. Emotional resonance demands more too.

Filmmaking has evolved toward a quicker pace generally because people can accept quite a lot of information. They can multitask. They can absorb a lot of things simultaneously. That in itself has no bearing on the “intelligence” or the “world view” of any given film, and that’s quite a ridiculous point to try and make.

It’s a stylistic component that either acknowledges the viewer’s ability to accept more stimuli, or it doesn’t. This battle between giving the viewer too little or too much at any given moment is at the heart of filmmaking, be it the good kind, the bad kind, or whatever in between. It is something that every editor and director needs to keep in mind on every cut and every sound they incorporate into the piece.

Deciding to have long drawn out shots without the coverage to intercut and break up the monotony can backfire, when attempted by lesser mortals. Sometimes shots drag. They take too long to get to the point. If you are stuck with extra seconds that really should be cut, then your film will suffer. Most people (viewers) don’t like having their valuable time wasted on trivialities, non-essentials. You can quickly wear out your audience’s patience. Those are the facts of life, in cinema, as I see them.

You can pontificate all you like now. Try and keep it on topic.

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

There’s this “narrow minded” snobby attitude that pops up here from time to time that slow boring films where not a lot happens somehow are “intelligent” by virtue of their sluggishness. Not quite. Pretentious, I’ll agree. But intelligence demands more. Emotional resonance demands more too.

Filmmaking has evolved toward a quicker pace generally because people can accept quite a lot of information. They can multitask. They can absorb a lot of things simultaneously. That in itself has no bearing on the “intelligence” or the “world view” of any given film, and that’s quite a ridiculous point to try and make.

You are confusing intelligence with data gathering. Intelligence is where you gather facts AND process that data to reach new conclusions. So A + B thus C. Or sometimes as simple as: "i know there is a meaning behind it but i don't have time, patience or desire to figure out that meaning" (A + B thus something). Just because we can gather more date doesn't mean that we can process it better or faster. If anything the opposite is true. Tons of data means that reaching any tangible conclusions will be that much more difficult. That's why certain slowness is imperative. Slowness doesn't necessary mean boredom and definitely doesn't mean pretentious. If anything its a more ambitious form of filmmaking. ANYBODY can just throw tons of data at you but not anyone can present selective information that's suppose to generate new ideas, responses etc in you.

 

[nycineaste]

Filmmaking has evolved toward a quicker pace generally because people can accept quite a lot of information.

Huh?? have you ever seen an Eisenstein movie? The idea that movies and audiences have "advanced" as time has passed is just youth-centric. They've both gotten worse in some ways.

Also, fact pace isn't always better. I, personally, am working at learning an editing heavy style (Im studying the soviet silents, robert rodriguez, and dawn of the dead-era george romero), but it can be done badly and often is.

Here you go- David Bordwell knows more about cinema than all of us combined:

on fast cutting when its done bad (which is quite often):

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2010/09/15/bond-vs-chan-jackie-shows-how-its-done/

on blocking and staging:

[url]http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2010/06/01/the-cross/




[/URL]

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

nycineaste, you are quoting wrong person.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Well thanks people for all the input. You know what I haven't dealt with much yet... wheeling a dolly around would cause noise to be picked up by the mic. How do you pros avoid it?

Poor ironpony, your technical questions are being lost in a sea of theory!

This is a little complicated to answer--if you are talking about rolling a dolly with soft tires on a wood floor that creaks under the weight, that can usually be improved with a few properly applied finishing nails in the right places, but of course you are still nailing into someone's floor, so that should be done with permission!! Generally using a dance floor helps because it spreads the weight across multiple boards. Then there is the occasional squeak of the tires (like sneakers on a gym floor), in which case the dolly grip will use anything from talc to spray on deodorant on the floor to silence. Outside of that, a proper crab dolly is silent. A makeshift one might well make noise, but I couldn't address how to resolve that other than WD-40 or the like.

I would probably suggest that if this film is important to you, which it obviously is, you should seek out an experienced DP who can help you manage these sort of issues. And you'll learn a lot about filmmaking from him or her along the way (including your questions about staging and blocking).

 

[jghenderson]

​

Filmmaking has evolved toward a quicker pace generally because people can accept quite a lot of information. They can multitask. They can absorb a lot of things simultaneously. That in itself has no bearing on the “intelligence” or the “world view” of any given film, and that’s quite a ridiculous point to try and make.

It’s a stylistic component that either acknowledges the viewer’s ability to accept more stimuli, or it doesn’t. This battle between giving the viewer too little or too much at any given moment is at the heart of filmmaking, be it the good kind, the bad kind, or whatever in between. It is something that every editor and director needs to keep in mind on every cut and every sound they incorporate into the piece.

Deciding to have long drawn out shots without the coverage to intercut and break up the monotony can backfire, when attempted by lesser mortals. Sometimes shots drag. They take too long to get to the point. If you are stuck with extra seconds that really should be cut, then your film will suffer. Most people (viewers) don’t like having their valuable time wasted on trivialities, non-essentials. You can quickly wear out your audience’s patience. Those are the facts of life, in cinema, as I see them.

You can pontificate all you like now. Try and keep it on topic.

So just because people can accept more information, we therefore must provide them information at a quicker pace? How is this not a narrow minded viewpoint on the purpose of art? Should authors not write any book longer than 300 pages unless it has the style and pace of Harry Potter? Should musicians not write a song longer than 5 minutes unless it's fast paced? Your idea that cinema is bound to some purpose of imparting "information" to the audience I find silly. It can have many purposes for many different people. You might find Tarkovsky "tedious and unwatchable", but take a gander at Sight and Sounds recent poll of the top 50 films of all time, and you will find that Tarkovsky has more films in the top 30 than any other filmmaker.