Will this type of filmmaking bore modern audiences?

[Gillvane]

Notice how they are both in focus, but if I want to blur out the background I would have to rack focus back and forth between the two of them. If I were directing that scene, just as an example, do you think it would be worth racking focus to the wife, to show emotion, or would it not be worth it since you cannot see her face, compared to him?

Worry about the script and the performance of your actors. Get those two parts right and your audience won't give a crap about the rack focus.

When you have a budget and can spend the time and money for a crew, THEN worry about the rack focus. The rack focus is like the cherry on top. Worry about making a good cake first, THEN go get the cherry. Nobody wants a crappy piece of cake with a cherry on it.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Perfect!

Worry about the script and the performance of your actors. Get those two parts right and your audience won't give a crap about the rack focus.

When you have a budget and can spend the time and money for a crew, THEN worry about the rack focus. The rack focus is like the cherry on top. Worry about making a good cake first, THEN go get the cherry. Nobody wants a crappy piece of cake with a cherry on it.

IMO this sums up the primary failure in many, many movies. At *all* levels of budget.

 

[ironpony]

Okay thanks, but I am just planning ahead since most locations have bad art direction. Shooting shallow and racking, is the fail safe to bad art direction, or at least I think it could be, unless their are better options.

 

[Ted Spencer]

Lots of ways to do it badly though. You need skilled people to do it well.

 

[nycineaste]

ARRRRRGGGGGGGGG STOP WORRYING ABOUT YOUR DAMN LOCATION ANY LOCATION CAN BE SHOT WELL OR POORLY ITS CALLED ---PHOTOGRAPHY------ALSO KNOWN AS COMPOSITION. (although if your location doesn't fit your story, well, that's a problem)... and nonononnonononononon.....blurring the background is not the answer---thats goofy--- what you gonna do pretend the whole story takes place in "blurry land"???? -COMMMPPOOOOSSIIITTIIIOONNN is the answer..... foreground framing( shoot over or through foreground), framing out unneccessary visual "noise"- junk that doesn't help the picture and distracts (fiddly bits I call them), creating depth by placing the actors and choosing a good angle, dividing the space in a n interesting fashion/interesting subject placement (rule of thirds helps with this) etc. Learn how, or get a DP that is learning how TO MAKE A ----PICTURE---- BY PLACEMENT OF THE CAMERA. gee.....lemme give you an example: Lets say you have something ugly in your set-- something you don't like.... if you place the camera LOOOOWWWWW....looking up at the actors... notice how...ALL OF A SUDDEN.....that annoying thing in your background,-- check it out-----MAAAGGGIICCAAALLLLYYYYYY DIASSAAPEARS!!!!!!!! Its FRAMED OUT. That's called.....PICTURE-MAKING/COMPOSITION/CINEMATOGRAPHY/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. By moving the camera, up down right left, sometimes ONE INCH, you make things in the background MOVE- they MAGICALLY enter and exit and go up and down and right and left in the frame. heres a shot from citizen kane--- yes they have a nice location, but the techniques used to make a GOOD PICTURE can be done in any location!!!!!!!

 

[ironpony]

Okay thanks, I have thought of that. But if you put the camera in a weird place to block out something ugly, than the shot results in a weird looking angle. What if i a low angle is not called for? If I do that people will just say I put the camera too low for no reason for the story. If I put it too high, etc. I think that putting the camera too low, or too high, or something like that will make the movie look worse, because the scene does not emotionally call for such an angle. If that makes sense. Shooting into the corner of the room... I have no problem with that. But what if emotionally, the shot calls for more of a straight shot, and the location does not look as good as a straight shot, but you need a straight shot for emotional reasons? I guess I will have decide what's better if I must choose. Angle vs. emotion, or angle vs. unwanted background scenery.

But if blurring out the background is not the way to go, then I won't. How come so many movies blur out the background nowadays, especially indie movies at festivals? I thought they did this to hide poor backgrounds, that couldn't be helped.

 

[nycineaste]

Okay thanks, I have thought of that. But if you put the camera in a weird place to block out something ugly, than the shot results in a weird looking angle. What if i a low angle is not called for? If I do that people will just say I put the camera too low for no reason for the story. .

alright, very good. I'm glad you mentioned this. Now we are getting somewhere.

there are many, many, many approaches to (any) art. Yes, there are some directors or DPs that would feel that you should "justify" a low angle.... But sometimes, what you do is just good picture-making.

Sure, you can work to make all your photographic choices have "meaning", and eventually you can think that way.

But.....

Theres ALLLOOOTTT to learn in this filmaking stuff, and I hate to break the news to you, but it doesnt even sound like youve grasped the basic ideas of GOOD PICTURE-MAKING/ COMPOSITION/FRAMING which largely involves creating depth on the two-dee screen, and placing subject in ways that are not boring, and framing things out to create an overall single "purpose" to the shot, etc.

SO... WORRY ABOUT THAT FIRST.

Also: noones saying that you go very, very low for most shots. On most shots, you go a ---little--- low, just enough to create a somewhat 3-d effect (its much better than the default boring as crap stiff awkward default eye-level most ppl use)....



But of course, you don't have to go low if you dont want- the other techniques still apply-- overlapping, foreground, etc.
Short answer to your question tho---- put the camera about CHEST HEIGHT to create a little depth on the characters, (plus shoot them looking 45 degrees or so) and noones likely gonna ask you to "justify" it anyway- your not going THAT low. Its still largely an eye level shot.....


but ya know, watch this trailer---- notice all the low angles, high angles, off-center placement , etc. Are they justified by teh story? Well, you COULD say thay are justified by the wild abandon and dizzying joy of the tale. But then again, they werent ARRIVED AT ONLY THAT WAY. The angles also evolved from the DP BEING A GREAT PICTURE MAKER...The two things kind of merge....And isnt almost EVERY MOVIE a DRAMATIC TALE of some sort???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuSTr48P9mc

What story are you telling anyway? I doubt its about making a sandwich. I mean, can you JUSTIFY A BORING EYE LEVEL SHOT?????


In other words, it shouldnt be TOO HARD TO =======JUSTIFY A DRAMATIC ANGLE IN ANY ----DRAMATIC---- STORY========...Get it?


SO DONT WORRY ABOUT " JUSTIFICATION" FOR NOW.


Make depth, start learning to MAKE PICTURES......PS When you're shooting with an awesome high-quality camera, or at least a DSLR (which everyone has now but me), eye-level shots become less boring and ugly, so there's that too (bokeh can be nice-it does CREATE DEPTH, amongst other things rite?!). The rules that apply to Hollywood don't apply to us; we gotta work harder and milk what we got.

 

[ironpony]

Okay thanks. Sometimes chest level shots are okay but I was thinking for this project I would do mostly eye level shots create a certain emotional effect. Chest level may work in some shots I have in the storyboards, I would have test them out. It's a suspense thriller story. When you say eye level shots are boring I guess it would depend on which shot. It doesn't work for all shots, but their were a lot of shots I was thinking of using eye level to create a bit of a claustrophobic effect I guess you could say. But since I want to tell a story that uses a lot of master shots, like an older movie, unwanted things in the background are more open to being seen. Even if I put the actors in certain spots, they are still going to move around.

Here's a scene where I like the mastershot and want a similar one used for a scene in my script where a police captain gives an officer an assignment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU98uP7pXA8

The mastershot looks above chest level.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

ARRRRRGGGGGGGGG STOP WORRYING ABOUT YOUR DAMN LOCATION ANY LOCATION CAN BE SHOT WELL OR POORLY ITS CALLED ---PHOTOGRAPHY------ALSO KNOWN AS COMPOSITION. (although if your location doesn't fit your story, well, that's a problem)... and nonononnonononononon.....blurring the background is not the answer---thats goofy--- what you gonna do pretend the whole story takes place in "blurry land"???? -COMMMPPOOOOSSIIITTIIIOONNN is the answer..... foreground framing( shoot over or through foreground), framing out unneccessary visual "noise"- junk that doesn't help the picture and distracts (fiddly bits I call them), creating depth by placing the actors and choosing a good angle, dividing the space in a n interesting fashion/interesting subject placement (rule of thirds helps with this) etc. Learn how, or get a DP that is learning how TO MAKE A ----PICTURE---- BY PLACEMENT OF THE CAMERA. gee.....lemme give you an example: Lets say you have something ugly in your set-- something you don't like.... if you place the camera LOOOOWWWWW....looking up at the actors... notice how...ALL OF A SUDDEN.....that annoying thing in your background,-- check it out-----MAAAGGGIICCAAALLLLYYYYYY DIASSAAPEARS!!!!!!!! Its FRAMED OUT. That's called.....PICTURE-MAKING/COMPOSITION/CINEMATOGRAPHY/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. By moving the camera, up down right left, sometimes ONE INCH, you make things in the background MOVE- they MAGICALLY enter and exit and go up and down and right and left in the frame. heres a shot from citizen kane--- yes they have a nice location, but the techniques used to make a GOOD PICTURE can be done in any location!!!!!!!

All this shot is missing is the rack focus to background actor, mid background actor, and up to the foreground actress, then a change in f-stop to blur out the back ground more, and then a dolly-zoom, and it's gold.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Okay thanks. Sometimes chest level shots are okay but I was thinking for this project I would do mostly eye level shots create a certain emotional effect. ...

Here's a scene where I like the mastershot and want a similar one used for a scene in my script where a police captain gives an officer an assignment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU98uP7pXA8

The mastershot looks above chest level.

Most of those are 'chest level'. There are two framings for M, for his several close ups. The first one is from a little above the disk height, and 'looks up' to M. The rest are from approximately the same 'chest height' that the rest of the shots that include Quartermaster and Bond, or Bond alone. In the case of the first 'low' show, Bond is handing M the Beretta, who takes it. The shot is somewhat following the gun, since it was Bond's 'favorite'... and is now forced to take the Walther PPK.

 

[ironpony]

Okay thanks. Most of the stuff I have done with friends so far, I wasn't behind the camera. But I guess that would be chest level yes. I want the same type of mastershot, but I don't those close ups and will use different angles for the close ups. I couldn't get an office that nice looking on a shoestring budget though. As long as shooting deep focus is okay, for a very cheap looking office, that does not look a typical office for a police captain, that audiences would associate themselves with. But that's just one example of cheap art direction I would have to deal with.

 

[nycineaste]

that does not look a typical office for a police captain .

no-budget art direction tip: google "office" or "police precinct" etc. try differnet wording ...look at LOTS AND LOTS of pictures, then get some idea of what you need, the broad strokes, to communicate a "cop's office"....you might be surprised how little you need.


Look at REAL LIFE, not other movies. (for example, I once wanted to do an interrogation room. I thought I might need a big room and a swinging light from a ceiling or something, but- a real interrogation room is often just an empty office-type room, with nothing but a table and chair) again---STUDY REAL LIFE, not just the cliché idea that you have in your head from watching movies...


attached an example- thats a REAL cops office. Doesnt look like much to me- a desk and a bulletin board and a framed certificate of some kind--- that might be it"...maybe one or two more things I dunno---- DO THE GOOGLE PIC SEARCH AND LOOK AT LOTS OF PHOTOS- don't just trust the first one you see-offices will look differnet, so your trying to learn/figure out HOW LITTLE YOU MAY NEED so you want lots of examples, then you pick and choose stuff THAT YOU CAN MOST EASILY GET/ DO from diff pics, etc.


YOu can print out a phony certificate or whateveres on your computer, take a frame you have or buy one from the 99 cent store, etc

Fake a bulletin board somehow (piece of brown foamcore?) and cover it in news clippings and photos, fake stuff you dl'ed of the internet, etc.

(there, I just did art direction for you).


no-budget art direction tip 2: borrow, check your house for what you already have before u buy anything.... Not to pat myself on the back here or nuthin' but someone should sticky this, this is a damn fine lil no-budget art direction tutorial heres....

 

[jghenderson]

I think that raises an interesting question. Should we really base production design around real life? Oftentimes what something really looks like is just plain ugly, so maybe in the film world it's important to "spice it up" a little bit. Also, if the audience goes in with a very specific perception of what something should look like (for instance a police interrogation room), if you try to do something different, you are fighting against years of prejudice they have built up. Sure it might be in the name of "reality", but in the end it might be distracting to them and thus not worth it.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I think that raises an interesting question. Should we really base production design around real life? Oftentimes what something really looks like is just plain ugly, so maybe in the film world it's important to "spice it up" a little bit. Also, if the audience goes in with a very specific perception of what something should look like (for instance a police interrogation room), if you try to do something different, you are fighting against years of prejudice they have built up. Sure it might be in the name of "reality", but in the end it might be distracting to them and thus not worth it.

If you write scripts that are to be sold to others, usually with money... then sure, write anything that make sense for the story, since the buyer, impressed enough with the story to buy it... will get the money for the set decoration, and the art director to go with it...

On the other hand, if you plan to shoot the film yourself on nolo budget terms... write scenes that are as close to what you can 'afford'... which is nothing... hence, you must 'live off the land' so to speak. As for specifically 'police' offices... other than the placards and messages on 'wall art'... there is not much difference between a police station and an ordinary office. Where prisoners may held, and the entrance ways, etc. may have a gun locker, or the like, and further towards 'jail' things start looking more 'secure'... but for the usual working office space... it's... well... office space... including someone looking for his stapler.

I don't know what current New York police offices, you know the 'iconic' rundown precinct office look like... (heck I don't think we in So. Cal call them 'precints'. We have voting precints... but I think police agences use words like 'division' or 'substation'), but those in the So. Cal, and to Texas look 'ordinary office space'... like.

I think it is a matter of get the actors/actresses in 'uniforms', put 'police' oriented info placards up... and there will be the willing suspension of disbelief as required.

 

[nycineaste]

so maybe in the film world it's important to "spice it up" a little bit. .

Dude, you're killin' me.


I ALREADY TOLD YOU HOW TO SPICE IT UP.


It's called.....PICTURE MAKING BY PLACEMENT OF THE CAMERA.....ALSO KNOWN AS CINEMATOGRAPHY.....ALSO KNOWN AS......

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Dude, you're killin' me.


I ALREADY TOLD YOU HOW TO SPICE IT UP.


It's called.....PICTURE MAKING BY PLACEMENT OF THE CAMERA.....ALSO KNOWN AS CINEMATOGRAPHY.....ALSO KNOWN AS......

I personally prefer 'spicing it up' with a nude woman, or at least one wearing no undies, then we can talk about composition and camera placement... Otherwise the the shot that you have selected, boils down to typical depiction of abuse inflicted on males, and usually garner no untoward comment, and of course usually only receives at most a PG-13 rating... rather 'ho hum'... sort of in terms of 'spicy' asking for a 1 in a range of 1-10 in a curry restaurant...

 

[ironpony]

I think that raises an interesting question. Should we really base production design around real life? Oftentimes what something really looks like is just plain ugly, so maybe in the film world it's important to "spice it up" a little bit. Also, if the audience goes in with a very specific perception of what something should look like (for instance a police interrogation room), if you try to do something different, you are fighting against years of prejudice they have built up. Sure it might be in the name of "reality", but in the end it might be distracting to them and thus not worth it.

I suggested some locations to friends of for a police station. The movie I want to do requires an interrogation room as well. But two of my friends said that real life locations will not cut it with most audiences, cause audiences are too use to movie locations and realistic locations will just come off as fake to most audiences. Is that true?

As far as spicing it up, I am up for doing that in a lot of shots. It's just the mainly the mastershots I am worried about since you see a lot more of the room.

 

[nycineaste]

Dude that's enough of you- youre gonna put me in the crazy house....


Im basically giving you a lil' course in cinematic picture making and youre fighting me on it. Hopefully someone else gets something from my ramblings cause you are driving me loco bonkers. Im trying to give you the secret sauce to DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH WHAT YOU GOT and youre over here talking about stuff that you aint got no money for anyways....you got money for art direction? Fill the location with as much stuff as you like!!!!!

Im going to find you, and beat you senseless with a stick labeled C-C-C-C-C--O-M--


urk!!


<keels over from heart attack>.....

 

[Josh Bass]

Can we scrap the original idea and make a sitcom where nycinaste and ironpony are roommates?

 

[ironpony]

No you're right. I am just worried the new storyboards won't be as good. But thanks, I will do it as you said. Sorry for contesting so much.