David Bordwell is one of the smartest film guys there is. When people say 'he wrote the book on film', it's no joke. He Wrote the Book on Film. If you've ever taken a film class at the college level, you've read his work. And unlike most people who fall into this category of academic stature - he's really nice, down to earth and all that good stuff.
Here it is: David's Blog LINK
I don't like Hollywood movies. But, I still love movies, and so, my love of movies will sometimes trump my oft-broken heart and I'll let someone, usually the wife, drag me to a Hollywood film. Usually it's so bad, I don't say anything. Like, 'Firewall.' That was bad. Possibly one of the worst peices of crap I've ever seen. He falls asleep after breaking into his friend's house after his family has been kidnapped! Nevermind.
Anyway, 'Blood Diamond' is another reason I don't like Hollywood movies, but it's exactly the kind of Hollywood movie I get fooled by. "Blood Diamond" was an excellent movie at one time. And, then someone added the female love story to it. It may have been the original story for all I know. But, at some time, I bet this movie was about what it was supposed to be about - two men after one thing for their own purposes, in pursuit of which they learn about the costs and value of sacrifice. It's a great story and it's well told. Now, all you have to do is excise the claptrap love story - hammered into terrifying boredom by a stunningly bored Jennifer Connelly and you have yourself one diamond of a movie.
Man, it's too bad.
Anyway -
The gaffs -
Soft focus on the handheld stuff quite frequently, but particularly bad in the alleyway when he meets the soldier of fortune friend for the first time.
A very abrupt beginning to a zoom - but it was a long pull back from a car mirror - to a pan across the street - so, certainly understandable.
Biggest - the green screen shot of Leonardo DiCaprio in the bar the night he meets Jennifer Connelly. Wow. Did that shot suck. One of the worst green screens I've ever seen. Spend the money on reshoots or go with what you got. Don't try to make it halfway and halfassed for nothing. Sheesh.
On a positive note - good, well-directed action scenes. Excellent use of hard light. Strong, contrasy sources abound. Well used. This DP knows what he's doing. His operators could use some practice. Or some sobriety.
Hollywood wins again.
Oh, and Leonardo DiCaprio is an excellent actor. No one of his stature could have sunk themselves into this role so wholly and so well. No one I can think of anyway. Spot-on convincing. Forgot it was him in a heartbeat. That's good casting. Saved this movie.
Is it good? Sure, that's what they all say. And, to a degree, I agree. There is the one requisite scene where one character has to scream at a cop, 'Why won't you listen to me????'. So, that's annoying.
But, the dude can shoot. The lighting is spot on. It's got that awardy-feel to it - the long silent shots in the club; the helicopter on helicopter action, the long dolly shot of a close-up on a boy on a hill;
and Cate Blanchett smoking opium on a dusty Morrocan floor. One rack-zoom felt particularly fake, but, for the most part, the guy (DP) knows his shit and has a good eye. The one Kinoflo I saw in shot could have been there for the news cameras, so it can't really be called a gaffe.
Good camera movement, mostly wise, story-telling decisions, if somewhat overblown at times, but, I give the look an A-.
Any questions?
It made me wish for a larger television.
Much like Funny Ha Ha last night made me wish I could invent a method to keep the volume on my television to remain constant despite what the signal is.
Babel is about the interconnectedness of the modern world not doing so well at bridging communications. Which for me is only barely enough of a reason. But, unlike in '21 Grams', they told the story without too much heavy-handed claptrap.
Amores Perros on the other hand was a damn fine movie all around. So, if you haven't seen that and are questioning seeing Babel, just skip Babel and see Amorres Perros.
What can you learn about filmmaking from 'Babel?' That the second act and first act questions can be two different stories around the same theme. The third act has to break down without regard to those relationships but must maintain the theme. It's not an easy why to tell an obtuse story, but obtuse stories are tough to tell, just make sure that yours really needs this treatment.
How many movies is that ?
keep up the good work.
The first thing you notice is the hard shadow and lack of fill lighting to complete the image. But, this done on the cheap, DIY and all, and so, one wonders what criticisms one should lay bare.
The truth of the matter is, one light isn't that much less expensive to use than two and tow lights looks five times better than one light. Of particular importance is using the limited assets creatively. For instance, and this is just one, after the heroine discovers her friend passed-out in the front seat of her truck and helps her up, it was obvious that you needed exposure. But one thing beginners often forget is that exposure counts all over the frame. Yes, the rich expose the subjects of the frame But us poor folk have to expose other things as well as time and budget allows. So, in this shot, she's helping her friend from the car and into her apartment across a darkened yard, but IN FRONT OF a darkened house. Solution? Turn on the lights in the house- the background lights - thereby exposing their respective shapes in sillhouette. It's exposure in the frame. Murky is not a look, its holes in your shoes.
Got to figure out ways to fill those holes.
But, it was an original movie with a great idea. A very charming and thoughtful approach by the lead actress.
Absolutely worth seeing. Watch for hte green t-shirt macguffin. nice work there too
After the largest snow storm in 50 years hit New York, filmmakers were expected back in and ready without delay. That was true of lighting trucks. So, the dig and the bumper job got started.
Three hours later, success!
You're thrown into a situation to negotiate for a company that has no real ties to you and has only hired you as a mercenary employee, but what you weren't hired to do is to negotiate for them becuase they don't know what's going on and you do.
The problem is, the negotiators know this. They know I don't write the check, I can say that the price is too high until I'm blue and passed out, it doesn't mean anything. She's going to say something like, I've done all I can, we're shootin in the morning let's make the best of it
Anyway. It's a one day job that I won't soon forget and I hope all goes well and I'm home in time for dinner with my wife.
There's a feature that's supposed to start next week, so those should be some interesting posts, for those who've never been on the set of an independent movie, get ready to let the bitching fly free and easy,
I'm going to try and put a lesson in here for business-owners, freelancers and entrepreneurs. I fall into each category and have had one heck of a day juggling.
We're shooting a commercial for a fabric softener on a large stage tomorrow and I had to fly solo on the lighting and grip order. Normally, I would get to see the stage under these circumstances, alas not in this case. That's fine. I've done this many times before. I'll come up with a list, the DP, who HAS seen the place, will get back to me and we'll work it out, all will be hunky dory.
What we didn't plan on was that was the only time I would be talking with anyone. That means that the lighting order I turned in for review became the only lighting order. There was no time to revise, there was no feedback. So, a couple things happened. One, the producer saw the quote from the studio for the equipment and went apeshit. I saw the same quote and thought, hmm, that seems really high. But, it's a commercial. They have lots of money to throw at problems. The problem here being that the studio subrents and only allows their lights onto the floor. Not that uncommon.
So, it got pretty sticky when they wanted me to step in to negotiate. I'm the gaffer. I have no power beyond my knowledge of lights and grip equipment. I'm not writing any checks. What am I going to negotiate. What they wanted me to say was that we knew that they were ripping us off. They wanted me to tell them that and they thought that would make them charge less. But the only thing the owner of the studio was saying was that they were not going to negotiate any further. So, I tried to step away from it.
The producer wasn't exactly happy about that. But, we cut two thirds of the grip and I'm driving my truck to the shoot for and extra 800-dollars, so, I guess it all worked out. What I realized is that, once again, I have no desire to be a producer, and two, I have a definite desire to own a studio. You live on one floor, rent out another, keep you lights on a stage and charge an arm and a leg.
What are you doing during the death of the film age? Not about the death of the film age, the death of film, etc. Through the things we all talk about - scattered media-scattered attention spans, democratization of filmmaking, etc. Just bear with me and let's say that the 20th Century saw the height of film production, which is true and ergo y saw most of it's masterpieces. We don't have to name them, they get trotted out like grandma at the home on Thanksgiving.
But, if the movies and especially the movie-going experience is really changing and will soon be gone for good, what are you going to do, film lover? To find those moments and memories to have with film. And your children, should you prove to be fertile, what experience will you be able to share with them about going to the movies before ads, cellphones and sporting events were the norm? When movies played, people watched, and then talked about the movie, let the movie become a part of their society.
No group of guys that I know, sits around drinking and quoting video games, myspace, or even television shows.
But movies, they get into your head and then into your group and after a while you might stop to wonder, who would we be without 'Caddyshack' (I'm dating myself). Without 'Raising Arizona'?
But as film becomes less film and more television, franchises, thoughtlessness, etc. and we watch as it comes to an end, what do we do?
I feel we can do little beyond getting a bigger screen television, a larger library of DVDs and hope we can someday afford to invest in some up and coming artiste who has found an idea that is filmic and worthy.
It'll happen about once a year. This year, it was 'Half Nelson'. A movie that loved moviemaking. That had an idea in it, simply told with strong, indelible characters. I'd see it again. In a theater. Unless, there's something else on that you think I should see.
One of Bresson's earlier films, it again holds it's hero closely, more so than before with Diary of a Country Priest, I think. One of the first things you notice is that Bresson isn't going to show us what we expect, and we won't know what to expect becuase of it - it immediately gets us off balance. All we see of a robbery is the dough, all we know about the heroes back story is that it was something remarkable. The hero is moving deftly through our emotional audience, picking up what he wanst, his technique is his only exposure. He shows us how its done, and that's about all we get.
Until the third act, when we finally get what really made this sociopath tic. SPOILERS- He wanted nothing more than to succeed on some level for his mother, impress the girl and make good. It wasn't just a life of thievery that led him astray, but one of false philosophy. He was a psuedo intellectual with a desire to stay away from society.
But, like all the smart ones, he wanted to dare them to catch him and we all know how that ends.
But, he gets his love in a way in the end, and it's all hopeful and stuff.
Again, we stick with the medium shots and close ups. Bresson always plays it close to the chest it seems. His most dramatic framings seem to be the crowded long shot and the filled wide shot in an interior. Mostly, it's medium close and two shot wide.
The lighting stuck with hard contrast and naturalistic. In the black and white with the simple camera moves, it worked. I can see where Harneke and Jarmusch are influenced by him. It is fun to watch a smart man get turned around, here it's largely his own doing, but you can feel the desolation of the economic world hanging on this smart, young man's shoulders. He got dug into the dumb trenches, he comes home, a supposed smarty and can't eat unless he figures something out.
But, he ends up with the good blue collar girl who wasn't in love 'enough' with his straight-shooting pal.
I'm looking forward to more from Bresson, but up next is "Funny HA HA" a little DIY indie I've heard a lot about.
