7 posts tagged “gaffer”
It's a strange movie - some say it parallels the two stories - that of a poor girl of a proud father who falls in with a group of ruffians and loses her way, (if not more) and that of a donkey that goes from owner to owner suffering varying forms and degrees of abuse.
The girl picked the donkey out of a flock when young with a boy who said he would always lover her at her side.
Now, this happens some times, but I liked this movie and I can't tell you why. I sat there watching it, wondering what would happen next, my full attention on the plight of these two rather pedestrian characters. It was nice. It hasn't happened in a while.
Bresson is still framing low and tight with big contrasty sources. It's beautiful black-and-white cinematography. One huge mistake however, occurs right at the end. I can't tell you of the image,beyond that it is wonderful, but during this final exterior moving shot, someone steps in and gets their shadow on the bottom right hand side of the screen. Totally blows it. Makes you think someone is going to come to the rescue.
Bresson loves framing out faces and then putting them dead center in the next shot. He focuses on wheels, feet, legs, any thing but a face; and then he squares up a face in the next frame. He rarely offers a wide shot, but he does so more often in this film than in most of his previous work.
And, I recommend watching it knowing that he has a sense of humor. Sometimes I watch a French film, particularly one in black and white, and I think it's all seriousness. Bresson lets us know right off the bat that he can kid around - the braying of a mule interrupts and becomes a response to a Schubert sonata during the opening sequence.
Unbelievable.
Excellent movie. But, I couldn't tell you why. It's the same things - I don't know why I want to know what's going to happen next to these characters, but it's riveting.
It's rare to see someone do it and do it right and for all the right reasons. Chris Menges may not be a genius. Cinematography has too many practitioners who've come to believe in their own genius. But, Chris Menges knows what he's doing. That's the highest compliment I can give. The big-source natural look really works here. He chooses his moves. Saves the big crane shots to let us know that something is coming your way - it's important but simple. Like the approach of evil - God is watching, and if He could, he'd let you know too. But, all we have is this move. Up, slow drop, across the walk, up the stairs, around the pillar, and she knocks on the door. Done. Simple. It's really great. And, thank the Lord! He keeps them to a minimum.
The night scenes work as well. Even one scene being outside the pub works diagetically - as they women want to keep a lid on the situation - giving Menges the opportunity to use his big sources.
Any problems? One, but he gets away with it. When visiting friends in the country, Judi Dench's female friend comes into the doorway one night to talk with Judi about and old friend. She stands in the doorway with a tungsten unit blasting into her robe from mere inches away. It's an interesting choice, especially considering the lack of source. But, it works and he gets away with it. The fill it gives from the door helps to shape her face. The strongest part of the light is at the edge of frame. It's a convention used often, though usually a bit more softly. I can't remember, but it might have been used to frame Dench's head as well. I wish I would have noted that.
One thing that was interesting was the lack of kickers and/or edge lights on Judi Dench. It could have been for the sake of her thinning hair. Come to think of it, I think I only noticed them on Cate Blanchett at all.
I need to be more watchful.
It's a decent movie, too. They try to make it into more than it is with the idea that Judi Dench is somehow causing all the problems in Cate's life. I liked that the second act actually begins within a flashback. Which in fact may not have been as they've been toying with time in the movie. Tell me what you think.
ATK has a new High-Def look. Looks like all the attention they've been getting over the last year or so has paid off in an investment in the look. It's obvious that they've got new cameras, maybe new lights and some added technical personnel. Unfortunately, the show is suffering because of it. At least for now.
From the over-blue windows in the background to the moving cameras up front, the added production values have become the cart leading this well-bred horse. Of the changes that I found distracting, the most troublesome was the movement of the foreground wide camera. In a cooking show, there's always at least three cameras, one dead-center and one each on the left and right. The larger the budget, the more cameras. I think ATK may have as many as six cameras going in their recipe section. The problem with the wide-angle shot that's dead center is the dolly movement. First, dolly movement dead on in a wide shot is for drama and drama only. I kept thinking that they were going to kill each other after they made the low fat cheesecake. Secondly, in the edit, at least once, they kept the dolly move through a direction change, meaning the camera is moving in one direction, it comes to a stop and then starts in another direction. So, not only is the wide shot moving in an incongruously dramatic fashion, they're not cutting on the stop, making it not only strange but poorly done as well.
Other problems with the camera? Yup. All those cameras going, and they can't even get the ingredient close-ups that they need to finish the show. So, they end up using a cropped close-up for a shot of an ingredient that's grainy and put into slo-mo for the shot timing and again, it's an incongruously dramatic, stylized shot.
I'm thinking that these guys will learn to work with these cameras, but the lighting still doesn't have any excuses. Under-lighting is pretty much the gravest sin there is in non-dramatic television. There's no reason nor place for it. That you're underlighting people who aren't moving more than a foot or two during the entire segment while working in a studio environment is inexcusable on a level that's nearly inexplicable. If you're shooting in HD, you must have a monitor (or six) on set. These monitors are calibrated. The Chief Lighting Technician has every opportunity to look at these monitors to check exposure. You see that your talent is underlit, you adjust accordingly. That this show is going into this new season with all this added equipment and making these amateurish mistakes really makes me wonder about how these guys get and then keep their jobs. I know plenty of young shooters and gaffers who know how to adequately light a production in HD if these film guys can't figure it out.
I always think I'm not going to call people out for doing a bad job. That I'll just point it out and that will be that. But, I'm always surprised when I see bad work when there's really no excuse. I think whoever lit and shot the first episode of America's Test Kitchen for this season, should immediately be fired and replaced by people who know what the hell they're doing.
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.
Hey! I was the gaffer on one of the vids on one of those! Killer.
We used the then-brand new Sony HDV camera. Came up good live, but post was a bitch, I heard. Something about the HDV codec. I deal with real lights, real shadows, not 101001001011011001010100010101000100111110011011001010 (that's ones and zeroes for those of your who still don't speak code).
Sure, it was a nice movie. I have little to add to all that's been said. But, as a gaffer, I was embarrassed. For the grips, especially.
Why? Well. In short, bad gelling. (Gels are what you put on a window to either knock down the light (ND); or to correct the daylight for tungsten-balanced film. If you'd like to know more, shoot me an email wesleydumont 'at' gmail 'dot' com)
Just about every scene where there's a window visible - restaurant, hospital, hotels, you can see the gel on the window outside just floppin' around.
Paul Goodstein, key grip; Paul McIlvaine, gaffer, I'm calling you out. You did a lousy job of letting them roll on that crap and now it's your name up there with that bad gel job for all the world to see.
Thumbs up for the movie, but to the keys I give the finger.
And, as for you Tim Suhrstedt, it's time for you to step up as well. Shoot me a message next time your in NYC and I'll show you a real crew.
Freelancing of any kind is a tough way to make a go of it. Add living in an expensive town, add being married, add investment in equipment and it just gets more harrowing.
I have been more than fortunate. But, nothing stings like the email (phone calls are becoming a thing of the past) that says that they're going with someone else. The next hard thing on the list: telling the wife.
But, it's been a great year.
Five Things That Rule about Freelancing:
1) Drinking your own coffee.
2) Reading the paper, as it were. (www.nytimes.com)
3) Charging someone your top market rate and having them thank you when the job is done.
4) Doing a good job without a boss.
5) Making a living on your good name.
