8 posts tagged “gaffs”
Two young psychos come to borrow some eggs from a couple in a gated resort community and exact torture on the family over the next 12 hours.
It gets pretty gruesome.
The cinematography is good early HD - low lighting with few highlights to blow out, but with some long takes that take advantage of the medium. What's interesting is how bad this good example looks now, as HD has begun to come into it's own as a viable medium. You can see this on television in shows like 'Nip/Tuck'.
The lack of breathing room in wide shots is sorely missing. So much so that, when we finally get a wide shot of a house during a brief escape attempt, it's refreshing.
But, I would say that the composition is spot-on, with no noticeable mistakes to speak of.
I'm surprised that it's being remade by Haneke himself, and, more surprisingly, for an American audience. I'm not sure that there's any point to it, and it seems rather shallow by this rather thoughful filmmaker. Although, he does like thumbing his nose at his own kind- namely middle class suburbanites, and one can easily make the assumption that he would relish the opportunity to do the same to some quote-unquote Americans.
If he shoots again on HD, it will be interesting to see if he uses more contrast, maintains the longer takes, or goes more 'American.'
The DP also shot 'The Time of the Wolf' which I thought was masterfully done.
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.
I thrilled the audience with my mimiced drum solo. At least they didn't ring my punk neck.
Anyway, I don't really mind the idea of watching movies on television. I think it's fine. When you compare it to the distractions involved in going to the local multiplex, I think the television is just as good a method of cinematic digestion. No cell phones, no conversations about who hatin' who', no long lines, no broken ticket machines, etc, etc. Movie going sucks, unless you go to the ArcLight in Hollywood.
But, if you add to putting it (a movie) on the square screen, and then insist on putting in commercials, it becomes difficult to follow it. But, if you go one step further and add visual commentary in the mix, you've gone and messed up big time.
The Last Waltz is a great concert film. Really great. It breaks up the performances and gives you time to digest the story and take in all that you're seeing - i.e. Neil Young and Neil Diamond sharing the stage with Ron Wood and Ringo, Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell with Muddy Waters, all in their beautiful adult peaks of looks and performance. Van Morrison looks as if he could be leading a college frat band. Neil Diamond, with the right angle and lighting nearly comes off as damn sexy. Really strange. But, that's youth. And, here, caught well under less than forgiving circumstances - the Martin Scorcese of '78 couldn't command the number of cameras he can in '06,
Don't watch it on Vh1. Don't watch it with the added doc commentary. They don't have any thing to add. Get a friend with a REALLY big screen tv and go watch it there. Drugs and Alcohol optional. I was sober both times I saw it and thought it was pretty damn good both times, despite the distractions. Add 'Monterrey Pop' and you're good to go for a rock star evening with all the ups and downs of the life. Okay, mostly the downs.
The performances are phenomenal and like many have said, the solo by Jennifer Hudson really grabs you. What I found remarkable was the angles they chose to shoot this scene. There are some medium wide shots during this emotion song that really set her in a place in the frame where you can sense the tragedy that is going to befall her because of her simple humaness. I don't want to say mediocrity or normalcy, but just the framing is setting her in a way that is mundane, and you know that's what's headed her way. She has left he Dreamettes and now this is what's before her. She's just going to be another person. A less thoughtful director would have discounted this angle, with her bare legs and flat feet, but this angle is the backbone of the scene.
The lighting and camera work were A+, if I saw any mistakes beyond a camera shadow in a dolly shot, I don't recall it.
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.
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.
Man, monumentally bad casting. Paltrow can't pull off loner, insane, friendless, introspective girl to save her acting life. Mary Louise was sorely missed in this play that only barely became a movie.
Dudes. You're making a movie. Move the camera. Get a wide shot. Open it up.
Oh. And check out the gaffs on the ADR (Additional Dialogue Recording) - I guess the suits thought they needed to keep Paltrow's teen audience and needed to keep the PG-13 rating, because, you can see Gwyneth's lips say, 'Fuck', but what you hear is 'hell' or 'friggin'' Pretty hilarious.
It's good. It's getting a terrible rap in the press. It doesn't do all the expected jokes about rape, even though they have some jokes about rape. It's low budget comedy, but at least it's real comedy.
Here's the gaffs-
- IN the shower - in the wide shots, the water was on, in the close-ups, the water was off.
- In the courtroom - the main character is dressed in a hooded sweatshirt and sunglasses, when we next see him outside the courtroom, he's without those articles of clothing.
- Bad, bad ADR with the judge.
- End credits, in the sunlight, you could see the shadow of the camera on the forground character's head.
