7 posts tagged “movies”
He's a bit heavy on the dolly moves, but I think that's just a product of having the money. Dolly grip does a fine job.
The crane shots are a different story, especially the final shot over the fountain at Balmor. It starts off shaking and ends up canted in the frame. What?
The story is serviceable, in a year like this, that might mean that it gets best picture. It's about an old lady who thinks you have to behave the old way, then her peeps want her dead, and she realizes she has to act differently. Fortunately, there's Tony Blair to guide her.
It's a great lighting and camera style. The editing is spot on as well. There's a scene where the Queen falls in love with an elk, their eyes meet across the glen, blah, blah, blah. But, the two were never in the same frame. You think the deer looked like it was caught in the headlights? Helen, looking in love, in awe, she hears voices and then it's fear! Oscars galore.
It's big sources from the outside, and then lots of small units bouned in the corners to give big warm wraps around the faces.
One thing I appreciated was the simple television lighting gag. So often, someone is looking at the tv and it's all flash off, flash on, blue, red, green. No, that's not how it is. It's fucking simple. Two lights, maybe three, flood two, spot on, dim one of the three all the time, shoot it throw a frame of opal diffusion.
Or 2 foot four bank kino and flip the select ballast.
Oh, apparently theres a guy in the window of the Range Rover when Helen gets stuck in the river- a gaff. I didn't see it in the small screen here at home.
More to the point, it looks like shit too. Dick Pope knows what he's doing. Much of his period work, like 'Topsy Turvy', was more than fine. Nothing remarkable, but as you may know, that's about as good as it gets in my book. The less you notice, the better, because if you notice it, they're trying to hide something.
And, here, they have a lot to hide.
They start by, weirdly, suggesting that the early life of this farm boy hero, was captured on film. They have a flashback sequence that introduces the main characters and it's 'posted' (effect added after the shooting) to look like an old film, with pulsing back lights, sepia tones, etc. Wha? So, fifteen or so years before this story, in which they 'introduce' the magic of a filmed device as part of a magic trick, there was a documentary crew shooting his life story...
Well, at least it 'matches' all the horrifically bad accents in the story. I'll never understand why American actors, speaking English in a period piece set in Austria speak with vaguely British accents. If they're speaking English, why do they have accents at all? Fuck. What a piece of shit this movie is.
There's some good, capable dolly shots. So, Kudos to that grip. Nice work.
But, the post work is so phoney it's nearly unwatchable. Why do you have dark edges around the frame during the whole movie? Why? Say it with me, You can't paint a piece of shit and call it art.
And the color correction is an overdone, complicated mess. Why would you discolor people's faces? From the chin to the forhead in close-up after close-up, it goes from sepia brown, to grayish, ashen white, to muddy orange to pitch black - on the obviously fake beard.
I've had enough.
Fuck Dick Pope, Fuck Neil Burger, Fuck Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti, may you rot in b-movie hell for your lack of thoughtful role choices after your success in that wine movie.
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 critics are overrating it, and I think it's his performance that they're grabbing onto. The story, starts off with good metaphors, character studies, actions that will have moral implications, etc. And Angelina does a nice job with all that later in the film and it'd be nice if she got a little recognition for it. She is the only one of all the tabulebities that made a good piece of work this year, afterall.
Anyway, a spy movie should be decipherable and not leave loose ends to be cut quite so thoughtlessly. The last third of 'The Good Sheepheard' leaves a lot to be desired, like a cogent story. It leaves question after question, and not in some 'Gosford Park' sort of 'the mystery isn't the story' type way, either. I mean sloppy storytelling.
But, thank the Lord for Matt Damon.
And top lighting. Who thought top-lighting these men and their fifties haircuts was such a good idea? Hi, big pink eared boy! Wild. Every time Exposition man would say something about whererver Matt had to be or why, I could only look at his back-lit ears blowing up in the screen.
I even thought of some solutions, I mean, I love top lighting, especially a single character on an otherwise dark set. But, you can use mole skin, or paper tape, matte make-up, something.
Or, bring in some flags and cut them off the ears.
I don't know, do something, pink ears, 8 feet high in the middle of the multiplex arent' doing any one any good.
SPOILER! ALERT!! Do not read further...
Why did they have to kill the girl at the end? The russians and Matt made the deal. It was over. Man, what bullshit.
And, if it was the Africans, we should have been warned. And why Africa? Couldn't he fall in love anywhere? And if bad guys in Africa are going to kill someone, why waste the fuel on the flight? Just shoot her where she stands.
And, why did the Russians rat out Damon's kid for falling for the spy? Just so they could use his safety against him? But, they could use his safety against him any way, right? These are killers and spooks. They don't need to blackmail anyone. Matt Damon's kid could be talking to a girl at Johns Hopkins about dentistry and the Russians could still kill his girlfriend.
I didn't get more of it. And, that's a problem with a spy story I think. Unless its like 'Gosford Park' and this wasn't.
It looked good, though. It should, they shot over a 1,200 rolls of films. That's more than the last four I've worked on.
Hollywood. They really do answer to no one.
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.
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.
FLOG- Really just thoughts for me that I'm sharing. Not to be read as any sort of 'film writing' or criticism.
Bresson does it again. It's a shame that this filmmaker is so well known to critics and scholars and filmschool kids (sometimes) and not to more film story lovers. Anyway, again camera movement that's decades ahead of it's time, tight, complex moves that keep the focus on the hero. Contrasty lighting, big sources. Again, the focus is always on the hero. It's a simple story - a man imprisoned in a German jail plans to escape. What makes this such a good movie is how well Bresson keeps us focused on the story of the escape. It's been done a hundred times since, but here, we never leave his face.
My ability to complete a coherent thought is leaving me. He keeps us focused on the moral dilemmas as well as the physical risks involved. He has us asking "what's going to happen next?" when we know that all he's going to try to do is escape. It's really great minimalist story telling. Writers of all kind would be wise to watch and learn. I'm impressed.
