-
“Bottle” movie – GH4 or A7S?
-
I am glad to see this thread is getting back to the point of the original question. In my view, disrespect has no place on this forum – or anywhere else, for that matter.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
MFA/BFA Lighting and Camera Instructor Academy of Art University
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
[Gary Huff] “You should be right if you want to teach, because if you’re wrong, then what is the value of what you are teaching?
“I’m referring to being emotionally right. There I have no interest because emotional arguments aren’t ever really won, they just kind of stop. And when it comes to emotional argument, the worst is when you’re trying to argue the “truth”, because truth is a slippery thing. Intellectually, I will argue right and wrong when dealing with provable facts. Being in the arts, I tell my kids to stop worry about right and wrong when it comes to art, and worry instead about strong vs weak – make the bold choice in a shot, make the comment that uses the vocabulary to the discipline in a useful way – don’t take the easy and quick way out.
[Gary Huff] “In fact, I think auteur attitudes would do your students a great disservice in not discussing the equal contributions of everyone who was involved, from Toland having a “fresh” director that allowed his suggestions to be implemented for the visual style, Robert Wise’s editing (a man who went on to also leave his mark on cinema)”
I know auteur theory has come under a lot of fire, particularly in the past few years. And I understand why. Film, by its very nature, is a collaborative art form, with a lot of people working together to bring about something that’s worth 90 minutes of people’s time. Not everyone can be a Robert Rodiguez or Shane Carruth (director, writer, editor, cinematographer, composer, and who knows what else). At the end of the day, however, an army must have one central authority, a person who has the ability to say “Go this way” and everyone will go that way. Under current theory, that’s the director. Years ago, at the height of the studio system, it was the producer. I have heard arguments in recent years that writers don’t get enough credit (which I agree with). One of the most educational experiences I had learning about film in my youth was listening to the commentary track on “The Limey”, done by Lem Dobbs and Soderbergh (and it tells you something that I can just say the last name of the director and people will know who I mention, whereas the writer I have to give the full name), in which Dobbs kept talking about what Soderbergh had done to “his” film, and Soderbergh remaining polite and nice throughout the almost-tirade, trying to explain that the page doesn’t always make it to the screen in an exact way – and in fact, probably shouldn’t (Soderbergh’s point), and if Dobbs didn’t like the end result, he should direct his own film. Listening to the compromises that were made along the path are fascinating, and the whole team is talked about when he talks about the process. Dobbs focuses on the differences between the script and the film.
But I digress. You’re right, there are many great names that most kids don’t learn about when it comes to filmmaking because of their role in the hierarchy. They may not know the names of Bert Glennon, Dede Allen, Gordon Willis, Thelma Schoolmaker – obviously I could on, but basically the names that aren’t above the title on the marquee, and are buried somewhere mid-credits before the start of a movie. What I do encourage is for students to look at director’s work over a period of time, and see who their most frequent collaborators are, and then have them analyze why that may be – beyond the shorthand that comes from individuals who collaborate often. And then look at the work of those individuals on films outside of those common collaborations. So while the director is a starting point and the general, the lieutenants do deserve credit, and I try as best I can to give it where it’s due.
-
[Rick Wise] “I am glad to see this thread is getting back to the point of the original question. In my view, disrespect has no place on this forum – or anywhere else, for that matter.
“Thank you. Getting back on track – he is renting a Sony A7S, a Metabones (non-Speedboost) adapter, a Shogun and some Canon EF primes for three days (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm). They should be arriving tomorrow I believe. I’m hoping he’ll let me play with it a bit when it arrives – I’d love to play with the Slog 2 feature. Three days of that, and when the Sony is returned, he’ll get the GH4 with the Metabones MFT adapter, and different lenses (I wish I could remember which ones, but I know they’re much wider angle to compensate for the MFT, so it’ll be interesting to see how he works with that) for three days as well. I’d like to play with that as well. I’ll let you know how it goes and what he decides.
-
A good directing example for a “bottle” episode would be Hitchcock’s “Lifeboat”. Or some of his other movies like Rope, Dial M, and Rear Window.
-
[Jason Roberts] “There I have no interest because emotional arguments aren’t ever really won, they just kind of stop.”
And this was not an emotional argument, so why bring it up? I absolutely stated this:
[Gary Huff] “I don’t disagree that there is a lot of subjectivity in topics of this nature,”
and yet there has not been a single point brought up for discussion that does not have some evidence behind it or could be considered to be entirely subjective. In fact, by talking about “emotional arguments” that cannot be won, you seem to be dismissing what I am saying without directly contradicting anything I have said. I would hope that’s not your intent.
Now for the subjective:
[Jason Roberts] “Not everyone can be a Robert Rodiguez or Shane Carruth (director, writer, editor, cinematographer, composer, and who knows what else).”
But they can if they don’t care about the end result. Neither Rodriguez nor Carruth are good actor directors. Their cinematography doesn’t come to the level of any of the numerous talented individuals in the ASC. Their scores never on the “must-have” lists of collectors. Their material is merely serviceable, and if you’re okay with that mediocrity in the end result, then have at it. Frankly, I would argue that both of those names aren’t exactly the pinnacle of success (look at the dismal box office receipts and critical reception of Sin City 2 for instance) and that if you want to make something good, then perhaps auteur theory does need to be poo-pooed.
So yes, everyone can be a Rodriguez or a Carruth if they don’t want to be honest with their own creative limitations and don’t mind a sub-par output in some area they aren’t that strong in. It’s just when you want a beautiful orchestral score, well, then, you need to turn to a third-party. Want your movie to look nice? Hire an actual DP. Can’t write good dialogue? Hire a talented scriptwriter.
And so on.
-
[Rick Wise] “In my view, disrespect has no place on this forum – or anywhere else, for that matter.”
I think you meant to type “disagreeing” there.
-
No, I think Rick typed exactly what he meant. With which I agree.
Then again, maybe I just need to get over myself. I believe that has been suggested.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
No, Gary, I meant disrespect. We can disagree, respectfully.
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
MFA/BFA Lighting and Camera Instructor Academy of Art University
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
[Todd Terry] “Then again, maybe I just need to get over myself. I believe that has been suggested.”
Perhaps if you’d treat other adults who bring up a valid point with respect instead of appealing to the basest human emotions, you would have garnered a better response? But I guess the lure of patronization was too much for you to combat?
-
[Rick Wise] “We can disagree, respectfully.”
Which means kowtowing to someone’s point I take it.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up