- Banned
- #1,021
Dj Joofa
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2008
- Messages
- 813
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. Makes sense.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Ask David Mullen ANYTHING
- Thread starter Tom Lowe
- Start date
Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. Makes sense.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
Besides, a movie all in one take is possibly striking -- but a movie with conventional cutting done in-camera? Wouldn't that just look rather ordinary? Besides, every cut would have to be a perfect first take! No second chances (unless shooting digitally and erasing the bad take.) You eliminate the ability to select takes for performance, build the tempo of the scene in post, etc. It's very hard to precut dialogue-driven performances.
Yes yes very funny example about driving back and forth...you really make your point.
But what I have noticed and would like to develope and explore is thi9s quality of an intuitive through line.
If the edits are basically arrived at academically albiet with the ingreidents of pre visualizing hence incorperating also the imagination they still somehow are informed by an arkive ( however remotely subconcious ) of schooled referances and yes hopefully even ones own collection of impressions from life itself. They often lack in the emotional immediacy of a more subjective approach IMHO.
There are the conventions and they work yes but in terms of finding definitive phrasing-sequences for the content at hand and finding a suitable form I find that this method is a great tool. Because it marrys both aspects of Photgraphy and editing at once. The decision is made in the instant based on the sensibility of who is there observing the situation. Subtext is what then informs and dictates movement or lack thereof or breaking of attention for how long etc etc etc
I really think that at a certain point the form will be looking to expand, how many variables really to choose from and to combine?
Am I making any sence at all?
I just have always felt a deep reluctance to working with camera men because of this issue of sencing one thing from a situation and wanting to follow that and then handing over a camera to another personality and findiong that frequency where they get what you get, its sencibility we are talking about and that has to do with something beyond tecnique, and in the heirachy of intrest I think ultimatly an audience wants to follow whats really going on...even if its through a key hole they will hush up and hunch over to get a peek.
If you go to a party or a wedding and you give the camera to an adult especially a trained adult you may have stunning images if on the other hand you hand the camera to a child very often there is an unbroken red through line that guides which images that are selected...The needs of the child are what dictate where they aim the camera...Dogs, cake, presents, windows, squirels, etc boring to us perhaps but for another child its riviting stuff.
Maybe the appeal of this method for me is that the invisible through line-point of view which can sometimes be very elusive to get and keep ahold of becomes the tight rope wire on which one is forced to balance on because its all you have to guide you through the seemingly random spectrum of choices that present themselves.
DogDay
David and Guys: Please dont get me wrong I love art and all types of beauty and have a huge respect for the craft of cinematography I am not talking about a handy cam free for all I am talking about exploring an aesthetic.
But what I have noticed and would like to develope and explore is thi9s quality of an intuitive through line.
If the edits are basically arrived at academically albiet with the ingreidents of pre visualizing hence incorperating also the imagination they still somehow are informed by an arkive ( however remotely subconcious ) of schooled referances and yes hopefully even ones own collection of impressions from life itself. They often lack in the emotional immediacy of a more subjective approach IMHO.
There are the conventions and they work yes but in terms of finding definitive phrasing-sequences for the content at hand and finding a suitable form I find that this method is a great tool. Because it marrys both aspects of Photgraphy and editing at once. The decision is made in the instant based on the sensibility of who is there observing the situation. Subtext is what then informs and dictates movement or lack thereof or breaking of attention for how long etc etc etc
I really think that at a certain point the form will be looking to expand, how many variables really to choose from and to combine?
Am I making any sence at all?
I just have always felt a deep reluctance to working with camera men because of this issue of sencing one thing from a situation and wanting to follow that and then handing over a camera to another personality and findiong that frequency where they get what you get, its sencibility we are talking about and that has to do with something beyond tecnique, and in the heirachy of intrest I think ultimatly an audience wants to follow whats really going on...even if its through a key hole they will hush up and hunch over to get a peek.
If you go to a party or a wedding and you give the camera to an adult especially a trained adult you may have stunning images if on the other hand you hand the camera to a child very often there is an unbroken red through line that guides which images that are selected...The needs of the child are what dictate where they aim the camera...Dogs, cake, presents, windows, squirels, etc boring to us perhaps but for another child its riviting stuff.
Maybe the appeal of this method for me is that the invisible through line-point of view which can sometimes be very elusive to get and keep ahold of becomes the tight rope wire on which one is forced to balance on because its all you have to guide you through the seemingly random spectrum of choices that present themselves.
DogDay
David and Guys: Please dont get me wrong I love art and all types of beauty and have a huge respect for the craft of cinematography I am not talking about a handy cam free for all I am talking about exploring an aesthetic.
I am not arguing just taking the opportunity to discuss whats been on my mind with other folks interested in this craft.
I mean when trying to push the envelope and find new moves ( of course that serve the story ) but still new, meaning tailored and unik suited to the content...
Sometimes doing all the math in ones head can only get you so far and sometimes actually dealing in three dimensions with the material forces you to find unexpected solutions...I heard that in French Connection some of the scenes were blocked but not revealed to the DP before hand and he was forced to instantly follow depending on what his gut and intution told him was going to unfold...This as just a tool to find or stumble onto something freash instead of the established prefabricated solutions that alot of us myself included strive to emulate.
The film of Kennedy getting assasinated how text book is that? not very but never the less the compelling content overrides the heirachy of criteria informing how it "Should" have been properly filmed..."It" ( The subject ) is more important and thus the camera must align itself accordingly and not visa versa as is most mise-en-scene and framing is commonly approached.
DogDay
I mean when trying to push the envelope and find new moves ( of course that serve the story ) but still new, meaning tailored and unik suited to the content...
Sometimes doing all the math in ones head can only get you so far and sometimes actually dealing in three dimensions with the material forces you to find unexpected solutions...I heard that in French Connection some of the scenes were blocked but not revealed to the DP before hand and he was forced to instantly follow depending on what his gut and intution told him was going to unfold...This as just a tool to find or stumble onto something freash instead of the established prefabricated solutions that alot of us myself included strive to emulate.
The film of Kennedy getting assasinated how text book is that? not very but never the less the compelling content overrides the heirachy of criteria informing how it "Should" have been properly filmed..."It" ( The subject ) is more important and thus the camera must align itself accordingly and not visa versa as is most mise-en-scene and framing is commonly approached.
DogDay
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
You can certain try editing a movie in-camera, but I think you're probably just going to end up with a movie that looks poorly edited, not special or unusual or more artistic, just cruder and clumsier.
Now one variation that some people have experimented with is basically the live switching approach used by some soap operas and whatnot, which is basically multiple cameras feed to monitors and a switcher and the editing done live, though the cameras are also recorded individually so bad edits can be fixed later.
But again, given that some soap operas are essentially cut live, are they more artistic or is the editing particularly interesting for doing so?
There is a whole artform to editing in post that I don't see a valid reason for overturning or avoiding. Even after Hitchcock's experiments with the single-shot sequences in "Rope", he came to the conclusion that editing was one of the key artforms of cinema and it was silly to avoid it. And I don't see how editing in-camera is somehow better than editing in post. It would only be interesting for certain experimental projects where you were creating sort of a free-form montage of a complex event on the spot, and it would be hit or miss -- which is one of the things about moviemaking, generally you are trying to wrestle control over the process because the stakes are high. So there are limitations to leaving things up to fate and chance or luck.
But there's no harm in trying it once (editing in-camera) just to prove to yourself why it's generally not a good idea for narrative fiction films.
Now one variation that some people have experimented with is basically the live switching approach used by some soap operas and whatnot, which is basically multiple cameras feed to monitors and a switcher and the editing done live, though the cameras are also recorded individually so bad edits can be fixed later.
But again, given that some soap operas are essentially cut live, are they more artistic or is the editing particularly interesting for doing so?
There is a whole artform to editing in post that I don't see a valid reason for overturning or avoiding. Even after Hitchcock's experiments with the single-shot sequences in "Rope", he came to the conclusion that editing was one of the key artforms of cinema and it was silly to avoid it. And I don't see how editing in-camera is somehow better than editing in post. It would only be interesting for certain experimental projects where you were creating sort of a free-form montage of a complex event on the spot, and it would be hit or miss -- which is one of the things about moviemaking, generally you are trying to wrestle control over the process because the stakes are high. So there are limitations to leaving things up to fate and chance or luck.
But there's no harm in trying it once (editing in-camera) just to prove to yourself why it's generally not a good idea for narrative fiction films.
Mike Prevette
Well-known member
Dogday, your comment about being reluctant to hand the camera off is valid. Thats why this industry is based on relationships. You strive to find people that are on the same wavelength as you.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
That's not exactly the same thing, which is shooting in continuity. Certainly that involves some pre-visualization of the editing, but it's not the same thing as in-camera editing.
Maybe you have seen this before maybe not, its a film I did demonstrating this tecnique I am interested in developing more. The subject is abuse and delusion, it takes place in the inner landscape of a man haunted by his actions and in an attempt to justify his actions is locked into the loop of selective memory to survive the truth of what he has done...Its repulsive so please be warned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0nrwN2O2U
I will be posting soon another film also entirely shot using this tecnique though of complete other subject and treatment.
In this film you watch ( everything cut in camera only speed change, titles, music added in computer ) I discovered that feeling the kinesthetic relationships first leads to organic sequences like in a dream, when we think of dreams we always focus on the visual aspect but actually so much of what conditions the particular dream you have is where you sleep and what position your body is in.
One thing that I stubled onto in this experiment is a move that corresponds to some dialogue that is really archetypical, which perhaps could have been arrived at conciously but isnt the creative unconcious always right? isnt that what Picaso meant when he said " I dont search I find "???
I get your points and they are valid but if we look at the evoluition of certain stylistic conventions didnt some of them occur as work arounds imposed by tecnical or financial limitations? hence the old saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention" ... So why not pre-emtivly purposfully construct obstructions in order to shake out some new solutions?
Finding intricate staging patterns that are unik and valid for the material and also consistant for 90-120 minutes is quite a task, because "Looks" cannot simply be approached cosmetically in terms of color---yes yes yes very important but just a fragment of the issue in creating a world and realm for a particular story.
I want to try an experiment where the staging comes about in layers, first silent, then deploying the dialogue in the appropriate image & moment, but construction a sequence with lip reading that corresponds to dialogue being spoken seems antiquated somehow. Why must we see people moving their mouths every time they utter something? isnt it time to put sound in its proper place in relation to image?
I really dont know what I am talking about so let the film speak for itself and I hope we are on speaking terms after you have viewed it.
DogDay
P.S. Mike-I never thought of it that way it makes total sence...In that case I feel very alone ... I wish my Dog Pepsi could be my DP because she is the only one I really feel in sync with, or maybe Gunleik I feel in many ways we see eye to eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0nrwN2O2U
I will be posting soon another film also entirely shot using this tecnique though of complete other subject and treatment.
In this film you watch ( everything cut in camera only speed change, titles, music added in computer ) I discovered that feeling the kinesthetic relationships first leads to organic sequences like in a dream, when we think of dreams we always focus on the visual aspect but actually so much of what conditions the particular dream you have is where you sleep and what position your body is in.
One thing that I stubled onto in this experiment is a move that corresponds to some dialogue that is really archetypical, which perhaps could have been arrived at conciously but isnt the creative unconcious always right? isnt that what Picaso meant when he said " I dont search I find "???
I get your points and they are valid but if we look at the evoluition of certain stylistic conventions didnt some of them occur as work arounds imposed by tecnical or financial limitations? hence the old saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention" ... So why not pre-emtivly purposfully construct obstructions in order to shake out some new solutions?
Finding intricate staging patterns that are unik and valid for the material and also consistant for 90-120 minutes is quite a task, because "Looks" cannot simply be approached cosmetically in terms of color---yes yes yes very important but just a fragment of the issue in creating a world and realm for a particular story.
I want to try an experiment where the staging comes about in layers, first silent, then deploying the dialogue in the appropriate image & moment, but construction a sequence with lip reading that corresponds to dialogue being spoken seems antiquated somehow. Why must we see people moving their mouths every time they utter something? isnt it time to put sound in its proper place in relation to image?
I really dont know what I am talking about so let the film speak for itself and I hope we are on speaking terms after you have viewed it.
DogDay
P.S. Mike-I never thought of it that way it makes total sence...In that case I feel very alone ... I wish my Dog Pepsi could be my DP because she is the only one I really feel in sync with, or maybe Gunleik I feel in many ways we see eye to eye.
I am sorry if you have answered this question before (I haven't found anything with google).
Could you describe the most common mistakes of first-time directors? Especially the mistakes which require a lot of practice and attention to correct, not the technical mistakes that just require a few words on the set to correct.
In other words, what areas do you think first-time directors should focus on or pay attention to long before they get to the set?
Thank you.
Could you describe the most common mistakes of first-time directors? Especially the mistakes which require a lot of practice and attention to correct, not the technical mistakes that just require a few words on the set to correct.
In other words, what areas do you think first-time directors should focus on or pay attention to long before they get to the set?
Thank you.
I've been following these last handful of posts Dogday and respectfully, what are you talking about ? :blink:
I have to fall on the side of a film being edited in-camera comes across as shoddy, but the real question I have is "Why?
What purpose does it serve ? I used to edit in-camera when I got my first Super8 because I had no choice at the time. When I finally got a little splicer my short films were much much more, not just from a technical or polished aspect, but from a creative side.
Editing always brings out the hidden layers of our films, things that may not have been discovered on set.
I'm trying to wrap my head around why you would want to do this ? O course you are free to pursue any atack you want. Just curious. :blush:
I'd like to see this addressed.
From my own experience, failure to make shot lists, lighting/ shot diagrams and lack of storyboarding have been my downfall.
J.R.
Thanks for asking ... I am not saying I am against editing I love the tools available and I love the process and also have the utmost regard for those who have mastered the art and craft of both Cinematography and Editing.
I am from the Theater and there its normal for moments of expressionism to break into a narrative. There is a nerve in the Theater of danger always present in the air at any moment someone could jump off the stage and grab a hold of you.
With film often its like with a message on an answering machine you dont quite have the same respect for the voice as you would face to face.
So these experiments are devised to find ways to get some more spontinety and danger into it...I think I will do rehersals using this tecnique to find my phrasing and then hone them maybe even story board them and then set up properly so every thing is lit right and smooth transitions etc. Its just a tool.
If you consider that actors ( myself being one of them ) use their imaginations to condition their behavior so that it coinsides with the fictive situation they are to be experiencing in a scene then I dont get why not do the same with the camera? to actually place it within the peramitors of a situation, isnt that a bit where the whole 3d thing is striving for? To enhance the viewer experience by breaking with traditional modes of capture? To somehow increase the subjectivity of the viewing experience so that identification can pull you in.
I think that when things get too standardized then conformity and predictability come in and take hold...Genre trends can be read as an escape from the monotony of basically seeing the same film again and again just with another line up...
Since there are so many elelments involved and since the constraints of economics have limited and hampered the developement of the form in many ways (or at least what it could have been these past hundred years had we had available yesterday what we have today ) ...Why not explore the other elements and let them perhaps become primary for certain types of moments in storys?
We are at the point where we accept films with talking Penguins and Insects etc I think we are all ok with two hours of agreed suspended disbelief as long as there is something of value to us somewhere either form or content wise.
So why not form experiments if they support the content? Look at the other art forms, Painting, Sculpture, Theater, Music, Architecture, Literature, Dance, Photography, So many styles to choose from even within the dominantly figurative ones so why not film?
Especially film which is really a magical hybrid of these other arts...
Just a thought...Whose time has come.
DogDay
David my appologies if this is high-jacking its unintentional but perhaps can be moved to another place if it is disruptive to the main flow of this one???
Thanks for asking ... I am not saying I am against editing I love the tools available and I love the process and also have the utmost regard for those who have mastered the art and craft of both Cinematography and Editing.
I am from the Theater and there its normal for moments of expressionism to break into a narrative. There is a nerve in the Theater of danger always present in the air at any moment someone could jump off the stage and grab a hold of you.
With film often its like with a message on an answering machine you dont quite have the same respect for the voice as you would face to face.
So these experiments are devised to find ways to get some more spontinety and danger into it...I think I will do rehersals using this tecnique to find my phrasing and then hone them maybe even story board them and then set up properly so every thing is lit right and smooth transitions etc. Its just a tool.
If you consider that actors ( myself being one of them ) use their imaginations to condition their behavior so that it coinsides with the fictive situation they are to be experiencing in a scene then I dont get why not do the same with the camera? to actually place it within the peramitors of a situation, isnt that a bit where the whole 3d thing is striving for? To enhance the viewer experience by breaking with traditional modes of capture? To somehow increase the subjectivity of the viewing experience so that identification can pull you in.
I think that when things get too standardized then conformity and predictability come in and take hold...Genre trends can be read as an escape from the monotony of basically seeing the same film again and again just with another line up...
Since there are so many elelments involved and since the constraints of economics have limited and hampered the developement of the form in many ways (or at least what it could have been these past hundred years had we had available yesterday what we have today ) ...Why not explore the other elements and let them perhaps become primary for certain types of moments in storys?
We are at the point where we accept films with talking Penguins and Insects etc I think we are all ok with two hours of agreed suspended disbelief as long as there is something of value to us somewhere either form or content wise.
So why not form experiments if they support the content? Look at the other art forms, Painting, Sculpture, Theater, Music, Architecture, Literature, Dance, Photography, So many styles to choose from even within the dominantly figurative ones so why not film?
Especially film which is really a magical hybrid of these other arts...
Just a thought...Whose time has come.
DogDay
David my appologies if this is high-jacking its unintentional but perhaps can be moved to another place if it is disruptive to the main flow of this one???
How will the viewer know you are breaking from traditional modes of capture? Most viewers don't even know what that traditional process is. Maybe they have an idea of it, but not the whole picture. I understand that you want film to feel more spontaneous and real, but are you sure that editing in camera is the best way to achieve that? Editing-in-camera adds a sense of immediacy to the filmmaker but I don't think it translates to the audience. I think the film Naked felt more like a theater performance than almost any film I've ever seen. And that was done just like any other movie: the actors memorized their lines from a script and the film was edited in post production. But it felt real and immediate (or dangerous as you put it) because of the power of the script, the performances and the cinematography editing.
davide
- Banned
- #1,035
David, do you have any tips for lighting small (location) rooms and avoid unwanted spill and shadows between walls and talent, in both directions? In a studio set where walls and ceiling is fake and you can light from above it's easier. But to light master shots on location when rooms are small is a challenge.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
Unless you can edit out the bad takes in camera, you're assuming that the first take will both be technically perfect (no mics dipping into shot, etc.) and the acting will be the best on the first take with no lines flubbed, etc.
This is where I think philosophy or ideology starts to get in the way of making a good movie. Sure, you may capture more spontaneity, which is why many directors shoot the rehearsal or use part of the first take in editing... but that only works for a certain percentage of the time. Ultimately if you've hired professional actors, they shouldn't have to rely on spontaneity and first impulses to get the scene right, they should be able to repeat and refine their actions for the camera. Plus there is the whole issue of directorial control over the process, which includes the acting. Sometimes a performance has to be tweaked to adjust the pace or keep in mind the bigger story arc of the movie, whereas acting is often "of the moment".
Plus some actors are good on Take One and the other actor in the scene is the best on Take Five, or whatever.
This is where I think philosophy or ideology starts to get in the way of making a good movie. Sure, you may capture more spontaneity, which is why many directors shoot the rehearsal or use part of the first take in editing... but that only works for a certain percentage of the time. Ultimately if you've hired professional actors, they shouldn't have to rely on spontaneity and first impulses to get the scene right, they should be able to repeat and refine their actions for the camera. Plus there is the whole issue of directorial control over the process, which includes the acting. Sometimes a performance has to be tweaked to adjust the pace or keep in mind the bigger story arc of the movie, whereas acting is often "of the moment".
Plus some actors are good on Take One and the other actor in the scene is the best on Take Five, or whatever.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
Pace, pace, pace. Both in the tempo of the scene and the tempo of the production. More first time directors have complained to me later that they didn't pay attention to the pacing of the scene, of the camera moves, etc. and were stuck in editing with scenes that played too slowly, and thus a movie that was too long, requiring whole scenes be dumped.
Also, another problem first time directors have is understanding how the movie will be cut and what will likely remain in the final movie -- they fall in love with everything: every scene, every line, every location, every shot. And you end up wasting a lot of time and effort of stuff that won't be in the final edit. Narrative flow in a movie, particularly a comedy but also genre movies like action or horror, is relentless, a train or shark that doesn't stop moving. Anything that impedes that movement is cut out in editing. So think about the fact that in post, you will probably jump into a scene as late as possible, and cut out as early as possible. All the dead wood is trimmed out. So think about what the story needs and don't get sidetracked.
David Mullen ASC
Moderator
First, avoid white walls -- darker walls deal with spill better and fall-off faster naturally. Second, don't overlight -- don't solve a problem by adding another light, which needs another flag, etc. Move the key light around until it solves most of your problems. Of course, careful use of flags and nets are critical too.
Pacing...I read somewhere that De Niro did certain scenes in Once Upon A Time I America to music...Would that work to get the fragmented elements into a sort of cohesive Rythm-Pace? its one thing for a music video when you have play back but for narrative work how do you solve that issue? I mean so much else is measured is the timing also measured and how? or is it simply feeling it when you do it?
Is this what is meant by orchestration? If you are looking over your script and your boards and making decisions for color scemes etc are you also making rythmic and pacing decisions? or are you shooting dry and letting the editor set that sequence up so that the pacing works?
DogDay
Is this what is meant by orchestration? If you are looking over your script and your boards and making decisions for color scemes etc are you also making rythmic and pacing decisions? or are you shooting dry and letting the editor set that sequence up so that the pacing works?
DogDay
Joshua Murray
Well-known member
Hey David, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about Scarlet? Do you think, based on the specs red has given us, that it would be something that could be used to shoot feature films? I know it's not about the camera so much as the story, but do you think you might like to use it at all?