Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Les Miserables - Technically flawed?

B

BRANDON JAMESON

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,724
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
San Diego, CA
Just saw Les Miserables and I have two questions:

Was there a focus puller on the show and if so, why werent they fired after the first day of rushes?

Did they shoot with "short ends" or was it a choice to change emulsion and grain density within a scene?

Just wondering....
 
Focus pulling is an art, and as such is not an exact science. With that said, the 1st AC on this got thrown in an extreme hard situation with the depth of field the DP elected to use. I think the focus puller did a good job. I defy anyone to do better than that with the long takes and no cuts that they elected to use. Long lenses, wide open and actors moving back and forth like they did, and probably differently every take. You gotta take the hat off to those guys!
 
I've seen some of the best ACs at work and I can say with confidence that if you give them realistic marks to hit they will nail it almost every time. If you give them nearly impossible scenarios, then the really good ones will still have half a chance at nailing it, but one can't expect miracles. If it's not humanly possible at all, then the DP has to live with some missed focus. I'm always in awe of the really good focus pullers. They have such good instincts.
 
The other problem is that the actors were "ad libbing" to some degree and not always hitting their marks. If you do an entire song in one close-up (which was done on at least one number in this film), then there's going to be moments where the focus is not 100% on. I think it was a very, very brave attempt, both photographically and sonically, to try to have actors singing live in a performance. It got nominated for 8 Oscars and has made almost $200 million so far, so I'd say they succeeded.
 
Marc Wielage said:
The other problem is that the actors were "ad libbing" to some degree and not always hitting their marks. If you do an entire song in one close-up (which was done on at least one number in this film), then there's going to be moments where the focus is not 100% on. I think it was a very, very brave attempt, both photographically and sonically, to try to have actors singing live in a performance. It got nominated for 8 Oscars and has made almost $200 million so far, so I'd say they succeeded.
Click to expand...

How do you think they recorded the actors singing live, without hearing the sound of 4000 feet stamping around the set?
 
Too many close-ups

Too many close-ups

Hmm, separate from the focus, I found that Les Miz had too many close-ups and not enough wide shots.

I'm very much aware of how big a head is on screen. TV tends to get away with framing close-ups (like in broadcast news) and I think many student films lean towards close-ups often cause they are still honing their craft and perhaps even have to work with small screens (meaning focus tends to look better with a bigger image).

I Les Miz, other then the breathtaking first scene with the boat pull, the rest of the movie was overly intimate and lacked the wide grandeur of a movie (with period sets and lots of activity).

Instead, they chose the theatre route of singing and standing (nothing happening when being lethargic and belting out a solo...which works in Theatre but can obviously be so much more in film).

Anyhow, my opinion.
 
Yeah, the AC's were given a very hard job. Long takes, wide open, right in the actor's faces, a loose, improvised atmosphere. American Cinematographercovered it this month, and the DP talked about the camera operators bumping into each other, it was so mad cap!

I felt like they made some bold choices, and I respect that. One can quibble about a lot of the details, but overall they aimed big, and I like that. It's not how Spielberg or Lurhman would have done it....but...I think that's OK. It's good to change it up, and try a fresh approach.

What's clear is they were trying to CONVEY the claustrophobia and inevitability of Paris at the time with camera work that reproduced that feeling. VISUALLY, it may not be what we're used to. But EMOTIONALLY (that was clearly their intention), it was a bold choice.
 
IMPO: If the "bold"choices of the DP, cause the audience to scream "FOCUS" during the film ( as happened at the screening I attended), then the approach was flawed at the expense of the audience.

This is why most productions shoot copious tests to avoid results like these.

One can make a million excuses for questionable choices, but the fact remains that IMPO the focus slips far too often in this film to ignore.

Now, why choose to change film stock from one CU to another in the same scene?
 
BRANDON JAMESON said:
IMPO: If the "bold"choices of the DP, cause the audience to scream "FOCUS" during the film ( as happened at the screening I attended), then the approach was flawed at the expense of the audience.

This is why most productions shoot copious tests to avoid results like these.

One can make a million excuses for questionable choices, but the fact remains that IMPO the focus slips far too often in this film to ignore.

Now, why choose to change film stock from one CU to another in the same scene?
Click to expand...

Basically Tom Hooper won Best Picture, and was allowed todo whatever he wanted. No tests required. Les Mis has just made a shit ton of money and is nominated for best picture (again), so at this point...Mr. Hooper can keep doing whatever he wants cuz...the studios are lining up to work with him. Oh..and he made John Adams too which was HUGE for HBO.

Right now, this guy is walking on water. If he wanted to shoot a kids movie entirely with a fisheye...he could do that.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Basically Tom Hooper won Best Picture, and was allowed todo whatever he wanted. No tests required.

Right now, this guy is walking on water. If he wanted to shoot a kids movie entirely with a fisheye...he could do that.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that's saying ...something.
 
Same way you record dialogue without picking up external sounds. Maybe everyone just wore socks.:smash:

I attribute the wandering focus to live vocals as well. There was a distinct lack of cutting as each take would have been quite different so there wouldn't be anywhere to go most of the time. 1st AC doesn't have the luxury of overriding a great vocal performance so for better or worse, that's the take that's going to be used.

I've seen technically excellent movies that are completely soulless. This movie was brave, unique, had a lot of technical flaws, but I doubt anyone would dare call it soulless.

If nothing else it's the first of it's kind so even if they highlighted some areas of future consideration like focus, it's a milestone achievement.
 
Wil Wong said:
Hmm, separate from the focus, I found that Les Miz had too many close-ups and not enough wide shots.

I'm very much aware of how big a head is on screen. TV tends to get away with framing close-ups (like in broadcast news) and I think many student films lean towards close-ups often cause they are still honing their craft and perhaps even have to work with small screens (meaning focus tends to look better with a bigger image).

I Les Miz, other then the breathtaking first scene with the boat pull, the rest of the movie was overly intimate and lacked the wide grandeur of a movie (with period sets and lots of activity).

Instead, they chose the theatre route of singing and standing (nothing happening when being lethargic and belting out a solo...which works in Theatre but can obviously be so much more in film).

Anyhow, my opinion.
Click to expand...

+1. Agreed on the excessive close ups i cut some slack on the focus pullers because there was room for the actors to improvise in a wide open shot. In these circumstances, I think they did quite well. But Imagine that in 48fps...
 
I finally saw Les Miserables tonight. Normally I can't sit through a musical on film; if I try I usually fall asleep. The last musical I made it all the way through at the cinema was 'Tommy' in about 1975. I made it through Les Mis and enjoyed it immensely.
It is unreasonable to criticise the focus puller for not nailing focus on the actors' 'marks. It was evident from the film that in many cases there were no marks even when the focus was critical. In Anne Hathaway's Solo song it was a matter of which eye to focus on (because her other eye was out of focus). Anne Hathaway was so full of emotion in that amazing performance, that she moved her head from side to side and looked down a number of times presenting no options to the focus puller. I think the focus puller did a great job and I would trust him on any film.
 
I am not surprised that the focus puller could not do better, I AM suprised that with the time, talent and budget they had on this show, that they made the choices they made that produced questionable results in the final images.

This was clearly not a spur of the moment, improvised performance with unknown parameters for success.


I'm curious why no one has touched my question about mixing film stocks within a scene so the grain density shifts from person to person in the same set-up.

Also, is there anyone who can offer technical information on how the singing was recorded to avoid capturing on-set noise, or do I assume that "maybe they all wore socks"?
 
Mark Toia said:
I loved the film !
Fantastic.... If it does not clean up the Oscars, it would be a crime. The actors performances were astounding.

Watched life of Pi as well... All I can say, is that was the best 3d tiger I have ever seen !
Click to expand...

and best use / implementation of 3D I've seen so far.
 
Brandon, no matter what the budget is, Chemistry and "magic" can happen with a take that's not technically perfect. It happens all the time. Again, to nail a full take with the depth of field provided, is no easy feat. That focus puller did an amazing job. It's not digital auto-focus after all.
Your question about the film stock I can't answer. I guess I was too much into the movie to notice.
As far as sound, they had a pro boom op and sound mixer. They probably chose wisely on the placement of the mics. And I'm sure if you heard the voices without the orchestra, you would hear plenty of footstep and other ambient noise. A combination of a great sound crew and good music sound track will make the sound work, as it did on this movie.
No matter how much money you throw at a production, there's no substitute to an experienced and knowledgeable crew. And with that comes a parameter to what can be expected of the professionals on set. IMHO all of them performed great. You can always pick little details here and there, but this organic art is living and breathing! If it was technically perfect it would probably be plastic and boring...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top