Posts Tagged ‘film-making’

Getting the Best out of your DSLR

Sunday, September 18th, 2011

Here’s some Tips/Tricks I’ve found that help me get good imagery.
I’ve fielded enough “how do you get shots like that” questions, I figured I’d write it up… Enjoy!

Tip/Trick #1: keeping the camera on ‘P’/”Program” mode effectively turns your expensive DSLR into a really expensive & awkward ‘point&shoot’.

    o P/Program Mode is basically ‘safe’ mode, & you will typically get decent, run-of-the-mill shots… -BUT-
    o If you want to get very nice shots, it’s important to start turning off the various ‘Auto’ modes, so you create (much) more control over what the camera is shooting. See Below…

Tip/Trick #2: If you want really nice shots, it’s important to:

    o Shoot a Lot! -AND-
    o Review your shots, taking note of what you did: Aperture, Shutterspeed, ISO/gain, WB (white-balance: eg Auto, Sun, Incandescent, etc), etc
    o Take notes to yourself (you might even reference the photo filename &/or day), so that you can compare/contrast, & watch/confirm your progress over time. It really works!

Tip/Trick #3: It’s better to Get an ‘imperfect’ Shot, than futzing around for a ‘perfect’ shot than you never manage to take…

    o Whatever camera you have handy, is better than the camera you have at home!! Ideally, get a top point/shoot like the S95 or S100: pocket-size, f/2.0, full manual control, & RAW…
    o LEARN YOUR CAMERA!! Messing with the dials/menus & missing the shot isn’t worth it, & will just frustrate you enough to ‘not bother’…
    o “Don’t Worry, you can Fix Some Stuff in Post“: Photoshop is your friend—there’s a lot of stuff you can do to fix things afterwards (composure, exposure, color-balance, even some focus problems)… but not if you don’t have some sort of shot to work with…

BASIC SETTINGS to Maximize Picture-Quality:

“Av” Mode: Aperture Priority: I highly-recommend this mode. It’s usually best to open the aperture to maximum, as often as you can. This does the following:

    o Increases your shutter-speed (makes the number smaller: eg 1/250, 1/500, 1/1,000, etc). This makes it easier to stop motion, to avoid blurry running children, etc),
    o Shortens your depth-of-field (helping create a blurry background, ie ‘bokeh‘ which is optimal for ‘portraiture’, & instantly increases the ‘production value’ of your shot).
    o Note: in a regular zoom, the aperture ‘ramps’ as you go from wide to long. So, set Av mode, go wide on the lens, & then set the aperture wide-open. The aperture will ramp down (number goes larger as lens stops down) as you zoom-out, but the aperture will also ramp up as you zoom wide again. If you set the aperture when you are zoomed-in, the aperture sometimes won’t decrease (lens stops open) when you zoom-out/go-wide.
    o The only time you need to stop-down the lens (close-down the aperture, ie increase the f-number, ie f/8, f/11, f/22, etc), is if:
    § You really want everything to be in focus , foreground & background
    § You’re shooting in very bright sunlight, & even with the ISO at 100 or lower, the exposure is too much for the shutter (eg, the shutter is 1/10,000+)
    o There’s no real need to worry that “max wide-open creates optical artifacts”: that’s true for professional photographers who’re going to be blowing-up the image 4’ wide or printing in a magazine. Unless you’re doing that, wide-open lenses are just fine. If you’re really worried, click one stop from fully-wide, & you’ll be great.

ISO/ASA (really: ‘digital gain’): Most good DSLR’s (Canon, Nikon, etc) will shoot extremely clean photos at ISO 400, or even 800. Above that, you start getting what looks like ‘grain’, & sometimes a bit of color fringing. Test! Or look at comparison-charts on the-digital-picture.com for your camera & lens.

    o Note: It’s important to actually choose an ISO. if you set ‘Auto’, then even if you’re in ‘Av’ mode, the camera will variously (randomly?) adjust both ISO & shutter, which can alternately give you ‘digital grain’ or low gain & long shutter, letting the shot blur(!)
    o So it’s much better to set an ISO, be in Av mode, & let the camera choose the shutterspeed for you.

Shutterspeed: Try to be at least 1/125 or ideally 1/250 to stop fast motion. Or in other words, stop your lens wide-open, & adjust your ISO until you get the shutterspeed you want for that shot.

    o (you can ½-click the shutter-release, & look in the viewfinder… or just shoot a test shot to see what the camera thinks is the right shutterspeed).
    o I hardly use Tv (shutter-priority) mode, unless I want to blur motion, eg waterfalls or waves at the beach…

WB (White Balance): Auto is okay, EXCEPT:

    o Indoors: Bulb. Canon DSLR’s are NOTORIOUS for crappy indoor WB. Just remember to reset it to ‘auto’ when you go outside! Or: get used to doing adjustment on your computer, eg with “Canon Digital Photo Review” application/etc
    o Sunrise/Sunsets: Auto-WB will ‘fight’ the beautiful colors at sunrise/sunset, so choose a setting that ‘looks nice’ in your LCD (ie, don’t assume that ‘Sun’/’Noon’ setting is correct for sunsets/sunrises!)

INTERMEDIATE SETTINGS & Concepts to Maximize Picture-Quality:

AF (auto-focus): Fix the auto-focus target to the middle of the screen. This way you always know what’s being focused-on(!!)

    o …then you can ½-click the shutter-release, hold, & re-position your framing for the composure you want, & your subject’s face (&/or ‘most-important point’: cf ‘Golden Mean’/Rule-of-3rds below) will still be in focus

Metering: Choose ‘spot’ exposure-metering: this will also be in the center of the screen, so now whatever you focus on, will be optimally exposed…

    o Ideally, focus on your subject’s face, and now that will be in focus, and exposed correctly… And your shot will look great, even if other parts of the shot blow-out (too bright) or get crushed (too dark).
    o Occasionally your subject will be moving too fast, so learn to either
    § Quickly switch the Metering back to ‘Evaluative’, -or-
    § Aim at something with a similar exposure at a similar focal depth (often the subject’s shirt, etc)
    § Advanced: you can set the camera to set exposure separate from the shutter-release, ie with a different button (cf Canon “Custom Settings”, etc). Then you can set exposure once for a series of shots, & not worry (& it will increase your frames-per-second significantly)

Composure/Focus Target: “Rule of 3rds/Golden Mean”

    o Wide Shot: The person’s body is in focus, & place them at one of the ‘corner’ points of the ‘grid lines’ (ie, the optional rectangle, ~1/3 inset from edge-of-frame, ‘square within a square’ of the viewfinder):
    o Medium Shot: Their torso is at a corner point
    o Close-Up: Their face is at a corner-point
    o Super-close-up: Their eye is at a corner-point
    Rule: as long as their eye(s) are in focus, the shot is in focus. If the eye(s) aren’t in focus, it isn’t ‘creative focus’, it’s just blurry :-(

Creating blurry backgrounds, or ‘bokeh’:

    1. Widen your aperture to max
    2. Zoom-in as much as you can (ie, max the telephoto)
    3. Increase the distance between your Subject & the background
    Note: there is often an inverse relationship between aperture & zoom: until you invest in expensive ‘fixed-aperture’ zooms, most zooms decrease the aperture as you zoom-out. This is to avoid bad optical problems, such as pincushion distortion, color fringing, etc, but WRECKS the bokeh(!). So: practice with your zoom, & find the optimal zoom distance which allows some level of bokeh. Here’s a few guidelines:
    o f/5.6 or above is usually extremely difficult to get good bokeh. Use f/4 or wider if possible
    o Wide-angle, eg under 24mm focal length, is difficult to get good bokeh, unless you’re shooting f/2.0 or wider.

SHOOT WITH RAW:

    o Yeah, there’s lots of arguments/religious warfare re. “JPEG is Faster” & “I can edit my JPEGs JUST FINE”
    o Ignore those ppl. Once you open a RAW file in the native software (eg, Canon Digital Picture Professional, or Nikon (whatever?)– RATHER THAN ADOBE RAW– you will unlock amazing levels of super-clean adjustment: from exposure, white-balance, color-correction, sharpness… to simply zooming-in & reframing: VERY VERY CLEAN.
    o The only time to not shoot RAW, is if you absolutely must need super-fast burst, &/or have no spare memory card. Sure, the file is bigger, so get a faster laptop, & back-up media…
    o Correspondingly- unless you’re a professional on daily-turnaround assignment, there is no reason to shoot “RAW + JPEG”. You’re just slowing the camera down, making the file fatter, & you can do all that afterwards on your laptop… w/ arguably better quality.

THREE RECOMMENDED ‘PICTURE PROFILES’ (to be used as a ‘starting-point’):

    · Indoors:
    o Purpose: to shoot without flash as much as possible indoors, you need to get the shutterspeed at least 1/125
    o Av, aperture wide-open
    o ISO: 800 or 1600 (test!)
    o WB: ‘Bulb’/Incandescent.
    o Lens: wide as possible, no more than 50mm zoomed-in, or you will lose a lot of light

    · Outdoors:
    o Purpose: Shoot without a flash with as much bokeh as possible.
    o Av, aperture wide-open (unless you’re overexposing at ISO 100 or below)
    o ISO: 100-200 for noon/bright light, more if you’re zooming w/ a non-fixed aperture lens. 400-800 at dusk is fine.
    o Lens: zoomed-in as much as possible.
    o WB: Auto… Except at sunset!
    o Subject: Ideally subject is as far away from the background as possible.
    NOTE: Avoid having the sun behind you: the subject will have a lot of front-on, flat/uninteresting light (or at noon, they’ll be washed-out). Similarly, avoid direct overhead ‘noon’ light: it creates harsh shadows & is really unflattering to faces.
    Much Better to have the sun behind or on-profile to your Subject! This allows the sun to create highlights or ‘rim light’ against their hair, etc.

    · Portraiture
    o Purpose: Shoot with as much bokeh as possible.
    o Av, aperture wide-open (unless you’re overexposing at ISO 100 or below)
    o ISO: 100 or lower, for minimal ‘gain’ artifacting
    o Lens: zoomed-in as much as possible.
    o WB: ‘bulb’ if indoor, auto if outdoor.
    o Subject: with back or profile to the sun, allowing the sun to create highlights or ‘rim light’ against their hair, etc. Get the person out from under direct sunlight, & position something white’ish nearby to ‘bounce’ the sunlight on their face… Also, Ideally the subject is as far away from the background as possible.

Recommended Lenses (of course, this is a personal preference, but many top shooters have found this a good ‘starting-point’):

    · 24-105 f/4.0L – Fixed-aperture ‘L’ lens, terrific “walking-around” lens w/ great bokeh, esp fully zoomed-in.
    · 70-300 f/4.0-5.6L – Fantastic image-quality super-zoom. 4 stops of dual-mode IS, focuses in near-dark, & pin-sharp at 300mm wide-open(?!) Its nearest competitor is the 100-400 f/4.0-5.6L, which has 12yr-old technology, & is really outclassed…
    · 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 – This is a prime (non-zoom), & perfect for indoors. Super-fast, & good ‘portrait’ distance. The f/1.8 is a very low-price lens, & not built as robust, but the optics are good
    · 100mm f/2.0 – This is a prime/non-zoom, which will have terrific bokeh at f/2.0
    · 135mm f/2.8 ‘soft focus’ – I would borrow/test this lens; soft focus is pretty soft, ideal for portraiture, but I personally like the option to selectively blur in photoshop/etc

HOPE THAT HELPS!!
Now get out there & SHOOT!!! :-)

PS: If you want More where this came-from, check-out my post: “Does your Shot Work?

In praise of “Columbiana” & the ‘solid-B movie’

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

So I love most of Luc Besson’s work– from the brilliance of the (original) “La Femme Nikita” and “Leon”, to the solid action’ers “Taken”, “Wasabi”, “District B13″, & even “Kiss of the Dragon” (having a young daughter myself really makes the last 1/3 of that movie work brilliantly). And hey- give Besson props for “Angel-A”, a very nice ode to Wenders’ triumphant “Wings of Desire”.

So of course I couldn’t wait for “Columbiana”, & was a bit stunned how much the critics slammed it…

But know what? I think there’s some kind of hubris running thru most reviewers when confronted with an action movie… regardless if it’s a ‘Thinking Action’ movie. They feel ‘cheap’, & feel it’s their duty to diss… even to the extent of tuning out 1/2-way thru the film, & or even making shit up (cf Ebert’s review of “King of New York”: it’s clear he never watched the full movie).

Even famous multiple Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman lamented this, noting that “action films will never win a Best Picture Oscar” [Note: "Braveheart" or "LOTR" are 'Epic/Adventure', not 'Action'] & he even joked, “maybe an action film about medical malpractice could win”. Well, we had that film, “Constant Gardener”, & it was brilliant, Rachel Weisz got her well-deserved Oscar, but nope it still didn’t win “Best Picture”.

Ironically- lots of the ‘great’ filmmakers have made ‘Thinking Action’ films:

  • “Runaway Train”: scenario written by Kurosawa
  • “Blade Runner”: based on & ‘approved’ by Philip K. Dick
  • “Heat”: written by Mann, based on work by Edward Bunker (“No Beast so Fierce”)
  • “City of God”: written by director of “Constant Gardner”
  • “Apocalypse Now”: written by Milius, directed by Coppola

So- let’s get into a few examples from the reviews[sic] trashing “Columbiana”, shall we?

“If that sounds like an intensely generic plot outline that because it is”
“Action aside, what ultimately kills the film is a complete lack of originality or initiative”
-> Perfect straw dog for a Reviewer who’s already decided to dislike the film. Did they even watch with both eyes open? Let’s take 4 examples:

    1) “with a smart FBI agent (Lennie James) right on her tail, she needs to execute before it’s too late”
    -> You’re right- that does sound hackneyed. Oh wait- that’s NOT WHAT HAPPENS AT ALL IN THE FILM.
    In the *actual* film “Columbiana”, Cataleya not only isn’t ‘worried’, ‘rushed’ nor even ‘inconvenienced’ by the FBI; she casually abandons her digs w/o a murmur nor even anger at her boyfriend when SWAT blows a hole in her door. She then casually outwits said FBI guy, & turns him into her stalking horse, & then scares the shit out of the suave CIA guy as well, w/ the very .50cal she pulled right out from under the FBI’s noses. “Before it’s too late”?! This is even more elegant than “Taken”‘s Liam Nielson messing about with cellular gadgets to outwit triangulation!

    2. “the script makes little attempt to establish [Saldana & Vartan's] personal connection”.
    -> So, you’ve just ignored 3 separate scenes, plus the underlying theme running thru *all* their scenes together: “Can’t we do something together like normal people?” Vartan asks the very first scene. Then he (tries) to withold sex to ‘ask questions’ [now c'mon! that's pretty Original right there! We've seen 'female love interest's do this in Action films, but a MALE love-interest?! Nice!]. Then she’s willing to risk phone triangulation to let him “ask three questions” as she’s running away. IOW- she’s not into ‘talky/feely’ ways of showing she cares, but she just took an ‘Action’ one. Sure it’s not a ton of character development, but saying “makes little attempt” is just ridiculous.

    3. “it’s never explained how the men she murdered are connected to the Colombian kingpin.”
    -> Now it’s clear the Reviewer definitely ‘tuned out’ 1/3 of the way thru the film. Sure, we think that when we first see her wax the scary Danny Trejo-looking guy… & the screenplay throws us a feint, letting us think “oh she’s killing her father’s murderer’s crew”. But wait- then she’s killing a Madoff-like white guy: CLEARLY NOT RELATED TO DON LUIS! Huh? And then for the duffers, just like said Reviewers, the film actually SPELLS IT OUT, TWICE: “Oh, [she's] sending a message” says FBI guy, -&- “Oh, you’re sending a message to Don Luis, not us!” says FBI guy again(!)
    It’s not “Who” is being killed, it’s the Orchid Drawing on their chest! In lipstick, to just nail that point home. And guess what? Don Luis figures it out IMMEDIATELY!

    4. “That’s nothing, however, compared to the fact that Cataleya and Don Luis never share a single scene together in the entire film.”
    -> I suppose the very climax of the film, a ‘telephone two-shot’, doesn’t count? And especially when she resolves it so elegantly? “Eat!”

For a film with so much similarity to “Taken”, plus the added spice of a woman in the lead role, it’s curious sites would rate “Taken” a 3, & “Columbiana” a 1.5 Perhaps the Reviewer doesn’t appreciate “B” movies? And wishes he was watching Bergman instead? Or worse, it’s “ok” to have “guilty pleasure” of male-based Action, but somehow disquieting if women kick ass too?

FWIW- I just watched “Debt” & found it long, turgid, morally corrupt & philosophically inept. A paean to whining, the film manages to make the ‘heroes’ come-off as petty incompetent bureaucrats, while the Bad Guy comes-off as more morally honest, & successful to boot! What more perfect ‘evil villain’ exists than a Nazi Torturer, & yet these pathetic liars incompetently screw-up twice, then take-credit & brag for 30 years for a success that never happened. “I knew it was going to come-back and haunt me?” Shit lady- quit thinking of your pitiful life, & consider the thousands of murdered people whom you just cheated of JUSTICE!

Mirren was much, much better in “Red”: “I kill people, dear”. And Justice was much, much better served in “Columbiana”: “Eat!”

Does your Shot ‘Work’ ?

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

Let’s start w/ the Mechanics:
a) Focus. Can you see their eyes (or most-important eye), CLEAR & CRISP
-there’s no fall-back; everything else can be blurred, but NOT the eyes…

b. Light. Can you SEE what’s important, & it’s picked-out clearly
-Key: can i pick-out the salient details
-Fill: are the surroundings lit too, (keeping) the most-important stuff from being too harsh
-Rimmed/Backlit: is the most-important part ‘framed’
…not necessarily (exactly) like a ‘Studio’ shot
…but otoh– if you can get that ‘sense’ in a ‘live’ shot, you’re doing great

c. Motion/Direction. Are our eyes PULLED to the most-important part of the image??
…& this same thing works for moving shots or static too:
-> is the most-important thing, MOVING.
-static shots: from physically moving, ‘capturing the moment’
…them ‘holding-still’– but can you see their ‘interest’, do their thoughts move…
…& if it’s a flower, can you see how it (has) moved, eg towards the sun?
…& if it’s a building, can you see how light moves across its surface?
-motion shots (ie. filmmaking):
…if the key Player isn’t moving, then move the camera: even the (slightest) of Push-In’s
…or cut-in to CU, SCU, ECU…
…it can even work w/ a jump-cut [or even CinemaScope: cf Gandalf & Frodo's intercut ECU's when deciding which fork to take, inside of Moria, "Fellowship"]

.
…but most-important of all:
Does the Moment Tell a Story.

-Beginning, Middle, End
-Who, What, Where, When, Why, How

The Best shots are “Character-Moments”
-they tell us something about Who They Are
-they tell us something about What they’re Thinking
-they tell us something about How they Feel

.
…& here’s a few of my Favorite Tech Tricks:
1) ‘Pin’ the auto-focus to the center-point.
-that’s where the spot-meter is…
(you can always zoom-in, 1/2-press the shutter to set exposure & focus, & zoom-out, change framing, etc…)
-> “Always Expose for what’s in Focus”
…& let the rest blow-out or get crushed, no-problem… :-)

2. Shoot Long, & as-Open-as-possible
-maximize your bokeh!
-ie, f/4 maximum! Borrow a 50mm f/1.4 lens, & see what “really cool backgrounds” does for your shots!
-> “lots of bokeh” = “instant Production-Value”
…if nothing else, it means “this shot wasn’t taken with a consumer camera” :-)

3. Shoot Burst
-ppl’s expressions change fast; so maximize your chances of getting the shot
…you can always delete extra shots later…
…invest in several 4GB CF cards; heck they’re $35 now(?!) :-)

4. Put the ‘most-important part’ on a ‘Golden Mean’ point
(…ie, the ‘square within a square’ of the viewfinder):
-WS: the person’s figure
-MS: the person’s face
-CU: the person’s eyes
-ECU: the person’s (most-important) eye
…for more about the ‘Golden Mean’, check out Bare Bones Camera Course for Film and Video by Tom Schroeppel

5. Shoot CMOS !!
…CMOS renders facial tones much, much better than CCD
…CCD’s just don’t blow-out or crush nearly as ‘creamy’; they always look a bit ‘crisp’, ‘digital’… ie, “posterized”.
-easiest test? shoot a face, in a dark room, by candlelight.

.
…oh & BTW?
…if these Shots were’re talking-about are of my Daughter?
-fuckkit– i’m taking a TON
…& i won’t have any kind of discrimination–
…b/c i can see so much in her Look, in her Thoughts
…& each tells a Story, a Story i really care about :-D

…so sorry about that :-P

PS: If you want More where this came-from, check-out my post: “Getting the Best out of your DSLR

SF 2007 48Hr Film Fest!!!

Wednesday, June 27th, 2007

Hey– our 7minute film premiered at the San Francisco 48Hour Film Fest last nite, & it rocked!!. We got a ton of applause, laughter (at the right parts), & congrats’ afterwards…

So while it’s fresh, here’s a bit of hard-won wisdom[sic]:

Pre-production:
1) get clear roles assigned, w/ lines-of-command & deliverables
2. test test test your equipment first to confirm everything works together (computers, mics etc)
3. try to do a ‘dress rehearsal’, ie “mini fest” of 5hrs or so, from (mini) script to playing it on a tv, to see how everyone does under pressure, & get everyone familiar w/ their roles, tools, & what’s expected of them.
4. let the writer(s) Do Their Thing… try to not inflict them w/ your ‘good ideas’ until they ask for them, but do step-in & point-out when any of the following get lost in the mix:

  • From the first page, & on each page following, we should always know: “What is Happening -and- Why do I Care?”
  • Start quickly, & End w/ a Bang. There’s no time for ‘Deep Thoughts’ in a short film…
  • Simple & funny is always much better than long & involved… this includes # of characters, subplots, character arcs, anti-climaxes, etc etc.
  • Leave VO (voiceover) as your Method of Last Resort to fix a film which doesn’t make sense. It’s waaay too easy to make crappy VO which “tells you what to think” & completely cheapens your film…
  • Production:
    1) get a ‘set boss’ (AD? Producer?) who manages traffic, & keeps (numbnuts) from walking thru shots, etc.
    2. iron-out workflow (slates? continuity-girl? script-boy? “who can call ‘cut’?” does Director need to watch a monitor or camera LCD screen? does Producer?) *before* the shoot
    3. “the set works best when it is optimized for allowing the actors to *be* their parts. Anything/everything that distracts from the actors giving real moments *must* be ruthlessly pruned if you want to capture anything of value”.

  • This is HELL when *everyone* has ‘great ideas’[sic] & just Has to come running-up & give their $.02 {see #1}
  • OTOH– ignoring everyone’s ideas will definitely lose you out on great in-the-moment inspirations which are the lifeblood of a truly creative set (I typically get 30%+ of my best stuff thru in-the-moment inspiration).
  • also: Tape is Cheap. Keep the camera rolling, thru rehearsals, thru ‘blown takes’, etc. Encourage the actors to just say ‘rhutabega rhutabega’ & keep rolling into a second take– if you don’t call “cut!”, they won’t have to re-find their flow, & you’ll find they give you better stuff, faster. This does mean your Editor needs to look at *everything*… which in a 1-day shoot, shouldn’t be more than 2 tapes anyway.
  • 4. “Shoot for the Edit”. Check-out the “10-Minute Film School” by Robert Rodriguez in the Bonus Features for “El Mariachi” — eg, shoot w/ transitions in mind, get cutaways, & you can grab multiple ‘shots’ in a single take, if you change focal lengths, move the camera, etc. Note: this kind of [compressed] shooting only works if your editor is on board; if the editor isn’t flexible, they’ll just see ‘disjointed shots’ & won’t know what to do w/ them…

    Post-Production:
    1) while editor is doing their thing, let the cast/crew watch the dailies. That keeps morale up
    2. editor: mark/subclip the *great* moments, the ones that make you blink, laugh, or feel… & make sure they stay in the final edit
    3. cut together sequences, starting w/ the easiest and/or most fun. Show this sequence to a few of the above-the-line Team, & it will get everyone amped, & engender some good ideas
    4. let the editor assemble ‘their version’ first, & then let the director give notes. Nobody can create worth a damn w/ someone watching over their shoulder…
    5. edit in ‘passes’: rough assembly, then dialogue intercutting, then soundtrack, special FX, color-correction, etc. Eg don’t waste time on color-correction if your audio has holes in it (guilty! :-0)
    6. make sure not to cut-out the [special line, prompt, dialogue, etc]!!!
    7. leave time for a ‘sanity check’ viewing, w/ (new) viewers… they’ll tell you what you missed

    -and finally-
    8. cut the film you’ve made, *not* the one it “said in the script”. You can’t create shots that don’t exist, but you can cut to heighten performances, or diminish now-unneeded story beats or character moments. Don’t be surprised if the final film only passably matches the script… Doesn’t matter, if the film *works*.

    …Hope that helps, & See you at the Movies!!!

    300 “SPAAAAAAAAR-TAAAAAAA!!!!”‘s… at the IMAX!

    Tuesday, March 27th, 2007

    WHOAAAA!
    “300″ *rocked*!!!
    …they got the martial-stance/worldview *right*
    …they got the training *right*
    …they got the martial arts / fighting *right*
    …they got the battlefield dynamics *right* — even *better* than LOTR
    …they got the politics *right*
    …they got the religion/fight-the-gods *right*
    …they got the existentialism *right*
    …& they even got the relationship [strong-female] *right*

    …basically, they respected the Warriors:
    -what they believed,
    -what they stood for,
    -how they lived, &
    -how they died.

    …iow, it’s not about personal glory; it’s about doing what’s *right*.
    …so, so-what if they were a little silly re. the ‘reason vs. eastern mysticism’ part; i’ll spot them that, & they gave me 3 sex scenes & 3 decapitations. :-D DD

    …as far as the filmmaking itself, I found the following instructive:
    1) the Project started w/ a *great* story: the absolute *Classic* martial story
    2. -then- got some great writing & imagery from Frank Miller
    3. [but] the Director ignored Miller, -&-
    a) pumped-up Gorga, & made her a main character
    b. gave Leonidas a son, which made him human
    c. created several totemic images, including the ‘Villager Tree’ & ‘goodbye in the wheat-field’

    hmmmm.
    so Yes it’s true– a writer who also writes core imagery is an auteur (ie, Miller)
    -but- he still can be (successfully) re-written, & the story taken to the next level.
    …which isn’t usually the case; most times an auteur is re-written, ugliness (& hackdom) ensues.

    So yeah– as a long-time martial artist, I really appreciated the care the filmmaker(s) took to get the martial sensibilities right… from physical fighting-form to the mental philosophy. But even the CGI VFX was superb, very much a ‘character’ in the piece, shifting (styles) from scene to scene to augment the storytelling. And finally the storytelling itself was perfect: sparse, direct, like a gut-punch… but (knew) enough to slow-down occasionally, & ‘ease’ into the character scenes.

    & finally– Re the IMAX experience (or rather, IMAX projection of a 1:1.85 film)– hm. Bright, new print? Great. Lots of loud speakers? Fine. Large projected print at the upper curved screen? Dunno… this wasn’t ‘IMAX’; it was just ‘big’. (Real IMAX films are shot from POV of lower-third of screen, & biased inwards left/right as well, so all the surrounding imagery creates the IMAX ‘immersion effect’.) I’m wondering– my Toshiba widescreen at home has a ‘fake anamorphic’ mode which digitally stretches the farthest left/right to create the surroundings… while leaving the center-cut the same. Maybe if something similar was done here(?)

    …all I know is I saw LOTR in a widescreen theatre at the Metreon, & the experience was v. similar… but cost 1/2 as much. I know that H-wood is trying desperately to get us to come-out to the theatres, but charging $15 for ‘fake-IMAX’ isn’t doing it for me. ‘Real’ IMAX is amazing, & well-worth the cash…

    If they really need more ‘eyeballs’ in the theatre, ‘buying seats & eating sugar’, then maybe they need to provide something a lot more compelling… hot & cold running blondes, perhaps?

    Oscars ’07 — Ah gee, whoopie! …& land of the living lesbians

    Monday, February 26th, 2007

    So the Academy, in its infinite wisdom, decided to ‘finally reward’ Scorsese. Fine… let’s just call this one for “Raging Bull” & “Taxi Driver“, & be done with it. And bonus– maybe he’ll stop whining, stop appearing as “incessant film authority” in all those retrospectives, & start working on an actual film 1/2-way as good as those 2 above. Yeah right.
    And btw, so much for all those elaborate Price-Waterhouse shennigans re. ‘guarded briefcases’ w/ their ‘secret tabulations’… B/c there just ain’t no way you get Coppola, Spielberg, & Lucas all together to hand-out an oscar, if it ain’t going to Scorsese. Sheeeze, why not just get the ladies from “Deal or No Deal” & be done w/ it; at least they’re waaay better to look at, & seem genuinely compassionate when ppl blow huge deals & go-home w/ peanuts…

    But hey– right outta some kind of Howard [no 'K'] Stern’s wet fantasy, we had the parade of those ladies from lesbos:

    • Ellen (of course)
    • Melissa Etheridge, -aaaand-
    • Jody Foster!!!

    Hottt! :-)
    But Oscar ’07′s best moment, has just gotta be when “Departed” took-home the brass ring. Based, as announced, on a 2002 “Japanese”[sic] film, which Scorsese always claimed he “didn’t see” yet somehow imitated so slavishly…

    Um, can we all just agree that, if the “Best Film of 2007″ is just a thinly-disguised remake of a very recent, emminently watchable foreign film… then maybe Hollywood hasn’t just suffered from “runaway production’ (ie. Canada, Romania, New Zealand). They’ve actually outsourced their creativity as well.

    All Hail you auteurs of “Foreign Cinema”– for you’re making the films we’ll be watching tomorrow, & not just subtitled & hidden in grimey art-cinemas & on the waiting list on Netflix. And for all you purveyors of off-shoring, who keep pointing at H-wood saying “the US still provides the entertainment of the world”… well, reality-check, bitches.

    Scorsese’s Oscar

    Thursday, January 18th, 2007

    Man that guy can bitch.

    For such a self-titled scholar, you’d think he’d somehow forgotten this little list of genius auteurs who never got an Oscar… Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles. What true filmmaker wouldn’t kill to be listed in their company?
    Scorsese absolutely, no-question, should have got his Oscar for “Raging Bull”. Or before for “Taxi Driver”. But you know what? That’d never happen– directors never get the gold for their early films, unless they’re an ‘actor-director‘, or writers who had help or had famous fathers). Instead, like some kind of interminable macabre high-school prom/homecoming court, the “most important award”[sic] in filmmaking is really just a popularity contest. With a couple of guidelines: the film(maker) must be popular. The film can’t tank. The film must never cover new territory, but rather (re)do something that was done before, w/ a bit more opulence, and/or a somewhat edgy twist. And oh yeah, killing Jews never hurts; after a lifetime of making popcorn movies, it’s telling to note that when Spielberg decided he wanted that golden statuette of his own, even he pulled-out the ovens.

    So there’s the quandary– Scorsese hasn’t made a decent film in 25yrs. He tries re-make after remake, getting progressively more ostentatious & blood-thirsty. But at least he kept to remaking old films.

    But now comes “Departed”, or its real name: “Infernal Affairs“.

    Remaking an old film is not at all like making an original film… just like adaptation is nothing like working from an original script. The adaptation already has a built-in audience; we already know that the characters ‘work’, that the story is moving, & the ending is solid. And similarly with a re-make, we know the entire film works, from story to casting to the shots & the music(!) Really, all you have to do is “not f*** it up”. So why re-make? (I mean, other than for the $$, which I’ll give Scorsese the benefit of the doubt about). Usually, it’s b/c the film has been forgotten, the actors on screen aren’t familiar, &/or the setting/milieu looks anachronistic on video.

    But “Infernal Affairs” was none of these things.

    The film was made in 2002. It starred a virtual “Who’s Who” of top actors in Southeast Asia. It boasts the talents of Christopher Doyle, one of the best cinematographers working today (consider: “Hero“, “In the Mood for Love“, etc, as well as most of the best of War Kung-Wai’s films). The story is very contemporary, layered in shades-of-grey, while exposing-from-inside facets of asian culture other films promise but never deliver… & for all that is edge-of-your-seat thrilling from start to finish. Like an asian “Heat“, but with even more interesting supporting characters.
    So why remake? Simple- Scorsese was looking for a ‘paint-by-numbers’ win, & he landed it. Yet, there must have been part of his (now slumbering) auteur sensibility, if not pride, leaking thru– when questioned about lenses by Doyle, Scorsese blew him off, saying “I’ve never watched the film you made”. Funny, in the “Departed” trailer alone I counted 5 exact duplicate shots from “Affairs”. Or how about when Andy Lau, star of “Affairs”, asked Scorsese for a bit part? You-know, give him 2 lines for his SAG pass & help him cross-over into the H-wood market? It’s not like he can’t act or something; he only carried the picture head-to-head w/ Tony Leung, one of the best actors working today (in Asia or West). Nope, Scorsese blew-off Lau completely, as well. I guess Mr. S couldn’t fit-in an Asian in his Irish New York gangland drama (boy, that sounds familar; I wonder if there were any butchers or planes involved).

    You know what? Scorsese already got the highest filmmaking award– the Palme d’Or for “Taxi Driver”, & well-deserved it was. Scorsese already has the words “eminent film authority” wallpapered on his forehead, popping-up as he does in every single retrospective for the past 10yrs, like some kind of demented Ebert who actually once made a watchable film (unlike Ebert’s own contribution to filmmaking). So how many more accolades does the guy need?

    All I can say is– for God’s sake, give him the damn thing already. He’s no longer an auteur, no longer has taste, & doesn’t even have originality. I can’t imagine what he’d do if he loses… maybe steal re-make “It’s a Wonderful Life”, in black & white w/ extra blood, a la “Sin City”.

    Fellini once noted “you only get 8″, but he was able to scrape-out an extra “1/2″. Scorsese should quit pretending he cares about ‘film’, & go bask in adulation teach in some hoary film academy which churns-out Sundance-wannabes. Or produce Michael Bay & Bret Ratner explode-a-fests. But for the love of God, quit stealing true auteur’s work… it’s beneath you, Mr. S. Please don’t leave me w/ a bad taste when I pull-out your old work; you really were something, once.

    4 Pretty-Great Recent Action Films

    Thursday, September 28th, 2006

    Wow… for whatever reason, just right about the time I completely give-up on H-wood… out comes something pretty excellent to watch. Last time that happened to me was ’93, & when out came “Tombstone” & “Carlito’s Way”… which I watched in a single afternoon, sneaking from theatre to theatre, & basically walked-out amazed.

    This time, it’s:

    • District B13
    • Crank
    • The Protector
    • Fearless

    …which, you must admit, only includes a single US film, but hey.

    What makes a Great Action Film?

    Fantastic action is an absolute must. Stuff flies around, main guy has a passion that is pure, & leaves no stone unruffled gettin’ to it.

    Reason for action. Anyone can drive a car fast or knock someone silly; our guy has gotta be ruffling shit for a purpose. “You killed my father” is not-bad… but how about spending some time reflecting on ‘what it means to be’. Dare we say… ‘profound’?
    -and-

    The Take-Away. If you’re walking-out going “whoa, that rocked”, that’s good. If you’re walking-out going “whoa, that rocked”, but inside you’re quiet… & the next day you’re still ruminating… that’s great.

    Truly Great Action Films:

    • Apocalypse Now
    • Blade Runner
    • Runaway Train
    • Heat
    • King of New York
    • Seven Samurai
    • Hero
    • City of God
    • Bullet in the Head
    • The Killer
    • Terminator
    • Alien
    • For a Few Dollars More

    Basically, it can be done, people. And why bother? Because faaar more ppl will watch City of God than ever watched Seventh Seal… & I’ll bet were profoundly moved by it more. B/c writing a densely-symbolic allegory is one thing… but to do the same, w/ real-life, living, breathing characters… that’s mastery.
    Films aren’t just sausages, & ‘deep meaning’ doesn’t have to be imponderable & subtitled from the French. Jeesh– I dare you to read the subtitles in District B13… you won’t have time. :-)

    “Reel-time Death” in film

    Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

    It all began so very easily to understand– life moves at 24fps, & that life is Good.
    But then “Bonnie & Clyde” happened, & we got to see death in slow-motion… repeated, from various angles, in overlapping action. We got to wallow in it, & it made it ‘hyper-real’. So much so that riots happened, & the film was nearly banned.
    But, of course, soon every film did that. Until the ‘slo-mo’ death scene became not just a hackneyed, expected effect… but it actually became the opposite of what it intended. Instead of emphasizing, ‘punching-up’ death, it instead became a distancing mechanism. By slowing-down, circling-around, seeing the action in repeating layers… we were pulled-out of the diegetic world, & instead were essentially reminded that we were watching actors on a screen, “covered in ketchup”.

    So how to make Death meaningful again?

    Play it at full-speed.

    Anyone who saw Kubrick’s “Full Metal Jacket” in the theatres remembered the stark end of Part1– fatty salutes, whips the M1 into his mouth, pulls the trigger, his head flies back, & fades-to-black. All 1 continuous motion, boom & he’s gone. I remember a nervous shudder running thru the theatre seats… “did that just happen? holy shit”.

    Mann takes that one step further in “Vice”. Crappy film, completely lost-touch with what made the original series great (attitude, clothes, & fast vehicles were secondary to a passionate sense of Sisyphus’ian morality)… but Does Action Right:

    Death comes point-blank, no-hesitation, & no slo-mo or repeat/overlapping shots. Lady cop wastes the baddy; Foxx gatts the Big Boss.

    And better– Mann does the same thing to sound. No ‘cannon-hit’ enhanced pistol shots; no fuscillade of machine-gun fire. Instead, the final shoot-out has the sporadic, quiet pop-pop which real M16′s & AK-47′s make.

    And you know what? Since it’s so rarely seen or heard, reality actually is more impressive than Hollywood glamour.

    Nicely done, Mr. Mann. But please– from “Heat” to “Collateral” to “Vice” is a precipitous drop; can we have a more “Heat”-like film already? Please?

    Screenwriting & Structure…

    Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

    My screenwriting teachers have always practiced ‘tough love’, & my fave writer-on-screenwriting is Goldman.
    What they suggest is Asking:
    1) What’s Happening, &
    2) Why [should] I Care?

    …& keep asking that, from the first page on. Flip it open to any page, & if the 2 answers aren’t immediately obvious, then there may be issues in need of attention.

    Classic Structure is:
    Act 1 ends w/ “Hero up a Tree” (with a tangible Want he must achieve… & best if it leverages the idiocyncracies of his Character)
    Act 2 ends w/ “Point of No Return” (he’s already overcome increasingly impossible hurdles; but now he has to *truly* commit)
    Act 3 climaxes w/ “He got [the tangible something], or He Didn’t”.

    * Anything that doesn’t fit that thruline must be ruthlessly purged, or morphed into one that does.
    * Any scene which has only 1 purpose must be rewritten
    - (eg, backstory PLUS plot setup PLUS character-dev PLUS ‘something important happens’ PLUS *surprise*).
    - My fave example: the final confrontation between Rutger Hauer & Harrison Ford in “Blade Runner”. But damn near every scene in “Silence of the Lambs” does multiple things too.
    * & the Ending must be a Surprise, but Justified. Which means to me: Yes the guy gets the girl, but Not the way we expect, & she’s Not quite completely what he had in mind. Kinda like getting “3 wishes” in Dungeons & Dragons– wish for gold, & you get it… in the form of a avalanche that suffocates you.

    Finally– “complex characters, & simple story. Or the reverse. But never both complex at once”.
    Which is why “Something About Mary” or even “Dumb & Dumber” work; very straightforward/simple characters, in a world increasingly complex. Mary can be (accidentally) creative in her hair products, or even have a ‘heart of gold’, but she can’t have an emotional transformation. And neither does our hero… what he ‘succeeds’ at is steadfastness. Whereas “Annie Hall” has some funny set-pieces, but overall leaves tons of room for Woody to have an emotional transformation… his ‘pitfalls’ are all in his head, not in the scenery.

    There– 1 yr of Screenwriting Classes, in 1 ‘post :-D