Sad year for film

Out of context: Reply #22

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 43 Responses
  • pr2-2

    When you shoot shit, you read your script 2-3 times then do some pre-pro. Maybe build sets, visit some locations to come up with lighting schemes etc. Since i often work with crappy directors (not always, but it just happens that quite often it's the case) on the day of the shoot they show you the scene and based on that you give them the best 5-6 angles to "cover" the scene of, say, 2 people talking in a room. This is TV filmmaking. In TV, the scene is not about something beyond and under the surface, the TV is shallow and the scene is about nothing else but what comes out of people's mouths, thus for the purpose of the edit you need to get enough footage to cover that shit. Films with soul on the other hand (or directors who grew beyond the TV coverage) don't need the coverage because the director knows that he only needs this shot and that one to fully be happy with the scene...

    Watch the Button again and you will see the most orthodox camera angles and editing as if the director didn't believe in his skills (which he's proven that he has) or the material thus he shot lots of unnecessary coverage "for safety."

    pr2 -2Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    • I get what you are saying ... but I feel like you are being waaaaaaaay to pickyRamanisky2
    • or maybe this film wasn't about pushing the visual envelope so much as it was about telling a story7point34
    • or maybe fincher has a bit more of an ability to explain why he did what he did than your assumptions7point34
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread