Shit- and hit-list for 2007.

[Paul Bruening]

I agree with David (I always agree with David, well... because he's always right) about his quote. I like to describe movies as a queing device. Give the veiwer enough information so that they may become involved. They want to immerse themselves into the experience. They want to figure things out on the fly. They want to do what they do all day long- make sense of a confusing world. Don't take that away from them by spelling everything out. I am amazed by just how much the veiwer "gets". At the same time, I'm stunned when they don't get something that seemed obvious to me. Even worse, when someone else looks over at me assuming I got the point and I don't have a clue. I don't dare fake it in case they ask me what I thought about it. These days I just sit there and look stupid.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The problem is that too many writers don't know how to advance plot and lay out exposition except through dialogue, when dialogue should be there more to develop character and reveal emotional states.

 

There is a real art to writing for the cinema that seems to be becoming a lost art and what we're left with are basically wannabee TV sitcom scripts.

 

---Sandy Mackendrick was constantly pointing out in his classes that one should be able to follow the plot with the sound off. The dialogue should be mostly icing on the cake, not the whole cake.

 

Despite all the flashy visuals of the CSI shows, the plots are mostly carried by expository dialogue.

That with the overly grim characters makes it for me a chore to watch.

[David Mullen ASC]

There will always be a few people in the audience who just don't "get it" -- the question is if you are making the movie for the slowest brains in the theater or not.

 

Kubrick mentioned how some audience members polled after "2001" was previewed thought that Dr. Floyd was going to a planet called Clavius (after he tells the Russians that he's going to Clavius), not the crater on the Moon, despite all the shots of the shuttle flying towards the Moon! You didn't see Kubrick changing the dialogue to Floyd saying "I'm going to Clavius... you know, on the Moon."

 

But talking to directors I've worked for, I am appalled at some of the studio notes they get, often demanding that long exposition-heavy dialogue scenes be added and anything negative be removed that could ever possibly offend a person in the audience ("Please cut the shot of the kid pushing his plate away from the dinner table because the audience will not like the kid if he doesn't eat his dinner." "Please remove reference to father's death because that will only make audience members depressed.")

[NathanCoombs]

My problem with dialog in many contemporary films (and a huge number of "Indies" unfortunately) has less to do with quantity (my own films have no dialog, but I like Eric Rohmer..) than it does with the fact scripts and characters seem to come from other movies, television - at a remove from real life (if it still exists :blink: )

 

Everything mediated by media so to speak.

 

I second this, again Pulp Fiction could be to blame. Dialogue should come from the thematic concerns of the film.

 

As for the reality look. I think people on this board are more reacting against the bad use of it (as a cop out from learning about real cinematography) rather than its expert deployment. In the Dardenne's films it is VERy effective.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think a lot of indie filmmakers are either trying to write like Tarantino or Kevin Smith (and these guys are usually fine writers, it's their imitators that are bad...)

[Sam Wells]

I second this, again Pulp Fiction could be to blame. Dialogue should come from the thematic concerns of the film.

 

As for the reality look. I think people on this board are more reacting against the bad use of it (as a cop out from learning about real cinematography) rather than its expert deployment. In the Dardenne's films it is VERy effective.

 

Yes but the Dardennes are working in the tradition of Bresson, and cinema-verite... Marker, Rouch...

 

agree with David it's the second hand Rose thing.....

 

-Sam Wells

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I just want to point out what I think was a "hit" this year but seems to be ignored by both lists.

 

The well motivated and executed jump-cut.

 

I expect this to rapidly make it to the poop list. But the only people who seem to be intentionally doing it this year know what they're doing, and it's been in my books a huge hit.

[James Steven Beverly]

Agree. It got a lot worse after Pulp Fiction, basically. Then everybody was convinced cool dialogue was the path to nirvana and the only worthwile way to write scripts. It spawned a whole pseudo-cooltalk-gunplay genre that just bores me to the core. Everyone else seems to love it, though. The trend is STILL with us more than 10 years later - just have a look at this:

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/sm...cal_medium.html

 

Having read this thead and not having seen it in quite a while, when Pulp Fiction came on again tonight, I decided to watch it again and try and figure out why Tarrantino suceeded and most others who atempt this kind of film fail. The things I came up with were these:

 

First of all, Plup Fiction was increadibly well written. The dialogue was crisp, interesting and fresh. It created a rhythm in the piece that works as a signature style and a focal point to the peice. The banter in a weird way reminded me of Howard Hawks' use of overlapping dialogue to creat a unique focal point in his films that draws an audience into the peice by dressing out the world he created and pulling the audience into the reality of that world. The stylized dialogue of the piece works to build a world in which these charatures live and the philosophies that is unique and magnetic for each of them.

 

Secondly, the dialogue never overwhelmed the visuals, If fact the visual not only complemented the dialogue, the were there to blow up to match the intensity of the dialogue. The dialogue was frank and stark and the visuals were bright and vivid. Also the framing and staging was alive and moving. The dialogue never stifled the movement within the scene nor slowed the action, even in the conversaional portions of the film, there was an energy that inplied movement. In may ways, Tarratino reminds me of Lynch in many ways. His dramatic use of color and the ascewed interpritation of Americana. I think Pulp Fiction has may elements that if not parallel, Blue Velvet, at least share the same realm as. I whould love a discussion comparing and contrastion Lynch and Tarrantino's work.

 

Thirdly and prehaps just as inportant to the film's success is that he had some of the finest actors on the planet in that film. If Jules had NOT been so skillfully played by Samuel L. Jackson the film would have failed. The same goes for every other role in the movie. The dialogue, though BRILLIANT was damn near impossible to pull off honestly. It was witten in a very stylized way that could easily been butchered by less talented actors. The moments, the beats, the subtle inflections, the grand explosions, the reactions, the connections between the charatures where handled masterfully by every single actor in the film without a single mis-step that I noticed. This may be one of the most inportant reasons less talented filmmakers fail when attempting similar endevours. It takes truely fine actors to make stylized dialogue appear as though it's real and unfortuately there aren't that many of those around.

 

Fourthly, At the time this film came out it was totally original. No one had ever seen anything quite like it. Although Blue Velvet shared many of the qualities this film had, as did the blacksploitation and spaggetti westerns that came before it and inspired many elements of it, it was unique. Maybe that is what gave it such inpact and has spawned such a poliferation of imitators, but as of yet I haven't seen anyone do it quite as well as the original. B)

[Brian Baker]

Agree. It got a lot worse after Pulp Fiction, basically. Then everybody was convinced cool dialogue was the path to nirvana and the only worthwile way to write scripts. It spawned a whole pseudo-cooltalk-gunplay genre that just bores me to the core. Everyone else seems to love it, though. The trend is STILL with us more than 10 years later - just have a look at this:

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/sm...cal_medium.html

 

But Pulp Fiction did have a lot of visual storytelling -- such as any of the stuff with Bruce -- with his trip back to the apartment specifically coming to mind.

 

That and during the talky scenes, I felt that movement was effectively used -- like when Bruce and his girl are in the hotel and she rolls around on the bed, or when sam and Travolta take a walk down the long corridor before their first hit, and the camera doesn't move.

 

Also, this coolgunsandhipdialouge type movies are some of my favorites -- maybe a guilty pleasure, but I really dig edgy, raw, criminal movies of such proportion... and am really looking forward to smokig Aces :0

 

I'm not saying every movie of saoid "genre" is that great... but I do feel that most of them serve a purpose; extremely entertaining, vicarious crminal-violence.... and these movies will always have a strong market.

[Brian Baker]

But Pulp Fiction did have a lot of visual storytelling -- such as any of the stuff with Bruce -- with his trip back to the apartment specifically coming to mind.

 

That and during the talky scenes, I felt that movement was effectively used -- like when Bruce and his girl are in the hotel and she rolls around on the bed, or when sam and Travolta take a walk down the long corridor before their first hit, and the camera doesn't move.

 

Also, this coolgunsandhipdialouge type movies are some of my favorites -- maybe a guilty pleasure, but I really dig edgy, raw, criminal movies of such proportion... and am really looking forward to smokig Aces :0

 

I'm not saying every movie of saoid "genre" is that great... but I do feel that most of them serve a purpose; extremely entertaining, vicarious crminal-violence.... and these movies will always have a strong market.

 

Take my previous post to be a much shorter, less thought out version of James, as he basically said what i was going for, with more preciosion and tact.

 

Also, I really appreciate a screenwriting discussion from the cinematic point of view... especially considering how little the occupation has impacted all the points made thus far.

 

EDIt: Also, for some reason I was allowed to edit this post, but not the one preceeding it.. otherwise this would all be one post.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Brian Baker

[Stephen Williams]

EDIt: Also, for some reason I was allowed to edit this post, but not the one preceeding it.. otherwise this would all be one post.

 

Hi Brian,

 

Editing is a time thing, maybe 5 minutes. Longer for sustaining members!

 

Stephen

[Adam Frisch FSF]

On Adam's other points, I am generally in agreement. I especially agree with David on the whole shakey-cam/reality school of production. On the other hand: (hang in there on this): Before I went to art school to get my largely useless BFA in Graphic Design, I had strong notions of what was good art and what was crap. After five years of school including quite a few art history courses, I realized that I was just shooting myself in the foot in my prior assesment of art. I think it is the same in movie-making. There is a tendency for anyone to choose sides or settle on one camp stylistically. I tend to do that. We all are choosey. However, I would like to think of myself as I am in art. I appreciate different styles and wouldn't limit my brushes or palette. I feel as long as my angle, lens, et al choices serve the story, then, what the hell- use 'em. I used to say, "I wouldn't be caught dead zooming." Now, "I could zoom there."

 

I change my mind all the time - I think that's how you evolve. Stuff I swore I'd never do 2 years ago I find myslef doing now, and vice versa.

[Michael Nash]

Coming towards the end of the year and inspired by another thread, allow me to tell you what I think is right - and wrong - to do in 2007. Tongue obviously firmly planted in cheek. :P

 

Not sure how I missed this thread...

 

Well written, Adam! I agree almost 100%. I'll keep my comments to the trends in professional work, not gripes against beginner fads or mistakes -- that's a whole 'nother thread!

 

I guess focus pulls don't bother me that much. I haven't noticed a particular overuse of them.

 

16x9 framing doesn't bother me either. It's close enough to 1.85:1 for creative purposes, so the technical compromise of its shape is irrelevant to me.

 

Underlight was "back in" with me several years ago -- but I'm a big fan of Elliot Davis' lighting, albeit extremely stylized sometimes.

 

The "faux-verite" :P look is so played out. Done with it.

 

I still see too much heavy-handed use of high contrast and color correction. Use it sparingly and appropriately, not "just because."

 

But my biggest complaint echoes something brought up here: The sloppy, lazy approach to coverage and the general lack of visual storytelling. Use the camera and editing to tell the story, dangit!! Fincher et. al. know how to present ideas visually, linking visual elements together in a single shot, or framing a single subject a particular way (and not just as a random tight insert). Dialogue and actors are only part of filmmaking (although very important). It's filmmaking after all, not just photographic coverage of a play. Use the FORM.

 

A corollary to this is one I've mentioned before; sloppy multi-camera coverage where two cameras cover the same subject with almost the same framing, but one's just slightly tighter. To me this just appears indecisive and ultimately says less visually, not more, by dilluting the statement of either shot. I'm all for multi-camera coverage, but make each shot say something distinct. If both cameras are "saying" the same thing visually, they just end up stepping on each other when cut together. Even some of our best directors have fallen victim to this trend in recent years.

 

I should point out that I recognize episodic television is under much tighter production constraints than most major feature films, and often can't afford the time and production support to execute elaborate camerawork and still make their days. So they often find other ways to get the story told with a high level of production value and distinctive style. Some shows are much better at it than others.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think a lot of this comes directly down to money.

 

If I want to have a shot follow the character out of bed, through the bathroom, down the stair and out the front door, I either need to be an entirely CG movie or I need a completely studiobound production on a very clever set and the world's best steadicam operator.

 

Or I can go and do it in someone's house with an HDV camera and a tripod, with ten cuts in it.

 

It's not really a choice.

 

This makes me think again about West Wing, ER, etc, with their huge long steadicam walk-n-talks. I mean, in reality, does anyone ever actually do that? Walk really quickly through a building (taking a suspiciously circituitous route) while discussing matters of great import?

 

In fact, I'm going to nominate that as the thing I'm now tired of.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

Or I can go and do it in someone's house with an HDV camera and a tripod, with ten cuts in it.

 

It's not really a choice.

 

Well we're talking about professional movies and TV shows, not homespun stuff. Most of these shows are operating within a reasonable budget, 35mm film, dollies, steadicam, etc. It still comes down to creative choice. If you're bound and determined to use the camera and editing visually, you'll find a way to do it. Even simple composition and blocking make a difference.

[Brad Grimmett]

This makes me think again about West Wing, ER, etc, with their huge long steadicam walk-n-talks. I mean, in reality, does anyone ever actually do that? Walk really quickly through a building (taking a suspiciously circituitous route) while discussing matters of great import?

 

In fact, I'm going to nominate that as the thing I'm now tired of.

 

Phil

They made fun of this on "30 Rock". Two characters started walking and talking (steadicam of course) and walked directly in a circle. "Did we just walk in a circle?" "Yeah, I was following you." "Oh, I was following you." "OK, good walk 'n talk." Then they go their separate ways. Check it out here: Walk 'n Talk

They did often go in circles on West Wing, but they were pretty sneaky about it. After the first season they moved to a bigger stage at Warner Brothers so they could do longer steadicam shots. Their whole main set fit on one stage instead of two, which enabled those longer shots. It really felt like being in the West Wing. It was a big set, and my first few times there I got lost.

[Phil Rhodes]

> Well we're talking about professional movies and TV shows, not homespun stuff.

 

I dunno, I am increasingly finding that the borderline between those areas is very grey and murky. They segue into one another without anything I can name which says "Stop here, you are now entering a low-budget zone". You tend to know what you're working on, but it's hard to figure out...

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

> Well we're talking about professional movies and TV shows, not homespun stuff.

 

I dunno, I am increasingly finding that the borderline between those areas is very grey and murky. They segue into one another without anything I can name which says "Stop here, you are now entering a low-budget zone". You tend to know what you're working on, but it's hard to figure out...

 

Phil

 

Well for the sake of argument in this thread, I'm talking about professional stuff that should know better. Episodic dramas on broadcast TV and theatrical releases by reputable studios. Better-budgeted music videos and commercials. Not the "gray area" stuff.

[Rolfe Klement]

Caught this thread a little late but 100% agree with David.

 

Some great moments in cinema - Truman Show - Turman's ship hits the horizon and the light falls and lands in the square.

 

Some of my favourite dialogue is about misdirection - two characters talking to each other about what they think is the same thing but is completely different (China town etc)

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[David Auner aac]

Speaking about dialogs and misunderstanding: I really love the dialogs of Ghost Dog and the French guy in Ghost Dog.

 

But on the other hand, for lack any good comment on my part, I will use someone else's (I think it was Hitchcock): "Dialog is just another type of noise." I really believe you should get the story without any sound. Go watch some kind of foreign movie and sit back far enough not to be able to read the subtitles (being short-sighted helps :D ). It really is refreshing to see how movies work when you don't get a single word. Try Finnish stuff, Kaurismäki. Or Asian films...

 

Regards, Dave