Phantom of the Opera

[Jeremy]

"Apocalypse Now" has the big shadow of the dolly, operator, and dolly grip during the move from the beach past Storaro, Coppola "don't look into the camera!".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think it was The Scorpion King in which I remember the camera operator and camera shadow falling right on horses as they rode by, so with each new horse, the shadow was there again.

 

Not a shadow, but probably one the worst crane mistakes I can think of is in the original Blade, when he's in the interrogation room. The camera cranes down, inside the room, and we can see the crane, camera, operator, etc in the mirror.

 

As far as audio, in Medium Cool, there's the part when someone off-camera yells, "Look out Haskell..." while Haskell Wexler's right in the middle of one of the riots. That one part made the film real for me, up until then, it was still a movie.

[Guest fstop]

And as Wexler revealed recently, that was actually dubbed on in post months after principal photography!

 

There's a pretty memorable camera and bike shadow during the mall truck chase from Terminator 2 - Phil Rhodes would have you believe it's all fun and games with that hard bright light in LA! :D

 

There's a crane visible in a wide shot of Bond's capture in the beginning of the tanker bow reveal sequence from The Spy Who Loved Me, I believe when you see Bond taken off on the monorail system. However, the crane is positioned right next to one of Ken Adam's full size torpedo launcher models and actually works in with the industrial design of the ship! Clever editing by John Glen.

[sandy]

 

The scene on the rooftop... I found myself looking around the audience in the theater. There was just nothing there... or the Phantom taking her down to his layer... very, very boring.

 

 

i agree. the movie seems just waaaaaaay too long but oe can't really blame schumacher for it... for some reason webber seems to think that the shortterm memory of the average viewer is about... hm... zero. and this can be applied to all his musicals i have seen! repeating each song within a song, summarizing the narrative at the end and explaining the moral once or twice (just in case, somebody might have been to the bathroom in beween...) is not really driving his plays...

back to the film: even though the camera is moving constantly i found myself checking the time in between quite a bit. the overall look is nice as in nice. i do't think the softness really adds but it doesn't take away anything either! i think the movie is pretty well done. i guess i'm just biased cuz of the narrative itslef, or rather the way it is told (and told... and told again...) <_<

[Mark Allen]

Finally saw this movie.

 

About the camera work. I think this film is a perfect example of how not to use your camera to your advantage.

 

First of all, we already have a barrier between audience and actor because their usually singing. Swirling cameras with little motivation with an abundance of gause over the lense is not going to draw you into the characters any more - it will push you away. Other than Emmy Rossum, I don't really feel like I ever made any connection with any character. I don't even know if I liked the actor who played Raoul or not as I am not sure I ever really had a chance to meet him despite his being on screen for so long.

 

I would have approached the entire film differently though as I think the director completely missed the metaphor and what makes this film interesting. The fact that the phtantom looks like he barely missed being cast on Melrose Place was the beginning of the wrongness. I thought lots of the production design was nice with colors, I thought the sets were way too stagey and, frankly, stupid - chandeleers raising out of the water with candles that pop to life... that stuff just pushes you away from the reality. I think the fact that Raoul suffers a gash to the arm and yet in the very next scene makes no indication of any pain is a perfect example of how the movie really didn't look at consequences - and as such, completely betrayed its dramatic potential.

 

I would have tried as much as possible to really focus on the tragedy that this amazing genius can do anything - except convince the girl he loves to be with him - and for that, he is miserable. It's a great metaphor - it's emotional - and it was completely lost.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Oh, and, oh, and, while we're on the subject of equipment in shot, the air-duct scene in Aliens where Tom Skerrit is crawling through the ventilation system - with possibly the most blatant inclusion of dolly tracks I've ever seen.

 

Again, it just looks like part of the set, but to you and I...

 

I also have a (cringe) Dolph Lundgren movie called Silent Trigger which, as well as one of the gripiest-looking comps ever committed to celluloid, has enough track in shot to run a train from here to Baghdad. In order to save anyone from having to actually watch Silent Trigger, I'll see if I can get around to grabbing some frames - really - it's as if they shot for 1.85 unprotected and nobody told the guy who was doing the 4:3 transfer.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

Phil,

 

I didn't know you watched Dolph Lundgren movies. :D

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Okay, the excuse is as follows: it was part of a triple-pack including the (cringe) van Damme movie "Double Team", which was possibly the first English language movie shot by Peter Pau and looks much better than it deserves.

 

Phil

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I finally saw this about a month ago and didn't think it as bad as people made it out to be. The camera shadow was a strange mistake to have happen though.

[Guest Matti Poutanen]

First of all, we already have a barrier between audience and actor because their usually singing. Swirling cameras with little motivation with an abundance of gause over the lense is not going to draw you into the characters any more - it will push you away.

...

I would have approached the entire film differently though as I think the director completely missed the metaphor and what makes this film interesting. The fact that the phtantom looks like he barely missed being cast on Melrose Place was the beginning of the wrongness. I thought lots of the production design was nice with colors, I thought the sets were way too stagey and, frankly, stupid - chandeleers raising out of the water with candles that pop to life... that stuff just pushes you away from the reality.

...

 

I loved the movie (I haven't seen the stage musical), and I just have to express my disagreement on few things.

 

I found constantly moving cameras in this movie perfectly justified. Had it been shot with stationary cameras, what would be diffirent from the stage musical? Moving the camera and other trickery elevates the movie from being a recording of a stage play to a MOVIE.

 

The other thing is this issue of realism. When there will be people singing the dialogue, the audience won't be expecting the rest of the movie to be an actual portrait of 18th century France. Movies like this are supposed to be larger than life, to push the audience as far from reality as possible!

 

And I think they did a pretty good casting job with Butler.

 

and I saw that shadow too, what an annoyingthing that was!