Million Dollar Baby

[Greg Gross]

I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings by sounding too intelligent,how-

ever there is a whole science about the colors of images. How those colors

relate to the viewer and are conveyed to the eye. Also a science of the use

of color in storytelling. Films with dominant colors trigger different emotions.

Who knows how the eye may react to a scene with a dominant color or colors,

different intensities and qualities of light,emotional influences?

 

Greg Gross

[Brad Grimmett]

I was wondering if Morgan is not really out of focus, rather amount of light, color is

making him appear that way.

                                                Greg Gross

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, that makes more sense. I wasn't completly clear on what you were getting at in your last post.

[Kyle Geerkens]

When I watched the movie a while ago I noticed that in conversation, in one dialogue in particular. the two frames have negative nose room....

 

I con't remember if the whole thing was done this was, but I was discussing with a friend how i didn't think Clint had anything to do with that decision.

 

Does anyone know what role Eastwood takes as Director? Does he concentrate on talent, or does he touch the shot as well?

[Christian Appelt]

Brad Grimmett wrote:

I understand that you didn't like it, but to say that they decided to just be "content" with certain aspects of the film isn't fair. Having your opinion is fine, but you're basically calling them lazy, which isn't cool. Unless you were there yourself, how can you say what you "believe" or don't believe happened on set?

 

Brad, I did not call anyone lazy, and I have admired Eastwood's work for years.

What I intended to express was that they had their list of priorities, and keeping all important elements in focus was not a top item.

 

I can imagine valid reasons. Getting both actors sharp would have meant stopping down another two f-stops, and stronger lighting would have been necessary. Maybe the director prefers working with low light levels, many actors also prefer a natural, low intensity light setup.

 

So maybe atmosphere, set design considerations or making the actors' work more comfortable were top of the list, depth of field was not. It's for the filmmaker to decide, but as a spectator in the theatre, I dislike it.

 

In too many contemporary films (not particularly M$B) , I consider shallow DOF a disease, not a creative tool. It has become so bad that even people without any interest in film style and technology ask me: "Why is everybody out of focus except the person speaking?". Some even believe that is a inherent drawback of chemical film and digital cinema will fix it soon...oh well... :blink:

Edited April 9, 2005 by Christian Appelt

[Mike Donis]

Funny however, when shooting video, a big complaint heard is the greater depth of field.

 

Can't please anyone :lol:

[Brad Grimmett]

When I watched the movie a while ago I noticed that in conversation, in one dialogue in particular. the two frames have negative nose room....

 

I con't remember if the whole thing was done this was, but I was discussing with a friend how i didn't think Clint had anything to do with that decision.

 

Does anyone know what role Eastwood takes as Director?  Does he concentrate on talent, or does he touch the shot as well?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never worked with a director that didn't offer his/her input on framing. It's their responsibility to make sure the film is composed the way they want it to be. If they don't offer their opinion in this regard then they are basically leaving a big part of the movie to an operator, who may or may not understand what they're looking for. So I'd be willing to bet that Clint had a lot to do with the framing in Million Dollar Baby.

[Brad Grimmett]

Brad, I did not call anyone lazy, and I have admired Eastwood's work for years.

What I intended to express was that they had their list of priorities, and keeping all important elements in focus was not a top item.

 

I can imagine valid reasons. Getting both actors sharp would have meant stopping down another two f-stops, and stronger lighting would have been necessary. Maybe the director prefers working with low light levels, many actors also prefer a natural, low intensity light setup.

 

So maybe atmosphere, set design considerations or making the actors' work more comfortable were top of the list, depth of field was not. It's for the filmmaker to decide, but as a spectator in the theatre, I dislike it.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, you're assuming that the shallow DOF was not intentional, and that it wasn't high on their list of priorities. And again, I ask, how do you know this? They may have been ND'ing so that they could shoot wide open. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that the fillmmakers didn't intend to do it. I don't understand why people think that they know better than the fillmmakers how they should have shot a particular film. "So maybe atmosphere, set design considerations or making the actors' work more comfortable were top of the list, depth of field was not." How do you know? If you know this for a fact then please enlighten me, but otherwise it seems that you are just guessing based on your own preferences. Why? Can't you just say "I didn't like it" and leave it at that? Why must YOU be right and THEY be wrong? It's their film! You assume that they made a compromise and the result was a shallow DOF. But maybe it would have been a compromise to them to have more depth of field. Maybe they worked VERY hard to have a shallow depth of field.

Please consider that just because you didn't like something, it doesn't mean the fillmmkers compromised.

[Dan Salzmann]

I really believe that someone with the tenure of Clint Eastwood can communicate with the DP about ALL aspects of a film he is directing, starring in and co-producing.

If he wanted more DOF he would have asked for it and got it.

I've also heard that he is great on set and the films he has directed wrap ahead of schedule and under-budget.

[Christian Appelt]

Brad Grimmett wrote:

Can't you just say "I didn't like it" and leave it at that?

 

I didn't like it.

[Greg Gross]

Maybe I can answer a few questions that were asked here. I'm looking now at

a book entitled "Reflections" by Benjamin Bergery. On page 164 Jack Green ASC

says this about Mr. Eastwood- "Because Eastwood acts in many of the films he di-

rects,he relies on the operator and the cinematographer to alert him to potential

problems." Green explains,"I usually know when Clint isn't going to like something."

"He surprises me every now and then,but more often than not , I know if he's going

to like something or not." "So if he's working in front of the camera and isn't able to

see what's going on behind him,or to watch another actor perform,the operator and

I will take it upon ourselves to watch those things for him." "We sort of serve as his

mirror for the set." "We have this code that works out very well." "If something is

wrong that Clint can't see,we'll say that there was a hair in the gate or that we made

the wrong dolly move." "Clint will ask, "Well what can we do to fix it?" "I'll reply we

got it fixed; don't worry about it." "Then he'll come over to us and we'll talk quietly,

not out loud in front of the actors." "Once we talk,he will understand why we have

to shoot, God forbid, a second take." "Clint's a very sensitive person and realizes

that most actors are very sensitive to the crew's reaction to their performance,be-

cause its virtually their only feedback." "Clint has a terrific respect for actors and I

have absorbed that respect." Jack Green ASC was an operator on 14 Eastwood films

for renowned director of photography Bruce Surtees. Mr. Surtees suggested that Mr.

Green be moved up to dp on the film "Heartbreak Ridge". Hope these quotes from

"Reflections" will help us all understand Mr. Eastwood a little better.

 

Greg Gross

[Greg Gross]

Christian,

If Clint and Morgan were sitting on a bench in the locker room having a

conversation, would you want everything behind them sharply in focus?

Would you really want to see the combination lock on a locker,sharply

in focus behind them? I'm not being critical of you,not confronting you.

Probably one of the rules most stuck to,would be that of shallow depth

of field behind them. However if you wanted the viewer to see every-

thing for a particular reason, say a man is putting a bomb in a locker

behind them,well then okay. I guess its just the fact that DOF is creat-

ive choice that matters here. I am not being critical of you as its per-

fectly okay to break the rules. You may want to make a creative choice

based on your dialogue,script,action,movement.

 

Greg Gross

[Christian Appelt]

Hi Greg, the answer is yes and no! :)

 

YES - I can imagine such a scene/shot in very deep focus style with every small detail perfectly visible. In fact, many old films I admire do have this depth and it never distracted me for a second from characters or action.

(THE HUSTLER would be an example for that, you can read every sign in the back of the pool room and see every card on the poker table, but the viewer's attention is controlled by lighting and set design.)

 

NO - I don't need to see the last bolt on the locker. But when two actors are in the frame (excluding over-shoulder shots, of course ;) ) talking to each other, then I want to be able to see the listener's reactions in perfect focus.

I prefer to have the freedom to focus my attention by own choice.

Viewer's attention should be guided, not forced. The eye always tries to focus on the point of interest, and personally, I find watching out-of-focus faces frustrating and unpleasant.

 

IMO, selective focus can be very important when you are shooting in an uncontrolled environment, doing documentaries or shooting cinema verité style. I wouldn't want some ugly neon sign or lamp post detracting from what the actors do.

But filmmaking under studio conditions is quite different because the DP and set designer maintain control over detail and lighting.

 

Just my $0.02...

[Brad Grimmett]

I prefer to have the freedom to focus my attention by own choice.

Viewer's attention should be guided, not forced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It appears that it's just a preferential difference. Clint doesn't want you to have the choice to focus on the other character, and you would prefer it if you could. It's all about taste.

[Max Jacoby]

There's out of focus and there's soft.

 

I too was distracted by the fact that at times the depth of field was so shallow that only one of two people in frame was actually sharp. The second wasn't really out of focus enough so that your attention didn't go to him. You were looking at him, but because he was a little bit soft, it was indeed frustrating that you couldn't read his face.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I agree; if you're going to put something out of focus, it's got to be sufficientlyout of focus that it doesn't just look like a slight mistake.

 

> If he wanted more DOF he would have asked for it and got it.

 

You don't know that; you don't know the circumstances. Nobody's infalliable.

 

> I've also heard that he is great on set and the films he has directed wrap ahead of schedule and

> under-budget.

 

You have to wonder where the give is that allows him to achieve this when few others can, although I do understand he does very few takes.

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

I agree; if you're going to put something out of focus, it's got to be sufficientlyout of focus that it doesn't just look like a slight mistake.

 

> If he wanted more DOF he would have asked for it and got it.

 

You don't know that; you don't know the circumstances. Nobody's infalliable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. It could be a slight mis-step, but it could just as easily not be.

 

> I've also heard that he is great on set and the films he has directed wrap ahead of schedule and

> under-budget.

 

You have to wonder where the give is that allows him to achieve this when few others can, although I do understand he does very few takes.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's a combination of very few takes and just always knowing what he wants. I think he just has complete control at all times and doesn't mess around with a lot of the crap that other directors get hung up on.

[Jayson Crothers]

Tom Stern spoke with us at AFI about his work in the film - to give you an idea of how involved Eastwood was, consider this - there was a scene being lit with only one main light (a junior if I recall) and a tweenie into a bead board for fill. Eastwood viewed the scene through the viewfinder as the fill light was turned on and off to decide whether to have it on or not.

 

I'd say that's being pretty involved with the look.

[Michael Struthers]

I had the distinct impression while watching it that it was on purpose, and it also was jarring and threw me out of the scene. Overall I think, a mistake that was well-intentioned.

 

I still loved the film.

[Guest Herbert Born]

I prefer to have the freedom to focus my attention by own choice.

Viewer's attention should be guided, not forced. The eye always tries to focus on the point of interest, and personally, I find watching out-of-focus faces frustrating and unpleasant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yes ... but ocassionally poop happens. Just noticed, that in one shot of MY FAIR LADY in the last reel, Rex Harrison moves towards the camera and stays badly out of focus for almost 20 seconds. And in this scene he is the alone and the point of interest, kind of talking/singing. When he moves back he went into focus again. Hard to notice on the TV, but on the big 70mm screen it took me out of the pleasure to watch this beautiful movie.