Super 8

[Markshaw]

The cinematography really threw you into the 1980's. It was perfect.

[Patrick Cooper]

Just saw the film today. Really took me back to the Speilberg of the good old days - 70s / early 80s. Very reminiscent of that period. Wow, I know what you mean by the abundance of lens flares. I generally like them myself (if you can call them stylistic choices) but I thought there were a few too many in the train station scene just before the crash. By the way, I thought the train crash was amazing. I also noticed the flares in the petrol station scene just before the creature strikes at that place. Hmmmm...coincidence maybe? Maybe not.

 

In terms of storyline, I thought it was good overall but could do with some improvement. I thought that the super 8 footage featuring the alien could have been utilised more. Would have been good to have that valuable footage play a more integral role in the film. For example, the Air Force could have suspected that the kids took the footage and so some excitement / suspense could have been created from the Air Force guys hunting for the film footage and the kids trying their best to hide it while they were on the run. However, in the movie, the Air Force weren't even aware of the existence of the footage! The Air Force guys were shown picking up the empty film box (previously containing the super 8 film cartridges) at the train wreck site so I figured that they would have got the hint. And we just saw that footage screened once....and then later in the movie, the film reel was handed to the kid's father and that was that....we were never shown the father seeing the footage. Considering that this is footage of top secret material that the government would be extremely paranoid over, I'm surprised that more emphasis (and coverage) was not given to it (after the film had been developed at the lab.)

 

Maybe I was expecting more like what happened in the Travolta film Blow Out. In that film, the still images, and audio, of the incident were analysed to a great extent...and repeatedly too. Though the ridiculous thing about that film was that Travolta's character was able to produce a movie clip with smooth flowing motion from assembling something like 5 or 6 frames together.

[Daniel Jackson]

The train wreck scene in Super 8 was seriously off the hook. I was completely gobsmacked by it, phenomenal.

[Markshaw]

I'm glad the Spielberg of old is back even as producer. Hope it continues.

[Chris Millar]

The train wreck scene in Super 8 was seriously off the hook. I was completely gobsmacked by it, phenomenal.

 

really ??

 

too long, too loud, too non-sensical, too much

[Daniel Jackson]

really ??

 

too long, too loud, too non-sensical, too much

 

Superb, yes loud, terrifying and thrilling things that Spielberg used to be famed for.

[John Holland]

Over here for some reason the film isnt released until sometime in August , i am really looking forward to seeing it . But i am away for most of August so not a happy bunny !

[M Joel W]

I liked the film a lot and had a good time. Even though JJ Abrams emulates Spielberg, the blocking and the scenery/solutions are nowhere near as sophisticated as Spielbergs. He really is a master at it (just rewatch Munich again as an example).

 

Sorry for the beginner questions, but what do you mean by scenery/solutions?

 

I agree that Spielberg is amazing at blocking, but what impresses me more than that alone is that he storyboards his films so carefully and still manages to keep things lively and naturalistic. It's not just a matter of where people are moving and when but how he coordinates that with the camera. He's very good at keeping action spatially coherent and camera movement emotionally resonant even while coordinating fantastic figure movement.

 

As someone who is starting out as a director (shorts and stuff), I want to know...how can I learn to do this? Does it require very good spatial skills, coordinating all that in one's mind? Should I buy some of his storyboards? Or work backward from his early movies, mapping out blocking diagrams and shot lists as I watch? If Abrams can learn, I figure so can I...

 

While I agree that Super 8 was shot too tight in general, given that Abrams started as a TV director he manages to avoid an over-reliance on CUs pretty admirably. Only the special effect sequences (train crash, the entire third act) felt way too tight and over-edited to me. I was very, very impressed by Abrams' direction of the quieter scenes and they honestly felt a lot like Spielberg to me visually, even when the script (which had problems even before it entirely fell apart at the second act turn) felt self-conscious.

Edited July 15, 2011 by M Joel Wauhkonen

[Daniel Jackson]

Over here for some reason the film isnt released until sometime in August , i am really looking forward to seeing it . But i am away for most of August so not a happy bunny !

 

Any particular reason why such a high profile film is taking so long to be theatrically released in the UK?

[Brian Hulnick]

Especially a Spielberg movie. I though a movie made by Sir Steven Spielberg would be release UK wide at the same time or maybe just after the US release.

[Pat Murray]

Sorry for the beginner questions, but what do you mean by scenery/solutions?

 

I think he means mise-en-scéne/set design.

 

 

 

I agree that Spielberg is amazing at blocking, but what impresses me more than that alone is that he storyboards his films so carefully and still manages to keep things lively and naturalistic. It's not just a matter of where people are moving and when but how he coordinates that with the camera. He's very good at keeping action spatially coherent and camera movement emotionally resonant even while coordinating fantastic figure movement.

 

John Carpenter learned by analysing the films of his favourite directors like Howard Hawkes. I recommend you do the same and closely analyse Spielberg's movies.

[Brian Hulnick]

I wish that Spielberg would finally put an audio commentary on one of his Blu-rays. I would love to hear what he has to say about his techniques and other tidbits.

[Tom Jensen]

I saw Bigfoot once. He made a sound I would not want to hear twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Adam Frisch FSF]

 

I agree that Spielberg is amazing at blocking, but what impresses me more than that alone is that he storyboards his films so carefully and still manages to keep things lively and naturalistic. It's not just a matter of where people are moving and when but how he coordinates that with the camera. He's very good at keeping action spatially coherent and camera movement emotionally resonant even while coordinating fantastic figure movement.

 

As someone who is starting out as a director (shorts and stuff), I want to know...how can I learn to do this? Does it require very good spatial skills, coordinating all that in one's mind? Should I buy some of his storyboards? Or work backward from his early movies, mapping out blocking diagrams and shot lists as I watch? If Abrams can learn, I figure so can I...

 

While I agree that Super 8 was shot too tight in general, given that Abrams started as a TV director he manages to avoid an over-reliance on CUs pretty admirably. Only the special effect sequences (train crash, the entire third act) felt way too tight and over-edited to me. I was very, very impressed by Abrams' direction of the quieter scenes and they honestly felt a lot like Spielberg to me visually, even when the script (which had problems even before it entirely fell apart at the second act turn) felt self-conscious.

 

Take a look at the following clip, as it's a good example. It's the scene in SPR when the mother gets the news of her sons deaths. Shot of the reflection of the military car arriving as she looks up (around 3:10). Then one or two shots of the car driving up and the whole remainder of the scene played in a tracking wide from behind her (around 3:45). Tells everything you need to know and has enormous emotional impact. JJ Abrams and pretty much 99% of all contemporary directors would have cut to a close up of their faces here to really hammer home that scene and milk it. Not Spielberg. And that's why I don't think he gets credit enough, he's seen as this guru at making money/successful movies - and he is - but he's an absolute master at his craft as well.

 

Saving Private Ryan scene

 

Blocking and mise en scene is becoming the lost art of filmmaking. I see it everyday with the directors I work with. The newer directors just don't know how to do it as they've never done it, never seen it, never been taught it and all their references don't have it! Films today are made in the editing suite, not on set. That's why even the smallest film today has 4 cameras running simultaneously - there used to be more than one only when something was being blown up or a big stunt was about to go down back then.

[David Mullen ASC]

What's great is the way the priest stepping out of the car is revealed by the mother stepping to the right.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

What's great is the way the priest stepping out of the car is revealed by the mother stepping to the right.

 

That's great, hadn't noticed that before.

 

But as an additional point - it seems that the approach is: what's the point in blocking when you're not going to be in the scene for longer than 2 seconds?

 

God, I'm sounding old these days. It's depressing :rolleyes:

[David Mullen ASC]

That's great, hadn't noticed that before.

 

But as an additional point - it seems that the approach is: what's the point in blocking when you're not going to be in the scene for longer than 2 seconds?

 

God, I'm sounding old these days. It's depressing :rolleyes:

 

Yes! It's a real problem -- many directors today don't know how to block a shot that can sustain itself for more than a few seconds before a cut is required. They just block actors irregardless of editing or camera placement, then shoot it like a documentarian but with a lot more cameras rolling and the ability to cover the same action from multiple angles, and then they figure out the scene in the editing room, rather than figure out the scene before they step on the set. There is a belief that the job of a director is to figure out a way to make a scene as cutty as possible, because holding on a shot is "boring". But the trouble is that a cutty scene can also be boring -- it's like someone hitting the same key on a piano over and over again.

[Chris Millar]

-- it's like someone hitting the same key on a piano over and over again.

 

 

[sarcasm]

 

like in Eyes Wide Shut ?

[/sarcasm]

 

[Brian Hulnick]

That entire scene in SPR was beautifully done. I still feel a knot in my stomach whenever I watch that scene. That was superbly shot and executed.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Brian Hulnick

[M Joel W]

Thanks for posting that, Adam, that's a great example.

 

I think, however, there's even more going on in that scene than just that. What Spielberg is particularly great at is keeping the audience at just the right emotional distance from the subject matter. It's not just that an extra CU is unnecessary--it's also that it would feel manipulative, artificial, in this case. I think what's least appreciated about Spielberg is that he's (at his best) extremely formally transparent, far more so than his Hollywood Renaissance peers. He blocks and shoots with clarity, elegance, and emotional impact, but the formal devices he uses are among the least overt and yet they're so emotionally resonant.

 

Spielberg's the master of indirect subjective cues (particularly push ins, aperture framing/composition in general, and music). He doesn't use as many POV shots as some other directors and his camera movement is rarely unmotivated: he'll rarely place you in any one character's head (as, say, Hitchcock might through range of narration and POVs); he doesn't rely on the edit to guide your eye but instead on blocking and composition; and he refrains from making his presence felt in other ways--as I wrote, he avoids unmotivated camera movement and unnecessary inserts when possible.

 

What's crucial about the scene in question is that it feels tragic without feeling emotionally manipulative. For tragedy to work, there needs to be some distance between the audience and the subject, but knowing how much distance and then modulating that distance appropriately as a scene progresses is difficult. This scene is set up with us knowing more than the woman who receives the letter and so we begin sympathetic to her but not actually aligned with her own experience, and while each shot brings us closer to her emotionally, Spielberg eschews any direct POVs, maintaining a bit of distance while still amping up our sympathies (he increases our sympathy but not so much empathy or vicarious experience). We're brought physically closest to her toward the beginning of the dolly right (when we're actually inside the house with her, which we aren't in other parts of the scene), but then when she actually receives the letter it's through the frame of a door and with her back to us--so there is quite a bit of distance, none of that straight-on CU that you're right would ruin the scene. The set dressing on the right clarifies and provides additional emotional impact, too, but organically, no cutting to inserts or unmotivated camera movement needed.

 

That's the thing; the scene isn't only extremely clear without any need for dialogue, inserts, over-editing, or voice over--it also has an emotional trajectory and arc that modulates alignment and sympathy through the subtlest means. I can cut between POV shots or add shakycam to put you in a character's mind or evoke chaos, respectively, but manipulating emotional distance and evoking tragedy/wonder/what-have-you as transparently as Spielberg does is just like impossible.

 

As an aspiring director, watching Spielberg is outright daunting. It's inspiring that anyone can achieve such impact through such subtle means--all the other "greats" are far more authorial or simply overrated--but also these scenes make me feeling hopeless to begin work on my own short films. I have no idea how I will ever even approximate this, myself. For now, I'll start by making shot lists and blocking diagrams of his early films, I guess, but he truly is a genius and among the greats--the greatest ever popular director, imo, though I do love Hitchcock...

Edited August 3, 2011 by M Joel Wauhkonen

[Markshaw]

M Joel Wauhkonen you echo my sentiments exactly. That entire scene worked so well without a spoken word.

[Brian Hulnick]

When you watch quality work by great directors such as Spielberg, Scott (Ridley), Zwick and Nolan it hits you just poop directors such as Bay and Mc G are. They are an insult to movie lovers.

[Adrian Samuals]

Although Ridley Scott has made a real stinker, G.I. Jane. And don't forget Spielberg made Hook.

[Phil Jackson]

The thing that gets me about Spielberg is how he's able to do very complex things, downright crazy at times, and make them feel motivated or not even noticeable. The minivan escape scene in War of The Worlds might be one of the more ostentatious moves in history, a lesser director would've royally screwed that up and made it look gimmicky but it works. The first 15 minutes of Munich (the interior angle of the terrorist on the balcony) and Minority Report when Colin Farrell's character literally appears out of nowhere on a wraparound steadicam shot, or the spyder sequence, or the scene when Anderton meets the guy who claims to have killed his kid. The Terminal has some wonderfully staged scenes. There are times when every shot of a sequence, even the smallest insert is so well placed that everything communicates something profound about the scene, as it should be, but it feels like today there is more of an interest in coverage over meaning. Whats more is that some of the tricks are pretty in-your-face but they always 'feel' right. I notice a lot of his more complex stuff are really two or three setups within a single camera move, often with some sort of character or scenery reveal.

 

I enjoyed Super 8 a lot, it definitely was a modernized telling of that late 70s era genre film and it was pretty cool. Some of the technocrane moves and steadicam work wasn't necessarily period accurate, but thats okay its a modern movie, and JJ does occasionally do some interesting staging (the first 15 minutes of Star Trek I thought was handled well too) but it definitely at times felt a tad contemporary. Maybe its the flares, or the tight framing, or JJ's penchant for milking the emotion out of a scene by dropping everything but the music (Michael Giacchino's score at times really nicely recalls John Williams of the early 80s). But that's hardly a criticism.

[Phil Jackson]

I think it also deserves to be said the acting was good all the way around. Elle Fanning did a really nice job being more adult than her dad. The movie did a nice job of letting the adult themes carry through the kids instead of trying to force it on top of the narrative. The scene where Elle Fanning explains why the mom gets killed was fantastic.