Jon-Hebert Barto

Question regarding fast, multiple, close-up cuts in fight scenes and its relation to the phycological impact on the viewer... "Does this style of "forced-perspective" actually limit the spectator as to their psychological response, which would be confusion? Is this ultimately good for the narrative?" Basically I'm asking, "Does this style of directing force the spectator into submission?" My answer would be "Yes, by design", which we all know. However I'm still open to the BIG question of an audiences psychological investment into a picture....It's overall participation. This begs another question, "Is an audiences reaction to a films images ultimately determined by what they bring to it psychologically?" Beyond the "if you have a bad day, your mind is more prone to confusion" stuff. We know that, I'm talking about their overall knowlegde of film grammar. Please tell me what you guys think about it...

HEHEHE!!! :D I know, that's why I love him! We don't agree on some political issues, for sure, but who cares about politics if a man can make you laugh? This was my little attempt at humor/sarcasm....FAILED!!

W. Greene had a fantastic list and "why"/"what" to go with it. Everyone here has a fantastic list.... I am also in favor of viewing films that are in diametric opposition regarding film theory. I guess this is more of a directors thing...But, no, because it has to do with grammar. Watch: Tarkovsky/Eisenstein (Tarkovsky wholely rejected "montage") F.Lang/Goddard (Goddard loved Langs films and considered him a master, but his style is opposite) If you're not into that, my general pics would be "Andrei Rublev" and "The Woman in the Dunes"...Also "Le Corbeau" and "Wages of Fear"...there are so many! (These films are all B&W, however...) Of course the American New Wave of seventies cinema is a film school unto itself...so much, so much.. Forgot! RAGING BULL!!! MIND BLOWING!!!

Who cares? The entire media is screwed up royally. This is just another blip on the radar of incongruous "facts" concerning all things 9/11. If this is going to change the way people vote in Nov., then these potential voters are complete idiots and shouldn't vote, but instead keep there grosse butts planted in the sofa and watch TVs newest, brightest, fall season stars make a mockery of what little culture we have left here... ...Besides Clinton is just making the matter worse. I never even heard of it before he opened that feotid mouth of his to object to its contents. Of course, I don't work in the industry and rarely watch the sh*tbox we call television. Also, he needs to protect his legacy. But, he will make millions more watch a network that was already going down the crapper.... This writer guy is an a**hole, so are the people who wrote west wing, so are all people behind "political drama" these days. No clear thought at all, just bias. Take your pick, left or right? "oh, thank you ABC. I much prefer this kool-aid!" It is poignant that the network calls it a "docudrama" and they are airing a "facts" screen concerning the making of this steaming pile before the broadcast. What the hell is "docudrama" anyhow? Oh, Truth mixed with fiction!!! How network of them! You are surprised? I guess the real reason for this post is that, at its roots, it calls into question Clintons focus on the big picture?Much like the Reagan miniseries called into question Reagans lack of focus on the social ills abounding in America at that time? Of course there were no "factual errors" in that series, no way! "unabashed conservative", oh, no!!!!! Please baby jesus, save us all!!!!! TV networks trying to influence by proxy!!? Cable news isn't trust worthy? What has happened? Lions, Tigers, Bears, OH-MY! People who let a Tele program change the way they would vote or otherswise let infuence the way they vote need to be shot in the head. Ok, that was uncalled for, I admit. I don't really think we should shoot them, just dig a very deep hole and put them there. Clinton is an idiot, Bush is an idiot, the government seems to have screwed everything up the last 15 years, and now the Television wants to help America on its way down the rabbit hole. I can't help but agree with your worry over the blatant "fact" check that never was, concerning the series. But, "stunning" is not a word I'd use to describe any networks decision making process. "stunning" eludes to "a big surprise" ... Ok, upon rereading this to edit before post, I have come to the realisation that I'm an a**hole. Sorry to those if I come off that way to you. But in the interest of "truth", I will not edit myself. Yep, there are people like me all over, and we vote! But not based on sh*tty "drama" produced for the worst kind entertainment, television! Oh, I do like some HBO stuff, however. And I watch the History channel...crap. I do watch Tv!

I am no pro! Let me state this clearly... However I'm sure the right vernacular goes a long way, you're probably just paying your "dues". However, some people are jealous wankers. And some are just plain a**holes!!! Sounds like this guy was the latter if he took up a significant time debating it with you...You might just have to put up with it until you learn a little more. Don't let the sh*tters of the world get you down J. Be better than them...turn the cheeck with a smile and keep producing beautiful images, it will come back to you in the form of a good working reputation, which is like gold in the industry. Again, I may be very stupid and ignorant to the politics of it all. Thats my 2 cents worth...

I think santo left on his own, taking with him the ancient art of "sophomoric debate", never to be seen again! He wasn't "banned" to my knowledge. Who knows? I don't care if he was...My healing process started when I read that he unregistered... :lol: :lol: :lol: hehehe, good riddance. BTW, its funny how you use the word blunt to descripe his debate style in opening this thread.... As in opposite of sharp... As in opposition to, incisive, insightful, intelligent, informative!!!! "Blunt", as in "Clumsy"..... HAHAHA :P Actually, I learned a little from the guy.... :D

I'd argue that "Full Metal Jacket" is a two act deal. The only real way to see it in three acts is if you take that last shot as the complete "3rd act", IMHO. Of course this is Kubrick, not everyone can get away with it. :D And this is the only good film I can think of with this structure.......Story telling in three acts is natural. You'd be surprised to look back on stuff you've written to see that it follows that form naturally. It's a bit like sentence structure...Noun, verb, noun, preposition....it just happens. "..it just happens."-Please don't crucify me for this statement. I know it's not that easy. I'm just saying if you have a well rounded character and he/she is in a wellrounded story, 3 acts will show themselves when pen is put to paper, so to speak. As one poster said, outline is key. Write down your ideas on 3x4 cards and see if you can divide them into acts. If you come up one act short, you probably don't have a legit end...

Whats your point again? :) ok, I get.."If they were shooting on super-8 the background would be minimized and the actor or actors would be maximized." Hence more close-ups. Does this mean there'd be more cuts, to follow the body comedy/action..? There'd have to be, right? My point being, you'd lose the nuance of the action/comedy in the actual cut.

I just had to post this: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2006/new/world.htm I was looking for info on which scenes were shot in 65mm and came across this on in70mm.com. Funny stuff...

I know what you're point is... My parents met in a car accident that killed two human beings. I'm glad they're dead. Now I can live. Just kidding, of course. :lol: There are situations like this all over the world, I'm affraid. If 6 million Jews weren't murdered by Nazis, Roman Polanski might not be a famous filmmaker. Thanks, Hitler! Actually, I'd like to take this oppertunity to thank Hitler for the giant diaspora which brought artist to many western countries, for the pain and anguish, the true depression of human emoitions which can only spawn great art. Thanks, Hitler! Without your evil the world be that much less enlightened. Ok, I'll stop. I'm just BSing anyway. I don't think you are defending slavery....If we had a chance to go back in time and change the "BIG" wrongs of human history, it is a probable chance that things may be worse. If you can imagine that...horrible to think of.

Are you serious about Landon? Very happy for him :D I hope all goes well.

Let me sum-up everyones opinion on the subject; "Hell, Yeah!" Also, some of our pros could dish up interesting essays on the state of the art, and update their current projects in another fashion, there are endless possibilities....ENDLESS!!! Tim....? Maybe if cost was an issue a top tier "subscriber" membership could pay to , say, influence some of our guys to donate time in recording material, ect., in the name of education. Just thoughts, ideas. Of course free is always good.... :)

The only reason most TV comedies are "WIDE" is because the comedy lies in the situation. You show environment to express the situation. This is also why we don't watch "Friends" for the way it is shot. Its economy of style is to enable actions unhindered. Ensemble or single actor has really little to do with the style of coverage. Hence Buster Keaton all by himself surrounded by his environment. Comedy ensues... Of course, I am now realising this has all been covered.....so...why did I post? :lol:

Dan S. Qoute: Personally I would love to see all motion picture people concentrate more on their personal "why's" because the "how's" seem to dominate. Well put, Mr. Salzmann. :) Technology over humanity. Of course you need to know HOW to fufill WHY, but nowadays philosophy/theory is an endangered species....

A lot of the "nature" shots, with available light. Max knows much about this, I think. I know he likes Malick very much. Maybe he can be of some help...

I beg to differ with your comment regarding the wide shot, which is the truth of convention. It not only serves as a "map", but can also be used in metaphorical terms of story element not to mention give "ultimate" purpose to preceeding shots, where you already know the environment. Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Kubrick.....All of 'em used the "wide" for reasons other than to "simply tell us visually for example where our story is taking place.." The classic Bergman shot in "The Seventh Seal" of death taking the folk for a walk in silhouette on the ridge... Which begs another question regarding "wide". Does this merely mean the focal length of the lense or of the covered environment within the frame? Kurosawa, for example, was a master of showing "wide" shots with a long lens. He showed the environment in telephoto quite well...Seven Samuri? The shot of all the rice planters in the feild, flat but three dimensional due foreground/backround characters. Brilliant!!! This is all very interesting. I love all your guys opinions... :) We should have more threads like this.

Eisentein and Griffith are the enemies of current American cinema. Not them, per se, their "inventions", "theories", "innovations" are being used as weapons by dimwits, unknowingly destroying the shape of cinema and creating a "pop" film theory. A "plug-in" style. Of course genre carries wieght in this debate.....that cannot be understated. But, well, take a look at films like "bourne whatever". Nothing but close-ups and quick cutting. Where is the environment? What am I watching? Where is the "passing of 'TIME'"...? This is a basic question of theory. I'm not rejecting any particular one here...just the bombardment of one monolithic theory not in print because it doesn't exist as true aesthetic. That is the hollywood template of "action". Not action films, but the difference between montage and frame. What happens within frame these days? I mean, what happens within frame that you can look at long enough at to actually "reinvest" into the image? Hence, the meaning? Are we watching for affect or effect? Do you make for affect or effect? I know there are holes to be punched in my comments...I'm kind of on a jazzy, freeflow thing writing this. I find theory discussion very interesting. Very! I had to join in the fun. It's not a right/wrong discussion, IMHO. Anyway, thats all I have to say right now. Lets keep this thread going, I love it. POST! -Jonnie Oh, I forgot to mention. I generally agree with your comments, Mr. Frisch.

You, Sir, are an insane fool. But we need more people like that in the arts, especialy film. I suggest you read up on Brackhage and his film theory, it might help you solidify your personal vision. With a piece like this, it's very hard to judge. This is when "art" becomes so personal one cannot really identify with it. In other words, if you were to look inside my head , you'd witness a cacaphony of images/sounds incomprehensible and be just as confounded. However, if I "filtered" this by filming with "conventions" you'd be able to understand a bit more...However the "reality" of my innermost thoughts would lose a certain "truth". Kudos to you, the man whom defies convention. Oh, the transfer sucked, BTW. You shot off the wall, right? Next time have it telecined, at least I could see the whole image...It couldn't cost much... Thanks for posting. Very interesting.

Wow, a rarity. Where did you get the conversion done? Try this link for your question: http://members.aol.com/azspectrum/16blccd.html If you Google (love how this has become a verb!) "video assist" + "16bl" you will come up with more information. BTW, great name! I love Greek Names. Is your first name pronounced with a hard "T" sound? Just curious....

Oh, ya, I would like to avoid the politics of it. Its the film theory I'm interested in. Doc theory, to be sure, should be expanded, IMHO. I don't suscribe to one particular theory, I just love discussions that revovle around it. You know, Eisensteins montage theory vs. the Tarkovsky "time within time" theory. I love it all. When you talk to people about theory, you get down to just how they see the world, quicker than with political discourse, IMHO. Anyway, I guess we'll have to wait till a good thread starts about that... If I'm ever in England we could have a beer and discuss it. Cheers-Jonnie

Ya, kids don't "copy" pro wrestling either......oh, wait, they do just that. The internet is littered with backyard amatuer wrestlers.....children are inherently ignorant(nature) .....some would say stupid. I'm not saying they'd go looking to fight a gator, but I wouldn't put it past a group of kids from trying to catch one. Happens in Florida.... As far as boxing being stupid, I disagree. Many/most Boxers are stupid, IMHO. If the Greeks still ran the Olympics I'd bet that MMA would be showcased. The human body is amazing and the idea of watching two trained people test its abilities is amazing to me, as a spectator. Of course the spectator has to be educated as to "what to look for". Otherwise you sound just like that Bill O'Reily character, violence this , violence that. Shut up and understand what it is, Bill! News flash, don't let your kids watch it unless they are ready, thats why they call it "a discipline". OK, I'm off topic. I was talking to a big scuba guy and he said the first rule is not to "hover" the sting-ray and Steve should have known better. Of course that could be complete BS, I don't know the guy, only an acquaintance. Anyhow, its a crappy thing. He was a good guy who tried to educate people, and I love a person like that.

Very true. Twisting truth is not fiction. What is "agitropic"? Where's my damn dictionary??? I'm familiar with "allotropic", meaning one thing existing in two forms. If that is what you mean it is a perfect way to describe Moores way of the documentary, IMHO. He mixes truth with inuendo, sarcasm, which eludes to a "point-of-view". I mean we could talk about this all day, "what is truth?", etc.,etc.,etc. After all, everything is subjective. My point is that TRIUMPH DES WILLENS records "reality"(staged as it was) and uses editing to force its opinion(more cinematic), whereas Moore uses words/speech within the frame, and in real expressed time and environment, to force his, like a sly interegator. He is very good at what he does and Leni was very good at what she did. This is really a very fascinating subject. But your point is very valid, and true. I guess I just showed my inherent bias on two different fronts at the same time. :lol:

I sculpt, mostly 1:1 scale head jobs. Sometimes 1:6 figure sculptures. As my sig line says, I also make latex masks for fun as a hobby. Sometimes people even buy them from me, there is a huge cottage industry out there... I also read history, alot. About %90 of my reading is non-fiction. Right now I'm into antiquity. As a matter of fact, I just finished a three quarter 1/2 scale bust of Hannibal. Hence my old display name of "BARCA". Actually I can't say this is my "other" art as I'm not currently involved in film as a hobbyist or amatuer, certainly not a professional. I'm going to be filming again very soon, I hope. I used to live in Austin and did make-up/sfx to get around film. There were always no-budget films being made by folks, probably more now...Right now I'm learning by reading many posts here, and getting my feet wet again reading more up to date film book material. Post prod, etc. Oh, how could I forget?! I also love my Mamiya med format camera! C220! Love it! I also shoot alot of 35mm with my old, trusty, all manual Nikon FM. Can't beat still photography for learning about the science of emusions and exposure. Well, it can be cheaper anyhow....B&W is my bag... Very good thread, BTW, Mr. Sweetman.

I know you're being serious but I think you mean "deceased"....? But no, I'd never make fun of a leper or anything.... :lol: That would be tacky.... hehe...diseased...funny

The man was %100 honest with himself and the public. A nice man, to put it at it's simplest. Unfortunately, I feel he did things in a "circus" atmosphere because thats how you can gain sponsorship and get your message out. Entertainment, nothing wrong with making education "fun". He did have a good message and always warned people about the dangers. Basically, as bad as it sounds, I believe towards the last few years he started living in "Hype". He believed the TV adverts, he believed his own press, hype. That is where many people go wrong. This stingray thing is an anomoly, I'm surprised it wasn't a croc or lion, etc. It will be interesting to see if the powers that be study the film and see if he did something completely unprofessional, that is, he made a stupid move. I hope not but it's always a possibility with something like this. It's nature out there, for Christ's sake! I don't care how long you've done something, no man is in "control" of the stiuation when it comes to nature. Case closed. That being said, it is a tragedy and the world will miss a personality like his. Good-Bye, Steve. :(