Jump to content

James McBee

Basic Member
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  1. I don?t know if this is the best place for this, but it didn?t seem to fit in any of the other groupings. I?m looking to get out D.C. where I?ve lived for the last few years. In my experience DC is sort of a film wasteland if you?re not into documentary, and don?t have the contacts to get work on the big Hollywood projects that occasionally shoot here when they need to have the capital building in the background for one of their political thrillers. I?d like to stay on the east coast, and preferably move north rather than south (I like the cold, or rather dislike the heat) but I?m not married to either preference. I?m looking to do the whole indy thing, and I want to find somewhere cheap that has a good arts scene. I decided a long time ago that moving to NYC or to LA would be the wrong way to go about things?at least for me. I think if you go to one of those places you are just one of a huge number of people trying to get noticed, and people are a lot more cynical about banding together and doing something on their own. So I figure if I can find a more affordable place with a decent amount of like minded individuals it would be a good start. A decent job market wouldn't hurt either. So where should I be considering? Thanks for your thoughts.
  2. Wow. I stand corrected. And yes, it was really just the texture of it that made me think that. Also maybe the eyes. I really am very suprised though. And I would also clarify my point about masking. I didn't mean it in a negative sense. Most truly effective techniques have both a practical and a thematic motivation. I think anything that is as unreal to most people as a faun would look and seem more implausible in bright harsh light. So I think the dim bluish quality served that function, but was also appropriate to the story.
  3. I attended a screening of ?Pan?s Labyrinth,? last night. All I can say is that it lived up to my expectations, and then surpassed them. It really was the kind of movie I?ve been waiting to see for some time. I don?t know who decided that children?s movies and infantile action flicks should have a monopoly on the fantastical, but Del Toro has broken that unwritten rule, and done so to great effect. My one criticism would be the CGI. Some things (especially the faun) did look a little plastic even though he chose wisely to keep the lighting low key so as to mask them a bit. What I would have liked to see was more use of puppets and models in conjunction with the animation. While I wasn?t the unabashed admirer of ?Lord of the Rings,? that many were, I thought that?in the first two installments at least?they handled the more unreal elements brilliantly, by mixing models, puppets, and actual sets, with what they can do on the computer. Of course Peter Jackson seems to have since thrown all that aside. But that aside ?Pan?s Labyrinth,? is definitely among my favorite movies of that last few years.
  4. I wouldn't rely on it too much. Most of the major DSLR makers tweak their ISO settings. They're not really the same as with film, or with other digital cameras for that matter.
  5. I liked the lighting a lot. In fact, I think it was beautifully shot all around. And the story had me going for a while aside from some obnoxiously whimsical elements that kept reoccurring. But then it really went off the rails. What made me sad about it was that I kept on seeing missed opportunities?places where Tykwer could have given it some amount of cohesiveness, and made it into a really interesting parable about artistic obsession. Instead, it seemed that they conceived this elaborate and well thought out tale, and then chose the ending randomly, with only minimal attention paid to what it said about the rest of the film. As if three quarters of the way through, he lost all focus and veered off randomly into the surreal. Fellini could move back and forth between realism and surrealism, but when he did it was motivated by elements of the story or the themes of the film. Tykwer, on gets the feeling, either lost his grip or just decided to mess with the audience a bit before the whole construction came crashing down.
  6. Very excited to see this. It hasn't been released here in DC yet, but when it is I'll be there. From the preview it looks like just the kind of thing that, in my opinion, is lacking in Hollywood. Two of the biggest complaints I hear about the movie industry are 1) that adaptations aren?t faithful enough, and 2) that what is needed is more realism. I couldn?t disagree more strongly with either. As to the first, while I would love to see more original screenplays being produced, as long as they are going to continue adapting novels, I would rather that the filmmakers had the freedom to follow their instincts. After all what is the point in making a film that is the same as the book? If it was a good book, the film has no chance of improving on it, and the work will almost invariably seem constrained. That?s why Hitchcock always chose pulp novels to adapt. That way he could take what he liked from a story and abandon the rest without feeling that he was doing anyone a disservice. When asked if he would be interested in directing ?Crime and Punishment? he said that he would not, because it will always be Dostoyevsky?s masterpiece, and would never be truly his. So for Pete?s sake, let filmmakers be filmmakers, and don?t expect servile adaptations. When it comes to the second peeve (and this is what I think relates to ?Pan?s Labyrinth? in this little rant) I think there is too much realism in Hollywood films. I mean, I understand that what people are usually referring to when they talk about this is the glut of escapist films, but by couching their criticism in the language that they do I think they are encouraging Hollywood?when it comes to their serious (or ?prestige?) pictures?to focus on movies that are largely devoid of imagination. I think a fairy tale for adults is a brilliant idea (in fact it?s one that I?m exploring in my own writing), but I think it?s the kind of thing that is normally rejected out of hand when it comes to American films. What I think we really want are real characters, even if they are revealed and unraveled for us through a fantastical situation. Certainly Shakespeare never hesitated to use supernatural elements, in the middle of very serious dramas, because in those days people recognized that things that are imaginary can still be very revealing when it comes to the human condition. So anyway, while I haven?t yet seen the film, and thus cannot say whether I will like it, I salute Del Toro for having the courage to do something different. Oh and sorry for the long winded pontifications. I hope I didn?t highjack the thread. I just got very excited when I read about this film and saw the preview.
  7. Those are all fair points. And there is something to be said for keeping things simple on your first few projects. But it?s an easy rut to get stuck in. And I don?t have any special insight into what Bunuel was after, though I would argue that abstraction is less a theme than a style?Unless the film is about a character feeling chronically abstracted, which I don?t think is the case with ?Un chien andalu.? I think ?8 ½,? would be a better example of that kind of thing. My point was that ambition is good. I would rather overextend myself, and fall flat on my face, than make a little, modestly successful film, from which neither I, nor anyone else would learn anything. We all know that Orson Welles after making ?Cititzen Kane? was never able to match, much less surpass, his freshman effort. He seemed torn in too many directions at once. But he still made what is largely regarded as the greatest film of all time. I?m not sure that I agree with that assessment (and some would credit Mankiewicz for the film?s success), but Welles was clearly brilliant?and I?ve always believed that his genius had something to do with the fact that he was absolutely brimming with ideas, and for a while at least, had the fortitude to push on with them no matter what anyone else said or did. So my advice to any filmmaker would be to trust your own instincts. Let other people read whatever they like into your work. It?s a film, not a thesis paper. Then again, who am I to say?I?m still writing my first feature, and it?s taking me an awfully long time.
  8. Lastly (for this list) - make sure you know what the movie is "about" - beyond the forces - what is the movie thematically about... is it about racism? honor? trust? death? Now - start looking at your scenes. In each scene you need to identify the same thing. What is the fulcrum and what is the consequences. But this time, you want to ask yourself "how does this relate to what the the movie is about?" AND "how does the resolution of this scene tip the scale?" I agree with this, but only to a degree. The best movies are usually almost impossible to boil down to one or even ten things. You should definitely know what your film is about, but it should be very hard to explain. In film school they teach you that you have to be able to talk about your work, and there?s a reason for that?namely that it is expected of you in the industry (oh how I loathe that word). But in some ways I think it feeds into the situation we are in where most films coming out of Hollywood, are extremely sophisticated stylistically but are, to be honest, lacking in depth. People shouldn?t walk away from your film, and say ?that was a film about racism,? or ?that was a film about fear.? They should walk away, and argue about what the film was about. If you want to make simple entertainment, than that?s one thing. But if you want to make the kind of film that academics will study, and that cinephiles will keep coming back to, than you need to create something that is so layered that is hard even for you to talk about. Some of the best directors do the worst audio commentaries/interviews etc, and I?m pretty sure that there?s a reason for that. One way or another, it isn?t easy. As to my personal recommendation?this might not sound like the most exciting piece of advice, but you should read Stanislavski. Every director should. Most of the advice you?ve gotten so far?especially that regarding objective, and action?comes from Stanislavski originally. So why not go to the source. Sorry for the long winded response.
  9. Yeah, the acting was fairly strong all around, with the exception of Hugh Jackman, who I thought was a little weak. But the story was the pits in my opinion. Once again Hollywood has demonstrated how all the talent in the world can be squandered if the screenplay you are working with is inadequate. I felt similarly about Road to Perdition which I still think was among the most beautifully shot films of all time (thanks in large part to the late great Conrad L Hall), but which somehow seemed completely flat.
  10. Another vote for Moviemakers' Master Class. Great book. Frankly I think that?s the only kind of book on filmmaking that has any real value. As a few previous posts have pointed out there?s no such thing as a ?how to? guide to directing. At least there shouldn?t be. Either something works or it doesn?t, and the only way your can find out is by trying it. In the Woody Allen interview, he says that students ask him all the time how he knew that he could get away with talking straight to the camera in Annie Hall, and he says that he always responds that it?s just something he knew. Even though Allen is not among my favorite directors (though I?ve certainly enjoyed some of his films), that really struck me. When it comes down to it, filmmaking is usually more about following your instincts than anything. Another book that I really enjoyed (and learned from) is the Hitchcock/Truffaut book. It has been criticized in so much as a lot of people feel that Truffaut didn?t really push Hitchcock enough, but there?s still lots of good stuff in there. Every medium has its master technicians, and it?s always been my feeling that Hitchcock fills that role in the world of film.
  11. If we?re including films that are wonderfully awful I?ll add ?Clash of the Titans.? Haven?t seen it in years, but if memory serves it?s the most enjoyable piece of trash I?ve ever seen. Plus come on, Olivier as Zeus?what more could you want.
  12. I really enjoyed the film, and thought it was vastly superior to "21 Grams," which struck me as a little too operatic, and without much payoff. I do agree with Steve, that Brad Pitt left something to be desired, but I don't think it was the fault of the direction, or even necessarily of Pitt himself. I just think it was hard to seperate him from his preexisting persona, and thus it was difficult to believe in him as this everyman character. To be sure he wasn't the only star in the film, but he is the only one who is an icon. That kind of status can definitely be useful, but it can also be a detriment. In this case I would say it was the latter. But everything else about the film was incredibly strong in my opinion, from the writing on down.
  13. The following are films I consider required viewing (Most of them are pretty obvious, but a few of them are not): Naked Vera Drake Metropolis M Rear Window Vertigo Strangers on a Train Badlands Ararat Dead Man Walking The Third Man The Grand Illusion The Beat that My Heart Skipped The 400 Blows Gandhi Chinatown Some notable ?indie? films from the last few years?some of which may be imperfect?but all of which are definitely worth checking out include: In This World The War Within The Ballad of Jack and Rose The Believer There are too many great films to ever compile an even remotely adequate list. And of course it all comes down to personal taste. Anyway, this is just what popped into my head right now.
  14. Thanks a lot everyone. You have all given me a lot to think about...And happily it looks like I might be able to shoot on film. Dan: Thanks very much for the offer. I would love to have the nickel tour of colorlab. I'm pretty busy at the moment but if you have any slow times in October, let me know and I will drop by. Thanks again.
×
×
  • Create New...