Benson Marks

Chad, I didn't say having talent means you can shoot in B&W. I said that it's all about your talent. You gotta understand, B&W is an artform, and it requires a certain type of creativity and artistic aptitude. B&W requires a certain type of talent. Expressionism requires a certain type of talent. Realism requires a certain type of talent. It's all about whether you have the talent to do movies in B&W or not. Makes sense now?

Oops! my bad... That's the consequence for being a slow thinker. I was really saying that some of the newer theaters were using theater screens with an aspect ratio of 1.85 and if a movie had a 2.39 ratio, a curtain would cover the top of the screen so that it would be at a 2.39 ratio. The theaters some of you are probably familiar with have theater screens with the 2.39 aspect ratio, and curtains would cover the sides for 1.85 movies. But more and more theaters are adopting this 1.85 theater screen for their facilities than 2.39 theater screens. Shoot, I hate it when I make grammatical errors like that.

I'm sorry, Justin, but I don't understand what in the planet you mean by that. Are you surprised by that quote? Are you saying it was a factual error? Are you asking what I meant by that? What, Justin, What?

This is a matter of talent, Robin, and nobody can teach talent. Either you have it or you don't. If you think you have the talent to do B&W then go ahead. This isn't something anybody can help you with. You have to make the decision yourself. Again, it's all about your talent.

This is what I mean, Andrew. He was saying that as realism goes, a scope film might be more immersive and realistic than a flat film on the basis that the image fills up more of the theater screens. There's only one problem with that, it's that more and more theaters everyday are switching from screens with an aspect ratio of 2.39 to screens that are framed for 1.85 projection, mainly with newer, digital, or remodeled theaters. I don't know what theaters you've been to, but it looks like you've never been in one of these newer theaters. This is about the future, Andrew, and it looks like David's assumption is less of a factor than it was ten years ago. What do you think about that?

David, are you telling me that I should go for the 2.39 ratio because it is closer to our field of view when more and more theatres are now making 1.85 screens that make 2.39 movies smaller than their spherical lens counterparts? I'm sorry, but that just didn't make sense to me. I don't think size matters anymore in this day and age we are living in. Care to explain?

Ah ha! So the style I'm after is naturalism. In that case, the question is now which of those same two formats (digital videotape vs. 35mm) are better for movies that are highly naturalistic. Good work, Adrian! :)

Alright, I think I've got a better description of the style I'm looking for. I just want the whole thing to look and seem completely realistic. The cinematography looks real. The acting looks real. The directing looks real. And after reading the last quotes from you two, The story should be real as well. That's what I meant by saying that my movies would look so real that they literally breathe life. Everything is being done in the most natural way possible. Does this make more sense?

Ahhh... Now I see what you guys are getting at. Good question. I really just know what the broadest terms of art are (like expressionism, realism, baroque, etc.). So, you're looking for the core of my artform. This is gonna be hard to explain, since I really know more about broader artforms than I do narrower ones. In all honesty, I don't know. And since I don't, all I can do is give you a definition of what I'm after, and even then, I'm not sure if it will make enough sense. So here it is. I just want my movies to be so real that they literally seem to breathe life. Again, I don't know what kind of artform that is called. Is it Hyperrealism? Naturalism? Anybody out there who knows art better than I do?

What part of realism? I already told you it was visual arts, and if you still don't understand, I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to tell you. Anyway, let me answer your other questions. What do I mean by Digital Video? Anything that is digital videotape (MiniDV, HDV, etc.) What is my budget? Oops, silly me. I'm planning on being a writer/director. I'm not even in the business yet. So right now, it's pointless. (But, mark my words, I will be in the business.) What is my intent on final delivery? To the silver screen, thank you. What is my length? Well, if it's going to be my first feature film, it's going to be a 90-minute movie. And the question that is most important to you, What do I think is right? or, what format do I think the script calls for? I'm still working on the script, so to answer your big question, I don't know. Have I made myself clear, now?

When I was using the words "artform" and "style," I was talking about realism. When I was talking about "format," I was talking about the two camera mediums (35mm film and digital video). All I'm asking from you is which, ahem, "format" is better for that type of, ahem, "artform." Comprende?

OK, I'll agree with you on that. I just thought you were going off the main subject of the last few posts which were arguing over where wikipedia's reference to realism was. So, anyway, can we please move back to the main subject now? I want answers, not arguments.

Hey, hold your horses for a second. Paul asked me a question, and I answered by telling him to click on the visual arts link on the wikipedia page he was referring to. That's what I meant. It had nothing to do with the question, it had everything to do with letting him know about what I was talking about so he could give me a good answer. Nothing more, nothing less.

I thought every cinematographer in the world knew that movies were a visual artform. Forgive me if I was harsh, but movies are supposed to be a visual work. I thought it would be obvious.

Thanks for explaining to me. I must admit that understanding wordy stuff is a weakness of mine. Ah well, nobody's perfect.

This post just bugs me. Why would Discovery want their nature footage in the least realistic appearance possible anyway? Maybe I just don't understand it because of the way it was phrased, but then again, what does experience and knowledge have to do with the question I'm asking anyway? Could you please explain all this?

I think I should use Wikipedia to tell others what I'm looking for, so here's what realism should be. "Realism is a visual arts style that depicts the actuality of what the eyes can see. Realists render everyday characters, situations, dilemmas, and objects, all in verisimilitude. They tend to discard theatrical drama, lofty subjects and classical forms in favor of commonplace themes." I hope this gives all of you posters a better understanding of what I'm looking for. Keep posting.

Do what I did, read Dov S.S. Simens book "From Reel To Deal." Not only will it teach you what the director does, but also how the entire filmmaking process works. I should warn you, though, that it was copyrighted 2003, so it's a little old. But it is a very excellent learning tool.

Did you know that 94% of all the famous Hollywood writers, producers, directors, and filmmakers never attended a four-year film school? That, I think, says quite a lot.

Here's the sad truth, Thomas. Filmmaking is not an artform, it's really a business. In Hollywood, as in any industry, everything costs something. The producer writes checks. And when making a feature film he negotiates and writes a lot of bank checks. Sure, contrary to what I just wrote, I do agree that filmmaking is an artform. But the industry is the business of making the art (How to make the film as cheaply as possible) and then the business of selling the art. Another concept to understand is that Hollywood is not a filmmaking industry, it's a film-marketing industry. Studios are corporations that make profits. They do this by creating values, i.e., when a film is in theaters, there are newspaper ads, and when you, the consumer, see the ads you believe the film has a $10 (theater ticket price) value. 19 out of 20 consumers don't see the film in a theater. However, 17 of the 19 who don't go to the cinema think, "I'll rent it." Renting isn't free! Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, or any video store charges $3-$4, so, in essence, the $10 film was put on sale at a 60-70 percent discount- now the consumer pays to see it. No ads, no video store rentals. It's that simple. Hollywood is a marketing industry. Distributors would love to split $10 with theater owners- they try every time for a "box-office" winner- but if they don't get it, they'll gladly split $3-$4 with video store owners and add to the profits with lucrative pay-cable and broadcast sales. And this is only North America. Don't get me wrong. It's not that Hollywood has no desire to make excellent films. It tries to make the best film possible every time. But 4 out of 5 films the studios make are poor to mediocre. Do they quit? No, they market the duds. They place ads, create a value, cash in, and make profits even with mediocre-to-rotten films because Hollywood is a business. It is a marketing machine. Again, I still acknowledge that filmmaking is an artform. But it's really a business. Why did I bring all this up? To tell you that your producer probably isn't going to listen to you when you tell him he's a cheapskate. In fact, I think it's better just to not say anything. But the biggest reason he's probably not going to listen to you is because 70mm is pretty much extinct. :( To hear the sad truth, go to this website: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/35-70mm.htm I apologize if my post is too long, and I hope my advice is helpful.

Agreeing with Greg, Alfred Hitchcock is a worthy person to study from. He knew how to do it cheap. Watch Rope, and you'll see how to make a movie for only $5,000! Watch Rear Window, and you'll learn how to make a movie using mostly one location! Watch Lifeboat, which is a mini-mini-budgeted "Titanic" with more drama! Now you'll know why Hitchcock was great, because he was a genius. In fact, I think that's how you measure a director. You measure him by his intelligence. Think about Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and other great directors. Try looking into what made those directors brilliant, and I think you'll get your answer.

I am interested in making films that use realism as an artform. With this in mind, which of the two formats do you believe would be better for movies that use that kind of style? I'm thinking digital, mainly because the sharp quality tends to show blemishes and wrinkles, which would be more like everyday life. Whatever your opinion is, please post it. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Excellent point David. Just to let you know, I already knew they were both widescreen formats. I was just trying to describe the two in the best way that I could.

How does one know when it is a good idea to use the 'standard' frame format (1.85:1) and when to use a 'widescreen' frame format (2.39:1)? Thank you for your advice.

It seems that this is all more of a matter of opinion and which format is better to shoot with than which format is most in touch with reality. Thanks for straightening me up on this topic. Now the question is about which aspect ratio to use on what kind of movie, but that's for another topic.