Robert Edge

You wil find recent comments from David Mullen and Stephen Williams on this issue here: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10999

I've had some e-mails from people who saw this post before I yanked it. Here's the deal. The film is a documentary that will be shot in Newfoundland in August, with additional footage shot in New York and a few other mainland cities. On the one hand, I'd like to do a series of posts on this project. There are a lot of decisions to be made between now and August, and I think that it would be interesting to have a running record of the issues, how they get resolved and why they get resolved in a particular manner. Because I am producing this film, the discussion would be about all elements. By that, I mean that the issues that I have to deal with, and would like to talk about, are not restricted to cinematography. They cover sound recording, music, production, post-production, etc. What do I get out of this? First, just writing things down helps one clarify things in one's own mind. Secondly, I think that I'd get some valuable feedback from some very knowledgeable people. On the other hand, I think that there are a couple of problems with pursuing this idea. One problem is that the site, as I was reminded recently, is focused on cinematography. That is fair enough. The second, and bigger problem, is that participating in this site is often like being in a shooting gallery or demolition derby. David Mullen and some others may be able to talk about productions that they are working on without finding themselves in the middle of a donnybrook, but that does not apply to everyone who participates. I have to worry about this in particular because I'll be working with people, in particular the subjects of the film, who will know about the posts, if only because I'll tell them, and who could be affected, perhaps offended, by what they read. I just can't handle a situation where a discussion about this film turns into a no-holds-barred debate about the virtues of super 8 or, for that matter, a platform to express extreme views on film v. video. I do want to find a forum to discuss this film. There are a few options, one of them having to do with this site. I'd like to add that I'm not talking about a huge production underwritten through some BBC/PBS/CBC/Canal Plus consortium. I'm just a guy who believes that there's some raw material here for a good film. Anyway, thanks to the people who contacted me about this. Also, this is as good a time as any to say that there are people who participate in this site who have been enormously helpful in answering questions that are pretty much directly related to this project. If I raise a question about shooting without a slate and relying instead on Aaton code, I really do have a reason :) Cheers

Maybe I'm doing just that, except that I'm not pretending :) I re-read my posts. I think that the imagery in the first one is actually kind of amusing. As for the second one, I think that I was being clear and concise in expressing myself and in saying that there are problems with some of the statements that have been made in this thread. I don't think that I called you a legal idiot. Oliver, Your producer should consult a lawyer. If that happens, the lawyer will get to the bottom of the facts and explain the producer's rights. I could tell you in some detail what I think the potential issues are here, but I'm not going to - the lawyer that gets consulted will have enough to do without having to answer questions from the producer about advice given over the internet on a second-hand, one-sided, half-baked set of facts, and based on a legal system that may or may not be applicable. Perhaps there is a reason, but it is not clear to me why you are involved in this issue in the first place. You were not present when the original agreement was made, you were not present as the relationship deteriorated, you were not present when the relationship ended and you were not present when decisions were made about the consequences of terminating the relationship. Despite that, you are making highly critical statements on a public forum that is followed by people in the industry about another director. If I were in your shoes, I would not assume that I can do that, with impunity, simply by not identifying him or her by name. What do you suppose is going to happen if your predecessor is alerted to the existence of this thread?

The February issue of American Cinematographer has an article about this film. Given the difficulties in adapting such a sprawling novel to the screen, they apparently decided to turn this into a film about making Tristram Shandy into a film. Interesting comments from Marcel Zyskind. Shot on a Sony HDW-750. Can anyone comment on whether they succeeded in capturing the spirit of the book?

Four points: First, without exception, the "legal advice" that I have read on this site has been expressed by people who think that the whole world works under the common law system and who are unaware of the fact that a good part of the world, including most of Europe and South America and parts of North America, work under a different system. Secondly, the people who give such advice do not seem to be aware of the fact that there are local variations even within the common law. THirdly, as a matter of common law in these circumstances, there is no difference between an oral (verbal) contract and a formal contract. Fourthly, it is far from apparent from the sketchy facts that have been provided that this dispute has anything to do with the law, whether common or civil, on intellectual property. In fact, on the facts as described, the claim, if any, may be based on completely different principles. Simon is asking for legal advice about a specific dispute rearding hazy facts that has come up in lord knows what jurisdiction. Of course, if people want to ask for legal advice on the internet, and if others want to respond, that is their right. The one thing that I know is that no responsible second year law student, let alone practicing lawyer, would make some of the statements that have been made thus far in this thread.

The answer depends on whether you are working in a common law or civil law jurisdiction and what the full facts are. Asking a bunch of cinematographers for their opinion on this is kind of like asking a lawyer for his advice on how to shoot a film. I'd like to think that the average lawyer would have the sense to decline to tell a cinematographer over the telephone how to shoot a scene, unless, of course, he was a player in a Hollywood studio :) Really. If this is a commissioned project, there is some point in the producer knowing his legal rights before negotiating. In fact, if it is commissioned, there should be a legal firm in place. If it isn't a commissioned project or otherwise of commercial value, then everybody should just grow up.

I re-read my post about this project and decided that it is probably of little interest to this site, the project not being theatrical, and that the post was too long, so I've decided to edit it to zero to save bandwidth.

I'd like to see this part of the forum used a lot more than it is currently. I have a feeling that, while it is probably not intended, a lot of people are cautious about starting a discussion here. This part of the forum has the potential to be a highlight of what cinematography.com offers, especially if it grows beyond discussions about feature films, as important as those discussions are. Curious to know whether others agree. Also, what is the proper scope of In Production? Does it include discussion about pre-production issues relating to films that won't be made for another six months to a year? On a completely unrelated subect, would it make sense to give the sound forum a reprieve from its current status in the basement, and perhaps see how it does with a little more profile?

Keith, It sounds like you are talking about a bloop slate. The CML thread is worth reading. It contains a good discussion about the rationale for slateless shooting, it canvasses several options and it contains some interesting information about the history of sychronization. There are two posts in the thread from people who use Aaton in-camera code that suggest that Stephen Williams is dead on. See, for example, the last post in the thread. I do appreciate your advice and I won't hesitate to go with a backup if I conclude that I need one, but judging from the CML thread there isn't a backup that isn't an interference, a nuisance, of questionable utility or all three. Time to speak with some post-production people about this. I gather that the link that I previously posted to the CML thread goes through Google. Here is a more direct link: http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20GB/s...out%20slate.htm

There is an interesting discussion about this issue on the Cinematography Mailing List: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?q=%2Bdocumenta...t%2520slate.htm What I like about the discussion is that it captures the different perspectives of directors, cinematographers, sound recordists and post production people. My perspective is the same as that of the directors discussed in the thread. The difference is that I will be using Aaton in-camera time code, which is supposed to make the workarounds discussed in the thread unnecessary. I have to speak with post-production people who know how to deal with Aaton code about its reliability and any pitfalls. If I have to, I'll use a workaround as a backup, but as should be clear from the CML thread, using a slate, or something approximating a slate, is not cost free. There is a cost in working style, utilization of manpower, time, and, for that matter, film stock. The question is whether I want to pay that cost for the sake of backup redundancy. I suppose that I could bring a backup camera and backup lights and a backup sound recorder and a backup computer and on and on. Like a lot of things in life, it's a question of risk assessment and trade-offs. If I conclude that Aaton code is unreliable, I guess I'll have to do something about it. However, I'm not going to complicate my life if there is a 1 per cent chance of a problem. There's enough work to do without creating a make-work project :)

I haven't seen About A Boy or Thin Red Line. As described, the shots sound very similar to a shot late in the film Trainspotting, where the point of view is not from above, but from below. If I were asked to react to the Trainspoting shot, I would call it "Jazzing around". The Apocalypse Now shot is qualitatively different. It is highly reflective of the character's situation, much like the rhythmic shots in the sugar cane field in I Am Cuba.

Keith, The issue is the slate, not the clapping. Using a slate is a problem in documentary, news, rock concert and, in some cases, reality TV programming. I suspect that it can also be an issue in fiction filmmaking if one wants a high degree of improvisation and a highly reactive cameraman and sound recorder. The technology has been around for a long time, but there are clearly issues about using it, some of them connected to post production and software and some of them connected to tradition. Thankfully, I have a fairly specific issue to deal with. I need to know what the implications are, for the lab and post-production, of using an Aaton camera that can jam Aaton time code to an audio recorder. David has pointed out some non-sound camera issues. While some of the issues that he has pointed out don't apply to me in the near term, they are issues that I most definitely intend to raise when I speak with the lab and post house, and I appreciate him raising them. Cheers

David, much obliged for your comments. I'll be working in a situation where the camera and the audio recorder are recording the same time code. I want to know how far I can go in logging to the code rather than using a slate. I'll be discussing that, along with a number of other post-production issues, with a lab and post house next week, and that discussion will include the issues that you have graciously taken the time to highlight. One of the issues that you raised (dailies) made me smile. I'll be filming a good part of this project in a highly remote place. There isn't a hope in hell that I will be seeing dailies :)

That gave me a smile. As Phil more or less points out, the original question assumed that a slate is being used anyway to record information about the take. That being the case, clapping is like chicken soup - couldn't hurt - and might even, if there us some kind of unanticipated screw-up, help. To me, the more interesting question is what you really give up if you shoot slateless. There is an awful lot of documentary, news and reality TV show footage shot without a slate. This includes footage that is being recorded dual system to a separate, time code capable, audio recorder as the primary source of audio. I have a practical interest in this question because I'm planning a super 16 film that, for various reasons, I want to shoot slateless. Provided that I keep an eye on time code drift, I don't see the downside, although of course redundancy is a nice thing to have.

I spend a lot of time in New York. I love the city and i'm a fan of some of Allen's films, especially Interiors. As you probably know, the interview was aired on a New York based programme that is aired nationally and, for that matter, internationally. He didn't have to say what he said. His comments were deliberate. I suppose that one can take what he said at face value or suggest that he has a hidden agenda.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by pure cinema? There is a novel by William Faulkner called The Sound and the Fury that essentially consists of one story told from several different points of view. I'm quite sure that it is possible to do the same thing in theatre or film. Myself, I don't have a doubt that the camera can be either an omniscient narrator or can adopt the point of view of a character. I'm just interested in the idea that the camera can itself become a narrator/participant in the story, and in what people think of that. But maybe I don't understand what you are saying.

Your comment makes me think that I am noticing two different phenomena. You have described the first very well, and I'll rent the films you mention. The second, apparent in I Am Cuba, involves very complex choreography of camera and actors that someone like Bob Fosse or Martha Graham would empathize with immediately. If someone said that the director of I Am Cuba drew on the services of a professional choreographer, I would not be the least surprised. In fact, I wonder whether that is what happened. I've read suggestions on the net that Tarkovsky was influenced by Bruegel. It's possible that there are other sequences in Mirror that draw on Bruegel compositions, but the sequence with the kid and the people in the far distance during winter jumped out at me, as did the subtle jump cuts. I replayed that sequence at least six times. Do you happen to know how Tarkovsky mixed colour and black and white sequences in the release prints?

I am more comfortable discussing narrative in terms of the novel or theatre. The majority of films that I see make sense in how those forms work. Lately, I have been looking at some films that don't fit into those forms. From where I am coming from, they are perhaps more analogous to modern dance. Or maybe the parts of these films that are throwing me for a bit of a loop are best described as a combination of dance and painting. Whatever they are, they do not fit within the novel or the play, and for me that is challenging. In my situation, this is not an academic issue. I'm planning a film for next summer where I can do whatever I want. I find some of this highly choreographed cinematography highly attractive. That said, I'm quite sure that I don't yet understand it. I hope that it makes sense when I say that it forces one to face the issue of form and content. That probably sounds horribly pretentious, maybe even horribly confused, but it is the best that I can do right now.

I apologize for thinking that reading a short story by John Cheever, or seeing a film based on his writing, might be a useful way for you to spend time.

Sam, For what it is worth, I think that there are a number of sequences in Mirror, in the first 45 minutes, and the last sequence in the film, that illustrate what I am talking about. As for Bruegel, I have seen many of his paintings as well as those of his sons, and with one exception, I don't get the connection. The exception is a sequence in which a teenage boy is in the foreground, there are many people in the background, much like ants, there are some jump cuts, and the sudden emergence of a bird. It is a remarkable sequence, and very connected, in my view, to Bruegel. But this discussion is quickly going in a direction that is more complicated than what I anticipated. Not that that is a bad thing.

David, As a former orchestral player myself, I think that what I am talking about is qualitatively different from disussing the role of the French Horn in a solo. I'm also not saying that there is something wrong with the camera becoming a personality in a film. I'm just curious about what people think about using a camera in that way. It may be a stupid question, but honestly, I don't think that it is.

I have no idea what you mean by a romantic and beautiful swimming pool scene, but there is a short story by a wonderful and quite important US writer named John Cheever, who wrote mostly for The New Yorker, called The Swimmer about a man living in the suburbs who swam from neighbour's pool to neighbour's pool, that was turned into a rather quirky film with Kirk Douglas. My apologies if I am wrong in attributing this story to Cheever, or if I have the wrong actor - it is my best recollection.

Please don't expect a great deal of precision, because I am going to have some trouble explaining my question. In the last few days, I have watched a couple of Russian films, specifically I Am Cuba and Mirror. I don't think that my question is unique to Russian films, but these films have pushed the question. What do you think about cinematography that calls attention to itself? By that, I mean what do you think of a camera that is moving to the point that the camera seems to be a personality in the film? This tends to happen in a most pronounced way during long sequences (in other words I'm not talking about zooms). However, a long take is not sufficient in itself. For example, Eric Rohmer used long takes, but the camera does not become a personality in his films. It seems to happen when there is a long sequence that involves a great deal of camera movement. However, this is not enough, or not quite enough, for the camera to take on its own personality. For example, if one watches the schoolroom scene early in The 400 Blows, there is a long sequence of camera movement, but the camera does not become its own personality, although it comes close. At the other extreme, there are long sequences in I Am Cuba and Tarkovsky's Mirror, and no doubt much more popular films, where the camera is front-row centre due to how long the scene is and how much, in context, the camera movement becomes the focus of the viewer's attention. My concern about sequences when the camera itself attracts attention, however impressive it may be as a piece of cinematographic choreography, is that it is a bit like the author of a novel suddenly surfacing to announce his presence in the middle of his story. It is something that happens in modern literature, but also something about which I have mixed feelings. Thanks for any comments on the foregoing.

Allen spoke as a man who is very confident about his film. He chose a reputable weekly programme for a rare interview and he had some fairly hard-nosed things to say. He said that he wrote the script with the intention of making the film in New York, and that the differences between the original script, given what he considers to be major similarities between New York and London, including class differences, are "cosmetic". He said straight out that the film was shot in London because he concluded that he would have more artistic freedom there, and he referred specifically to what he called the "studio system" in the US. I don't know whether he was using the phrase "studio system" literally, but it was clear what he meant figuratively. It was also clear that he was being deliberate in his remarks. The one thing that wasn't clear was whether Breakfast with the Arts did the interview themselves or whether the show was airing an interview done by someone else. The interview did not fit their normal format. Allen was also highly effusive about the talent and work ethic of the UK actors that he worked with, right down, as he put it, to actors who had one line. He was quite obviously expressing reservations about making films in the US at the moment. Whether one agrees with him or not, and whatever one thinks about him, one has got to admire Allen for speaking his mind.