Carl Looper

Ok, cool. My other half is very much into cooking shows, and while it's not my cup of tea, I've lost the battle over the remote control enough times to find myself acquiring an appreciation of the way such shows are done these days. So will be certainly checking it out. cheers Carl

I haven't seen Firefly but I take your point. It's very much like Jurassic Park, where we might otherwise consider the animation of dinosaurs as an innovation that this particular film introduces for the very first time. But in fact the animation of dinosaurs was already being explored in experimental films long before it's adopted for Jurassic Park. Indeed originally the dinosaurs for the film were going to be done with animatronics. It is when the experimental films were seen by Spielberg that a decision was made to employ such techniques for the film. This is not to say that those making Jurassic Park don't elaborate on that work and make their own important contributions. Its a thought to keep in mind with respect to experimental films. C

I should just add that what is important is the distribution of tones in the result. For example, my computer screen has a range of 9 stops so if I'm previsualising a scene for display on this screen I'll be wanting to previs that scene in terms of a 9 stop range. If the camera has a 14 stop range, either 5 stops of tonal info get lost in translation (out of range: turns to either black or white), or the 14 stop range gets "compressed" into the 9 stop range of the display, or some variation between. Depending on what you intend to do you'd need to factor that into your previs. So lets say the display has a 9 stop range. Then you can prepare a chart in which there are 9 steps, from black to white in which step represents a stop. But if intending to compress a 14 stop scene to these 9 stops then each of these steps of the chart (in your imagination) represents 1.5 stops on your light meter, on location. C

The zone system is for pre-visualisation (in one's imagination) of what a particular scene might look like when printed. Ansel Adams was very much into using reflected light meter readings - which makes sense when you see his work. It's predominantly landscape and natural light. By surveying an environment in terms of reflected light readings one can convert the readings into greyscale values - in one's mind (after some practice) - and see what a given scene is going to look like as a final print - and make decisions on that basis. One can answer questions such as: does a given scene, in the way one might frame it, produce a distribution of tones that one might appreciate as a print. How balanced are all the various tones. Should I look for a better scene. Perhaps if I change the angle a little it might be a better result. It's a way of learning how to translate a given scene in terms of how that will otherwise translate into a print. And on that basis, take a photograph. With a well calibrated digital screen you effectively don't need to learn the zone system. The screen can be regarded as already a glorified reflected light meter reading where it's already converted such into a distribution of grey tones. The "print" is already being visualised for you. But even still, learning the zone system means you don't have to rely so much on a given screen, other than for framing purposes. C

I'm in Oz. Will look out for it. Thanks for the post. What is the name of the show? C

One of the things I really liked about the Battlestar Galactica reboot was it's effects work - especially those effects shots where there would be a wide angle composition suddenly followed by a fast zoom in on some spacecraft action, as if some vision switcher had crossed a moment too early to a camera operator onboard a spacecraft, catching them in the act of composing their shot. I found the cinematography quite beautiful. Indeed I really got into the gritty blown out look and feel. Unfortunately, beyond that, I can't find many more words to elaborate why that is the case. Could be the way it dovetailed with the effects work. There's something quite mad about an effect, which requires enormous precision, expressing the complete opposite: a kind of quick thinking adrenaline response to something. Twister will employ an early form of this, in handheld point of view shots, of a twister, from inside a vehicle. Cloverfield will make it the basis for an entire film - and perhaps kill off the technique completely. C

I used the expression "concept art" in the previous post, but intended was conceptual art. Not concept art. Conceptual art refers us back to the concept, as the most important thing. It is not that interested in art. Concept art, on the other hand, does the opposite. Concept art takes us away from the conceptual, towards that which will eventually replace the concept (and replace the concept art): which is the artwork proper. C

Stories and concepts are related insofar as their native domain is the written word. Language. Concept art finds it proper expression - not in the artwork - but in the essays in orbit around such. It is the darling of theorists in that respect. Or theorists of a particular persuasion. The artwork becomes little more than an echo of what is otherwise taking place in theoretical debates. It fits into a particularly Platonic scheme of things, in which the idea (the form) is more important than any particular example or instantiation of that idea. This works well in areas such as software development where the emphasis is on a concept, such as the concept of a circle, where the rendering of a circle can only ever be an example of a circle - an approximation of the concept. Algorithms will transform an ideal circle (the concept of a circle, of all circles) into an instance of a circle (a particular circle). But sensory images (as distinct from formula derived images) are fundamentally different. There is no pre-existing form of which the sensory image is but it's echo. The circular shape of the moon, as created through optics on a screen, is not a function of any concept of a circle encoded in language. Rather it will be the shape of the moon that gives rise to the concept of a circle, and the formulation of that which would seek to describe all circles: the formula for a circle. Inspired by real circles. Sensory images are not conceptual. They give rise to concepts. They give rise to that which language is capable of expressing in another way. Concept art is an experiment in the reversal of this. As if the sensory has it's origin within a concept (or a story). If we reverse this experiment (of concept art) there is no such thing as a "visual language". Or a "visual story". Images are not the components of a language. Or rather, when images are forced to operate as the components of a language they become heiroglyphs, requiring a Rosetta Stone to decode. If images are used in this way, there is no longer any necessary relationship between the image and what it might be otherwise used to signify. And indeed the fact of being an image can get in the way of what it's otherwise supposed to signify. The alphabet becomes a far more efficient component of language in this regard. Images are terrible at it. In a film, before any story (and impossible to remove), is the sensory aspect of a film: it's images and sounds. These things are pre-linguistic. They don't in and of themselves constitute words of a language. And if used in that way would be highly inefficient as a language, and would distract from what images are, which is a reality in their own right. C

I don't know that a poster's opinion should necessarily count for less if their knowledge and experience is unknown. But of course, if it's only their opinion, then perhaps it is their particular position in the pecking order that will provide any weight (or lack thereof) in support of their opinion. An alternative, for those not so situated high up in the pecking order, is to elaborate their opinion - to make it more than just an opinion. To make a case for why this or that cinematography is to be treated as not so great, or otherwise. To write a clarification that is more than just "IMHO". Or not so humble as the case may often be. Even when one is high up in the pecking order, it's useful to others if they are able to elaborate their opinion. To provide more of a context for why that opinion might be held. Just trusting the opinion of the powers that be, on nothing but their reputation, is just as much a recipe for disaster as trusting anyone else's opinion. An elaborated argument gives one more to go on. In my humble opinion. C

Well, there is no attempt on my part to debunk the role of story in cinema. Indeed I'm quite convinced one can't escape it. The exceptions (to the extent they might be regarded as succeeding) do little more than prove this rule. The argument is not about the relevance or otherwise of stories. It is about the relevance of otherwise of everything else that goes into a film. That everything else be treated as not only completely and utterly relevant, but that such not be treated as simply subservient to a story. That all of the elements be in partnership with each other. They are intertwined - or become so - indeed so much so that the best work makes it almost impossible to separate out these various components - and that story, like everything else, doesn't escape this. That it doesn't sit above it all in some ivory tower to which everything else must kneel before it. For example, the other day I was thinking of a "costume drama". That this would be the central concept for a short film. People walking around in costumes so to speak. And to that end I'd write a story in support of such. And this would be no more important than the costumes I'd need to find. The work would be an integration of these components in a way that satisfied the vague concept of a costume drama that I was entertaining. C

Oh sure. Many experimental films are aimed at denying a story - as if stories were some sort of sin. But every experimental film produces stories around such. And in particular they produce essays. Books on experimental film for example. As a writer or essayist one extracts or creates a story in relation to such films. One might speak of how the film was made or what theory the filmmaker was using, or working against. There is a "making sense" of the films going on. Even if the film ultimately thwarts such attempts. Myself I'm more interested in works which are not in some mad argument with stories (or concepts), but in partnership with such. And partnership is a good word for it. The film tells a story, or tells a concept (so to speak) but in a way that is not subservient to the story/concept. Instead the film becomes that which the story or concept is otherwise suggesting. The story/concept represents the film, but the film does not represent the story/concept. There is kind of assymetrical partnership being elaborated or argued here. C

Yes, I agree. A film might do it's best to disrupt any story we might otherwise extract from it, but we'll inevitably end up extracting a story anyway - even if the story we extract is simply that of a "film without a story". I would even go as far as to say that stories are inevitable. That given time (which films occupy) it is the nature of time that it can not help but tell a story - no matter what a film's intentions are. And indeed the films I make don't even try to deny this inevitable story. Even in my experimental work I treat it as a kind of fact of nature that the work will become a story - if an unusual one. But what I recognise in this work is that the emergent story demonstrates that a film need not have it's origin within any other form of story telling (such as a script, or book, or essay etc). That the power of cinema is to create it's own kind of stories, quite distinct from any other form of story telling. In other words one can have a film, which tells a story, but this story does not need to be based on any story that precedes the film. The film itself becomes the origin of the story we otherwise extract from it, or that it otherwise tells. And it is against this backdrop, that we can otherwise integrate stories (or concepts) external to the cinema. If we so desire. To transform a story external to the cinema into one that has it's origin within the cinema. Or as if it did. As if it did not exist in any other way. As if the novel "2001" (or Clarke's earlier story) were based on Kubrick's film. That films be made in this way. As if they are the origin of the story we extract, or they otherwise tell. C

What is ultimately being challenged is the truism trotted out on so many occasions, that cinematography should serve the story. No, it should not. Cinematography should serve the movie being made, of which the story (if it has one) is only a part thereof. And and as such it is only a part of cinematography that should serve the story. Otherwise, in the absence of any story the cinematography would not be possible. Yet in the absence of a story, cinematography remains perfectly capable of playing a role in the movie being made. Indeed it becomes arguable that it would be required to play an even greater role. Not a lesser one. Indeed what one comes to learn is that one of the things a story provides is a way for cinematography to "slack off". To not participate in any compelling way. To become formulaic. And the truism can be regarded as encouraging this unfortunate state of affairs. This is not an argument against stories. For even if we treat stories as a fundamental part of film making, the argument is that this does not in any way require that cinematography be any less so. Or any other component of film making. The difficult thing is grasping this idea we've otherwise called "movies" or "work as a whole". For in practice this doesn't exist until the work as a whole has been completed. The script or story becomes the simplest way of indicating this work. Or in the absence of a story (such as a music video) it might be concept art used to indicate the work to be made. Or before that step: just a concept. An idea. Discussed amongst the powers that be. And then elaborated through storyboards perhaps, or in some other way. The concept itself will not be the important thing. It will be it's implementation (for want of a better term) in images and sound, that constitutes the work proper. But if the resulting work is just an illustration of the concept, as distinct from being that which the concept was otherwise indicating, the work (the implementation) becomes arguably weak. The work will become little more than a representation or copy of the concept. It is the task of the concept (or story, etc) to represent the work to be made. An act of precognition of sorts. It is not the task of the work being made to represent the concept or story. It is the task of the work being made to become that which the concept or story is otherwise trying to suggest. Or at least that's what I'd argue. C

The origin of the term "movie" is probably of interest here. It has it's origin in the idea of moving pictures as distinct from those that didn't, such as a photographic image. The initial novelty was pictures that moved. To go to the movies was to go and watch these pictures that moved. Movement was the thing being sold. Of course, this novelty didn't last for very long. But the term "movies" hung around. Or "motion picture". Movement will cease to be of interest in itself. But it doesn't cease to be of interest. It is simply that there is more that can be done with movies than just movement. Movement itself doesn't go away. We still like a car chase. A second component of film is the way in which time becomes understood as part of it's canvas. It shares this with theatre and music. And a good way to occupy time is to entertain a story. Its not necessary. It's just something that time allows. It becomes understood that films could tell a story. One might even say story-telling becomes a fundamental aspect of film making. But only if we understand that not every story can become a movie even if every movie can become a story. It is on this basis we can say a movie is not dependant on any story, for it can even deny us a story. Even if, against it's will, we can derive a story from it. It is this ability of movies to exist without a story (or do a reasonable job of trying) that makes a movie quite distinct from a story. It does not need a story. If it tells stories it is because it is able to do so. It is not because it is compelled to do so. It is a choice it makes. Because it can. C

Its not a question of whether movies or musicals have, or do not have a story. It's whether various aspects of a film (such as the music) should be in service to that story (as distinct from the work as a whole). Obviously many are having a problem making any distinction between story and work as a whole. Which makes the discussion somewhat difficult. In a musical the songs are not standalone items. That's right. But nor is the story. The story is just one component along with all the others. How can we otherwise speak of a film without a story? Or with a minimal story? Or with a compelling story? Or with a sad story? Or a thrilling story? The argument is that the story is not the most important thing. The most important thing is the work as a whole. Each of the components (including story) serve this master. Or should do. Unless of course, by "story", one means the work as a whole. But in that case "story", as otherwise understood, risks becoming lost in translation. C

On it's own the word "film" will have multiple meanings. Its only in context the particular meaning being aimed at becomes clearer. For example, in context, it's not that difficult to see that the word "movie" could be a reasonable substitute. As in: "I saw a movie last night". As distinct from: "I saw some polyestor last night". And as distinct from "I saw a story last night". Unless of course, those alternatives are how we're wanting the word "film" understood. When it is said that some aspect of a film should serve the story is the term "film" (or "movie") a substitute for the word "story"? Or does "story" more specifically refer to the narrative component of a movie? I'm assuming the latter, but perhaps I've got it wrong. The problem with the former is the way in which it allows the story (as more conventionally understood) escape any subservience to the work as a whole. For the truism would otherwise require us to say or think nonsense such as "the story should serve the story". C

I believe Star Wars was rejected by a number of studios before it got the green light. Perhaps the story was the reason. That aside, a film can be sold through on a number of things including concept art. But typically it will be a story, or rather a synopsis, in the form of one or two paragraphs, that becomes the initial hook. But what exactly will such words suggest. They won't be suggesting a novel, or a comic book, or some other form of story telling. They'll be suggesting a film. What one will be entertaining, as one reads the words, is a film. The story component of such need not be that interesting. What will make it interesting is in how it would work as a film - as distinct from how it would work as a novel by a wordsmith, or a comic book by a comic book artist. Stories will tend to sell a film idea through because they are easier to understand. But what will be the clincher is not this story, or that story, but the particular film being aimed at. For example, a pitch for a 40's musical isn't going to get too hung up on plot points. Indeed quite often the story is just whatever story might fit a particular kind of film the producers are already entertaining. Such as a musical. Indeed they might already have the essential ingredients: an up and coming singer, or a dancer. A team of musicians. Or some full on choreography scene they envision. Water ballet. God knows. They run through briefs looking for whatever story interlocks with what they already have in mind. I believe every Kubrick film has it's origin in literature. But what Kubrick would have been looking for, in a story, is not that which is a great story (although such wouldn't hurt of course) but that which lends itself to making a great film. And not necessarily just a great film, but whatever might interlock with Kubrick's particular fascinations, whatever they might be. I don't know if this is actually true, but one can understand it as a way of making films: where it is not the film which serves the story, but the story which serves the film. But more importantly - that this is exactly what it should be. C

Wow. That's great.

No it's not. It is the semantics that are getting in the way of understanding the argument. The terms "story" and "film" are not interchangeable. If they were then we would have a semantic issue. It is when these terms become distinguished from each other that: a. the semantic issue is resolved, and b. the debate proper begins. The argument (or one side of the argument) is that every aspect of a film (including the story) is in service to the film and not the story. If "film" and "story" are otherwise interpreted as the same thing, then this argument would become equivalent to saying "a story is in the service of a story and not the story", or a "film is in the service of a film and not the film". Anyone actually reading the posts will see that such nonsense is not what is being argued. C

A story ... But more than that: a film ...

Peter Bitac hits the nail on the head. A story is in service of the film being made. It's no different from any other aspect (camera, costume design, editing, etc) in this regard. Every aspect of film making (including the story) is in service of the film being made. What can otherwise happen is a lack of imagination with respect to how a film is made. As if the only creativity required was that supplied by the writer. As if everything else was no more than a formula for how stories are to be translated to the screen. That's not how films are made. Or rather, films made that way will tend to be quite mediocre, for what should be obvious reasons. A good experiment would be to give the same story to different filmmakers and one will see that a film proper is far more than it's story (or far more than any other component of the film). There is a "vision" if you like, in which each component plays it's part. The opening of Star Wars provides a great analogy. Text scrolls across the screen giving us a story. It's perspective is tantalising as the text fades into the distance. Tilt down to a planet. And then suddenly this huge spaceship enters frame from above and you know - this isn't just a story - this is an experience. This is not literature. This is a film C

The issue is not whether you can (because you can), but why any other aspect of film making is any less part of the process of making a film. The story is only one aspect. If it were the only aspect, why make a film at all? One could just write a novel and leave it as that. C

Love your wramblings Christian - don't stop - it's all good :)

So cameras, film stock, audio tape, digital switches, computers, projectors, speakers, cinemas - these can be understood in the same way one understands musical instruments such as drums, guitars, flutes, a piano - they are instruments for creating sounds and images. One "plays" these instruments in certain ways to obtain a particular effect. Now consider the piano. A piano can be regarded as decomposing all possible sounds into just a finite number of sounds. It's a bit like digital in this regard. But we work with that. We can make a piano create some great sound despite such limited capability. The same goes for film, or digital for that matter. One works around the limitations of one's instruments and creates what does work with such instruments. There are great experiences one can create with little more than some acetate or polyestor running in front of a light. Of course, what goes into that performance (like any performance) is a lot of work. That is how the film makers I work with make films. As live performances. Making a film is preparing for this performance - making all of one's "props" so to speak. It's not theatre, but it's very much like theatre. It's the creation of a kind of ghostly 'theatre' with disembodied images and sound/music in the air. If the ghosts are grainy - all the better - the more ghostly they are. One works with the grain rather than putting up with the grain. Or if one prefers one's ghosts more solid one plays another instrument instead. Either way it is a ghost world that one is exploring with such instruments. It's not a second rate substitute for theatre or a music show. It's first rate cinema. C

Film isn't just a recording medium. It's also a playback medium. The same with audio tape. The media (projector/speaker etc) these all become a "musical" instrument so to speak. One "plays a film" in the same one plays a guitar. The film screening becomes a live performance in this regard. That's the important point. Film is otherwise "canned theatre" and that's the worst kind of film making there is - well in my opinion anyway. C