Bob Speziale

31 minutes ago, David Mawson said:

Really? You don't have any objective standards or knowledge to apply? 

Example, I hate the original Star Wars. I did even as a child (I'm more a Blake's 7 person by nature.) But I can separate my dislike of the film's hypocritical emotional beats and gaping plot holes (a pod doesn't get blasted because it has no life signs... in a civilisation full of robots???) from an evaluation of the editing, cinematography and  skilful emotional manipulation. I hate the film sincerely (like a lot of the more talented people who worked on it - Guinness, Ford, probably the Lucases themselves) but I definitely think that it's a great example of film making.

In short, I can judge the effect it has on its intended audience without being one of the audience. I'd suggest that this is a crucial skill for anyone who wants to be any kind of commercial artist.

It's not that different to people. I can think that someone is a good person without liking them. And sometimes vice versa. Is that really so odd?

 

That's a bunch of questions. 

First, yes I have knowledge and objective standards to apply. I know about good sound, about being in focus, about lighting, about really good acting (it doesn't look like acting), but lots of movies I like, and don't like, pass all these tests. I'm talking about what really captivates me, makes me cry or silently cheer. There's not many like that. But in my opinion Mackendricks movies are not that. I'm not a critic, nor would I want to be or pretend to be. But for me I'd say the acting is the most important, followed by the script and also by the production values like lighting, color, location, etc.

And you are correct, judging what audiences like is important for any type of commercial success. If you want to get paid you have to satisfy the customer, no doubt. But Mackendrick didn't do that in the long run. He left the business and became a teacher after a few decent movies and a couple of quick Hollywood productions (one with Sharon Tate). I thought the Alec Guiness movie about the man in the white suit was clever and entertaining and a lesson in economics but I wouldn't watch it again. By all accounts Mackendric was a decent film maker and a very popular professor. Back in the 60's in college, the common belief about professors was those that can, do, and those that can't, teach. Whether I like his book or not,  I'll decide when it is delivered and I read it

Of course you can believe someone is good to others without liking them, but can you really believe someone is bad or evil and like them? I can't, even if I can appreciate some good points they have. I mean Hitler was very loyal to his mother, liked dogs and was considered an ideal boss by the secretaries who worked for him, but I can't like him for that.

45 minutes ago, Bob Speziale said:

Deciding something is "good" when you don't like it is a bizarre concept that I wouldn't know how to implement. I guess you are saying I should take other people's word for it because they have more knowledge than me, but I don't buy it or believe it. One man's trash is another man's treasure. They are all just opinions, no matter who expresses them. At the end you only have your opinion. As Shakespeare said, nothing is good or bad except that thinking makes it so.

@ David Mawson Of course you are correct in one respect, you might think a suit looks terrible but concede it's made from a good fabric or has good stitching. So if you are a tailor you could learn from it. Possibly if I was a film maker of narrative pieces there would be something to learn from SSOS. But I am not. I just do youtube videos, mostly music performance, so if I judge a movie as not good I'm really talking about what appeals to me, and not whether there's elements of craft that others can learn from.

3 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Actually, I'd say that one of the first things you should do to become good at any art is to sop confusing "What I like" with "What is good". You have to accept that people are different and that you can learn as much - or more - from excellent films that you don't like. I generally don't resonate with Orson Welles' work but I can separate that from my evaluation of its quality.

That's not to say that you should accept anything popular or critically adored as genius. But you should evaluate and critique your own reaction. Eg you called SSOS "melodramatic." But i. is this fair at all? a lot of the film is in subtle details. And ii. do you know anything about the milieu and real personalities the film was based on? Compared to Winchell's broadcasting style, Lancaster's character is almost softly spoken - the film would have lost all meaning and relevance without the element that you didn't react well to. "A good film" does not equal one that appeals to the tastes of a random viewer decades later.

Deciding something is "good" when you don't like it is a bizarre concept that I wouldn't know how to implement. I guess you are saying I should take other people's word for it because they have more knowledge than me, but I don't buy it or believe it. One man's trash is another man's treasure. They are all just opinions, no matter who expresses them. At the end you only have your opinion. As Shakespeare said, nothing is good or bad except that thinking makes it so.

2 minutes ago, Bruce Greene said:

If you look at the odds, you’ll never be a filmmaker!

Anyone can be a film maker, a dancer, a singer, an actor, etc. Making a living at it is what is hard. Being a famous success is nearly impossible.

No, that is fast. My computer takes 45 minutes to export a 2-1/2 minute 4K video of about 660MB at 40,000 kbps. But it depends on the resolution, the kbps,  and file size. I think the file size is the biggest factor.

52 minutes ago, David Mawson said:

I'm not sure who gave you the exclusive right to decide what a masterpiece is, but I'd say that The Lady Killers and TSOS certainly are, and a fair weight of opinion agrees with me.

The comment about "cheesy soap opera" is possibly a symptom of your not very open-minded. Styles change: imaginative people look past that.

It's just my opinion and many see him as a genius, but maybe the emperor really has no clothes. To me Bustop was a masterpiece, and so was Moonlighting, and so was It happened One Night, and so was 2001, and so was One Eyed Jacks, and dozens more I could name, so maybe our tastes are different.

13 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I also don't understand how someone who retired in the late 50's from filmmaking and wrote a book about his experience in that era, could shed much light on today's filmmaking, especially when it comes to equipment, financing and distribution, which are THE HARDEST PARTS! Honestly, if you wish to be "successful" in classical filmmaking, the first steps are to learn about fundraising and producing. The act of making your product, that's the easy part. You hire people do help you with that. 

For about ten years I had a sideline working on my own with small business, installing accounting systems and databases and desktop publishing. Doing the job was the easiest part, selling the job, and collecting the money was the hardest. At the same time my day job was working for a corporation where they took care of all the business end and left me alone to do the part of the work I enjoyed. Maybe that's why the studio system did such great films, and almost everything I've seen out of Hollywood the last few years, including award winning movies, just seems sub-standard. The studio took care of the business side, letting the directors concentrate on the art. 

4 hours ago, David Mawson said:

Anyway, my suggestion is that the first thing that the OP should do is to read Mackendrick's On Film. The book was written by a superb practising director who became probably the most loved and influential person ever to teach at a film school. 

I ordered a used copy of the paperback on Amazon, then I found this 45 minute Youtube of Mackendrick's planning a scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo_P727IeZo

The strange thing for me is that after going through his thought process we see the scene played out by the actors at the end of the video and it comes off a bit like a cheesy soap opera. Even Mackendrick's most famous American movie, The Sweet Smell of Success was a bit of a cheesy soap opera, but praised as his masterpiece. There have been many film masterpieces, but Mackendrick didn't write or direct any of them. 

I guess it's true that those who can, do, and those who can't, teach. I know it's true thst for most students,  school has almost nothing to do with the world of work. One is a place of ideas. The other is a place of results.

After a couple of minutes I was overwhelmed by all of the images. I skipped around through the movie and read the backstory at the end. I'm at a loss for words. Stunning, overwhelming, gross, captivating, exhausting. I don't think I've seen anything like it, ever. 

14 hours ago, Sam Petty said:

Look sorry I didn’t answer earlier but I know my stuff. I’ve done many classing in school for film and we are using gh5. I want a camera so I can shoot my own stuff with out school restrictions. 

No problem. Having some idea what work you have done  and what you plan to shoot is important regarding getting advice for a new camera. Otherwise the question is like "what car should I buy". Could be a sedan, an SUV, a truck, a sports car, who knows?  Have you posted anything on youtube or vimeo? Good luck and let us know what kit you buy.

The way the Tiny Furniture clip was framed it could have been shot on a good cell phone.

I think we are wasting our time here. I asked the OP if he was in film school and what cameras he has used there. He never answered. I asked him if he could use the school equipment for his projects. He never answered. It's hard to believe he has any knowledge or education in film making if he didn't know what a prime lens is. He is looking to purchase something under $2K that will make him a filmmaker. Fact is cameras and lenses don't make you a filmmaker. Knowledge and experience does. He doesn't seem to have either.

Wasn't it always that way? How about Van Gogh's critics. How about the critics of Elvis, the Beatles and the Stones? If you are not in it for the money, the critics don't matter.

I thought it was great. Only criticism I have is the way the camera kept swinging left to right and back at the end. There was no reason for that. 

Sam if you are in film school, what cameras do you use there? Won't they let you use their equipment to learn on and make films with? Why do you need your own camera? What would having your own camera do for you. What do you want to achieve with it?

Cameras, lenses, audio, lighting equipment are just tools. There's no best tool for everything. You get the tools you need to fulfill your goals when you are lacking the equipment needed.

A $5K guitar won't make a beginner sound like Eric Clapton. And Clapton could sound good on a $500 guitar. People are often looking at hardware to make them better. But it's the skills acquired through trial and error that makes the difference. 

You could buy a Lumix FZ80 fixed lens bridge camera and a tripod and a gimbal and some lights and an audio recorder and shoot 4K movies, for less than $1000. The camera is full auto with auto tracking auto focus and a 20mm to 1200mm zoom lens. The video quality won't be as good as a BM but with proper framing, lighting and camera and audio technique and editing can look pretty good. Ultimately the content of the video and skill of the shooter is what is important. This is an art and a science. Learning how to operate equipment is the easiest part of it, the art comes after years of experience..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/chernobyl-fallout-the-villagers-who-refuse-to-leave-1.2983635

These villagers have been living in the radiation zone for more than 30 years. Many are in their 70's and 80's and still stronger and healthier than most of us.

A few years ago I saw a documentary on old people who refused to evacuate from Chernobyl, who were still alive and doing well. One of the side effects of the contamination was that vegetables were unusually large. I'm surprised there was no mention of these hardy survivors.

The digital vs analog discussion has been going on for several decades in regard to music and movies. In the end these industries (like most) are run for  profit of those who sell and distribute the product.

I'd say lighting is an art, like camera operation, or audio engineering, or color grading or editing. It seems like you have to know about all of it,  plus scripts and casting and finance probably being the most important elements. Do you know of any gaffers that became cinematographers? How did they make that jump?

Yes, I'm enjoying it. The final episode is tomorrow.

Two cameras? 

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just digitize the reels up front then use digital video/audio editing?

Looks good.

Sounds about right. As long as you hold the film by the edges I don't see why you would need cotton gloves. What are you planning to do with your completed films?

Great line by Waters in the NPR interview: "I can't be an anarchist, I have three homes."