Jump to content

Sandra Merkatz

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sandra Merkatz

  1. As you can see, I HAVE discussed the cinematography.

    Do not insinuate that I want to occupy your thread in any way. I myself suggested at the beginning of the discussion that this discussion - even if it is about "Mrs. Maisel" - could be outsourced to a separate thread. It's very unfair that you're acting as if I want to "take over" this thread.

    This gives the impression that criticism in this thread is not welcome.
    Therefore I ask the moderators to copy the discussion into a new thread.

  2. Quote

    Sandra, your entire argument about fan service and pleasing the viewer and ‘if I want to see naked bodies there are special websites for that‘, all assumes that outside of what you consider essential dramatic context the naked human form is only to be looked at for titillation, that if a glimpse of breast or buttock is shown without being somehow necessary to the plot (or even if it is, as in the Maisel example) it is therefore gratuitous. I would call this a conservative outlook.

    I don't think it's a conservative view if you want naked skin to be shown only if it contributes to the understanding of the plot and the characters, and you're not interested in fan service.

    I admit my definition of fan service was not the best. On the above mentioned website tvtropes.org there is a definition that I find more appropriate.

    "The use of sex or sexualized situations to reward or entice viewers. While the specific term ´fanservice´ arose from the anime community, the concept is far, far older. Most fanservice is seldom explicit or graphic—that is the territory of pornography. Instead, it uses sexuality or hints at sex often in a funny or comedic way to tease and titillate the audience. (…) Some shows may have designated fanservice characters: characters who, even if they are main characters and have a role beyond fanservice, are likely to end up in a fanservicey situation."

    And I am of the opinion that the nude scenes I quoted fall into this category; an opinion that I have justified at length.

    I would like to give a counter-example to show when I consider the sight of naked breasts to be important from a dramaturgical point of view.

    The 1985 film "Desert Hearts" is about a lesbian love story. Towards the end of the film, the main actress is alone in her hotel room. There she is visited by the woman she met during the film and they talk to each other. The phone rings and the main character is on the phone. After the conversation is over, the woman turns around, the camera pans to the side with her, and both she and we see the other woman sitting topless in bed.

    In this case, I found the showing of the half-naked actress dramatically justified, because just like the main character, we too are surprised by this unexpected sight. We do not see the woman undressing, we only see the main character making a phone call. When we see the second woman again, she suddenly wears no more clothes.

    The special thing now is that the camera leaves it at that shot. In the next scenes you see the second woman sitting naked in bed, just from the shoulders upwards. The camera no longer shows her breasts, because it is dramaturgically no longer necessary to see them. It was only necessary in one shot so that we can understand the surprise of the main character. From the fact that the camera no longer shows "them", we can also see that this one shot actually only had a dramaturgical function.

    Of course, I thought about whether the scene could have been filmed differently - but I think that this (brief!) view is necessary to be able to understand the surprise of the main character, especially since the camera does not move independently, but moves along with the main character. If, for example, the naked woman had been filmed from behind and only hinted that she was naked, the viewer would no longer have been surprised together with the main character, but would have taken the position of the naked woman, so to speak.

    I was also glad that others noticed this way of filming the scene. On the mentioned TV-Tropes website the scene is not mentioned in the category "fan service" but "Reveal Shot".

    I quote the entry:

    Reveal Shot: A memorable one. After Vivian has left the ranch and gone to live by herself in a casino hotel room, Cay comes to visit her. Upset at how Frances treated her, Vivian vents her anger to Cay and the camera follows her into another room while she's talking and looking for a cigarette. She finds one and lights one, while still talking to Cay in the other room.

    Vivian: I don't have a habit of raising my voice. Or false issues. [smokes; glumly] When I retire, I will simply write short stories for my revenge about this town, these people, these gamblers. [Beat, to herself] My only clear memory is arriving. The rest is a blur...absolute blur.

    [She walks back into the bedroom and finds that Cay is now completely naked and sitting up in bed, looking at her]

    A "Reveal Shot" that serves the story and the understanding of the surprise of the main character.


    Beyond the context of the script, nudity can foster a sense of intimacy or shared human vulnerability with a character, it can be beautiful or fragile or liberating, as well as erotic or gratuitous. At its core, it is simply how we are, our natural selves.

    I couldn't agree more. As I said, it doesn't bother me if a character is naked, but only if you film it in a way that isn't dramaturgically necessary, and in the worst case is pure fan service. So the question that arises for me is how to film nudity.


    The human body has long been objectified and various parts deemed off limits, a demarcation that seems to always stem from a fear of sexuality. In certain cultures and periods in history just showing female hair is and was an erotic act. What parts of the body do you consider ok to show without crossing into “pleasing the viewer”?

    I have no problems with any body parts, you can show everything. As mentioned above, I am not concerned with not showing any particular body parts, but only with whether it makes sense to show them from a dramaturgical point of view.


    How much of a breast can be visible before it becomes titillating?  Is showing a naked male torso equally problematic if it has no other motivation than to appeal to the viewer?  Isn’t simply having attractive actors a form of “fan service”?

    "Attractive" is a subjective term. I think the question is rather whether someone was cast because of their looks, or because of their acting talents.

    It also depends on the roles. When bad guys in a western look like supermodels, it seems strange to me, and then I suspect that they were cast primarily for marketing reasons.

    (In recordings of operas this is unfortunately also common: Studios often don't select singers who are suitable for a role, but singers who are famous and whose name attracts many buyers).


    But beyond all this, if an actor is ok with it (an important distinction) what’s actually wrong with displaying their body sometimes in order to please an audience?

    I don't think it's "wrong", I think it's just unnecessary. Because if I notice that the camera shows me things only for this reason, then I don't feel taken seriously by the producers. Then I have the feeling that they want to manipulate me. That they assume that I "need" such things.

    I watch a film to see a story, and not voyeuristically staged naked bodies. (If I want to see something like that, there are other ways, I don't need a movie with a plot). If there is nudity in a story, then I expect it to be staged in such a way that it is part of the narrative of the story. That the way it is filmed also serves the story. That I as a viewer get information about the characters, their feelings and about the plot from the way it is filmed - and not information about how great an actor's breasts and ass look.


    If we look past personal preferences or questions of taste, why is that sort of audience pleasing worse than showing off sumptuous outfits, or pleasing them with a happy ending that wouldn’t exist in real life, or pleasing them with over the top violence or the promotion of revenge as a valid response to trauma? Why are you singling out nudity?

    Over the top violence I also find unnecessary, as well as sumptuous outfits, if they only serve to please the audience.


    (And why in a thread about Mrs Maisel, which is really quite tame in that regard?)

    I suggested at the beginning of the discussion that you can also outsource this discussion to a separate thread. But still it's about the scenes in this series.


  3. Your whole posting assumes I'm conservative. I'm not. I condemn the Hays Code, and even know a good website where pre-code movies are presented and discussed.

    As you can see from my earlier mentioned "Dracula" example, the sight of naked bodies does not bother me. What does bother me is any kind of fan service. For me, fan service means showing things that are not necessary for understanding the plot and the characters, and only serve to please the viewer. When I see such fan service scenes, I always think to myself that if I want to see naked bodies, there are special websites for that.
    I think that Sir Michael Caine is right when he advises actors not to do full frontal nudity scenes.



    I think your “constructive criticism” is simply being criticised in return, not stifled.

    No. Some users did not respond to my arguments at all, but tried to stop my critical questions.

    And I think that my criticism was quite constructive, because I stayed objective, mentioned my sources and justified my opinion as good as I could.



    And to be honest it doesn’t seem particularly constructive. Criticising something you haven’t even seen based on your apparent aversion to nudity and some vague parental warning site is hardly what I’d consider constructive, and the irony of you choosing to criticise a show where the few instances of nudity are actually pivotal dramatic plot points only reinforces the fact that you seem to have an agenda here.

    Like I said, that is wrong. If you've read my postings, then you should know what I'm about, and that I have no "agenda".

    But I'll gladly explain it again as a short version: I've studied the script, the story and the characters, and I've thought about what the scenes I quoted want to say. And then I thought about whether this message could be conveyed in another way.

    You say: "your apparent aversion to nudity and some vague parental warning site". That you accuse me of "apparent aversion to nudity" proves to me that you didn't read my postings in this thread, because in fact I said exactly the opposite. And the references to nudity on Imdb served me merely as a source for the fact that there are naked breasts in these scenes. You criticize that I allegedly don't consider the context of nude scenes (which is not true), but you tear out some points of my argumentation from their context. The reference to the parental warnings was only a small part of my argumentation.



    You have in fact been given a number of valid and thoughtful responses to your “criticisms”, but choose to continue arguing for some weird sort of return to the Hays code of the 1930s or something.

    That too is wrong and an insinuation based on false assumptions about me.



    The truth is if you find the very occasional nudity in Mrs Maisel somehow inappropriate or lewd (had you even watched it),

    Meanwhile, I've seen the scene where Midge takes her clothes off during a performance. The camera always films the actress from a distance, so you can always see her breasts. I would have found the faces of the audience more interesting. For me, the sight of the breasts is not necessary; I think it would have been enough to show Midge from behind taking off her top and the shocked faces of the audience. I also found it striking how many women were sitting in the audience, and I think it could also be fan service that several women were looking at a half-naked woman on stage, because if I remember correctly, there was nothing in the script about how many women were sitting in the audience.



    Thankfully in this time and part of the world filmmakers are relatively free to make what they want, just as you can choose not to watch that sort of fare.

    I go to the opera very often, and often there is an audience discussion with the director and the actors directly before or after the premiere of a new production. In this conversation, questions are asked and the director explains his intentions, etc.

    Sometimes the director is also asked critical questions, which are politely phrased. And the director also answers these questions. So what is wrong with asking critical questions and explaining your point of view? I am an open-minded person and want to understand things. But some people seem to see constructive criticism as a personal attack.



    Attempting to lecture filmmakers into self-censorship to meet your own conservative tastes is never going to be well received, and let’s be clear - your ideas about “tasteful nudity” are entirely subjective. 

    What "ideas about tasteful nudity" are these? I quoted another script that said that the screenwriter wanted the nudity to be filmed in tasteful, not voyeuristic, fashion.

  4. I find it regrettable that attempts are being made to stifle constructive criticism. Thank you, Phil Connolly, for addressing my criticism.


    I'd say give it a watch, its a really good show. Worth discussion from the perspective of blocking and camera movement, with some nice long takes. Then you can judge for yourself.

    I have never denied that the show is good overall.  I only referred to the nude and sex scenes, which I think could have been filmed differently.  It's true that I didn't see the show, but I read the complete script of the first episode, and on Imdb there was talk about seeing breasts in the scenes in question.

    A counter-argument was that these shots are necessary to convey a certain information to the viewer. Since I know, of course, that the context of a nude scene is important, I thought about what that information is, and then I thought about whether it could be transported in another way. I then communicated the result of my considerations.

    I am not alone with my opinion that at least the topless scene is probably fan service.
    On the TV-Tropes page https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/TheMarvelousMrsMaisel I found the following entry:


    Fanservice: During her first drunken act, Midge exposes her breasts to the audience as part of a joke, resulting in her first arrest.



    Scripts are only a template for a shoot, they are just a sketch of the finished result and shouldn't be judged in the same way as the finished media text.

    I don't agree here. Woody Allen's scripts, for example, are bought and read like normal novels, and there is the "Best Screenplay" category at the Academy Awards.

    Scripts often contain scenes that are missing in the finished film, and they often provide information about characters, locations, etc. that you don't get in the film.
    There is even a separate category on this topic on tvtropes.org: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllThereInTheScript
    And often the stage directions contain hints about how a character thinks or why he or she acts in a certain way. But you can often tell from the language and expressions used what the author was about.

    I recently read the screenplay for the horror comedy "Happy Death Day", and in it a nude scene of a female character named Tree is described as follows:



    Shot tastefully, Tree strolls down the thoroughfare COMPLETELY NAKED...

    ANGLE ON -- THE STUDYING PAIR as they look up and see Tree. The sprinklers go off but they don’t even react because they’re too stunned.


    Stop global war--

    She sees Tree and pulls her clipboard back.

    ANGLE ON -- THE FRAT PLEDGES who follow Tree’s naked body with shocked grins. So distracted are they, nobody notices when the exhausted brother passes-out.

    It was important to the author that the camera is not voyeuristic, but that the nudity is tastefully filmed. There are no vulgar words, but also no judgmental adjectives like "hot", "sexy" etc.

    The author describes the reaction of the people who are completely surprised to see the young woman completely naked. This reaction is important. So, the camera should indicate that the girl is naked through tasteful camera angles, and then we should see the reaction of the people. It's not necessary to see her naked body. One hint and the following reaction of the people is enough.



    Context and delivery is everything, particularly in comedy. The same script could be shot in a way thats chaste, funny, sexy or sleazy and the choices that throw it one direction or another can be very subtle.

    I agree with you, and that's why I also thought about whether these scenes in the script could be filmed differently without losing the information they are supposed to convey.



  5. Quote

    Sounds like the show might not be to your taste. That's fine, but I think it's rather silly to continue arguing over the merits of the scene, especially if you haven't actually watched the show yet.

    You wrote two posts I didn't respond to, and now you're claiming it's "rather silly" to discuss with me? You and I haven't had a discussion in this thread yet. The discussion has been factual and polite so far, and I would appreciate it if it stays that way. I take counter-arguments seriously, and I would like my arguments to be taken seriously as well.

    I have taken the trouble to read the complete script and have thought about these three quoted scenes and explained why I think that these scenes could be filmed differently without losing the message.

    So it's not, as you wrongly claim, about simple questions of taste, but about considerations of what the statement, the intention of the respective scene is and how it can be conveyed in an alternative way by cinematographic means.

    Thank you.

  6. I have now read the script of the first episode. There are three parts that I find critical. The first scene takes place in a strip club.


    Joel and Midge sit at a sticky table watching a stripper gyrate on stage. She hits a twirling crescendo that sends one fringed tassel flying into the audience. The room APPLAUDS AND WHISTLES. She heads offstage. Midge rushes over, picks the pastie off the floor, runs up to the stage and waves it at the retreating stripper.

    Excuse me! Miss? Miss?

    The stripper turns and comes back.

    Thanks, Toots.

    Why is it important for the pastie to detach itself from the breast? And is this part of the show or not? At least there's no stage direction here that specifically requires the camera to show the breasts. You could have shown the pastie flying through the air in close-up. Or how it lands on the ground, and when the stripper turns around and comes back, you could show her from behind. The viewer knows that the pastie belongs to the stripper and that she has obviously lost it.

    I suppose she lost it by accident. Why can't she lose another part of her costume, e.g. a piece of her headgear, a ring, a ribbon, or something similar? Why does the screenwriter want her to have an exposed breast?


    Joel is screwing Midge up against a tree.

    (mid screw)
    You know what I want?

    Please don’t say a virgin.

    I want to make you laugh every day of your life.

    Okay, but you realize you said that while you’re still in me.

    I find both the stage direction and the dialogue problematic here. Why are the words "screwing" and "mid screw" used here? Wouldn't it have been enough to say they were having sex? Why this vulgar expression in a stage direction?

    And why does Midge say, "Okay, but you realize you said that while you're still in me"? Why doesn't she say "(...) while you still have sex with me"? Sounds like fan service to me. "Let's let Madge talk dirty. It's sexy."

    Midge pulls down her straps and shows her boobs.

    We hear gasps, cheers, a couple of boos, glasses crashing to the ground... it’s complete pandemonium. Susie’s riveted.

    Oh, poop!

    Now, seriously...
    (she covers her face and stomach again leaving the boobs exposed)

    ... there’s no **(obscenity removed)** way Penny Pann can compete with these tits!

    So this is the part where Midge shows her breasts. Why doesn't the screenwriter call them breasts? Again, there is no instruction that the camera shows her breasts; it is only implied that she shows her breasts to the audience.

    I think, if one would have worked with insinuations here, too, then the viewer still knows that she is topless and can see from the reaction of the policemen who take her away that this is a scandal.

    The screenwriter describes in detail the reaction of the audience, and also how strict the policemen are. Isn't the reaction of the audience as well as the policemen proof enough that Midge goes too far here?

    Or in other words: the audience and the policemen in the series see her breasts and react to them in a certain way. That's how we, the audience in front of the TV, can see how drastic her behavior is. So we have all the information we need to understand the plot. So why is it important that I see her breasts as well? I think it is important that I see the reaction of the audience and the police officers.
    Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing against this show. I generally question whether a nude or sex scene is necessary, and if it could be shot in another way and the viewer still knows what it's about. In the examples I mentioned I think that you could do without breasts or dirty talk and the viewer could still follow the plot and get all the important information.


  7. Quote

    More to the point, is there really any need for a justification? This is a textbook example of things that only have power because we give them that power.

    I find the question of the meaning and intentions of a nude scene as interesting and important as the question of why a director uses a certain camera angle, why he omitted or added a certain dialogue, or why he uses a certain lighting.



  8. Quote

    If you actually watched the series, you'd find that there is a very much a LACK of nudity in the show.

    Based on the description of the plot, I also think that this is not a soft porno à la "Game of Thrones", “Rome”, “The Borgias”, “Borgia”, “Sex Education”, “Spartacus”, just to name a few.


    In the pilot there is ONE shot with female nudity because that shocking act propels the entire story arc for the character and the whole series. If it had been hinted at discretely it would not have had the dramatic effect that pushed the character and story forward.

    I have seen that the "scriptslug" page offers the script for the first episode. I have to read this script once to see if this scene exists there, and if so, how it is described. I have made the experience that some nude scenes are not in the script, but only appear in the film.

    I find your explanation of this nude scene plausible, but I would like to bring a counter argument. You say: (underline by me):

    "because that shocking act propels the entire story arc for the character and the whole series".

    If I have understood this correctly, then a female character in a scene is naked, which has consequences for the further course of the plot. But if it's an incisive experience "for the character" - why do we, the audience, have to see her naked body as well?

    Suppose they filmed her naked back, thus implying that she is naked. Wouldn't the viewer also have understood that this is an extremely embarrassing situation for the woman? Would the audience not understand her motivation until they had seen what her breasts looked like?



    If "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" is too racy for you, that's fine, but honestly it's a show that many grandmothers like to watch.

    I have no problem with the sight of naked bodies; in one of my favorite movies, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" there are a lot of naked breasts. But there they don't bother me, because the movie is conceived as an "erotic nightmare" and many things that happen there don't make sense. However, before I knew that Coppola conceived his film as a surreal erotic nightmare, I was also very critical of these nude scenes, because they didn't make any dramaturgical sense to me.

    I'm very critical of movies and series because there's just too much fan service, and many productions show naked bodies and sex only because they're allowed to and not because it's important from an artistic point of view. Or it is shown because they want to "shock" the audience - which I find strange, because explicit pictures of nude and sex scenes have been around for thousands of years. That's why I question such scenes.

    I want to ask you a question about my "Spartacus" (1960) example. If you don't know the movie or can't remember this scene, please forget my question. The slave takes off her clothes, but all you can see is her head and bare shoulders. Do you think it would have been better (if it was allowed) if the camera showed more of her body so you could understand her situation better?


  9. Quote

    Sure, not wanting to derail the thread too much,

    I don't think that we are straying too far from the subject, because we are discussing whether such scenes in the series "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" are necessary and what use they have. But of course we can also outsource the discussion to a separate thread. :-)



    it can work if it brings a sense of vulnerability to the character.. e.g the victims in "Under the skin", or the failed seduction scene in American Beauty.

    I think I understand what you mean, but can't this feeling of vulnerability also be conveyed if you don't show the audience breasts and/or genitals, but only hint that the character is naked?

    In my "Spartacus" example, the slave also puts herself in a situation where she is at someone's mercy. She exposes herself to Spartacus - and as a spectator I have the feeling that she is vulnerable without the camera showing me her naked body. Instead, the camera shows her face, her facial expressions. Breasts have no facial expressions that can express feelings of fear, insecurity or vulnerability, but faces do.


    Same with theatre, I saw Kenneth Branagh do a nude scene in a 1000+ seater theatre for the Mamet play  "Edmond". It was really powerful both in the sense of shock factor and the characters descent into madness. That scene would not have had the same impact if Sir Ken kept his pants on.

    But could one interpret this nude scene in such a way that Branagh has a problem with depicting the descent into madness using only acting means as well as costumes and sets, and therefore has to resort to such means?



  10. 1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

    The problem with parental advisory notes on IMDB, BBFC etc... is they rob the situation of context. Perhaps making things seem more gratuitous then they are.

    Of course films are sometimes over weighted to appeal to the male gaze and it serves no more purpose then appealing to that viewership, but at times and places it can serve valid character/story point. 

    You're right, of course, that Imdb doesn't describe the context of each scene here, and that context certainly plays a role.
    That's why I ask why it's important to see male genitals in the scene in question, for example. As a comparison, I can think of a scene from the series "Mr. Bean" where Bean is supposed to paint a naked female model, but he has great difficulty looking at her at all. The camera shows the model's naked back once, so you know she's naked. And this knowledge is enough for the viewer. It is not necessary to show the breasts or the intimate area.
    I think that many production companies show naked skin only because they are allowed to or because of the fan service. I also think that movies and series are over-sexualized nowadays.
    For example, in Stanley Kubrick's "Spartacus" there is a scene where the slave (played by Jean Simmons) is sent to Spartacus' cell. She undresses and stands there naked - but the camera only shows her head and bare shoulders. You know she is naked, you don't have to see it. In the modern series "Spartacus", felt gives extremely revealing sex scenes every 10 minutes, filmed with a voyeuristic camera.
    Sir Michael Caine also advises actors not to shoot nude scenes, and especially full frontal nudity.

    Can you give me 2 or 3 small examples where the filming of naked breasts or naked genitals was important for understanding the characters and the plot?



    • Like 1
  11. I would find the plot interesting, but I just read the parental advisory section on Imdb and wonder why such things are necessary, and especially why it's not enough to merely hint at these things instead of showing them. No offense, I'm just interested.


    Top female nudity is shown briefly in season one.
    A woman reveals her breasts very clearly twice for at least a couple seconds each time in one episode. In episode 3 season 2 there is very graphic male genital nudity in a drawing class. In episode one, they watch a show in which a woman is wearing only underwear and pasties, and one of the pasties flies off revealing her bare nipple.



  12. Another HBO production. That means there is naked skin and brutal/bloody scenes.

    I'll look up Imdb and read:


    Full male frontal and rear nudity. Workers (miners) have removed their clothing due to heat and lack of air conditioning. Many male genitals and butts visible for a few minutes in one scene.



    dogs are shot and killed (on and off camera)


    Men begin to vomit blood and get radiation burns on their faces, blood patches also soak through their white uniforms as their skin ruptures.

    If someone likes to watch animals being shot, or to look at naked men, then this series is definitely interesting.

    For my part, I have been avoiding HBO ever since they showed that horrible "Game of Thrones".


  13. I have now timed with the stopwatch how long the scene with the brides of Dracula lasts, or rather: how long the music plays. It is 1 minute and 56 seconds.
    The track "The Brides" lasts 4 minutes and 25 seconds on the soundtrack CD. Maybe Kilar, who composed the music, saw a much longer rough cut of the scene? Because the time difference is already very big.
    I was simply irritated because I assumed that the composer would be shown the finished film, the final version, and the composer would compose his music for this final cut. It's a pity that there are re-cuts afterwards!

  14. I have often noticed that music composed especially for a film lasts longer on the soundtrack than in the scene. And I wondered why this is so.
    Please let me illustrate what I mean with a concrete example.

    I love the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by Francis Ford Coppola. In this film there is a scene in which Jonathan Harker is seduced by three vampire women. Of course I also own the soundtrack of the movie on CD, and I was surprised to find that the track "The Brides" lasts longer than the music used in the movie. Or to put it another way: the music on the soundtrack doesn't stop at the point where it ends in the movie, but continues to play.

    Why is that so? I thought that a composer who composes the music for a film sees the finished film and adapts his music to the scenes, to the lenght of the scenes. Why does the music on soundtracks often last longer than the music in the film?



  15. Hello!


    On both the DVD and the Blu-ray of the film "From Dusk Till Dawn" it says on the back that the film is shown in 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

    Since I was interested in whether both media have the same picture, I took a photo of the same scene and found that the DVD shows less of the picture.

    I have a 16:9 TV, and haven't changed any of the settings. Both the DVD and the Blu-ray have thin black bars at the top and bottom, as is usual for this format on 16:9 screens. With the DVD, however, one also sees such bars to the left and to the right, and on all four sides some of the picture is missing.

    First the picture of the Blu-ray, then the DVD:



    Does somebody know what´s wrong with the DVD?




  16. Thank you for your answers!

    If I understood that correctly, then it is rather unlikely (at least for large, expensive productions), that the editor works completely on his own and determines how long a scene lasts, how long a take lasts, etc., on his own.

    My idea was this: a film is shot and the footage is sent to the editor, who then sits alone in front of his computer and edits the film without consulting the director or producer.

    But is the editor's job still an artistic job when everyone can tell him how to edit? Is he not just a tool of the director and the producer?



  17. Hello! :)

    After having dealt extensively with the topic of lighting, I am now interested in the work of the editor. What I'm particularly interested in here is whether editors generally work alone on films (even big Hollywood productions), or whether they collaborate with the director or other people. There are also so-called "director cuts", and this term suggests that the director is not involved in the editor's work, or has no say in it. In the credits, usually only one name is mentioned as editor, and not additionally the name of the director or producer.
    So my question is: what does an editor's work usually look like? Does he decide everything alone?


  18. Thank you :)

    I was unsecure because of things like "Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)".

    I´m not into all that stuff, I don´t know all those different systems, cameras, lenses, film stocks, etc., but I´m very interested, how a film was shot, and what kind of material they used.


    For example, I found another modern movie that was shot with the "Red Weapon Dragon". I searched after it, and that is clearly a digital camera with no celluloid used.
    But in this case (Death Proof) I was not sure!






  19. Hello! :)

    I recently bought the movie Death Proof (2007) on BluRay and watched it yesterday. Since I was interested in whether the film was digitally recorded or whether a real film reel was used for it, I went to Imdb to find out. Unfortunately I don't understand the technical data there. Maybe one of you can tell me whether the film was shot digitally or not?


    Arriflex 435 ES, Panavision Primo Lenses
    Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo Lenses
    Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Lenses

    Negative Format:
    35 mm (Fuji Eterna 500T 8573)

    Cinematographic Process:
    Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
    Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

    Printed Film Format:
    35 mm (Fuji)



    Thanks for you help :)




  20. Hello! :)


    I'm not a huge fan of Ridley Scott's 1985 movie “Legend”, but I've always liked the Dress Waltz scene (as well as Tim Curry´s performance as “Darkness”). In this scene, Darkness tries to seduce Princess Lily to get her onto the dark side by sending her a black, beautiful but somehow creepy dress, and making her dance with the dress. At first Lily is afraid, but the dress seduces her and makes her dance with it.

    I like this scene very much, the atmosphere, the mood, the acting, the music, the colors...

    (By the way, I prefer the European Cut to the American Cut because it lasts longer and I like the music of Jerry Goldsmith a bit better than that of the German band Tangerine Dream. But both versions have their advantages and disadvantages.)


    Now I have seen some videos on YouTube on the topic "How to block a scene", and also other videos about picture composition, camera movement etc. And now I don't enjoy the scene from "Legend" anymore, because I always feel like I'm missing interesting details!

    That's why I wanted to ask you if you could say a few words about it? Please don't get me wrong, I don't expect a detailed analysis of this scene, just a few thoughts, a few hints on how the camera is moved, how the scene or some shots are blocked. Maybe you can tell me which shots are well done, and why. And which shots are not that good, and why.

    I am happy about every answer I get :-)

    Here is the video (the dance sequence starts at 1:45):







  21. Michael Caine recently said in an interview something like this: "If the audience watch my movie and says ´Isn´t Michael Caine a wonderful actor?´, then I have done it all wrong. If the audience says ´I wonder what will happen next to XY, then I have done it right".


    But I´m not sure if I can agree with that.


    My "problem" is: whenever I watch a movie - no matter which one - I always see a couple of actors doing their job, and not the characters they portray.


    I don´t think that the actors are to blame here, but I don´t think I am to blame either. When you watch a movie like "Raging Bull", do you really see the character Jake LaMotta? Or do you see Robert DeNiro doing a great job, do you see the character, or do you see DeNiro acting? Do you think "Wow, LaMotta is really fat", or do you think "Wow, great method acting by De Niro"?

  • Create New...