Grindhouse

[Tenolian Bell]

Movie used to work that way more before the 1980's. The filmmakers would allow you time to get to know the characters, before the inciting action began. That would help you get to learn about them and grow sympathetic for them. It was often used as a device to trick you into being sympathetic for someone who turns out to be the antagonist. You end up being sympathetic for the bad guy. They try to do that today but because character development takes a far back set to a tired plot you end up not being that sympathetic for much of anyone.

 

The first group of girls all of the things we learn about them and their relationship with Stuntman Mike. For me that led up to the surprise of what end up happening to them. From getting to know them we did not expect that would happen to that particular group of girls.

 

The second group we get to know. They seem more like a group of girly girls, at first they look like stereotypical movie girl victims. The conversation in the diner they reference 70's Grindhouse movies that involved extensive car chases and crashes. In that conversation they also give us information that helps with events that happen later. In referencing those old movies they give the reason as to why they get involved with what happens later in the movie.

[Tim O'Connor]

Directors taking over every job just takes the "collaborative artform" aspect of filmmaking. It's like a music composer who plays every instrument, it just doesnt work, and if it does it wont sound (or in this case look) good.

 

 

Did you ever hear of Prince? He had no. 1 songs that are great and he wrote them and produced

them and played all the instruments and sang and he was good. The band in some of the music

videos may have been musicians, not actors, but they were performing to playback that was all

Prince. Some people can do it.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

Also the fact that both directors were also the cinematographers I found upsetting, just because I think directors if theyre directing should do just that, I would find it hard to block out actors and give screen directions while lighting and composing shots. Instead it's better for a director and cinematographer to work collaboratively, and work together at making the scene well acted out, and complimented by composition and lighting.

 

Directors taking over every job just takes the "collaborative artform" aspect of filmmaking. It's like a music composer who plays every instrument, it just doesnt work, and if it does it wont sound (or in this case look) good.

 

Personally as a director, unless I were shooting something with a bunch of action, I can't imagine leaving composition and operating up to someone else. Putting distance between the camera and myself puts a distance between the material and myself. I don't think everyone would benefit from doing this, but I know I do.

 

That being said, I don't think I'd ever try and wear as many hats as Rodriguez does. I thought the cinematography in Planet Terror was serviceable, but not really awesome. Some of it looked great and some of it looked cheap--but I think that's just a characteristic of Rodriguez not taking things very seriously. I think Tarantino did a great job with the look of Death Proof, though. He married the some of the best elements of 60's and 70's cinematography with some of the neat modern "features" of today's filmstocks, like the way they handle blown-out highlights.

 

On a side note, my favorite album of 2007 so far is Of Montreal's Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?, which was basically done entirely by one guy who wrote it, sang it, performed it, and probably mixed it. Best, most danceable album I've heard in years.

[James Steven Beverly]

I want to know who decided to open this bitch on Easter weekend? Opening a violent, sexually exploitive film on a family oriented holiday seems one of the dumbest mistakes I've ever heard of, unless I'm missing something. B)

[Guest]

This is funny:

 

Some moviegoers who bought tickets to see the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino "double bill" Grindhouse were apparently unaware that the feature comprised two separate movies -- and walked out after the first one, Rodriguez's Planet Terror, ended, published reports said today (Tuesday). "I don't think people understood what we were doing," Weinstein told today's New York Post. "The audience didn't get the idea that it is two movies for the price of one." The walk-outs could offer another partial explanation for the film's disappointing performance at the box-office. Most critics agreed that the second movie, Tarantino's Death Proof, was the superior of the two. Daily Variety also reported that The Weinstein Co. is overhauling its ad campaign but will be facing stiff competition next weekend when seven -- count 'em, seven -- new films open. The Post added that the company is also considering re-releasing the two movies as separate offerings in longer versions, as it had already decided to do overseas and on DVD.

[Walter Graff]

"The walk-outs could offer another partial explanation for the film's disappointing performance at the box-office"

 

 

No! They already bought a ticket so walking out doesn't change ticket sales negatively and word of mouth doesn't normally affect the first few opening days of a film. It got 83% great reviews so many knew it was there and it wasn't up against much (deliberate!). Perhaps they simply had enough after one film and wanted to get out of the theater. I could see a couple saying to each other, "Do you want to stay?". "No, I've had enough, let's get out of here!!!"

 

Personally I don't like either director and the trailer for this film(s) looks stupid. While it's a tribute to more mindless movies of an era past, it's simpler fare than I think most folks expect to spend money for today. Sort of like listening to jokes from the fifties. One is cute, two too much. Or paying to see "The Boy In The Plastic Bubble" with John Travolta today. Acceptable for it's time, but outdated and of little interest to moviegoers in today's age accept for those that like nostalgia.

 

And I'll lay odds this film does very poorly in home release too! Unless they do something to make sure the box looks modern, folks will think it's an old movie someone put in the new section by mistake.

 

Try putting "Grindhouse sucks" into Google and you'll see what people really thought of it.

 

If only they shot on RED! :)

Edited April 11, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Tenolian Bell]

Personally as a director, unless I were shooting something with a bunch of action, I can't imagine leaving composition and operating up to someone else. Putting distance between the camera and myself puts a distance between the material and myself.

 

The camera and its needs can also put a distance between you and the material. When I'm operating most of my concentration is on framing, focus, and actors hitting their lighting marks so the exposure will be correct. I would find it difficult to pay close attention to every little nuance of their performance.

 

I've heard actors complain about directors being too distracted with the camera or tech toys on set, they have to compete for equal attention.

 

I've heard some older actors say back in the day they had the directors full attention and could generally always see his/her face. Now they complain that the director is more often hidden behind the video assist monitor and they cannot always see the director while they are trying to communicate.

[ryan_bennett]

The camera and its needs can also put a distance between you and the material. When I'm operating most of my concentration is on framing, focus, and actors hitting their lighting marks so the exposure will be correct. I would find it difficult to pay close attention to every little nuance of their performance.

 

I've heard actors complain about directors being too distracted with the camera or tech toys on set, they have to compete for equal attention.

 

I've heard some older actors say back in the day they had the directors full attention and could generally always see his/her face. Now they complain that the director is more often hidden behind the video assist monitor and they cannot always see the director while they are trying to communicate.

 

I agree and thought the same thing when I read the original post. Your job as a director is to direct the actors, leave the camera and rest to the DP. Not saying leave them completely alone, just work together, maybe take a peek or watch the performances inside the frame, but really you gotta be there for the actors. If you're directing you gotta be thinking about the story (the scene and its beats) and gauging your actors performance.

[Scott Bullock]

I'd been waiting for this movie to open for months and I can honestly say that I wasn't disappointed. It was a three hour movie and to me it just seemed to fly right by. I'm not sure why it is doing so poorly at the box office, however. I have a feeling that the running time had something to do with it as this seems to have been part of the reason that ZODIAC suffered at the box office as well. Perhaps the whole "grind house" concept was just lost on certain audiences, I don't know. What I do know is that I grew up in the heyday of grind house cinemas and enjoyed going to them as often as possible. I really feel like both directors, but particularly Tarantino, were able to capture the feel of those classic exploitation films; even the faux trailers were awesome!

 

It's sad that we seemingly live in an age where a film like BLADES OF GLORY has more box office appeal than a film like GRINDHOUSE does. I like Will Farrell well enough, don't get me wrong, but these two films are night and day when it comes to the sheer creative forces behind them, in my honest opinion. I'm just baffled that a "cookie cutter" film like BLADES OF GLORY, in its second week of release, can beat out a film like GRINDHOUSE, which just opened. I'm sure I'll watch the Farrell movie when it comes out on DVD or cable and get some laughs out of it, but I loved GRINDHOUSE so much that I plan to see it in the theatre at least a couple more times.

[Max Jacoby]

Some moviegoers who bought tickets to see the Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino "double bill" Grindhouse were apparently unaware that the feature comprised two separate movies -- and walked out after the first one, Rodriguez's Planet Terror, ended, published reports said today (Tuesday).

Haha

 

This is hilarious!

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

The camera and its needs can also put a distance between you and the material. When I'm operating most of my concentration is on framing, focus, and actors hitting their lighting marks so the exposure will be correct. I would find it difficult to pay close attention to every little nuance of their performance.

 

I've heard actors complain about directors being too distracted with the camera or tech toys on set, they have to compete for equal attention.

 

I've heard some older actors say back in the day they had the directors full attention and could generally always see his/her face. Now they complain that the director is more often hidden behind the video assist monitor and they cannot always see the director while they are trying to communicate.

 

 

Is this why Stephen Soderbergh is so unpopular with actors these days? /sarcasm

 

Seriously, I'm lost without it. I don't think it's a distraction. Again, it allows me to be mentally *and* physically closer to the actors. I do a lot of shots that allow you to see the entire room, and if I weren't behind the camera I'd probably have to be outside anyway or I'd end up in the shot! I'm not off at some video monitor, distracted by whether or not the camera man is getting what I want; I'm right there, two feet from the actors, even giving them direction under my breath sometimes. Focus is being pulled by my excellent AC, and if it's off we can both tell pretty easily. I've never had a hard time with actors missing their marks for focus or lighting.

 

Again, I don't think it's something everyone should do, but it seems to work best for me. On the flip side, lighting I could give up much more easily than camera. I usually have a strong sense of what I want, but I would be a self-deceiving arrogant fool to think I have a superlative grasp on lighting tools and techniques.

 

Anyway, I really don't mean to hijack the thread. All I wanted to say is yes, I can understand the potential drawbacks and the risks involved, but to say that it's a method of filmmaking that absolutely does not work is simply dismissive of some great work that has been done in this way, especially if we're speaking solely in terms of operating. Grindhouse seems to support both our views to a degree--Rodriguez yours, Tarantino mine.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Giles Sherwood

[Matt Workman]

Hey Giles,

 

Whatup!??!! As for the director operating I'll say that with a super35mm camera and long days on features you will most likely want to give up the camera to someone who can devote every coffee starved ounce of energy to keeping the framing right.

 

Your job is to direct, which means you give up physically doing everything, you direct others. Even if the director is a great designer that only means he can communicate with the production designer more effectively. If you have an eye for composition just speak with the operator and DP and they might surprise you by framing like you want and maybe improving on it. Not to say that some directors don't operate but I would always question the notion.

 

If you get tired holding the camera who will direct the movie? Just my thought. Even as a DP I'm really letting go of operating and I can manage much longer days with out getting lazy in lighting.

 

Haven't seen Grindhouse. Probably won't.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt :ph34r:

[Tenolian Bell]

but to say that it's a method of filmmaking that absolutely does not work

 

I didn't say it does not work. I'm essentially saying I've heard actors complain about this style of working, because they don't feel they are getting the amount of attention they would like.

 

My talking about framing, focus, and exposure was not intent to be a slight on your talent. Depending on what you are doing these are challenges for everyone. You are not strictly focused on the actors performance while re-framing a dolly move and racking focus. Sometimes focus is soft. Actors don't always hit their marks. Especially when dealing with less experiences actors. I often have to explain the entire concept of why they need to be in a certain spot at a certain time.

 

Is this why Stephen Soderbergh is so unpopular with actors these days? /sarcasm

 

I'm sure certain actors would complain about his way of working.

 

Soderberg also has the benefit of working with George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and so on. Who are all seasoned, he may not even give them much direction.

[Josh Bass]

I say you operating directors are either geniuses or crazy. . .

 

 

I did a short last year, where I DP'd/Directed simultaneously. I've done this on all past projects, and never really thought much of it. This time, I wanted to be more perfromance-conscious. I wish I had had someone else do it, because I don't see how you can possibly really judge what's going on looking through a tiny viewfinder, unless it's a really close CU. On a medium/wide, you can't see anything but the most obvious of what's going on in frame.

 

I noticed, while editing, so many things I would've fixed while shooting if I'd noticed them, but I was distracted by trying to frame, follow movement, etc.

 

 

If you really care about the quality of the performance, I don't see how you could possibly do both at once. Having a large monitor to watch helps, but you still have some of the same issues.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

Well like I said, you've all made good points, and there are certainly as many potential dangers as there are advantages. I can only say what seems to work best for me and not anyone else... but rather than argue the point further (which would be fun, of course), I'd feel guilty if we didn't get this topic back on track.

 

Does anyone have any links to articles about Zoe Bell's amazing stuntwork in Death Proof? I assume there was some kind of safety cable, but if there's any sort of in-depth reportage on this I'd definitely be interested in reading about it. At first the chase scene was cool-but-not-super-awesome in my eyes, but a couple minutes in when I made the connection between Kurt Russell's stunt-vs-CG speech and what I was seeing, my heart jumped up into my throat.

[Christian Janss]

Well I for one liked it, both films. But then again I've seen nearly every euro-Zombie flick in existence, and I still think fast cars are cool.

 

 

Technical Question:

 

How did QT get the very heavy crushed blacks on Death Proof? As I under stand it he shot on 35mm but some of the shots in the Austin bar in the first half have a look like 16mm blown up. The blacks in the shadows and the girls' hair are really rich & deep. Some of the colors are really striking too.

Did they pull the film like a stop or two?

 

 

I just thought that scene really captured what it's like on a hot wet night down south, bravo.

 

CJ

[Rupe Whiteman]

HHhmmm... A Tarantino and Rodgiguez double-bill: one to miss for me... Tarantino - one of the most over-rated directors in recent film history and another who really wishes he is Sergio Leone with none of the guile, grace or style...

 

For me Tarantino's a moral reprobate who gets off on violence and has basically nothing interesting to say. A sadistic geek who has no talent as an actor yet insists on appearing (all too often) in his own movies...

[Thomas Smith]

And he operated the camera as well, like Michael Mann, Ridley and Tony Scott, Luc Besson and countless other directors who don't feel like they need to give themselves credit for it.

 

Steven Soderbergh as well, and he´s the DOP(Peter Andrews)

[Daniel Carruthers]

Well I for one liked it, both films. But then again I've seen nearly every euro-Zombie flick in existence, and I still think fast cars are cool.

Technical Question:

 

How did QT get the very heavy crushed blacks on Death Proof? As I under stand it he shot on 35mm but some of the shots in the Austin bar in the first half have a look like 16mm blown up. The blacks in the shadows and the girls' hair are really rich & deep. Some of the colors are really striking too.

Did they pull the film like a stop or two?

I just thought that scene really captured what it's like on a hot wet night down south, bravo.

 

CJ

 

 

HMMM I was thinking the opposite. I thought death proof had a really washed out bleached look to it. I cant really remember the night scenes too well, I only really remember the dayscenes, I should go back and watch it again the show I went to dident get out untill almost 1am.

 

One question I have is, I know Robert rodrigios DOP his film, I was really surprised to see that Quentin Tarintine DOP HIS FILM AS WELL. Or maybe I read the credits wrong???

When I watched the end credits one thing I thought was funny was they had a camera operator/DP and a Gaffer/DP ??? I dont think they where second unit? I think Tarentino just wanted his name on the opening credits because RR had so many credits as well?

I could be wrong.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

On a side note, my favorite album of 2007 so far is Of Montreal's Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?, which was basically done entirely by one guy who wrote it, sang it, performed it, and probably mixed it. Best, most danceable album I've heard in years.

 

No way did Kevin Barnes do all of it, the rest of the band put in so much. To even say that is ridiculous. It's a great album but dont give Kevin all the credit.

[Guest Giles Sherwood]

No way did Kevin Barnes do all of it, the rest of the band put in so much. To even say that is ridiculous. It's a great album but dont give Kevin all the credit.

 

In my defense I thought including the word "basically" was enough of a qualifier to imply that there were other hands in the process, but I mean if you look at the credits for the album it goes like this: All songs written, performed, and recorded by Kevin Barnes BMI (?) with the exception of some thoroughly rad help from [people], artwork by..., design and layout by..., mastered by glenn schick.

 

No, it's not a solo album, but Barnes has certainly taken on more and more of Of Montreal's output by himself. It seems to me that the album is basically by Kevin Barnes, featuring a number of other musicians. This article in particular I think has a decent amount of information about what he did and didn't do on the album, without seeming to exaggerate. This other article also describes how much of the album he took on by himself. Between this information and the way the album credits read, unless Barnes is a much bigger egomaniac than I think, I don't think I was terribly out of line.

 

Anyway, my point in bring up the album wasn't to talk about who gets credit, it was just to illustrate the fact that when making art, we don't always *have* to have this ultra-specialized workforce all the time, and talented people are capable of doing more than one job at a time. I don't think the fact that I like to operate while I direct is any more ridiculous than directors who act--and I absolutely NEVER hear anyone tell them not to go for it (unless they're awful actors). I hate it when I come off as defensive or combative, but I'm continually astounded at the aversion people have towards anyone using this method.

 

Speaking of credit, though, I've written/shot/edited/directed all my films at school, but I only take a "film by" or a "directed by" credit because unlike Rodriguez I think it's awful seeing my name on screen more than once. I think it would be neat actually, if more people who worked on films were credited using aliases or as collectives at times.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Did you ever hear of Prince? He had no. 1 songs that are great and he wrote them and produced

them and played all the instruments and sang and he was good. The band in some of the music

videos may have been musicians, not actors, but they were performing to playback that was all

Prince. Some people can do it.

 

Don't forget Stevie Wonder, and he can't even physically see what he is doing!!!

 

Some can do it (and I mean really one or two), but Rodrigeuz certainly to my mind is no filmmaking equivalent of Stevie Wonder or Prince. With all the shallow pastiche, he's barely the Crazy Frog.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

One more point in regards to Tim O'Connor's post:

 

The difference between Prince and Wonder versus say Rodriguez and Soderbergh is that while Stevie Wonder and Prince could produce for other artists, you have not and are not going to see Soderbergh or Rodriguez lighting for any other filmmakers.

 

Something to think about.

[James Steven Beverly]

One more point in regards to Tim O'Connor's post:

 

The difference between Prince and Wonder versus say Rodriguez and Soderbergh is that while Stevie Wonder and Prince could produce for other artists, you have not and are not going to see Soderbergh or Rodriguez lighting for any other filmmakers.

 

Something to think about.

 

Something to think about, what's to think about? These are 2 of the most successful directors in Hollywood. Why would they want to DP for someone else? They're probably way too busy pitching movies, planning shoots and making millions of dollars as directors, don't ya think?

[Keith Mottram]

One more point in regards to Tim O'Connor's post:

 

The difference between Prince and Wonder versus say Rodriguez and Soderbergh is that while Stevie Wonder and Prince could produce for other artists, you have not and are not going to see Soderbergh or Rodriguez lighting for any other filmmakers.

 

Something to think about.

 

erm but both soderbergh and rodriguez have produced for other filmmakers...