Wally Pfister - What was he thinking?

[dashrendar44]

You aren't saying that, but certain people were by arguing that he got lucky to meet Nolan, and so forth and so forth.

 

Well, one thing for sure, that's not Amityville:Darkforce and Breakfast With Einstein that got him where he is now so...

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Maybe a bit better but not exactly top notch either. It's probably more down to Nolan than Pfister but the shot composition and multiple quick edits does neither film much credit.An interesting and I think fairy accurate critical breakdown on the "shot economy" in Inception. One example used was the cafe scene.Glass houses.

The shot for shot breakdown is interesting, but it raises this question that I've always wondered: why is using more shots to convey story a bad thing? I mean, every once in a while, I find a film that's over edited and it takes me out off the film, but often, it doesn't bother me if 30 shots were used or not. Maybe the impact is more on a subconscious level, but I'd really like to know why that rule exists. Also, I think a cliche coffee cup scene is fine. Nearly every film will have a few cliches, and I think this one is understandable.

[Spidey Freak]

 

 

Uwe Boll on Michael Bay:

“I’m not a fucking retard like Michael Bay.”

 

Don't underestimate the dark side, Uwe.

[RobinHood26]

Lol at people bringing up the amount of shots.POA has less shots then HBP but it doesn't make the cinematography better. Just different approaches. A scene can work 1,000 different ways , if not movies would all the be same, that's why you get a team to make them.

[Noctis]

Lol at people bringing up the amount of shots.POA has less shots then HBP but it doesn't make the cinematography better. Just different approaches.A scene can work 1,000 different ways , if not movies would all the be same, that's why you get a team to make them.

 

PoA looks great, but HBP is fucking beautiful all the way through. 

[dashrendar44]

Lol at people bringing up the amount of shots.POA has less shots then HBP but it doesn't make the cinematography better. Just different approaches.A scene can work 1,000 different ways , if not movies would all the be same, that's why you get a team to make them.

 

Less is more.

 

In narrative fiction, a scene can work 1000 different ways but the goal is to find the best and most effective way out of those 1000 to get it to the point. If you can convey the same thing with less shots, that can mean that you don't use the most effective way ergo you waste shots and time.

Edited September 17, 2014 by dashrendar44

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Less is more.

 

In narrative fiction, a scene can work 1000 different ways but the goal is to find the best and most effective way out of those 1000 to get it to the point. If you can convey the same thing with less shots, that can mean that you don't use the most effective way ergo you waste shots and time.

But what makes less shots more effective? Or to rephrase that: how does the use of less shots affect our emotions/thoughts as viewers of the film? (Since really, that's what I care about the most)And also, is this a general guideline, or does this apply to every scene?Note: I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking because this has always interested me.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Dark Jedi Master 007

[vc2002]

He was thinking that he won an Oscar, he was involved in a HUGE SH movie that everybody talked about, and now everybody talks about another SH movie, so it's time for him to make a statement "OK this new movie is not like the one I shot. Mine is better."

 

He just picked the wrong movie to "criticize". If it was some shitty movie that most hated, he would have gone away with it. But most people liked TA, so he definitely pissed off a lot of movie goers.

 

And of cause his debut as a director didn't help.

[Ozymandias]

there seems to be a weird attitude that people in the film industry aren't allowed to shit-talk others. that's dumb. I fucking wish they'd do it all the time. they do it a lot more in the music industry and it's more fun. Seamus McGarvey needs to release his own diss track.

 

If you openly talk shit about other actors/directors in the film industry, it will probably hurt your chances to get work unless you're talking shit about somebody nobody cares about artistically like M. Night, Uwe Boll, or even Michael Bay.

[TalismanRing]

But what makes less shots more effective? Or to rephrase that: how does the use of less shots affect our emotions/thoughts as viewers of the film? (Since really, that's what I care about the most)And also, is this a general guideline, or does this apply to every scene?Note: I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking because this has always interested me.

 

It's akin to writing a novel and saying narratively in 5 pages what could be said in 1 while not adding to the mood or character.

 

Usually less is more but it depends on the scene and what you're trying to show or evoke.  Frantic or rapid cutting or even quick montages can be done to enhance a mood of excitement, dread, confusion etc or impart lots of information quickly.  But this scene is dull exposition of two people at a cafe until the explosions hit. The cuts aren't emphasizing the dialogue or characters nor are they creative or interesting enough to counterbalance the dullness of it.  Visually, it's a repetitious back and forth that adds nothing to the narrative or mood so it's just busy for the sake of being busy.

 

In comparison, Hitchcock, the master, story boarded all his movies before filming - shot by shot.

 

This youtube video breaks down some parts of Notorious though the pertinent part is near the end where Bogdonavich discusses the party scene and how Hitchock shows how the key is the most important thing all while building suspense though the camera movement.  Every shot and edit in that scene serves a purpose.

 

 

 

And the full key/party scene

 

Edited September 18, 2014 by TalismanRing

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

It's akin to writing a novel and saying narratively in 5 pages what could be said in 1 while not adding to the mood or character.

 

Usually less is more but it depends on the scene and what you're trying to show or evoke.  Frantic or rapid cutting or even quick montages can be done to enhance a mood of excitement, dread, confusion etc or impart lots of information quickly.  But this scene is dull exposition of two people at a cafe until the explosions hit. The cuts aren't emphasizing the dialogue or characters nor are they creative or interesting enough to counterbalance the dullness of it.  Visually, it's a repetitious back and forth that adds nothing to the narrative or mood so it's just busy for the sake of being busy.

 

 

 

I'll check out the Hitchcock videos when I get a chance. To your point, I see what you're saying, but am unsure if I agree yet. I guess what's stopping me from fully agreeing with you is the issue of time. When you use 5 pages to tell what could be told in 1 (assuming those 5 pages don't add any depth what-so-ever) then you are taking up my time. And the thing is, eventually, I notice that my time is being taken, which takes me out of the work. The thing is, 30 fast shots, as opposed to let's say 10 slower ones could take up the same amount of time, in which case, I wouldn't notice my time being taken up (because it isn't) and as a result, I'm not taken out of the work. IDK if that makes full sense, but that's how I feel about the situation right now. Honestly, though, I just started learning about film language at a deeper level than "this is an edit, this is a shot, this is...." and maybe in a few years, I'll see what you're saying better. Right now, I get what you are saying, but not necessarily why. Thanks for trying, though. 

[TalismanRing]

Point taken about the time aspect; as phrased that's not such a great analogy.

 

How about this, though it might not be any better.

 

The economy of film has to be even tighter than a novel. (so a waste of 5 pages might equal a waste of 1 or 2 minutes of film) Most are two hours and film is a visual medium where the camera tells us things maybe the dialogue or action doesn't.

 

It's a waste of screen time in that instead of using 30 repetitious shots in 83 seconds in what I gather is an attempt to make the scene feel less static the scene should have been filmed in a away to evoke mood or reveal character better.  Those 2 second shots aren't helping the scene or the performances, they're undercutting them.

 

The scene could have been a one shot of both face to face for more intimacy, there could have been a different use of the geography around them used to illustrate the conversation, the cuts could have been longer then became shorter building into the explosion, or maybe the reverse. Or maybe the scene should also have been re-written so they wouldn't feel the need for such quick editing to keep people from nodding off.

Edited September 18, 2014 by TalismanRing

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

 

It's a waste of screen time in that instead of using 30 repetitious shots in 83 seconds in what I gather is an attempt to make the scene feel less static the scene should have been filmed in a away to evoke mood or reveal character better.  Those 2 second shots aren't helping the scene or the performance, they're undercutting them.

 

The scene could have been shot in a one shot of both face to face for more intimacy, there could have been a different use of the geography around them used to illustrate the conversation, the cuts could have been longer then became shorter building into the explosion. Or maybe the scene should also have been re-written so they wouldn't feel the need for such quick editing to keep people from nodding off.

I do agree that shots should be designed to evoke mood/reveal character/further themes and ideas. However, outside of the intimacy example, IDK if any of the changes actually add to the mood/character/theme (well, rewriting the scene obviously does, but I'm going to ignore that seeing that it takes us into a what could've been, as opposed to what should've been). Again, I suspect this just comes down to me not being well-versed in film techniques yet to fully comprehend why film economy matters so much. Still, I really do appreciate you and Dash pointing this stuff out, it's actually forced me to search more about all of this. Right now, I've found some great stuff on Chaos Cinema (which is what it seems like we're talking about). Nothing has fully convinced me that Pfister and Nolan needed to change anything, but it's brought up interesting questions. 

[Olive]

Transcendence 30/100

Avengers  92/100

[Lordmandeep]

There is a difference between shit talking and being petty.

 

That is why it backfired.

 

Its the big Nolan guy trying to act all high and mighty over the "childish marvel films" 

Edited September 22, 2014 by Lordmandeep

[Jessie]

If you openly talk shit about other actors/directors in the film industry, it will probably hurt your chances to get work unless you're talking shit about somebody nobody cares about artistically like M. Night, Uwe Boll, or even Michael Bay.

 

Lol if you think nobody in the industry cares about Bay then you are an idiot.

[Ozymandias]

Lol if you think nobody in the industry cares about Bay then you are an idiot.

 

Why? Because his movies make money?

 

Nobody is gonna care enough to not work with you if you publically call the Transformers or Bad Boys movie garbage, those movies are widely seen as ass on a stick in the industry.  Michael Bay is not somebody most people would give an arm and a leg to work with like Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan, the Coens, Martin Scorsese, etc.

[John Marston]

Why? Because his movies make money?

 

Nobody is gonna care enough to not work with you if you publically call the Transformers or Bad Boys movie garbage, those movies are widely seen as ass on a stick in the industry.  Michael Bay is not somebody most people would give an arm and a leg to work with like Steven Spielberg, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson, Christopher Nolan, the Coens, Martin Scorsese, etc.

 

 

this is all assumption

[RobinHood26]

this is all assumption

 

Yeah considering the casts he gets. Ive heard Bay actually treats his actors really well. 

[tommycruise]

Yeah considering the casts he gets. Ive heard Bay actually treats his actors really well. 

But not their careers