Saw Captain Marvel. Found it to be the most boring Marvel movie so far. Jackson was good. Larson was decent. Nobody else worth mentioning. Just felt like a bridge between movies to me. Like those One Shots they used to do. The character arc was almost non-existent, set up at the start and remembered just before the end. The 'twist' is pure Disney these days too. Same sort of thing we've seen in Incredibles 2, Coco and I bet, Spider-Man: Far From Home.
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
Saw Captain Marvel. Found it to be the most boring Marvel movie so far. Jackson was good. Larson was decent. Nobody else worth mentioning. Just felt like a bridge between movies to me. Like those One Shots they used to do. The character arc was almost non-existent, set up at the start and remembered just before the end. The 'twist' is pure Disney these days too. Same sort of thing we've seen in Incredibles 2, Coco and I bet, Spider-Man: Far From Home.
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
Most films about gangsters in London are dreadful -
Just seen "A star is born" I like Bradley Cooper... a lot, and he did ok in this flick, but Lady Gaga.....urghhh.....it came across to me as a showcase of her singing and to be honest I don't think she added anything to the story at all. I lost interest completely about 15 minutes before the end and went to get a cup of tea. 4/10
Thoroughly enjoyed Captain Marvel. Watched in a packed cinema and once they settled down they reacted positively to the film. Huge laughs when the cat thing happened. These are not ground breaking movies, nor meant to be, but they are tons of fun. Brie Larson is perfect for the role. Nice tribute to Stan Lee at the start.
Just seen "A star is born" I like Bradley Cooper... a lot, and he did ok in this flick, but Lady Gaga.....urghhh.....it came across to me as a showcase of her singing and to be honest I don't think she added anything to the story at all. I lost interest completely about 15 minutes before the end and went to get a cup of tea. 4/10
I gave it more than a four but I agree about Lady Ga Ga . She completely ruins the second half of the movie .
Fighting with my Family. Way better than I was expecting. I’m not particularly interested in wrestling, WWE or otherwise, but this was a good yarn, with some excellent performances. Lovely film. 7.5/10
Fighting with my Family. Way better than I was expecting. I’m not particularly interested in wrestling, WWE or otherwise, but this was a good yarn, with some excellent performances. 7.5/10
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Agree and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a remarkable women.
Went to see ‘The Aftermath’ a few days ago. Also very watchable. Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgård and Jason Clarke. Story set in the ruins of Hamburg at the end of WWII. Story of shattered lives on both sides of the conflict trying to cope with the past.
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
I own a lump of wood that can act better than Wahlberg.
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks Jimmy.
Interesting article, including the take on it that Ottman saved the movie, but it doesn’t explain how shit that scene is when that other bloke demonstrates how it could’ve been improved with nothing but the footage from the final cut! I find it hard to believe he couldn’t have done better, which to me makes him winning an Oscar for it somewhat ludicrous.
Also, interesting explanation of how scenes are shot, but one question - if you need six shots of the same conversation, why can’t you get two or three of them at a time? Surely you could set up more than one of those angles so the other cameras can’t be seen? Seems bizarre to shoot a scene 6 times when you could do it in two or three? Or am I missing something?
Sorry to ask stupid questions, but I find this sort of thing fascinating!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Sorry Bob - I missed this the other day.
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Sorry Bob - I missed this the other day.
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
Saw this with my daughter at the weekend. It was better than I expected 5/10
Watched Caramel last night on Amazon - not a new film but its directed by Nadine Labaki who made Capernaum that was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film this year. It's set in the Lebanon and explores the love lives of five women who frequent a beauty salon in Beirut.
Enjoyed it as much as Capernaum and thought it was again a great piece of storytelling. An interesting insight into life in Beirut. 8.5/10
A story about a kindergarten teacher who recognises the talents of a gifted child in her class and she seeks to help them against the interests of the child's family. The central character played by Maggie Gyllenhaal won't respect boundaries regarding the child and gradually her life unravels.
A really interesting film which is quite dark and a brilliant performance from Gyllenhaal. 8.5/10
Stan & Ollie - Delightful film . John C Reilly is fantastic as Ollie . Not quite as convinced with Steve Coogan but I loved the film Nonetheless.
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
Stan & Ollie - Delightful film . John C Reilly is fantastic as Ollie . Not quite as convinced with Steve Coogan but I loved the film Nonetheless.
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
7 out of 10 .
Agree on all counts.
Triple Frontier tails off in the final act. But it’s an understated heist film and I quite like that it isn’t balls to the wall action.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Capernaum is an amazing film and despite its storyline there is plenty of humour in it. I found it very moving and uplifting in the way the main character battles to survive. It definitely will move you to tears.
Comments
And I say this having sat through The White Crow a few hours earlier. A slow, ponderous film about a russian ballet dancer.
In other news - Once Upon A Time In London is the worst film I have seen since Young Einstein.
And Sharkwater Extinction is interesting, but completely derailed by the death of the filmmaker halfway through.
A great spoof!
Legal drama about the lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her battle for equal rights for women in the USA. Very watchable, interesting and accessible - Felicity Jones plays Bader. 7/10
Went to see ‘The Aftermath’ a few days ago. Also very watchable. Starring Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgård and Jason Clarke. Story set in the ruins of Hamburg at the end of WWII. Story of shattered lives on both sides of the conflict trying to cope with the past.
Predictable nonsense
I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays.
4 out of 10
7 out of 10
It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard?
Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people
fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Interesting article, including the take on it that Ottman saved the movie, but it doesn’t explain how shit that scene is when that other bloke demonstrates how it could’ve been improved with nothing but the footage from the final cut! I find it hard to believe he couldn’t have done better, which to me makes him winning an Oscar for it somewhat ludicrous.
Also, interesting explanation of how scenes are shot, but one question - if you need six shots of the same conversation, why can’t you get two or three of them at a time? Surely you could set up more than one of those angles so the other cameras can’t be seen? Seems bizarre to shoot a scene 6 times when you could do it in two or three? Or am I missing something?
Sorry to ask stupid questions, but I find this sort of thing fascinating!
Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
Enjoyed it as much as Capernaum and thought it was again a great piece of storytelling. An interesting insight into life in Beirut. 8.5/10
A story about a kindergarten teacher who recognises the talents of a gifted child in her class and she seeks to help them against the interests of the child's family. The central character played by Maggie Gyllenhaal won't respect boundaries regarding the child and gradually her life unravels.
A really interesting film which is quite dark and a brilliant performance from Gyllenhaal. 8.5/10
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
7 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier tails off in the final act. But it’s an understated heist film and I quite like that it isn’t balls to the wall action.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
A very enjoyable family film with a good script and easy to watch. A film about the importance of community and it has humour and sadness. 7.5/10