Jump to content


Photo

Your Analyst/Filmwatcher Ratio


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 23 December 2006 - 08:49 PM

I remember the days, the early 90's,
when i started making electronic music.

It started by me geting acquainted with the more
affordable music making technology, music workstation
keyboards coming out, then computer software,
and the "click" - HEY, i can do the music i enjoy all by myself!!! :)

From that days on, the WAY of listening music changed.
No more pure music enjoyment, but analizing: structure,
mix, rhythms, lines, how can that be programed/sequenced in the
keyboard/computa, the effects....

It came to a point, me not being able to simply listen and enjoy,
but screaming to the analitical part in me: STOP!!! No more, please....
:)


OK, that is over, now under control, but you get the point.



The same when i started with visual arts.
The motion pictures starts (film, MusVid, TV Ad, Doc...)
and instant - what kind of light, high key/low key, motion, cutting, colors, etc...

Now, that is under control too. :)



As creative and technical persons i guess we all analyze more or less.

Just wandering, did you also had those OVER-Analytical perionds,
not being able to simply enjoy the flick.

And when was you last film, you were totaly immersed into watching.
Which one?



Regards


Igor
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 December 2006 - 10:05 PM

It's really not a problem just watching a movie; the analyzing is happening in another part of my brain separate from the part that is enjoying the movie. It's only occasionally during a non-dramatic moment, like an establishing shot, that you might stop and mentally take note about the grain structure, etc.

Otherwise, it's just something you notice quickly in passing like the color of a dress in a scene or the weather -- it doesn't take you out of the moment. Being more observant of what's in the frame is partially the pleasure of watching a movie.

Now if a movie is boring, of course the mind will wander all over the place and start analyzing everything to the nth degree just to amuse itself.

I find that I make most of my technical notes in the first five minutes of the movie, and then rarely after that.

Even when I was in grade school and they used to trot out a 16mm projector to show science movies (this was just before the VCR came into existence) I got excited just to see the room lights dim and the movie start up, any movie.
  • 0

#3 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 24 December 2006 - 03:48 AM

If a film has good lighting that works towards emphasizing its elements more, I rarely veer into the more analytical part of my brain. I always think the best kind of lighting is the kind that doesn't call TOO MUCH attention to itself but helps me connect with the film on a higher level.

Where I usually start analyzing is when a film's lighting is so bad and inappropriate that it takes me out of a film. I then think about why it is so and what could have been different.

For example, Memoirs of a Geisha may not be the best story, but it was so well lit for the performances and set design that I soon forgot about it and was soon taken up into the story...until it ended.

But then again, there are certain films that I watch only to analyze its lighting. Such as the films Storaro DP's. Most of the films he works on aren't exactly great, but visually they're stunning, and sometimes that's all I'm looking for.
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 25 December 2006 - 01:02 AM

Haha, good subject! I nominate this for the best post of the year. I tend to agree that I analyze movies the most that don't entertain me because they're really bad. Then again, films with really GOOD shots in them will usually ignited a spark of interest in the analytical part of my brain, just short of me pulling out a piece of paper and writing down information, as that would be socially awkward. I think it is important to realize that filmmaking works on a subconscious level, and that only those like cinematographers, directors, timers, etc. are trained to analyze the visual information in a way that they can deduce its origin and intent. There is a lot of visual irony built in to some films, and there are a lot of movies where the look ends up tipping me off to what the film is going to be about or how it is going to end that is not obvious to the average moviegoer. An example of visual irony that is over the heads of most popcorn chewing theatre attendents is the "Big Kahuna" scene from "Pulp Fiction". Sam Jackson walks in. Out of focus in the foreground, there is a fast food beverage cup with the words "Big Kahuna" printed on it. Straw of said cup points to Jackson's character. Cut to shot of scared gangster. Out of focus straw cuts across his neck. In the theatre, I yell "That guy's going to get it in a moment!" (socially awkward moment). In a moment, the guy gets it, and everyone looks at me funny.

I think that there is a lot to analyze in a movie, and that in many movies, there is impetus for you to analyze, you're expected to analyze more than the average theatregoer, just as the average reader doesn't really understand irony or the deeper meanings of a novel he reads. So there's nothing wrong with analyzing a book or movie moreso than the average goer, just don't do it to the point of memorizing stardates for episodes of star trek, or looking for boom mikes in the windows of cars in movies (and yes, I'm guility of having gone through both of those fazes; it was a revelation realizing how much I was detracting from my own enjoyment).

Even when I was in grade school and they used to trot out a 16mm projector to show science movies (this was just before the VCR came into existence) I got excited just to see the room lights dim and the movie start up, any movie.


They're still around, as of the early 200os, even with VCRs, LDs, and DVDs. I love the scratches, bad splices, and silly pranks the kid in the back row would play by casting shadows onto the screen during showings of educational films. I enjoyed the "experience" much more than a television screen with the same boring film played on it.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2006 - 01:15 AM

just don't do it to the point of memorizing stardates for episodes of star trek


Wait a minute... what's wrong with that? ;)
  • 0

#6 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 25 December 2006 - 08:52 AM

Even when I was in grade school and they used to trot out a 16mm projector to show science movies (this was just before the VCR came into existence) I got excited just to see the room lights dim and the movie start up, any movie.

This is probably the one and only example of where I can one-up David Mullen, ASC.

In high school I joined the Projector Club as a Freshman and was able to spend three years (until my family moved to Chicago) getting out of class, running a projector, and getting to watch a ton of educational movies. Such a deal!

Last year a young electrician asked me how and when I had learned to coil up cables so well. Talk about feeling old - I was taught to properly to coil up cables by the Club's faculty sponsor before the young man's father had been born. :(
  • 0

#7 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 25 December 2006 - 07:03 PM

Haha, good subject! I nominate this for the best post of the year.


Thanks Karl. :)


QUOTE(Karl Borowski @ Dec 24 2006, 10:02 PM) *

just don't do it to the point of memorizing stardates for episodes of star trek

Wait a minute... what's wrong with that? ;)



Dave?.....
.... are you tryin to say to US...
....you are a TREKKIE? :)

.
.
.

Me too.
But without the stardates memorizing thing.
And other extremes. Just enjoing watching and talking bout ST.


I am very currious how the new movie will come out.
I know JJ Abrams gona produce it, but wonder is he going
to direct it as well.
I like "Lost". I liked Mi3.
So am anxious to see
what kind of treatment JJ & Co are going to bring to the franchise.


_\\//



In case you still wander what _\\// means:
The hand salute "Live Long And Prosper".
:)

_\\//. is © by me, 200X (x = 4 or 5)

:D

Regards.


Igor
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2006 - 07:58 PM

I am very currious how the new movie will come out.
I know JJ Abrams gona produce it, but wonder is he going
to direct it as well.


At this point, I'd settle for almost anything that makes it to the big screen...

The "Enterprise" prequel series was so misconcieved on so many levels, such a waste of an opportunity because the premise was a good one. They tried to turn it around in the last few episodes of the final year, but by then it was too late.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineLab

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

CineTape

Opal

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets