Switching from documentary to Hollywood style on the climax of some scenes--lame?
Posted 04 August 2007 - 01:11 AM
I think that simplicity and consistency are the two most important rules when it comes to doing anything visual. I had this idea today, though, that, while documentary film style conveys realism (authority), it could also serve as the setup for mind-blowing Hollywood stuff, like the tricky camera work you see in a big budget action movie or an opening credits sequence. Everything is going along in a documentary style--and I don't mean "cinéma vérité" intentionally crappy camera work, but solid camera work done under real world documentary film conditions--until the big climax of the scene when all of a sudden the handheld camera becomes an amazing steadycam shot--or it's attached to a crane. People will say, "What's going on here? I thought this was a documentary. Where'd they get a crane?"
The question is whether that's a horrible mishmash or awesome.
I think it's awesome, but I'd have to see it to know for sure. I thought maybe someone here would have seen it already and could just tell me.
Posted 04 August 2007 - 01:31 AM
This is probably obvious to everyone reading this. All movies have a few money shots placed at the climax of certain scenes. I'm thinking of something more exaggerated than that, though--more like transitioning from Fighting Black Kings to The Matrix.
Posted 04 August 2007 - 03:56 PM
There's no right or wrong way to do it, but the more heavy-handed and jarring your effect, the more you run the risk of taking people out of the moment. It can be a fine line sometimes, and not the same for every viewer.
Posted 05 August 2007 - 08:48 PM
Most important: does your story warrant the style change, or is it forced on the film?
And just because its my personal crusade to differentiate doc style and verité from "crappy camerawork", please take a look at the work of the Maysles, DA Pennebaker and Fred Wiseman (among countless others). All doc, and some of the best camerawork I've ever seen.