Home

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > The Biz > Hollywood

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2016, 10:26 PM   #1
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Post How Does One Arrive at This Result?

Greetings fellow filmmakers.
I haven't posted anything here in a while, but I felt compelled to share some thoughts on what appears to be a self-funded independent Sherlock Holmes film, and one which is one of the poorer productions I have yet seen: Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers. A production which was only uploaded in September of last year, has only had comments since 6 months ago, and yet has received a surprising amount of views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0oaMxvfyiI

I am currently on what can be described as a Sherlock Holmes binge. I've not only been enjoying the newer BBC series Sherlock thoroughly, but I've also been watching the 90s Granada series with great interest, and have recently purchased The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, and A Study in Terror: all of which I find to be intriguing pieces of film and greatly favorable adaptations of the Holmes character.

But of course, despite the many qualified versions, there are a few random examples of bad form. The Roger Moore version, Sherlock Holmes in New York. The Charlton Heston version, The Crucifer of Blood. And Sherlock Holmes: Case of Evil, which, to be perfectly frank, looks horrendous.

So then I came upon this adaptation, an adaptation far more removed from mainstream cinema than I thought existed. An independent production with such a lack of quality and cinematic intent, it boggles the mind as to how it arrived at this state.

I apologize for my peculiar turn of phrase. Watching a lot of Sherlock Holmes can do that to you. But the point is this, I'm curious to see what you all think of this production, simply to serve as a point of discussion on what is good and what is bad about it. Granted, I cannot be sure if any of its filmmakers or actors may be present among you here on this forum, and if so, I extend my invitation to you as well to offer your first hand accounts of the film in question. But whatever the case, here are my initial thoughts on Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers.

I am finding it increasingly apparent that anyone who has had no formal training in filmmaking or has no strong basis upon which to build their own "style" of filmmaking, tends to do very odd but ubiquitous things: many of which this film presents in droves.

A. There is a severe lack of establishing shots to show where we are and what the current surroundings look like.
B. Equally there is a severe lack of Full-shots to allow for the entirety of any character's body to be seen: which will cause any film to feel rather claustrophobic, as if the camera is unable to move back any farther, or the lens kit being used does not come with something wider than a 35mm.
C. Close-up shots are used far too often and are poorly composed. The head in frame is either too far to the right, too far to the left, or too far up or down rather than at the optimum position to compliment whatever objects may be in the background.
D. Over-the-shoulder shots are handled inappropriately by not placing the foreground character(s) in a position equally opposite the other person(s) or object(s) in frame. One shot in particular shows Sherlock in the foreground, playing furiously on his violin, with Watson just off to the right. But there's a big gap on the left side of frame which should be occupied by Sherlock, giving Watson more room. After which the camera should then pan slightly left to accommodate Watson when he goes to the door to bring in Inspector Lestrade. But panning the camera never even occurred to the filmmakers. Instead, they simply left the shot locked down, resulting in terrible framing that looks like the entire shot is just waiting to be framed up properly for what is to come at the tail end of it.
E. Digital zooms are used regularly to compensate for too many static shots, or analogue zooms which were unable to be captured while shooting the initial footage.
F. Oddly framed cut-aways are used to show what characters are looking at rather than capturing the object of interest in the same shots as the actors, which would have shown spacial relations, character reactions, and proper context for what we are all intended to be looking at. This therefore shows a lack in pre-planning of the shot-list, and/or a deeper lack of cinematic language and style.
G. The reason so many shots are locked down is likely due to a lack of a dolly of any sort, which in many cases is an invaluable piece of equipment to add a sense of pace and forward movement not only to scenes where characters are actually walking, but to show movement in the plot itself: a sort of subconscious indicator. Having "enough" tracking, panning, or trucking shots also alleviates a lot of the monotony and stillness that a film would otherwise have if it was made up entirely of static shots where the characters also refuse to move much. If the characters did move around more in much wider shots here, then the additional lack of camera movement would be much less felt.

Beyond these striking problems there is also the matter of lighting, which is some of the worst I have experienced. Not only is it unbearably dark, but it is tinged in an odd yellow color, indicative of the type of lights they must have used on set. It's hard to tell exactly how this was filmed, as the footage seems to shift frame-rates from shot to shot, and could have been captured on a relatively good camera, but was clearly then transferred to a form of analogue media, hence the poor resolution and visible tracking line at the bottom of the screen. Though whatever media they must have used, it's unlikely it would have been film, as film has a distinctive purple or blue tinge to it when it's exposed too dark, which would not have resulted in this appearance. This means that they likely used a camcorder of some kind, perhaps commencing filming around the mid-2000s from the looks of it, and as such would have had a view-finder on the camera with which to see what the footage looked like, unless it was one of the earlier black and white view-finders.

So for the life of me, I can't understand how someone setting out to make a full-length film could have been okay with footage that looked this way throughout the production, especially in scenes taking place at dusk, or in much darker spaces. They could have brought in any number of other light sources to balance out the footage, a piece of foam board perhaps for a bounce? But no, nothing was done other than turning on some sort of halogen wall lamp or some such thing, giving a good portion of the picture this grimy color. Of course what is clear from other shots in the film is that the filmmakers did get some better lights and lighting knowledge at some point, as a shot involving Doctor Watson looking at a corpse at a morgue is far better lit than any other scene surrounding it, suggesting it may have been a pick-up shot with a far better set of equipment on hand. Why they weren't able to shoot the whole film that way, I cannot say.

As a few commentors on the Youtube upload have pointed out, the two points upon which I can make a positive comment are the costumes and the set-dressings for Baker Street in particular. They are passable at worst, and better than expected for a local theatrical production at best. The hair and makeup could do with some historical reference, however. And the location choices were not the most appropriate either. Even if they couldn't get time-period accurate locales, they could at least have tried for something a bit more peculiar or eclectic to match the grandeur of a Victorian English setting. But I wouldn't be very fair if I didn't add that I can fully understand not being able to find such locations just any old place. And traveling too long a distance to shoot may have been out of the question for this crew.

I don't wish to go into the acting in great detail, as that is not primarily my focus here, but it isn't the best either, which should be obvious.

There's a very particular way of acting that has to go along with a Sherlock portrayal. A way of walking, a way of carrying one's self, a certain way of speaking with all-knowing authority that not only shows contempt for the stupid or ignorant as well as a deeply rooted and powerful ego, but authority which also forces others to instantly respect and admire Holmes who otherwise would not do so easily were he another man. It's a unique balance to reach. It's a performance that typically commands a militaristic mindset and can present an intimidating presence depending on the actor's face and the actor's manner. But it's also a performance which, like Doctor Who, can be played many different ways with varying degrees of well-groomed class, camp, or manic nature. In this way I personally think that both Benedict Cumberbatch and Jeremy Brett take the cake for best Sherlocks, but Peter Cushing and Robert Stevens both follow in 2nd place as charming alternatives. This Sherlock, however, does not exhibit the traits of either of these other men, and thus falls rather flat on making me believe in what he is or what he says. And the other actors equally fail in this regard for their own characters' legacies and predecessors.

Ultimately, the chief point I wish to make is that while I don't begrudge people for pursuing feature-length projects such as this, I wish far more indie filmmakers at this level showed more interest and zeal in wanting to achieve a "good-looking" film perhaps more-so than a well-written or well-acted one. Far too many self-published feature-films end up this way, including some of the works I've seen on this forum; and it's hard for me to say whether this is for a lack of awareness of one's own short-comings, or simply a lack of referential material from which to draw inspiration, while also having an over-abundance of impatience and drive to make a film now rather than after some personal study and experimentation. Plenty of first-time filmmakers are capable of making beautiful stuff. It's simply a mystery to me what exactly allows some to shoot great footage from the start, while others get this result.

Any thoughts?

Last edited by FilmmakerJ; 05-18-2016 at 02:16 AM.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 05-18-2016, 12:20 AM   #2
Utopia
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,736
Re: the claustriphobic tight shots with no establishment and close-up shaky shots: Maybe the cinematographer of the first Hunger Games movie shot this one?

hah. Sorry - had to say it.

It's up to the editor at this point.

Or, the shooting on set.

It's either the production crew didn't turn over good enough long shots, or the editor didn't edit them in...
Utopia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 12:52 AM   #3
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
No filmmaker has ever been able to make a solid film on their first outting. If you ever see a film that is truly good, and the filmmaker claims that it is their first film, they're not being 100% truthful. It's actually their first film that they're comfortable releasing to the public. In my experience, these people aren't trying to be dishonest, they just have a different definition of "first film" - in their eyes, everything they've done prior has just been practice, so it doesn't count. But if I take a poop and then hide it from the world, that doesn't mean I didn't just take a poop.

I didn't watch the Sherlock film in the link, so I have no idea the filmmakers' experience level, or what kind of cast/crew they were working with. But that's besides the point. Inexperienced filmmakers, and people with little resources, are allowed to make feature films. Heck, one of our most prominent members recommends that beginning filmmakers just go out and make a feature film, simply to learn from the experience -- what you did wrong, what you did right.

In addition to that, it could also be the case that some of the things you're complaining about might have been intentional choices. Maybe the filmmaker wants you to feel clausterphobic.

And why does it have so many views? Cuz it has Sherlock Holmes in the title.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 02:08 AM   #4
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
No filmmaker has ever been able to make a solid film on their first outting. If you ever see a film that is truly good, and the filmmaker claims that it is their first film, they're not being 100% truthful. It's actually their first film that they're comfortable releasing to the public. In my experience, these people aren't trying to be dishonest, they just have a different definition of "first film" - in their eyes, everything they've done prior has just been practice, so it doesn't count.
I didn't really intend to suggest that this was their actual first film, simply that it looked like one of their first experiences trying to make a feature-length production. There will always be films and attempts at visual storytelling prior to a "first film," because there will usually be experiments and test shorts before a real film can get underway. Hayao Miyazaki had plenty of time to gain experience and practice directing tv show episodes and animating for other directors before he made his "first film,' and in that context, his first film was a brilliant piece of work.

What I really meant by first films for young or early filmmakers being good from the get go was that some filmmakers, even as early as middle-school, are capable of producing palatable and even impressive work that can be commended for its style and cinematography, while others in the same age range and even having gone through much of the same developmental experiences through early youth, can't even come close to the same quality.

As such, my big question is to ask "What element(s) of any particular filmmaker's life grants them the ability to create a good looking and good playing film rather than a mediocre one, as well as the ability to discern one from the other in other instances? Is it their exposure to certain films and directors? Is it their level of comprehension with regards to cinematic visual elements and how they can be applied? Is it their personal appreciation for the history of the craft vs forging their own uncharted path? Is it their maturity or immaturity? Or something else entirely?

I've asked these questions of myself as well, as while I'm no expert even now, my quality of workmanship has greatly changed over the years, and I feel that my comprehension of cinematic language and technical application has expanded in just the past two years alone. But why is that? There's seems to be no correlation between any elements in my life, nor any specific genesis or point of inspiration for any such growth in my knowledge/understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
In addition to that, it could also be the case that some of the things you're complaining about might have been intentional choices. Maybe the filmmaker wants you to feel clausterphobic.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree here, and state something which I firmly believe in.

While intentional filmmaking choices are all well and good, there are still established rules for how to achieve certain looks and instill certain feelings in an audience. There is a long history of psychological scientific rules with regards to mood, atmosphere, visual stimuli, pacing, sound, and intensity or anticipation (with regards to editing) that if not handled properly, simply fail to achieve the desired emotional effect. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone who watches and loves enough films when a particular stylistic choice is done right and when it is done wrong, because there are many ubiquitous human reactions that exist which films and stories exploit. So I feel such things can be objectively successful and objectively unsuccessful in this regard.

Therefore, in the case of this film, I can plainly tell that there was no intention to make the entire film claustrophobic. If there had been, then I should have felt a distinctive tightness in my chest and a sense of dread, which I did not. If I had, then they would have actually succeeded in eliciting that emotion from me, in which case I would have congratulated them for it, even if that had not been the intention at all. But it wasn't, and it didn't.

My suggestion that it was claustrophobic in appearance was also more of a surface level comparison, rather than something that actually made me feel that way while watching.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 03:24 AM   #5
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
I never said that you said this was their first film. Also, I find it interesting that you're one of the people who thinks that all of the practice and lead-up to a feature doesn't actually count as filmmaking. When you practice making a film, even if you intend to show it to nobody, you are making a film. Whatever. Semantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmmakerJ View Post
As such, my big question is to ask "What element(s) of any particular filmmaker's life grants them the ability to create a good looking and good playing film rather than a mediocre one, as well as the ability to discern one from the other in other instances?
Are you insinuating that the filmmakers behind this YT Holmes movie aren't able to discern between good and bad filmmaking? Do you think that you are able to see flaws in their film that they are incapable of seeing? Dude, pretty much every filmmaker I know is their own biggest critic, yours truly included. Obviously, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but based on my experiences, I think it's pretty normal for a filmmaker to finish a film, whether they're proud of it or not, knowing that they can do better.

Are you satisfied with every movie you put out? I hope not. Cuz that's when you stop growing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmmakerJ View Post
While intentional filmmaking choices are all well and good, there are still established rules for how to achieve certain looks and instill certain feelings in an audience. There is a long history of psychological scientific rules with regards to mood, atmosphere, visual stimuli, pacing, sound, and intensity or anticipation (with regards to editing) that if not handled properly, simply fail to achieve the desired emotional effect. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone who watches and loves enough films when a particular stylistic choice is done right and when it is done wrong, because there are many ubiquitous human reactions that exist which films and stories exploit. So I feel such things can be objectively successful and objectively unsuccessful in this regard.
Strong disagree. Filmmaking is not a science. There is no such thing as objectivity in art. Have you not yet figured out that rules are meant to be broken? Sorry, but everything you just said is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. This entire sentiment you just espoused is basically the attempted murder of art.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 06:33 AM   #6
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,673
How does one arrive at this result?
1) When you have these limited resources
2) Perseverance: eventhough the result might not be great, they actually FINISHED a feature length film
3) Very little estableshing shots could also mean that wider shots would include 21st century stuff AND that they could do matte paintings.
4) Having other views on composition than you
5) The number of views might be 296K, but the average watch time is only 4 minutes and 10 seconds. So yes, as CF said: the Sherlock Holmes in the title makes people start watching.
6) Filmmaking is not a 100% scientific process at all. Besides that: whether something works depends on many things. Maybe it was during the edit they could finally see how it came together. Or they aren't at the level of understanding the language of film, so they didn't see it.

The looks remind me of 1st and 2nd year student productions at the start of this century. It has this typical miniDV look from a time when color grading was something only a few dark wizards could do, while the rest just used basic tools. An era where low-light capabilities were on a very different level than now.

Last edited by WalterB; 05-18-2016 at 07:20 AM.
WalterB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 07:10 AM   #7
AudioPostExpert
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmmakerJ View Post
I am finding it increasingly apparent that anyone who has had no formal training in filmmaking or has no strong basis upon which to build their own "style" of filmmaking, tends to do very odd but ubiquitous things: many of which this film presents in droves.
Your list does indeed contain many of the common mistakes and technical errors made by amateur filmmakers but are really just symptoms of a far larger and worse problem. They just don't understand the basics of what is sometimes called "the language of film" or the art of any time based art-form. They don't understand timing, pacing, shape or the implications of what they're doing. Film isn't real life, you're looking at a screen and listening to a sound system, it's all the small details and implications of what you put on that screen and play out of the sound system which draws an audience in, involves them in the story and makes them want to continue to watch. Without that, none of the other errors or accomplishments make even the slightest bit of difference.

Most, if not all, of the "ubiquitous things" you listed could be overcome or made to work, given the correct context and pacing, shape, etc. For most amateurs/hobbyists it's all about the shooting and/or some other aspect/s of physically making films, that's what they enjoy and therefore why they do it. While they might like to make a watchable film, that's generally not the priority, they are making films for themselves, not for a public audience. That's why there is so often an imbalance between crafts, where some/many of the film crafts end up fighting each other, instead of them all working together. In this case, most of the achievements in costume and production design are countered by extremely poor lighting, editing, grading, etc. Some aspects of the filmmaking are fairly presentable, while others wouldn't pass a first year student assignment. Some aspects at least look reasonably expensive but are contradicted by other aspects which are not only completely inappropriate for the mood/drama but couldn't appear any cheaper even if they deliberately tried. If they don't appreciate these contradictions or the implications and consequences of them or, if they just don't care, then all their efforts are completely wasted, except maybe in terms of their personal enjoyment from making and completing the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Do you think that you are able to see flaws in their film that they are incapable of seeing? Dude, pretty much every filmmaker I know is their own biggest critic ...
Being one's own biggest critic makes relatively little or no difference at all, it's being a good and objective critic which can make a real difference! This is where so many fail, it's extremely difficult to be objective about something you personally have made and without that objectivity one is likely to criticise a mass of largely irrelevant details, while completely missing fundamentally important details which directly affect how the film as a whole will be perceived by the un-invested first time viewer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Have you not yet figured out that rules are meant to be broken? Sorry, but everything you just said is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. This entire sentiment you just espoused is basically the attempted murder of art.
Have you not yet figured out that rules are meant to be obeyed?! There are exceptions of course, provided all the following conditions are met: When one knows what the rules are, why they are rules, what the implications of those rules are and, how and when those rules can be broken and the implications/consequences of breaking them in a certain way. Amateurs commonly break rules without satisfying all these conditions, often in fact without satisfying even one of them! What FilmakerJ stated is in large part essentially correct, correct, .... It was the attempted murder of un-watchable "art"!

G
AudioPostExpert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 07:44 AM   #8
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
Hehe, APE, I finally understand why we'll just never see eye-to-eye. One of us is an artist, the other is a technician.

Artists embrace subjectivity. Artists know that what they do is personal. Artists take risks. Talk to me when you're ready to be an artist and I might have advice for you.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 08:04 AM   #9
AudioPostExpert
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
One of us is an artist, the other is a technician. ... Talk to me when you're ready to be an artist and I might have advice for you.
One of us is an artist (which requires also being a technician), was trained as an artist and was a professional performer of art probably before the other was born. The other doesn't even appear to know what art is in practise.

When/If you're ever serious about making art which people might specifically want to watch and even pay for, then you might begin to understand the advice I've already given! I won't be holding my breath though

G
AudioPostExpert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 10:35 AM   #10
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Hehe, APE, I finally understand why we'll just never see eye-to-eye. One of us is an artist, the other is a technician.

Artists embrace subjectivity. Artists know that what they do is personal. Artists take risks. Talk to me when you're ready to be an artist and I might have advice for you.
Art is greatly subjective. But artistic "design" is and has also been based on established principles of things like Unity, Repetition, Symmetry, Contrast, Balance, Proximity, Proportion, etc, for 100s, if not 1000s of years; which especially allows film to be as technical of an art-form as it is. The most beautiful images ever captured on film by a visionary director or cinematographer are beautiful precisely because they followed the rules and only broke them where necessary to achieve their vision.

If you only subscribe to "screw the rules, I'm going to make ART," then you are doomed to fail at impressing others more than you are to succeed in gaining recognition for your originality and artistic voice. There must be a balance somewhere in there.

Last edited by FilmmakerJ; 05-18-2016 at 11:24 AM.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 11:23 AM   #11
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Are you insinuating that the filmmakers behind this YT Holmes movie aren't able to discern between good and bad filmmaking?
Yes, but not totally, because I cannot know for sure without speaking to them.

However, plenty of people are not capable of discernment to varying degrees. Have you not watched American Idol, Hell's Kitchen, or The Profit? Plenty of artists, creators, and entrepreneurs are oblivious to their own shortcomings and/or lack of talent, because they've convinced themselves that they are good at what they do, and have taken all of their accumulated good criticism too seriously to listen to negative but constructive and more realistic criticism of what they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Do you think that you are able to see flaws in their film that they are incapable of seeing?
Why not. That's not impossible. And it's precisely what we all do here quite often. People will come asking for thoughts on their films or other's films, and we will come offering up our advice on what needs to be improved, changed, or fixed, along with what we think is good or favorable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Dude, pretty much every filmmaker I know is their own biggest critic.
I don't doubt that many filmmakers are their biggest critic. But that doesn't mean they are above scrutiny, nor does this mean that every filmmaker is equally aware of their flaws. They might only see some, while others can see the other, perhaps bigger flaws that the filmmakers might always miss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Are you satisfied with every movie you put out? I hope not. Cuz that's when you stop growing.
While I'm sure my way of speaking may suggest that I do not apply the same scrutiny to my own work, it is precisely because I do that I have written a post like this.

I look at every frame, every nook and cranny, every movement of the actors, every element in a shot, every sound in the soundtrack, every edit and its placement, and I ask myself: "does this look or sound like it should?"

I make sure that I look for everything that will distract an audience's attention, everything that is inconsistent between one shot and the next or one scene and the next, I look for mistakes in the green-screen removal for effects shots, I look for how full or complete an entirely digital shot feels (it may require more background and mid-ground elements to present the right impression), and I look for things like smoothness in motion-paths or missing details that may make a shot feel more realistic.

I still cannot guarantee that what I have created will be approved by everyone. But I ask for feedback quite often to gauge reactions and impressions because it gives me perspective. I will likely still stand by my work even if a lot of people are against it, because I put too much effort into it to submit that it was a total waste of time. Even so, I do know that I can always do better. I strive to do better every day. That's really one of the biggest reasons I work as hard as I do, and why I have as much enthusiasm and passion for the craft.

And no, my other films were not satisfactory to me, not at all. In fact, the last film I made (before my current one) I consider to be my worst ever, even though my earlier works were often more egregious. This discrepancy, though, has more to do with my age and my personal enjoyment of the films at each point in time. I like my older works because they were the absolute best I could do at the time, while some of my newer stuff could have had better thought or better pre-planning behind it. I'm far more self-conscious about my work now than I was.

But whatever the case, they were all stepping stones towards my latest project, which I am the most proud of out of all of my works to date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Strong disagree. Filmmaking is not a science. There is no such thing as objectivity in art.
I'm pretty sure this is a misconception. If there was no objectivity, then how could so many artists be aware of elements which typically elicit the same reactions in most human beings?

The color red surely elicits a sense of rage or anger, but also love and passion, depending the context in which it is utilized. The color blue usually elicits a sense of calm or coldness, but also gloominess and sadness depending on its context. And we would not understand this phenomenon if there was NO objectivity.

Aesthetics and an understanding of Beauty are based in very ancient philosophies on principles of design, as I've mentioned elsewhere. Art is extremely subjective, especially in terms of subject matter. But how that subject matter is presented is often still based in a set of well-versed rules that have yet to be completely thrown out by anyone who takes art seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
Have you not yet figured out that rules are meant to be broken?
I fail to see how you can "break" the rules if you have refused to follow them in the first place. Breaking the Rules, as far as I've ever been told, is something you should only ever attempt after you have successfully shown that you can follow the rules to the letter and create something good with them.

Once you learn the basics and put them into practice, you will then have the knowledge with which to make wise choices of when and where to break such rules. If you break the rules without context for why the rules are there in the first place, then you are more likely to break them willy-nilly than have an actual purpose for their breaking.

Last edited by FilmmakerJ; 05-18-2016 at 11:27 AM.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 01:26 PM   #12
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
APE -

FilmJ - Of course I know and follow the "rules", don't be silly. Heck, I even teach them. But that doesn't mean there's anything subjective about them, or when/why to use them. Just because a particular aesthetic or any other aspect of filmmaking has been agreed upon by many people to be a generally good idea to follow, that doesn't make it even slightly scientific or objective.

As artists, we should embrace the objectivity. What is art, if not an attempt to creatively communicate the human experience? If you don't make it personal then you're failing to use the greatest tool at your disposal -- your own humanity.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2016, 10:32 PM   #13
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
APE -

FilmJ - Of course I know and follow the "rules", don't be silly. Heck, I even teach them. But that doesn't mean there's anything subjective about them, or when/why to use them. Just because a particular aesthetic or any other aspect of filmmaking has been agreed upon by many people to be a generally good idea to follow, that doesn't make it even slightly scientific or objective.

As artists, we should embrace the objectivity. What is art, if not an attempt to creatively communicate the human experience? If you don't make it personal then you're failing to use the greatest tool at your disposal -- your own humanity.
Who said following the rules and established aesthetics makes one's work impersonal? You're presenting a very "this or that" stance where never the twain shall meet. And that would seem to suggest that established well-known filmmakers are somehow impersonally conducting their work when they clearly aren't. Some even utilize filmmaking rules and language in a way that hasn't been done very often and might even seem original when it isn't, it's simply taking a rule to one of its greater extremes, and that appears unique and original to the uninitiated.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2016, 12:09 AM   #14
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmmakerJ View Post
Who said following the rules and established aesthetics makes one's work impersonal?
You did. By using the words "scientific" and "objective" you are attempting to remove humanity out of art. And I'm not saying we have an either/or option. I'm saying your only option is to make it personal. Embrace the subjectivity. Because objectivity literally isn't an option. Whether you mean it to be or not, the art you produce is 100% an expression of you, so go ahead and tear your shirt off and let your heart be seen by the world because that's what it means to be an artist.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2016, 11:11 AM   #15
FilmmakerJ
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
FilmmakerJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Garden City, GA
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracker Funk View Post
You did. By using the words "scientific" and "objective" you are attempting to remove humanity out of art. And I'm not saying we have an either/or option. I'm saying your only option is to make it personal. Embrace the subjectivity. Because objectivity literally isn't an option. Whether you mean it to be or not, the art you produce is 100% an expression of you, so go ahead and tear your shirt off and let your heart be seen by the world because that's what it means to be an artist.
I'm not trying to remove anything. This is simply how I understand the whole process. Both elements are and have been together because of proven methods of executing films, and auteurs who make use of them in new and exciting ways.

You need not repeat your point about letting your hair down and letting the personality flow when there's no need to convince me of it. I forge my own path true enough.
FilmmakerJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
cinematography, directing, discussion, sherlock holmes, shot design


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk