NEW V TRADITIONAL (Courtesy of Roy who's idea it is)

IAC General Discussions
Peter Thomlinson

NEW V TRADITIONAL (Courtesy of Roy who's idea it is)

Post by Peter Thomlinson »

Come on then, lets have some input. This was Roy's idea so I hope he might kick it off!

Peter
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Okay, What is meant by 'new v traditional? Is this about techniques or equipment or the whole shabbang.
Personally I think any film maker should try to be aware of all methods and ways to make movies. I've seen forums where they get in a tiffle on "what's the best video camera" or "should I film it or use digital".
Movie production is in many ways a circumstancial business where in the face of much (or little) planning projects are forced to make spot decissions or compromises to get the thing done. It affects the end product. Whether the means of production and anything about was new or traditional or both all play their important roll. The business has been going so long with what are now standard practices that are proven to work. Skilled film people contribute with aknowledge of old and new ways that allow inovation to push each film on to completion.
Peter Thomlinson

Post by Peter Thomlinson »

Yes.
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Post by ned c »

My reading of this is that Traditional is Hollywood 50s/60s and New is anything that does not conform to that style of film making. So we are looking at a film in its totality and based on artificial but useful definitions of style.

The only way of ensuring that the amateur movement escapes from the steam railway image is to have judges who are not amateur film makers. Amateur film making used to be like dwarves wrestling in mud, amazing that it was done at all let alone done well. The digital age has moved us all well beyond that and content rules. It would be very interesting to have entries judged by two panels, amateur film makers and a panel of informed film/TV viewers who have no interest in how films are made but a lot of interest in their values. I suspect that the results would be very different.

Anyone up for it?

Ned C
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Post by Dave Watterson »

I am! In some ways I've been doing that for years.

Although I have been interested in amateur movie making since childhood I am not a movie maker. I am an enthusiastic watcher of movies - professional and amateur. I was recruited by various competition organisers to help judge and to bring just that quality Ned alludes to ... the view of the watcher.

I am always intrigued by the notion that "film judges should be film makers". Why?

At club level, where learning about film making is a priority, then there is some sense in the notion. The judge/s can suggest how techniques might be modified to overcome problems and so on. At national and international level the film is what matters ... not how it was made. At that level technique only matters when it gets in the way of understanding the work. I can, and sometimes do, offer practical tips to film makers but my reason for doing so is when something has distracted my attention from their subject.

For example an unplanned zoom-in on any object usually results in some hunting for focus, often wobbling around to centre the target and occasional exposure problems. For 95% of movies that distracts attention when what the maker wanted to do was concentrate my attention on the target. The more difficult planned zoom will have begun with the lens zoomed-in fully, centred on the target, focus and exposure locked-off and then zoomed-out ... all before starting tape rolling and starting the zoom-in shot itself.

So I usually support the old "traditional" adage about the way of operating such zooms - just because it works better for me as a member of the audience.

Of course I sympathise with the film maker who says "I'm disabled and could not get close enough to show all the detail I wanted" ... but not as a member of the audience. As audience I want the close-up and don't care what the film maker might have had to do to get it.

It does often happen on judging panels that those who make films are more sympathetic to movies than people like me who do not make them. They admire the work that went into the movie. They admire the technical skills. I just care about the story the film is telling ... be it documentary, fiction or whatever.

We should also be slightly wary of confusing "traditional techniques" with "(over-)familiar subjects".

Dave
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Film Thurso has never put a film into competition (we just keep spending money on ourselves) but might someday. It is an interesting point about judges. Film makers will weigh up a picture from a very different perspective than the viewer. Perhaps therin lies the flaw in having film makers be the judge. A film can be the very technical best as it pleases but it may only be appreciated by the minority known as film makers. The audience will for the most part only care about the story like Dave says. Gone With The Wind and The Wizaed of Oz were both equally well made films but Oz flooped at the box office. I like the film to work in all areas. A good film is one that can be watched without noticing and technical aspects of the production. Ideally you want the work of the crew and technicians to be taken for granted. Likewise a good actor will not be seen but the charactor will. A quality soundtrack will be replicated by the audience after they leave but it never got in the way during the film.
An unplanned zoom can readily be got around by filming a bit longer each side of the zoom then just cut out the zoom to make 2 shots.
In making movies I think about how it looks on the screen acording to what I have in mind. I give no consideration as to what a judge might think of it and that won't change even if I ever entre a competition. The bottom line is that telling the story is more important than a judges view of the effects, continuity or whatever.
Peter Thomlinson

Post by Peter Thomlinson »

Dave Watterson wrote:I am! In some ways I've been doing that for years.
Doing what??????
Although I have been interested in amateur movie making since childhood I am not a movie maker. I am an enthusiastic watcher of movies - professional and amateur. I was recruited by various competition organisers to help judge and to bring just that quality Ned alludes to ... the view of the watcher.
Now that has really Bug**** me up! I always thought you were a film maker.
I am always intrigued by the notion that "film judges should be film makers". Why?
Good bl**** question.
At club level, where learning about film making is a priority, then there is some sense in the notion. The judge/s can suggest how techniques might be modified to overcome problems and so on. At national and international level the film is what matters ... not how it was made. At that level technique only matters when it gets in the way of understanding the work. I can, and sometimes do, offer practical tips to film makers but my reason for doing so is when something has distracted my attention from their subject.
Yes - and no!
For example an unplanned zoom-in on any object usually results in some hunting for focus, often wobbling around to centre the target and occasional exposure problems. For 95% of movies that distracts attention when what the maker wanted to do was concentrate my attention on the target. The more difficult planned zoom will have begun with the lens zoomed-in fully, centred on the target, focus and exposure locked-off and then zoomed-out ... all before starting tape rolling and starting the zoom-in shot itself.
You can't make rules.That is a big mistake.
So I usually support the old "traditional" adage about the way of operating such zooms - just because it works better for me as a member of the audience.
Then you are joining the ranks of the traditionalists, and being selfish as an audience member, "it works for me so bug*** anyone else."
Of course I sympathise with the film maker who says "I'm disabled and could not get close enough to show all the detail I wanted" ... but not as a member of the audience. As audience I want the close-up and don't care what the film maker might have had to do to get it.
Film makers don't want sympathy, that's far too easy.
It does often happen on judging panels that those who make films are more sympathetic to movies than people like me who do not make them. They admire the work that went into the movie. They admire the technical skills. I just care about the story the film is telling ... be it documentary, fiction or whatever.
In the end the film should not be successful because of its technical achievements. They should be only a vehicle which carries the message.

We should also be slightly wary of confusing "traditional techniques" with "(over-)familiar subjects".
Don't understand - please explain ..!!
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

New V Traditional

Post by Michael Slowe »

I would take this title to refer to the dicussions on another thread concerning the type of films that the young people are making given the comparitive ease (from film days) with which modern video equipment can be used. That's the "new", the "traditional" is the type of film (steam engines and cake decorating) that were made in profusion in the film days and still are with video (but less now we are in the 21st century).

I don't think that it matters whether judges are film makers or not as long as they can appreciate what they are watching, are prepared just to sit back and decide whether it interests and entertains them, do not get all caught up with technicalities and above all else ARE HABITUAL FILM (TV) WATCHERS with an appreciation of film, its history, its development and have a reasonable eye for a picture and ear for music and effects. That's not asking a lot is it? Our friend Watterson has all these attributes as do many more good judges around the country.
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO »

Essentialy we are looking for something that pleases us in what ever mood we go to see a film. Gosh I've even watched a Van Deisel movie from start to finish. (it was still crud tho!)
Roy

Post Subject

Post by Roy »

I hope this thread is not going to end up as a tirade about Judges. When I mooted the idea of this thread I was intending to let people have their say about whether they liked the way some people are advocating the use of Rock Video and advert
methods of film making as the way ahead in Amateur film making. Or whether like me and many others prefer the traditional way of film making with no jump cuts, hosepiping
zooms, crossing the line etc. I think I made my point on another thread. I am not concerned with subject matter, Amateur film makers have the freedom to choose any subject they feel deeply about, all I suggest is that they would get a bigger sympathetic albeit older audiance if they made the films in a way that the audiance felt comfotable with. Have you noticed when Television runs the programme of the best 1oo films its always the traditionally made films that are mostly voted for.
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

New V. Traditional

Post by Michael Slowe »

Sorry Roy, I strayed a bit but my point was that the 'new' can of course be seen alongside the older styles, a film is a film is a film. Artistsic expression takes many forms but the modern videos still have to be watchable and comprehensable which many are (but not most as I have witnessed to my cost). We must of course welcome the young film makers with open arms and find ways of encouraging them into our midst, we may then learn more and ourselves develope our art.
User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman »

I`ve got a very good example of new and old ways of making films. It is from a television programme called.`BattleStar Gallacter`. I used to watch the old series in the 70`s and enjoyed it. The space shots (as we all know) would have been filmed useing models. The Brand new Battlestar will have computer generated shots.
The old series had your standard shots of spacecraft viewed from different angles. Nice, but boring!

The New series would have a shot of a big spaceship. The camera would then scan around abit and home in on it`s subject and follow it. It may then zoom into it a bit more. It doesn`t always do this smoothly! You either like it or you don`t. I love it :D . It`s my cup of tea. Our eyes do the same thing! We scan, and if something catches our eye we will look into a bit closer. Our eyes will jerk, but we blink and we don`t notice it.
I just wanted to point out how styles have changed. And new ways of doing things can really add a new dimention to our films if we don`t make films to the mould.
Judgeing this sort of thing would be a nightmare! Can you imagine what a filed day the judges would have on this sort of film!

If I was a judge, I would take into account if the style of filming went with the storyline and the feel of it generaly.
But would one judge knock it and another one like it and mark it up?
Ian Gardner
Film Maker
Roy

Post Subject

Post by Roy »

Once again I stress this thread is not meant to wonder what judges think. It should be concerned about what general, as opossed to Video club, audiances think of these new styles. Ian,s reference to Battleship Galactar proves my point I think. I too have seen both the old and the new versions of the programme, and I have to say the new version did not jar in any way and I enjoyed both versions. I am not against new styles or new shooting methods, I am concerned how they are presented on the screen. When whats on the screen makes the audiance realise the gimmick, then for me it doesn't work. Roy
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Post by ned c »

OK, so I'll stick to the main topic, no judges.

The basic question is does the style serve the subject? Take a film like Breaking the Waves, hand held throughout, some unusual framing of the subjects and a story to crush you. It works!! Lars von Trier has a different approach and he directs his cinematographers to deliver pictures that do not fit the conventional styles.

I think the original point of this thread was that by definition films made using the techniques of music videos and commercials were unacceptable, this is a point of view expressed by three or four people on this forum, a very small minority of film viewers I suspect.

I divide commercial films into two broad groups, films that make me think and involve me in some way and "no-brainers.". There are times when a good "no-brainer" is just what I want and there are times when I want to be challenged.

This of course is my definition, your "no-brainers" may well be my challenge and vice versa. Watching a film with a pre-conceived idea on how films should be shot and constructed must be very limiting. It tends to underline what I often feared about amateur film makers, that they are not film fans and don't go the movies with friends and then spend hours arguing about the merits of the film they have just seen.

Perhaps I am mistaken,

Ned C

ps no mention of judges!!
Roy

Post Subject

Post by Roy »

Ned. You mentioned once about using INFORMED Viewers, what makes you think these self claimed informed viwers have not a bias towards what they want to see. You mentioned also that only three or four people had supported the Traditional view and that constitutes a small minority of film viewers. I note that only 2 people support your view outright without any reservation, so according to your reckoning thats even a smaller minority of film viewers that support the new methods.
You are right when you say that the traditionalist don't go to the cinema with friends and then discuss the film for hours afterwards. The vast majority go to the cinema to enjoy the film, and are prompted to go by the story, the leading actors and yes sometimes the Director. It's a night out for them not a prelude to an inquisition. Judging by your comments I think (and I could be wrong again) that you make your judgments not on the responses of a General audiance , but on the responses of the small audiance that make up FILM Appreciation Societies and those who indulge themselves in watching so called cult movies , which has no bearing on Amateur movies. I could be wong I am always open to persuasion, but nothing I've heard yet makes me alter my opinion. Roy
Post Reply