Good quality machines, bad quality films

A forum for sharing views on the art of film, video and AV sequence making as well as on competitions, judging and festivals.
Post Reply
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Willy »

It's in Britain like anywhere else. On this forum it's like in any club. Also in mine. Some clubmates always talk about HD, about the newest projectors, about the newest TV-sets, about the newest this and the newest that. ... About pixels for instance. The more pixels, the better your film is ...

It's a pity that we don't talk enough about trying to improve the quality of our films or to be more original. I don't mean the technical quality. I mean the structure, the contents, the theme, the music, the photography, the angles, the ... Excellent machines don't make excellent films. Excellent filmmakers do. Dave sometimes suggests new themes for films. That's good. Why not making a film about this or about that ? Not many friends reply to this.

Last week an old member came back. After 25 years ! I had not met him before. In the bar before our club activity he talked about HD. I told him that I don't have the intention to buy a new camera. Maybe in some years. He was surprised. I told him that I am more interested in improving my film. Not technically ! Afterwards all the members watched my film. They said things like "If I were you I would delete this and that shot. Your film would not be weaker. On the contrary." Or : "I would try this or that !".
Willy Van der Linden
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Dave Watterson »

You are right, Willy. As Roy said in the thread "What is HD?" it is the content that matters. (That thread is just because I am as confused as most people about what the HD everyone talks about actually is.)

Well here's a thought for you ...

I've noticed over the years that the majority of amateur films seem reluctant to get close to people - whether in a drama or a documentary. I keep seeing people from the waist up ... yet in the top amateur films and all sorts of commercial movies there are lots of big close-ups of faces, eyes and so on.

Is this just a symptom of politeness ... not wanting to invade the actor's or subject's personal space?

It seems to be that film is an intimate medium and getting really close to people helps that sense of connection between audience and person on screen.

So why are we not seeing more close-ups?

Dave
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by tom hardwick »

I'd like to quote from my A4 sheet, 'How to win Film Competitions'.
Item 7: Use some close-ups. Then go closer.
Mike Shaw

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Mike Shaw »

This is interesting - at the moment, we are working on the life story of a famous person from birth through to about 28 - the formative years. We have been asked 'not to represent any of the major characters with actors'. I understand the intention and purpose of the request, but of course, it could mean simply showing the places involved as the story is told. Pretty tedious. What I have elected to do is to show extreme close ups at appropriate moments, or 'softened' images, or rear and long distance views of the people depicted. Hands, feet walking, and so on. And actual photographs of course. The close close up head shots will be used to show an eye or a mouth in reaction to something. Will it work? I sure hope so!

The edict is actually a blessing in disguise - trying to find someone to grow up from birth to 28 quickly - tricky! And of course, there are other characters involved as well. The close close up soluition gives us chances, I think, to break away from a litany of 'place' shots. Whether or not it will work in practice, well, that has yet to be seen ...
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Willy »

Dave Watterson wrote: Well here's a thought for you ...
I keep seeing people from the waist up ... yet in the top amateur films and all sorts of commercial movies there are lots of big close-ups of faces, eyes and so on.
Is this just a symptom of politeness ... not wanting to invade the actor's or subject's personal space?
So why are we not seeing more close-ups?

Dave
It's sometimes risky to take close-ups of people. In my opinion they are often very functional.
In my club some filmmakers who visit colourful countries like Nepal, India, Peru etc... often take close ups of children, ladies wearing colourful clothes, monks etc... but indeed, from the waist up. They even exagggerate showing photos of colourful people.

An anecdote : some years ago I filmed a young couple sitting on a bench somewhere in Britain. The man was eating a banana. With his other hand he caressed his girlfriend who was lying with her head on his lap. He lifted up her T-shirt a little bit. An intimate moment. A lucky close-up shot I thought. It was very useful for my story. However, my wife didn't like it, and some British friends didn't like it either. I think they were embarrassed when seeing my close up shot.

Had I gone too far ? Maybe. Imagine that the couple would see that film. Perhaps they would be very angry with me. So I deleted that shot, that very big close up. Would you delete it ? I also think that every country, region, ... has its own culture, mentality, behaviour, etc... I am sure that in Holland and maybe in other countries in the north people are not so easily embarrassed. They're daring in their films. In my opinion they sometimes exaggerate.
Willy Van der Linden
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by billyfromConsett »

tom hardwick wrote:I'd like to quote from my A4 sheet, 'How to win Film Competitions'.
Item 7: Use some close-ups. Then go closer.
Any chance of seeing the rest of your A4 Sheet Tom?

I'd change the title of this thread to "Long repepitive shots=Bad quality films". It's true that I quite like the innovations that help us get our movies to look and sound better. But I know for sure that these don't make up 10% of style and technique.
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by tom hardwick »

[quote="billyfromConsett"]Any chance of seeing the rest of your A4 Sheet Tom?[/quote]

Send me your email address and it shall be done.
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by billyfromConsett »

Tom - I promise you I will take note.

If you need any tips for CS4 Production Premium, I've got a whole batch of stuff.
User avatar
Willy
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Antwerp Belgium

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Willy »

billyfromConsett wrote:
tom hardwick wrote:I'd like to quote from my A4 sheet, 'How to win Film Competitions'.
Item 7: Use some close-ups. Then go closer.
Any chance of seeing the rest of your A4 Sheet Tom?

I'd change the title of this thread to "Long repepitive shots=Bad quality films". It's true that I quite like the innovations that help us get our movies to look and sound better. But I know for sure that these don't make up 10% of style and technique.
I agree with you, Billy. I know some friends who make wonderful nature films. They always take the biggest close ups. To do this they use the best lenses. When an insect opens its mouth you can even see its stomach. The macro shots are spectacular. Dung beetles in macro look like prehistoric monsters. In this case the lens has created the spectacular picture rather than the filmmaker. All this does not mean that the film is OK. The story-line is essential. But I also agree with Dave. More close-ups should be used in films. In travelogues for instance we sometimes see too many long-shots like panoramic views that are even similar. There is not enough diversity in the landscapes. Why not more close ups ? They may intensify the atmosphere of the film.
Willy Van der Linden
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by tom hardwick »

You want close ups? Get to see Westcliff's (South Essex Moviemakers or somesuch these days) 'Little Chef'. Wow - impressive stuff.

[Tom means "South Essex Film Makers" and is probably referring to their famous spoof adverts - Ed]
User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by FILM THURSO »

Hot topic for sure and I fully agree that folk give too much attention to having the latest flashy gadget and not enough on making a good film. Many of the greatest films were made with less than technically perfect equipment. It's not what you've got but what you do with it as the Mother Superior would say! :D

Take our latest trick, reguler miniDV camera very basic with 16:9 plate, shove 2X anamorphic on the front and get a whopping 3:1 ratio, lovely Ben-Hur-Scope. Impressive but at no point could I say it made my film making any better. (but definately more difficult!) :shock:
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by Michael Slowe »

It goes without saying that equipment does'nt make a film, as Willy and others acknowledge, it is the film maker alone who does that. There are situations sometimes, (eg unavoidably low light or difficult sound conditions) which certain types of kit can help in overcoming, but by and large the final result must rely on the artistic talent of the author.

I often get asked to address 'workshops' and various gatherings of film makers (possibly as a result of someone seeing some of my films) and find it difficult to lecture on how to 'improve your films'. There are obvious 'do's and don'ts' which can be re stated and one's own experiences in overcoming problems might be helpful, but basically I strongly feel you either have it or you don't. There are those who've been film making all their adult lives whose films, whilst presentable, will never really inspire, and those who come into it and bang, they are making masterpieces. One such of these is Philip Martin, ('I Just Knew', 'In the National Interest') who, I was astonished to learn recently, has only been film making for about five years. It is an instinctive thing, you should feel what is right, what works and what does not. That is why judging is such a subjective matter and can never be done on a technical 'points' scoring basis.

Willy, those people telling you what to cut and where, were they looking at the film from a general angle or just 'nit picking'? If their points were justified I bet you secretly agreed. I often get told things which in my heart I know to be right but for one reason or another hadn't corrected. No, you can't teach it, it's all instinct in my firm opinion and, (see the heading of this thread) machinery makes very little difference.
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by ned c »

I agree with Michael that some film makers "have it" most of us do not. However, this does not exclude us from being a part of well made and creative films. I tip my hat to the lone experts like Michael but for the rest of us being part of a creative team is reward enough. Most film making is a co-operative art, it may well be the vision of one person but requires the input of a crew who can all be a part of the creative process. My involvement with a local experimental theatre group has opened the doors to a new look at film making and a group of people who want to be involved and are enthusiastic. I know I have e tendency to mount my soap box but for many n-c film makers their world is too restricted, they need to meet other creatives. I now see myself as a "producer" and enjoy organising film making groups. Remember its the producer who picks up the Oscar for the Best film!!

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

Re: Good quality machines, bad quality films

Post by FILM THURSO »

I remember seeing a postcard some years ago with a couple on a beach. The wife was looking at her man with a "what on earth are you doing" kind of look as she sat in her deck chair. He is entangled in his and is saying, "I like it this way!" Which perhaps sums up what some people movies are- inflexable to change or new knowledge!


I fully agree with the idea you either have it or not (currently I haven't got a cast for anything).
I've seen the same thing with local bands that do covers. Obviously covers is where musicians learn music but up our way so many end up being in bands that rarely try anything else and if they do it's usually one kind of tune (or one tune played different). This can be a lack of confidence or simply lack of any discernable talent. There is a certain element of local attitude that crushes ambition to be fare.
I'm being careful here not to suggest my ability to be any greater than anyone else as they forgot me again at this years' Oscars. What you see of Film Thurso's movies on Youtube won't greatly inspire anyone. When we have been able to get a cast and make a story film acheivements have been made. The films weren't technically excellent but were fun to do and certainly different. "The Bilbster Adventure" is a good example, a special effects film made without special effects fasilities. It was shot in Cinemascope on super 8mm with wild sound, it was a full on production. We did "Seven Shades" a silent film in 4:3 monchrome, "American Dog" which involved pyrotechnics (and a hasty retreat from location once they had been filmed) and "Picture House Gazetteer", a completey improvised 1950s newsreel style film made from 17 minutes of unplanned raw footage. Sitting on the shelf awaiting cast is "The Amazing Captain Debney", a pirate comedy, "The Wanderer" based on a local legend, and "Haunted House" which is a nice noir thriller.

This is diversity in writing, if we could get to filming, what fun. But what I'm wittering on about here is the diversity. One of my professional collegues said that one should only write what you know. One can add that the best fact is fiction and best fiction is fact. These elements come together in life experience and that is what film makers or musicians (or any artist) should draw upon to create something original and outstanding. If it's not outstanding you're just a dull person who should pursue a career of somber nature (undertaking or free-kirk minister). Indeed any credible artist will always be able to give you an experience that enspired their work.
I find many people tell me that I know an awful lot of useless stuff. Useless certainly in general terms but when it comes to creating film, these are the tiny essentials that help make the story realistic. I draw upon my varied work experience and people contact over the years to create my work and tend to analyse folk and situations so that I can understand the how and why of things. You cannot recreate the world on film unless you know the world you occupy.
Post Reply