Film v Movie

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
Ned Cordery

Film v Movie

Post by Ned Cordery » Sun Jan 26, 2003 4:30 pm

"The movie is for popular entertainment. It is the product of an industry
dominated by the producer in which there is no individual film maker but
a team......The film makes demands without comprise....such a film is normally
a personal statement of an artist...."

Thorold Dickinson "A Discovery of Cinema"

Dave Watterson

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Dave Watterson » Sun Jan 26, 2003 5:37 pm

Ned and Thorold Dickinson take us on to different territory, but I used the
term "movie" to cover cine and video work.

In conversation I say "film" but within the amateur ranks some people interpret
that as meaning exclusively strips of plastic with holes down the side (or
in the middle for 9.5mm!)

Putting production technicalities aside I see video and cine as being almost
identical in terms of content, style and so on. The great fuss which is made
about "the film look" passes over my head. Perhaps I spent too much of my
life watching battered 16mm prints or vhs copies of commercial cinema products.
To me all those images on the screen are really "films" even if I use the
term "movie" to avoid confusion.

As for who is the creative force behind a movie ... I do not mind whether
it is producer, director, star etc so long as it has a definite voice. What
bores me to tears are the bland, committee-decided, safe-for-all-markets
movies which scarcely even entertain.

McDave McSprocket

AN

Re: Film v Movie

Post by AN » Mon Jan 27, 2003 11:36 am

"Ned Cordery" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
"The movie is for popular entertainment. It is the product of an industry
dominated by the producer in which there is no individual film maker but
a team......The film makes demands without comprise....such a film is normally
a personal statement of an artist...."

Thorold Dickinson "A Discovery of Cinema"
Mmmmm. Does this mean then that a personal statement of an artist cannot
be popularly entertaining? Surely that cannot be, especially where comedy
film is concerned. Or isn't comedy ever a personal statement??

Albert....getting personal.

Ned Cordery

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Ned Cordery » Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:55 am

"AN" <Animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:
"Ned Cordery" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

"The movie is for popular entertainment. It is the product of an industry
dominated by the producer in which there is no individual film maker but
a team......The film makes demands without comprise....such a film is normally
a personal statement of an artist...."

Thorold Dickinson "A Discovery of Cinema"

Mmmmm. Does this mean then that a personal statement of an artist cannot
be popularly entertaining? Surely that cannot be, especially where comedy
film is concerned. Or isn't comedy ever a personal statement??

Albert....getting personal.
This is a quote that attempts to differentiate between the "movie" and the
"film". Like most things filmic (and video) there are no hard and fast rules
but it does give a point of departure. An artistic statement can cover the
entire range of human experience. From "M. Hulot's Holiday" at one end to
the "The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" at the other and everything
in between. I do take Dave's point that there is no substitute for a rattling
good yarn, well told. That's why those BBC classics play so well, the story
lines are so strong and old Bill from Stratford on Avon knew a thing or two
about story telling.

Ned Cordery
>

Michael Slowe

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Michael Slowe » Tue Jan 28, 2003 1:17 pm

"Ned Cordery" <goslands@infwest.com> wrote:
"AN" <Animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:

"Ned Cordery" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

"The movie is for popular entertainment. It is the product of an industry
dominated by the producer in which there is no individual film maker but
a team......The film makes demands without comprise....such a film is
normally
a personal statement of an artist...."

Thorold Dickinson "A Discovery of Cinema"

Mmmmm. Does this mean then that a personal statement of an artist cannot
be popularly entertaining? Surely that cannot be, especially where comedy
film is concerned. Or isn't comedy ever a personal statement??

Albert....getting personal.

This is a quote that attempts to differentiate between the "movie" and the
"film". Like most things filmic (and video) there are no hard and fast rules
but it does give a point of departure. An artistic statement can cover the
entire range of human experience. From "M. Hulot's Holiday" at one end to
the "The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" at the other and everything
in between. I do take Dave's point that there is no substitute for a rattling
good yarn, well told. That's why those BBC classics play so well, the story
lines are so strong and old Bill from Stratford on Avon knew a thing or
two
about story telling.

Ned Cordery

Yes of course but the point that Albert and I have been making (and we have
seen a lot of amateur films these 30 years or so) is that amateur "story"
films are generally (mostly?) dreadful. I don't think Dave was advocating
dramatic story films but films with at least some sort of narrative thread.

AN

Re: Film v Movie

Post by AN » Tue Jan 28, 2003 2:03 pm

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Ned Cordery" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:

This is a quote that attempts to differentiate between the "movie" and
the
"film". Like most things filmic (and video) there are no hard and fast
rules
but it does give a point of departure. An artistic statement can cover
the
entire range of human experience. From "M. Hulot's Holiday" at one end
to
the "The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" at the other and everything
in between. I do take Dave's point that there is no substitute for a rattling
good yarn, well told. That's why those BBC classics play so well, the story
lines are so strong and old Bill from Stratford on Avon knew a thing or
two
about story telling.

Ned Cordery
is that amateur "story"
films are generally (mostly?) dreadful. I don't think Dave was advocating
dramatic story films but films with at least some sort of narrative thread.
My heart goes out to amateur story film makers...all that gear they have
to set up/the weather to contend with/mediocre actors to get going/location
selection etc etc then all the editing/music swelection blah blah blah.
The end result (generally) is a poor story whose ending one can normally
guess, or just another shaggy dog story.....all this after so, so much trouble
having been taken.
Yes, my heart goes out to 'em.

Maybe they should try redos of simple fairy stories or such? Let's say a
modern relook at "Goldilocks and the three BARES" (!!) etc etc etc.

Albert...bearing up!

Guest

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Guest » Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:59 pm

"Michael Slowe" <michael.slowe@btinternet.com> wrote:
Yes of course but the point that Albert and I have been making (and we have
seen a lot of amateur films these 30 years or so) is that amateur "story"
films are generally (mostly?) dreadful. I don't think Dave was advocating
dramatic story films but films with at least some sort of narrative thread.
I haven't seen amateur story films in an age so cannot comment, however,
I have seen a selection at our local film fest that are predominantly low
end pro and want-to-be pro and they cover the range from awful to excellent.
The biggest problem for the amateur is directing amateur/non actors. It is
very difficult for a professional director and many will not work with non-actors.
I will let you know how it goes as I am about to direct my first piece with
non-actors in a serious story film.

Fingers crossed,

Ned Cordery
>

AN

Re: Film v Movie

Post by AN » Tue Jan 28, 2003 6:54 pm

"Ned Cordery" Invest..com wrote:
The biggest problem for the amateur is directing amateur/non actors. It
is
very difficult for a professional director and many will not work with non-actors.
I will let you know how it goes as I am about to direct my first piece with
non-actors in a serious story film.
Good luck Ned on that...rather you than me tho' :-)
Make sure you have a *good classy* script...as I've said many times afore,
the more coffee you drink (and so think more), the better the film is likely
to be. Don't forget to give serious thoughts to the music, if any, toooo.
It's blowing a blizzard here at present, hope your weather is better there
in Utah for shooting outdoors. Let's know how you get on.
Fingers crossed,
I wonder if Hitchcock ever crossed his before shooting a new film? I daresay
Marilyn Munroe crossed her legs too! :-)

Albert....dare to say things.

Dave Watterson

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Dave Watterson » Wed Jan 29, 2003 1:27 pm

I heard an interview with director P.T.Anderson last night in which he said
he chose "non actors" for subsidiary roles in his latest film. His argument
was that such bit parts usually have a line or two of dialogue at most to
deliver, but depend on the person giving a credible physical performance.
Why hire an actor who then has to learn how to be, say, a checkout girl
... when you could hire a check-out girl who already knows how to do the
job and can be coached through a few words of script.

We could extend this notion to amateur dramas. Why ask an office manager
to play a brickie or vice-versa? Try to cast people who match the character
as closely as possible. Of course some of them may have a problem with dialogue,
but they should be able to handle sentences closely related to their own
work.

As to the wider issue of "story" - as Michael noted, I meant a "narrative
thread" which can run through any type of film/video.

Dave McThespian

Ned Cordery

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Ned Cordery » Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:39 pm

"Dave Watterson" <webmaster@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
I heard an interview with director P.T.Anderson last night in which he said
he chose "non actors" for subsidiary roles in his latest film. His argument
was that such bit parts usually have a line or two of dialogue at most to
deliver, but depend on the person giving a credible physical performance.
Why hire an actor who then has to learn how to be, say, a checkout girl
... when you could hire a check-out girl who already knows how to do the
job and can be coached through a few words of script.
It doesn't always work - some people become completely unable do their daily
jobs when a camera is pointed at them. I always prefered to use actors wherever
possible in corporate/training productions as it avoided the problem of what
to do when the person on camera leaves and joins a competitor or is fired
for having their hand in the till!

Ned Cordery
>

Ken Wilson

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Ken Wilson » Thu Jan 30, 2003 12:22 am

"Ned Cordery" Invest..com wrote:
I haven't seen amateur story films in an age so cannot comment, however,
I have seen a selection at our local film fest that are predominantly low
end pro and want-to-be pro and they cover the range from awful to excellent.
The biggest problem for the amateur is directing amateur/non actors. >Fingers
crossed,
Making drama films is something I should know about as it`s what I do most
of the time. Yes as Albert says, it is a long slog. At present we are shooting
a new video/film which is something we have not done before in January/February.
It means using lights as it gets dark not much after 4.30.It means more cables
than the usual ones for the mike. I am allowing 1 hour a page (script is
14 pages) which takes into account setting up shots, rehearsing and actors
forgetting lines. Continuity has to be watched meticulously (and still things
slip through.)Available dates for shooting are arranged and then RE-arranged
when someone has another engagement....planning, rewriting, aquiring costumes
and props. Making lists, checking nothing is missed. Setting up each shot,Checking
focus and locking it for every shot, likewise exposure, watching for camera
reflections in mirrors or windows... I think you get the idea. So why do
it? A very good question. Answers on a postcard please or via this site.
Ken W.

AN

Re: Film v Movie

Post by AN » Thu Jan 30, 2003 1:19 pm

"Ken Wilson" <@filmlabnorth.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
it is a long slog. At present we are shooting
a new video/film which is something we have not done before in January/February.
It means using lights as it gets dark not much after 4.30.
.......cut.....
reflections in mirrors or windows... I think you get the idea. So why do
it? A very good question. Answers on a postcard please or via this site.
I really don't know Ken!!
I sit in my cosy room with my cosy PC. Take out my warm cosy camera, turn
on my huge lighting rig (one 100w domestic light bulb!), sit in my cosy armchair
by the PC and make my films with the wind/rain thrashing down outside making
the cosy central heating thermostat trip in yet again.
Mmmmm luvly with my cosy cup of char tooo.
I really do envy you cosy outside film makers!! ;-)

Albert....cosying up.

Dave Watterson

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Dave Watterson » Thu Jan 30, 2003 5:13 pm

You make fiction - among many other types of film - because it gives so many
of us so much pleasure, Ken.

You also take time to let actors mature. I only just caught up with 'Someone'
in tents! The comic timing between Yvonne and Keith has tightened up with
each episode of this series. They have developed bits of business which
just build a good comedy into a great one.

There ARE lots of poor amateur dramas out there but for me that just makes
the high points of the art feel even higher.

Dave McVertigo

Ned Cordery

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Ned Cordery » Fri Jan 31, 2003 3:53 pm

"Ken Wilson" <@filmlabnorth.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
Making drama films is something I should know about as it`s what I do most
of the time. Yes as Albert says, it is a long slog. At present we are shooting
a new video/film which is something we have not done before in January/February.
It means using lights as it gets dark not much after 4.30.It means more
cables
than the usual ones for the mike. I am allowing 1 hour a page (script is
14 pages) which takes into account setting up shots, rehearsing and actors
forgetting lines. Continuity has to be watched meticulously (and still things
slip through.)Available dates for shooting are arranged and then RE-arranged
when someone has another engagement....planning, rewriting, aquiring costumes
and props. Making lists, checking nothing is missed. Setting up each shot,Checking
focus and locking it for every shot, likewise exposure, watching for camera
reflections in mirrors or windows... I think you get the idea. So why do
it? A very good question. Answers on a postcard please or via this site.
Ken W.
You are in the long tradition of story tellers just using the latest technology
to tell your stories. It was just as painful when the stories had to be remembered
and passed from father to son, when the writer sat with pen in hand gazing
at the blank sheet of papyrus or at the blank screen fingers poised over
the keyboard. Long live the story teller!!

Ned C
>

Ken Wilson

Re: Film v Movie

Post by Ken Wilson » Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:15 am

"AN" <Animation@btinternet.com> wrote:
I sit in my cosy room with my cosy PC. Take out my warm cosy camera, turn
on my huge lighting rig (one 100w domestic light bulb!), sit in my cosy
armchair
by the PC and make my films with the wind/rain thrashing down outside making
the cosy central heating thermostat trip in yet again.
Mmmmm luvly with my cosy cup of char tooo.
I really do envy you cosy outside film makers!! ;-)

Albert....cosying up.
Well that sounds VERY interesting. Am I envious? Not at all! We have been
shooting all weekend in biting cold winds rain and sleet. Setting up lights
indoors, then hopping outside for the next shot. Upstairs, downstairs, in
the garden, at the car and ALL out of sequence due to actor availability
and time constraints. After 3 days, we were frozen and exhausted. Who would
want to sit by a radiator doing animation working to your own time and pace?
Mmmmmm? Ken.

Post Reply