![Film-Tech Cinema Systems](http://www.film-tech.com/images/masthead.jpg) |
|
Home
Products
Store
Forum
Warehouse
Contact Us
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Faster direction?
|
Peter Berrett
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/672.jpg)
Posts: 602
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-02-2001 07:37 AM
Hi allI recently saw 'Les Visiteurs II" on video and thought it a very ordinary sequel. My question though revolves around one feature of this film which I have also seen duplicated in Moulin Rouge. Director Jean-Marie Poire insisted on pulverising the audience's senses with shot after shot after shot in quick succession all the way through the film. Baz Luhrmann did the same thing in Moulin Rouge although to be fair at least he slowed down the pace towards the end of the film. I can understand moments of pacy direction in times when particular action scenes are being shot. I think the logic is that one uses many camera shots to visually keep the audience informed about what is happening and to add excitement. I can't understand the logic of using such pacy direction (arguably overkill in terms of the number of camera shots used) all the way through the film. Is this technique an attempt to appeal to younger generations who perhaps have become used to faster imagery due to video games? Have others noticed some directors overusing camera shots recently? cheers Peter
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 07-02-2001 09:54 AM
"Styles" come and go. Many of the "hot" filmmakers today got their start making television commercials, where some "razzle dazzle" is often needed to keep the viewer from changing channels. Many also come from a music video background. Other threads have discussed the use of handheld (not even a Steadicam) cameras, as popularized by television shows like NYPD Blue. The style can be very appropriate for some films, but is very distracting in others. IMHO, fast cuts and shaky camerawork are more tolerable on a small TV screen than on a large movie screen.------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Eastman Kodak Company Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419 Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243 E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Peter Berrett
Jedi Master Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/672.jpg)
Posts: 602
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-03-2001 04:06 AM
I think I've found out why.Have a look at this article http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/pros/preston/preston_03.html I found the following quote interesting. "Michael said that fast editing is usually required in commercials aimed at younger viewers because they have a regrettably short attention span" Fast editing may work for younger viewers but for me (age 36) it is just disconcerting! Fast editing. Just say No! cheers Peter
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
|
|
|