Simon Howson
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,780
Quote:
OK - I said I didn't think Hartley is a good director. "Not good" doesn't equate with "not cool".
Quote:
I think Hal Hartley is a director who has very little visual sense.
I disagree, Hal Hartley is a film maker very aware of the trends of contemporary Hollywood visual style, and willing to use them to his own ends. Whether you personally like the final result is irrelevant.
Quote:
I said this because of your statement that Hartley shoots mostly in close-up. You feel that this is a bad thing.
It depends, for 2.4:1 films constantly shooting in close ups can make the use of the wide format redundant, which is certainly the case in many Hollywood films.
For 2046, Wong Kar-Wai builds a style around restricting the viewers vision by using the anamorphic format and working with shallow depth of field. The film relies heavily on close ups and complimentary over the shoulder shots, and often omits establishing shots.
He uses lighting, actor movement, and other objects to mask off different areas of the widescreen frame to direct the viewers attention across it.
For early CinemaScope films directors would have to figure out new approaches to actor staging or lighting in order to redirect viewers attention during important moments. This is an approach that is dead now due to very rapid editing.
Quote:
I agree that, to some extent, television has had a SUBCONSCIOUS effect on film-making.
No, I disagree. The changes are completely conscious! Films are made by rational people who make aesthetic choices for specific reasons. A big Hollywood director working on a $100 million dollar film needs to be a rational person - it is the best way for them to keep their job.
You state that:
Quote:
I don't believe Classical Hollywood style was achieved by happy accident either.
So if the Classical Hollywood style was achieved via logical processes, influenced by economics and technology, why wasn't the contemporary style also developed in the same way?
Over the last 20 years revenue from the rental and sale of VHS tapes and DVDs has become the economic basis for all Hollywood film making. This has resulted in identifiable modifications to style that differentiate the contemporary approach to that of other eras. Stylistic tactics such as a reliance on close ups, extensive camera movement, and rapid editing are all used to make films feel more dynamic when edited, and ultimately viewed on small television screens.
Quote:
I DO NOT believe that most directors compose films so that they will look good on TV
So what are you saying, that most Hollywood directors actively compose their films so they will look bad on TV!?
When CinemaScope first came in producers asked directors to shoot in ways that accentuated the wide format. Take any pre 1960 CinemaScope film and it will look radically different to a 2.4:1 film made now. These days directors want their film to look exciting and impacting when viewed at a cinema, and wonderful when viewed on a television. There isn't the same desire of making films stylistically differentiated from TV. Now the opposite is true, cinema release acts increasingly like an advert for the DVD release of a film.
Quote:
I agree that the INAPPROPRIATE USE of - or OVER-RELIANCE on - close-ups is a bad thing.
Well, the director doesn't think they are "inappropriate" at all. The director is using them for a specific purpose, go give their film more visual impact to hold the viewer's attention - particularly when the film is screened on a small TV.
Quote:
But a director who uses close-ups in these ways is a BAD DIRECTOR, simple as that.
Hollywood films are full of close ups these days, I personally don't think that is inherently bad if they are created in visually interesting ways. Like Wes Anderson copies the Mike Nichols approach of having actors sit nearly dead centre in the middle of the widescreen frame, and almost look directly at the camera, then he just cuts to a complimentary shot. He does this in Rushmore and Life Aquatic.
But certainly, the standard approach of close up, over-the-shoulder, master, close up, over-the-shoulder gets boring pretty quickly, but it has always been a standard approach, now it is just used much more often, and in closer and close shots.
Quote:
The argument as to whether there are more bad directors now than there were in the days of Classical Hollywood is another subject entirely.
It wasn't an argument that I mentioned.
Quote:
I think your arguments are "armchair" arguments, Simon.
Yes I agree! Sitting in an armchair, closely observing films. Ignoring characters and story, and just concentrating on how the director, cinematographer, and editor have chosen to shoot and edit scenes.
Quote:
It doesn't sound to me like you have any actual experience of working in the industry.
What has my personal production history got to do with contemporary Hollywood visual style? This is even more irrelevant than whether Hal Hartley is "good" or not.
It makes no difference to whether you have made 0 or 1000 films. Anyone can observe visual style in films - if they care to look closely.
But since you raise the issue. If I was employed tomorrow to direct a Hollywood film, and wanted to shoot scenes the way Hou Hsiao-Hsien does - several minute long master shots - the producers would fire me. If I wanted to shoot only with a static camera, I would also get fired for not creating enough visually interesting footage. If I wanted to shoot the way Otto Preminger did in the 50s/60s - widescreen, long takes, mobile camera, few close ups - I would also get fired, because the film wouldn't have enough impact for a contemporary audience.
Quote:
You want to argue on a collected and technical basis and yet you seem frequently offended by responses.
Tell me where my observations of Hollywood visual style are wrong? So far your objection is that contemporary style was achieved by chance because it was driven by subconscious desires on the part of directors, cinematographers and editors. I completely reject the idea that the only way to explain film style is to revert to some form of quasi-psychology.
Quote:
Your tone alternates between that of a haughty film-school lecturer and the tone of a slighted teenager, often from paragraph to paragraph.
This is the bit of your post where you just revert to throwing insults because you don't have anything to say.
Quote:
This superior tone has been apparent since your first interruption of this thread and has only been confirmed to me by this last post.
You mean that I am interested in the visual style of films, and I feel that is a legitimate way to analyse the relative merit of a them.
If you think that is a "superior" approach than basing your judgment on films simply to their characters and stories then so be it.
Quote:
I think you make some accurate observations but I think you draw the wrong conclusions from them.
So what conclusions should I draw? So far you have tried to explain my observations away by saying the decisions directors, cinematographers, and editors make are "subconscious" - that is simply avoiding any conclusion.
I don't agree that a big Hollywood director, cinematographer or editor leave all the decisions about style up to what dreams they had the night before.
Quote:
Unfortunately, your tone is too hostile for me to enjoy debating them with you.
You're the one that reverted to hurling abuse - don't blame me for that.
Quote:
I genuinely feel a bit insulted by Simon's posts but it's difficult to tell a person's tone if you're not face-to-face with them.
So why did you simply revert to writing abuse then?
What is there to be insulted by? The fact Hollywood film makers have visual style down to a very well defined formula? Am I taking the 'magic of movies' away from you?
There is nothing insulting in my posts. Simply a close observation of contemporary Hollywood visual style, and a few explanations both technical, and theoretical about why this is so. If you feel my observations are wrong, or my conclusions lacking, then provide a better explanation than just saying it is all "subconcious".
Quote:
I just feel the thread has got way off topic
The thread is only off topic if you agree with the very first poster. You feel that the only way to appreciate films is to become infatuated by "characters" and "stories". Any analysis of film style, or the technologies and techniques used to make films is secondary (or tertiary) to finding out who marries who in the end.
I disagree.
OK - I said I didn't think Hartley is a good director. "Not good" doesn't equate with "not cool".
Quote:
I think Hal Hartley is a director who has very little visual sense.
I disagree, Hal Hartley is a film maker very aware of the trends of contemporary Hollywood visual style, and willing to use them to his own ends. Whether you personally like the final result is irrelevant.
Quote:
I said this because of your statement that Hartley shoots mostly in close-up. You feel that this is a bad thing.
It depends, for 2.4:1 films constantly shooting in close ups can make the use of the wide format redundant, which is certainly the case in many Hollywood films.
For 2046, Wong Kar-Wai builds a style around restricting the viewers vision by using the anamorphic format and working with shallow depth of field. The film relies heavily on close ups and complimentary over the shoulder shots, and often omits establishing shots.
He uses lighting, actor movement, and other objects to mask off different areas of the widescreen frame to direct the viewers attention across it.
For early CinemaScope films directors would have to figure out new approaches to actor staging or lighting in order to redirect viewers attention during important moments. This is an approach that is dead now due to very rapid editing.
Quote:
I agree that, to some extent, television has had a SUBCONSCIOUS effect on film-making.
No, I disagree. The changes are completely conscious! Films are made by rational people who make aesthetic choices for specific reasons. A big Hollywood director working on a $100 million dollar film needs to be a rational person - it is the best way for them to keep their job.
You state that:
Quote:
I don't believe Classical Hollywood style was achieved by happy accident either.
So if the Classical Hollywood style was achieved via logical processes, influenced by economics and technology, why wasn't the contemporary style also developed in the same way?
Over the last 20 years revenue from the rental and sale of VHS tapes and DVDs has become the economic basis for all Hollywood film making. This has resulted in identifiable modifications to style that differentiate the contemporary approach to that of other eras. Stylistic tactics such as a reliance on close ups, extensive camera movement, and rapid editing are all used to make films feel more dynamic when edited, and ultimately viewed on small television screens.
Quote:
I DO NOT believe that most directors compose films so that they will look good on TV
So what are you saying, that most Hollywood directors actively compose their films so they will look bad on TV!?
When CinemaScope first came in producers asked directors to shoot in ways that accentuated the wide format. Take any pre 1960 CinemaScope film and it will look radically different to a 2.4:1 film made now. These days directors want their film to look exciting and impacting when viewed at a cinema, and wonderful when viewed on a television. There isn't the same desire of making films stylistically differentiated from TV. Now the opposite is true, cinema release acts increasingly like an advert for the DVD release of a film.
Quote:
I agree that the INAPPROPRIATE USE of - or OVER-RELIANCE on - close-ups is a bad thing.
Well, the director doesn't think they are "inappropriate" at all. The director is using them for a specific purpose, go give their film more visual impact to hold the viewer's attention - particularly when the film is screened on a small TV.
Quote:
But a director who uses close-ups in these ways is a BAD DIRECTOR, simple as that.
Hollywood films are full of close ups these days, I personally don't think that is inherently bad if they are created in visually interesting ways. Like Wes Anderson copies the Mike Nichols approach of having actors sit nearly dead centre in the middle of the widescreen frame, and almost look directly at the camera, then he just cuts to a complimentary shot. He does this in Rushmore and Life Aquatic.
But certainly, the standard approach of close up, over-the-shoulder, master, close up, over-the-shoulder gets boring pretty quickly, but it has always been a standard approach, now it is just used much more often, and in closer and close shots.
Quote:
The argument as to whether there are more bad directors now than there were in the days of Classical Hollywood is another subject entirely.
It wasn't an argument that I mentioned.
Quote:
I think your arguments are "armchair" arguments, Simon.
Yes I agree! Sitting in an armchair, closely observing films. Ignoring characters and story, and just concentrating on how the director, cinematographer, and editor have chosen to shoot and edit scenes.
Quote:
It doesn't sound to me like you have any actual experience of working in the industry.
What has my personal production history got to do with contemporary Hollywood visual style? This is even more irrelevant than whether Hal Hartley is "good" or not.
It makes no difference to whether you have made 0 or 1000 films. Anyone can observe visual style in films - if they care to look closely.
But since you raise the issue. If I was employed tomorrow to direct a Hollywood film, and wanted to shoot scenes the way Hou Hsiao-Hsien does - several minute long master shots - the producers would fire me. If I wanted to shoot only with a static camera, I would also get fired for not creating enough visually interesting footage. If I wanted to shoot the way Otto Preminger did in the 50s/60s - widescreen, long takes, mobile camera, few close ups - I would also get fired, because the film wouldn't have enough impact for a contemporary audience.
Quote:
You want to argue on a collected and technical basis and yet you seem frequently offended by responses.
Tell me where my observations of Hollywood visual style are wrong? So far your objection is that contemporary style was achieved by chance because it was driven by subconscious desires on the part of directors, cinematographers and editors. I completely reject the idea that the only way to explain film style is to revert to some form of quasi-psychology.
Quote:
Your tone alternates between that of a haughty film-school lecturer and the tone of a slighted teenager, often from paragraph to paragraph.
This is the bit of your post where you just revert to throwing insults because you don't have anything to say.
Quote:
This superior tone has been apparent since your first interruption of this thread and has only been confirmed to me by this last post.
You mean that I am interested in the visual style of films, and I feel that is a legitimate way to analyse the relative merit of a them.
If you think that is a "superior" approach than basing your judgment on films simply to their characters and stories then so be it.
Quote:
I think you make some accurate observations but I think you draw the wrong conclusions from them.
So what conclusions should I draw? So far you have tried to explain my observations away by saying the decisions directors, cinematographers, and editors make are "subconscious" - that is simply avoiding any conclusion.
I don't agree that a big Hollywood director, cinematographer or editor leave all the decisions about style up to what dreams they had the night before.
Quote:
Unfortunately, your tone is too hostile for me to enjoy debating them with you.
You're the one that reverted to hurling abuse - don't blame me for that.
Quote:
I genuinely feel a bit insulted by Simon's posts but it's difficult to tell a person's tone if you're not face-to-face with them.
So why did you simply revert to writing abuse then?
What is there to be insulted by? The fact Hollywood film makers have visual style down to a very well defined formula? Am I taking the 'magic of movies' away from you?
There is nothing insulting in my posts. Simply a close observation of contemporary Hollywood visual style, and a few explanations both technical, and theoretical about why this is so. If you feel my observations are wrong, or my conclusions lacking, then provide a better explanation than just saying it is all "subconcious".
Quote:
I just feel the thread has got way off topic
The thread is only off topic if you agree with the very first poster. You feel that the only way to appreciate films is to become infatuated by "characters" and "stories". Any analysis of film style, or the technologies and techniques used to make films is secondary (or tertiary) to finding out who marries who in the end.
I disagree.
