Don't you think is time directors stop the filter madness? (1 Viewer)

[Reginald Trent]

Why not also tell directors to use only one aspect ratio? 1.85:1 works for me so let's make that the only aspect ratio allowed. Look it's the director's movie so either watch it/buy it or not.
BTW Picasso should have painted people to look more normal also.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I don't have a problem with the use of filters when it doesn't distract from a movie. Many of the scenes in the Matrix, for example, have a certain amount of greenish/blue tint to it. I think the idea was to let us know this wasn't REAL. And it was fairly subtle.
I liked Traffic overall, but I found the extreme use of the filters to be distracting. I would actually be thinking to myself several times during the movie "man, what a huge color shift. They must really be using a lot of filtration". Under these circumstances, I didn't like the use of the filters.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

Just goes to demonstrate that subtlety is in the eye of the beholder.

------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)

"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.
[Edited last by Agee Bassett on August 19, 2001 at 07:17 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Well you are completely off...ideals and preferences has nothing to do with reality. I just want it to look real not faked.

Since when did movies become reality? It's all faked, and it's all collaborative labor and artistry which you can either appreciate or disregard.
And I would just like to repeat that the attribution of the look of Traffic to filtration is largely in error. I sense a very strong misunderstanding of the correlation between filtration and effect here, as opposed to stock use/manipulation and color timing and other cinematic decisions and applications.
I do not mean a personal criticism toward anyone specifically by saying this, and I mean to be respectful but honest, but I find this argument ludicrous (an expression I have never made on this board). Who are viewers to even imagine having a say in a directors and cinematographers working practice? It is exactly the same as requesting a painter use only the colors that someone else prefers. It is exactly the same as believing that a specific aspect ratio be used for composition, that particular actors be utilized, certain stories told, locations used... I feel it's absurd.
Lastly, I assure you that if you took out a film camera, used an exact Eastman stock that we use, properly filmed a color chart at the head, and exposed the negative in excellence with wonderful lighting and composition, have it processed by a premier lab with the exact gamma and density defined by that chart, and you would be thoroughly disappointed with the result. Why doesn't it resemble film as you have come to appreciate and respect? You likely did not understand and apply a knowledgeable utilization of filtration and timing lights and other working techniques.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
[Edited last by Scott H on August 19, 2001 at 08:42 PM]

 

[Luis Gabriel Gerena]

"Can we please not make a straw man argument out of this? I don't believe Luis wants to prevent anyone from practicing anything, merely to participate in airing a few strongly-felt opinions here as we all do. "
The matrix example is pretty good cause the effect is not imposing enough to bother as is the case in Traffic.
"It's a style and design decision. That particular style doesn't suit you? OK move on and find other movies that fit your style. Director's weren't born to suit your particular tastes. Asking directors to not use a particular style is rediculous. Do you want all of the music being made today to not do particular effects so it won't irritate you too?"
You forgot your pills today? Back off...some of us are trying to discuss this like gentlemen. BTW misspelling when trying to insult someone is really RIDICULOUS. What does the weak music analogy has to do with this discussion? Lets stick to the thread here which is regarding film.
"Why not also tell directors to use only one aspect ratio? 1.85:1 works for me so let's make that the only aspect ratio allowed. Look it's the director's movie so either watch it/buy it or not.
BTW Picasso should have painted people to look more normal also. "
I guess that for some people the nice thing about computers is that they can be rude and pretend to be so macho cause they know they won't get what they deserve. Does aspect ratio has anything to do with image quality? NO! Does it have anything to do with this thread's main topic? NOT at all. Does your post in any way contributes to this discussion? I think not. I think there are still rules in this forum regarding this type of childish postings.
As usual there are some guys that can't control their emotions in this discussions...pity. So, I think I've exposed my view on the subject as well as I could and at the moment I have nothing else to say regarding it. As I believed I am not alone in this regard but as I also knew some people do feel different about it. In any case I hope that this trend stops or a least get under control. Thanks all (well not all!) for posting.
Regards

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

A film's cinematography, set design, camera work, lighting, costumes, etc. all combine and work together to create the firector's desired effect and mood. Traffic's cinematography was chosen because of the complexity of its script and how when the film was cut together everything was going to be interwoven.

On Traffic, the pre-production process (essential to any and every movie) was shortened considerably when Steven Soderbergh decided to serve as the film’s cinematographer, a.k.a. the director of photography. (When Soderbergh’s request to take the credit "Directed and Photographed by" was rejected by the Writers Guild of America, he opted to take the pseudonym "Peter Andrews" as cinematographer.)
"When I started making short films, I shot my own," notes Soderbergh. "Cinematography has always been an area that I’ve been interested in. I feel very comfortable with photography. More recently, I shot ‘Schizopolis,’ and I had worked with some very good cinematographers. Because of the style of Traffic, I felt ready to take on the job.
"To make Traffic, I wanted as lean a unit around the camera as possible, to strip the camera crew down as much as I could. Another reason was that I thought I would have a hard time talking a cinematographer into doing what I had in mind. I wanted three distinct looks for each of the stories. I used a combination of color, filtration, saturation, and contrast so that as soon as we cut to the first image of the next story, you would know that you were in a different place. Then we took the Mexico sequence through an Ektachrome step, which gave it a very gritty, contrasty look."
Soderbergh also operated the camera, which he had also done on several of his other films. The difference on Traffic was that nearly the whole film was shot with the camera hand-held. He comments, "From the beginning, I wanted this film to feel like it was happening in front of you, which demands a certain aesthetic that doesn’t feel slick and doesn’t feel polished. There is a difference between something that looks caught and something that looks staged. I didn’t want it to be self-consciously sloppy or unkempt, but I wanted it to feel like I was chasing it, that I was finding it as it happened. On the other hand, I didn’t want to give people a headache.
"One of the things I like about operating the camera is that you have a stronger sense of what you’re getting. The disquieting thing about some of the techniques we were employing on this film was that sometimes what I was seeing through the camera lens bore no relation to what I was going to see on the print – and that was a little scary. Essentially I was flying on instruments, like a pilot. I’d know what my back light was and my front light and that there was a filter and that I was ‘flashing’ the film. I knew that based on the numbers, it should be fine. But I’d look through the lens and not see anything. I just had to hold my breath and believe. Then the next day the dailies would come in, and the image would be there. It was a little disorienting."
Soderbergh also made the choice to film using only available light – whenever possible. But, he remembers that was not always the case: "When we were prepping and going on tech scouts, we had lots of conversations about using natural light. So it was a pretty funny moment the first day of production, when we showed up at the first location and the light was not great. Sure enough, we had to haul the 18-K light off the truck. I thought, ‘Oh-oh, here we go.’
"It’s really about creating the feel that you just showed up and shot. There is an art to creating that feeling artificially. For example, in the Mexico sequences, we manipulated the film with filters and shutter angles which resulted in our shooting at a much slower speed than would normally be the case. And that meant hauling out some lights."
Production designer Philip Messina:
"Traffic has a much more stylized approach to the design than ‘Erin Brockovich’ did," comments Messina. "Out of necessity, that film had a very realistic documentary-style approach with real people living in real homes – no need to stylize the look. The settings of our stories in Traffic – dive hotels, crack dens, drug labs, and four mansions in different parts of the country – afforded a juxtaposition between highs and lows."
Messina elaborates, "With the different elements in each city, we started making connections to try and thread it all together. Steven gave a very specific cinematic look to each location: In San Diego, he used a film processing technique called ‘flashing.’ In the desert, he changed the shutter angles and used a tobacco filter. In Cincinnati, he used a blue filter.

~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/005780.html#8

 

[Reginald Trent]

These quotes are from Luis original post:
I just can't see why a movie like Traffic, for example, needs the many annoying filters to make it better...to me it makes it look like crap. If a director need filters as a delivery vehicle of emotions or to set a mood maybe he is not that good after all.
------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the mood is not good, however, in the director's mind it is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis original quote:
There are many movies considered classics that didn't use weird filters and yet delivered everything the director wanted to.
------------------------------------------------------------
Different directors, different times, different visions and different results wanted.
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis original quote:
Some times filters do have some use but is the abuse what bothers me and in my book hampers what could be a good movie.
------------------------------------------------------------
One man's trash is another man's treasure. So who decides what's trash or treasure during the shooting of the movie? Me, you or the director?
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis original quote:
I know I am going to be hated for this but I also know that there are others that feel the same.
Sorry for the typo in the topic's title but I couldn't edit it...
------------------------------------------------------------
No you're not hated, I and others simply find the phrasing of your comments akin to telling directors how to do their jobs. Which is sorta like telling any artist how to create their art. That in my opinion is not how art should be created. Would like someone telling you how to create your art?
[Edited last by Reginald Trent on August 19, 2001 at 09:09 PM]

 

[Scott H]

I guess that for some people the nice thing about computers is that they can be rude and pretend to be so macho cause they know they won't get what they deserve. Does aspect ratio has anything to do with image quality? NO! Does it have anything to do with this thread's main topic? NOT at all. Does your post in any way contributes to this discussion? I think not. I think there are still rules in this forum regarding this type of childish postings.

With all due respect, I find this to be very cynical. I also believe myself and others to have not been rude at all.
And aspect ratio has been a very applicable analogy to the argument put forth by this thread.
I am sincerely sorry that you seem to have taken personal offense to the counterpoints, but that is often the negative result of passionate discussions. And your initial post indicated that you expected such retort.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.
[Edited last by Scott H on August 19, 2001 at 09:22 PM]

 

[Chad R]

We've stumbled onto an age old film debate over formalism and realism. Narrative film slides along a scale from realism to formalism. Exact realism would be simply following a person around for a period of time and doing nothing to the film. Making just one cut in the film then slides it one notch towards formalism.
Many will argue that too much formalism destroys credibility. That too many cuts or angles will somehow make the film less honest.
However these choices are up to the filmmakers. Basically, if you don't like the choices, don't watch the film.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I do not mean a personal criticism toward anyone specifically by saying this, and I mean to be respectful but honest, but I find this argument ludicrous and totally invalid (an expression I have never made on this board). Who are viewers to even imagine having a say in a directors and cinematographers working practice?

Unless I misconstrue, I don't perceive that anyone has made any such claim in this thread.
I don't pretend to speak for Luis, he is quite capable of doing that himself. However, it does indeed seem that the original intent of his statements has been lost to many in this thread, with the dispute instead focusing on a straw man;--ergo, that he is expressing a resolve to impose his personal tastes upon various distinguished film artists. I believe that, rather, he intended nothing of the sort. Until Luis indicates otherwise, it seems he is uttering nothing more sinister than an innocuous, subjective view of certain artistic decisions by current filmmakers. How does this differ from the slew of unsolicited, "armchair" criticisms of films and filmmakers we post every day on this board, absent the indicting reception?
Scott H, most of us, I think, are aware that you yourself are a cinematographer by profession. However, I think you should be sure that you aren't reading into Luis' comments more than what is there.
Peace.
------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)

"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I know that this is not addressed to me; however, if I may chime in:

Luis original quote:
Some times filters do have some use but is the abuse what bothers me and in my book hampers what could be a good movie.
------------------------------------------------------------
One man's trash is another man's treasure. So who decides what's trash or treasure during the shooting of the movie? Me, you or the director?

The director, but once the film hits the theaters, it is fair game for you and me.
------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)

"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.

 

[Reginald Trent]

Agee Bassett quote:
I know that this is not addressed to me; however, if I may chime in:quote: Originally posted by Reginald Trent:
Luis original quote:
Some times filters do have some use but is the abuse what bothers me and in my book hampers what could be a good movie.
------------------------------------------------------------
One man's trash is another man's treasure. So who decides what's trash or treasure during the shooting of the movie? Me, you or the director?[/quote]The director, but once the film hits the theaters, it is fair game for you and me.
------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but it's also fair game to voice differing opinions in regards to the original post. That's where I am nothing more nothing less. BTW Agee, do you believe a director should change their style due to overt criticism? Or should they simply do what they feel and release it as such? Also would you want a director to change something to please you even if it is not his vision to do so?

 

[Scott H]

Agee,

Unless I misconstrue, I don't perceive that anyone has made any such claim in this thread.

I do. And I think that's why others' reactions were similar.
Luis' comments have included the following:
"Don't you think is time directors stop the filter madness?"
"If a director need filters as a delivery vehicle of emotions or to set a mood maybe he is not that good after all."
"But you don't need that at all."
"As long as the effect doens't become distracting it is been rightly used.:
"My point is not to eliminate filters or different filming technics but to control them so they don't break the magic spell that makes you really experience a movie."
As in the title of the thread, he is implying both filmmaking ineptitude instead of expression, and possibly some sort of far fetched oversight (read the quote immediately above). I am not reading more into than what he has written. He is judging filmmakers based on his disapproval of creative decisions. My point is that unless you have contracted the filmmakers for a particular work, either appreciate it or don't.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Scott H]

...most of us...are aware that you yourself are a cinematographer by profession.

Then I think it important to note that I still also work professionally as a first camera assistant for truly venerable cinematographers and continue to embrace the education and insight their experience affords... Profession aside, like many here I am and will always be a student of cinema.
And I'm just another opinionated person, and known to err on, um, occassion

------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Mark Palermo]

There's no reason to be taking this as an attempt to limit a filmmaker's art. It's simple criticism, and that's all. Or are we only allowed to discuss things we liked about movies?
My problem with the color-coding in Traffic isn't that it defies reality, but that it's a clumsy use of style, in that it's a meaningless, show-off device that bears no relevance to the thematics. Style should be used as a passageway to the substance (eg: the disconnection and parallels between characters suggested through the editing in Short Cuts; the way Oliver Stone portrays cultural acceptance of mass murder in Natural Born Killers as MTV product). The style in Traffic is extremely distracting because its only usefulness is to help certain viewers distinguish the various stories--kind of a condescending reason in the first place.
Mark

 

[Scott H]

There's no reason to be taking this as an attempt to limit a filmmaker's art.

I am certainly not taking this thread serious in regards to that aspect, which is inconsequential in the larger context. But such a suggestion and the perspectives offered elicit from me the same passionate response that a thread criticizing OAR DVD releases would with most others here - and yes, that's an applicable analogy.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

The use of filters, saturation, or whatever cinematic technique which is here under discussion was the most annoying part of this highly overrated film. Annoying for different reasons that discussed as yet. My impression was that as you enter Mexico, the style changes to something surrealist, sinister and on the verge of stereotyping a country and people. The impression was that the viewer was out of control, as in a drug induced state whenever the scene was in Mexico. Are we to believe that if it were not for this evil place, the source or conduit for the filth of drugs that are polluting our youth we sould not have a drug problem? This appears to be the intent of the director, and I think he was successful. On that basis I think his use of color, and a hand held camera, was successful. I just resent his stereotyping of the Mexican people and culture.
I am not surprised though because the rest of this film strings together a group of situations that taken individually may have some interest to the viewer, but taken as a whole just falls apart.
------------------

 

[Wes Ray]

Luis, I agree with you completely about Traffic. I enjoyed the film, but was not completely satisfied with it. Soderberg is highly overrated. I bought Out of Sight on DVD because it was mis-priced and thought, "ah, why not?" because it was so cheap. That film...I just don't see what the big fuss over it is. If it hadn't had Ving Rhames in it, it would've been a total yawner. However, for some reason, ever since that film, everything Soderberg does is considered "brilliant" (and even his terrible, forgotten early films like sex, lies, and videotape are being placed in the "brilliant" category for God-knows why.
Still, Traffic was entertaining (a film with Michael Douglas is hard not to be...but Wonder Boys really, reaaaally tried my loyalty as a fan) but definitely needed a better ending. As far as the filters go, they were helpful at times, but un-necessary on the whole. Sometimes, even distracting. Similar coloring was also distracting in Three Kings and Gladiator. I really like both films, but it was as if the director and cinematographer were screaming "Oscar, please!" the whole time. Completely obvious.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I do. And I think that's why others' reactions were similar.
Luis' comments have included the following:
[*snip*]
As in the title of the thread, he is implying both filmmaking ineptitude instead of expression, and possibly some sort of far fetched oversight (read the quote immediately above). I am not reading more into than what he has written. He is judging filmmakers based on his disapproval of creative decisions. My point is that unless you have contracted the filmmakers for a particular work, either appreciate it or don't.

And now we open the whole can of worms over the necessity of "IMO" tags.
As a fellow ant in this colony of "armchair" critics--which boards such as these are designed to accommodate--I think we all should, unless betrayed to the contrary, take for granted that critical comments relating to film posted at this board are made in the best spirit of critical protocol (i.e., should it also be necessary for Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert, Stanley Kauffmann, etc., to pepper their critical dissertations with the redundant "IMO"?). Is our perception of things so fragile that we require these superfluous tags in order to discern the true intent of a strongly-voiced opinion?
And isn't expressing disapproval of creative filmmaking decisions--as much as approval--what we are, after all, doing here? I don't believe we need (in a manner of speaking) an asterisk footnoting the forum Mission Statement to every remark posted on this board in order to establish their validity or ingenuousness.
------------------
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)

"Cinema is simply letting the audience fill in the blanks." - David Lean.
[Edited last by Agee Bassett on August 20, 2001 at 05:57 PM]

 

[Scott H]

Agee,
You have chosen to not answer Reginald's question because you feel it isn't adhering to the topic or "the issue of debate", though you direct superfluous analysis of forum semantics at me and pepper the thread with not-so-veiled criticisms. This has nothing to do with the topic, and I'm not interested in unwarranted advice on posting. The necessity for the analyis of opinions in this instance eludes me. I haven't encountered this previously at HTF, and I think I'll pass on it now.
It seems clear to me that the issue of debate has been abandoned by it's proponents - this thread ran it's short course.
Regards.
------------------
My DVD Library
Runaway production? No thanks. Where I've filmed, benefiting local economies: AL, CA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, MN, MO, MT, NV, OH, OR, TX, WA, WY.