New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ Heat -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 43
11/3/09 at 12:38pm
waiting to receive my pre-ordered Blu-Ray

such an awesome film :)

unfortunately we have an ongoing postal strike here in England, so I'll probably get my copy of Heat in 2010!!

at least I can console myself watching my DVD copy until then...
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Heat [Blu-ray]
post #32 of 43
11/3/09 at 2:51pm

Thank you so very much for that Cameron!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron Yee View Post

This kind of actor blocking would have been pretty intense...

Reply
post #33 of 43
11/3/09 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post



That kind of died down after the 2005 special edition DVD, which had a featurette on the conversation scene (also on the Blu-ray) including interviews with Mann, Pacino, De Niro and even one of the employees at the restaurant where they filmed the scene, who says that the most frequent question she gets is whether both actors were there at the same time.

It also didn't help the conspiracy theorists that Righteous Kill (whatever one may think of the movie) exploded their root assumption: namely, that De Niro and Pacino are such egomaniacs that they wouldn't show up on the set together. (Yes, there's digital trickery, but now we're into aluminum hat territory.)



Suppose you had. How would the diner scene have played? You have this intense one-on-one conversation with these two adversaries staring each other down. If you shoot it with the faces of both guys visible in the frame, where do you put the camera? What will the audience see? Think about it for a minute.

In the featurette I mention above, Mann talks about his shooting methodology and why he adopted it. As you listen to him, you realize that he was doing what a good director is supposed to do: serve the story. Now, I know that a lot of people may react by saying, "Yeah, but that's not what I wanted to see." Well, that's the kind of thinking that studio executives worry about night and day, and it's what prompts them to interfere with directors and screw up a lot of movies.
I understand your point Michael, but i don't believe just because Michael Mann shot it that way it is indisputably the best way.
The scene would have been much more satisfying to me if I saw a shot like that still I posted before.

No reason a shot with a moving camera could'nt have been used in the film.
I felt like Mann was making a statement of some sort that He has these two guys in a movie together for the first time and I'm going to shoot the scene like I did just because I can and too bad if you don't like it.

It was a tease.
the movie isn't lessened(sp?) by it but it wouldn't have hurt the shot to have a camera show them both visible at the same time. not just the back of one guys head.
This was the first time they were on screen together and you don't really get to see it.

Even the guy who shot Righteous Kill took a little poke at this by saying in one of the supplements that at least this time you actually get to really see them both on screen together. I'm sure he was tongue in cheek but he still said it.
Reply
post #34 of 43
11/3/09 at 6:20pm
Here's where I will be fine if we agree to disagree.

I think the resulting facial shots (with the other actor "over the shoulder") is the best way because both of these actors are so skilled, so nuanced in their features, that looking at them from the side like in the shot you posted would have resulted in being able to see very little of their facial expressions, especially from a profile view where you can only see half of their face.

And a moving camera back and forth between two static figures? That sort of motion could be very distracting (esp. those 180 or 360 shots that Michael Bay is so in love with). Again, you have two of the best actors in the biz, in a "square off" moment across a table, I think Mann shot it about the only way he could while still being able to give the viewer full appreciation of the actors' facial expressions.

Just my opinion.

EDIT - Just thought of this: one of the best shot face-offs in cinema is with Starling and Lecter in Silence of the Lambs when she interviews him in his cell. Lots of over the shoulder or face closeups in that one, which conveyed the strength of both Foster's and Hopkins' facial expressions. The only time you get to see both in those scenes is via a well-done reflection of Lecter in the glass while Starling is talking, but Mann didn't have the luxury of glass between Pacino and Deniro.
Reply
post #35 of 43
11/3/09 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post



I understand your point Michael, but i don't believe just because Michael Mann shot it that way it is indisputably the best way.
The scene would have been much more satisfying to me if I saw a shot like that still I posted before.

No reason a shot with a moving camera could'nt have been used in the film.
I felt like Mann was making a statement of some sort that He has these two guys in a movie together for the first time and I'm going to shoot the scene like I did just because I can and too bad if you don't like it.

It was a tease.
the movie isn't lessened(sp?) by it but it wouldn't have hurt the shot to have a camera show them both visible at the same time. not just the back of one guys head.
This was the first time they were on screen together and you don't really get to see it.

 

Isn't it interesting how it's all about respecting the director's intent -- that is, until the bastard does something you don't like.

Your argument is no different from that of someone who dislikes having black bars on his screen and complains because directors use 2:35:1 "because I can and too bad if you don't like it". After all, such a person might say, "I don't believe just because [director so-and-so] shot it that way it is indisputably the best way. The scene would have been much more satisfying to me if" it had filled my entire screen.

"No reason a shot [with greater height] could haven't been used in the film."

If your reasoning is valid, then so is this. And this ain't.
Reply
post #36 of 43
11/3/09 at 9:11pm
That's a ridiculous, unfairly dismissive analogy.  Thinking a movie is imperfect in some way doesn't mean that one doesn't respect the director's intent.  So Tony thought one aspect of the movie--the composition of the shots in a particular scene--was not as good as it could have been.  Why isn't that a fair criticism?  What if he had suggested that a different actor might have played some role better than the one that was actually cast, or that a different composer might have provided a better score for the film, or that one of the subplots detracts from the film and should have been excised?  Could any of those criticisms have been leveled at the film, or would that merely be "disrespecting the director's intent," and no more worthy of consideration than the suggestion that the film be presented in pan-and-scan? 

Where do you draw the line between that legitimate criticism of the direction of a film, and "disrespecting the director's intent"?
Reply
post #37 of 43
11/3/09 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben View Post




Isn't it interesting how it's all about respecting the director's intent -- that is, until the bastard does something you don't like.

Your argument is no different from that of someone who dislikes having black bars on his screen and complains because directors use 2:35:1 "because I can and too bad if you don't like it". After all, such a person might say, "I don't believe just because [director so-and-so] shot it that way it is indisputably the best way. The scene would have been much more satisfying to me if" it had filled my entire screen.

"No reason a shot [with greater height] could haven't been used in the film."

If your reasoning is valid, then so is this. And this ain't.

Wow Really.
I guess Mann can just do whatever he wants and I can't offer my opinion on what he did in a movie. ok.
I didn't like the way he shot a scene so what.
My opinion on that scene isn't valid?
We might as well shut down the movie section of HTF because now we shouldn't discuss the movie if we disagree with what the director did, someone will dismiss the opinion and put a laughing smilie up.
ok.
Reply
post #38 of 43
11/3/09 at 10:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina View Post

Here's where I will be fine if we agree to disagree.

I think the resulting facial shots (with the other actor "over the shoulder") is the best way because both of these actors are so skilled, so nuanced in their features, that looking at them from the side like in the shot you posted would have resulted in being able to see very little of their facial expressions, especially from a profile view where you can only see half of their face.

And a moving camera back and forth between two static figures? That sort of motion could be very distracting (esp. those 180 or 360 shots that Michael Bay is so in love with). Again, you have two of the best actors in the biz, in a "square off" moment across a table, I think Mann shot it about the only way he could while still being able to give the viewer full appreciation of the actors' facial expressions.

Just my opinion.

EDIT - Just thought of this: one of the best shot face-offs in cinema is with Starling and Lecter in Silence of the Lambs when she interviews him in his cell. Lots of over the shoulder or face closeups in that one, which conveyed the strength of both Foster's and Hopkins' facial expressions. The only time you get to see both in those scenes is via a well-done reflection of Lecter in the glass while Starling is talking, but Mann didn't have the luxury of glass between Pacino and Deniro.
 

I like the film, but am not a huge fan or anything.  And the hype over the two working together doesn't really mean anything to me.

Having said that, I tend to agree w/ this more or less.  However, I would think that if Mann actually wanted to show the two together at all in the face-down, he probably could've started out w/ a brief side profile shot to set up the scene before it gets intense and required the more close-up, intimate shots used.

I agree though that compositionally the POVs actually used in the film probably work better for the film as soon as they get talking.  I haven't seen it in a long time, so can't remember if there was any room for using a brief side profile shot for the setup.

_Man_
Reply
post #39 of 43
11/3/09 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post

Wow Really.
I guess Mann can just do whatever he wants and I can't offer my opinion on what he did in a movie. ok.

 

Who said that? You can offer any opinion you want. But others enjoy the same privilege.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink View Post

Where do you draw the line between that legitimate criticism of the direction of a film, and "disrespecting the director's intent"?
 

That isn't really the issue here. There's no real criticism of the film's direction being offered, just a personal preference. Review what was actually said (emphasis added):

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post



I don't go that far but I was annoyed that you don't actually see them on screen, both of their faces at the same time.
All you get is a couple of over the shoulder pov shots of the other guy in the diner then a long shot near the end of one guy holding a gun at the other.

The movie is great, but there was some hype that this was their first on screen film together and you really didn't get it.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyD View Post


I understand your point Michael, but i don't believe just because Michael Mann shot it that way it is indisputably the best way.
The scene would have been much more satisfying to me if I saw a shot like that still I posted before.

No reason a shot with a moving camera could'nt have been used in the film.
I felt like Mann was making a statement of some sort that He has these two guys in a movie together for the first time and I'm going to shoot the scene like I did just because I can and too bad if you don't like it.

It was a tease.
the movie isn't lessened(sp?) by it but it wouldn't have hurt the shot to have a camera show them both visible at the same time. not just the back of one guys head.
This was the first time they were on screen together and you don't really get to see it.

Even the guy who shot Righteous Kill took a little poke at this by saying in one of the supplements that at least this time you actually get to really see them both on screen together. I'm sure he was tongue in cheek but he still said it.


 

Anyone who's read my disc reviews knows that I have no hesitation about criticizing a film's direction. Here I was simply pointing out that the complaint being offered much more closely tracked the kind of complaint that gets made in OAR debates than anything resembling a critique of the film's direction. Saying that a movie is "great" and "isn't lessened" by a directorial choice, but then complaining because you wanted something different, is a lot more like saying "I want my screen filled" than it is like saying "the director made a mistake".

And that, gentlemen, is my opinion.
Reply
post #40 of 43
11/3/09 at 11:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix Martinez View Post



There's some buzz about a change in brightness in certain spots, including chapter 17 between 00:54:32 and 00:54:33.  I don't have the disc yet so I can't confirm.

 


I looked at that time index, and there is a change in brightness there. But it appears to be in the source material, because it's also on the original DVD. It's more obvious on the Blu-ray, because the black levels are much better and the contrast is more muted (the DVD had it cranked up, probably to compensate for the lack of resolution).

Maybe it's something that could be fixed digitally, but I have no idea what amount of work would be required.
Reply
post #41 of 43
11/4/09 at 6:47pm
I used to wonder what exactly "came out of" Hanna when he thought about women's asses, but that's really none of my business.
Reply
post #42 of 43
3/14/10 at 2:53pm
Well, since Michael slapped me down on my other thread I'll chime in here and bring this thread back to life. (Yes, I searched, but you know... Threads!)

I started yet another annoying "conspiracy" thread about the two of these big shots in the same scenes, etc. (Altho, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I just noticed this, is all, and wondered about it from a technical filmmaking POV.) After reading this thread thru, I'll say: Doesn't matter, of course, but it would have been nice in a technical way to have an establishing shot that looks like the still earlier in this thread. Start the scene with it. End the scene with it. Fact is, whether it matters or not, it could have been a back-double for all the scenes involving the two guys together. Could have, probably isn't, but is not unheard of in the film biz. And because of that it's a strange (not bad) directorial decision to make, especially for a director who tends to favor moving cameras in wide panoramas.

That said, I'm bowing out, since I only meant to bring it up because it occurred to me and any discussion of it, from a techical POV, gets short-shrift.

No worries. Great film. Great direction, great acting all around, wonderful to own.

Nothing more to see here. Please move on. Thanks!

MC
Reply
post #43 of 43
3/15/10 at 3:19pm
I'm glad the information to which I directed you answered your questions.

Despite the inadequacies of the current search function, threads relating to a film on disc are usually easy to find. In this instance, since you started your thread in the Blu-ray/Hi-Def area, presumably you knew that Heat has been released on Blu-ray (or assumed it would be shortly). If you input "heat blu" in the search box at the top of the forum, the first result returned is the product entry for the Blu-ray disc of Heat. When you go to that entry, the threads listed under it include this one:

HEAT Blu-ray entry.PNG


You know . . . threads! 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Heat [Blu-ray]