A Few Words About A few words about...™ Heat -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

For sure it's a bit annoying to have had the promos touting "onscreen at the same time" when what you actually got was one of them onscreen with the back of the other's head simultaneously.

But there is a serious underground movement who believe that the backs of their heads are "stunt guys" because the two either couldn't (or in some conspiracy theories wouldn't) work together. That I don't buy into at all.

The best is when someone posted one of those photo-stills of the two of them sitting across from each other in the diner (the kind that are taken while on set and given out as promos) and then that photo was torn to shreds by the conspiracy buffs claiming photoshop manipulation, etc.

 

[TonyD]

yes, was it a long shot straight at the table Al on the left and Deniro on the right, like a profile shot of them sitting at the table?

nevermind i found it.




well anyway can't wait to see it on blu.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina



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.

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.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

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.

If Mann had put the camera on the same place where the photo above was taken, you'd have an intense scene as well. It would've been better perhaps, because both actors could do the scene in a single take, so they could act off each other. Just a suggestion, but it could've been done easily.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst



both actors could do the scene in a single take, so they could act off each other.

In fact they did. Mann used two cameras. Most of what's in the film is take 11. Watch the featurette.

Oh, and you forgot to answer the key question: If you shoot the scene the way the photograph is framed, what will the audience see?

 

[Dan Keliikoa]

From what I've heard, Al and Robert are friends. I don't subscribe to any of the ideas that the diner scene was anything but what we see, and they did act off each other. It's discussed on the special edition disc.

What an amazing film. I liked it much better than Righteous Kill (which was allright), but Heat is a tough act to follow.

 

[Citizen87645]

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

 

[Felix Martinez]

Originally Posted by Cameron Yee

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

"You a monk?"
"I got a woman."

 

[Dan Keliikoa]

Originally Posted by Cameron Yee

"Brother, you are going down."
"There's a flip side to that coin..."

 

[Ron Reda]

Very much looking forward to this film on BR. It's most likely worth the price of admission alone for the shoot-out scene in high-res audio.

 

[hampsteadbandit]

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...

 

[Carlo_M]

[/url]

 

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben



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.

 

[Carlo_M]

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.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by TonyD

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.

 

[cafink]

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"?

 

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

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.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina

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_

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by TonyD



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.

Originally Posted by TonyD


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.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Felix Martinez



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.