UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Heat -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Kyle_D]

If they were both on set at the same time, then Michael Mann really blew an opportunity to let these two powerhouse actors react against one another in the same frame. Sorry, but I don't believe there was any good creative reason to shoot their only scene together entirely in over-the-shoulder shots. Doing so only serves to call attention to the fact that they don't really seem to be on set together. Any stand-in could serve as the "shoulder."

I never bought the conspiracy theories and always assumed Mann deliberately avoided a two-shot in the diner scene so the final shot of the film would have more impact.

 

[Bartman]

I just watched the Definitive Edition Blu-ray and it's far from perfect. You need either a pitch black room or boost brightness to watch it. I changed the Video settings on my Sony S6700 to Bright Room to get it to look good. If this is from an early 4K transfer, before 4K was perfected, I hope they don't use it for the latest 4K UHD release, it'll get bad reviews.

 

[Carlo_M]

I never bought the conspiracy theories and always assumed Mann deliberately avoided a two-shot in the diner scene so the final shot of the film would have more impact.

I'm sure there are some in the Interwebs who will claim that's a full body back double for Pacino

In all seriousness, it is an iconic final frame of the film.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I'm right where Carlo is. Michael Mann is one of the finest directors who ever lived. HEAT is a film, told the way he wants. His job wasn't to showcase De Niro and Pacino in a movie together...it was to effectively tell the story he was telling. I'd posit that the framing was intentional, and serves the story and character exactly as pointed out on the previous page.

 

[Kevin S.]

Wow, I'd forgotten about the conspiracy theory from back in the day. A buddy of mine was an on-set photographer for the movie...

 

[Sega]

Will look into this. It's a great movie.
I will see how much they want to take you for?

 

[JoshZ]

Well seeing as to how we're all here armchair directors, and he's Michael Mann, here's my two cents from my armchair.

Two guys on edge with each other, not knowing if the other will shoot in an instant. Do you sidle beside them in a corner booth or a round seat? Nope. You sit directly opposite so you can see every movement of the guy in front of you. How do you shoot two people sitting opposite from each other?

Sure you could do a shot from afar, from the side, to get both on the frame...but then you're looking at them from the side, and that detracts from being able to see every minute detail of their face as they deliver, or react to each line of dialogue. None of which are throwaway lines, all brimming with subtext. Every furrowed brow, every sideways glance, every movement on their faces...all of it captured because of Mann's choice for an over-the-shoulder closeup of the actors' faces.

Block the scene out in your mind in whatever alternate way you'd have framed it. Or better yet, we've all got 4K (or in some cases 8K) recording devices on our phones. Have your friends or kids act it out. See if you come up with a more effective framing for that scene and how it compares to what many consider to be a modern cinematic masterpiece.

Correction: You can see every movement on one actor's face. What's the other actor doing? No idea, we can't see his face at all. For all we can tell, it's a PA intern sitting in that chair.

I'm not saying the entire scene needs to be shown only in a wide shot from the side angle, but Mann could've at least started the scene with an establishing shot showing both actors enter the room or something. The way it is now just screams that these two actors were never in the same room together.

I never bought the conspiracy theories and always assumed Mann deliberately avoided a two-shot in the diner scene so the final shot of the film would have more impact.

The final shot where you can once again only see the back of Al Pacino's head?

 

[Carlo_M]

Correction: You can see every movement on one actor's face. What's the other actor doing? No idea, we can't see his face at all. For all we can tell, it's a PA intern sitting in that chair.

Correction of the correction. You can see every movement on one actor's face at a time. You get plenty of time with both actors. Mann is very intentional when to focus on one actor talking, and when to focus on another actor reacting. Without using something as gimmicky as a split-screen, or to have them sitting side-by-side (and again, what gangster/cop would choose to sit that way in a diner) when filming actors head on, sitting across from another actor, there is no way to see the other person's face in its entirety.

In my opinion starting with an establishing shot would be unnecessary and break up the flow of the film. Watch that scene unfold. High speed chase. Tension filled approach by Hanna to Neil's car. A terse invite to a cup of coffee, "follow me". Close up on Neil's face as he ponders the invite and looks at Hanna in his sideview mirror...

Smash cut to Hanna reading Neil his rap sheet. "Seven years in Folsom..."

Brilliant as is.

Now if your point is still "they were never in the scene together" theory...well I can't bring anyone around just like I won't ever convince a flat earther the world is a globe.

 

[Blu_rayfan66]

Accurate based on what?

Reality?

 

[Carlo_M]

Let's also not forget another brilliant use of over-the-shoulder/reaction/full face shot used in another modern masterpiece of cinema.

Or perhaps Jonathan Demme also made a terrible decision in shooting the scene to capture full facial expressions of one actor at a time, as well?

 

[TonyD]

Carlo I feel like you’re being a bit condescending on this.
Directors aren’t infallible and just because he chose to film it that way doesn’t mean I am forced to like it or agree with it.

Ultimately we are the ones who will be watching the movie and have valid opinions on what we see.
First time these two guys are in a movie in a scene together and Mann, because he is the great director Michael Mann decides it’s not worth it to actually let us, those who are going to see the movie see them both on screen without only seeing the back of their heads.
I think it’s a poorly filmed and frames scene.
Like it’s right out of a tv sitcom where two people are talking to each other and they keep switching the shot to the face of the person talking.
Saying we should hire our friends or kids to remake the scene. Please.

 

[TonyD]

Let's also not forget another brilliant use of over-the-shoulder/reaction/full face shot used in another modern masterpiece of cinema.

Or perhaps Jonathan Demme also made a terrible decision in shooting the scene to capture full facial expressions of one actor at a time, as well?

Not the same thing at all.

 

[sleroi]

Carlo I feel like you’re being a bit condescending on this.
Directors aren’t infallible and just because he chose to film it that way doesn’t mean I am forced to like it or agree with it.

Ultimately we are the ones who will be watching the movie and have valid opinions on what we see.
First time these two guys are in a movie in a scene together and Mann, because he is the great director Michael Mann decides it’s not worth it to actually let us, those who are going to see the movie see them both on screen without only seeing the back of their heads.
I think it’s a poorly filmed and frames scene.
Like it’s right out of a tv sitcom where two people are talking to each other and they keep switching the shot to the face of the person talking.
Saying we should hire our friends or kids to remake the scene. Please.

Since Mann also wrote the film I'm sure he already envisioned this scene as is probably before it was even cast.

I actually think it is to his credit that he stuck to his vision instead of changing things just because of the actors involved.

And while you might have liked the scene to be different for whatever reason, I doubt many people consider it poorly filmed and framed.

 

[Kyle_D]

Carlo is engaging with the text of the film.

During the diner scene, the characters are meeting in their respective capacities as detective and professional criminal. They're on opposite sides of the law, and their dialog generally follows a point/counterpoint structure. All of this is visually reinforced by the shot/reverse shot editing. The characters occupy separate frames because they operate in separate, opposed spheres.

In the final shot, the characters set aside their respective roles as detective and criminal to acknowledge their shared traits and common humanity. In doing so, they finally occupy the same frame.

 

[Carlo_M]

Depending on one's POV, I can see how my comment can be condescending. Conversely I read criticisms of how "this could have been done better" without any actual proof of concept behind it as presumptuous.

The truth is often what we don't want to face: both are right. I'm being condescending, and they're being presumptuous.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Everyone can like/dislike what they want. But remember we're discussing two different tracks here: one conspiracy theory that Mann shot it the way he did because for whatever reason the actors weren't on set at the same time (which I think most agree was not the case). I'm not focusing on this one because quite frankly people will believe what they believe and none of us were on the set, so if someone believes that De Niro and Pacino were never together in the diner scene, I'm never going to be able to convince them otherwise.

The second being that Mann could have shot it differently to have both actors in the frame. But again to paraphrase Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park "just because he could have, doesn't mean he should have."

And yes, no director (or anyone) is above reproach or criticism. But I never said that, I said I loved the way he filmed it, and challenged anyone who had these alternate framing or blocking of the scene to work it out in their head or in the frames of their cameras. No need to hire friends or family (I can't remember the last time I paid any of mine, anyway, that's why they are friends and family). That was just a recommendation, or a reality-exercise, because what you often think you see in your head...well when you actually start trying it out in real life, what you find was so easy in your head doesn't translate logistically in practice.

Stating what one likes/dislikes/prefers etc. is our right. But when one criticizes as if they had better ideas...it reminds me of the video I saw of Brian Scalabrine, a journeyman of the NBA. He was always criticized by people who played basketball regularly (but not in the pro league) as "this guy's such a stiff I could take him." So after he retired he took on an up and coming high school player who called him out and beat him 11-0 (it's on TikTok). He basically said "I may be a regular stiff in the NBA, but I'm closer to LeBron than you are to me." And this was a man who averaged 3 points a game in his NBA career.

You can like/dislike Mann (or any director) all you want. But when we start saying "he should've done this, or he should have framed it like that" realize that he dedicated his life to his craft, just like Scalabrine did for his sport. Mann is respected by some of the giants of the industry we love. And so if you're going to challenge him, better have a suitable alternative. Because Mann is no Scalabrine. He's closer to LeBron or Magic or Kobe.

 

[SD_Brian]

From a film-grammar standpoint, having the actors in a 2-shot would have wrecked the tension of the diner scene as the characters begin and end the scene with diametrically opposed viewpoints: Keeping them visually separated reinforces that character dynamic. Had the diner scene been the climax of the movie, or if the characters had come to an agreement or shared a laugh or something of that nature in the course of the scene, adding a 2-shot may have been appropriate.

As the film plays out, [27-YEAR-OLD SPOILER ALERT] they don't reach any sort of mutual understanding until the final shot of the movie which, as Kyle mentioned, is why that is the first time you see them in a two-shot. The whole movie has been building to that climactic moment, not to the coffee date.

 

[Carlo_M]

Fantastic summary Brian. Also I will never not be able to think of it as a "coffee date" from now on. Thanks.

 

[JoshZ]

Let's also not forget another brilliant use of over-the-shoulder/reaction/full face shot used in another modern masterpiece of cinema.

Or perhaps Jonathan Demme also made a terrible decision in shooting the scene to capture full facial expressions of one actor at a time, as well?

Ahem...

From a film-grammar standpoint, having the actors in a 2-shot would have wrecked the tension of the diner scene as the characters begin and end the scene with diametrically opposed viewpoints: Keeping them visually separated reinforces that character dynamic. Had the diner scene been the climax of the movie, or if the characters had come to an agreement or shared a laugh or something of that nature in the course of the scene, adding a 2-shot may have been appropriate.

As the film plays out, [27-YEAR-OLD SPOILER ALERT] they don't reach any sort of mutual understanding until the final shot of the movie which, as Kyle mentioned, is why that is the first time you see them in a two-shot. The whole movie has been building to that climactic moment, not to the coffee date.

That's quite a rationalization you've come up with to justify a decision that may very well have actually been the fault of logistical issues during the shoot (e.g. the actors couldn't schedule time together, or the location was too tight to move a large 35mm camera with anamorphic lens).

 

[sbjork]

Mann loves oppositional framing. He's always loved oppositional framing. In Manhunter, he used diagonal lines throughout to keep characters in visual opposition -- Crawford and Graham occupy opposing diagonal lines when they're talking in the hotel late in the film, because Crawford can't follow Graham's journey of understanding with The Tooth Fairy. Yet when Graham talks to Lecktor on the phone, where he gains the understanding, the two end up occupying parallel diagonals. All of that was achieved primarily through cutting.

More recently, starting with Collateral, Mann started using unconventional framing to do the same thing. When Jamie Foxx has his conversation in the club with Javier Bardem, both are framed in a non-standard fashion to keep them in opposition through cutting. See the picture below. Bardem is seated to frame left, and Foxx is seated to screen right. Strictly speaking, they're facing the correct way for proper screen direction. Yet Mann put Bardem to the extreme right edge of the frame, and Foxx to the extreme left. If you overlayed the two shots together, they'd be facing in opposite directions. When cut together, it's still comprehensible from a standpoint of classic screen direction, yet the framing adds a subtle visual tension because something doesn't quite feel right. It keeps them apart.

Tl;Dr: Mann shot the conversation in Heat exactly the way that he damn well intended to.

 

[Carlo_M]

Ahem...

View attachment 147227




That's quite a rationalization you've come up with to justify a decision that may very well have actually been the fault of logistical issues during the shoot (e.g. the actors couldn't schedule time together, or the location was too tight to move a large 35mm camera with anamorphic lens).

Again if you re-read my underlined part about not dealing with the conspiracy theory of "they weren't on the set together"...well let me reiterate it for you again.

I am not trying to convince you (or anyone else) they were on the set at the same time. The great thing about conspiracy theories is their self-reinforcing nature.

With regards to your second statement about the anamorphic lens, again filming something from the side to get both actors into frame would have robbed you of the fine nuance detail of their performance either saying their lines, or reacting to the others' lines, that only a direct-on face shot can provide.

Also that one shot of Clarice running back has no analog in the Heat scene. So there's never an occasion to have that shot, as well as an establishing shot of the two of them walking into the diner. It would have ruined the smash cut pacing I mentioned in a previous post.