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

[JoshZ]

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.

And yet that movie has plenty of other scenes with the two actors on camera together in the same frame.

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.

I don't really care about the conspiracy theory. I don't know whether the actors were on set together or not. Either they weren't, and Mann had no choice but to film them separately - or they were, and he made a poor directorial decision that undercut the effectiveness of the scene (IMO).

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.

That's your opinion. I have a different opinion. I'm not saying the entire scene should have been filmed in wide shots, but I do think a couple shots of the actors reacting against one another on camera at the same time would have added a lot to the dynamic tension of the scene.

The way the movie is now begs for viewers to question Mann's filming choices - which is exactly what happened. If he'd put in even one single shot of the actors together, nobody would have questioned it and we wouldn't be having this discussion two decades later.

Also that one shot of Clarice running back has no analog in the Heat scene.

So he could have added one.

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.

Mann's a smart guy. I'm sure he could have figured out a way to get the two actors on camera together and make it work.

You act like shooting the scene entirely in over-the-shoulder shots is the one and only way this scene could ever have possibly worked. No, I'm sorry, that's false.

 

[TonyD]

This shot would probably have ruined the entire movie if it was in the movie.

 

[TonyD]

 

[SD_Brian]

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).

You are so right. There is absolutely no possibility the scene was intentionally shot and edited that way for artistic or dramatic purposes.

 

[JoshZ]

This shot would probably have ruined the entire movie if it was in the movie.

Photoshop!

I kid, I kid...

 

[JoshZ]

You are so right. There is absolutely no possibility the scene was intentionally shot and edited that way for artistic or dramatic purposes.

If it was intentional, it was a poor decision.

You may disagree. Such is life.

 

[Robert Crawford]

If it was intentional, it was a poor decision.

You may disagree. Such is life.

With that I think we need to agree to disagree because this argument is going around in circles.

 

[sbjork]

And yet that movie has plenty of other scenes with the two actors on camera together in the same frame.

View attachment 147231

View attachment 147232

Graham and Crawford have scenes together all throughout the movie. Pacino and DeNiro don't.

Graham and Crawford aren't in opposition to each other on those shots that you posted. It's when Graham is on his slide into the mindset that he really loses Crawford. That scene is crucial, which is why Mann staged it differently.

In any event, that's missing my point that Mann has used different techniques to show opposition all throughout his career. At the beginning of Manhunter, Graham and Crawford are opposed because Will doesn't want to come back. Mann staged that with the two of them seated on a driftwood log, facing opposite directions from each other. They're in the same shot, but in opposition.

In the case of Heat, Mann opted to use cutting and keep them out of the same frame -- at least, until they're holding hands at the end. Different technique, similar effect. He knew exactly what he was doing. You don't like it, which is fair enough, but it's still a leap to call it a poor directorial choice

With that I think we need to agree to disagree because this argument is going around in circles.

Very true.

 

[JoshZ]

In the case of Heat, Mann opted to use cutting and keep them out of the same frame -- at least, until they're holding hands at the end. Different technique, similar effect. He knew exactly what he was doing. You don't like it, which is fair enough, but it's still a leap to call it a poor directorial choice

From the very first day this movie was released in 1998, viewers watched this scene and questioned why it was filmed this way. Viewers continue to question it two decades later. Even those who aren't especially literate in film grammar have noticed that the entire scene looks like the actors were never in the room together, and struggle to figure out why.

That makes it a poor directorial choice.

Most choices the director makes go unnoticed by viewers. The framing techniques you cited earlier mainly affect viewers on a subconscious level. They don't watch it and think, "Oh how clever that the actors are facing different directions when they sit on that log!"

The blocking of this scene is so counter-intuitive that it actually breaks the spell of the movie. It pulls viewers out of the scene and makes them think more about the technique (and how it's not working) than about the conversation the characters are having.

 

[sbjork]

From the very first day this movie was released in 1998, viewers watched this scene and questioned why it was filmed this way. Viewers continue to question it two decades later. Even those who aren't especially literate in film grammar have noticed that the entire scene looks like the actors were never in the room together, and struggle to figure out why.

That makes it a poor directorial choice.

Most choices the director makes go unnoticed by viewers. The framing techniques you cited earlier mainly affect viewers on a subconscious level. They don't watch it and think, "Oh how clever that the actors are facing different directions when they sit on that log!"

The blocking of this scene is so counter-intuitive that it actually breaks the spell of the movie. It pulls viewers out of the scene and makes them think more about the technique (and how it's not working) than about the conversation the characters are having.

The more that I try to get out, the more that they pull me back in. . .

I'll just note that you made a sweeping generalization there that's incredibly debatable, but leave it at that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

For what it’s worth, I’ve never questioned the blocking or framing choices in this scene - not in 1995 in the theater, nor any viewing since. I didn’t even know this was a thing until this thread.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'll just note that you made a sweeping generalization there that's incredibly debatable, but leave it at that.

It starts with the error that the movie was released in 1995, not 1998, and only proceeds to get less factual from there.

 

[sbjork]

It starts with the error that the movie was released in 1995, not 1998, and only proceeds to get less factual from there.

Hah. I missed the forest but for the trees!

 

[JoshZ]

I'll just note that you made a sweeping generalization there that's incredibly debatable, but leave it at that.

What generalization would that be? I didn't say all viewers questioned it. But yes, this was very much an active topic of conversation when the movie was first released. And it has continued to be a topic of conversation every time the movie is reissued on home video.

It starts with the error that the movie was released in 1995, not 1998, and only proceeds to get less factual from there.

Heavens to betsy, a typo! Well, I guess you done got me there. Fat-fingering one wrong digit clearly invalidates everything else I've said.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, I guess some of you don’t want to agree to disagree and prefer to tweak each other.

 

[TonyD]

I took a page outta your book.
I said what I wanted and have nothing further to add.

 

[YANG]

This shot would probably have ruined the entire movie if it was in the movie.

View attachment 147257

probably its the Oriental side of me seeing things differently...
with the 2 characters eye to eye locking into one another, signalled messages were sent to one another,
“this is between us, you found me and i found you. we're the opposing individuals that are suppose to do what what we have to do, not hurting innocent folks around us.”
“yeah, same thoughts with me. right here right now, we can confront one another with words, not bullets...”

 

[YANG]

...ironically people on various forums are saying the DVD has more accurate colors

from Laserdisc to DVD, the color would look consistent when our eyes are just looking from the NTSC or PAL perspective of color.
but when the eyes take a jump from DVD to high definition side of things, there will be certain effects and results... to individuals. simple example can be displayed from YouTube from your TV. brightness and color tones would change substantially when you toggle between 480p to 1080p.

 

[YANG]

those who still own the first edition DVD, that's the theatrical version you can own...

...that you can own for good, till the end of the life of the disc.​

 

[Robert Harris]

Not getting into politics, but one can discuss conspiracy theories ad nauseum.

It all comes down to what the actors involved are attempting to portray. What is the message? From whose perspective?

Courtesy of historian Heather Cox Richardson:

”Way back in 2004, an advisor to President George W. Bush told journalist Ron Suskind that people like Suskind were in “the reality-based community”: they believed people could find solutions based on their observations and careful study of discernible reality. But, the aide continued, such a worldview was obsolete. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore…. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” “

My take on heat would be totally reality based.

I’d be spending my time gathering contemporary documents. The most important being daily continuity reports, and Dov Hoenig’s line script.

My interest would be less in the completed film, but more in what actually occurred during the shoot.

How was it shot?

And then, what decisions went into how it was edited.

After that, we can see what spin Alex Jones puts on it.