Amelie

[mattias]

> anything in between doesn't "look ameteurish and low budget", only different

well, amateurish and low budget is different from non amateurish and low budget, so i actually did say it looked different, and any value in the statement was only implied. if you want an amateurish look, go ahead, see what i'm saying?

/matt

[MovieStuff]

I don't think there's any rule that says zooms are taboo anymore than there's a rule that says trucking in and out is always more effective in every shot.

I think there IS a rule that says indiscriminate and over use of any camera technique, such as booms, dolly shots, zooms, rack focusing, steadicam, hand held, etc can pretty much yell,"Beginner!"

I use zooms on occasion for a variety of reasons, but that's the difference, I think. I have a "reason" for employing the look, just like I have a "reason" for using a dolly or a "reason" for letting long passages go by without any dialog or a "reason" for using any other story telling tool at my disposal.

As far as what I specifically think about the whole "dolly versus zoom" debate; why is there a debate?

Sometimes I want a slow zoom in that is almost undetectable over a long period. Doing the same thing with a dolly causes all kinds of perspective shifts that MAY not be desirable because they would call attention to the effect. Also, dolly shots tend to work easiest on wide angle and not telephoto. While I love the look and use it in scenes as well, sometimes I prefer to end on a longer lens than a dolly will allow, due bounce and depth of field issues, so I use a slow zoom, instead.

I see no need for any debate over the virtues of "zoom versus dolly". They're just another tool in the Batman utility belt. Sometimes you need the Bat-a-rang to get up a building and sometimes you need the Bat-suction cups. But sometimes it's just easier to use the elevator.

My two cents....

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[devilkelly]

i saw this movie, yup, totally refreshing, and yes,... super sweet. but ...all this talk about proffessional vs. amateur? i mean, how can one talk about zooms, and the application of certain technical preferences without talking about intent and application and the reason/content. these 2 things are by no means mutually exclusive from eachother...... its a dangerous thing to become too critical, on purely technical terms. some of the most ingenious films, technically, shot that is, have been the crappiest masturbation sessions i've ever seen. and i'ld have to say, thats probably the most painful viewing in my estimation there is. perception is a testy little thing..... also there's personnal "style" to take into account, the fact that every movie/piece of art cannot envelope every concept that exists.
this movie, i give it props for daring to be so sickly sweet, considering our eye/ear for head candy, and rock and roll violence, etc. And, "Delicatessin", "City of lost children" also rocked. another crazy movie, called "Ruben and Ed", has krispin glover in it... is probably my all time favorite.
so, just a thought. kelly

------------------

[mattias]

> Sometimes I want a slow zoom in that is almost undetectable over a long period.

word.

/matt

[devilkelly]

yeah, followed by a nice stiff drink and a cigarette.

word.
kelly

------------------

[dogstarman]

Who was the DP on this one, anyway?
It wasn't Darius Khanji this time, was it?
Or was it?

------------------

[crimsonson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
Who was the DP on this one, anyway?
It wasn't Darius Khanji this time, was it?
Or was it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope... its Bruno Delbonnel.



------------------

[crimsonson]

I saw the film several weeks back. I did not post a critique. I felt that this was a film that deserve a comprehensive comment and this may not be the time and place to do so. Overall, my girlfriend and I enjoyed it, espcially her. She always accusses me of igmoring romantic comedies (mostly true if applied to studio productions).

The look was technically brilliant. But I felt that City of the Lost Children had a better story.

I will leave my critique to that. However, I have posted a link that may or may not begin another discussion of the film. Maybe then we will all feel to post a more comprehensive comment?


http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/11-12-2001/amelie.htm


------------------


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited December 16, 2001).]