Nolan's FOLLOWING

[dogstarman]

I don't know if someone posted about this film before and I missed it, but I just got around to going through a stack of stuff I hadn't gotten around to watching yet, and popped this in tonight.

The video ended up in the stack because I (will be endlessly berated for this) didn't really like Momento, so I kind of threw this in the "if I'm ever bored" pile. I have to say, FOLLOWING is a hell of a lot better than Momento, and I think it bears mention of this forum because of some of the obvious technical flaws in the film, and that it works despite them.

If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, go rent it. If you thought El Mariachi was a good primer on how to make a no-budget feature, this is like a beyond-no-budget feature. First thing is, everything is handheld. No big deal. That works. Man Bites Dog was all handheld too.
Second, it's grainy as hell, even though it is 16mm. The reason in guessing this is is because a lot of it was shot using natural lighting or practicals/ minimal lighting set-ups = high speed film. My point is, it doesn't look a hell of a lot better than a lot of S8 stuff I've shot and I've seen of other peoples.

Third, the sound kind of sucks. Really. It's kind of muffled in places, and hollow in others, and there is a lot of background noise that got picked up. That's OK. I could understand all the dialog. I didn't mind a bit. And it kind of works to the films advantage because:

Forth- YOU CAN HEAR THE DAMN CAMERA RATTLING THROUGHT THE WHOLE DAMN FILM. And I wish I could say I caught that within the first two minutes, but I honestly dismissed it as ambient background noise because of the sound. I actually didn't notice it until the last ten minutes when I went "Wait a minute..." and turned the volume up. Sounded like a Bolex EBM to me...

The point here is WHY I didn't notice until the last ten minutes: because I actually was caught up enough in the story that I wasn't paying any attention to the technical flaws, especially the biggest, most glaring filmmaking no-no that we all run like hell from- camera noise.

Another thing that it brought to mind was (and I know I'm preaching to the choir here) that I would not have, in a million years, put up with such technical imperfections if I was watching something shot on DV. Granted, the issue of camera noise can be thrown out, but there were a TON of technical imperfections in this film that I don't think I could ever tolerate in a DV feature. However, the acting was tight, the story was engaging, and I found myself forgiving the director for the films shortcomings because I knew he was really TRYING. I think we can all learn something from this film, and I encourage anybody who hasn't seen it to go rent it.

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


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

[crimsonson]

"Another thing that it brought to mind was (and I know I'm preaching to the choir here) that I would not have, in a million years, put up with such technical imperfections if I was watching something shot on DV. Granted, the issue of camera noise can be thrown out, but there were a TON of technical imperfections in this film that I don't think I could ever tolerate in a DV feature. However, the acting was tight, the story was engaging, and I found myself forgiving the director for the films shortcomings because I knew he was really TRYING."

Is it not a bias for the sake of bias? You are mentioning the holy rules of filmmaking being broken left and right but once the story changes the format it is unforgiveable. Why? What logic does it support? And does that logic support Super8. I mean if somebody saw a film that was not format dependant (like many Hollywood films) and it was Super8, can that person deem the film unworthy because it was not shot at least in 16mm?

Just trying to make sense of you comments

BTW - I will try to find "Following" to add more substansive comments to that particular part of the thread.


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

[dogstarman]

Watch the film. You'll understand.
FOLLOWING has a VERY low-fi, run & gun feel to it. You actually get the feeling when you're watching it that you really could have done it, even with super 8. The difference between this FILM and video is that... well, it's the same reason that The Blair Witch Project SUCKED! That was a piece of crap. You couldn't PAY me to watch that video again. And it wasn't a film. It was a video.

Let me put it to you this way: if you find a box of old 8mm home movies in somebodies garbage, you'd probably take them home and watch ever single reel, even if you had no idea who the people were and if there wasn't anything particularly interesting on them. They still have a certain feel. Now I challange you to go watch a bunch of some strangers crappy VHS tapes they took of somebodies birthday party.

Yeah. Thats why I have a double-standard: because it is valid.



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

[crimsonson]

You have placed the validity of the piece, not on technical merits or creative ones, not even artistic comprehension, but on a vague term you refer to as 'feel.'

I am saying your argument is invalid only because you do not articulate it in a empirical matter. I saw Weekend at Bernie's 2 and it left me a certain feeling also.
In Wang Kar-Wai's great opus "Chunkingking Express" there is a part of the FILM where the mute character watches home VIDEO of his recently deceased father. It was one of the film's, if not the most, personal moment. Something that resonates beyond the frame for it is something I know many of us can relate to in some form.

Wang Kar Wai is without a doubt a FILMMAKER. His DP is the internationally renowned, Christopher Doyle. I am sure they are more than able to find a way to work with 8/S8 but the strength of the piece was nonetheless apparent though video was chosen. Is this part of the film less interesting because video was the involved? In fact, is this particular scene invalid since the filmmakers obviously wanted us to witness video images and disregard film characteristics totally for a moment?

Are you suggesting the point of film, or any moving image format for that matter, is to enjoy the random colored units (grain in this case) flash on and off on the screen?
Grain does not make a format relevant, valid or even interesting.

"You actually get the feeling when you're watching it that you really could have done it, even with super 8."
Because it?s shot on low fi 16 that it gave you that feeling thus making 16 the bare minimum for storytelling or artistic image manipulation? That is limiting, not only for an individual, but also for artists in general.




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

[stanley k]

Wow, I so badly wanted to see this movie when it came out last year, but it played for one week at the Nuart here in LA and it was gone. I also agree that Memento was more fluff than substance, but its success has undoubtedly pushed this lesser known film to be released on video. Wow, thanks for posting this because I had seriously lost hope that I would ever see this movie.

Stanley K

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

[Ronson]

Yeah, I just added it on DVD to my Christmas list! I didn't know it was available on any format, much less DVD...

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

[crimsonson]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
crimsonson,

I'll accept some of what you have said, but I don't agree with it. If, at the most basic level, one doesn't judge what one watches on how it makes you "feel", then I guess none of us would have any arguement for NOT shooting on video at this point. Video is cheaper, it's easier to use, it's easier to edit, the cameras are quiet, etc. I shoot film because it does produce a different reaction ("feeling") in people than when they see material that originates on video.

To go back to my earlier post, I'm not the only person in the world that HATED the Blair Witch Project. LOTS of people hate it. And they have one consistant complaint: "It was just somebody running around in the woods with a video camera... it just looked like a (home) video..." That's cause that's what it was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh....your argument is getting clearer to me. You are right certain asthetics do effect us in a certain way, but I do believe that is greatly dependant on how the makers present it to the viewers.


I watched the first 8 minutes of the following (iFilm) and was intrigued. So far, there is a lack of fluidity that Momento had. But it looks like a worthwihile viewing.
Regarding lack of substance for Momento, I lightly disagree because I think there is enough evidenc in the history of cinema to proove that style CAN BE SUBSTANCE. Hitchcock is probably the most obvious.


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

[dogstarman]

crimsonson,

I'll accept some of what you have said, but I don't agree with it. If, at the most basic level, one doesn't judge what one watches on how it makes you "feel", then I guess none of us would have any arguement for NOT shooting on video at this point. Video is cheaper, it's easier to use, it's easier to edit, the cameras are quiet, etc. I shoot film because it does produce a different reaction ("feeling") in people than when they see material that originates on video.

To go back to my earlier post, I'm not the only person in the world that HATED the Blair Witch Project. LOTS of people hate it. And they have one consistant complaint: "It was just somebody running around in the woods with a video camera... it just looked like a (home) video..." That's cause that's what it was.

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

[seekaee]

I read in my copy of the "Guerilla Films makers handbook", that FOLLOWING cost them ?3.500 pounds($7,000 bucks I believe in American dollars) to make. That's pretty dam good but what's even more inportant it that the movie impressed people enough to let him helm MEMENTO and the soon to be released INSOMNIA. That?s a pretty dam
impressive three movie leap for a relative newcommer; from a $7k art film to a big feature staring Al Pacino.

I think tonight I?m going to try and find a copy of Nolans'first film.



[This message has been edited by seekaee (edited December 18, 2001).]

[dogstarman]

Yeah, actually I'm really annoyed that he is remaking Insomnia. That's like somebody saying "I'm gonna' remake Citizen Kane..." or
more to the point, "I'm gonna' remake Godfellas..."

Why?

I mean come on, Insomnia was made what, 8 years ago? It's an amazing film and it doesn't need to be remade.

Also, I thought it was funny that the opening sequence of Following is an obvious nod to Insomnia, and now he's remaking it...

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