-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
OK, granted. No one is going to argue that documentary and fiction are totally different forms that fill different needs... my argument is that, based on the criteria I was using to make that at some point, there is a certain line begins to blur.
For instance, let us imagine that someone wants to make a Dogme95-style, FICTIONAL film about race relations in public high schools. So they get a cast of talented high school students together- black, white, latino- come up with some scenarios, and flesh out a story. They get permission to shoot inside a public school, using the actual student body as extras. They shoot using a handheld video camera, and use all natural light. Further than that, they let the actors improvise all their dialog... This seems to me a perfectly legitimate scenario for a film, one that would be praised as "groundbreaking, fresh and new" by all the jack-asses that write about films.
The problem is, once you go that far towards "reality" or whatever, I think you could make the arguement "Hey, wouldn't it be easier just to GIVE A VIDEOCAMERA TO THE KIDS WHO GO TO PUBLIC HIGHSCHOOLS AND LET THEM SHOOT WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM EVERYDAY?"
We did this in my high school (I went to a pretty progressive school) back when the movie KIDS came out. We had this teacher who was going on and on about the film, and there were several of us- the bookworm types who were nothing like the characters in that film- we said "Look, that film is shit. Yeah, it may show what people our age a SUPPOSED to be like, but it isn't right. It doesn't show what MAKES kids like that. It doesn't show these kids working in shitty jobs, or dealing with abusive parents, or 15-year old girls who have two-year old children who have to get up every morning and come here to try to finish the 9th grade."
Our point was that while it was supposed to be "real", it was like this DATELINE-NBC "real": "This is what your kids are like, shouldn't you parents be ASHAMED? Everyone else, run and lock your doors, because THESE people don't bring their kids up right..."
That film is bullshit. We said "You know, we could make something better (read: more real) than that by just giving cameras to the kids in this school". So they did. The school had 2 Hi-8 video cameras and a big ass VHS cam. We gave the Hi-8 cameras to different kids every night, and we used the VHS camera to tape things that went on at school OUTSIDE the classroom. After the first two days, no one really cared about the camera. This went on for two weeks (10 days). At the end, we had like 45 hours of material. It never got edited, but the thing is, if we HAD edited it, really carefully and really well, we could have put together the exact same scenario that I drew up way back at the top, as well as about 3 sequels concerning other such topics. The cost was totally negligable (tapes), and the "performances" by a lot of those kids were as real as real can get, and in the grand scheme of things, not terribly bad. For the most part, the material that we taped didn't look bad, and the sound was amazingly audible. My point: if a bunch of kids in highschool can do this, what does that say about your "pro crew and international cast that must be paid with serious money..." ?
]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very well stated.
I hope the 45 hours of documentary video footage was properly archived. Just because no one had time to put it together immediately doesn't devalue the project, or it's potential.
In fact it may just do the opposite.
I produced an Opera Video of "Faust" nine years ago. We did an initial live switch edit, than I did some "video correcting", than I mothballed the project...
Since I had just gotten my edit studio going back then and I didn't know I could do any better,
....and frankly, there was virtually no money in it
....and everybody wanted a copy of this 2 hour and 45 minute extravaganza as soon as possible......
I "finished" the project...
....but I stored all the contents....
(kind of like when Spock tells McCoy to "remember" just before he dies in Star Trek II)
7 years later I'm re-editing the puppy, getting it aired on a local television station, and then winning an LA Emmy for it.
(Spock re-born)
Don't think that because something wasn't done immediately with your 45 hours of documentary footage that the project has no validity or value.
And don't keep the footage in the basement of your home (unless it is properly stored in waterproof containers) where it will inevitably be subjected to water damage some day.
One final irony to your tale.
Even though you were perceptive and right in the points you made above, at least "dogma" style projects are a lot closer to being done when the cameras stop rolling then when you make a documentary.
Maybe your original form of protest against dogma style of video just helps show why the dogma format exists in the first place....
....there's more motivation to get a dogma project done because it is so much closer to being done (when you finish shooting) than wading through 45 hours of documentary footage.
-Alex
-
Quote by crimsonson: "Rembrandt realistic? Again this analogy is misinformed. Paintings are created from memory, filtered by emotion and dictated by physical prowess. I would like somebody to paint something and try to pass it as evidence in the court of law. "
Hey, Crimsonson, you missed my point entirely.
The fact that the Rembrandt is NOT realistic, and the Polaroid IS realistic, yet absolutely everyone would rather look at the Rembrandt is my point.
I was not suggesting the Rembrandt is more realistic, in fact, just the opposite.
Video actually looks more realistic than film, in the same way photography looks more realistic than painting, yet a well executed painting is a beautiful thing, and usually more desirable to look at.
My point with all this, is that the war of Film-vs-Video is being defined in terms of resolution, etc., as if those technical factors alone determine the beauty of the thing. I could go on for hours in technical terms, of my opinion of the shortcoming of video (lack of contrast, inability to shoot in slow motion without using that lame, stuttering slo-mo effect in post, the fact that film grain is round, and in a different place on every frame, whereas pixels are square, and stay in the same place every frame, etc.), but the fact is, for what it's worth, video still looks like video, and film still looks like film.
Digital video has not changed that "video" look whatsoever, and all the digital video equipment manufacturers are engaging in propaganda to make us all think that is has.
I eagerly await a movie, shot in digital video, that does not look like video.
And I'm excluding the new Star Wars when it comes out, because it means absolutely nothing to all of us out here, who can't afford an army of programmers to code proprietary software to enhance the video, at a cost of I'm sure millions of dollars, which Lucas will not ever release to the public. (Besides, he's shooting at least part of the picture on film, so the whole PR hype is mostly BS anyway).
And as far as Dogme goes, the rules established for film technique, are not arbitrary rules. They have real emotional effect on the audience, and are the result of over a century of art and craft. Those fans of Dogme, who think none of this matters, are obviously inexperienced filmmakers, who have no idea how profound these tools are in the hands of skilled filmmakers.
They're just too lazy, cheap, or unskilled enough to use the tools of the trade, and they want a title to legitimize their lack of sophistication, and to make themselves look like revolutionaries or something.
I've certainly done my share of hand held shooting, in existing light, etc., but it's hard enough to make a decent film without intentionally NOT using what works!
Matt Pacini
-
Hi, Matt!
Dead nuts on target, in my opinion. Well said.
Roger
-
Thanks for the compliments, MovieStuff.
I like your dad's remark about the hippies.
I used to joke all the time when I would hear stuff that is hypocritical, like the Dogme "rules against having rules" with this statement: "I want to be a nonconformist just like everyone else".
I think Dogme is appealing, because it is a freakin' nightmare to shoot a film, and we would love to be able to run around doing camcorder shooting, and be taken seiously, instead of having to painstakingly plan and plot out everything from scripting to storyboarding & editing with total precision, and attention to every detail.
Just like I'm sure Rembrandt would have loved to just throw shit at a canvas and still sell paintings!
But the fact is, I challenge anyone here to name one filmmaker doing this Dogme crap...
I'm still waiting....
The idea is appealing, but the work of these "artists" is not being seen, and certainly is not reaching the marketplace of the theater.
So lets all admit that we've just read about Dogme in film magazines, but apparently nobody anywhere is actually interested in seeing any of these films, so why follow an inherently flawed idea?
(I'm assuming that we're all trying to make films that people see, and not just doing it for our buddies to see).
Matt Pacini
-
Matt,
I'm not agree with this vision of Dogma. This movement was created by one of the most bigger filmmaking genius of today: LARS VON TRIER. I love his films, "Europe", "Breaking the waves", "Dancer in the dark" and his incursion in Dogma "Idioten". Other films I've seen into it are great too, "Celebration" (my favourite) or Mifune, and there are other great european filmmakers around.
I'm agree that this way of filmmaking isn't more realistic than traditional, and the topic which says that hand-held shots are more realistic is a fake. But films maked under Dogma rules by Vinterberg or Von Trier are some of the best I saw in a couple of years. Give them a try.
Best Wishes,
Mart?
-
And Dogma is not an anarchist filmmaking movement, as someone said. It's a vow of Chastitry.
-
you also have to remember that the rules were first written down (and then never changed) on a napkin after a dinner with lots and lots of wine and probably quite a few bong hits.
-
since this topic has found its way round to discussing camer handling techniques, I'd just like to say how STUPID british film critics were for attacking "tigerland" because it used 16mm handheld sequences, the general concensus was along the lines of'we've seen it all before'
How pathetically ignorant a criticism of a film, welcome to the world of art you idiots, nothing is 100% original.
I really like the cinematography in that film, I think it has a good balance of rougher shots together with more precisely crafted sequences.
As far as digital video goes, I have seen BMX and skateboard videos successfully captured by DV, and thats about as far as I'd go with using video. I don't see why people would settle for such inferior resolution and horrible aesthetic quality, and lose out on using the element of depth of field, when they could have an excellent S8 camera for the same money!!
-
?Those fans of Dogme, who think none of this matters, are obviously inexperienced filmmakers, who have no idea how profound these tools are in the hands of skilled filmmakers.
They're just too lazy, cheap, or unskilled enough to use the tools of the trade, and they want a title to legitimize their lack of sophistication, and to make themselves look like revolutionaries or something?
I think this generality is greatly flawed and misinformed. Dogme was created by established and respected European filmmakers. They are far from lazy, unskilled and cheap. Since yourself has not seen one (according to your last post) I am surprised you would make such statement.
Actually, the point of Dogme is for the viewers to legitimize the film based on the story and actors alone. Dogme film fails if it cannot do this. I know this is very hard to accept since film school many of us is taught that Production Value is next to Godliness.
Yes the rules of cinema are not arbitrary. So is Dogme?s. But unfortunately many ?traditional? films have used PV as a crutch for their lack of story development, character development and thematic depth.
?The idea is appealing, but the work of these "artists" is not being seen, and certainly is not reaching the marketplace of the theater.
So lets all admit that we've just read about Dogme in film magazines, but apparently nobody anywhere is actually interested in seeing any of these films, so why follow an inherently flawed idea??
Please read others previous posts and mine also. We have mentioned a handful of films. ?Handful? since Dogme is more or less ? LESS than a decade old. It took still photography (the father of cinema) decades to be accepted by the mass. Some mediums, theories and concepts cannot be overnight success.
With your reasoning, does that mean art does not reach the mass is automatically flawed? I hope not. Nirvana, Van Gogh, Mozart, and others should have stopped in their first try. Matt Paccini should also stop making s8 (a format decades old) films according to your logic.
?but it's hard enough to make a decent film without intentionally NOT using what works!?
Films are hard to make no matter what format/technique it is. If you are implying its harder to film cameras then are you implying your story can be more relevant because you used a HMI on your actors? The eye candy factor increases but a dull story is a dull story (I am not implying yours- in fact I have not seen yours). We now what works ? but can OTHERS also works if we look at it a different perspective? The values of Hollywood are not the only way to look at films and someone agrees with us?
I repeat:
Woody Allen?s comments in the New York Times last week:
?Because my affection for foreign movies seems to be much deeper. If I were, for example, to list my 10 or even 15 favorite movies ?aside from `Citizen Kane,' all of the films would be foreign.?
?instead of having to painstakingly plan and plot out everything from scripting to storyboarding & editing with total precision, and attention to every detail.?
Again, this already been addressed in previous posts. In summery, Dogme is far from saying that carelessness and not being professional is accepted. But improvisation?s importance increases in Dogme. A tool that The Theater has always relied upon.
?Just like I'm sure Rembrandt would have loved to just throw shit at a canvas and still sell paintings!?
Pollack did (metaphorically), Dekooning did(metaphorically), Worhol did, Basqiat did, Stravinsky played off key and created ?The most important classical piece of the 20th Century. Kurt Cobain barely sang in tune during concerts.
?I don't see why people would settle for such inferior resolution and horrible aesthetic quality, and lose out on using the element of depth of field, when they could have an excellent S8 camera for the same money!!?
Because if you think your work is an artform, experimentation is the key to mainting your relevance and broadening your perspective. Why did people choose to ?paint? with a camera? Same reason. Play with the ?toy? and see if you can express something through it. Some thing different, not better, but different. Still photographers was laughed at by painters. Saying they are too lazy and unskilled to create a piece of art. Hmmm good thing they never stopped or it would not have bared the fruit that is Cinema. In reality resolution/dof is not the only factors in choosing a format. Also, I think you meant ?technical quality? since ?aesthetic quality? is subjective.
Dogme is a young experiment. Give it a chance (meaning see the films first). If it fails then it fails. No skin of anyone?s back.
To put things in perspective: there is no doubt that s8 is the laughing format of cinema. Try convincing some ASC member to shoot s8 or video. Why shoot S8 when 16 is better? Then I ask you why shoot s8 when a beautiful ?clair can be had at a price of 7008? Formats are formats. We choose because we have different tastes, views and emotional attachments to certain things. Finance is also a consideration. Many things. But non of them can change how well we can write a dialog, how well an actor performs,etc.
Regarding video v film I also addressd this? (see previous long post)
Ironic thing is more films are being made with video than s8.
BTW- We where going to shoot a S8 film, but the cinematographer (ASC member), suggested going to 16.
[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited August 12, 2001).]
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by crimsonson:
Woody Allen?s comments in the New York Times last week:
?Because my affection for foreign movies seems to be much deeper. If I were, for example, to list my 10 or even 15 favorite movies ?aside from `Citizen Kane,' all of the films would be foreign.?
I'm sure there are about 12 people out there who think Woody Allen is a genius (other than those told in film school WHO they are supposed to think are genius'), but I'm not one of them. Personally, this explains why all his movies but maybe 2 of them are boring, tedious exercises in artistic masturbation. (Sorry, I'm just not a fan, that's all).
?Just like I'm sure Rembrandt would have loved to just throw shit at a canvas and still sell paintings!?
"Pollack did (metaphorically), Dekooning did(metaphorically), Worhol did, Basqiat did, Stravinsky played off key and created ?The most important classical piece of the 20th Century. Kurt Cobain barely sang in tune during concerts."
Right, comparing Pollack & Warhol, to Rembrant, Michaelangelo, and Curt Cobain to Beethoven & Bach, and those who "follow the rules".
Who has had more influence, and who's art is loved more?
You make my point with examples like this....
"BTW- We where going to shoot a S8 film, but the cinematographer (ASC member), suggested going to 16."
More power to you.
I shoot S8 because I can't afford anything else, that's all.
My two standard saying to aspiring filmmakers (and arrogant film-school grads who would never lower themselves to shooting S8)is this:
1. It's better to make a film in Super 8 than to NOT make a film in 16mm or 35mm.
2.
If you can't afford 65mm, shoot 35mm.
If you can't afford 35mm, shoot Super 16.
If you can't afford Super 16, shoot 16mm.
If you can't afford 16mm, shoot Super 8.
If you can't afford Super 8, shoot video.
All my statements concerning the commercial viability of Dogme come from me wanting to make my living soley from filmmaking.
That means I have to create are with the widest appeal possible, just to get seen.
The public at large is not concerned with HOW a film is made, they just want what they want.
So, if you show the average non-filmmaker two films, a great Dogme film, and a great film made by conventional means, they are going to probably have no interest in the Dogme film. Sure, there are exceptions, (Blair Witch could arguably be labeled a Dogme film), but in most cases, they will just be annoyed at the jerky camera moves, bad lighting, and bad sound.
And I don't care who actually came up with the idea, the throngs of followers are mostly NOT brilliant filmmakers, they are everyday video run-and-gunners.
And bringing up "brilliant European filmmakers" to add credibility to your argument is pretentious and irrelevant, because even Europeans like American movies over their own.
Matt Pacini
