Who's Afraid of a Little Theory?

**GREATwarEAGLE** · November 2nd, 2003, 10:46 PM

And maybe this is where i dont understand what a
cinematographers job is...he isnt the guy who tells me how to do my shots...

Filmmaking job title descriptions aren't set in stone and vary not only from one individual to another, but also from one project to another. But here's something to keep in mind - I'm sure many people here have heard that Hitchcock was hardly ever on his sets - he let his crew do their work.

A director will choose his shots in the sense of wide, medium, close, etc, but it's way too tedious for him to always look through the lens, frame it up, and perfect the composition. Of course sometimes they do. And of course there are those directors who often double as DP. But there are often a million other responsibilities to tend to, some of which are more important.

Perhaps you, belovedmonster, just may be both a director and cinematographer.

Unless you come from a theatre background then of course the visuals are going to be the dominant thing in your directing.

That's a decent point, although I don't think it always applies. I actually have a strong visual background, class artist in high school, I can draw very well - at first glance, many people often think my drawings are photographs. I've tried to post them here once, but I failed. Maybe some other time. I don't have my own website.

My point is, despite my visual strength, I don't think it's the priority in filmmaking. If it is, then why not just be a professional photographer, or just shoot *music videos? But that's just me.

*yes, some videos do tell a story - but many of them are just superficial eye-candy

But I think the world is overrun with good-looking movies that fail elsewhere. Video stores are full of them, most of which are direct-to-video. Style over substance. There's even an abundance of it in mainstream theatrical releases (Brian DePalma)

Then there are those films with virtually no visual flair, but engrossing nonetheless. SERPICO and DOG DAY AFTERNOON, both directed by Sidney Lumet. I must have seen both films at least 50 times. The cinematography of both films obvioulsy required skill and precision, as all films do. But nothing overboard to the extent that you'd think it was the priority of the film.

[ November 03, 2003 11:38 AM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]

**miker** · November 2nd, 2003, 11:18 PM

I think we have touched on this before.

good then, good now.

**Nigel** · November 3rd, 2003, 02:18 AM

I take offence to being basically turned into a Monkey.

As a DP I leave a very big mark on the film. I don't just tell the director what lens to use. Actually it is far deeper than that. I am in control of the enitre image. The director is in control of the actors and the story. I will tell the gaffer what I want to do with the light--Remember without light you have no image. I will tell the grips where to set B-Board and Cookies. It is my decision as to pulling focus and how to move the camera. I will never tell the director that the actor's performance was bad and it needs to be reshot--He will never tell me that he doesn't like the lighting on the table.

There are boundries that have been created like it or not. In the Hollywood model in which I work--The DP has a wonderful position. I can claim credit when the picture does well and hide when it does poorly--Why?? Because We/I work in a Director-Centric world. Which is why everyone wants to be one.

The DP is not just a glorified camera operator. He/She is responsible for everything that people go to the cinema to do--Watch. They Watch/See a movie. They are there to see an image--I create that image. I work my A$$ off to make that image as best I can. For Me--Not for a director.

I think that to many directors try to touch the camera and do my job. I don't talk to actors--Directors don't touch my camera.

Good Luck

**GREATwarEAGLE** · November 3rd, 2003, 03:07 AM

I think we have touched on this before. good then, good now.

Yeah, I remembered that whole list thing as well. There've been a few threads that have resembled this one before. Sooner or later, every topic gets recycled here.

I take offence to being basically turned into a Monkey...I will tell the gaffer what I want to do with the light...I will tell the grips where to set B-Board and Cookies.

I wonder how grips and gaffers feel.

I don't think anyone here is being turned into monkies, sheep, lemmings, or any other animal. And we're not even on a set - so no one's being turned into anything. I don't know if it was anything I said, but even if it was - how can anyone take anything personal on a web site like this? Especially someone who has production experience, have you not developed the thick skin yet?

**GREATwarEAGLE** · November 3rd, 2003, 04:20 AM

i instinctively knew that if i framed
something behind a tree that it would some how look better...

Creating the illusion of depth - an important, effective element in cinematography.

No amount of theory will help you if you just do
filmmaking-by-numbers.

No amount? You sure? I gues it depends on the individual. Some may not understand certain theories, nor be able to put into practice. While others, even if they've never touched a camera, will already have a good understanding of what they want to accomplish, avoiding the common mistakes of his impatient peers.

Filmaking-by-numbers. I wouldn't call theory by-the-numbers at all. Theory, for film, is a broad term. One thing I think I've mentioned before is that one specific theory can easily yield infinite results, meaning each individual has their own way of interpreting a theory and putting it into practice in his own way.

Of course getting your hands dirty as soon as possible will help as well. But why not do both at the same time? In between shooting or writing - read up on theory.

I'm not saying all theory is absolute. I've read plenty of ideas that I simply disgree with, or better put, just simply don't coincide with my tastes or interests. But the ones that I have discovered that did make sense to me, have had a tremendous impact on how I approach filmmaking asa whole.
Does anyone really know what Eisenstein's theory of montage is about. It's actually quite complex, but the jist of it - anyone? Or any other theories?

Theories about acting.
-STANISLAVKY'S METHOD ACTING
sense meory, etc - for years this has been the leading method most actors were trained under. I myself think it's useless, making acting harder than it has to be, but that's my opinion

-SANFORD MEISNER'S REPETITION
If you've ever participated in repetition, or even watched it, you'd think it's the most ridiculous waste of time. But, if done right, can be very helpful in getting actor's in the habit of being comfortable in moment-to-moment behavior.

-PRACTICAL AESTHETICS
Co-developed by David Mamet and William H. Macy -
Slightly influenced by Meisner and completely ignoring Stanislavsky- this is the most logical and effective approach to acting I know of. It demystifies acting - like it's title, it's practical. It's basically all about moment-to-moment reactions to the other actors and your environment. It has nothing to do with becoming the character or sense memory. It is however designed more for theatre, but still very helpful for film, nonetheless.

Again, my opinion, I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. But I think a director should be extremely familiar with such things. So you know the background of your actors and better communicate with them. Even if you're using untrained non-actors, understanding different approaches to acting will at least give you ideas on how to apply your actors to the given scene.

There's much more to theory than shots, angles, compostion, and lighting. That's basically all cinematography, not necessarily directing.
Perhaps that's why this is difficult to discuss. Actaul directing is intangible, whereas cinematography deals with more concrete issues.

**Yammeryammeryammer** · November 3rd, 2003, 06:39 AM

Does anyone else enjoy theory? It seems like it is some sort of chore. I've read a few books on the matter, and a lot of it was just for personal interest once I started making video shorts. Kinda like the whole, you gotta walk before you run thing. There is quite a bit to be learned from the Lumier compilation and Griffith, and a lot of silent films, anything from Buster Keaton to Charlie Chaplin are $4 at Wal-Mart and a lot more educational and enjoyable than Dude Where's my Car...

**Nigel** · November 3rd, 2003, 07:47 AM

The "Offence" I speak of is not personal but rather that it comes out of trying to defend the position of being a DP.

All to often people think of the DP as a position that can be thrown away and the director can do it.

Well They Can't.

That is why I guess I was a bit heated. Nothing serious on my part--Just a hasty post.

Good Luck

**belovedmonster** · November 3rd, 2003, 09:13 AM

Nigel i think you have taken offence to my comments when they werent meant in a bad way...

I think DPs are very very talented people, the way they light and create moods is amazing...but at the end of the day they are still working to what the director says. Such is the role of the director... he tells the story by getting the individual artists to craft it to his idea.

Sometimes a director will leave something up to the artist, whether it be the editor or the DP or the actor... but for most of the time he is giving them frame works to work within... i want this mood, i want this tone, i want you to get across this idea...

its the DPs skill and talent which creates the things the director wants...

the piont i was making is that someone said that we are all concentrating on the DPs job when that isnt the case... if we talk about visuals we do so in the general sense that a director who is into the visuals would... in the same way that Sam Mendes or Peter Jackson draw up a storyboard before they even hire a DP, in the same way they already have a strong sense of what visuals they want at any given time... thats not the same as wanting to know how to create moods with light and the other jobs more associated with a DP

**Generic Skinhead** · November 3rd, 2003, 09:42 AM

This is much heavier than the usual exposure fare.

Re: Eisenstein and the theory of montage, it's probably a good idea to try and sit through Battleship Potemkin.

Re: The "European" obsession with cinematography, I'm actually more interested in the script to be honest. I still class myself as a writer, and when I started out my visuals were pretty weak...so I bought a 3 chip and a stills camera so I could improve my understanting of the image.

I was camera op for other people's projects, all in an effort to learn more about THE image. Now with that expierience, I feel better able to communicate with a DP but also to LISTEN to his thoughts and ideas. You're going to be a massively unpopular director if you keep banging on about "your vision." Everyone who works on your movie owns a piece of it.

Directing actors is obviously one of the most critical parts of directing, but most on here don't work with "proper" actors, they work with their mates. We've all done it, but what you gain from it is minimal.

One of the most intimadating thing I've faced as a director is dealing with pro actors with way more expierience than me. Like, what can you tell them? I find if you're honest with them and come across as down to earth it's easier to avoid any confrontations.

Directors should'nt forget the poor old sound and continuity people either if possible. I think a director has a duty to make everyone feel like they're part of a team.

**GREATwarEAGLE** · November 3rd, 2003, 01:40 PM

I think these past coupla posts are very good. It seemed as though we were all about to go for each other's jugular, which I assume much of the blame for, but that's kinda what I like, especially in the type of films I'm interested in, the thought-provoking ones, the ones that stir up the sh*tstorm! And sometimes you do have to instigate a bit, to get people to come out from under their shell and speak up.

But I never intend to actually insult anyone. I don't think anyone here does.

Re: Eisenstein and the theory of montage, it's probably a good idea to try and sit through Battleship Potemkin.

Yeah. Being such an obvious fan, I have tried to sit through his stuff, but it's like having a root canal. At first, when I was younger, I wouldn't admit it. But I have to be honest with myself, and realized why I wasn't enjoying his films:

1. Eisensteins films were often political rhetoric for his time and his country, dealing with material I wasn't very familiar with, so I didn't understand his politics.

This is why I chose to ignore his application of his theory, and focus more on the theory itself.

2. Not all of his films utilize montage the way he wanted. So powerful was the tool of montage, his government prohibited him from being so suggestive and non-literal. They were afraid that his rhetoric would slip in under the radar because it wasn't so obvious. He wasn't spoon-feeding the audience. That's pretty amazing, and is a testament to how effective a tool montage was and still is.

It's also outdated. Just like Citizen Kane. When you watch Kane, you have to realize how groundbreaking it was at that time. Nowadays, it's nothing new, and in many cases, behind.

Remember how everyone "oooohed and awwed" about the sfx in T2. Now it's so common and has lost it's mystique. The terms CGI, ILM, and Skywalker Ranch are virtually household names.

[ November 03, 2003 10:25 AM: Message edited by: GREATwarEAGLE ]

Thread: Who's Afraid of a Little Theory?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions