Idiot With A Tripod

Saw this the other day, and I don't get the love for this thing.

What does Roger Ebert think videojournalists do every day of their lives?

There is beauty in these shots, no doubt. But to act like this is anything more than news footage that looks prettier (because of the camera it was shot on, not necessarily because of the person shooting it) is ridiculous.
 
Agreed that it's beautifully shot and edited. I'm also not blown away by it.

I'm in Michigan and have been waiting to get my new T2i out in a blizzard, but we haven't had any snow to speak of. VERY weird for us.
 
That looked nice, but yeah, I don't get how Roger Ebert was raving about it. Was he just impressed with how quickly it was shot and edited? If that's the case, I'd like your email Mr Ebert ;)

@Charles, you should write a short and film it about how in Michigan the bad economy means that all the snow has been taken from your state and now belongs to Wall Street.
 
Dreadylocks said:
@Charles, you should write a short and film it about how in Michigan the bad economy means that all the snow has been taken from your state and now belongs to Wall Street.
Click to expand...


Ha, great idea. I suppose all the best white fluffy snow is up in Vermont on the East Coast and Aspen out West. We get gray slush mixed with toxins. So it goes...
 
I agree with Nicklaus...speed is fine, and pretty shots, but best live action short of the year? I thought that time lapse of the guy's patio was a far better rendition of this storm.

And the bit with the dog and the car and the scooter all stuck went on for too many cycles...Ebert should know better.
 
My instant reaction was a lightly WTF? Just because Ebert gives it such a strong endorsement. So a guy went out in a blizzard and shot some footage on his camera? Sure it's nicely done and indicative of a certain level of quality, but what more is there to it? I wasn't particularly surprised by the 24 hour turnover and I agree with what some of the commenters are saying- perhaps this goes to show that Ebert doesn't really know what indie filmmakers are having to do on a day to day basis.
 
It looks like it was the homage that impressed Ebert as much as anything. I have seen better nat-packs that were more compelling.
 
I've seen class assignments more proficient than that. I suppose the fuss is because it is a homage to "Man With a Movie Camera." Ebert mentioned that in his blog, but I felt it when I was watching it. I noticed the reference. Nevertheless, Ebert still gives him way too much credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top