Who agrees with this Film Essay on 'intensified continuity'

H

harmonica44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHb0aAm1Tw8

They say that modern audiences demand that movies basically be edited more up to MTV generation standards. But I don't think that that's a requirement and that today's audience could handle a movie shot with classical continuity if one was presented to them. I could be wrong though.

Their was four points made in the essay, but I don't get points 3 and 4. 3 I do not get the reason for intensified continuity at all, and did not understand what was being discussed. 4, He said that DVDs are a result in intensified continuity cause it helps make the movie better, to be seen on a smaller screen. I don't think it's a problem though, cause I watch classic old movies all the time on my computer screen, and have no problem loosing my attention span. Are most people different when it comes to screen size?

What do you think?
 
Blech. For film students analyzing past films, that's fine. For filmmakers making new movies, that's way too academic.

The only theory I prescribe to is that every filmmaker should aspire to make a movie that they, themselves, would think is awesome.
 
Cracker Funk said:
Blech. For film students analyzing past films, that's fine. For filmmakers making new movies, that's way too academic.

The only theory I prescribe to is that every filmmaker should aspire to make a movie that they, themselves, would think is awesome.
Click to expand...

I like to think there's a balance to be had, but at some point you have to stop listening to what the audience wants. Design by committee is never a good idea.
 
It's a little bit of over-analysation of what, at the end of the day, is often style preferences and choices, at least when you talk about major features. We've seen an evolution of cinema to something that is a complete creative collaboration, and that's going to bring with it different approaches. You may look at Roger Deakins' work for example and marvel at how little lighting, and how few unnecessary camera moves he uses. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies shot completely handheld, and that doesn't necessarily take away from the story at all, in fact often adds to it.

If you watch something like 'Visions of Light' and you really look at the older movies, you see film 'back in the day' was in some cases more about lighting certain stars so that they looked beautiful, rather than necessarily so that it helped tell a story. And even in the lighting situations where it did help the story along, you'd often find the main actress was 1/2 a stop over the base exposure level just to let them 'pop' off the screen, so to speak. In fact, flares were seen as a mistake that the camera operator would cut and ask for another take. Conrad Hall may be seen as a pioneer in the field, allowing 'mistakes' to happen. Apparently he nearly got fired a few times because of it.

Cinema will always evolve, and the job of a filmmaker is to evolve with it. You can't spend too much time nostalgic for, and pining for the 'good ol days' when we did x.

If anything, then perhaps we're seeing a lot of movies made arbitrarily - shooting shots simply because they're cool, and having no real depth to the story, or the cinematography, or the lighting, or the acting. Mind you, only in some cases. Personally, I prefer cinematography where you don't notice the cinematography or the lighting, because then that's only helping the story along. Films where you don't notice how good/bad the lighting or the editing or the acting is, is often in my opinion a stronger film, because you're so caught up in the story, you're not wanting to be distracted by those things.

I feel this whole 'democratisation' of the industry has perhaps led to a 'lazier' filmmaking. You have inexperienced cinematographers who will light for post-production, for example, rather than lighting for the story, the scene, the mood etc. as well as cinematographers who will 'light by numbers' and will set the exposure, and augment lights until getting a base exposure and then shoot it, without even really looking at what they have just set up and lit.

That's not to say that different approaches are wrong, but in some cases I feel there is an inherent laziness to the filmmaking, perhaps brought on with the advent of digital, and the inexperienced indie filmmaker. Though, that's not to say all indie films are like that.

Anyway, I think my point was merely that if the story is good enough, people will watch it. Look at Deakins' work, especially with the Coen brothers, and you won't see short, sharp shots, and you won't see MTV-style movies. You'll see great movies with great story that make money because lots of people like to watch them. I sometimes think that if you have to distract the audience with how cool, or how shaky a shot can be, then how can your story be that great?

Anyway /rant ;)
 
Last edited:
I use to prefer the newer intensified but because of microbudget I now know there is not often a lot of times to get all the shots necessary for that style more. So I am leaning more towards classical now, with a few specific intensified type shots, depending on the scene. When it comes to mainstream movies though, I do believe it to be overused nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top