Digital Devolution
You know how the digital revolution puts creative power in the hands of the people? And this is a liberating, nay, an empowering thing? Well, I saw the future this weekend, and all I have to say is, "go back."
I attended a film festival on Saturday, and up to the point when I stood up early and excused myself from a darkened theatre, I had sat through something like ten short films. Only one made me smile. The rest made me cringe. I won't even go into the weak scripts, the bad acting, and poor lighting. Instead, I'll complain about out-of-sync dialogue tracks and abrupt soundtrack breaks. What the heck? I don't consider myself to be a moviemaker, but I've played around with my iMovie and know I could do better. Or maybe it's an example where my amateur Apple product blows the pants off other intro-level applications, because I just don't get how anyone could watch their "finished" film and not be bugged by nonsensically flapping lips to go back into their project and at least manually play with bumping the dialogue track back and forth until it was more in line with the talking heads. Or why a director would be dead set against two soundtracks simultaneously playing. Almost every film would abruptly cut out the music when an actor opened her mouth to speak. This problem, I'm thinking, may highlight a crappy editing program. It's as if they were stuck with only one soundtrack, because all I could think is, "why didn't they create multiple soundtracks and overlap them where need be." Maybe they simply couldn't.
I know, I know, I disappear for months and finally return only to whine about amateur films. They're supposed to bad. That's part of the appeal. But there's bad with a spark of creativity, and bad with... well, nothing. A decade ago, short film festivals were amazing. Sure, there'd be the clunker or two in any given festival, but there were real artists plying their craft and the results were a joy to behold. Now, because of the digital revolution, I have to sit through nine of Every Man's delusions of grandeur to see one gem.
(And the gem was a clever film called Variations on Gerald's Death, where poor Gerald finds himself in the middle of an old fashioned duel to the death with pistols... again and again and again. The production was low end, but professional.)
posted by Paul @ 8:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I think that many people assume that, having grown up with television and film, they are experts. But when it comes down to it, very few people really know what they're doing when they first start making movies (even those that go on to film careers). I know I was that way in college when I made my first (horrible) movie. I even saw a lot of technically challenged films at USC and we were being trained both on the software and on the technique. Some people can't look past their own arrogance to see that they have a lot to learn. I can't tell you how many truly terrible thesis films (which can cost from ten to a hundred thousand dollars) I saw come out of USC. And those at the helm are banking on their future talent to pay off their talentless productions.
What you seem to think are technical problems sound more like confusion of the form. I doubt in this day and age that people are making films with software that can't handle audio or video in the way that you describe. But the people operating that software haven't taken the time to digest the intricacies of what they've been watching their whole lives. There are literally hundreds of decisions going by with every cut -- be they from casting, writing, production, editing, sound, cinematography, etc. And for those unused to thinking in those terms on that level, what do you expect?
I will say it was an interesting, although unintended, exercise in film study. When the one competent movie came on the screen, what it did right starkly contrasted with the muddled messes that had come before. A simple cut from a wide shot to an angle where a character's raised pistol arm and shoulder framed another character was exquisite.
There's a whole editing language most people take for granted, myself included. What effect is created when a panning shot is followed by a zoom-in shot? How much motion, however smoothly executed, is too much? How long do you hold that image before it becomes too static? Etc.. I'm convinced there's a basic language there, like in music. Going from a first or a third to a fifth creates a feeling of resolution. A minor chord can cause an uneasy mood. And then, of course, you would use that editing language to fulfill the needs of your story. If it's an action flick nearing it's climax, you're probably going to see frequent and quick cuts to build tension. Every cut must have so many separate but layered decisions.
How frickin' cool.
You're totally right. I edited a friend's thesis film in my last year of school and she had written something that was an odd mix of comedy and drama. When I took my first pass at it without any input from her (she wanted it that way), she was horrified. Why? Because I had cut it dramatically and she had thought it had a ton of comedy in it. We reworked it together into something that walked the line between the two, but the point is that editing plays a huge role in tone -- no less than camera, writing, etc. And you're right that it also has its own rhythm just like a piece of music. The worst thing is discovering what the rhythm should be but finding that you don't have the shots to support that rhythm. It's very important that the director know what they're looking for in the end product when they are shooting (rather than just grabbing coverage) or they can find themselves in all kinds of binds that can be fixed in editing but not at some cost.
Sorry, "not without some cost."
You know what I mean.
Post a Comment
<< Home