Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Sorry Bob - I missed this the other day.
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
@JiMMy 85 I know there’s been quite a lot of noise made online about this, but have the Oscars people actually explained themselves? It seems that Ottman is respected by his peers and that he’s done good work in the past, but surely they can’t justify this award when it’s so blatantly substandard? Are they just going to ignore it and hope it goes away?
The consensus is that the production was such a mess that Ottman was given huge credit for making it watchable. That he rescued it.
I think that’s at odds with some of the points made in this video, all of which seem fair to me. Although what I read was that the story may have been adjusted somewhat, meaning some lines of dialogue from that scene were cut, leaving Ottman with very little wiggle room.
Especially if the scene wasnt shot well enough. If they didn’t do enough takes and cover enough angles. Ottman may simply not have had much to choose from.
@captainbob - to explain that, imagine if I came over to your house with my camera and shot a two minute conversation between you and LordRomford sitting at a table, facing each other. I’d first get my tripod and shoot you from a distance. The shot would have the two of you and the table inside the middle third of the picture.
I’d then get you to repeat the conversation and move my camera closer so now have you both filling the entire frame. Your back on the edge of the left side of the frame, Romford’s touching the right.
Then I shoot the entire thing again, this time with the camera pointing over your right shoulder, so that the back of your head is slightly in the frame, looking at Romford. Then I reverse it over his right shoulder, looking at you, and we do it all again.
Nearly there now. But this time I’m zoomed right in on your face. Still over Romford’s shoulder but we can’t see him anymore. Run through the scene again.
Finally, we shoot a close up of Romford over your shoulder.
I’m now going to shoot a footage of the room. Close ups of pictures on the wall and ornaments on the sideboard etc. That’s called B-roll.
I’ve now got six shots of the same conversation and some spare footage of the room.
I go into edit. I’ve got seven videos in my preview box. Traditionally, we’d start with a wide shot so we drop that video into the main timeline. It’s a two minute, uninterrupted conversation. But it’s boring to watch. So I’m going to use the various different angles we shot and slip them into the timeline. If you’re a good actor, you’ve nailed the dialogue identically each time and so the edit is easy. As the tension builds, we cut in closer shots. Maybe halfway through we cut back to a wide or mid shot.
If there’s a need, like maybe I didn’t like the face you pulled every time you said a particular line, I can cut in b-roll footage too.
This is where continuity ‘mistakes’ come in. Sometimes it isn’t a mistake at all. It’s just that the best take had you holding a cigarette. All the other takes don’t have it, but goddamn you delivered this line so well on the cigarette take, who cares if the continuity is a bit iffy? Most people won’t notice that! This is why I don’t respect people fussing about continuity errors. An actor has performed a scene for 6 angles, doing five takes each time. Of course there’ll be minor differences.
This post is really long and maybe really obvious stuff anyway. But I smoked a doob about ten minutes ago, and this is how I reacted to that doob. Evidently.
Thanks, Jimmy, I guess I knew that but you've explained it more clearly than I would have done. I'm teaching GCSE Film Studies (started recently) and it's a steep learning curve. I tend to get the pupils to concentrate on cinematography and mise-en-scene as that's easier, I think. I'm teaching 'Whiplash' now and saw a video online the other day highly praising the editing as it analysed two key scenes. In addition to your explanation above, it pointed out how camera movements were significant during a conversation such as pulling away from a face to signify an emotional detachment growing due to something that has been said.
Sorry Bob - I missed this the other day.
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
Instant Family - Horribly sickly sweet “so called “comedy - I laughed once . Predictable nonsense I hate nearly everything Mark Wahlberg does nowadays. 4 out of 10
Saw this with my daughter at the weekend. It was better than I expected 5/10
Watched Caramel last night on Amazon - not a new film but its directed by Nadine Labaki who made Capernaum that was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film this year. It's set in the Lebanon and explores the love lives of five women who frequent a beauty salon in Beirut.
Enjoyed it as much as Capernaum and thought it was again a great piece of storytelling. An interesting insight into life in Beirut. 8.5/10
A story about a kindergarten teacher who recognises the talents of a gifted child in her class and she seeks to help them against the interests of the child's family. The central character played by Maggie Gyllenhaal won't respect boundaries regarding the child and gradually her life unravels.
A really interesting film which is quite dark and a brilliant performance from Gyllenhaal. 8.5/10
Stan & Ollie - Delightful film . John C Reilly is fantastic as Ollie . Not quite as convinced with Steve Coogan but I loved the film Nonetheless.
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
Stan & Ollie - Delightful film . John C Reilly is fantastic as Ollie . Not quite as convinced with Steve Coogan but I loved the film Nonetheless.
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
7 out of 10 .
Agree on all counts.
Triple Frontier tails off in the final act. But it’s an understated heist film and I quite like that it isn’t balls to the wall action.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Capernaum is an amazing film and despite its storyline there is plenty of humour in it. I found it very moving and uplifting in the way the main character battles to survive. It definitely will move you to tears.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Capernaum is an amazing film and despite its storyline there is plenty of humour in it. I found it very moving and uplifting in the way the main character battles to survive. It definitely will move you to tears.
Even allowing for the whimsical and life-affirming parts, I still found it grim. However, it was still one of the best films I've seen in quite a while.
Spitak, on with two shorts as part of the Crystal Palace International Film Festival.
Of the two shorts, Less Heat in Arizona was by far the better film but Blackout was still good.
Spitak follows a guy who returns to Armenia from Moscow to look for his wife/girlfriend (it's never made clear which) and daughter following an earthquake. Unlike Capernaum, there's no humour to lighten the mood but it's not missed. Highly recommended, and the music is by the lead guy from System of a Down.
Captain Marvel wasn't as good as Black Panther but was equally as groundbreaking, this time in having the lead super-hero a woman who didn't need a man to define her, so for that I'll cut it some slack.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
Capernaum is an amazing film and despite its storyline there is plenty of humour in it. I found it very moving and uplifting in the way the main character battles to survive. It definitely will move you to tears.
Even allowing for the whimsical and life-affirming parts, I still found it grim. However, it was still one of the best films I've seen in quite a while.
Strangely despite all the desperation in it I didn't find it grim. The battle of the central character to keep going against all the odds was for me very uplifting - it certainly moved me to tears. There are very few films that hit you like this one did and its definitely one of the best films I've seen.
A surreal western about two brothers who are paid assassins who trek across America in search of a fortune hunter involved in the gold rush. It may not be to your taste if you like traditional Westerns but I thought it was brilliant and very atmospheric. It gets across the anarchy of the time and the two actors, John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix, who play the brothers are excellent. 9/10
Dumbo
Much darker for me than the cartoon version and a lot better than many of the reviews suggest. It's a film about being an outsider and I think it explores that in an interesting way with the usual Tim Burton visuals. 7.5/10
A surreal western about two brothers who are paid assassins who trek across America in search of a fortune hunter involved in the gold rush. It may not be to your taste if you like traditional Westerns but I thought it was brilliant and very atmospheric. It gets across the anarchy of the time and the two actors, John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix, who play the brothers are excellent. 9/10
Dumbo
Much darker for me than the cartoon version and a lot better than many of the reviews suggest. It's a film about being an outsider and I think it explores that in an interesting way with the usual Tim Burton visuals. 7.5/10
I really loved the ending of The Sisters Brothers, surprising and refreshing for a gritty western.
A surreal western about two brothers who are paid assassins who trek across America in search of a fortune hunter involved in the gold rush. It may not be to your taste if you like traditional Westerns but I thought it was brilliant and very atmospheric. It gets across the anarchy of the time and the two actors, John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix, who play the brothers are excellent. 9/10
Dumbo
Much darker for me than the cartoon version and a lot better than many of the reviews suggest. It's a film about being an outsider and I think it explores that in an interesting way with the usual Tim Burton visuals. 7.5/10
I really loved the ending of The Sisters Brothers, surprising and refreshing for a gritty western.
I really enjoyed The Sisters Brothers. I assume the book it's based on was all about overturning western tropes as it's certainly not your typical western movie. In the brutal, lawless west the main characters are surprisingly sensitive for cold blooded murderers. John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix are both excellent as brothers who clash, drive each other up the wall, but still stand by each other through everything.
The gunfights capture the random, 'WTF is going on' panic of a point blank shootout with unreliable, inaccurate revolvers that have to be half disassembled to reload quickly. Nobody is taking any prisoners!
I loved the ending too. Not what you'd expect at all.
A very clever animated film about a Victorian explorer desperate to make a name for himself. Loved the animation and the script is excellent - helped by a very strong cast. Hugh Jackman plays the explorer and there's plenty for both adults and children to laugh at.
Not sure how the film will do at the box office but it's worth a watch. 8/10
A story about an ex-con in Glasgow who wants to make it as a country singer and to get to Nashville. Jessie Buckley is excellent in the title role and she has a very good singing voice - she's one of the best British actresses to emerge in recent years. Julie Walters plays her mother and the two work well together. It's very watchable and quite sentimental - I really enjoyed it. 8/10
A surreal western about two brothers who are paid assassins who trek across America in search of a fortune hunter involved in the gold rush. It may not be to your taste if you like traditional Westerns but I thought it was brilliant and very atmospheric. It gets across the anarchy of the time and the two actors, John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix, who play the brothers are excellent. 9/10
Dumbo
Much darker for me than the cartoon version and a lot better than many of the reviews suggest. It's a film about being an outsider and I think it explores that in an interesting way with the usual Tim Burton visuals. 7.5/10
I really loved the ending of The Sisters Brothers, surprising and refreshing for a gritty western.
I really enjoyed The Sisters Brothers. I assume the book it's based on was all about overturning western tropes as it's certainly not your typical western movie. In the brutal, lawless west the main characters are surprisingly sensitive for cold blooded murderers. John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix are both excellent as brothers who clash, drive each other up the wall, but still stand by each other through everything.
The gunfights capture the random, 'WTF is going on' panic of a point blank shootout with unreliable, inaccurate revolvers that have to be half disassembled to reload quickly. Nobody is taking any prisoners!
I loved the ending too. Not what you'd expect at all.
Spot on review of The Sisters Brothers. I really enjoyed it, a western with a twist but if you want an old fashioned western it wont disappoint you either. A good 8/10 for me.
Saw this with my daughter. One of the worst films I've ever seen - unfunny and unpleasant. 1/10
Took my daughter and her mate to see it. As I’m presumably not the target audience, I expected to be bored, (and was - I thought it was pretty rubbish and fell asleep a couple of times), but I expected the girls to enjoy it - but I didn’t hear a peep out of them. Not even a titter. I asked them if they enjoyed it and they said yes, but I’m not convinced.
Comments
Sitcoms like Seinfeld or Friends are multi-camera set-ups. And there are films that shoot with multi cameras (you wouldn’t shoot a stunt or an explosion with just one camera either!).
There are reasons for only shooting with one camera. Budget being one. Cameras are expensive to hire, plus you need operators and focus pullers etc. Another reason would be lighting - the scene might require the lighting or set to be adjusted for each angle. The more cameras used, the bigger the challenge for the director of photography. Some films will shoot with one camera mostly, employing two or three more if a scene allows.
In the old days, cameras were huge and cumbersome. So old films were always shot in studios. When camera technology improved in the 60s/ 70s location filming became a thing (Easy Rider was the watershed moment for breaking the studio system in that sense) and more cameras would be used.
I’m shooting a documentary at the moment and investing in as many cameras as I can get my hands on (2 x DSLRs and 2 x GoPros currently but if I could double that I absolutely would). But I only have to worry about lighting / set ups during the interviews.
Re. Ottman, I tend to agree with you. There are some really basic elements to some of those scenes that are unforgivable!
Teaching GCSE film studies sounds brilliant. I’m super jealous of you here! Especially discussing Whiplash. When I worked for a certain film service I did a lesson on exposition, comparing the brilliant subtlety of Whiplash to The Martian, which has the lead character looking at the camera to explain what was going on!
Enjoyed it as much as Capernaum and thought it was again a great piece of storytelling. An interesting insight into life in Beirut. 8.5/10
A story about a kindergarten teacher who recognises the talents of a gifted child in her class and she seeks to help them against the interests of the child's family. The central character played by Maggie Gyllenhaal won't respect boundaries regarding the child and gradually her life unravels.
A really interesting film which is quite dark and a brilliant performance from Gyllenhaal. 8.5/10
9 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier . Another troubled film that has been picked up by Netflix. Looks fantastic with a great cast ( some big stars dropped out during the filming process apparently ) but the film itself is a little bit underwhelming .
7 out of 10 .
Triple Frontier tails off in the final act. But it’s an understated heist film and I quite like that it isn’t balls to the wall action.
Capernaum was very well made, the main kid is remarkable, but I couldn't say I enjoyed it, it was all too grim. I'd still recommend anyone to see it as long as you weren't suffering from mental health problems, and I'm not being flippant about that.
A very enjoyable family film with a good script and easy to watch. A film about the importance of community and it has humour and sadness. 7.5/10
Of the two shorts, Less Heat in Arizona was by far the better film but Blackout was still good.
Spitak follows a guy who returns to Armenia from Moscow to look for his wife/girlfriend (it's never made clear which) and daughter following an earthquake. Unlike Capernaum, there's no humour to lighten the mood but it's not missed. Highly recommended, and the music is by the lead guy from System of a Down.
I must admit I am biased as I love the band.
9/10, almost a 10.
A surreal western about two brothers who are paid assassins who trek across America in search of a fortune hunter involved in the gold rush.
It may not be to your taste if you like traditional Westerns but I thought it was brilliant and very atmospheric. It gets across the anarchy of the time and the two actors, John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix, who play the brothers are excellent.
9/10
Dumbo
Much darker for me than the cartoon version and a lot better than many of the reviews suggest. It's a film about being an outsider and I think it explores that in an interesting way with the usual Tim Burton visuals.
7.5/10
I really enjoyed The Sisters Brothers. I assume the book it's based on was all about overturning western tropes as it's certainly not your typical western movie. In the brutal, lawless west the main characters are surprisingly sensitive for cold blooded murderers. John C Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix are both excellent as brothers who clash, drive each other up the wall, but still stand by each other through everything.
The gunfights capture the random, 'WTF is going on' panic of a point blank shootout with unreliable, inaccurate revolvers that have to be half disassembled to reload quickly. Nobody is taking any prisoners!
I loved the ending too. Not what you'd expect at all.
A very clever animated film about a Victorian explorer desperate to make a name for himself. Loved the animation and the script is excellent - helped by a very strong cast. Hugh Jackman plays the explorer and there's plenty for both adults and children to laugh at.
Not sure how the film will do at the box office but it's worth a watch. 8/10
A story about an ex-con in Glasgow who wants to make it as a country singer and to get to Nashville. Jessie Buckley is excellent in the title role and she has a very good singing voice - she's one of the best British actresses to emerge in recent years. Julie Walters plays her mother and the two work well together.
It's very watchable and quite sentimental - I really enjoyed it. 8/10
Saw this with my daughter. One of the worst films I've ever seen - unfunny and unpleasant. 1/10
One of my highlights of the year this is
Saturday eve for me, third wheeling my mate and his new chick