The 'film look' is a Crock, Shallow depth-of-field is Banal and Rack focus is Lazy. Would all you indie filmmakers please Get Over It!

Search Videography.com

Search the Web

Blogs | Forums | Register | Sign In

rss

The 'film look' is a Crock, Shallow depth-of-field is Banal and Rack focus is Lazy. Would all you indie filmmakers please Get Over It!

Permanent link

Allow me to be deliberately provocative...

How a Movie looks is a very important thing. The visual aesthetics of a movie profoundly shape the experience of watching it. Few would argue with this position.

Aesthetics, by definition, is the study of ways of seeing and of perceiving. When we consider the aesthetics of cinema we are considering how a movie looks and is perceived. To the filmmaker - concerned with making, building, constructing a film rather than just experiencing it - aesthetics are tangibly the techniques they employ to depict the world of their cinematic creation.

Click blogs.digitalmediaonlineinc.com for the whole story.

Posted by Joy Zaccaria at 09/24/2009 12:14:18 AM |

You may be deliberately provocative all you want. What you are really trying to do is to look down your nose at those of us who create the films you put your name on. These techniques and many others are the technical foray from which those of us who do the work as opposed to those of you who claim to have this"Vision" create what is the essence of film or motion pictures. Because you have the money or have gotten someone to put up the money makes you a pimp to a story. We, on the other hand the thousands of independent technicians and filmmakers who really do make the films, are left with a meager paycheck and a small line on the back end of a film almost no one ever sees.
Your provocation which may or may not be as self serving as it appears is in all apparent likelihood nothing but some jackal who thinks his bowels have the scent of roses. Just for the record you pompous idiot, without us you would have nothing. Because your supposed talent would be nothing but a figment of your fertile and misguided imagination. You too we're just where we were but a few short films ago. trying to create a feature film with next to, or no budget. The only difference between you and us is the size of your overblown ego. I think you have forgotten what real work is for the love of the art. Instead you are now a critique of the people that innovate and actually care about the projects we make. Hmm...That's why we're independent filmmakers. Now perhaps; Being deliberately provocative, you could tell us why your such a jackass!!!
Posted by: Neil Samuels ( Email: | Visit ) at 9/25/2009 4:18 PM

Not sure why you used the word "penultimate". Its less "ultimate" than "ultimate".
Posted by: Tim ( Email: ) at 9/29/2009 4:55 PM

Someone else seemed to take issue with my use of the word 'penultimate' in describing Citizen kane as the Penultimate deep-focus film. Let me explain again here.It was used quite intentionally. Certainly there were deep-focus films after CK (and indeed a number that preceded CK) but from such a big splash as a style - much lauded and celebrated - it has none the less remained fringe rather than mainstream in some part for all the reasons I outlined in the article.

So my using CK in the pejorative 'penultimate' was exactly to imply it as "second to last", in the sense that despite it's celebrated status, its techniques remained (and remain) under-exploited, under-used and little understood.

Mike Jones
Posted by: Mike Jones ( Email: | Visit ) at 10/1/2009 7:08 PM