Subject:
|
Re: Steadicam Workshop Demo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:14:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1008 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno writes:
> > In Law and Order,
> > the police scenes are always handheld, yet most of the courtroom scenes are
> > locked off--probably to show the difference between "law" and "order".
> Years ago when I did tech for live theatre we used to come up with BS
> scenarios to explain why a scene was lit the way it was. As opposed to
> the truth -- we were to lazy to climb the ladder and hang more light/add
> gel.
>
> Until you just wrote what you did I NEVER would have guess that people
> actually saw/fell for the BS stories.
>
> sucker born every minute.
I disagree--perhaps this is the case for theatre, but defintely not for
film. DP's and directors tend to be very specific with how they're going to
do a shot. Sure, they're constrained by number of shooting days or other
logistics (ie, can't lay track, can't afford a Steadicam etc) but the
general idea is artistic. Maybe their lackeys (ADs, PAs, camera assistants)
might come up with BS answers but not the DPs I've known. Style is
extremely important, and usually justified by some artistic rationale.
Otherwise, you wouldn't need DPs, magazines like American Cinematographer,
or give out Oscars for direction and cinematography. Everyone would shoot
Dogma'95 style and that would be that.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Steadicam Workshop Demo
|
| (...) Years ago when I did tech for live theatre we used to come up with BS scenarios to explain why a scene was lit the way it was. As opposed to the truth -- we were to lazy to climb the ladder and hang more light/add gel. Until you just wrote (...) (22 years ago, 25-Mar-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
