I legitimately thought that first scene was a set-up for a story about life in prison, like "this is the start of the rest of your life" type scene. Hearing that the story wasn't about him was honestly surprising as in those moments, I felt so much for him.
Same response. I thought, when the question was asked, that the better way of directing the scene would be to skip most of the portentous judge shot and instead focus on the reaction of the main character hearing and responding to his sentence in real time, rather than having to cut to him responding at the end of the speech. Then it turns out that the 'main character' never appears again. WTF?
Your description is Shawshank. You see a contrasting setting, a music choice to guilt, a close up of regret and fear, and angles that made the protagonist doomed to life in prison. Damn, I love that movie.
I thought it was an end credits scene where the guy was sentenced to jail and that's where the movie ended. Got a real different vibe then starting scene with random unknown chracter.
The same director went off to direct and win an Emmy for Fargo as well as direct episodes of Breaking Bad. Sometimes you have to start somewhere and he isn't a rookie as we might think, yes we can learn from his mistakes but realise we can also learn from his achievements, his story doesn't end here.
Agree. I think this scene is badly directed and I think it's useful to breakdown why because there's such a good side by side comparison. (And if you step up to remake Hitchcock you have to expect the comparison) But that's not to say he's a bad director. Almost everyone will have some duds in their back catalogue.
@@WritingwiththeCamera Absolutely, I just think it's too easy for people to assume someone is a bad director because of a dud and that can be a harmful thought.
@Film Buff Schumacher had great movies before and after his Batman movies, which he made only for a paycheck. He was not a "bad director", he was just a sell out and there is nothing wrong with becoming one, just that it sucked for the fans.
Your question was how would you make this seem better then you talked about how they used techniques that would highlight characters or plot device in story. Then you talk about Alfred Hitchcock as an example as to someone that in your opinion new what's to highlight to drive the audience into following particular characters or plot devices but you never said how you could make that scene better. So to answer your question what could you do to make this scene better. I would lock the whole thing off in a medium shot and maybe just use the close up of the gavel
@@KingGh0st_o yes! Or shoot an ots on a long lens from a lower angle exaggerating the judge being above and more powerful than the convict and then cutting to the gavel in the same frame position as the convicts head was lol
What's funny is watching this scene without the context of the larger movie is, it works. The problem is it works to tell a different story. I had no clue it was a love story, I thought it would be about a failed attorney who has to turn his career around before it's over or something like that. What makes bad directing isn't the camera angles used, performance notes, or any other component of the art in itself. What makes bad directing is the chosen components lacking synchronicity with the story being told.
Yeah, the heightened nature of every shot made me think the scene was being presented in a deliberately schlocky manner. In fact, I almost thought it might have been a dream sequence (not knowing the plot of Notorious.)
That “synchronicity” is recognized whether it’s there or not, it’s so funny, like how the camera angle through the door could’ve been like a great shot for a murder or something super intense going on, maybe even using the doors to block bits and pieces of action, having it on a stale conversation/image lacks the synchronization w the story in a way, it’s distant, seeming less important, weird!
Film is a lot like cooking, there's no such thing as a good ingredient that goes in every recipe, every ingredient does its own thing. I was watching a movie recently that was shown through a child's perspective where the child's dad was shown in an almost godlike light, but it was interspersed with occasional scenes that humanized the dad; these scenes were pleasant but also completely baffling, it seems like they were included just because they were pleasant and it didn't even occur to the filmmaker that this was detrimental to the movie's overall effect, like ice cream is delicious but that doesn't mean that you should put it in your ham sandwich.
Editing is a huge factor, yes, but it's safe to assume the director had a very strong say in how this was cut and judging by the coverage he's shot I'd be very surprised if he had a compleatly different scene in mind.
@@MrTrombonebandgeek Have you seen Notorious? It has everything in the world to do with the story. If you have seen it, you may want to see it again with your question in mind.
@@MrTrombonebandgeek You can 'rewrite' in the editing though, moving that first scene where it may work better or even take it out altogether. Scenes are moved and shuffled all the time.
This is what I see student films do a lot. Unnecessary closeups on mundane items or actions. EDIT: I see several comments about movies/directors that effectively use this technique. Perhaps I wasn't clear. All I'm saying is that I've noticed many amateur filmmakers do it poorly. Like Erikson said, some do closeups for the sake of aesthetics, often sacrificing editing/narrative flow in the process. I haven't seen Notorious, and I'm taking the essayist at his word that this scene's cinematography distracts from/fails to serve the story, but I stand by my opinion. I've been guilty of it myself.
That's exactly what I was thinking on first viewing. That first scene looked exactly like a student film that managed to wrangle some A-list actors and trying to show off every camera technique they knew.
@@ic9778 Agree to disagree, The Room is not a bad film, as there is no way by which you could make it a good film it can not be said bad, rather it is of a different genre named "Trash film".
I know the film Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins was about Alfred Hitchcock's experience making Psycho and in it he frequently envisions Ed Gein's ghost urging him to tell his tale of madness. I want a remake version depicting Gus Van Sant's experience remaking Psycho, where the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock appears except begging him not to remake the film. Gus Van Sant ultimately pulls through with the remake, despite Hitchcock's pleas.
Scorsese re used a lot of old directors sequences but never a whole film in the same style. Sprinkling in some sequences from other directors is fine and using similar camera movements and such is fine but only when it is effective. He remakes the shower film from psycho in The Departed, he also uses the vertigo effect (Panning-zoom) in plenty of films a good example being Raging Bull during the sugar ray fight.
Alfred Hitchcock was an undeniable genius in his craft, so much so that William Friedkin, director of movies such as _The French Connection_ and _The Exorcist,_ gave Hitch the supreme accolade when he famously declared that his advice to film school students is to drop out of school and spend their time watching Hitchcock, because all they need to learn is contained there.
I remember that remark. I was surprised. Camera work, yes, but all other choices... I doubt it. Lighting, decorations, soundtrack, special effects, make up, even acting - a lot of junk in Hitchcock movies.
I so do not agree. Hitchcock at that time made certainly great movies but they are not timeless. In fact, his movies are unwatchable today. They grew old, are very slow and boring and they didn't age well at all. I for instance love cinema, but I don't like a single Hitchcock film. I am not saying he was bad, but I am saying that it would be bad advice to learn from hitchcock. Cinema is supposesed to be an art form and hitchcock directed his movies in a very classical but for it's time untypical way. I learn more from Chaplin's movies and Silent movies like the great Potemkin as well as Metropolis than from Hitchcock. I learn more from Steven Spielberg on great and creative blocking than from Hitchcock. I lean way more from Danny Boyle in how to direct creatively in a compelling way as well es learining what editing means. All that I am unable to learn in Hitchcok movies. Was a master for his time, but not timless therefor not really a master. Chaplin was and will alyas be a master, cause his movies will never grow old and everybody in the world will understand his language. Cause it's universal. Now top that
Stephane Gregory You have to have a certain mindset to appreciate Hitchcock. And unfortunately some don’t have it. Edit: to those trying to make me out to be some stuck up, know it all moron that is not how I meant for this comment to be taken. I was merely suggesting that some do not have the mindset to appreciate as of their preference. For example, puzzles. Those who have the right mindset for them will love doing them, those who do not will not enjoy them. Better?
Stephane Gregory Dan well then please don’t act like somebody of knowledge when your stubborn mindset stops you from enjoying and appreciating such brilliant movies
Thank you. Too often film critics simply enthuse about examples of their favorite masters directing masterfully. Seeing how a scene can be done poorly -- particularly as a counterexample -- is very instructive.
Many a video has told me what goes into filmmaking, but your videos, few as they may be, are some of the only things that have helped me understand how filmmaking works.
In the bad scene it looks like the director threw everything but the kitchen sink at it to try to convey emotion, just frosting the scene with cliche after cliche. It just screams "Please have an emotional reaction, please!"
Thanks for the comments, guys. I appreciate you all taking the time to have a look. Some people have mentioned "rules". I don't make the case for "rules" or one set way of film making. The basic principle at the heart of the video is "if you want to make something stand out, make it different"(by cutting to a CU, closing in the eyeline etc). I see learning about film making as putting things in your toolkit which you can chose to use if you want to. The principle of "to make it stand out, make it different" can be applied in any number of ways and (to me anyway) is worth having at your disposal.
For the openning, I think it would probably be better if the viewers were told the summary before being asked to find the problem with the direction of the scene
Could that be intentional? Could that be an attempt to shift the perception of the movie from simply a love story, stressing this context for viewers to consider?
I'm not an expert in any way. Hell, I don't even know how a movie is made but I can feel my whole body scream when something is off. And I couldn't do it any better myself, but...
There's a glut in film criticism on TH-cam. it's no longer a "get rich quick" kind of deal. You're going to have to work VERY hard to get noticed. Best of luck, dude. Go forth and make real, lasting work.
The problem with the 'bad' scene isnt its 'phoniness' its the montage, its choosing all the wrong shots instead of portraying the characters affected by the courts decision
All the comments on subjectivity are superfluous. People should already be aware that opinions and art are subjective. This video provided analysis, articulated an opinion and justified it with examples. Saying film making is subjective is as insightful to film making as saying the universe is infinite.
YEEEESSSSSS... Very well said. Now if you wouldn’t mind copying and pasting this into every comment section on TH-cam in response to banal platitudes... that would be great. Especially camera and microphone reviews where there are always geniuses waiting in the wings to save us from the folly of our ways and remind us “It’s not about the tools...” Bruuuhhhhh SMH
@@WritingwiththeCamera That's fine, as long as there is a preface stating it as an opinion, which this absolutely is and which it does not state clearly in the beginning. Some filmmaking seeks to drag out a moment to show different parts of a story. Look at French Impressionist cinema. If we're talking about strictly narrative and plot driven cinema (as there are other types besides these) then Hitchcock's is absolutely better. Maybe this filmmaker sought to show different focal points. Or, maybe he truly had no idea what he was doing. Either way, going off the bat with a leading question like, "How could this be directed better" vs., "What do you feel when you see this, vs this" are two very different things, especially in a video which compares like this one. You can do better.
I sort of liked the scene out of context at first. Afterwards, when he explained why it was bad, I got the context and understood why it was bad. I don’t see the problem here.
Everyone mentions Hitchcocks masterpieces, butwhat makes him SO good is that even his weaker material (often caused by source material or lesser actors) will have some great scenes. For example, the fight scene in the kitchen in 'Torn Curtain' is brutally real due to his choices with camera angles, editing, aural choices and is not stylised, as violence often was at that time. Consider the way he uses the crane shot in the opening of 'Frenzy' to involve us emotionally in the murder. The use of wide shot to provide suspense during the robbery in 'Marnie' is so economical and effective. The whole experiment in the making 'Rope' is another example. Judge him even by his weaker films, and Hitchcock still amazes.
Hitchcock did another great trial scene in Frenzy. He shoots from the perspective of the bailiff outside the court. The bailiff shuts the door as the judge is reading the charges, then opens it again for the sentence. He knows the audience doesn't need to know why he's there.
Reminds me of some Zach Snyder films, at least the part where he says that to highlight moments you use closeups, slow motion, dramatic music etc. But using them all at once and frequently doesn't mean it becomes super dramatic instantly, it can also just make it look pretentious.
Everything you said was true but my biggest problem with the scene was that there weren’t any establishing shots or wides, we never got a full look at the court room. You knew they were in a courtroom but it felt very jarring because we never saw where the characters were in relation to each-other. If you look at Hitchcocks scene it flowed much better because of the establishing shot, into the mid of the character looking through the door into the court room.
Something else that I picked up on before you mentioned the visuals is the placement of musical score. Not only are there visual distractions, but they play this dramatic music while the judge is talking. In Hitchcock's scene the music stops completely so our focus is solely on what the judge is saying. I think it would have been better directing if the scene had no music until the gavel hits, then play the dramatic music right afterwards, because the gavel hitting seals the fate and the impact would have been greater.
One of the best books to read concerning this type of stuff is the lean forward moment by Norman hollyn. It discusses the making of a film via the eyes of numerous departments, and using various films as examples. It focuses on editorial loglines, rule of threes, the lean forward moment, and shaping a scene based on those things.
One of the worst things you can do in a movie, I believe, is to force dramatic or emotional music on a moment to try and make it seem more impactful than it is. It never works and comes off as corny or even horrible especially if it's with a character we don't care about
You're absolutely spot on! A lot goes into playing a particular scene. Taking to note every sense of the viewer. The little things matter. This just gave me some boost on a video I am making...
The problem with the 1992 version is it's over directed as you've pointed out and it's awkwardly edited. The choices in direction aren't bad when you consider the context of the scene. I mean, the judge is framed from an appropriate angle and the reaction shot makes sense. The issue is it's just awkwardly put together.
Having the judge framed with a low camera looking up to make him look more powerful and threatening is unnecessary. Along with the exaggerated slow motion on the hammer and reaction from the crowd makes the whole scene look phony. It just screams "The justice system is corrupt and courts are ruthless" The director didn't have the skill to express it in a more subtle way.
@@Onmysheet I agree it's a phone scene. But it needs fewer adjustments than people think. If you simply lose the overly dramatic music, the slow mo and hold the shots for a lot longer then it's arguably a more visually arresting scene than the other 'good' example.
Hithcock apparently framed this for simplicity´s sake. I dont have complains about simplicity but i do regarding certain audiences that cannot handle simplicity in their movies. I like Ozu´s films because they are deceptively simple yet their stories and emotions soar through the frames. Kurosawa did it too, he framed, move it around a little, the takes were longer and yet its all in there; my main complain about bad directing is that liam neesom jumping fences in 16 cuts is the normal viewing experience.
I was initially thinking that the dolly to the judge needed an upward motion to convey his loftiness, but hearing that these characters were irrelevant, I started to picture a shorter scene carried by long shots with a single close-up of the defendant's dismay at the end. Actually it would be funny to do a long take over the judge's shoulder as he sentences this guy, implying that he's such a peon at this point that the scene may as well be about the judge.
IDK what it is, but I lovs static shots. wether it be a dialogue scene or and action sequence, i jizz my pants when the camera stays still in the same position. Makes everything have alot more impact to it.
The close-ups, push-ins, symmetrical compositions, and wide-angle lenses all have the "in your face" quality of a Coen brothers comedy. Without context, I would assume the director is presenting the scene in a deliberately schlocky, parodic way.
So, the key to good directing is knowing when to hold back. Making a scene good is often less important than making said scene fit. The "bad" example is certainly a pretty good scene, but it doesn't fit the rest of the movie. It distracts from what's actually more important.
The dialogue could be improved, too. "The sentence of this court is...." Thanks for making sure we know this is the sentence of a court. The fact we're in a courtroom and you're in a judge's outfit couldn't have clued us in enough.
i guess whatever he said is what is supposed to be said in a court. but he said so many words , kinda rushed, in such a monotone voice, i have no idea what he actually said. just heard a bunch of long , unnecessary words... aaaand twenty years.
A lot of modern techniques seem to suggest a fear that the audience will get bored at any second if something isn't going on to keep their attention. I revisit the Lawrence of Arabia scene of Ali's well occasionally to refresh myself on how things can be done more effectively...
Interestingly, the first scene is quite similar to a scene in the early Hitchcock film 'Easy Virtues'. If I remember rightly that scene was shot in a very uneconomical way. You can really see how Hitchcock's style developed and matured
If we have established how the two are connected with the verdict, then you got it spot on (close anyway) at 2:11 ... You go from the hammer straight to their eyes closing, as if fearing the definitive of the judges ruling. As if they're trying to stop it by closing their eyes (doesn't have to be both). Man can be observing the woman or vice versa.
I liked that scene onestly. It is maybe a little bit out of the context but I like the movement if the hammer though. It remembers me a Tarantino scene...
in this case, the cinematographer is just as guilty as the director. The director must have given him notes on what he wanted to see on screen, the DOP was not good at his job. this aint an example of bad directing, this is command-less directing and awful camera work ... also editing .. this couldve saved in editing
A novice director sometimes defers to an experienced cinematographer, the footage looks beautiful in the dailies but turns into a mess in the editing room. Not to say beautiful photography doesn't matter (there are thousands of examples that prove it does). But Hitchcock's talent was in compositing shots to tell a story.
Is command-less directing really directing at all, though? Also the DP’s job is arguably just to achieve the director’a vision. The camera work here is actually superb...it’s just not necessarily appropriate to the story
@@chickenwarrior9991 what kind of shit DOP have you been working with ? A great cinematographer is almost a visual director himself/herself. Shut the fuck up and stop saying things you know nothing about. Keep making your crap videos
It looks like the "bad" example is a TV production. While it might not be the most clever and filmic start into the story it has another role that Hitchcock didn't have to consider: It has to grab the audiences attention so they don't switch the channel. It's also the backdrop for the credits, so it needs to keep the audience engaged visually, so they don't just read text. Even if it doesn't fit the rest of the movie it's more important to accomplish those goals. The Hitchcock intro couldn't have done that and of course it didn't need to.
Yes it's a TV remake. Agreed it has to hold the audiences attention and to me it's not doing that. It throws all the noise and big images at us but doesn't use them in a way that makes us engage(that gives us new info for example) with what's happening. If I was watching this on TV I'd be waiting for it to be over so the story can start.
Yeah what keeps an audience engaged usually is either some bit of anticipation whether it be the playing out of a conflict or a question asked awaiting an answer. This scene is visual exposition, mere information with no real drama inherent in the text. So what the director has done is try to insert drama through overwrought technique.
@@WritingwiththeCamera If I were watching it, having not seen the original, I'd have thought the defendant was important, and then be really confused why he didn't show up again. They needed more shots on the lady who is the actual lead. Otherwise it's very... jarring. Then again if the jarringness somehow fits the mood of the film it could be alright. Damn, now I'm gonna have to watch both versions... I may return...
The very first Hitchcock film I saw, and I can highly recommend it. Interesting video, I kinda like the scene from the 1992 film, but just cause it tells the beginning part quite fast and easy to follow. The 1946 version felt too long for me but in the context of the time the were released it makes sense. But I do agree they could of made it way less dramatic and didn't even have to show their faces(Like Hitchcock did). Would've helped us to know this is just backstory/setup. Anyway nice video man
Creatively employing technique in storytelling is central to many forms of art. There is something to say for being arbitrary with a point, like surrealism or dadaism but trying to add extra meaning to the pointless is a little misguided. Style for it’s own sake is possible, though. Guy Richie for example.
problem with Hitchcock's Good Directing in this scene is it doesn't work now. My attention didn't stay on it, even though it was the only thing on screen. I started thinking about something else. Especially with the judge talking. My mind filters it as 'legalese, pay it no mind'.
Without context id do the following to first scene. Upwards camera on judge Push in on defendant as the judge talks of camera, (if the judge isnt important). Intercut it with close up of womans reaction when somethin important to her is mentioned. Back to closeup (camera downwards) off defendant Use hammer scene to quickly and abruptly cut to the courthouse reaction (wide shot). They are in uproar or happy after verdict Slowmotion of dedendants face as he thinks of his future. Maybe dolly zoom. Or even pull out as he is left alone and abandoned
Moangus PIckard You missed the point of the video. The director had exactly the same idea as you: use many shots to play up the dramatic weight of the scene. His was incompetently done and maybe yours wouldn't have been, but the video makes the case that Hitchcock's reserved, kind of ugly single take actually served the film and its story much better within the context of the whole film.
They should have just focused on the guy being sentenced while the judge was talking over the shot, so we can see what that guy is feeling, you don’t need to see the judge or the close up of the slow motion gavel. Or you could have an over the shoulder shot of the guy being sentenced so you don’t see his face at all and is left as a mystery to the audience before he’s shown. Bit like the intro to Hannibal in the silence of the lambs you don’t see him until right at the end of the intro and that builds massive suspense up until you get an extreme close up to reveal Hannibal
I haven't seen Notorious, but this is what I felt like doing before seeing Hitchcock's version. Show in frame part of right shoulder of suited man, but not head. Left shoulder, head and small fraction of right shoulder of second man. In this largely unmoving frame the accused head blocks out most of the judge from view. We see the judges opposing right side, but not his face as he reads out in a clear voice the verdict. Then judge moves visible arm, which quickly cuts to close up to gavel coming down on block. We never see the judge or the accused faces.
I don’t know if directing, editing or what but if you want to see some bad footage. Just take a look at live music videos of a guitarist pulling off a shredding solo only to hear it but the thing you get to see is the bass player or the audience. Or really awesome drum fills that you know are coming up and it shows the fans or something instead. It sucks
Very cogent and insightful analysis and advice. One additional "bit of badness" in the 1992 clip was the camera angle of the judge ... it was at eye level, thus suggesting that either physically or in terms of power, he was on an equal status with the defendant ... neither of which is true. In courtrooms, the judge is physically on a higher level than the others. And of course, he has greater power, as well. So that should have been shot at a slightly lower angle. Of course, that's assuming any coverage for the scene was needed at all, as per your point when contrasting it with the Hitchcock version. Excellent commentary, well presented. Will be watching for more.
To be fair, I believe both examples of Notorious worked equally well, because of how the cinematography (and in the 1992 film’s case, the editing) is used. As Hitchcock preferred a wide shot allowing us a rather distant look, a peak, into the courtroom, as if we are spying on them curiously, the director of Notorious from 1992 emphasised the importance of the ending of the case, showing us the emotional reaction of the main character as the hammer slams down, to show that the case is set in stone. As such, this helps both films in emotionally connecting us with the film in their own ways.
I never thought of this before, but despite the great success of hie movies, very, very few Hitchcock films have been remade. That fact is a real tribute to his artistry.
Are we commenting how we would improve the direction before your take? Start on the judge in moment before the verdict is declared and watch the defendant as his guilty verdict is announced. I guess I'm supposed to feel the verdict weigh in me, but without the trail or intimate understanding of the crime how could I? That's what actor's are for.
I legitimately thought that first scene was a set-up for a story about life in prison, like "this is the start of the rest of your life" type scene. Hearing that the story wasn't about him was honestly surprising as in those moments, I felt so much for him.
Same response. I thought, when the question was asked, that the better way of directing the scene would be to skip most of the portentous judge shot and instead focus on the reaction of the main character hearing and responding to his sentence in real time, rather than having to cut to him responding at the end of the speech.
Then it turns out that the 'main character' never appears again. WTF?
See, that’s the first mistake right there: Don’t look like you’re trying to compete with The Shawshank Redemption. It’s not going to end well for you.
Your description is Shawshank.
You see a contrasting setting, a music choice to guilt, a close up of regret and fear, and angles that made the protagonist doomed to life in prison.
Damn, I love that movie.
I thought it was an end credits scene where the guy was sentenced to jail and that's where the movie ended. Got a real different vibe then starting scene with random unknown chracter.
Same, the pan inward on the judge immediately made me question why he specifically was so important, what about the reaction of the defendant?
The thumbnail baited me into thinking that hitchcock was the bad director
Yeah samee
Bad Thumbnail Directing
And you fell for it and clicked. So did I.
Well, maybe as a person, but he was top-notch at his trade.
@@GreatBeeman oh I'm sure he was a yesterday's weinstein, but one of the greatest filmmakers of all time.
The same director went off to direct and win an Emmy for Fargo as well as direct episodes of Breaking Bad. Sometimes you have to start somewhere and he isn't a rookie as we might think, yes we can learn from his mistakes but realise we can also learn from his achievements, his story doesn't end here.
Well said Forest. 👌👌
Agree. I think this scene is badly directed and I think it's useful to breakdown why because there's such a good side by side comparison. (And if you step up to remake Hitchcock you have to expect the comparison) But that's not to say he's a bad director. Almost everyone will have some duds in their back catalogue.
@@WritingwiththeCamera Absolutely, I just think it's too easy for people to assume someone is a bad director because of a dud and that can be a harmful thought.
@Film Buff Schumacher had great movies before and after his Batman movies, which he made only for a paycheck. He was not a "bad director", he was just a sell out and there is nothing wrong with becoming one, just that it sucked for the fans.
Insane to think this is the same guy who directed Buridan's Ass from Fargo.
I wish to see some more examples of "bad directing"! Definitely. Thanks for it ;)
Your question was how would you make this seem better then you talked about how they used techniques that would highlight characters or plot device in story. Then you talk about Alfred Hitchcock as an example as to someone that in your opinion new what's to highlight to drive the audience into following particular characters or plot devices but you never said how you could make that scene better.
So to answer your question what could you do to make this scene better. I would lock the whole thing off in a medium shot and maybe just use the close up of the gavel
@@KingGh0st_o yes! Or shoot an ots on a long lens from a lower angle exaggerating the judge being above and more powerful than the convict and then cutting to the gavel in the same frame position as the convicts head was lol
@@SBSChristianMedia totally it when you come back to the defendant do a push pull to signify the world is closing in
Just watch the first episode of Batwoman LOL
@@hollykm bad directing editing and casting not to mention visual effects when she was falling off the building oh my God I LOL
What's funny is watching this scene without the context of the larger movie is, it works. The problem is it works to tell a different story. I had no clue it was a love story, I thought it would be about a failed attorney who has to turn his career around before it's over or something like that. What makes bad directing isn't the camera angles used, performance notes, or any other component of the art in itself. What makes bad directing is the chosen components lacking synchronicity with the story being told.
Yeah, the heightened nature of every shot made me think the scene was being presented in a deliberately schlocky manner. In fact, I almost thought it might have been a dream sequence (not knowing the plot of Notorious.)
I thought that the judge knew the accused person or something and the woman was the accused person's girlfriend or something
That “synchronicity” is recognized whether it’s there or not, it’s so funny, like how the camera angle through the door could’ve been like a great shot for a murder or something super intense going on, maybe even using the doors to block bits and pieces of action, having it on a stale conversation/image lacks the synchronization w the story in a way, it’s distant, seeming less important, weird!
Like Let It Go being a triumphant power ballad, failing to show that Elsa is making a mistake by isolating herself
Film is a lot like cooking, there's no such thing as a good ingredient that goes in every recipe, every ingredient does its own thing. I was watching a movie recently that was shown through a child's perspective where the child's dad was shown in an almost godlike light, but it was interspersed with occasional scenes that humanized the dad; these scenes were pleasant but also completely baffling, it seems like they were included just because they were pleasant and it didn't even occur to the filmmaker that this was detrimental to the movie's overall effect, like ice cream is delicious but that doesn't mean that you should put it in your ham sandwich.
Combination of directing and editing. It's possible that all the footage that was needed was shot but edited poorly.
Editing is a huge factor, yes, but it's safe to assume the director had a very strong say in how this was cut and judging by the coverage he's shot I'd be very surprised if he had a compleatly different scene in mind.
Hitchcock didn't shoot film willy-nilly. He shot what he needed and that 's what used.
Writing matteres as well. Why was this written to be the first scene when it doesnt show to be have any effect to the movie?
@@MrTrombonebandgeek Have you seen Notorious? It has everything in the world to do with the story. If you have seen it, you may want to see it again with your question in mind.
@@MrTrombonebandgeek You can 'rewrite' in the editing though, moving that first scene where it may work better or even take it out altogether. Scenes are moved and shuffled all the time.
This is what I see student films do a lot. Unnecessary closeups on mundane items or actions.
EDIT: I see several comments about movies/directors that effectively use this technique. Perhaps I wasn't clear. All I'm saying is that I've noticed many amateur filmmakers do it poorly. Like Erikson said, some do closeups for the sake of aesthetics, often sacrificing editing/narrative flow in the process.
I haven't seen Notorious, and I'm taking the essayist at his word that this scene's cinematography distracts from/fails to serve the story, but I stand by my opinion. I've been guilty of it myself.
Too true. The faster we learn that our shot choice effects the story we're telling the better.
UNLESS your goal is to make a film about mundane :) But I agree with you
@@mnmlflmkr Ya
That's exactly what I was thinking on first viewing. That first scene looked exactly like a student film that managed to wrangle some A-list actors and trying to show off every camera technique they knew.
but but but edgar wright
Imagine you made a film, which became an example of how not to make a film 😆
Bhai re bhaii 🤣🤣
Pick any Disney movie that has come out in the last 15 years. They are fine examples of how to make a bad movie.
Oof...Ouch..Oow...that hurts.
The Room.
@@ic9778 Agree to disagree, The Room is not a bad film, as there is no way by which you could make it a good film it can not be said bad, rather it is of a different genre named "Trash film".
How not to be a bad director: Don't remake Hitchcock!
Higher Light that’s the first thing I’m doing
I know the film Hitchcock with Anthony Hopkins was about Alfred Hitchcock's experience making Psycho and in it he frequently envisions Ed Gein's ghost urging him to tell his tale of madness. I want a remake version depicting Gus Van Sant's experience remaking Psycho, where the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock appears except begging him not to remake the film. Gus Van Sant ultimately pulls through with the remake, despite Hitchcock's pleas.
Scorsese re used a lot of old directors sequences but never a whole film in the same style. Sprinkling in some sequences from other directors is fine and using similar camera movements and such is fine but only when it is effective. He remakes the shower film from psycho in The Departed, he also uses the vertigo effect (Panning-zoom) in plenty of films a good example being Raging Bull during the sugar ray fight.
wes anderson did sort of but you wouldn't say it's bad.
I had a stroke reading your comment
0:05 For a split second, I thought that was Neil Breen.
I'd pay to see a Breen remake of Hitchcock.
Writing with the Camera So would I haha.
@@WritingwiththeCamera Jimmy Stewart in a wheelchair, a stack of laptops in his lap. Weeks of empty tuna cans seen stacked up in the background.
@@WritingwiththeCamera I would LOVE that.
12 Angry Neils.
Breens
Breentigo
etc.
@@oz_jones Neil by Neilwest
Alfred Hitchcock was an undeniable genius in his craft, so much so that William Friedkin, director of movies such as _The French Connection_ and _The Exorcist,_ gave Hitch the supreme accolade when he famously declared that his advice to film school students is to drop out of school and spend their time watching Hitchcock, because all they need to learn is contained there.
I remember that remark. I was surprised. Camera work, yes, but all other choices... I doubt it. Lighting, decorations, soundtrack, special effects, make up, even acting - a lot of junk in Hitchcock movies.
I so do not agree. Hitchcock at that time made certainly great movies but they are not timeless. In fact, his movies are unwatchable today. They grew old, are very slow and boring and they didn't age well at all. I for instance love cinema, but I don't like a single Hitchcock film. I am not saying he was bad, but I am saying that it would be bad advice to learn from hitchcock. Cinema is supposesed to be an art form and hitchcock directed his movies in a very classical but for it's time untypical way. I learn more from Chaplin's movies and Silent movies like the great Potemkin as well as Metropolis than from Hitchcock. I learn more from Steven Spielberg on great and creative blocking than from Hitchcock. I lean way more from Danny Boyle in how to direct creatively in a compelling way as well es learining what editing means. All that I am unable to learn in Hitchcok movies. Was a master for his time, but not timless therefor not really a master. Chaplin was and will alyas be a master, cause his movies will never grow old and everybody in the world will understand his language. Cause it's universal. Now top that
Stephane Gregory You have to have a certain mindset to appreciate Hitchcock. And unfortunately some don’t have it.
Edit: to those trying to make me out to be some stuck up, know it all moron that is not how I meant for this comment to be taken. I was merely suggesting that some do not have the mindset to appreciate as of their preference. For example, puzzles. Those who have the right mindset for them will love doing them, those who do not will not enjoy them. Better?
@@terrortower666 And to be honest I don't even want to.
Stephane Gregory Dan well then please don’t act like somebody of knowledge when your stubborn mindset stops you from enjoying and appreciating such brilliant movies
Thank you. Too often film critics simply enthuse about examples of their favorite masters directing masterfully. Seeing how a scene can be done poorly -- particularly as a counterexample -- is very instructive.
Many a video has told me what goes into filmmaking, but your videos, few as they may be, are some of the only things that have helped me understand how filmmaking works.
Every frame a painting
I really want to get into filmmaking but I usually have trouble analyzing stuff like this. Thank you!
A good filmmaker doesn't need to analyze stuff. Nor does a good analyzer make a good filmmaker.
It's almost like the remake wanted to make it clear the sentencing is supposed to seem important, but ultimately isn't.
In the bad scene it looks like the director threw everything but the kitchen sink at it to try to convey emotion, just frosting the scene with cliche after cliche. It just screams "Please have an emotional reaction, please!"
Thanks for the comments, guys. I appreciate you all taking the time to have a look. Some people have mentioned "rules". I don't make the case for "rules" or one set way of film making. The basic principle at the heart of the video is "if you want to make something stand out, make it different"(by cutting to a CU, closing in the eyeline etc). I see learning about film making as putting things in your toolkit which you can chose to use if you want to. The principle of "to make it stand out, make it different" can be applied in any number of ways and (to me anyway) is worth having at your disposal.
Well said
For the openning, I think it would probably be better if the viewers were told the summary before being asked to find the problem with the direction of the scene
Any books one could read to self teach himself?
Could that be intentional? Could that be an attempt to shift the perception of the movie from simply a love story, stressing this context for viewers to consider?
I'm not an expert in any way. Hell, I don't even know how a movie is made but I can feel my whole body scream when something is off. And I couldn't do it any better myself, but...
You probably could.
You don't have to be a head-chef to critique the food
There's a glut in film criticism on TH-cam. it's no longer a "get rich quick" kind of deal. You're going to have to work VERY hard to get noticed. Best of luck, dude. Go forth and make real, lasting work.
Strangely enough the real film analysis on youtube is quite good, as opposed to the review/opinion stuff which is rampant.
@@NelsonStJames Huh?
The problem with the 'bad' scene isnt its 'phoniness' its the montage, its choosing all the wrong shots instead of portraying the characters affected by the courts decision
I felt had an attention disorder watching the 90s version
it's so bad i can't concentrate haha
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
I have an attention disorder and I was going “What the fuck is going on?”
All the comments on subjectivity are superfluous. People should already be aware that opinions and art are subjective. This video provided analysis, articulated an opinion and justified it with examples. Saying film making is subjective is as insightful to film making as saying the universe is infinite.
YEEEESSSSSS... Very well said. Now if you wouldn’t mind copying and pasting this into every comment section on TH-cam in response to banal platitudes... that would be great. Especially camera and microphone reviews where there are always geniuses waiting in the wings to save us from the folly of our ways and remind us “It’s not about the tools...” Bruuuhhhhh SMH
Great comment.
@@WritingwiththeCamera That's fine, as long as there is a preface stating it as an opinion, which this absolutely is and which it does not state clearly in the beginning. Some filmmaking seeks to drag out a moment to show different parts of a story. Look at French Impressionist cinema. If we're talking about strictly narrative and plot driven cinema (as there are other types besides these) then Hitchcock's is absolutely better. Maybe this filmmaker sought to show different focal points. Or, maybe he truly had no idea what he was doing. Either way, going off the bat with a leading question like, "How could this be directed better" vs., "What do you feel when you see this, vs this" are two very different things, especially in a video which compares like this one. You can do better.
Art is objective, though.
That's the difference between a mere opinion and a judgement informed by enough expertise and experience to explain itself.
Bad directing is taking that scene you started off with out of context.
Yes....hw are we gona direct it better not knowing who these people are😁
Citizen Kane?
Even still just as an isolated scene it's over-directed to the point of phoniness.
A bad scene is a bad scene.
I sort of liked the scene out of context at first. Afterwards, when he explained why it was bad, I got the context and understood why it was bad. I don’t see the problem here.
More of these types of videos would be awesome, very educational. Thanks for sharing!
Everyone mentions Hitchcocks masterpieces, butwhat makes him SO good is that even his weaker material (often caused by source material or lesser actors) will have some great scenes. For example, the fight scene in the kitchen in 'Torn Curtain' is brutally real due to his choices with camera angles, editing, aural choices and is not stylised, as violence often was at that time. Consider the way he uses the crane shot in the opening of 'Frenzy' to involve us emotionally in the murder. The use of wide shot to provide suspense during the robbery in 'Marnie' is so economical and effective. The whole experiment in the making 'Rope' is another example. Judge him even by his weaker films, and Hitchcock still amazes.
Hitchcock did another great trial scene in Frenzy. He shoots from the perspective of the bailiff outside the court. The bailiff shuts the door as the judge is reading the charges, then opens it again for the sentence. He knows the audience doesn't need to know why he's there.
Reminds me of some Zach Snyder films, at least the part where he says that to highlight moments you use closeups, slow motion, dramatic music etc. But using them all at once and frequently doesn't mean it becomes super dramatic instantly, it can also just make it look pretentious.
i'm glad i didn't doubt this video. total class.
The blocking of Hitchcock is great as well. The judge is over the man who is found guilty, showing power over him and his fate
Everything you said was true but my biggest problem with the scene was that there weren’t any establishing shots or wides, we never got a full look at the court room. You knew they were in a courtroom but it felt very jarring because we never saw where the characters were in relation to each-other. If you look at Hitchcocks scene it flowed much better because of the establishing shot, into the mid of the character looking through the door into the court room.
Something else that I picked up on before you mentioned the visuals is the placement of musical score. Not only are there visual distractions, but they play this dramatic music while the judge is talking. In Hitchcock's scene the music stops completely so our focus is solely on what the judge is saying. I think it would have been better directing if the scene had no music until the gavel hits, then play the dramatic music right afterwards, because the gavel hitting seals the fate and the impact would have been greater.
One of the best books to read concerning this type of stuff is the lean forward moment by Norman hollyn. It discusses the making of a film via the eyes of numerous departments, and using various films as examples. It focuses on editorial loglines, rule of threes, the lean forward moment, and shaping a scene based on those things.
One of the worst things you can do in a movie, I believe, is to force dramatic or emotional music on a moment to try and make it seem more impactful than it is. It never works and comes off as corny or even horrible especially if it's with a character we don't care about
You're absolutely spot on! A lot goes into playing a particular scene. Taking to note every sense of the viewer. The little things matter. This just gave me some boost on a video I am making...
The first scene looks like the intro of Shawnshak Redemption but in SR it has more sense
Wow! You did some pretty incredible directing to present this extremely well done teachable moment. Thank you!
The problem with the 1992 version is it's over directed as you've pointed out and it's awkwardly edited. The choices in direction aren't bad when you consider the context of the scene. I mean, the judge is framed from an appropriate angle and the reaction shot makes sense. The issue is it's just awkwardly put together.
Having the judge framed with a low camera looking up to make him look more powerful and threatening is unnecessary. Along with the exaggerated slow motion on the hammer and reaction from the crowd makes the whole scene look phony. It just screams "The justice system is corrupt and courts are ruthless"
The director didn't have the skill to express it in a more subtle way.
@@Onmysheet I agree it's a phone scene. But it needs fewer adjustments than people think. If you simply lose the overly dramatic music, the slow mo and hold the shots for a lot longer then it's arguably a more visually arresting scene than the other 'good' example.
@@bluefilmsltd Maybe the film itself suffers from production issues. Meddling from the financers were the director lacks control or authority.
I commented and then started scrolling and saw your comment, almost identical to mine! I do think the directing is barely the issue here
@@petercinematography4718 Yeah, exactly. So many of the other elements are wrong.
great reminder to stick with the basics of good storytelling !!
I actually thought the beginning scene was pretty well executed since I didn't know anything about the context or what the movie's about.
This was great. I personally feel, it is more of not equally important to see bad art, so as to know what you don't want to make than what you do
The scene itself could have worked as the intro for an Art house movie
Hell yeah, thought I recognized that song. It’s Boards of Canada! Nice video dude.
Hithcock apparently framed this for simplicity´s sake. I dont have complains about simplicity but i do regarding certain audiences that cannot handle simplicity in their movies. I like Ozu´s films because they are deceptively simple yet their stories and emotions soar through the frames. Kurosawa did it too, he framed, move it around a little, the takes were longer and yet its all in there; my main complain about bad directing is that liam neesom jumping fences in 16 cuts is the normal viewing experience.
Great examples, concise explanations and good editing. Keep up the good work man.
at first I honestly thought I was watching a commercial and was waiting for the product
I was initially thinking that the dolly to the judge needed an upward motion to convey his loftiness, but hearing that these characters were irrelevant, I started to picture a shorter scene carried by long shots with a single close-up of the defendant's dismay at the end. Actually it would be funny to do a long take over the judge's shoulder as he sentences this guy, implying that he's such a peon at this point that the scene may as well be about the judge.
IDK what it is, but I lovs static shots. wether it be a dialogue scene or and action sequence, i jizz my pants when the camera stays still in the same position. Makes everything have alot more impact to it.
Then you'd love H. G. Lewis and Ozu.
Check argentinian directing duo Duprat & Cohn 😉
@Nothing is Real I love that guys films
The close-ups, push-ins, symmetrical compositions, and wide-angle lenses all have the "in your face" quality of a Coen brothers comedy. Without context, I would assume the director is presenting the scene in a deliberately schlocky, parodic way.
Without context of who the main characters are. There’s no possible way for the viewer to improve the scene.
Jean-Pierre Cassel (or whatever that guy in the glasses is called) looks like an old, run down Neil Breen.
I thought the clip was an old ad for a fragrance or something haha
Great video! I realised a couple minutes in that i had seen this before and still watched again til the end.🙂
So, the key to good directing is knowing when to hold back. Making a scene good is often less important than making said scene fit. The "bad" example is certainly a pretty good scene, but it doesn't fit the rest of the movie. It distracts from what's actually more important.
Thank you very much for teaching me how to "write with a camera." ❤️✌️
Woah, I never looked at movies like this. I’m only passively observing. Mind blown 🤯
The dialogue could be improved, too. "The sentence of this court is...." Thanks for making sure we know this is the sentence of a court. The fact we're in a courtroom and you're in a judge's outfit couldn't have clued us in enough.
Tristan Foss probably could’ve shortened it to “We sentence you to....”
The Hitchcock scene also uses "It is the judgement of this court...". I don't think that's really a problem, it's common enough legal-ese.
i guess whatever he said is what is supposed to be said in a court. but he said so many words , kinda rushed, in such a monotone voice, i have no idea what he actually said. just heard a bunch of long , unnecessary words... aaaand twenty years.
I feel if there is one single change I’d make to the opening scene, it’d be the music. Just doesn’t fit
Love the Boards of Canada background music
A lot of modern techniques seem to suggest a fear that the audience will get bored at any second if something isn't going on to keep their attention. I revisit the Lawrence of Arabia scene of Ali's well occasionally to refresh myself on how things can be done more effectively...
Interestingly, the first scene is quite similar to a scene in the early Hitchcock film 'Easy Virtues'. If I remember rightly that scene was shot in a very uneconomical way. You can really see how Hitchcock's style developed and matured
Very efficient and instructional breakdown. Thanks!
If we have established how the two are connected with the verdict, then you got it spot on (close anyway) at 2:11 ... You go from the hammer straight to their eyes closing, as if fearing the definitive of the judges ruling. As if they're trying to stop it by closing their eyes (doesn't have to be both). Man can be observing the woman or vice versa.
I liked that scene onestly. It is maybe a little bit out of the context but I like the movement if the hammer though. It remembers me a Tarantino scene...
in this case, the cinematographer is just as guilty as the director. The director must have given him notes on what he wanted to see on screen, the DOP was not good at his job. this aint an example of bad directing, this is command-less directing and awful camera work ... also editing .. this couldve saved in editing
A novice director sometimes defers to an experienced cinematographer, the footage looks beautiful in the dailies but turns into a mess in the editing room. Not to say beautiful photography doesn't matter (there are thousands of examples that prove it does). But Hitchcock's talent was in compositing shots to tell a story.
To be fair I rly like this footage on its own.
Is command-less directing really directing at all, though? Also the DP’s job is arguably just to achieve the director’a vision. The camera work here is actually superb...it’s just not necessarily appropriate to the story
@@chickenwarrior9991 what kind of shit DOP have you been working with ? A great cinematographer is almost a visual director himself/herself. Shut the fuck up and stop saying things you know nothing about. Keep making your crap videos
@@kshitijarora8144 haha you’re funny. What’s your source of info? Any dp will tell you they’re accountable to the directors vision.
I interpret a black and white scene in a color movie as a flashback the something that occurred in the past.
The "Bad" scene almost plays like a hallucination.
It looks like the "bad" example is a TV production. While it might not be the most clever and filmic start into the story it has another role that Hitchcock didn't have to consider: It has to grab the audiences attention so they don't switch the channel. It's also the backdrop for the credits, so it needs to keep the audience engaged visually, so they don't just read text. Even if it doesn't fit the rest of the movie it's more important to accomplish those goals. The Hitchcock intro couldn't have done that and of course it didn't need to.
Yes it's a TV remake. Agreed it has to hold the audiences attention and to me it's not doing that. It throws all the noise and big images at us but doesn't use them in a way that makes us engage(that gives us new info for example) with what's happening. If I was watching this on TV I'd be waiting for it to be over so the story can start.
Yeah what keeps an audience engaged usually is either some bit of anticipation whether it be the playing out of a conflict or a question asked awaiting an answer. This scene is visual exposition, mere information with no real drama inherent in the text. So what the director has done is try to insert drama through overwrought technique.
@@WritingwiththeCamera If I were watching it, having not seen the original, I'd have thought the defendant was important, and then be really confused why he didn't show up again. They needed more shots on the lady who is the actual lead. Otherwise it's very... jarring. Then again if the jarringness somehow fits the mood of the film it could be alright. Damn, now I'm gonna have to watch both versions... I may return...
Learned something today. Thanks
The very first Hitchcock film I saw, and I can highly recommend it. Interesting video, I kinda like the scene from the 1992 film, but just cause it tells the beginning part quite fast and easy to follow. The 1946 version felt too long for me but in the context of the time the were released it makes sense. But I do agree they could of made it way less dramatic and didn't even have to show their faces(Like Hitchcock did). Would've helped us to know this is just backstory/setup.
Anyway nice video man
Creatively employing technique in storytelling is central to many forms of art. There is something to say for being arbitrary with a point, like surrealism or dadaism but trying to add extra meaning to the pointless is a little misguided. Style for it’s own sake is possible, though. Guy Richie for example.
problem with Hitchcock's Good Directing in this scene is it doesn't work now. My attention didn't stay on it, even though it was the only thing on screen. I started thinking about something else. Especially with the judge talking. My mind filters it as 'legalese, pay it no mind'.
This !!
That's on you for having a pathetically low attention span, not Hitchcock
Without context id do the following to first scene.
Upwards camera on judge
Push in on defendant as the judge talks of camera, (if the judge isnt important).
Intercut it with close up of womans reaction when somethin important to her is mentioned.
Back to closeup (camera downwards) off defendant
Use hammer scene to quickly and abruptly cut to the courthouse reaction (wide shot). They are in uproar or happy after verdict
Slowmotion of dedendants face as he thinks of his future. Maybe dolly zoom. Or even pull out as he is left alone and abandoned
Moangus PIckard prententious film student alert
Moangus PIckard You missed the point of the video. The director had exactly the same idea as you: use many shots to play up the dramatic weight of the scene. His was incompetently done and maybe yours wouldn't have been, but the video makes the case that Hitchcock's reserved, kind of ugly single take actually served the film and its story much better within the context of the whole film.
Lol i noticed after you mention that I don't know what the first convoluted clip was saying.
There is so much stuff happening in the remake that you barely take in what is actually happening in the scene
excellent video. helps me as a film student so much. Thank you
This was absolutely excellently put together I have to admit. Keep it up!
What's the song in the '92 clip? Its probably the best thing about it.
I think that the first scene would work if the guilty guy were the wordt killer at the final or something...
That camera moves,angles, look nice
"Alex! Will you come in, please? I wish to talk to you."
How little I know of directing, I feel like I just accept things as they are presented to me because I don’t know differently.
They should have just focused on the guy being sentenced while the judge was talking over the shot, so we can see what that guy is feeling, you don’t need to see the judge or the close up of the slow motion gavel. Or you could have an over the shoulder shot of the guy being sentenced so you don’t see his face at all and is left as a mystery to the audience before he’s shown. Bit like the intro to Hannibal in the silence of the lambs you don’t see him until right at the end of the intro and that builds massive suspense up until you get an extreme close up to reveal Hannibal
If he'd done the scene like Hitchcock they'd accuse him of being a copycat. It's hard to win trying to remake a Hitchcock film.
Which is why nobody ever should. Some things are best left alone.
I got a whole class on this topic watching the Disney Star Wars Sequel Trilogy.
Would love people to start crediting the actual films.
1. More stability
2. Wider lense
3. A little more tilt so we're looking up at the judge and down at the condemned man.
The sin of the beginner in the cinema is the abuse of close-ups. Films cannot be ductile ... They have to be elastic.
0:07 heard that score before. just can't remember where !
I haven't seen Notorious, but this is what I felt like doing before seeing Hitchcock's version.
Show in frame part of right shoulder of suited man, but not head. Left shoulder, head and small fraction of right shoulder of second man. In this largely unmoving frame the accused head blocks out most of the judge from view. We see the judges opposing right side, but not his face as he reads out in a clear voice the verdict. Then judge moves visible arm, which quickly cuts to close up to gavel coming down on block. We never see the judge or the accused faces.
Thank you this was very helpful and informative 👍👍
I don’t know if directing, editing or what but if you want to see some bad footage. Just take a look at live music videos of a guitarist pulling off a shredding solo only to hear it but the thing you get to see is the bass player or the audience. Or really awesome drum fills that you know are coming up and it shows the fans or something instead. It sucks
Good to know. Thank you!
Very cogent and insightful analysis and advice. One additional "bit of badness" in the 1992 clip was the camera angle of the judge ... it was at eye level, thus suggesting that either physically or in terms of power, he was on an equal status with the defendant ... neither of which is true. In courtrooms, the judge is physically on a higher level than the others. And of course, he has greater power, as well. So that should have been shot at a slightly lower angle. Of course, that's assuming any coverage for the scene was needed at all, as per your point when contrasting it with the Hitchcock version. Excellent commentary, well presented. Will be watching for more.
I had the thought that maybe the scene could be a brief long shot over the judge's shoulder.
The music starts before the sentence is read. This tells the viewer what will happen and destroys the tension. Better if it starts after he's read it.
Glad I stumbled across this video.
To be fair, I believe both examples of Notorious worked equally well, because of how the cinematography (and in the 1992 film’s case, the editing) is used.
As Hitchcock preferred a wide shot allowing us a rather distant look, a peak, into the courtroom, as if we are spying on them curiously, the director of Notorious from 1992 emphasised the importance of the ending of the case, showing us the emotional reaction of the main character as the hammer slams down, to show that the case is set in stone.
As such, this helps both films in emotionally connecting us with the film in their own ways.
These videos are fantastic. Extremely well put together and informative. Make more of these, please! I always learn something new with each video.
Boards Of Canada background music is
I never thought of this before, but despite the great success of hie movies, very, very few Hitchcock films have been remade. That fact is a real tribute to his artistry.
Some were remade by himself.
What are you talking about? the scene was great with the push in camera work. Even if it wasn't an important part of the story.
Very good lesson love it
Are we commenting how we would improve the direction before your take? Start on the judge in moment before the verdict is declared and watch the defendant as his guilty verdict is announced. I guess I'm supposed to feel the verdict weigh in me, but without the trail or intimate understanding of the crime how could I? That's what actor's are for.