I guess it's a play on the whole "No CGI" thing that Hollywood marketers like to do, of course movies have CG and of course they also have brilliant crews.
If you watched the video, you'd understand what he meant by the title. As having been an AC, I'm sure Gray (who's channel this is) would never want to disrespect a crew.
The title is a bit clickbaity and unfair to the crew, especially since there was probably more crew than usually, considering that they shot with 10 cameras... but your video is very good and appreciated. Now, how much a wide shot is realistic could be debatable, but it is definitely detached and, it caries an emotional massage, as it was intended, I guess. It is a great film. Thank you for the reminder and details.
After the watching it in the cinema, I left a bit bored and disappointed. I expected something different. But for 2 weeks, this movie was still stuck in my head, and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. I went to the cinema a second time, and this time I came back satisfied. It was a truly different and great movie.
Such is the way of deeply engrossing stories. Even if your first impressions weren't are that good, maybe you found it hard to express your thoughts on what exactly your stance was but as you gave the subject matter its due diligence, you understood it better.
Same for me, after I just saw it I thought it was kind of dull, didn't really happen anything, just slow and no story, but after letting it sink in for I while I realised it was actually a masterpiece, a weird dark satire perfectly executed!
It did its job. It made you think and feel uncomfortable. I had to watch it 3 times because it profoundly affected me. My last watch was weeks ago and I’m still processing it.
We constantly hear to avoid super wide angle lenses to create a better shallow depth of field. Yet this film is so cinematic with everything pretty much in focus he has designed each shot to work with wide lenses. So gorgeous, and I'm jealous.
at first I thought this movie would be a sort of film that reminds you "why you should support israel", but I guess it was sort of the opposite all along, I didn't watch it earlier because I thought it was subliminal propaganda lol.
They had plenty of crew, just not on the set. A movie with no crew is what Noam Kroll does. It's cool to show support for Jonathan Glazer after his recent couragreous stand and the subsequent blowback from all the Hollywoood hypocrites.
I don’t understand some of these comments. I’m 3rd generation holocaust survivor and feel this piece should be mandatory viewing. It was meant to make you think and feel uncomfortable with the juxtaposition and spoke not only to a time and place but also today’s times. It very beautifully showed the impact of control and complicity. Something that continues to happen all over this world today. I personally felt it was one of the best piece of filmmaking I’ve seen in a very, very long time. We must never forget…
According to IMDB, the camera crew alone included 17 people, so I'm gonna safely guess that a typical day of shooting included almost 50 people on set. Misleading title.
It's almost as if the crew were shooting a stage play! Reminds me of Joel Haver's movie "pretend that you love me" as he set up the camera to capture a lot of improv acting using locked off shots. That trick to remove cameras seems accessible to indie filmmakers and looks cool! Really goes to show any style of shooting can work... if intentional for the greater project, which was super cool to see. Like others I think the title should be changed to honor the crew somehow...
THANK YOU for posting this. Good information about the production of this film. Are you going to review or do a video about Robert Elswit's photography of the Netflix series "Ripley?"
It is strange to see the comments of viewers being bored. To me, the banality of the drama the Hess family endured was the point. Their trials are miniscule compared with what happens on the other side of the wall. Rudolph saying goodbye to his horse gets more weight than anything in the camp. So, for me, I was never really bored. Its banality is the point. The banality of evil.
one of the thoughts i had was 'wow, how did they build the camp buildings behind the wall' , because i'm a dummy and because it looks so good, it didn't even occur to me they were cg.
I appreciate the approach and techniques used to create this film. The non-cinematic look works well for the tone of the film, and the framing of static shots gives it a sort of voyeur documentary feel. I especially admire their approach to the sound design component of the film All the same, the film didn’t hold my interest very well, and left me longing for something more. That may have well been the result the director was looking for.
11:40 IDK to me the idea that this film has an "anti-cinematic" look is bonkers because a, there's so much more toward a stereotypically a cinematic look then just the depth of field but also, even stereotypically, most of the wide shots like this in other films aren't shallow either. And the frames are definitely composed in the modern art film way(and yes I know you mentioned other aspects but there are so many other films from the last 15 years that kind of have the same style, as great as this film is)
Well, I mean... there is a film crew, unless the actors are setting up those camera rigs by themselves. A better title would perhaps be "a movie with no crew on set while the cameras are rolling" but I guess that would have been a less catchy title and doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well :P
Absolutely not. AF isn't even considered in high-end movie making (and, to be honest, on any decent set). Focus pulling is an art and no director would ever trust a computer to judge timing, subject or precision of focus.
@@bngr_bngr This movie was shot largely in deep focus (everything in frame in focus), so autofocus wouldn't be necessary. also, cinema lenses are not capable of auto focus.
@@houstonhughes184 it’s strange that broadcast lens have AF. Back in the 90’s TV news cast started using robot cameras in the studio. Like I previously said RED has AF. I doubt that Nikon will build non AF lens for RED.
@@bngr_bngr RED cameras do actually have AF now (starting with Komodo and Raptor), but most films aren't shot on RED cameras. Arri is the overwhelming industry leader and none of their cameras have AF whatseover. Cameras can be focused remotely (using separate follow focus systems), which on productions where quality is valued over ease of operation, is always used because MF gives more control over focus and is way, way, way more reliable, at least right now.
i hated how obvious it started to become where this movie wanted to go.. the scene with the train in the bg of a beautiful garden was good, but it doesnt need to become a feature film.. this movie bored rhe mind out of the entire cinema.. sad that people mention this next to Shindlers List.. nowadays we eiher get pretentious garbage or souless media
A dull looking film, but in a perfect way! The only thing that bothered me was the clipped highlights and it was a bit over sharpened at times. The Sony Venice is a really good and capable camera, so I don't know why they degraded like that.
well I saw the film cause I was very curious but I have to say the the strange effect of a movie made by itself - somehow shaped in all the purposes described in this video - is not absolutely achieved; the direction is as perceivable as in any movie... The Glazer's objectivity is mostly overrated
I don't feel it's very different than regular set. Just the crew (there was a full and big one) was in another room. let's stop to pretend this movie was an super indie, poor budget movie. It was just smartly produced and planned according the subject.
A very well done review but i wish videos like these included more historical comparison or were more dialectical with their approach. By that I mean all the conscious cinematographic choices were clearly influenced by the theories of André Bazin who argued that film should detach itself from spectator influencing "tricks" as small as close up and be impartial as possible and Italian Neorealism which embraced this approach to portray the world as they saw at the wake of 2nd world war. Specifically Roberto Rosselini's films have a similar aesthetic to Zone of Interest with the use of deep focus to enhance the feeling of objectivity, using of non studio environments with natural lighting etc. I seriously think videos like these would be so much more richer by even the simplest historical context given. Film history might be short but it's one of the least popular and consequently less accessible art histories compared to the likes of music and fine arts and people who dedicate their time to this art do disservice to future generations of artists and viewers by not doing their part in educating other people about this art's rich past and impedes it's future
Not a bad idea since this field is full of dishonest people with no integrity. For my last project, the DP took forever to send me the footage. Then when he finally sent it, some of the scenes and shots were missing. I asked him about it, but he blocked me. I try to be humble and collaborate with people, but that only seems to harm me in the end. So, from now on, I’m going to do this sh*t myself!
I think you just need to find better people to work with. Lot's of cool and honest people who share the passion for filmmaking. Don't let a few bad ones lead you away from working with others. :)
the title feels a bit harsh given the lengths the crew went to set up this incredible production...
I guess it's a play on the whole "No CGI" thing that Hollywood marketers like to do, of course movies have CG and of course they also have brilliant crews.
@@PASTRAMIKick or maybe just exaggerated clickbait :/
Them high end red cameras are also 20k to 75k😂😂😂.
Very misleading title.
If you watched the video, you'd understand what he meant by the title. As having been an AC, I'm sure Gray (who's channel this is) would never want to disrespect a crew.
@@user-fw9pe2hz6t I know what he means, but the title is misleading and a bit disrespectful
The title is a bit clickbaity and unfair to the crew, especially since there was probably more crew than usually, considering that they shot with 10 cameras... but your video is very good and appreciated.
Now, how much a wide shot is realistic could be debatable, but it is definitely detached and, it caries an emotional massage, as it was intended, I guess.
It is a great film. Thank you for the reminder and details.
After the watching it in the cinema, I left a bit bored and disappointed. I expected something different. But for 2 weeks, this movie was still stuck in my head, and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. I went to the cinema a second time, and this time I came back satisfied. It was a truly different and great movie.
Such is the way of deeply engrossing stories.
Even if your first impressions weren't are that good, maybe you found it hard to express your thoughts on what exactly your stance was but as you gave the subject matter its due diligence, you understood it better.
Same for me, after I just saw it I thought it was kind of dull, didn't really happen anything, just slow and no story, but after letting it sink in for I while I realised it was actually a masterpiece, a weird dark satire perfectly executed!
It did its job. It made you think and feel uncomfortable. I had to watch it 3 times because it profoundly affected me. My last watch was weeks ago and I’m still processing it.
"No CGI" is just invisible CG VFX and "No Crew" is just an invisible crew
We constantly hear to avoid super wide angle lenses to create a better shallow depth of field. Yet this film is so cinematic with everything pretty much in focus he has designed each shot to work with wide lenses. So gorgeous, and I'm jealous.
Fascinating approach. And kudos to Glazer for his bold moral stance. As in art, so in life…
at first I thought this movie would be a sort of film that reminds you "why you should support israel", but I guess it was sort of the opposite all along, I didn't watch it earlier because I thought it was subliminal propaganda lol.
They had plenty of crew, just not on the set. A movie with no crew is what Noam Kroll does. It's cool to show support for Jonathan Glazer after his recent couragreous stand and the subsequent blowback from all the Hollywoood hypocrites.
Shoutout to Noam Kroll
Noam Kroll credits his crew at the end of his videos.. No crew is what a 1 person student short film is.
@@smartalic5unless you’re solo filmmaking. I’ve done that several times.
@@DANAMIONLINE same. I’ve even done a solo wedding which l wouldn’t recommend
I don’t understand some of these comments. I’m 3rd generation holocaust survivor and feel this piece should be mandatory viewing. It was meant to make you think and feel uncomfortable with the juxtaposition and spoke not only to a time and place but also today’s times. It very beautifully showed the impact of control and complicity. Something that continues to happen all over this world today. I personally felt it was one of the best piece of filmmaking I’ve seen in a very, very long time. We must never forget…
Best picture of last year.
The entire time I was thinking 'how did they record sound???' I wish the video essay explored that as well.
'The People Under the Stairs' would have made for an apt crew t-shirt.
According to IMDB, the camera crew alone included 17 people, so I'm gonna safely guess that a typical day of shooting included almost 50 people on set. Misleading title.
It's almost as if the crew were shooting a stage play! Reminds me of Joel Haver's movie "pretend that you love me" as he set up the camera to capture a lot of improv acting using locked off shots. That trick to remove cameras seems accessible to indie filmmakers and looks cool!
Really goes to show any style of shooting can work... if intentional for the greater project, which was super cool to see.
Like others I think the title should be changed to honor the crew somehow...
One of the few times where a Video Village feels really necessary, even for one as unreasonably old school minded as me. :)
THANK YOU for posting this. Good information about the production of this film. Are you going to review or do a video about Robert Elswit's photography of the Netflix series "Ripley?"
Best use of digital cameras I've seen.
It is strange to see the comments of viewers being bored. To me, the banality of the drama the Hess family endured was the point. Their trials are miniscule compared with what happens on the other side of the wall. Rudolph saying goodbye to his horse gets more weight than anything in the camp. So, for me, I was never really bored. Its banality is the point. The banality of evil.
one of the thoughts i had was 'wow, how did they build the camp buildings behind the wall' , because i'm a dummy and because it looks so good, it didn't even occur to me they were cg.
I CAN'T FORGET THE BABY CLOTHES !!
Wow! Super interesting and amazing to see such a different approach to filmmaking!
I appreciate the approach and techniques used to create this film. The non-cinematic look works well for the tone of the film, and the framing of static shots gives it a sort of voyeur documentary feel. I especially admire their approach to the sound design component of the film
All the same, the film didn’t hold my interest very well, and left me longing for something more. That may have well been the result the director was looking for.
Thank you so much for the hard work🙏 Keep making these videos!
The title seems a quite misleading to me...
Great vidéo as always !
Feels like you put a lot of work into research. The result is it made me think about filmmaking from a different perspective. Thanks!
Great video, thanks!
11:40 IDK to me the idea that this film has an "anti-cinematic" look is bonkers because a, there's so much more toward a stereotypically a cinematic look then just the depth of field but also, even stereotypically, most of the wide shots like this in other films aren't shallow either. And the frames are definitely composed in the modern art film way(and yes I know you mentioned other aspects but there are so many other films from the last 15 years that kind of have the same style, as great as this film is)
Sorry, the color grade is not a “hard, contemporary digital look.” They’re emulating Agfacolor Neu. It’s unmistakable
Step one.
Make sure you got $350k worth of cameras 😢😢😢
Excellent video and breakdown on this. Thanks I D C
Are you interested in making a video about cinematography in motion capture?
Obhhh that sounds cool!
I heard they shot with no crew because it increased the compression of the image 🙂
awesome work!
Your videos are the best !
Amazing job
amazing content bro
Well, I mean... there is a film crew, unless the actors are setting up those camera rigs by themselves.
A better title would perhaps be "a movie with no crew on set while the cameras are rolling" but I guess that would have been a less catchy title and doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well :P
yayayay new video!
Great video.
Very interesting video.
so good
Bad title, Good video
Bazinian realism at its finest
Why don’t they use AF cameras instead of pulling focus on cameras? Don’t movie cameras have AF technology or the ability to focus remotely?
Absolutely not. AF isn't even considered in high-end movie making (and, to be honest, on any decent set). Focus pulling is an art and no director would ever trust a computer to judge timing, subject or precision of focus.
@@emanuelebresciani6281 So are Red cameras not used in movie production? Or they don’t use AF.
@@bngr_bngr This movie was shot largely in deep focus (everything in frame in focus), so autofocus wouldn't be necessary. also, cinema lenses are not capable of auto focus.
@@houstonhughes184 it’s strange that broadcast lens have AF. Back in the 90’s TV news cast started using robot cameras in the studio. Like I previously said RED has AF. I doubt that Nikon will build non AF lens for RED.
@@bngr_bngr RED cameras do actually have AF now (starting with Komodo and Raptor), but most films aren't shot on RED cameras. Arri is the overwhelming industry leader and none of their cameras have AF whatseover. Cameras can be focused remotely (using separate follow focus systems), which on productions where quality is valued over ease of operation, is always used because MF gives more control over focus and is way, way, way more reliable, at least right now.
i hated how obvious it started to become where this movie wanted to go.. the scene with the train in the bg of a beautiful garden was good, but it doesnt need to become a feature film.. this movie bored rhe mind out of the entire cinema.. sad that people mention this next to Shindlers List.. nowadays we eiher get pretentious garbage or souless media
A dull looking film, but in a perfect way! The only thing that bothered me was the clipped highlights and it was a bit over sharpened at times. The Sony Venice is a really good and capable camera, so I don't know why they degraded like that.
well I saw the film cause I was very curious but I have to say the the strange effect of a movie made by itself - somehow shaped in all the purposes described in this video - is not absolutely achieved; the direction is as perceivable as in any movie... The Glazer's objectivity is mostly overrated
😍
I don't feel it's very different than regular set. Just the crew (there was a full and big one) was in another room.
let's stop to pretend this movie was an super indie, poor budget movie. It was just smartly produced and planned according the subject.
A very well done review but i wish videos like these included more historical comparison or were more dialectical with their approach. By that I mean all the conscious cinematographic choices were clearly influenced by the theories of André Bazin who argued that film should detach itself from spectator influencing "tricks" as small as close up and be impartial as possible and Italian Neorealism which embraced this approach to portray the world as they saw at the wake of 2nd world war. Specifically Roberto Rosselini's films have a similar aesthetic to Zone of Interest with the use of deep focus to enhance the feeling of objectivity, using of non studio environments with natural lighting etc.
I seriously think videos like these would be so much more richer by even the simplest historical context given. Film history might be short but it's one of the least popular and consequently less accessible art histories compared to the likes of music and fine arts and people who dedicate their time to this art do disservice to future generations of artists and viewers by not doing their part in educating other people about this art's rich past and impedes it's future
Wrong title
Not a bad idea since this field is full of dishonest people with no integrity.
For my last project, the DP took forever to send me the footage. Then when he finally sent it, some of the scenes and shots were missing.
I asked him about it, but he blocked me. I try to be humble and collaborate with people, but that only seems to harm me in the end.
So, from now on, I’m going to do this sh*t myself!
Sue the asshole!
I think you just need to find better people to work with. Lot's of cool and honest people who share the passion for filmmaking. Don't let a few bad ones lead you away from working with others. :)
The shooting style was very interesting and the film had great sound design... But my god, was the actual film so incredibly dull.
"A24", ahh yes, a Sam Hyde favorite.