I'm sure people have brought this up before, but Spielberg does the old blocking style in most of his films. He still cuts way more than the goldenage Hollywood, but at least he blocks his characters in interesting ways.
Indy in the Temple of Doom, when he barrels into Willie's room, looking for an assassin, and she thinks he's there to have sex - it's one of my favorite examples of great blocking.
I noticed this a long time ago in film. Once you do you’ll never not notice it. Shaky cam has to be my biggest pet peeve, so ugly. This is my favorite video by you, thank you so much for making it MW, took all my thoughts and made a video out of it. Bring back classical style filmmaking!
Me to. The shaky cam was never a good use of camera. Just use a handheld shot or a steadicam for a more natural movement. But there are times when intensified continuity does not bother me. For instance, a montage is good but shakey cam is bad. Fully choreograph action good vs lazy cut away action is bad. Great story with motivated intensified continuity is fine but non motivated intensified continuity is dumb. It about the assembly of the film and the story.
Shaky cam has its place. As example of that: Star Trek Vs Battlestar Galactica 2003. On tng, voyager enterprise, you will rarely ever see any shaky cam style. The show runners at the time refused Frakes on many an occasion when he wanted to use different styles to what had been looooong established for the franchise. Meanwhile over at Battlestar galactica their use of shaky cam was pretty epic given the serious nature of the show and used such liberally when it came to external vfx which although not the first time I have seen such (the first being deep Space 9) was employed liberally but well. A battle from Star Trek Voyager here showing that they really really wanted to do a bit of shaky cam but it is so tacit on the internal shots that they should not have bothered meanwhile the external shots have no such direction and are in effect long flat shots. It's a good fight scene dont get me wrong, one of the best for Voyager, but you get the idea. th-cam.com/video/Wtso6FVQgxo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z7WMwepBp0zevYNT Meanwhile: a battle from BSG th-cam.com/video/kPeXFV94bsE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6d8wIoy5YFAzBBR- Shaky cam has its place.
Yeah, I hate shaky cam as well, especially if it is a certain horror movie genre that shakes the shaking up to include fear in a scene were absolutely nothing interesting happens. My second most hated thing in movies is screaming people.
I assisted with a Star Trek fan film project some years ago. All the sets were green-screen, and the entire studio was a small green-screen room in the producer's house. No wide shots here. The _only_ way to record scenes was with over-the-shoulder conversations (recorded twice, because only one camera), and static scenes like starship bridge scenes. And yet, it ended up looking pretty good (for an almost zero budget production) because its audience was accustomed to looking at the sort of lifeless staging you describe (and because the CG backgrounds weren't half rotten).
Yea this is the problem with comparing 50s Hollywood drama blocking with heavy special effects driven action films. Like others have pointed out you cant have Boromir walking around all over the place in one single shot so easily when half the cast in that scene is several feet taller than their characters are.
Sounds like a nightmare to film an entire movie on a Greenscreen. Especially for the actors. It'd find it really difficult to get Into character and stay focused. Even more so if you have to interact with other characters who aren't even there. Maybe directors and photographers were more creative back in the day because they had fewer options. Also, The fact that film was expensive meant you put a lot of thought into every single shit. Every shot was precious.
Thank you for highlighting one of the reasons I quit working in the art department. The camera department could always be relied upon to make sure that none of the careful work I had done ended up on screen.
This is the kind of quote that you should be quoted by annoying college kids and Redditors for, but I'm sure some historical Figure of Repute will get the credit.
I remember way back, when I was a teen, I saw a Pepsi commercial on TV. It was new, innovative, and different because it had all very fast cuts. I remember, after that, almost everything I saw on the big screen or small was edited the exact same way. I now loathe that simplistic, gimmicky editing.
Yes. I don't know if I remember a specific advert but somewhere, an 'MTV' new style of super fast cuts, wham, wham, and I think you're right that at first it was a WOW cool look. it was still unique so it was a 'Rad' eye-zinging fun thing in small doses and then.... ...yes, you're right, soon it was EVERY tv show, advert, short, movie :(
I haven't seen a tv commercial for several years. When I final watched something live, I immediately noticed: shorter runtime, more commercials in an hour long time slot, frantic/energetic cutting (camera doesn't linger like it used to).
Hitchcock did some very nice tracking shots. The camera swooping down to show Ingrid Bergman holding "the key" in "Notorious". Or the wonderful camera movement when Arbogast goes into the house in "Psycho", only to end up tumbling down the stairs. Of course, "Rope" was interesting, if ultimately not all that interesting. Done much better in "Rear Window". Both enclosed spaces, but one stays closed; the other expands, and almost breathes with life. I also think a lot of this goes back to the introduction of music videos as MTV was launched in 1981, and shorter cuts became more the style. So, a new generation of directors learned this new technique, and adapted it for their movies. Also, for a master class in the use of movement and blocking to create tension, you have to look at "Twelve Angry Men."
Earlier than music videos: Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In (1968-1973) was considered revolutionary at the time, and was much discussed by critics for its quick shots and frantic cuts. And it was pretty self-aware, as one of the quick-take jokes was Henry Gibson asking, "Marshall McLuhan, What're ya doin'?"
To be fair, TV in the 60s and 70s, etc. we’re very small. Movies didn’t fit on the small screen. You ended up with such horrors as the edges of peoples faces with a giant blank space in the middle or pan and scan.😱 It was a travesty to movie lovers. Made for tv shows had to come up with something different to keep people interested in the small screen. And music videos, well they have to keep up with the tempo of the music, the words and emotions of the songs, and the style of the musicians, it was a time of experimentation and ingenuity. Movies had no business trying to copy their examples. They waste the screen’s advantages.
I love "Rope". I'd probably have to rewatch, but, while he does show off a bit what he can do, I felt everything he did worked to its advantage of telling the story.
The one with Henry Fonda was actually shot as a play doing the whole play 20+ times from beginning to end with different camera angles and positions for each time, then the director cut these to form the one sequence for the movie!!! That is why it has that feel. I imagine it was a continuity nightmare though.
One problem is that LOTR involves people of varying heights who aren’t actually that height in real life: aka Elijah Wood was not 3’6. John Rhys Davies was not less than 5 foot tall. PJ was able to do some tricks, like forced perspective, little people doubles in some shots, and used digital tricks. He did everything he could, I think. But for the Council of Elrond, there was only so much they could do. Clearly a lot of tight close ups and digital editing and body doubles for the few wife shots. Could he have solved this with little people actually being the main actor of each character? Yes. But how many people with dwarfism were established, known actors? Two? That’s a shame. But just not feasible for four hobbit actors and an unholy amount of dwarves (if you count The Hobbit films too). Thoughts?
Yea I think its an oversight in using LOTR and The Matrix as examples when those for the most part definitely had much smaller sets and more precise digital effects going on. The Matrix sequels are obviously still way too focused on back and forth shots for the dialogue scenes. Like its insane that they wrote the Merovingian the way they did and had him completely still in every single one of his scenes.
@@hpoonis2010 Time Bandits used actual dwarf actors that do not fit the physical description of Hobbits as proportioned like full sized men but half the size.
Spielberg's blocking is pretty impressive. Soderberg desaturated Raider's of the Lost Ark into a black and white film, removed the sound and added a Trent Reznor soundtrack in order to highlight and study the staging and blocking in the film. The staging and blocking in Minority Report is pretty good too. One of the few modern, big budget directors who is a master at staging and blocking.
When I saw Soderberg's desaturated study of Raiders, it was a revelation. I'd had no idea, as a young movie-goer, of the sheer craftsmanship that went into the marvelous experience of watching that movie.
You've basically just explained why The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favourite films ever! It deviates quite a bit from the modern standard and uses a mixture of old and new styles.
@@garlandstrife Film contains a lot of artifice. Artifice is what this video is about. You might not like the fact that Anderson makes his artifice *feel* like artifice, but the argument could be made that he is one of the few filmmakers being honest about it, lol.
I thought I was crazy, thinking shots were cut too fast and that we didn’t have enough time to linger on certain moments. Vindication! Thanks for the interesting video.
Lucky they were sitting down. The real nightmare is having to stand up for hours on end. But the extras' lack of reaction isn't just because they've been told to for continuity reasons - its because they're brain dead after days of repetition. Or they're thinking "When am I going to be able to take a loo break?"
@@user-pv4ze2gu1b it wasnt boring to me and to alot of ppl who liked the movie. This entire video is pretty much based on the fact that ppl think old time=prestigious, good and modernity=sucks. The idea that in cinema, people have to move around in a room anytime they are in conflict is just terrible terrible analysis. finchers entire filmography absolutely debunks this claim.
@@afrosymphony8207no but most films don’t experiment and stick to their boring styles because they continue to make money and that’s all they care aboutb
I totally understand where you're coming from. It can get boring when it's just face-to-face shots all the time, but it can go too far though when characters don't stop moving around and around and around and it gets annoying/distracting. I guess it all depends on the movie and scene.
This! I feel like the older movies used as examples here are all very .. theatrical. Which by definition makes them feel staged and unnatural, where as I think the goal with a lot of modern film makers is the opposite. They want to create an immersive experience where the situations and characters feel real to the viewer. The story and how it's shown feels like how you'd see/experience real life events. It's one of the reasons I rarely enjoy plays: the movements of the actors tend to break my enjoyment of the story, even though they're doing "everything right" by stage actor standards and using the space, keeping the stage interesting and you focused.
Yes, it really depends on what the scene is going for. Like the face-to-face close-ups work well enough if you want an intimate scene, like the dinner scene from La La Land... you have a couple having a heated discussion over dinner, so the back and forth with their faces seems like the logic angle to go with. Could they maybe have added some different shots there to vary it a little? Maybe, but I don't think it would work with the characters moving all around the set like in All About Eve, since that rather has the effect of creating a sense of distance as the woman is trying to ignore the guy.
@@mundanepants your opinion, but in reality, the "staged" seems more real to me than static head shots...static scenes. Nothing could be more boring in life than 2 heads not moving...that's why they do the quick cuts, to try to add life to a dead scene. You don't enjoy movement? Then in reality you want it staged, a very very very small stage.
To be fair with respect to "fast cuts", this would have been an agonising task before the advent of digital film. Constantly cutting between shots would literally have involved cutting and re-stitching frames of film to create desired effects. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was a specialised job at the time, not just something any Tom Dick or Harry was trusted to do.
Yep I've definitely heard directors from that era saying they did some weird stuff to stay on budget like excessively avoiding cuts and doing sceens in super long takes 😂
Totally agree. I loathe fight scenes in modern films. It's always just a blur of movement and I can't tell what's supposed to be happening or to whom. So boring, and they go on for ages. I genuinely have no idea why these set-piece scenes are hyped up so much by the industry press and its media shills - if I'm watching at home they're my cue to get up and make a cup of tea or play with my phone.
My son pointed out in his young teens that all of the fast shots were to hide bad acting. His words were, "dad, why don't people get Mr chan (Jackie) to do their fight scenes. They just keep changing the camera cos these people can't act or fight"
Pretty much all film criticism on YT is about movies made in the past 30-40 years. I love your focus on classical cinema. It adds a really interesting perspective.
You're a brave man using LotR as an example. Those movies are religious to me and many others. Unfortunately, I can't be mad because you're making sense...
In the case of that, I'd argue it's fine. Considering they were basically making all 3 simultaneously and producing anywhere from 12-15 hours of extremely elaborate, expensive footage, I think it's fair to give them as pass for wanting some wiggle room to adjust the rhythm of each scene in post.
@@tatehildyard5332 Yet the point he made is that it goes beyond mere wiggle room. LOTR's has expensive looking backgrounds with mostly flat shots presenting the actors with little or no dynamics. The green-tint is also abhorrent.
@@pagliacci2942 Yes, but I’m saying that I don’t think it’s entirely fair to put LOTR in this camp of “lazy coverage” because there’s clearly so much work, thought, attention and care put into each aspect of LOTR that you do see on screen, that I think they’ve earned the right to have a little insurance where each scene can cut together at the expense of visual density.
@tatehildyard5332 I understand your point, but as is pointed out in the video: what a waste, especially, then to keep zooming in on actors' faces when such effort has been made to the world around. It's like eating off paper plates on a mahogany table.
I find the direction in those films horrible and said so at the time. They are great productions but some of the choices are just "meh". This video called some of them out but thing like endless close ups of Elijah just go too far. They could've been stellar with a better director.
I assume this change is because, in the past, a lot of people in film and TV also worked in theatre or had started out in theatre, where blocking is important and close ups impossible. Nowadays, I feel like most film/TV directs have only worked in -- and even only watched -- film and TV, so their vocabulary is more limited.
Peter Jackson had reasons what what he did. He needed to keep the CGI to a minimum, and he needed to keep the height differences between characters to a minimum. - technical requirements for the style, which was quietly hidden from the audience. So please don't critique this, - best to focus on another example.
I think the problem is the over saturation of either style. Honestly, I don't find the wide tracked shot of him walking around in Executive decision all that appealing. Its slow and feels forced and contrived because no scene would ever actually play out like that. Maybe it is because I'm used to faster, more intense shots and edits. But those older classic age films do end up boring none film buffs/cinematography students from our era because they seem slow. It does suck to not have a greater mix of techniques though, that make for greater effect of these more intense shots
Another factor is that Hollywood has no more time to rehearse blocking, and producers demand maximum interchangeability of lines and shots for the editing room.
I’ve always loved and preferred the way shots were set up in old movies but for a long time couldn’t put my finger on what was different about them. But as I’ve learned more about filmmaking terminology, I’m now able to describe it: The style of filmmaking during Hollywood’s golden age was more akin to composing a scene in a play, or even a painting or illustration. The actor’s positions in relation to each other and the set was more deliberately composed, the same way a painter composes the subject matter in a painting. The audience was assumed to be spectators rather than participants, with more emphasis on the master shot, a lot less “first person” close-up cuts during dialogue, and utilization of the concept of “mise en scène”, where the set and set pieces were considered just as important in the composition of the shot as the actors. This style of filmmaking just feels more grand and theatrical and fun to me. Like what you are witnessing before your eyes is a fantastical event that’s at least slightly removed from gritty reality. It feels more magical. Whereas the intention of most movies today is to make you feel like you are inside of the scene, seeing the action with your own eyes rather than watching it as a spectator. I’m not completely against realism in movies. Realism can be really exciting depending on the subject matter of the film. But the pendulum has swung in the completely opposite direction. Filmmakers today ONLY want realism. They’re overly obsessed with it, believing that everything has to look and feel 100% real. Why I don’t know.
I have a feeling that relying on tighter shots like closeups and mostly static actors is way faster and therefore cheaper to setup, making producers happy. Same reason CGI is so overused these days, the cost of CGI might sound expensive but the amount of control of the result it gives after the fact makes producers really, really happy. Audience satisfaction be damned of course.
I think there is a genuine argument to be made that in golden age of Hollywood you actually had to be talented as an actor. There was is where for you to hide on screen in longer scenes with less cuts where you have to respond to other actors and use the set to sell the story. Now it feels very much like all you need to be able to say lines at a camera
Close ups are unnerving to execute in my opinion, especially for the classically trained theatre actors among us. Much easier to convey what you need to with the whole instrument. Having to reduce a performance to just a face is maddening. Your dissection of James Dean in your what makes a great performance video is case in point. We would miss so much if he was forced into a close up there. My Dad was constantly sitting on the couch or in the theater yelling at modern directors to "go to medium shot, go to medium shot for ^&%#% sake!" He would have loved this analysis! Thanks!
I feel like this video put into words the subconscious reason that I pretty much don't watch modern day movies anymore I love your channel, your videos are always great
Sometimes it bothers me other times it does not. For instance a montage is good but shakey cam is bad. Fully choreograph action good vs lazy cut away action is bad. Great story with motivated intensified continuity is fine but non motivated intensified continuity is dumb. It about the assembly of the film and the story.
Same. Wouldn't be excited to a watch recent film at the cinema today, even if it was completely free. Even if someone actually paid me an extra small cash amount on top. Getting there. Choosing screening times. Already too much the effort. Disappointment almost guaranteed.
Great video! I've rewatched Kurosawa's To Live recently and it's just some crazy magic! He does incredible things arranging and moving people and decorations in a frame. I think Kurosawa goes far beyond just conveying emotions and making a scene more powerful with blocking and movement. In his movies it's a whole new language which tells its own story, that can't be translated into verbal language. It's one more extra layer in a movie. And it's a thing lacking in many modern movies. Blocking and framing seems to be just a sort of utility in them, just a component without which you unfortunately can't technically make a movie) I personally prefer the old style. Yet it's worth mentioning, that it looks a bit more like theatre while the modern one feels more natural. You know, people don't always act so dramatically in real life) When people sit, eat and talk, they often just sit, eat and talk) Never the less, when such approach becomes as ubiquitous as it is today it turns out to be, as you said it - lazy and boring. Also, who said that everything has to feel natural all of the time?
The reduced use of moving masters and dynamic blocking wasn't a loss of craft, it was mainly a symptom of changing technology and how that manifested different artistic techniques over time. Film cameras in the golden age didn't have a viewfinder you could look through during a take; once you loaded the film you couldn't see what the lens saw, you could only see a horizontally skewed approximation through a sidefinder periscope. Therefore, accomplishing a dynamic shot relied more on the actors' spatial position and movement relative to the camera itself, rather than movement within the frame, which was inaccessible to the crew during the take. Once viewfinders could be used while rolling film, this allowed filmmakers to capture a frame in the moment more precisely. Of course, Master-A-B coverage is uncreative, but it also reflects a shift to performance-focused directing. Being able to precisely compose a closeup without worrying about actor movement disrupting said composition means that you can do more closeups and get the performance in as much of the frame as possible. Almost all scenes are about a scenario and the characters within it, and Master-A-B makes sure you get that, then some inserts for whatever happens in your scene. For the record I prefer more 'classical' filmmaking, but this narrative you present of the slow decay of craft does not reflect the reality and history of the industry and filmmaking itself.
I don't know from Hollywood or history, but I think boring directing is bad directing, and bad directing can't be excused by precedence or happenstance, in my opinion.
@@Selrisitai I am talking about a shift in craft that new technology creates. A closeup is less visually dynamic than a master, but you can capture small details of facial performance that a master doesn't allow for. The visible craft is less impressive but the storytelling effect is much the same. If you are relying on a shot to be visually dynamic to carry the drama or the scenario, I think that reflects a lack of immersion in the characters and the story/world. A lack of blocking is not necessarily what should be blamed for that.
@@alexzappa1726 What you get from a dynamic "full" shot it's absolutely not the same you're telling with a closeup, in any way, I think it shouldn't need an explanation. And having a new toy doesn't mean you have to use it and even less this way, same manner not "needing" to go through a certain process anymore with the new tech doesn't mean you shouldn't...
@@SoftBoiledArt I've specifically discussed the differences in utility between a master and a close-up in my previous reply. A close-up lets you capture performance in a more natural, immersive way. You're not paying attention to what someone's doing with their hands when you're talking to them. You're looking at their face and eyes. I haven't said blocking and capturing performance in the master should go away. I'm pointing out that the relative rarity of closeups in golden age of cinema was most likely a product of available technology for capturing performance. If Billy Wilder had viewfinders available to him at the time, I bet any money he'd shoot a lot more close-ups.
@@alexzappa1726 I doubt that, you can only abuse something as simple as a portrait to some extent before the audience is immune and stops meaning anything. Talking with someone can contain anything from body language, attempts at pulling a gun, a stranger approaching, the reaction of multiple characters, displaying relationship dynamics with the position of the characters in relation to each other...and irl you're not looking at a close shot of whoever you're talking most of the times. Even then you could argue it's more natural (I'm not seeing it) in the same way a first person shooter is more "natural" than cinema, subjetive view, real time action instead of being a secuence of frames, and a 3D environment instead of just shots, but that's kinda souless and kinda not the point of the media as you'll understand.
I also would prefer more films focused on blocking and composition and let my own eye decide where to look. But I think nowadays directors and the audience want to focus on the actor’s performance with micro facial expressions. Great examples of this is Isabelle Hupert and Cilian Murphy on Oppenheimer. Also, people are drawn to other’s people faces. As Sergio Leone puts it: “The human face is the more beautif landscape”
On the side of actors, I think that a major difference is that once actors were trained to play in theatres. Today the background of major actors is increasingly coming from acting schools and are not used to find themselves on a stage. Beware, mine is just a man-of-the-street opinion
I would still defend Fellowship's stand and deliver in the Council of Elrond because it does actually achieve a lot by avoiding the intentions of what you're talking about. The idea to use blocking and shot composition is to establish things like main characters. Meanwhile, the Council scene is all about everyone there thinking about themselves, essentially all of them seeing themselves as the protagonist. Boromir most especially; when he looks like he's speaking to no one in particular, it's because he really isn't speaking to anyone in particular. A lot of the "bad shots" of Fellowship only really add to the feeling of danger, especially the danger of temptation, which is why it probably wouldn't work as well if you put "too much effort" into camera work - you might end up convincing the audience that someone was the protagonist, someone was in the right, when the whole point of those scenes was to show the fallibility of all peoples. Even Galadriel could have been tempted by the Ring. Same goes with things like the super close ups if Gandalf at the start - that was intentional. It's supposed to not just be intense, but also give you this feeling of unnaturalness. I don't think your criticism is invalid, but I also don't see that the conclusion would be that Fellowship ought to have been done like Executive Suite.
people use to frame shots like it was a stage production and the movement was intended to make it all visually, as much as dialog driven, to keep the shot interesting. Now a days, I think it almost works so that you could have two people who hate each other and refuse to be in the same room together, never actually need to be in the same place to make a romantic movie with 1-2 ish scenes where they would need to hug/kiss.
Good point modern filmmaking tends to be dull in deed,that said,one must not fall into the opposite trap and have characters being hyperactive,sometimes in life things are simply uneventful,a husband and wife in bed talking,is just that,what's the point of having them move around the whole room just for the sake of it,also sometimes people are in a public place and can't move as they please,take the opening scene of Pulp Fiction,they are in a dinner eating,the only way to shoot it is,in a "sit and deliver" way.
You're mostly right with your video, current Hollywood is incredibly bland, but I loved the effect of "intense continuity" in Man on Fire and Bourne Ultimatum. I think for some films, if done right, it's very moving, enthralling, and immersive. Conversely in the extended example you gave I felt the same problem I have with a lot of old films, which is that they actually feel more stilted and 4th-wall-breaking because they're obviously choreographed and (literally) melodramatic. The shot/reverse shot does indeed need to get semi-retired. I'm trying to think of any directors who regularly ditch it in the modern era now...
I might be wrong but Tarantino rarely does it. All the scenes in my head from his infamous movies doesn't have shot-reverse shot. Considering the amount of dialogue his movies has.
Bourne Ultimatum felt so good and purposeful with the shaky cam. Then basically every action movie for years copied it and did it poorly or with no real thought. I feel like half the reason John Wick blew up is because they actually dared to show the action.
I don't think he meant to say it is boring, but rather that the directing is unmotivated. The close ups are used for everything and there is little in the way of blocking, interesting camera movement or shot diversity. Whether you like the scene or not is up to you, but the directing isn't as obviously purposeful as on the old movies example. Interestingly enough, though, people in the comments have pointed out that the directing on LotR actually was motivated: to hide the difference between the actors height. In that shot you have dwarves, hobbits, humans, elves and Gandalf, all of whom are supposed to be different in height, and the actors weren't. So that's why the scene is shot that way, it's just not done for story reasons.
@@ivosamuelgiosadominguez6649 Yeah, I didn't even think about that. It would've been way harder to keep the perspective if everyone was strolling around like idiots. Though I understand his point and that's something I've been aware of for a long time. I don't thing really think it applies here honestly. Sometimes the dialogue is so intense and good that you don't need the camera to move and to cut as many to keep the audience interested. That's more for slow-burn dramas with long af dialogue scenes, not movies like LOTR or like the opening of Inglorious Basterds.
"Widescreen" should really be called "shortscreen". It's just as accurate a description. Especially modern films where the aspect ratio is well over 2:1 - that is ridiculous.
@@calebfuller4713 2:1 should be wider, but older CinemaScope on film used an anamorphic lens to get more picture into a 35mm frame. Today's cameras are digital, and it appears that 4:3 is actually the "open matte" aspect ratio. Then those movies are cut down to 2.39:1 (unless they're in IMAX 1.90:1 or 1.37:1). I find that movies in "artificial" CinemaScope look like "shortscreen".
This is partly why I prefer old films. Not that I can't enjoy contemporary ones, but it really is much more interesting to SEE where they are and watch the actors move around rather than just staring at their faces for 2 hours.
Kurosawa used the long lens well by being really far away and making it a mid or full shot with multiple characters, but all the same size on screen. Some parts of the early Star Wars movies and The Clash ‘London Calling’ video are shot the same way. I don’t go to the movies much anymore.
This was a brilliant video and really helped me to grasp exactly what it is about old movies that feels so different compared to newer films from around about the late 80s to early 90s onwards. The trend towards shaky cam by the late 2000s in movies like Babylon AD really seems to suggest that filmmakers from around about this time were getting more and more desperate to find ways to make shots appear more intense and began leaning on an increasingly narrow bag of tricks to achieve it. I recently rewatched Children of Men and contrasting its use of handcam tracking shots, particularly in the warzone that erupts at the end of the movie, with the egregious use of them in Babylon really spells it out to me; one captures a kind of documentary quality, of being directly involved in the action that's unfolding on screen, while the other fails to actually capture any of the action at all.
I think also, if you do remember, The Blair Witch Project, was one of the films that inspired shaky cam/found footage in general. Before that, shaky cam was inspired by people using 8mm tape camcorders you would buy form an electronic store, but had no tripod screw mount at the bottom, so you were FORCED to carry it around on your hand or attach it to some custom made modification to your camera, just to keep it still, or place it on a book or a flat surface, even though the bottom part of it was a border and only the middle top was clear.
14:38 Angel Eyes introduction scene from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the coffee shop scene from Heat are shot in that kind of way and I think those are incredible scenes.
Yes to these criticisms. As far as I can figure, the old school directors understood 'teleplays' and they were doing film versions of a play with a stage and the thought that you were supposed to see all the actors or many and from a medium to long range. When a key dialogue or emotional moment occurs that character may get a spotlight and be front and center to the stage - the play version of the up-front single closeup. In more modern times I don't think they are attached to the concept of live plays. All I know is that there is something I really dislike in a lot of newer movies and its pointed out here: each thing said is a single closeup. then a single closeup of "Ya, i agree" to the fast cut to the other single closeup "okay" then to the other again "we leave tomorrow" then flash to the other "right, tomorrow". i didn't know the name 'intensified continuity' but it annoys me UNLESS its some sort of key moment where (like the old school) it's telling us about that single characters important emotional moment or the character is dropping some key gamechanger info etc. now? they just go entire movies where its 300 close-ups and changes for every new speakers sentence.
Damn. I can't remember last time a YT video taught me something entirely new. Just to test you theory, I watched a B tier French movie from 1968, and even this familly comedy showed all these signs of using camera depth, angles, movement, mirror reflections, transitions of focus, actual room for the actors to use, move around, in and out, to just leave scenes unfold before our eyes, and visually tell a story that completes the spoken words and even the body language of the actors. Just watching a random snippet of a French movie from 1959 (Jean-Pierre Mocky's first film actually). A women has brought home two dudes, one she's attracted to, and a guy he's sticking with. The woman was in the kitchen to change to casual clothes, and the unattractive guy caught her naked. In a single shot, we see the unattractive guy come to the attractive guy to tell him about him seeing her naked, they are close to the camera in waist shot. Then she enters the main room from a door behind them, and the camera follows her, while attractive guy crosses out of the shot and unattractive guy follows her. She comes to a table, pours herself a drink, and unattractive dude comes awkwardly close to her kinda creeping. They are both in frame, facing the camera, but none is speaking. Then she turns to the attractive guy and immediately starts talking to him, and the unattractive one, while still just there behind her, is taken completely out of the frame, even when he's talked about or pointed to, while the general framing hasn't changed, just paned right a bit. The woman and the attractive guy are facing each other and speaking actively. th-cam.com/video/ek-ymge4eCo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iickMIrJjQCShkgZ&t=1034 I would have never noticed the story it's telling without this video pointing out that it is actually telling a story. These are kinda simple visual narrative devices, but I never realized it was (though at some unconscious level it probably played a significant role in my enjoyment of these old movies). This brings a whole new level of appreciation. Currently in French cinemas there's a movie from Quentin Dupieux playing, Yannick, which I quite enjoyed with my first watch. I wanted to see it again, but now I have an extra reason to go watch it again, to see if this "indie maintream" director has, as I believe he has, some of this cinemacraft flair of old times.
This is funny but oh, so true. Old time movie actors learnt their craft on stage and I expect film directors did their apprenticeships there too. Thanks!
Yeah many of the older great actors had skills, talents, and training in other areas than "Stand in front of camera and deliver lines." that more of the newer types have. Christopher Lee for example was an actual spy back in the day.
I remember seeing Lord of the Rings in the theater and not enjoying it very much for some reason, something was bothering me... Now I understand, this montage and filming as a "collage of faces" was exactly it.
You're forgetting that technology advancements have made smaller , lighter cameras avaiable , replacing the huge , nearly immovable behemoths of the past. Elaborate blocking , while definitely useful and aesthetic , was as much dictated by the physical , budgetary & time constraints of the movie business. If a director can get more shots per day with an easily moveable camera, reframing without stopping production to create a new setup , the cost and time savings are immediately apparent. It doesn't necessarily correlate with a lack of skill or creativity at all.
Except that you only need so many shots because they are all short because there's a shot for every sentence so you lose as much as you gain. It also doesn't explain or excuse the sheer monotony of scene construction in many modern films. The fact that it's so easy and cheap that we don't have to plan it is a major cause of a) low quality products b) high actual expenses because 10x cheap is still more costly than 1x expensive c) very high post-production costs to try to remedy the consequence of bad planning and, in movies, cutting the excessive footage into a coherent narrative. This, by the way, is actually a common problem in many industries because of the power of modern technology. I first saw it when working in investment banking in the 1990s where there was definitely more money than sense.
@@fruitypebbles803but, it is still much easier to shoot many different shots than just one long one. Also, you never know how many shots are useable in the editing room. The more you shoot, the less reshoot you may have to do.
@@oddbod4442 Modern films also shortchange the preproduction and writing phases in order to rush to production, postproduction, and release; everything has to be shot to be easily rewritten and reshot without looking jarringly inconsistent.
If the cinematography is obviously of lesser quality just to save coin yes it correlates to a lack of skill since for starters, you're not developing those skills.
Can you make one about the lazy use of torches? It drives me nuts how every scene immediately shines the torch into the viewers eyes! I don't want to be blinded, I want to see what's in the torchlight beam, the fear on the actor's faces, the tension of the search, and then the reveal.
My goodness, you're an overlooked channel. I've only watched 2 of your videos and I'm very impressed. Are you also in the film industry and make movies ?
Honestly any time I see the director doing these short cuts whether it is in static scenes or dances and fight scenes, it signals to me that they have no confidence in their choreography, performers, CGI, and sets. They are only showing us the tiny little perfect shots, because if we spent any more time looking we'd see awkward dance or fight imperfections or cheap poorly done costumes or badly colored or lit sets.
It's clear that the classic style is more akin to a theater play, because it was back when cinema was still developing its own language based on it's closer medium 'cousin'. The thing is that real people rarely move all over the place like that. It makes sense in theater when you can't see close ups so you need action to keep it emotional and engaging, but modern cinema is more comfortable now blocking in a realistic way. Not saying there can't be a more creative twist to it, but I do not see it as necessarily worse in comparison
True directing is utilizing a wide variety of tools in a creative and visually interesting way that reinforces the story being told and actors performances. I'd like to see more modern films shot in a more old school way but with the technological advancements we've made since
This and your I,Claudius tell it all. Brilliant! I dread the re-makes of The Third Man or The Apartment or Hobson's Choice or any number of others. Thankfully I am old and have them all on dvd 🙂
That old school style of "The Cross" is indicative of theater & plays brought into film. They still use this today on stage so i don't understand why film has moved away from using this style.
This is because most film actors are horrible as stage actors, so instead it makes more sense for cameramen and editors to take care of choreography and direct the viewers eyes exactly where they need to be. It takes a very talented actor to capture one's visual attention when watching a stage play, where the viewer's field of attention remains static and potentially one can look at whatever they want, unless the stage lighting will guide the viewer's eyes to a certain spot at some point of the play. With closeups employed by the intensified continuity style in movies, the viewer has very little to no choice but to look exactly at what the director wants them to look at. Thus, the actor's work is reduced almost to that of a talking prop. And the story gets delivered as intended.
@@SzalonyKucharz In summation: directors are lazy these days. Literally their primary job is "directing" actors, which should include placement within a scene & movement through those frames of reference.
I don't mind shakey cam it can be used well. lets say a character is filming a video on their phone it makes sense for the scene to have shakey cam. Lets say a building is blowing up and people are running away. That would make the scene feel more chaotic.
@@icecreamhero2375 oh I get it can be a nice addition for conceptual work but it literally makes me queasy. I can't even play first person shooters without 🤢
Better example of the old school would be 12 Angry Men. Similar to Executive Suite but with a shifting focus on the actors throughout several scenes. One of the best films ever made & still one of my favorite stories about human character.
Maybe this is why I find so many modern actors iffy. They don't have to learn how to act like Bette Davis. They just stand there and let the camera do all the work.
I wish I hadn't watched this. Now whenever I watch a modern movie, I will never not see the "stand and deliver", aka "shot, reverse shot", and get frustrated. But if the Director decides to plant the camera have their actors actually, you know, act, I can now appreciate it. Thank you for ruining modern movies for me forever.
Except intensified continuity predates cutting digitally by decades... nice try but it's not the reason older movies used to block scenes with more thought.
I love your arguments, but I don't think classic cinema staging, which was based heavily on stage acting, makes it better than modern film by default. I think your clip from "Top Secret!" was a great illustration that the "turn away" was a meme at the time, referencing a dead style. I agree that modern films are very same-y, this is a great time to step back and reassess our choices. Film language is still developing. I'm looking forward to how it continues to mature, and I think videos like yours are important commentaries that will inform the future. Thanks!
Agreed. When you compare an all-time classic like All About Eve to most films today, they will never measure up. But the majority of films in any era are simply not good.
I thought I'd never be able to a cameraman because my hands shake too much. Now I can pay 10k for a state-of-the-art stabilizer and shake it around forcefully to replicate my usual shaking... PHOTOGRAPHY!
Y'know, I think camera work, specifically shots that show the characters, full body, acting, are something that has alerted me to a film's likely quality for a long time. I never really knew precisely what I was seeing that made me think, "This director is an artist," but I suspect it was this, at least in part. Me, I used to do stick-figure animations. Like, martial arts fights, like you do. Now I've got the game Sifu, which has a "replay" mode that allows you to record and edit your fights. I've spent many hours editing with all kinds of camera-work to make my fights look great. I started by just making the camera constantly move. You've got new toys, you want to see how far you can push them. The more fights I edited, however, the more storytelling I realized I enjoyed doing. I started by not using _any_ cuts, but then I realized that sometimes the camera panning across the whole arena to get behind a character's shoulder isn't necessarily always the best strategy. Sometimes you need the camera to abruptly be elsewhere. You can use various tricks, too, to maintain the continuity of a shot after a cut. For instance, if a character falls, then when you cut, ensure that the falling character is, in shot, still falling. I just watched "The Mechanic" (2011) today and for much of the film it was striking to me how uncreative it was, how much wasted potential there was. I'm over here doing all these wondrous things with a video game camera, and these guys who direct for a living have no such interest.
Your phrase, "The Turn Away" is actually a "Two Shot" at least it was when I went to school where David Bordwell taught. It is a common device used in soap operas and film noirs. It is an economical way to show the emotions of two characters without cutting.
Movies today are written by a committee, adhering to DEI and usually a "diverse" staff who have no lived experience to present to the audience. Directors come from the same DEI pool, so have all gone to the same film school where they have been taught and indoctrinated by the same profesores and the same simple ideas; quick short shots - audience attention is low; High reliance on FX - immature audiences who like whizzbangs; Costs of making movies today - budgets have gone through the roof so they save on shooting.
I Think part of the reason you get those stand and deliver things so much now is that sometimes you don't get both actors at the same time. Amongst other things. Lets the editors also remove scenes, lines, and such easily so they can do reshoot on a small part without having to reshoot everything
Bad film making is still bad film making. They pay the actors, I have no idea why they couldn't be there. Except re-shoots because the movie got bad previews.
Ever since editing has gone digital, many movie makers has been spoiled by the point-and-click convenience of the computer interface and indulged in rapid scene cutting, only to validate the "low attention span" myth about the audience. In the old days of actual film stock cutting, the laborious process of editing force handed the directors to be much more restrained and thoughtful about every shot -- there was no fix-it-in-post to the rescue. Similar problem is also affecting the color-grading process.
UNMOTIVATED CAMERA MOVEMENT!!!! Thank you! I've stopped watching SO MANY films and TV shows for this reason alone. (Sorry for the all caps. I'm just excited to hear someone else say it.)
God, yes. Thanks for enhancing my cinematic vocabulary. I've got more understanding now of why I watch more movies from the 1930s-1950s than I do modern movies.
I think the closeup craze is all about being able to control the pace of the performance from the editing room. As apposed to making choices and committing to a direction on the day of filming, they wish to make that choice at a different time
Thank you very much for this explanation of methods and style! I suspect that most modern directors are very well aware of what they are doing, and choose to do it even understanding these legitimate criticisms. Sort of like how music producers choose to pass vocalist's singing through auto-tune and pitch correction: they know that it is the style the audience is used to and wants to see/hear.
Close-ups are more prevalent today because we're watching them on small screens. In the past people went to theaters where the images they watched were HUGE. Close-ups revealed every pore, every strand of hair, every wrinkle of skin at many times their normally viewed size. Faces were overpowering, especially in extended cuts. So now a balance has been reached: bigger faces for the small screen; shorter shots to keep them from being (quite so) overpowering on the big screen.
Just thinking about closeups, I suspect one reason is ever wider film aspect ratios. A full height shot of a person is 95% everything else; great wide wings of stuff you aren't meant to be looking at. We're watching the world through a letterbox. Wide is nice for landscapes and the army prepared to attack, but poor for normal stuff with a couple of people in it.
I remember my directing teacher at NYU Grad Film back in the seventies talking about staging the actors with both characters looking toward the camera so you could see both faces at once. By the way, I can tell you reason that it's done this way these days in one word. Fear. Long takes, complicates blocking -- it locks you in. It forces you to commit (gasp!) to a decision that you've made on the day, on the set. With these multiple reverses, you (or the editor, or the producer) have maximum flexibillity in terms of deferring the final creative decision, pacing, et al, to the editing room. A little bit from one take, a little bit from another take, cutting something out, make it longer, make it shorter. Same thing with walk-and-talks. They're almost always shot from multiple angles that allow you to cut them longer or shorter. You don't have to commit to anything. Complicated blocking locks you in to a certain pacing and approach to a scene -- which is great if you have the confidence to know, on the set, that something is going to work -- but God help you if you discover after the fact, that it doesn't.
I'm sure people have brought this up before, but Spielberg does the old blocking style in most of his films. He still cuts way more than the goldenage Hollywood, but at least he blocks his characters in interesting ways.
Absolutely! I made a video about Spielberg (How Spielberg Directs Your Attention) which I’m sure you’ll enjoy.
Giant telephones in the foreground, anyone?
@@atlas3650 th-cam.com/video/U3xwhP6GQDI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UM7i9qpLVQH3kBFe
Indy in the Temple of Doom, when he barrels into Willie's room, looking for an assassin, and she thinks he's there to have sex - it's one of my favorite examples of great blocking.
Spielberg is a HUGE fan of old-style filming!
Shooting only close-ups was called "Talking Photographs" by Sir Alfred Hitchcock.
one can tell how inexperienced a director is by their dependence on them. First-timers one can barely tell what's being depicted.
what an outstanding quote.
thank you.
I noticed this a long time ago in film. Once you do you’ll never not notice it. Shaky cam has to be my biggest pet peeve, so ugly. This is my favorite video by you, thank you so much for making it MW, took all my thoughts and made a video out of it. Bring back classical style filmmaking!
Me to. The shaky cam was never a good use of camera. Just use a handheld shot or a steadicam for a more natural movement.
But there are times when
intensified continuity does not bother me.
For instance,
a montage is good but shakey cam is bad. Fully choreograph action good vs lazy cut away action is bad. Great story with motivated intensified continuity is fine but non motivated intensified continuity is dumb. It about the assembly of the film and the story.
Shaky cam has its place. As example of that:
Star Trek Vs Battlestar Galactica 2003.
On tng, voyager enterprise, you will rarely ever see any shaky cam style. The show runners at the time refused Frakes on many an occasion when he wanted to use different styles to what had been looooong established for the franchise.
Meanwhile over at Battlestar galactica their use of shaky cam was pretty epic given the serious nature of the show and used such liberally when it came to external vfx which although not the first time I have seen such (the first being deep Space 9) was employed liberally but well.
A battle from Star Trek Voyager here showing that they really really wanted to do a bit of shaky cam but it is so tacit on the internal shots that they should not have bothered meanwhile the external shots have no such direction and are in effect long flat shots. It's a good fight scene dont get me wrong, one of the best for Voyager, but you get the idea.
th-cam.com/video/Wtso6FVQgxo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z7WMwepBp0zevYNT
Meanwhile: a battle from BSG
th-cam.com/video/kPeXFV94bsE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6d8wIoy5YFAzBBR-
Shaky cam has its place.
"Once you do you’ll never not notice it." God dammit. You're right. I'm screwed now. Will have to incorporate some of this into my future classes!
Yeah, I hate shaky cam as well, especially if it is a certain horror movie genre that shakes the shaking up to include fear in a scene were absolutely nothing interesting happens.
My second most hated thing in movies is screaming people.
The shaky cam only works if you're Paul Greengrass.
"It would have saved us from 4 seconds of wall... (dramatic music soars)
Twice."
That comment slayed me...
Twice.
😂😂😂
I assisted with a Star Trek fan film project some years ago. All the sets were green-screen, and the entire studio was a small green-screen room in the producer's house. No wide shots here. The _only_ way to record scenes was with over-the-shoulder conversations (recorded twice, because only one camera), and static scenes like starship bridge scenes. And yet, it ended up looking pretty good (for an almost zero budget production) because its audience was accustomed to looking at the sort of lifeless staging you describe (and because the CG backgrounds weren't half rotten).
Yea this is the problem with comparing 50s Hollywood drama blocking with heavy special effects driven action films. Like others have pointed out you cant have Boromir walking around all over the place in one single shot so easily when half the cast in that scene is several feet taller than their characters are.
Sounds like a nightmare to film an entire movie on a Greenscreen. Especially for the actors. It'd find it really difficult to get Into character and stay focused. Even more so if you have to interact with other characters who aren't even there.
Maybe directors and photographers were more creative back in the day because they had fewer options. Also, The fact that film was expensive meant you put a lot of thought into every single shit. Every shot was precious.
@majkus do you remember the fan film name?
@@cbuosi It was Star Trek Hidden Frontier (well, one of the followup series they did; I became involved fairly late in their history).
@@majkus tks
Thank you for highlighting one of the reasons I quit working in the art department. The camera department could always be relied upon to make sure that none of the careful work I had done ended up on screen.
This is the kind of quote that you should be quoted by annoying college kids and Redditors for, but I'm sure some historical Figure of Repute will get the credit.
The new style of film making is better than the old black and white.
@@spodergibbs5088 XDDDD
@@spodergibbs5088 Poppycock!
@axileus9327 exactly my point. Brabo axileus9327
I remember way back, when I was a teen, I saw a Pepsi commercial on TV. It was new, innovative, and different because it had all very fast cuts. I remember, after that, almost everything I saw on the big screen or small was edited the exact same way. I now loathe that simplistic, gimmicky editing.
That's interesting. Back in the day, I also noticed the random camera movement in commercials, that I thought was novel.
Yes. I don't know if I remember a specific advert but somewhere, an 'MTV' new style of super fast cuts, wham, wham, and I think you're right that at first it was a WOW cool look. it was still unique so it was a 'Rad' eye-zinging fun thing in small doses and then.... ...yes, you're right, soon it was EVERY tv show, advert, short, movie :(
I haven't seen a tv commercial for several years. When I final watched something live, I immediately noticed: shorter runtime, more commercials in an hour long time slot, frantic/energetic cutting (camera doesn't linger like it used to).
You have opened my eyes, now I'll never be able to watch a movie the same way again.
Hitchcock did some very nice tracking shots. The camera swooping down to show Ingrid Bergman holding "the key" in "Notorious". Or the wonderful camera movement when Arbogast goes into the house in "Psycho", only to end up tumbling down the stairs. Of course, "Rope" was interesting, if ultimately not all that interesting. Done much better in "Rear Window". Both enclosed spaces, but one stays closed; the other expands, and almost breathes with life. I also think a lot of this goes back to the introduction of music videos as MTV was launched in 1981, and shorter cuts became more the style. So, a new generation of directors learned this new technique, and adapted it for their movies. Also, for a master class in the use of movement and blocking to create tension, you have to look at "Twelve Angry Men."
Earlier than music videos: Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In (1968-1973) was considered revolutionary at the time, and was much discussed by critics for its quick shots and frantic cuts. And it was pretty self-aware, as one of the quick-take jokes was Henry Gibson asking, "Marshall McLuhan, What're ya doin'?"
To be fair, TV in the 60s and 70s, etc. we’re very small. Movies didn’t fit on the small screen. You ended up with such horrors as the edges of peoples faces with a giant blank space in the middle or pan and scan.😱 It was a travesty to movie lovers. Made for tv shows had to come up with something different to keep people interested in the small screen. And music videos, well they have to keep up with the tempo of the music, the words and emotions of the songs, and the style of the musicians, it was a time of experimentation and ingenuity. Movies had no business trying to copy their examples. They waste the screen’s advantages.
I love "Rope". I'd probably have to rewatch, but, while he does show off a bit what he can do, I felt everything he did worked to its advantage of telling the story.
Modernization and the reliance on green screens has almost destroyed the industry.
The one with Henry Fonda was actually shot as a play doing the whole play 20+ times from beginning to end with different camera angles and positions for each time, then the director cut these to form the one sequence for the movie!!! That is why it has that feel. I imagine it was a continuity nightmare though.
One problem is that LOTR involves people of varying heights who aren’t actually that height in real life: aka Elijah Wood was not 3’6. John Rhys Davies was not less than 5 foot tall.
PJ was able to do some tricks, like forced perspective, little people doubles in some shots, and used digital tricks. He did everything he could, I think. But for the Council of Elrond, there was only so much they could do. Clearly a lot of tight close ups and digital editing and body doubles for the few wife shots.
Could he have solved this with little people actually being the main actor of each character? Yes. But how many people with dwarfism were established, known actors? Two? That’s a shame. But just not feasible for four hobbit actors and an unholy amount of dwarves (if you count The Hobbit films too).
Thoughts?
Yea I think its an oversight in using LOTR and The Matrix as examples when those for the most part definitely had much smaller sets and more precise digital effects going on. The Matrix sequels are obviously still way too focused on back and forth shots for the dialogue scenes. Like its insane that they wrote the Merovingian the way they did and had him completely still in every single one of his scenes.
Time Bandits had a whole caravan of halflings travelling all over the shop. It isn't always hard to find a thing if you look for it.
@@hpoonis2010 . I didn’t bring it up because I’ve never seen it. Also, wasn’t it about twenty years before LOTR films?
The more general driving force is actors can't interact with a set that doesn't physically exist.
@@hpoonis2010 Time Bandits used actual dwarf actors that do not fit the physical description of Hobbits as proportioned like full sized men but half the size.
Spielberg's blocking is pretty impressive. Soderberg desaturated Raider's of the Lost Ark into a black and white film, removed the sound and added a Trent Reznor soundtrack in order to highlight and study the staging and blocking in the film. The staging and blocking in Minority Report is pretty good too. One of the few modern, big budget directors who is a master at staging and blocking.
When I saw Soderberg's desaturated study of Raiders, it was a revelation. I'd had no idea, as a young movie-goer, of the sheer craftsmanship that went into the marvelous experience of watching that movie.
You've basically just explained why The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favourite films ever! It deviates quite a bit from the modern standard and uses a mixture of old and new styles.
Wes Anderson has some great blocking, although he has an obsession with symmetry. It's fun.
Totally Agree!
Inauthentic, his whole spiel is a gimmick.
@@garlandstrife Film contains a lot of artifice. Artifice is what this video is about. You might not like the fact that Anderson makes his artifice *feel* like artifice, but the argument could be made that he is one of the few filmmakers being honest about it, lol.
I thought I was crazy, thinking shots were cut too fast and that we didn’t have enough time to linger on certain moments. Vindication! Thanks for the interesting video.
I thought I was slow and dumb because of this. I felt like a dumb watching Oppenheimet.
When I see a closeup showing the acting partner’s back, I assume that’s a stand in.
Interestingly, the council of Elrond scene apparently was a nightmare to shoot because of the number of shots and the eyelines.
And it is the most boring sequence to watch. Even though storywise it is an important scene.
@@user-pv4ze2gu1b well, that's an opinion that you're unquestionably entitled to.
Lucky they were sitting down. The real nightmare is having to stand up for hours on end. But the extras' lack of reaction isn't just because they've been told to for continuity reasons - its because they're brain dead after days of repetition. Or they're thinking "When am I going to be able to take a loo break?"
@@user-pv4ze2gu1b it wasnt boring to me and to alot of ppl who liked the movie. This entire video is pretty much based on the fact that ppl think old time=prestigious, good and modernity=sucks. The idea that in cinema, people have to move around in a room anytime they are in conflict is just terrible terrible analysis. finchers entire filmography absolutely debunks this claim.
@@afrosymphony8207no but most films don’t experiment and stick to their boring styles because they continue to make money and that’s all they care aboutb
I totally understand where you're coming from. It can get boring when it's just face-to-face shots all the time, but it can go too far though when characters don't stop moving around and around and around and it gets annoying/distracting. I guess it all depends on the movie and scene.
This! I feel like the older movies used as examples here are all very .. theatrical. Which by definition makes them feel staged and unnatural, where as I think the goal with a lot of modern film makers is the opposite. They want to create an immersive experience where the situations and characters feel real to the viewer. The story and how it's shown feels like how you'd see/experience real life events.
It's one of the reasons I rarely enjoy plays: the movements of the actors tend to break my enjoyment of the story, even though they're doing "everything right" by stage actor standards and using the space, keeping the stage interesting and you focused.
Yes, it really depends on what the scene is going for. Like the face-to-face close-ups work well enough if you want an intimate scene, like the dinner scene from La La Land... you have a couple having a heated discussion over dinner, so the back and forth with their faces seems like the logic angle to go with. Could they maybe have added some different shots there to vary it a little? Maybe, but I don't think it would work with the characters moving all around the set like in All About Eve, since that rather has the effect of creating a sense of distance as the woman is trying to ignore the guy.
@@mundanepants your opinion, but in reality, the "staged" seems more real to me than static head shots...static scenes. Nothing could be more boring in life than 2 heads not moving...that's why they do the quick cuts, to try to add life to a dead scene. You don't enjoy movement? Then in reality you want it staged, a very very very small stage.
Never before I've fallen in love with a TH-cam channel in just one video
since i noticed this i have tried to tell people about it and they keep telling me im crazy
Not everyone feels the same way about it tbf 😅 many people prefer the modern style
To be fair with respect to "fast cuts", this would have been an agonising task before the advent of digital film. Constantly cutting between shots would literally have involved cutting and re-stitching frames of film to create desired effects. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was a specialised job at the time, not just something any Tom Dick or Harry was trusted to do.
Yep I've definitely heard directors from that era saying they did some weird stuff to stay on budget like excessively avoiding cuts and doing sceens in super long takes 😂
The addiction to never letting a shot run more than two seconds is especially bothering when it's a dance scene or fight scene.
Totally agree. I loathe fight scenes in modern films. It's always just a blur of movement and I can't tell what's supposed to be happening or to whom. So boring, and they go on for ages. I genuinely have no idea why these set-piece scenes are hyped up so much by the industry press and its media shills - if I'm watching at home they're my cue to get up and make a cup of tea or play with my phone.
If you can't lock the camera down and let them dance or fight then you need different actors.
Or car chase- sorry Greengrass fans!
My son pointed out in his young teens that all of the fast shots were to hide bad acting.
His words were, "dad, why don't people get Mr chan (Jackie) to do their fight scenes. They just keep changing the camera cos these people can't act or fight"
Pretty much all film criticism on YT is about movies made in the past 30-40 years. I love your focus on classical cinema. It adds a really interesting perspective.
I hate push-ins. I hate shakycam. I hate clever people who show you how clever they are. I love this channel.
You're a brave man using LotR as an example. Those movies are religious to me and many others. Unfortunately, I can't be mad because you're making sense...
In the case of that, I'd argue it's fine. Considering they were basically making all 3 simultaneously and producing anywhere from 12-15 hours of extremely elaborate, expensive footage, I think it's fair to give them as pass for wanting some wiggle room to adjust the rhythm of each scene in post.
@@tatehildyard5332 Yet the point he made is that it goes beyond mere wiggle room. LOTR's has expensive looking backgrounds with mostly flat shots presenting the actors with little or no dynamics. The green-tint is also abhorrent.
@@pagliacci2942 Yes, but I’m saying that I don’t think it’s entirely fair to put LOTR in this camp of “lazy coverage” because there’s clearly so much work, thought, attention and care put into each aspect of LOTR that you do see on screen, that I think they’ve earned the right to have a little insurance where each scene can cut together at the expense of visual density.
@tatehildyard5332 I understand your point, but as is pointed out in the video: what a waste, especially, then to keep zooming in on actors' faces when such effort has been made to the world around. It's like eating off paper plates on a mahogany table.
I find the direction in those films horrible and said so at the time. They are great productions but some of the choices are just "meh". This video called some of them out but thing like endless close ups of Elijah just go too far. They could've been stellar with a better director.
I assume this change is because, in the past, a lot of people in film and TV also worked in theatre or had started out in theatre, where blocking is important and close ups impossible. Nowadays, I feel like most film/TV directs have only worked in -- and even only watched -- film and TV, so their vocabulary is more limited.
Peter Jackson had reasons what what he did. He needed to keep the CGI to a minimum, and he needed to keep the height differences between characters to a minimum. - technical requirements for the style, which was quietly hidden from the audience.
So please don't critique this, - best to focus on another example.
My whole life has been a series of fast cuts, shaky cams, and push-in closeups.
Lol same thanks Bourne trilogy
I think the problem is the over saturation of either style. Honestly, I don't find the wide tracked shot of him walking around in Executive decision all that appealing. Its slow and feels forced and contrived because no scene would ever actually play out like that. Maybe it is because I'm used to faster, more intense shots and edits. But those older classic age films do end up boring none film buffs/cinematography students from our era because they seem slow. It does suck to not have a greater mix of techniques though, that make for greater effect of these more intense shots
Another factor is that Hollywood has no more time to rehearse blocking, and producers demand maximum interchangeability of lines and shots for the editing room.
I’ve always loved and preferred the way shots were set up in old movies but for a long time couldn’t put my finger on what was different about them. But as I’ve learned more about filmmaking terminology, I’m now able to describe it:
The style of filmmaking during Hollywood’s golden age was more akin to composing a scene in a play, or even a painting or illustration. The actor’s positions in relation to each other and the set was more deliberately composed, the same way a painter composes the subject matter in a painting. The audience was assumed to be spectators rather than participants, with more emphasis on the master shot, a lot less “first person” close-up cuts during dialogue, and utilization of the concept of “mise en scène”, where the set and set pieces were considered just as important in the composition of the shot as the actors.
This style of filmmaking just feels more grand and theatrical and fun to me. Like what you are witnessing before your eyes is a fantastical event that’s at least slightly removed from gritty reality. It feels more magical.
Whereas the intention of most movies today is to make you feel like you are inside of the scene, seeing the action with your own eyes rather than watching it as a spectator.
I’m not completely against realism in movies. Realism can be really exciting depending on the subject matter of the film. But the pendulum has swung in the completely opposite direction. Filmmakers today ONLY want realism. They’re overly obsessed with it, believing that everything has to look and feel 100% real. Why I don’t know.
I don't know if I'd equate over-the-shoulder shots as any more real than any other kind of shot. They're certainly more dull.
I have a feeling that relying on tighter shots like closeups and mostly static actors is way faster and therefore cheaper to setup, making producers happy. Same reason CGI is so overused these days, the cost of CGI might sound expensive but the amount of control of the result it gives after the fact makes producers really, really happy. Audience satisfaction be damned of course.
I think there is a genuine argument to be made that in golden age of Hollywood you actually had to be talented as an actor. There was is where for you to hide on screen in longer scenes with less cuts where you have to respond to other actors and use the set to sell the story. Now it feels very much like all you need to be able to say lines at a camera
What makes good acting nowadays is a good editor.
Close ups are unnerving to execute in my opinion, especially for the classically trained theatre actors among us. Much easier to convey what you need to with the whole instrument. Having to reduce a performance to just a face is maddening. Your dissection of James Dean in your what makes a great performance video is case in point. We would miss so much if he was forced into a close up there. My Dad was constantly sitting on the couch or in the theater yelling at modern directors to "go to medium shot, go to medium shot for ^&%#% sake!" He would have loved this analysis! Thanks!
I feel like this video put into words the subconscious reason that I pretty much don't watch modern day movies anymore
I love your channel, your videos are always great
Me too
Sometimes it bothers me other times it does not. For instance a montage is good but shakey cam is bad. Fully choreograph action good vs lazy cut away action is bad. Great story with motivated intensified continuity is fine but non motivated intensified continuity is dumb. It about the assembly of the film and the story.
My thoughts, exactly.
Same.
Wouldn't be excited to a watch recent film at the cinema today, even if it was completely free.
Even if someone actually paid me an extra small cash amount on top.
Getting there. Choosing screening times.
Already too much the effort.
Disappointment almost guaranteed.
@@johnjay370 I wanted to check out Hunger Games. after 3 minutes of camera shake I stopped watching
Great video! I've rewatched Kurosawa's To Live recently and it's just some crazy magic! He does incredible things arranging and moving people and decorations in a frame. I think Kurosawa goes far beyond just conveying emotions and making a scene more powerful with blocking and movement. In his movies it's a whole new language which tells its own story, that can't be translated into verbal language. It's one more extra layer in a movie. And it's a thing lacking in many modern movies. Blocking and framing seems to be just a sort of utility in them, just a component without which you unfortunately can't technically make a movie)
I personally prefer the old style. Yet it's worth mentioning, that it looks a bit more like theatre while the modern one feels more natural. You know, people don't always act so dramatically in real life) When people sit, eat and talk, they often just sit, eat and talk) Never the less, when such approach becomes as ubiquitous as it is today it turns out to be, as you said it - lazy and boring.
Also, who said that everything has to feel natural all of the time?
Oh, yes, Kurosawa was a genius - every frame he shot was so beautiful - and especially in Ikiru!
The reduced use of moving masters and dynamic blocking wasn't a loss of craft, it was mainly a symptom of changing technology and how that manifested different artistic techniques over time. Film cameras in the golden age didn't have a viewfinder you could look through during a take; once you loaded the film you couldn't see what the lens saw, you could only see a horizontally skewed approximation through a sidefinder periscope. Therefore, accomplishing a dynamic shot relied more on the actors' spatial position and movement relative to the camera itself, rather than movement within the frame, which was inaccessible to the crew during the take. Once viewfinders could be used while rolling film, this allowed filmmakers to capture a frame in the moment more precisely. Of course, Master-A-B coverage is uncreative, but it also reflects a shift to performance-focused directing. Being able to precisely compose a closeup without worrying about actor movement disrupting said composition means that you can do more closeups and get the performance in as much of the frame as possible. Almost all scenes are about a scenario and the characters within it, and Master-A-B makes sure you get that, then some inserts for whatever happens in your scene. For the record I prefer more 'classical' filmmaking, but this narrative you present of the slow decay of craft does not reflect the reality and history of the industry and filmmaking itself.
I don't know from Hollywood or history, but I think boring directing is bad directing, and bad directing can't be excused by precedence or happenstance, in my opinion.
@@Selrisitai I am talking about a shift in craft that new technology creates. A closeup is less visually dynamic than a master, but you can capture small details of facial performance that a master doesn't allow for. The visible craft is less impressive but the storytelling effect is much the same. If you are relying on a shot to be visually dynamic to carry the drama or the scenario, I think that reflects a lack of immersion in the characters and the story/world. A lack of blocking is not necessarily what should be blamed for that.
@@alexzappa1726 What you get from a dynamic "full" shot it's absolutely not the same you're telling with a closeup, in any way, I think it shouldn't need an explanation. And having a new toy doesn't mean you have to use it and even less this way, same manner not "needing" to go through a certain process anymore with the new tech doesn't mean you shouldn't...
@@SoftBoiledArt I've specifically discussed the differences in utility between a master and a close-up in my previous reply. A close-up lets you capture performance in a more natural, immersive way. You're not paying attention to what someone's doing with their hands when you're talking to them. You're looking at their face and eyes. I haven't said blocking and capturing performance in the master should go away. I'm pointing out that the relative rarity of closeups in golden age of cinema was most likely a product of available technology for capturing performance. If Billy Wilder had viewfinders available to him at the time, I bet any money he'd shoot a lot more close-ups.
@@alexzappa1726 I doubt that, you can only abuse something as simple as a portrait to some extent before the audience is immune and stops meaning anything. Talking with someone can contain anything from body language, attempts at pulling a gun, a stranger approaching, the reaction of multiple characters, displaying relationship dynamics with the position of the characters in relation to each other...and irl you're not looking at a close shot of whoever you're talking most of the times.
Even then you could argue it's more natural (I'm not seeing it) in the same way a first person shooter is more "natural" than cinema, subjetive view, real time action instead of being a secuence of frames, and a 3D environment instead of just shots, but that's kinda souless and kinda not the point of the media as you'll understand.
I also would prefer more films focused on blocking and composition and let my own eye decide where to look. But I think nowadays directors and the audience want to focus on the actor’s performance with micro facial expressions. Great examples of this is Isabelle Hupert and Cilian Murphy on Oppenheimer. Also, people are drawn to other’s people faces. As Sergio Leone puts it: “The human face is the more beautif landscape”
Yeah, even without closeups only whatever the director wants us to look at is in focus.
I do hate close ups. In old movies they are very effective because they are used sparingly. Too many close ups are overwhelming.
On the side of actors, I think that a major difference is that once actors were trained to play in theatres. Today the background of major actors is increasingly coming from acting schools and are not used to find themselves on a stage. Beware, mine is just a man-of-the-street opinion
I would still defend Fellowship's stand and deliver in the Council of Elrond because it does actually achieve a lot by avoiding the intentions of what you're talking about. The idea to use blocking and shot composition is to establish things like main characters. Meanwhile, the Council scene is all about everyone there thinking about themselves, essentially all of them seeing themselves as the protagonist. Boromir most especially; when he looks like he's speaking to no one in particular, it's because he really isn't speaking to anyone in particular. A lot of the "bad shots" of Fellowship only really add to the feeling of danger, especially the danger of temptation, which is why it probably wouldn't work as well if you put "too much effort" into camera work - you might end up convincing the audience that someone was the protagonist, someone was in the right, when the whole point of those scenes was to show the fallibility of all peoples. Even Galadriel could have been tempted by the Ring. Same goes with things like the super close ups if Gandalf at the start - that was intentional. It's supposed to not just be intense, but also give you this feeling of unnaturalness.
I don't think your criticism is invalid, but I also don't see that the conclusion would be that Fellowship ought to have been done like Executive Suite.
When he sat down and the characters were stone faced and unmoving...lol, now that's all I see. Horrid. Horrid. The problem with sycophants....
people use to frame shots like it was a stage production and the movement was intended to make it all visually, as much as dialog driven, to keep the shot interesting.
Now a days, I think it almost works so that you could have two people who hate each other and refuse to be in the same room together, never actually need to be in the same place to make a romantic movie with 1-2 ish scenes where they would need to hug/kiss.
Very much not a romantic movie, but The Other Side of the Wind was shot like this out of necessity. It works for me.
You have not ruined my love of movies. Movies did that all on their own. 💔
Good point modern filmmaking tends to be dull in deed,that said,one must not fall into the opposite trap and have characters being hyperactive,sometimes in life things are simply uneventful,a husband and wife in bed talking,is just that,what's the point of having them move around the whole room just for the sake of it,also sometimes people are in a public place and can't move as they please,take the opening scene of Pulp Fiction,they are in a dinner eating,the only way to shoot it is,in a "sit and deliver" way.
You're mostly right with your video, current Hollywood is incredibly bland, but I loved the effect of "intense continuity" in Man on Fire and Bourne Ultimatum. I think for some films, if done right, it's very moving, enthralling, and immersive. Conversely in the extended example you gave I felt the same problem I have with a lot of old films, which is that they actually feel more stilted and 4th-wall-breaking because they're obviously choreographed and (literally) melodramatic. The shot/reverse shot does indeed need to get semi-retired. I'm trying to think of any directors who regularly ditch it in the modern era now...
I might be wrong but Tarantino rarely does it. All the scenes in my head from his infamous movies doesn't have shot-reverse shot. Considering the amount of dialogue his movies has.
Bourne Ultimatum felt so good and purposeful with the shaky cam. Then basically every action movie for years copied it and did it poorly or with no real thought. I feel like half the reason John Wick blew up is because they actually dared to show the action.
Brilliant and devastating analysis.
I love how you used the least boring conversation scene from the least boring movie as an example of the modern boring way of dialoguing.
I don't think he meant to say it is boring, but rather that the directing is unmotivated. The close ups are used for everything and there is little in the way of blocking, interesting camera movement or shot diversity. Whether you like the scene or not is up to you, but the directing isn't as obviously purposeful as on the old movies example.
Interestingly enough, though, people in the comments have pointed out that the directing on LotR actually was motivated: to hide the difference between the actors height. In that shot you have dwarves, hobbits, humans, elves and Gandalf, all of whom are supposed to be different in height, and the actors weren't. So that's why the scene is shot that way, it's just not done for story reasons.
@@ivosamuelgiosadominguez6649 Yeah, I didn't even think about that. It would've been way harder to keep the perspective if everyone was strolling around like idiots.
Though I understand his point and that's something I've been aware of for a long time. I don't thing really think it applies here honestly.
Sometimes the dialogue is so intense and good that you don't need the camera to move and to cut as many to keep the audience interested. That's more for slow-burn dramas with long af dialogue scenes, not movies like LOTR or like the opening of Inglorious Basterds.
Also there were a ton of people. How else could it have been shot and been coherent?
Here as a member of the 'I hate shaky camera' club and honorary member of the 'Stop with with the closeups' club
I'm noticing a lot of these issues are from the aspect ratio. Heads are cut-off in newer movies. Older ones were in 4:3 where the shots are taller.
"Widescreen" should really be called "shortscreen". It's just as accurate a description. Especially modern films where the aspect ratio is well over 2:1 - that is ridiculous.
@@calebfuller4713 2:1 should be wider, but older CinemaScope on film used an anamorphic lens to get more picture into a 35mm frame.
Today's cameras are digital, and it appears that 4:3 is actually the "open matte" aspect ratio. Then those movies are cut down to 2.39:1 (unless they're in IMAX 1.90:1 or 1.37:1).
I find that movies in "artificial" CinemaScope look like "shortscreen".
These are the most entertaining video essays on TH-cam
Dude… I’ve been a First Assistant Director for 15 years… This video is genius!
This is partly why I prefer old films. Not that I can't enjoy contemporary ones, but it really is much more interesting to SEE where they are and watch the actors move around rather than just staring at their faces for 2 hours.
Exactly.
Kurosawa used the long lens well by being really far away and making it a mid or full shot with multiple characters, but all the same size on screen. Some parts of the early Star Wars movies and The Clash ‘London Calling’ video are shot the same way. I don’t go to the movies much anymore.
This was a brilliant video and really helped me to grasp exactly what it is about old movies that feels so different compared to newer films from around about the late 80s to early 90s onwards. The trend towards shaky cam by the late 2000s in movies like Babylon AD really seems to suggest that filmmakers from around about this time were getting more and more desperate to find ways to make shots appear more intense and began leaning on an increasingly narrow bag of tricks to achieve it. I recently rewatched Children of Men and contrasting its use of handcam tracking shots, particularly in the warzone that erupts at the end of the movie, with the egregious use of them in Babylon really spells it out to me; one captures a kind of documentary quality, of being directly involved in the action that's unfolding on screen, while the other fails to actually capture any of the action at all.
I think also, if you do remember, The Blair Witch Project, was one of the films that inspired shaky cam/found footage in general. Before that, shaky cam was inspired by people using 8mm tape camcorders you would buy form an electronic store, but had no tripod screw mount at the bottom, so you were FORCED to carry it around on your hand or attach it to some custom made modification to your camera, just to keep it still, or place it on a book or a flat surface, even though the bottom part of it was a border and only the middle top was clear.
So much to learn and understand... Appreciate the kind of videos you're making on Film's technicalities
14:38 Angel Eyes introduction scene from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the coffee shop scene from Heat are shot in that kind of way and I think those are incredible scenes.
Yes to these criticisms. As far as I can figure, the old school directors understood 'teleplays' and they were doing film versions of a play with a stage and the thought that you were supposed to see all the actors or many and from a medium to long range. When a key dialogue or emotional moment occurs that character may get a spotlight and be front and center to the stage - the play version of the up-front single closeup.
In more modern times I don't think they are attached to the concept of live plays. All I know is that there is something I really dislike in a lot of newer movies and its pointed out here: each thing said is a single closeup. then a single closeup of "Ya, i agree" to the fast cut to the other single closeup "okay" then to the other again "we leave tomorrow" then flash to the other "right, tomorrow".
i didn't know the name 'intensified continuity' but it annoys me UNLESS its some sort of key moment where (like the old school) it's telling us about that single characters important emotional moment or the character is dropping some key gamechanger info etc.
now? they just go entire movies where its 300 close-ups and changes for every new speakers sentence.
Damn. I can't remember last time a YT video taught me something entirely new.
Just to test you theory, I watched a B tier French movie from 1968, and even this familly comedy showed all these signs of using camera depth, angles, movement, mirror reflections, transitions of focus, actual room for the actors to use, move around, in and out, to just leave scenes unfold before our eyes, and visually tell a story that completes the spoken words and even the body language of the actors.
Just watching a random snippet of a French movie from 1959 (Jean-Pierre Mocky's first film actually). A women has brought home two dudes, one she's attracted to, and a guy he's sticking with. The woman was in the kitchen to change to casual clothes, and the unattractive guy caught her naked. In a single shot, we see the unattractive guy come to the attractive guy to tell him about him seeing her naked, they are close to the camera in waist shot. Then she enters the main room from a door behind them, and the camera follows her, while attractive guy crosses out of the shot and unattractive guy follows her. She comes to a table, pours herself a drink, and unattractive dude comes awkwardly close to her kinda creeping. They are both in frame, facing the camera, but none is speaking. Then she turns to the attractive guy and immediately starts talking to him, and the unattractive one, while still just there behind her, is taken completely out of the frame, even when he's talked about or pointed to, while the general framing hasn't changed, just paned right a bit. The woman and the attractive guy are facing each other and speaking actively.
th-cam.com/video/ek-ymge4eCo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iickMIrJjQCShkgZ&t=1034
I would have never noticed the story it's telling without this video pointing out that it is actually telling a story. These are kinda simple visual narrative devices, but I never realized it was (though at some unconscious level it probably played a significant role in my enjoyment of these old movies). This brings a whole new level of appreciation. Currently in French cinemas there's a movie from Quentin Dupieux playing, Yannick, which I quite enjoyed with my first watch. I wanted to see it again, but now I have an extra reason to go watch it again, to see if this "indie maintream" director has, as I believe he has, some of this cinemacraft flair of old times.
That scene sounds great. But the video is unavailable...
The youtube video you linked to is unfortunately set to private.
Dude, why doesn't this channel have a mil subs yet... Mister, you are great. Thanks for these videos!
This is funny but oh, so true. Old time movie actors learnt their craft on stage and I expect film directors did their apprenticeships there too. Thanks!
Yeah many of the older great actors had skills, talents, and training in other areas than "Stand in front of camera and deliver lines." that more of the newer types have. Christopher Lee for example was an actual spy back in the day.
Some did, some didn't. Camera size and mobility may have played the bigger role. Nonetheless, they did more with less.
honey wake up!! new Moviewise video just dropped
I remember seeing Lord of the Rings in the theater and not enjoying it very much for some reason, something was bothering me... Now I understand, this montage and filming as a "collage of faces" was exactly it.
You're forgetting that technology advancements have made smaller , lighter cameras avaiable , replacing the huge , nearly immovable behemoths of the past. Elaborate blocking , while definitely useful and aesthetic , was as much dictated by the physical , budgetary & time constraints of the movie business. If a director can get more shots per day with an easily moveable camera, reframing without stopping production to create a new setup , the cost and time savings are immediately apparent. It doesn't necessarily correlate with a lack of skill or creativity at all.
Except that you only need so many shots because they are all short because there's a shot for every sentence so you lose as much as you gain. It also doesn't explain or excuse the sheer monotony of scene construction in many modern films. The fact that it's so easy and cheap that we don't have to plan it is a major cause of a) low quality products b) high actual expenses because 10x cheap is still more costly than 1x expensive c) very high post-production costs to try to remedy the consequence of bad planning and, in movies, cutting the excessive footage into a coherent narrative. This, by the way, is actually a common problem in many industries because of the power of modern technology. I first saw it when working in investment banking in the 1990s where there was definitely more money than sense.
He has a whole movie about how I Claudius was blocked with only one giant heavy camera. If they can do that in the 70s, surely they can do it now.
@@fruitypebbles803but, it is still much easier to shoot many different shots than just one long one. Also, you never know how many shots are useable in the editing room. The more you shoot, the less reshoot you may have to do.
@@oddbod4442 Modern films also shortchange the preproduction and writing phases in order to rush to production, postproduction, and release; everything has to be shot to be easily rewritten and reshot without looking jarringly inconsistent.
If the cinematography is obviously of lesser quality just to save coin yes it correlates to a lack of skill since for starters, you're not developing those skills.
Can you make one about the lazy use of torches? It drives me nuts how every scene immediately shines the torch into the viewers eyes! I don't want to be blinded, I want to see what's in the torchlight beam, the fear on the actor's faces, the tension of the search, and then the reveal.
A very valuable video that should be seen by everybody who are into movies! Thank you again!
My goodness, you're an overlooked channel. I've only watched 2 of your videos and I'm very impressed.
Are you also in the film industry and make movies ?
Honestly any time I see the director doing these short cuts whether it is in static scenes or dances and fight scenes, it signals to me that they have no confidence in their choreography, performers, CGI, and sets. They are only showing us the tiny little perfect shots, because if we spent any more time looking we'd see awkward dance or fight imperfections or cheap poorly done costumes or badly colored or lit sets.
Absolutely outstanding! Thank you, Moviewise. You've justified the existence of TH-cam for one more year.
You make some very good points for years I have consistently hated the super fast cuts in the super close-ups nonstop all the time
It's clear that the classic style is more akin to a theater play, because it was back when cinema was still developing its own language based on it's closer medium 'cousin'. The thing is that real people rarely move all over the place like that. It makes sense in theater when you can't see close ups so you need action to keep it emotional and engaging, but modern cinema is more comfortable now blocking in a realistic way. Not saying there can't be a more creative twist to it, but I do not see it as necessarily worse in comparison
True directing is utilizing a wide variety of tools in a creative and visually interesting way that reinforces the story being told and actors performances. I'd like to see more modern films shot in a more old school way but with the technological advancements we've made since
This and your I,Claudius tell it all. Brilliant!
I dread the re-makes of The Third Man or The Apartment or Hobson's Choice or any number of others. Thankfully I am old and have them all on dvd 🙂
That old school style of "The Cross" is indicative of theater & plays brought into film. They still use this today on stage so i don't understand why film has moved away from using this style.
This is because most film actors are horrible as stage actors, so instead it makes more sense for cameramen and editors to take care of choreography and direct the viewers eyes exactly where they need to be. It takes a very talented actor to capture one's visual attention when watching a stage play, where the viewer's field of attention remains static and potentially one can look at whatever they want, unless the stage lighting will guide the viewer's eyes to a certain spot at some point of the play. With closeups employed by the intensified continuity style in movies, the viewer has very little to no choice but to look exactly at what the director wants them to look at. Thus, the actor's work is reduced almost to that of a talking prop. And the story gets delivered as intended.
@@SzalonyKucharz In summation: directors are lazy these days. Literally their primary job is "directing" actors, which should include placement within a scene & movement through those frames of reference.
@@S_raB And there paid to work fast, the days of getting weeks to rehearse are long gone.
The growl when he said shaky cam got a follow from me, a fellow shaky cam opponent. I resent the need for Dramamine to watch a movie
I don't mind shakey cam it can be used well. lets say a character is filming a video on their phone it makes sense for the scene to have shakey cam. Lets say a building is blowing up and people are running away. That would make the scene feel more chaotic.
@@icecreamhero2375 oh I get it can be a nice addition for conceptual work but it literally makes me queasy. I can't even play first person shooters without 🤢
Better example of the old school would be 12 Angry Men. Similar to Executive Suite but with a shifting focus on the actors throughout several scenes. One of the best films ever made & still one of my favorite stories about human character.
The scene shown was an excellent example.
Maybe this is why I find so many modern actors iffy. They don't have to learn how to act like Bette Davis. They just stand there and let the camera do all the work.
legitimately hilarious! also a great analysis
"...close-ups in their close-ups. OH MY GOOOOD!!"
I wish I hadn't watched this. Now whenever I watch a modern movie, I will never not see the "stand and deliver", aka "shot, reverse shot", and get frustrated. But if the Director decides to plant the camera have their actors actually, you know, act, I can now appreciate it. Thank you for ruining modern movies for me forever.
I love your delivery, and for that... SUBSCRIBED!
thaaaank you for not wasting my time with music and video section intros or redundant explanations. You went straight to the point!
Old movies didn't use INTENSIFIED CONTINUITY not because it's bad, but because CUTTING FILM is hard compared to cutting digital. Get real
Except intensified continuity predates cutting digitally by decades... nice try but it's not the reason older movies used to block scenes with more thought.
I love your arguments, but I don't think classic cinema staging, which was based heavily on stage acting, makes it better than modern film by default. I think your clip from "Top Secret!" was a great illustration that the "turn away" was a meme at the time, referencing a dead style. I agree that modern films are very same-y, this is a great time to step back and reassess our choices. Film language is still developing. I'm looking forward to how it continues to mature, and I think videos like yours are important commentaries that will inform the future. Thanks!
Agreed. When you compare an all-time classic like All About Eve to most films today, they will never measure up. But the majority of films in any era are simply not good.
I LOVE the background music to Moviewise. It is totally brilliant!
This is the first time I’ve ever gotten a compliment on the background music, thank you very much!
Bro this is the channel I've been looking for. Great content. Love the explanations. Guess I'm gonna binge watch all the vids now
I thought I'd never be able to a cameraman because my hands shake too much. Now I can pay 10k for a state-of-the-art stabilizer and shake it around forcefully to replicate my usual shaking...
PHOTOGRAPHY!
This may help explain why I've fallen so hard into anime, having been a movie lover for 25 years, and why modern movies feel so same-y.
Animation is mostly close-ups and fast cutting because they are drawings. Long interrupted scenes are more work to do.
Y'know, I think camera work, specifically shots that show the characters, full body, acting, are something that has alerted me to a film's likely quality for a long time. I never really knew precisely what I was seeing that made me think, "This director is an artist," but I suspect it was this, at least in part.
Me, I used to do stick-figure animations. Like, martial arts fights, like you do. Now I've got the game Sifu, which has a "replay" mode that allows you to record and edit your fights. I've spent many hours editing with all kinds of camera-work to make my fights look great.
I started by just making the camera constantly move. You've got new toys, you want to see how far you can push them. The more fights I edited, however, the more storytelling I realized I enjoyed doing. I started by not using _any_ cuts, but then I realized that sometimes the camera panning across the whole arena to get behind a character's shoulder isn't necessarily always the best strategy. Sometimes you need the camera to abruptly be elsewhere. You can use various tricks, too, to maintain the continuity of a shot after a cut. For instance, if a character falls, then when you cut, ensure that the falling character is, in shot, still falling.
I just watched "The Mechanic" (2011) today and for much of the film it was striking to me how uncreative it was, how much wasted potential there was. I'm over here doing all these wondrous things with a video game camera, and these guys who direct for a living have no such interest.
Your phrase, "The Turn Away" is actually a "Two Shot" at least it was when I went to school where David Bordwell taught. It is a common device used in soap operas and film noirs. It is an economical way to show the emotions of two characters without cutting.
I call it Two Faces East when I’m directing
Excellent observations. I feel like I can understand my boredom with modern movies better now.
Movies today are written by a committee, adhering to DEI and usually a "diverse" staff who have no lived experience to present to the audience. Directors come from the same DEI pool, so have all gone to the same film school where they have been taught and indoctrinated by the same profesores and the same simple ideas; quick short shots - audience attention is low; High reliance on FX - immature audiences who like whizzbangs; Costs of making movies today - budgets have gone through the roof so they save on shooting.
I Think part of the reason you get those stand and deliver things so much now is that sometimes you don't get both actors at the same time. Amongst other things. Lets the editors also remove scenes, lines, and such easily so they can do reshoot on a small part without having to reshoot everything
Yep, bad, uninspiring scripts, lead to bland 'tell dont show' filming choices.
Bad film making is still bad film making. They pay the actors, I have no idea why they couldn't be there. Except re-shoots because the movie got bad previews.
@@denroy3because the actors that have big names have big egos. Or schedule conflicts, or you need to run 40+ lines of alt dialogue
Ever since editing has gone digital, many movie makers has been spoiled by the point-and-click convenience of the computer interface and indulged in rapid scene cutting, only to validate the "low attention span" myth about the audience. In the old days of actual film stock cutting, the laborious process of editing force handed the directors to be much more restrained and thoughtful about every shot -- there was no fix-it-in-post to the rescue. Similar problem is also affecting the color-grading process.
i used to really hate single cuts a couple years ago but ive learned to just not focus on it anymore because so many movies use it
i have to say thats one advantage of tv over movies a lot less single cuts
UNMOTIVATED CAMERA MOVEMENT!!!! Thank you! I've stopped watching SO MANY films and TV shows for this reason alone. (Sorry for the all caps. I'm just excited to hear someone else say it.)
I already felt quite certain, but when you came out against long lenses, that’s when I knew that we were destined to be married.
God, yes. Thanks for enhancing my cinematic vocabulary. I've got more understanding now of why I watch more movies from the 1930s-1950s than I do modern movies.
I think the closeup craze is all about being able to control the pace of the performance from the editing room. As apposed to making choices and committing to a direction on the day of filming, they wish to make that choice at a different time
Thank you very much for this explanation of methods and style! I suspect that most modern directors are very well aware of what they are doing, and choose to do it even understanding these legitimate criticisms. Sort of like how music producers choose to pass vocalist's singing through auto-tune and pitch correction: they know that it is the style the audience is used to and wants to see/hear.
Close-ups are more prevalent today because we're watching them on small screens. In the past people went to theaters where the images they watched were HUGE. Close-ups revealed every pore, every strand of hair, every wrinkle of skin at many times their normally viewed size. Faces were overpowering, especially in extended cuts. So now a balance has been reached: bigger faces for the small screen; shorter shots to keep them from being (quite so) overpowering on the big screen.
Perfect dissection of framing/blocking fails, thank you :)
4.3 _thousand_ subs!? I thought for sure it would 4.3 million! Looks like I’m getting in early.
Just thinking about closeups, I suspect one reason is ever wider film aspect ratios. A full height shot of a person is 95% everything else; great wide wings of stuff you aren't meant to be looking at. We're watching the world through a letterbox. Wide is nice for landscapes and the army prepared to attack, but poor for normal stuff with a couple of people in it.
I didn't agree with all of the opinions in this video but I learned a lot. Good work.
I remember my directing teacher at NYU Grad Film back in the seventies talking about staging the actors with both characters looking toward the camera so you could see both faces at once.
By the way, I can tell you reason that it's done this way these days in one word. Fear. Long takes, complicates blocking -- it locks you in. It forces you to commit (gasp!) to a decision that you've made on the day, on the set.
With these multiple reverses, you (or the editor, or the producer) have maximum flexibillity in terms of deferring the final creative decision, pacing, et al, to the editing room. A little bit from one take, a little bit from another take, cutting something out, make it longer, make it shorter. Same thing with walk-and-talks. They're almost always shot from multiple angles that allow you to cut them longer or shorter. You don't have to commit to anything.
Complicated blocking locks you in to a certain pacing and approach to a scene -- which is great if you have the confidence to know, on the set, that something is going to work -- but God help you if you discover after the fact, that it doesn't.