Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 8, 2009 10:28:21 GMT -5
Finally saw this last night.
Not bad. I wouldn't say it was the best but it was very well made. For a film advertised as some feel good film, it doesn't make you feel good. There are scenes in the show when you really have to witness the evil that some people can force on others in the pursuit of money. Cameron and his movie friends saw it when it came out and he said at the time that it was one of the best made films of that year but he too questioned if it was the best or, in the spirit of Dances With Wolves, it was a movie you could vote for to ease your conscience.
Anyway, there was one scene in the film that caught me completely by surprise (and if you haven't seen the film and plan to, this is not a spoiler). It was obvious that the film company sent out second unit teams to shoot random street scenes and buildings around India for insert shots. Just little cut aways to control pace and change locations. During one of these a couple of security guards are walking by and one of them turns and looks directly at the camera, holds out his hand and says, "No filming here."
Woah... what did he say? What was that?
I'm so used to watching a film and knowing that everything you are looking at is pretty much there on purpose. I used to shoot them and I know. Evey light, every shadow (or the lack of a shadow), every prop and person and line of dialog is there because someone put them there. But this film didn't do that. At multiple times during the movie I notices people looking at the camera. We called if 'breaking the fourth wall' and you never do it unless you do it on purpose like when someone turns to the audience and says something as an aside. But these were street people. Folks standing around or walking by would glance over or just simply STARE at the camera and by extension, ME. It just isn't done. What it told me was the method the film was shot. Go out and get the shot in what was basically the "real world". No permits, no sets, no extras, no assistant directors working the background crowds. The car that enters the scene on the left may not be the same car that exists the scene on the right after the edit to the wide shot. They were filming in a totally uncontrollable place so they made no effort to control it. So much so that they left in a comment made to the film crew that filming was not allowed where they were. Amazing.
The director, Danny Boyle, was asked about that and he said, "You can’t control the city – it’s just beyond control. You can’t kind of “lock it down” – just choose this bit of reality, it just doesn’t work like that. It’s just this heaving mass, and within it the way I would tell is that we had this very flexible camera. So we weren’t interested in continuity, we weren’t interested in the “fourth wall”. There’s lots of people looking in the camera, but you don’t really care about it. At one point, this security guy goes “no filming here” and we just left it in because we thought “that’s what it’s like.” And there’s an exuberance that overcomes the minute detail that filmmakers get obsessed with. You just go with the flow, really. And I’ve always thought that you go with what could be obstacles and actually they become your achievement. They become the film. The fact is that there are a lot of people. There isn’t really time to stop everything for the movie, so they’re going to spill across the movie, and that’s fine. It gives it [the movie] life. I always tried to think of it like that. To be really positive."
Anyway, I'm still divided as to whether it was a good idea or not to include that bit in the film. For me it took me completely OUT of the movie for way too long. Others liked it.
Not bad. I wouldn't say it was the best but it was very well made. For a film advertised as some feel good film, it doesn't make you feel good. There are scenes in the show when you really have to witness the evil that some people can force on others in the pursuit of money. Cameron and his movie friends saw it when it came out and he said at the time that it was one of the best made films of that year but he too questioned if it was the best or, in the spirit of Dances With Wolves, it was a movie you could vote for to ease your conscience.
Anyway, there was one scene in the film that caught me completely by surprise (and if you haven't seen the film and plan to, this is not a spoiler). It was obvious that the film company sent out second unit teams to shoot random street scenes and buildings around India for insert shots. Just little cut aways to control pace and change locations. During one of these a couple of security guards are walking by and one of them turns and looks directly at the camera, holds out his hand and says, "No filming here."
Woah... what did he say? What was that?
I'm so used to watching a film and knowing that everything you are looking at is pretty much there on purpose. I used to shoot them and I know. Evey light, every shadow (or the lack of a shadow), every prop and person and line of dialog is there because someone put them there. But this film didn't do that. At multiple times during the movie I notices people looking at the camera. We called if 'breaking the fourth wall' and you never do it unless you do it on purpose like when someone turns to the audience and says something as an aside. But these were street people. Folks standing around or walking by would glance over or just simply STARE at the camera and by extension, ME. It just isn't done. What it told me was the method the film was shot. Go out and get the shot in what was basically the "real world". No permits, no sets, no extras, no assistant directors working the background crowds. The car that enters the scene on the left may not be the same car that exists the scene on the right after the edit to the wide shot. They were filming in a totally uncontrollable place so they made no effort to control it. So much so that they left in a comment made to the film crew that filming was not allowed where they were. Amazing.
The director, Danny Boyle, was asked about that and he said, "You can’t control the city – it’s just beyond control. You can’t kind of “lock it down” – just choose this bit of reality, it just doesn’t work like that. It’s just this heaving mass, and within it the way I would tell is that we had this very flexible camera. So we weren’t interested in continuity, we weren’t interested in the “fourth wall”. There’s lots of people looking in the camera, but you don’t really care about it. At one point, this security guy goes “no filming here” and we just left it in because we thought “that’s what it’s like.” And there’s an exuberance that overcomes the minute detail that filmmakers get obsessed with. You just go with the flow, really. And I’ve always thought that you go with what could be obstacles and actually they become your achievement. They become the film. The fact is that there are a lot of people. There isn’t really time to stop everything for the movie, so they’re going to spill across the movie, and that’s fine. It gives it [the movie] life. I always tried to think of it like that. To be really positive."
Anyway, I'm still divided as to whether it was a good idea or not to include that bit in the film. For me it took me completely OUT of the movie for way too long. Others liked it.