of course, most movies use momentary subjective view shots but how come camera is a poor substitute for extended subjective shots? how come movies that utilize long subjective take--lady in the lake--are considered aesthetic failures?
could citizen kane have worked using subjective perspective throughout as originally planned?
now explain memory flashbacks or dreams. these are meant to be personally subjective. yet, in most movies we see the person whose dream or memory it's supposed to be in the dream or memory flashback. isn't this kinda absurd? yet, it always works. why?
best use of subjective shot?
goodfellas when the guys in a restaurant greet henry.
On 10 Jun 2004 21:38:37 -0700, symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef) wrote:
>best use of subjective shot?
>goodfellas when the guys in a restaurant greet henry.
That's not a subjective shot. It's Scorsese playing games with us. It *looks* like a subjective shot from Henry's point of view- as well as a reference to the POV shot of Charlie entering the bar in Mean Streets (which itself was an homage to the POV shot in Little Caeser).
But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another notch on his moron belt).
> of course, most movies use momentary subjective view shots but how > come camera is a poor substitute for extended subjective shots? > how come movies that utilize long subjective take--lady in the > lake--are considered aesthetic failures?
> could citizen kane have worked using subjective perspective throughout > as originally planned?
> now explain memory flashbacks or dreams. these are meant to be > personally subjective. yet, in most movies we see the person whose > dream or memory it's supposed to be in the dream or memory flashback. > isn't this kinda absurd? > yet, it always works. why?
It might sound absurd, but many people take a God's-eye view of a situation that they recall. Most recollections are reconstructions rather than sensory playbacks. When I dream, I am as often observing myself as I am being me. I think it works because it mimics the format of our psychological experiences. This is in keeping with the movie-as-a-dream theory of film.
From an analytical POV, the problem with extended subjective shots is you need to reestablish often because there is not enough information given about the type of shot that it is. The second film I mention below deals with this in novel binocular-type way.
> best use of subjective shot?
"Russian Ark" was a single shot from a subject POV, but it broke down logically toward the end.
"Being John Malkovich" and "Halloween" are two others.
-- Craig Franck craig.fra...@verizon.net Cortland, NY
Nick Macpherson wrote: > >From: symphonic...@hotmail.com (choral reef)
> >could citizen kane have worked using subjective perspective throughout > >as originally planned?
> Kane was going to be shot using subjective perspective? Are you confusing Kane > with Welles' planned Heart of Darkness adaptation?
I think he is.
Pure subjective doesn't work because it doesn't have the reaction shot. The reaction shot tells us how to feel about whatever the subjective shot is showing us, and this is how the filmmaker keeps us in line. If there is no reaction shot, we replace the character's evaluation of the events with our own. We become independent agents and lose identification with the character, which is what it's all about isn't it.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your definition, many of my favorite films use this device to some extent. Fight Club comes to mind (just finished watching the DVD with commentary), and a lot of David Lynch stuff (where it's generally hard to figure _anything_ out, including identities.)
> >goodfellas when the guys in a restaurant greet henry.
> That's not a subjective shot. It's Scorsese playing games with us. > It *looks* like a subjective shot from Henry's point of view- as well > as a reference to the POV shot of Charlie entering the bar in Mean > Streets (which itself was an homage to the POV shot in Little Caeser).
> But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys > (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), > the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry > enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the > shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but > imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he > is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you > missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > notch on his moron belt).
larry legallo wrote: > I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > notch on his moron belt).
Don't think you've figured him out, 'cause you haven't. He's as restless as a willow in a windstorm, he's as jumpy as a puppet on a string. He's as busy as a spider spinning daydreams, he's as giddy as a baby on a swing. He hasn't seen a crocus or a rosebud or that robin on the wing, but...
> > >could citizen kane have worked using subjective perspective throughout > > >as originally planned?
> > Kane was going to be shot using subjective perspective? Are you confusing Kane > > with Welles' planned Heart of Darkness adaptation?
> I think he is.
> Pure subjective doesn't work because it doesn't have the reaction shot. The > reaction shot tells us how to feel about whatever the subjective shot is showing > us, and this is how the filmmaker keeps us in line. If there is no reaction shot, > we replace the character's evaluation of the events with our own. We become > independent agents and lose identification with the character, which is what it's > all about isn't it.
> Brian
actually, it's not so much independence as ultimate lack of independence.
cuz even without reaction shot, subjective feelings can be expressed thru voice over narration. but even this no work.
the problem is when we are given subjective shot, it makes us feel it's we that be watching. but we realize we have no power or autonomy in what we get to see. it feels like OUR subjective viewpoint yet it's totally controlled by the filmmaker. so we feel as though our perspective is totally imprisoned. we feel at once free only to realize we're less free than in conventional visual format. it's like alex in clockwork orange in movie room. we're FORCED to accept another person's viewpoint as OUR own. so we have a contradiction. the film makes us feel like we are watching it thru our eyes yet we have no control. we feel cheated. it's like someone saying we can sit in the driver's seat of the car only to realize the car is being driven by someone else and we have no control at all.
now, a fascinating movie would be like a interactive videogame where the viewer can actually enter into a created universe and search around on his own. to an extent this is possible with mise en scene cuz we choose what to see. but what if we can really move around in the universe like dekker with the photocomputer in blade runner?
and maybe being juan malkovich was about this aspect of film viewing. a filmmaker is trying to dig into someone else's mind and watching movies is like an invasion and movies also dig into our mind so we're all creeping into and colonizing eachother minds. it's like we're all part of some corporation of mutually agreed mental business interaction. first, people enter into malkovich and can only see what he sees. but gradually they take over malkovich and in a way this is what we wanna do with movies. we take pleasure initially in the fantasy world but we want more than just to share. we wanna enter into the world and control it. like kathy bates in that stephen king movie wanted to take over artistic control from james caan.
i guess conventional visual strategy works best because it's like a halfway house between subjective shot and objective shot. we slip in and out subtly enough so that we share with the characters but also maintain our freedom from them. but, for some reason, losing ourselves completely in a subjective narrative novel or subjectively emotional music works.
> >goodfellas when the guys in a restaurant greet henry.
> That's not a subjective shot. It's Scorsese playing games with us. > It *looks* like a subjective shot from Henry's point of view- as well > as a reference to the POV shot of Charlie entering the bar in Mean > Streets (which itself was an homage to the POV shot in Little Caeser).
> But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys > (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), > the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry > enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the > shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but > imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he > is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you > missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > notch on his moron belt).
you know, upon some thought, i'm inclined to concede you're right but aint gonna.. cuz you're a mook.
Robert Keser <rfke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another >> notch on his moron belt).
>Don't think you've figured him out, 'cause you haven't. He's >as restless as a willow in a windstorm, he's as jumpy as a puppet >on a string. He's as busy as a spider spinning daydreams, he's as >giddy as a baby on a swing. He hasn't seen a crocus or a rosebud >or that robin on the wing, but...
dober...@DROPsocal.rr.com wrote: > Robert Keser <rfke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > >> notch on his moron belt).
> >Don't think you've figured him out, 'cause you haven't. He's > >as restless as a willow in a windstorm, he's as jumpy as a puppet > >on a string. He's as busy as a spider spinning daydreams, he's as > >giddy as a baby on a swing. He hasn't seen a crocus or a rosebud > >or that robin on the wing, but...
> Bob, you're absent for far too long too often.
Thanks! Actually, I was busy trying to find a dictionary that would define tmesis. Tfreakinmesis!
>> But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys >> (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), >> the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry >> enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the >> shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but >> imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he >> is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you >> missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another >> notch on his moron belt).
>you know, upon some thought, i'm inclined to concede you're right but >aint gonna.. cuz you're a mook.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:35:31 GMT, Robert Keser <rfke...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>larry legallo wrote:
>> I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another >> notch on his moron belt).
>Don't think you've figured him out, 'cause you haven't. He's >as restless as a willow in a windstorm, he's as jumpy as a puppet >on a string. He's as busy as a spider spinning daydreams, he's as >giddy as a baby on a swing. He hasn't seen a crocus or a rosebud >or that robin on the wing, but...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, larry legallo wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:35:31 GMT, Robert Keser <rfke...@ix.netcom.com> > wrote:
> >larry legallo wrote:
> >> I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > >> notch on his moron belt).
> >Don't think you've figured him out, 'cause you haven't. He's > >as restless as a willow in a windstorm, he's as jumpy as a puppet > >on a string. He's as busy as a spider spinning daydreams, he's as > >giddy as a baby on a swing. He hasn't seen a crocus or a rosebud > >or that robin on the wing, but...
> >> But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys > >> (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), > >> the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry > >> enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the > >> shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but > >> imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he > >> is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you > >> missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he > >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another > >> notch on his moron belt).
> >you know, upon some thought, i'm inclined to concede you're right but > >aint gonna.. cuz you're a mook.
>> >> But after the tracking shot along the bar introduces us to the guys >> >> (who we assume are addressing Henry although they never say his name), >> >> the camera continues into the back of the restaurant where Henry >> >> enters the frame from the outside pushing a rack of fur coats. So the >> >> shot wasn't from his POV after all. It's a playful, subtle, but >> >> imortant, indicator that although Henry narrates most of the movie, he >> >> is not controlling the film's perspective. Not surprising that you >> >> missed it. I bet the Biq Quiz recognized it though, because he >> >> notices those types of things. Oh wait, he hated Goodfellas (another >> >> notch on his moron belt).
>> >you know, upon some thought, i'm inclined to concede you're right but >> >aint gonna.. cuz you're a mook.
>> What's a mook?
>you're a mook and yeah, i'm calling YOU a mook!
Why do I suddenly feel like playing a Marvelettes record and taking a pool stick to your skull?
|
