Behind, inside, and in front of the camera.

[Evan Kubota]

When you watch a film, the only images you can literally see are those that the camera captured, and the ones that made it out of the editing room. This topic was sparked by re-viewing the Russian film "Vozvrashcheniye" (The Return). One of the main actors died in a drowning accident shortly after shooting, but the news was not revealed until after the film had screened at Venice and several other festivals. I didn't discover this until after I saw the film once, so I watched it again, with the new knowledge obviously coloring my perception of the character.

Anyway, it's not common to have that kind of subtext when watching a film. Unless you were on the set during filming, it's hard to say whether the director was a jerk, the catering was awful, they were beset by technical problems, etc. Nevertheless this subtly affects the finished product.

Finally, my point: there's *something* that visibly separates professional work from amateur work. I'm not referring to technical issues or actors; take a simple shot of a coffee cup on a table in a cafe. In a Kieslowski film (Bleu) it's brilliant. Ignoring the context of the film (nearly impossible, though), what makes this shot stand out as quality?

My current thought is that the audience is capable of intuitively sensing the amount of 'invisible work' in a production - that is, the size of the honeywagon, where the catering truck was parked, how many crew members were present during shooting, etc.

A scene late in "The Brown Bunny" backs up this impression. Actually, the whole movie does, to an extent. Gallo shot much of it with just an A-Minima and no crew other than himself and sometimes a soundman. You can tell from watching it that he was alone, although the literal image doesn't give this away. Your input?

[tlatosmd]

I guess as with every work, it's how close we come to ideas or ideals (topoi) without directly copying other works, as every work is only an individual adaptation of these abstract ideas or ideals. It's pretty much like Plato said it about abstract ideas being a blueprint of reality.

As for where these abstract ideas or ideals come from, I'd refer to biological evolution, mythology, ethnology, psychology, sociology. All these set certain topoi in our minds that must be met by the works we enjoy and create, and when that happens, it's like Plato said, it's a joy of seeing and almost subconsciously recognizing these ideas we have once seen long before in their abstract form (or what we've got a basic idea of by seeing many different versions of the same ideas in our life before, allthough we couldn't really say with words what these ideas exactly are or how they're attributed).

[odyssic]

In some sense, I think Blue made a deep impression on me because I wasn't thinking of the crew at all. When the main character is alone, she seems utterly alone. I never would've thought that Kieslowski hired someone to go and find a sugar cube that took exactly x amount of time to dissolve!

In this way, Brown Bunny (not "brilliant in the sense that Blue is, but a film I liked) seems to draw more attention to the act of creating. I know Gallo made the film and he is probably alone while shooting much of it. So this strain is running through my mind next to the plot and visual strains.

Hmmm... make sense?

Steven

[Evan Kubota]

"Hmmm... make sense?"

The question is - can you tell from the film itself how many people were behind the camera? I mean, Kieslowski created an on-screen world where the character seemed alone. Gallo actually *was* alone. Is there a difference? Obviously it's impossible to separate the film proper from the knowledge surrounding it...

[Alex_W]

My current thought is that the audience is capable of intuitively sensing the amount of 'invisible work' in a production - that is, the size of the honeywagon, where the catering truck was parked, how many crew members were present during shooting, etc.

i have to disagree, that just sounds absurd. I think there's a lot of contextual information that serves as a sort of framework to how we percieve a film, like previous work by the same director, whether we see it at the cinema or at an amateur festival, general information about making a movie etc., but they're just expectations. Expectations about what we're are seeing/going to see, change they way we percieve things, but they are nevertheless just expectations. We can be wrong.

I would argue that Kieslowski's mug will look more beautiful because it has actually been photographed by a professional and/or the fact that you know that the movie has been made by a professional.

Finally i would like to say off-topic that The Return is one of the most beautiful movies i have ever seen.

[npcoombs]

Finally i would like to say off-topic that The Return is one of the most beautiful movies i have ever seen.

I was very disappointed by the film on multiple levels: aesthetically, thematically and its hollowed out deployment of motifs by greater Russian directors.

I have felt much the same about most of the 'Russian New Wave' and the blend of manufactured mysticism, clumsy composition and storylines that feign profundity rather than deliver it. ....

my impressions only....

[Evan Kubota]

I have to say I wasn't as impressed with it the second time - the first time some of the missing/undeveloped thematic elements pointed to a kind of compelling mystery. The second time around it seemed too flat.

Nevertheless, quite a good film IMO.

[Scotness]

Here's one angle:

A big budget film will more likely close off a real location and totally control it or totally rebuild it in a studio and then film the scene - a low budget film will have less control over the environment and have to shoot in a real world situation more - although with some control over it.

What you see in these situations or shots therefor could help indicate to your mind which kind of production is which.

But of course it works both ways - it may be desirable to have more control over the situation but you better recreate the scenario well or the believability will be blown - a great example of this is the sets in The Colour Purple as opposed to the sets in Mississpi Burning - the former looked fake, whilst the latter looked great and really rough - because most of them were real - shot on actual locations.

BTW in Dr Zhivago the woman running beside the train who slips actually went under the train and died - David Lean decided to buckle under and didn't let the project stall because of the accident - which apparently shocked alot of the cast and crew at the time - but (on the DVD commentary at least) was later considered to have been the right thing to do. He even used the footage of the woman slipping! - you don't see her run over though - I don't know if I would have done that - but I can see the arguements both ways. When I found that out it certainly changed my way of looking at it.

Scot