dhart
Well-known member
I watched this "movie" this weekend and have some comments.They're not of a political nature but rather a review of the production technique. This was originally shot for television for Natural Geographic. The "filmmakers" were embedded with a a squad deployed to Afghanistan for 15 months. Basically a "war is hell" doc.
I almost fled the theater after the first 10 minutes. Taking something shot for the small screen and blowing it up to 40' X 60' shot by amateur cameramen is an experience to be avoided. It felt like someone grabbed my head, shaking it very violently nearly non-stop and not in a good way. Did the filmmakers did not know to engage image stabilization? Sure, they almost got blown up in a Humvee by an IED and one can understand why that camera work was not steadicam smooth, but the rest of it was inexcusable.
But about half way through, either they took a Michael course, or hired a more experienced cameraman and the film became much more watchable.
"60 Minutes" type framing works well for the small screen but not the big screen. I found myself looking at the imperfections in their skin rather than really listening to what they were saying. Not the filmmakers intent.
This was a thought provoking film. It is sad to think how much more powerful it could have been with someone who really knew what they were doing behind the camera. The small screen covers up a lot of poor camera work, but blow it up and look out. I know young, enthusiastic filmmakers are just dying (in this case a real possibly) to get out there and make their mark. But if they would just spent a little time learning the craft before they hit the production trail the results would be more rewarding for themselves and their audience.
I almost fled the theater after the first 10 minutes. Taking something shot for the small screen and blowing it up to 40' X 60' shot by amateur cameramen is an experience to be avoided. It felt like someone grabbed my head, shaking it very violently nearly non-stop and not in a good way. Did the filmmakers did not know to engage image stabilization? Sure, they almost got blown up in a Humvee by an IED and one can understand why that camera work was not steadicam smooth, but the rest of it was inexcusable.
But about half way through, either they took a Michael course, or hired a more experienced cameraman and the film became much more watchable.
"60 Minutes" type framing works well for the small screen but not the big screen. I found myself looking at the imperfections in their skin rather than really listening to what they were saying. Not the filmmakers intent.
This was a thought provoking film. It is sad to think how much more powerful it could have been with someone who really knew what they were doing behind the camera. The small screen covers up a lot of poor camera work, but blow it up and look out. I know young, enthusiastic filmmakers are just dying (in this case a real possibly) to get out there and make their mark. But if they would just spent a little time learning the craft before they hit the production trail the results would be more rewarding for themselves and their audience.