Last Book Read: The Five Cs of Cinematography

Previously, I reviewed Gustavo Mercado's The Filmmaker's Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition and complained about two problems:

• It disagreed, using a tone of certainty, with standard definitions of shots in the language of cinema.
• It overemphasized "breaking the rules" to the point that it became vague.

Well, if that book stepped out of agreed-upon shot definitions ... where exactly did those definitions come from? One key source in beginning cinematography courses has been, for a very long time, the text:

The Five C's of Cinematography: Motion Picture Filming Techniques

Okay, great. But ... is that book good, or just omnipresent?
I'm glad you asked.

Who is it for?
Joseph V. Mascelli's book has long been a seemingly simple guide to practical cinematography. It focused on an approach breaking down the art into five components:

• Camera Angles
• Continuity
• Cutting
• Close-Ups
• Composition

Well ... good. Anything that takes the study of a field often presented as magically complex and makes clear the elements we can actually get a handle on is a good thing. So this is for beginning cinematographers or anyone reviewing the building blocks of the field to develop a deeper understanding.

But ... ?

My issue with it has always been that the "Cs" would be better if restated as questions. For example, let's apply some "Ws" to the issue:

• What are the camera angles commonly used in filmmaking?
• What determines if one shot will edit well to another shot in continuity editing?
• What factors determine how a shot can be used in cutting a series of shots?
• Why, practically, is filming close-ups different from more general shooting?
• What factors in shot composition have an impact on the edit and the film?

This, to me, would remove the book's major problem: Clutter. There's a lot of material seemingly under an organizing factor ... but not really addressed with enough Clarity.

What does it cover?
The book addresses examples of those Five Cs, using a dollop of theory but mainly demonstrating a practical approach. It gets right into "types of camera angles" and "filming techniques" as, essentially, lists with examples.

How well does it work?
The "this is how we do it" approach seems to lack the balance of an effective "because doing it this other way leads to this problem..." element that seems natural here. In other words, it's a guide, but would be stronger with a series of warning callouts presented in a clearer way.

As in: shoot a Medium Shot this way, don't shoot it this way because X, Y, Z.

There are, in fact, many "don'ts" listed --

"Don't show a player looking off-screen, then cut to what he sees -- and pan the camera around and end up on the player. This will jar the audience, because a person cannot see himself as he looks about! What starts off as a point-of-view shot becomes a straight objective shot, as soon as the player is included."

And that's good advice, right? But read it carefully and the tonal issue of the book becomes clear: it suffers very much from the common problem experts experience when they begin to teach. Instead of being an expert on what material a student / learner needs, and then comprehending the best system to deliver that material, the book presents material (good material!) without a real understanding of the best way we will learn that material.

Think of the difference between "Here's the local building code ..." [ drops book on desk ]

versus

"We'll show you how to make a chair first ... and then how those techniques are applied to a shed ... and then the additional skills needed for a barn ... and in volume 2 we'll get to house framing."

Okay ... but should I read it?
That's a tricky question. I think the best way to answer it is to take a close look at the work of the book's author. I mean, if he's a great cinematographer, it will probably be a great book ... right?

So, what did Joseph V. Mascelli shoot? Could I see any of it on Netflix?

Well, you can probably find:

The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!?

You can see the trailer for that here:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3415277849/

REALLY? HE SHOT THAT?
Yes. And a few other really, really odd films. I mean ... puzzlingly odd.

Recommendation
Read it in sequence with related books and form a bigger picture you can apply to your own practice.

Last Book Read: The Filmmaker's Eye

Last book read:

Gustavo Mercado's The Filmmaker's Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition.

Who is it for?
Mercado's book can be used in a class introducing the basics of cinematography or filmmaking, but can work as a refresher for more advanced practitioners of the craft.

What does it cover?
The approach here is to break down the "standard shots" used in filmmaking, considering both the technical and aesthetic concepts behind the standard approach. Then, as counterpoint, examples of breaking these standard rules effectively are given and discussed. So, a typical chapter is titled "Medium Close Up."

How well does it work?
I recommend this book, but I think two problems interfere with how effective it can be in a classroom or for personal study. If the reader is informed of those two issues, it is well worth the read.

Two problems?
The first problem: Mercado is incorrect in the definition of certain shots, and a student comparing this to more standardized practice will be confused. (I find this really puzzling myself, and pulled out several cinematography textbooks for comparison.) The book's definition of a "Close Up" is generally considered a version of an "Extreme Close Up" in general cinematography textbooks, and this sets up an examination of each shot that is very closed (and a bit too narrow) in definition.

As an example, if we study this book's example of a "Medium Close Up" we read:

"The size of the subject in this medium close up requires that the top of the head is cropped to give him the proper amount of headroom."

Well, that's a bit confusing -- we crop into the head to give headroom?

More importantly, however, is that this proposed definition:

• the top of the frame cropped into the subject's head
• the bottom of the frame is shown at the shirt pocket of the subject

is often considered a Close Up, and many directors would consider a looser framing as a workable "Medium Close Up." For example, if you turn on a typical TV news program, you might see:

• the top of the frame just above the subject's head
• the bottom of the frame at the shirt pocket

Mercado doesn't address this very common news/documentary framing -- it doesn't exist in the book, implying it wouldn't be acceptable. I would be happier with a more open approach -- obviously "standard" shots expand out into variations, and that's fine. So Mercado's implied "here's the right way" becomes an issue. If this is an issue that can be discussed in a class (or in one's personal reading of the book) that will be fine. But it's written as if the shot examined in the book is a closed truth, rather than one example of many possibilities.

The second problem, in my view, is that book puts so much energy into the "breaking the rules" aspect of the discussion ... yet some of the examples are nearly identical to the shots discussed as standard. The framing of the "breaking the rules" shot under "Medium Close Up" is essentially identical to the main shot presented.

So ... what does Mercado say makes it "break the rules"? That it is used "by itself" rather than in a progression of shots toward a Close Up. This is a strange interpretation, and really focuses on editing choices rather than cinematography.

But ... you like it?
Yes, I think this is a good book, and worth the space on a filmmaker / film student's bookshelf. Take the definitions with a grain of salt (and learn from where you personally disagree, or from examples that differ). It places a system of shots at the heart of the study of cinematography, and serves as a good introduction to a key concept.

Recommendation
Read it in sequence with related books and form a bigger picture you can apply to your own practice.

Know The Difference - Kickstarter!

Know the Difference Promo from Kirk Dilley on Vimeo.

"Pictures that move? Wow! That sounds expensive."

"It can be, but only if the Producers choose to pay for things such as cast, crew, food, lighting, costumes, makeup, transportation, and specialized motion picture equipment."

"If you take all of those things out of the equation, it actually becomes quite cheap."

Visit the Kickstarter page for Know The Difference and throw in a dollar or two towards those filmmaking luxuries ... like "cast" and "crew"...

Labor Day?

12th and 3rd in Brooklyn from Ted Fisher on Vimeo.

Above: a short film made on the Sunday after Labor Day a few years back.

Think Outside the Box Office

It's fair to say that the hottest book in Documentary and Independent Filmmaking circles is currently Think Outside the Box Office: The Ultimate Guide to Film Distribution and Marketing for the Digital Era by Jon Reiss.

With everyone interested in how distribution models are changing––some would say collapsing, some would say evolving––it's a book that has come along at just the right time.

Wondering where you know that name from? Well, I used to show my students scenes from Better Living Through Circuitry, or you may have seen his more recent film Bomb It.

I don't own this one yet––where's the Kindle Edition?––but take a glance at the reviews on Amazon and you'll see it's highly recommended. If it suits your goals for filmmaking, buy it.

Credit Where Credit's Due, And Other Places Too

New Year's Eve tends to bring out best-of-year (or best-of-decade) lists, resolutions, goals, and self-appraisals. I'm not big on reading any of those, so I won't write them. I do want to note something that occurs to me when I look back at the year, however, and its implications.

One year ago, despite having made a lot of short films that were juried into festivals, I did not appear on imdb.com at all. In part, this was because I was (and remain) anti-Hollywood. As often as my films appeared in festivals, they also showed in museum or gallery exhibitions (and sometimes in public art works) and to my mind, that was a more prestigious venue. I liked reading imdb.com pages, but didn't want to be part of it. I felt choosing not to participate made sense.

This year, however, as more of my films made it out to the festival circuit (and one onto DVD and others to other types of distribution) it occurred to me that it was probably the best way to give these films a bit of respect. I honestly couldn't remember when some had been made, or where they'd shown, and realized imdb made sense simply as a public record.

So, now I'm on imdb.com, and my upcoming films and credits will show there. I'm participating.

Here's the weird part, though: where I previously ignored it, I now notice if someone posts a link to their imdb.com credits and I read them. I don't judge anyone by that, I just find it interesting.

The upshot: I find myself knowing a bit more about what people do. If they focus on directing, or cinematography, or writing, or editing, or if they work with others or alone. And it's put me into an oddly collaborative mood. Where I've tended to think of filmmaking as all one piece, I now see some virtue in taking a role. I find myself thinking "I should send a screenplay" to this person, or "I'd edit something" for someone else.

I don't know if anything will come of that thought, but it is one noticeable change over the last year. And it will be interesting to look back in a year and see where things are when 2011 approaches.

Long Enough To Reach The Ground

What's the right length for a film? Esquire Magazine makes one argument:

The 90-Minute Movie: Because 80 Minutes Is Too Short, and 100 Is Too Long

They could have cut out the entire China subplot from The Dark Knight — easily 20 of that movie's 152 convoluted minutes — with no effect on your enjoyment or comprehension of the film. And was it me, or did the fifth hour of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button start to drag?

Also, the list of films shortlisted in the Academy Awards short documentary category was released this week: almost all of them, as usual, 39 minutes long. Many are really films made for the 52-minute television hour, but cut down to 39 to take a shot at Oscar recognition. No nomination? Put 13 minutes back in, go to cable. (There have been a few exceptions over the years, notably the 17-minute Two Hands: The Leon Fleisher Story (2006) by Nathaniel Kahn.)

Oscar short documentary contenders named

Thirty-seven films were submitted in the short doc category and on Friday the Academy's documentary branch released a list of the eight films that have been short-listed. Three to five of them will be nominated when the nominations are announced on Feb. 2.

Above: The Quad, on 13th Street.

Like Salinger, Except Reclusive

That last post on the Death of Indie Film got me thinking about those indie filmmakers who make a great low-budget film, hit it semi-big ... then disappear.

I'm thinking, for one, of Whit Stillman, maker of the Urban Haute Bourgeoisie trio: Metropolitan, Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco. While there are rumors he'll be surfacing soon with a new film (currently listed as in pre-production), ten years is a long time away.

And I'm thinking also of Shane Carruth, who made Primer in 2004, did a few interviews, and then vanished. He surfaced a few times after -- one mention claims he was planning to make a "coming-of-age romance between an oceanography prodigy and the daughter of a commodities trader" -- but is seemingly hidden away today.

Filmmaker Magazine even wrote: SHANE CARRUTH, PHONE HOME.

Of course, they'll probably both be back. In 1998, I saw The Cruise and showed it to all my students. In fact, I did so for years -- and remember quite clearly wondering, circa 2004, where the hell Bennett Miller had disappeared to.

Death of the Indie Film?

I generally hate to point folks to Fox -- lest they begin to think torture isn't torture, the WMDs were found, and that ACORN is trying to kill Glenn Beck -- but I think it's safe to view this segment on Death of the Indie Film? featuring Ted Hope, Marina Zenovich and Reed Martin.

Speaking of IMDB

I had email from a friend a few days back explaining that he'd been involved with a horror movie.

The director of the film has worked a lot as a visual effects person (on about a dozen major big-budget films) and the way I read the situation was that this film was his attempt to shift to directing. As far as I could tell, there wasn't a large budget behind it -- it was a sort of calling-card film to prove he could direct.

So I wasn't surprised when I heard the film would be posted online -- that seems like a match for the goal of the film. But my friend wrote that if the director saw a lot of online attention for the film, he would then send it to film festivals. My inner voice said "No, no, no, no and no," very quickly -- since I know how much and how explicitly festivals generally hate to screen anything that's already online. Festivals generally thrive on the idea of "World Premiere" and "U.S. Premiere" or even "Arkansas Premiere" and if a film is online they can't make that claim.

There are exceptions, of course, and if you are showing a film because it fits a program, you probably aren't as concerned with online exposure. But in general: film festivals today include a section making it clear in your application where the film has show before, and the basic model is one of exclusivity: buy a ticket and come see our fest, you won't see these films anywhere else for a long while.

In light of that, however, there's been a flurry of interest in imdb.com and the "new model" they seem to be moving toward.

As backstory: amazon.com owns both imdb.com and withoutabox.com -- Amazon being the place you might buy a DVD of a film, IMDB being the place you might look up a film, and Withoutabox being the site a filmmaker would use to submit their film to film festivals.

The Amazon acquisition has already had one interesting change: now, when you submit a film through Withoutabox you can get the film listed on IMDB. (Previously, IMDB had placed the qualification standard as "significance" -- usually meaning that the film had been selected to screen at a film festival that was reasonably choosy or on a "major" television broadcast.) Which is great for filmmakers without a huge distribution apparatus behind them -- while one might still make a Web site for the film, the IMDB page can certainly help with promotion.

The "new model," though, arises because IMDB has made video uploads available. Meaning one can post a clip, a trailer, or the entire film. Which, again, is great for promotion. It may also be great for films that have finished their tour of the festival circuit and not been purchased for distribution -- which is really common for first films and shorts.

The attention of the media, however, has focused on speculation that IMDB wants filmmakers to put their entire feature film online, for free, and then profit from the ads. I don't think that's what their plan is, exactly, but here's what folks are writing:

The 'New Model' of IMDb

Col Needham, the Seattle-based founder of the Internet Movie Database, spoke yesterday at SXSW about the site's highly ambitious plans to radically flesh out its video content. Needham's money quote, which wound up in a CNET headline before the afternoon discussion had even wrapped up, certainly turned heads: "We want a play button on every single page," he said. Needham's ballsy strategy to post video content, including feature-length films and television shows, on all of IMDb's thousands of profiles illustrates the industry's need to adapt. IMDb lies at the center of a new paradigm shift for the film community.

IMDb’s Needham: A Play Button on Every Page

So far, the site has 14,000 full length television shows and “a couple of thousand” full length movies and over 120,000 video items ranging from interviews to trailers and clips. Needham said IMDb will use its Withoutabox unit to give the site a direct connection with filmmakers as well as festivals in its effort to recruit feature length films for that play button. “We’re most excited at the moment with our video component,” said Needham.

Or Could It Be the Poor Quality of the Product?

Is the Internet killing cinema?

"The Hollywood director, Ridley Scott, warned yesterday that new technology is killing off the big-screen experience. The Oscar-winning County Durham-born movie mogul said mobile phones and computers threatened movie-making on an epic scale.

He insisted that the best way to experience great film was still in a cinema with a big screen and state-of-the art acoustics."

To stories like this I say the same thing I have said to every "we're losing the old way!" story in the last 15 years: let it go.

Let it go. The 35-million-dollar-budget model of filmmaking needs a good thorough killing. More precisely, it needs something better to compete for the same resources. That's the only way art forms have ever developed.

The National Film Challenge

The National Film Challenge has just announced its competition weekend will be October 19-22, 2007. What is it? It's "a timed filmmaking competition where filmmaking teams have just one weekend to make a short film." Sounds great to me.

I don't think I'll be able to take part, though. First, I'm certain I'd draw the "musical" genre, and second I may have something going that weekend....

I do see, however, that The International Documentary Challenge has been scheduled for March 6-10, 2008. Perhaps I should put that on the calendar....

Why is Audio So Hard? Five Audio Tips

In low-budget video production -- sometimes even in medium-budget work -- the biggest problems usually come from audio issues. Here are a couple of quick ideas on how to avoid an audio crisis in small-crew video production:

1. Proximity Problems
No on-camera mic is great at a distance from your subject. While you can often get a better visual by backing up, keep in mind that a great visual of an interview without clear audio is not usable. If there's doubt about what you are getting, get closer with the camera and get the microphone in close.

2. Background Noise
Keep in mind that even background sounds which don't overwhelm or distract from your subject's voice can cause problems. If you are cutting together a few short phrases from a longer statement -- common practice in short video -- the background sounds can make this very difficult. Wear headphones that cover your ears and you'll hear these background problems before you record them.

3. Directionality problems
A shotgun microphone -- either on a camcorder or on a boom pole -- is a great solution for this kind of work. But it introduces a new problem: directionality. If we have two people speaking, it is very easy to have the microphone pointed at one and not the other, and we end up with one subject sounding great and the other weak. Or, if a shotgun is on camera, you may have audio levels go up and down as the camera changes where it is pointed. If you are going to use a microphone on a boom, practice with it -- wear some headphones and try it on a few live conversations.

4. The Two-Level Trick
In documentary-style production, situations often change very quickly. You might set a level and then realize the everything has gotten quieter or louder. Or the sounds you want might vary greatly. One excellent trick is to record onto to channels or two separate sources and set the levels differently. For example, say we had a boom microphone going into the camcorder and had set that level to our best guess. You could also record into another source -- another camera or a field recorder or anything you can get your hands on -- taking the same signal but setting a higher or lower level. So, if we imagine a situation where most of the audio is fine but our subject screamed a few times and became too loud and distorted --we could be saved by a second recorder set at a lower level. We'd just find and drop in the lower-level audio in that section.

5. Would You Repeat That?
There are a lot of ethical choices involved in documentary filmmaking. One that most people get past quickly is leaving the subject alone entirely. So, if after three days of following a subject around, they finally say something central to the story and a car horn honks in the background, consider asking them to repeat it.

This Just In

Some news on the proposed new rules on photography (and videography, and cinematography) in New York:

"August 3, 2007 - Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) Commissioner Katherine Oliver today announced that MOFTB will redraft proposed Charter-mandated rules for issuing permits to film or photograph on public property. The revision of the rules will take into account feedback MOFTB has received over the past two months. Public comment, which is scheduled to end today, will be re-opened for another 30-day period after the redrafted rules are published."

As before, my advice is that online petitions, videos protesting the rules, etc. all have their place. Your best bet, however, if you are concerned about the issue, is to write:

The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting 1697 Broadway Suite 602, New York, New York 10019

On the "New Rules" and Changing Them

As pointed out by CFoA (Certified Friend of Actualities) Ryan Gallagher there is an e-petition relating to proposed new regulations on photography and filming in New York located here.

In general, I resist online petitions. They are less effective than letter writing. Often, they are written in a way that is overly rhetorical. As well, they make us feel we have taken a stand on an issue when we've taken minimal action.

Nonetheless, since I agree with the spirit of this protest -- that we should resist the erosion of our freedoms in general, and that the First Amendment protects photography and filmmaking both in public and in private -- I have signed the petition.

The New York Times article on this states:

The new rules, which were proposed by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a public place for more than 30 minutes to get a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance. The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment. The permits would be free.

I encourage you to research the issue, of course. When you have, or if the above is scary enough for you, WRITE a letter -- on paper, signed and with your return address on it, using enough postage -- and send it to:

The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway Suite 602, New York, New York 10019

I assure you that -- as sexy as Web petitioning is -- written letters are weighted much, much, much more heavily by those in public office. They require time to deal with, and are much harder to ignore.