Lay Off Lucas & Co. Already!

"he is what is known as an invisible director meaning that his style and technique don't call attention to themselves."

"while they make exciting looking films, I often find their noticable style can pull me out of the film through certain (and debatably unecessary) shots and techniques"

And yet you can't understand people having this effect with the PT?

Ridiculous.

"Lucas' style may not be flashy"

OMG!

Two words: Pod-race

(okay, two hyphenated words. )

 

And yet you can't understand people having this effect with the PT?

I understand that some people don't like the movies. I just disagree with their reasons.

Two words: Pod-race

The pod-race was actually shot using a lot of traditional angles. While the sequence could be described as "flashy," Lucas' shot selection certainly wasn't.

 

JW00, Episode III's target audience is not as young as TPM's target audience.

GL has said more than once that TPM is more of a kids' movie than Episode III will be.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"The pod-race was actually shot using a lot of traditional angles. While the sequence could be described as "flashy,"

I am talking about 1) the "virtual camera" and CGI shots, and 2) the length to which this non-"flashy" sequence goes on, which leads me to my next point...

"while they make exciting looking films, I often find their noticable style can pull me out of the film through certain (and debatably unecessary) shots and techniques"

Have you not told others that they need to have suspension of disbelief to enjoy the films, yet you, yourself, now admit to not always being capable of it in other films.

I guess when it concerns your precious trilogy, the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Have you not told others that they need to have suspension of disbelief to enjoy the films, yet you, yourself, now admit to not always being capable of it in other films.

I guess when it concerns your precious trilogy, the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm not sure how you managed to twist my argument around into a personal attack.

Suspension of desbelief is one thing, but when I am consciously pulled out of a movie by a given technique that reminds me that it is only a movie, suspension of disbelief doesn't really play a role. To me, certain noticable shots are on the same level as a gross continuity error or a boom mic dipping into the frame. To me, they serve as something that breaks the immersion rather than enhances it.

I don't fault the directors for this as they have cultivated a style they obviously consider pleasing. I just happen to appreciate Lucas' low key approach to shot selection and editing.

 

shakey-cam in the clone war anyone?

or the snap zoom in the droid factory?

or how bout that reverse crawl upside down shot opening for AOTC?

invisible director my foot!

 

If anyone wants an example of a visible director, see Hulk.

Mind you, I liked some of the editing gimmicks. But Lord, it didn't help with suspension of disbelief.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Thank God someone else sees what I see. There's a difference between calling someone an "invisible director", and simply being blind to what the director is doing.

 

For the record... I for one do not consider Lucas a particularly invisible director. He's not blatantly visible, nor does he try to call attention to the directorial presence.

I think ANH is the only real 'invisible director' film of the saga thus far. It's very documentary-style.

AOTC, TPM and ESB all suggest visible director touches.

ROTJ to me does not have a visible director, just an incompetent one.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

He's not blatantly visible, nor does he try to call attention to the directorial presence.

Yup, that would be the traits of an invisible director.

As for the shakey cam and snap zooms during the Battle of Geonsis, yes, I did notice those, but since they were appropriate to the scene, I didn't feel they detracted from the film in any way (in much the same way that I think Spielberg's use of a similiar technique in the opening of Saving Private Ryan was a brilliant directorial decision). Besides, those handful of dynamic shots are the exception, not the rule when it comes to Lucas' directing style.

 

WHOOPS!

Change my blatantly visible to blatantly INvisible.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"As for the shakey cam and snap zooms during the Battle of Geonsis, yes, I did notice those, but since they were appropriate to the scene, I didn't feel they detracted from the film in any way (in much the same way that I think Spielberg's use of a similiar technique in the opening of Saving Private Ryan was a brilliant directorial decision). Besides, those handful of dynamic shots are the exception, not the rule when it comes to Lucas' directing style."

and

"Suspension of desbelief is one thing, but when I am consciously pulled out of a movie by a given technique that reminds me that it is only a movie, suspension of disbelief doesn't really play a role. To me, certain noticable shots are on the same level as a gross continuity error or a boom mic dipping into the frame. To me, they serve as something that breaks the immersion rather than enhances it."

the same person said both things? and only a post or two apart?


hysterical!

 

adam -
I think ANH is the only real 'invisible director' film of the saga thus far. It's very documentary-style.

Why do you say it's documentary style? I've never really understood that. My impression of documentary style would be : one camera, lightweight, following the action hand-held, someimes losing sight or focus.
How would Lucas's SW style fit that?

Not challenging, just asking.

g

 

my guess is (forgive me if i assume incorrectly) that Adam is saying that the camerawork and direction in ANH is non-commentative: the framing and shot choices do not add to or otherwise highlight the meaning of the scenes, nor do they comment on the characters. an extreme low-angle shot of Vader to emphasize his power and menace, for example, would be a commentative shot.

 

the same person said both things? and only a post or two apart?

Yep, and unsurprisingly, the statements are not the least bit contradictory.

----------

Why do you say it's documentary style? I've never really understood that. My impression of documentary style would be : one camera, lightweight, following the action hand-held, someimes losing sight or focus.
How would Lucas's SW style fit that?

Well, what you described is poor camera work, not documentary style. Documentary style basically implies using long lenses so you can stand back from the action, eye level camera heights, and movement within the frame rather than with the camera, or when the camera does move, it is done explicity to follow the action. Lucas doesn't throw a lot of crazy angles at the audience, even during his action scenes, which are shot fairly traditionally.

 

"Yep, and unsurprisingly, the statements are not the least bit contradictory."

In your opinion.

 

I'll lay off George as soon as he hands off the writing and directing jobs for Episode III (or magically rediscovers how to write well and direct actors), and puts the untouched OT on DVD

 

Lucas does do what you described, Durwood, but that's not "documentary-style". I think people misuse that term and attribute it to Lucas to make him sound more like some "pioneering", avant-garde, guerrilla-type of filmmaker in this day and age. He had those tendencies way back during his THX-1138 days. But AOTC or ANH does not have that brisk spontaneity found in movies more deserving of "documentary-style-techniques" like Godard's Breathless or an early Truffaut film. (I think Steven Soderbergh does a pretty good job of it these days)

Better terms for Lucas' style would be (as Dr.E also used) "non-commentative", conventional, traditional, or maybe even classical and theatrical. Character interaction is viewed from a mid-distance and the edits are moderate. Nothing wacky or extreme here. (My favorite examples of this "classical" style are the John Ford and Akira Kurosawa films - composition that are reserved, painterly, yet beautiful and poetic)

Documentary style is just that -- it imitates the random, on-the-spot, unplanned look of a real documentary movie, like the recent cinematic tour-de-force, The Real Cancun.

There are touches of what you would call "documentary-style" in the zoom shots of Geonosis, but ANH has no shots that resemble what we know as a documentary.

[image=http://galactic-voyage.com/images/Episode%20II/Trailer%20C/Anakin%20and%20Obi-Wan%20on%20balcony.jpg] [image=http://galactic-voyage.com/images/Episode%20II/Trailer%20C/Anakin%20and%20Padme%20having%20dinner.jpg] [image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/s/i/reunion.jpg]

Not "documentary-style".

 

gezvader --
DrEvazan has explained, very well, what I'm getting at.

And I agree with JW00 that the term 'documentary-style' is a little misused. Nevertheless I have seen it applied to Lucas and to ANH. The film critics have poisoned my fragile little mind.



I have to confess that cinematography is my weakest field in all of filmmaking. Basically all I'm good at is saying "Ooooh, pretty colors"


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

" And Peter Jackson... have you SEEN his non-LOTR movies? He's done well with LOTR but I don't think he's right for SW, and I find it difficult to watch "Meet the Feebles" and think "this guy should do Star Wars"."

what are you talking about? I can understand that you have issues with Meet the Feebles but Jackson has done some other work too you know?

Like the masterpiece "Heavenly Creatures" for which he was Oscar nominated

Or the excellent "Forgotten Silver", a real gem you should check out.

Or the truly imaginative and very funny and original "The Frighteners"

All those 3 films are lightyears ahead of the lifeless prequels. And so by the way are his early splatter films if you happen to like that kind of stuff. Brain Dead is such a funny film, unfortunately hardly known.

Durwood, what's wrong with close-ups? Why do you think People love the Rings films? Not because of special effects or something but because they genuinely CARE for those characters, they FEEL with them. And how did Jackson achieve this? His close-ups are one of the reasons. Actors are actually important for Jackson. He thinks they're the heart and soul of the film.
Lucas on the other hand thinks his latest Rendering package is the heart and soul of the film. Or the toys. Or the Pepsi deals. Actors? Oh, yeah, they're those annoying guys that always say in the press how awful it is to work on the prequels. Make them CGI!!! And give me more toys!!!!

 

The Frighteners was okay but nothing special.

I DO want to see Forgotten Silver, though.



It just annoys me when people suggest directors for Episode III on the basis of one or two other movies their choice has directed.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Durwood, what's wrong with close-ups? Why do you think People love the Rings films? Not because of special effects or something but because they genuinely CARE for those characters, they FEEL with them.

Ummmm... that's not why I like the Rings films. But thank you for assuming your opinion is the same as mine.

I don't actually care much for the LOTR characters (at least not the good guys). I just like the story. The scope of it. The awesome universe that is Middle-Earth. Tolkien was never much for character development, and it comes across in the films. Sam still just says "Don't worry, I'll stick with you, Master." Gimli is still the stereotypical dwarf who relates everything back to his dwarfness? And you know what? That's perfectly okay. Because we have cool scenes like the bridge of Khazad-dum, the battle of the Pellenor fields, the storming of Isengard, the final event in Mordor (you know what I'm talking about, kids).



As for close-ups, I thought AOTC certainly had its share of them.




Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"It just annoys me when people suggest directors for Episode III on the basis of one or two other movies their choice has directed."

Yet that's exactly what Lucas did. ?

"As for close-ups, I thought AOTC certainly had its share of them."

AOTC was full of them. So much for "long lenses".

 

Yet that's exactly what Lucas did.

Yes, and out of that, we got one good directing job (ESB) and, if you ask me, one bad one (ROTJ).

If I could go about reassigning directing tasks in the saga, I would have Lucas direct ROTJ himself and maybe given Spielberg TPM. But that's off-topic.

And 'so much for long lenses' indeed. I never said I agreed with Durwood on every single point. I think TPM and ROTJ keep the camera rather far away from the characters, and ANH sometimes does, but not AOTC.


Good God! I disagreed with a fellow gusher! Teh h0rr0r! Revoke my gushing license! Lock me in the Basher's Sanctuary for a week!


Rick McCallum loves you! (I think the camera should stay away from him, though.)

 

Durwood -
Documentary style basically implies using long lenses so you can stand back from the action,

Using a long lense (zoom and telephoto are pretty much the same yeah?) has the effect of bunching up the perspective, Tony Scott tends to like it, I don't much care for it. But I don't think Lucas uses it much, if at all, it's always noticeable becuase it gives you a subconscious feeling of 'spying' on someone.

JW00 -
Better terms for Lucas' style would be (as Dr.E also used) "non-commentative", conventional, traditional, or maybe even classical and theatrical. Character interaction is viewed from a mid-distance and the edits are moderate

Yes I'd agree with that, I'd say Lucas's style is more akin to the 30's and 40's when they didn't use a lot of the more showy types of camerawork.
I think the term 'documentary style' is mis-used, but it's all opinion, definitions shift. But if I had to call something 'documentary style' I'd say something like NYPD Blue.
I think Lucas's early style was also caleed 'Guerrila filmmaking' which I believe meant that they had to grab shots quickly without much set-up, and I think this got mixed in with that whole 'documentary' thing
Plus - Haskell Wexler was a noted Documentary filmmaker. And he shot Grafitti, so....

Tukafo -
Brain Dead is such a funny film, unfortunately hardly known.

Braindead is astonishing, I'm not a particular fan of splatter movies but this is so epic, so excessive, and so funny.

what's wrong with close-ups? Why do you think People love the Rings films? Not because of special effects or something but because they genuinely CARE for those characters, they FEEL with them. And how did Jackson achieve this? His close-ups are one of the reasons. Actors are actually important for Jackson. He thinks they're the heart and soul of the film

I agree, Jackson has an amazing visual sense but at the same time he never forgets how important the characters/actors/performances are. I don't think audiences could sit through those 3 hour movies if they didn't care about the characters, no matter how good the scenery is!
I think George just laughs it off, he's probably decided that the critics were right - the acting in SW films was never much good, and yet they were smash hits so why worry now with the acting in the PT? God but that's a depressing thought.
Thing is the critics were wrong , about the acting in the OT, it WAS great.

g