Looking for Steadicam Operator for RED, warning: LOW BUDGET

[Ken Nguyen]

LOL...oh my gosh...are Fu$%¨& kidding? People like you destroy the film industry. Go back home and try fastfood business...stupid :angry:

 

Hey Ricardo,

You wrote English well so I assumed that you are very well educated.

Brazil, where you are from, is a very civilized country.

So, don't let other think that you have none of those qualities.

 

Be a gentleman! Fight like a man!

Ken Nguyen.

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

"Be a gentleman! Fight like a man!"

 

I agree. Keep it clean folks. I would have erased your post Ricardo, but since its already been quoted in full and discussed that seems pointless now.

[Fabrizio Sciarra SOC ACO]

Just to get back on topic:

I totally agree with Charles.

And I personally found the shot totally boring, also framing wise looks like nobody took care of it. (Why all that ceiling, showing all that lines that reveals a less then enjoyable horizon??) Nothing interesting on the way to the bar, just a mere BS.

Not to be harsh here, but It perfectly reflect the "low budget warning" in my humble opinion.

...A camera doesn't make a movie, Red or not Red.

It still a craft, thanks god. :rolleyes:

 

My .2

[XiaoSu Han]

It's really unfortunate that you have to view the clip out of context. I can only try to explain what's before that plus the motivations of the shot of course, but other than that I can't do much.

 

So before this shot the actress spends the night with her ex-boyfriend, who meets her on the street and convinces her to have sex with him, he promises her oh-so-many things from the sky and dumps her right after that - again. So that shot is supposed to show her back. Supposed to have 1/3 of the frame filled with the back of her head instead of the background (which was lacking of course). We wanted to be in her head, not interested in her surroundings at all. We wanted to be a bit confused with her. At the end of the shot she went through the circle and came back again, is at the beginning again, meets another decisive man.

 

Which I think we've achieved after all. This definitely is a low-budget steadicam shot. Otherwise we wouldn't have lost half of our crowd after 5 takes. Otherwise the first 5 takes would've been usable. Otherwise I wouldn't give in until we've got a technically perfect shot. Otherwise I would've built the bar on a stage and lit it perfectly. I can keep this going all night. This is low budget and it will fit into the story and conceive what we wanted. We've had a couple wilder movements before this take but they didn't seem to work after all, so we agreed on a simpler take on things. A shot like this would never be "wow look at that 2 minute one-take", but I think that it certainly fits into the story like we planned it to be and thus I think I've reached my goal as a DP.

 

And as everybody has a one-line-wisdom to share, here's mine: a steadicam shot doesn't make a movie, how it's implemented does

 

Sorry Charles, but I think that "Even though we are viewing it out of context and we know nothing about the character, I personally can't imagine that shot will add much to the storytelling of the film." contradicts itself and is a bit unfair to say.

 

Here's a reel of the movie and it tells a bit more of the story than that one shot. Maybe it helps to understand how it might fit in.

 

http://www.stilfabrik.at/footage/summertimereel.mov

 

PS: I can't believe that in a real name forum someone like Ricardo would post something like this. - I would be ashamed.

[Sydney Seeber]

Hey man, peers rip each others' work apart all the time. You'd better get used to it, and not take it personal. It's how you get better. Dude is out of focus in the first shot by the way, or at least he's a little soft... That's a down side of digital. Tiny stuff like that can be really noticeable. Maybe should have racked back and forth as they were talking or something, I don't know, I wasn't there.

I doubt anyone here believes that a stabilized shot will make or break a movie...

[Charles Papert]

Sorry Charles, but I think that "Even though we are viewing it out of context and we know nothing about the character, I personally can't imagine that shot will add much to the storytelling of the film." contradicts itself and is a bit unfair to say.

 

Actually I was being generous by pointing out the lack of context, rather than just having an immediate reaction to the shot itself. And even taking into account the lack of context, I still felt that the shot had an ambiguity, didn't feel strong. So not really a contradiction. I watched the clip reel and felt that there were several strong moments in there (I particularly liked the couple dancing with the turntable in the foreground). Then I watched the Steadicam shot again and continued to feel indifferent to it.

 

My point of view on this is a function of my early years doing Steadicam shots like these in low budget films, choosing NOT to do shots like these when I am DP'ing or directing, and also as a viewer of films at all budget levels. This shot feels to me very similar to things I've done that seemed cool at the time and ultimately hurt the pace of the film, and either left in (not a good choice) or jump-cut into oblivion (better, but more of a "save" than a good choice to begin with). Low budget and indie films have made a virtual art out of the jump cut, largely because someone forgot to shoot coverage or thought it would play better as a single long take or had no clue that the actor's pacing was off or how to correct it.

 

Xax, I hear you on the intent of the shot. I have to say that watching the shot, I don't feel in her head and I don't feel confused, I just feel like I'm tracking through a space. Part of this may even be performance-based. How is it possible that a shot of the back of Russell Crowe's head in "The Insider" can have so much weight, meaning and intensity? Certainly the framing, lighting, focal length etc. contribute to this but Crowe somehow communicates through nuances of body language that seem to be missing in this shot.

 

Perhaps we are too far away from the subject, perhaps the background should be shallower to really isolate her, perhaps we should only be moving in a straight line rather than taking turns (or the camera can be making a slow arc from left to right as we follow her, a shot I suggested for a film I shot years ago which the director later commented was one of his favorites).

 

The very fact that you didn't have the background you wanted, you didn't have the time to light the way you wanted, perhaps you didn't get the operator you wanted; at a certain point, is it still serving the needs of the film to press forward and go for it, or would it be better to come up with something simpler that you could nail with your limited time and resources? And what if that would have ultimately been better than even the best case scenario of this as a Steadicam shot?

 

Filmmaking is a learning process for all of us. As I indicated earlier, when I'm shooting or directing I am generally quite frugal with Steadicam (as a DP I have often talked a less-experienced director out of using Steadicam just for the sake of it).

 

Again, out of fairness I will allow that the finished film might change my opinion of this shot. The right music, the right placement in the film can add a lot. My money would probably be on the likelihood of it being shortened via jump cuts when all is said and done. Guess we'll see.

 

 

.

[XiaoSu Han]

Thanks a lot Charles for elaborating further and taking time to do so. I just thought that it was a bit unfair to let it stand there with just one sentence and no reason for why, that way it's really hard to improve upon ourselves.

 

Upon your elaboration I can now see more clearly what the weaknesses of the said shot are and we'll see how the director and the editor are going to work with it. I can see how it seems "empty" to some extent, and probably the performance doesn't help here as well. I hope that in the finished movie, due to the fact that the scene before that is quite a heavy dialogue scene, it would have it's place there as explained and executed. I am not looking for excuses, but I guess you know the downfalls of low-budget productions better than I do.

 

Probably in the end the need for a steadicam shot in the otherwise rather static movie overcame us and we opted for visual exposure a bit too much. I guess in the end also our inexperience contributed in not pulling the plug earlier to maybe come up with another shot, but hey, I hope we will know better the next time. I think that the lenghty discussion here also pushed me towards a rather sensitive side and maybe out of respect and shame for the low wage I couldn't press the operator towards more what we wanted. But that definitely is our mistake and we'll improve upon that. After all, I am thankful for the criticism here, especially in an elaborate form, it really helps.

 

I am going to come back after release of the movie and maybe we can take a fresh look at things then.

 

Cheers, Xax

[Charles Papert]

Glad that I could open up some angles on this, Xax.

 

For many operators, once you get enough time and experience under your belt, the mechanics and technical side of Steadicam become far less interesting than the visual grammar it represents. While the director (and sometimes DP) gets the external credit for the visual style of a film, in the best scenarios we (as operators) are involved to an extent that we can help shape this as well. Case in point: the legendary Goodfellas shot in the Copacabana. Like the shot in your film it is largely comprised of following the subject from behind through a busy space. What Larry McConkey was able to do with this basic conceit was, and still is, a tour de force of blocking and interesting choices which ultimately speak volumes about the characters and the lifestyle being portrayed.

 

Another film that comes to mind is "Elephant"--the sheer simplicity, repetition and formal centered composition of the many tracking shots through the school add up to a rhythm and tone that create a unique mood.

 

Early on in my career, I was asked to do numerous shots that were, by and large, expendable or self-indulgent. I myself proposed a few of them! One of my first Steadicam gigs, probably 1986 or so, was on a student film set in an office. I came up with a shot that tracked the progress of a file folder being passed from person to person that dipped and swooped this way and that. Everyone was all giddy with this big impressive bit of business (having Steadicam on a student film was a Big Deal back then) and the director inserted the shot into the middle of the film as a little interlude complete with its own score. When the film got picked up and shown by PBS as part of a shorts package, that shot was excised. I was of course incensed, but eventually came to realize that the producers of the TV program had shown more sophisticated judgement and seen that, when it came to that sequence, the Emperor wasn't wearing any clothes. Not to say that this is specifically the case with your shot, as you and the director had obviously designed it with the best intentions and a defined game plan, I'm just echoing your sentiment that time will tell, and of course ultimately, the purpose of low-budget filmmaking is for everyone to experiment, learn and grow and move on to bigger and better things.

[Shane Norton]

I have nowhere near the experience that a lot of the people on here have, but still I'd like to add my thoughts.

 

Obviously the shot is out of context, plus I didn't have audio while watching. Some questions were raised about the background and where she was and all of that. Those answers very well could have been given before and after this particular shot.

 

Still, it's never an extremely pretty thing to be staring at the back of a person's head for such a prolonged time. If the shot's intention was to make the audience feel as though we were following this girl through this club/party place, I feel we could have been a little less tight on her head. Loosen it up a bit?

 

On top of that, I'm not sure we needed to follow her for so long. This shot just didn't feel like it needed to be a oner. Maybe throw a few cuts in there from alternate angles? The few times we get to see her face seemed like such a relief. It would have been nice to get to that a few more times.

 

Overall, I agree that I'm not sure I see what this particular shot is adding to the film. But again, I have only seen it out of context.

 

My question to the forum. Besides what the shot is and what's happening. Any critique of the actual steadicam work? Clearly the operator is just doing what he/she has been asked. I'm curious what you all might think as far as the operator as opposed to the shot choice that came from the DP/Director/Bossman.

[Shane Norton]

I have nowhere near the experience that a lot of the people on here have, but still I'd like to add my thoughts.

 

Obviously the shot is out of context, plus I didn't have audio while watching. Some questions were raised about the background and where she was and all of that. Those answers very well could have been given before and after this particular shot.

 

Still, it's never an extremely pretty thing to be staring at the back of a person's head for such a prolonged time. If the shot's intention was to make the audience feel as though we were following this girl through this club/party place, I feel we could have been a little less tight on her head. Loosen it up a bit?

 

On top of that, I'm not sure we needed to follow her for so long. This shot just didn't feel like it needed to be a oner. Maybe throw a few cuts in there from alternate angles? The few times we get to see her face seemed like such a relief. It would have been nice to get to that a few more times.

 

Overall, I agree that I'm not sure I see what this particular shot is adding to the film. But again, I have only seen it out of context.

 

My question to the forum. Besides what the shot is and what's happening. Any critique of the actual steadicam work? Clearly the operator is just doing what he/she has been asked. I'm curious what you all might think as far as the operator as opposed to the shot choice that came from the DP/Director/Bossman.

 

And I now realize there was a whole 4th page that I seemed to miss that answered some of these question. lol.