Looks like you are a new visitor to this site. Hello!
Welcome to Hope For Film! Come participate in the discussion, and I encourage you to enter your email address in the sidebar and subscribe. It's free! And easy! If you have any suggestions on how to improve this website or suggestions for topics please don't hesitate to write in to any of the blogs.
(If you keep getting this message, you probably have cookies turned off.)
As I’ve mentioned before, I got to be one of the judges for The Vimeo Awards this year. All of the 20 finalist films were worth watching. And it was a total pleasure to discuss them with fellow judges and hear the passion for the work, even when we disagreed. Check them out, particularly these final five and let me know if you agree, and why (or why not).Tweet
Not only is this jaw dropping wild, it is a beautiful well shot film. Tweet
The Books make really smart music that is still really great to listen to. The music alone makes me giddy, but the video seals the deal. I will never look at golfers the same.
Thanks to whomever sent me this. Sorry that — in some regards — production turns my mind into swiss cheese.
We call it The Ghost Station. And Jalopnick has a post on “How To See New York’s Secret City Hall Subway Stop“
I recently had the great pleasure of watching MONSTERS. I enjoyed the movie on many levels, including that it is just good fun. But what I really loved was how well micro-budget production techniques enabled good story telling. In my raving about this, Jonathan Stromberg responded and pointed me to his far better articulated post on the same subject. What follows is his first two paragraphs in CineSpect , but check out the whole post here.
The following review is partially adapted from a workshop I gave to film students at the State University of New York at Purchase College on 6 October 2010.
“Monsters”, the debut feature of writer/director Gareth Edwards, is, from the point of view of a spectator, an imperfect film. It is, however, from the point of view of a filmmaker, one of the most exciting releases I’ve seen this year. Edwards’s production reads like a map for young filmmakers, marking pitfalls with his struggles and showing a way forward with his successes. “Monsters” is one of the clearest case studies yet for the challenges—and advantages—of micro-budget filmmaking.
The ostensible auteur Edwards approached his first feature from his background in visual effects and documentary television. In some ways, this spelled destiny for the production style of “Monsters.” The narrative is basically theatrical, but the shooting style is strongly influenced by the production necessities of non-fiction television. For example, the film has no script per se. Edwards shot using scene outlines and necessary plot points but allowed his cast, Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy, to improvise freely within the scene. The apparent production doctrine was for Edwards, also the cinematographer, to shoot the scene multiple times from different angles to get broad coverage of every beat. The film in this way develops a signature somewhat different from more traditional narrative constructions. Edwards foregoes the “establishing wide then punch in for medium shots and close ups” archetype for something that ends up more like a multi-camera shoot. The angles in any particular scene are more varied, but also less predictable. In documentary television we—I work in non-fiction television as well—often shoot this way. In this way, a decision regarding the mode of production has significant impact on the film’s aesthetic, for better or worse, in a way that contrasts it to traditional productions.