|
Eh it was an unclear question to begin with
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Probably there's something to look into re when location shoots started becoming mainstream
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:When did movies stop looking like they were shot on stages and start looking like they were shot in the real life? This doesn't answer your question but it's something that came up when we watched How to Marry a Millionaire last night as it used sets for most shots. Even when they were out on a balcony it was a set and the city behind them was a backdrop. There were shots that were outside in what was supposed to be snowy Maine but the funny catch there was that it was obvious that the people in the scene were just stand-ins being dubbed over. Their faces were either away from us or too far away. The actors were only ever used in sets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
i vaguely remember reading some clickbait listicle that said Nosferatu was the first movie filmed on location definitely bullshit, but it gives an upper limit to when it began
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
If I was feeling pedantic, I might point out that L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat (1896) by the Lumière brothers was indeed filmed at La Ciotat. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
The Great Train Robbery has the shootout in the woods that looks pretty real
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
ynohtna posted:If I was feeling pedantic, I might point out that L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat (1896) by the Lumière brothers was indeed filmed at La Ciotat. haha but was it a movie though? idk the defintion but at least there wasnt a narrative. id put it into the same box as like Edison's random wax cylinders & that guy who bullettimed a gallopping horse. Super interesting & i love them but they aren't movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
The short answer (which will quickly become a long answer) is that, for a long time, people didn't go to the movies for realistic sets. Broadway and New York theater in general was a huge cultural influence for the first few decades of the 20th century, so stageyness was expected, accepted, and sometimes preferred, particularly in the depression when movies were a form of escapism and stylistic flourishes were part of the art form. There was also the issue of changes in film itself - silent movies got really wild in the years before sound, then movies had to settle down again because sound was cumbersome, and then color came along and that was cumbersome as well. Three-strip technicolor required huge amounts of light, which introduced its own stageyness because it meant big, bright lights shining every which way, creating theatrical shadows and cross-lighting. This is also why technicolor movies look so vivid and shimmering (somewhere you can find Anna Biller discussing her lighting of The Love Witch where she talks about overlighting to create the lurid 60s effect) - light, light, and more light. So you have escapism, the difficulty capturing sound, and a lot of light, which adds up to a need for control and a preference for a cohesive artistic vision over a realistic representation of day-to-day life. There were films that strove for realism, but most of those were done with significant theatricality (How Green Was My Valley, for example, or most noir films), which is why Italian neorealism was a big deal - though shooting in someone's kitchen was becoming more practical, in American cinema it just wasn't done. So the really short answer is that nobody cared until the Europeans went through hell, and then it became en vogue to make movies look realistic, because now realism = art. Basically, around the 1970s. Magic Hate Ball fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
I think I read somewhere that older cameras/film required more light, so any "night" scenes had to be filmed on a stage so they could blast the scene with lighting. This is also why you see way more "day for night" scenes in older films. As the technology got better, they were able to use less light and gradually get away from sets more. Look up how much extra effort it took to get those deep-focus shots in Citizen Kane, or the famous candle lenses for Barry Lyndon... Edit: beaten, but yes, color film required more light than B&W, so those old noir films (which wanted a dark look anyway) were easier to make, from a DP's perspective. BrewingTea fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
thx for the writeup Magic Hateball. i remember reading that there was a critical backlash at first against the "mumbly" continental-inspired New Hollywood movies. obv it didnt take and thank god for that, but imagine Raging Bull as a chamber play nevermind actually. i would go see that
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I vividly remember a review of one of Altman's early 70s films where his style was dismissed as "like watching soup boil".
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
haa probably theres a lot of hot takes in movie reviews
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
I might be wrong, but I think Von Stroheim's Greed was shot mostly on location, if not entirely. Abel Gance also stuck to actual locations or realistic sets for La Roue and Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
My favourite use of overtly theatrical sets in a movie are from Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. Which has some really gorgeous stylised sets in the parts of the film that are based on books and plays while the parts bars on real life are poo poo like a gritty political thriller for the part set in the 70s and a black and white realist parts for the parts set around WW2. My favourite part is a scene where a revolutionary fascist cell is huddled in a tiny room planning an assassination. The room is represented by a small box with no roof and a huge area of darkness around it. When the police raid the meeting and the plan starts to fall apart the walls of the room literally collapse. I'll try to find some pics when I get home and aren't phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info guys. Just watched 400 Blows and something that struck me was how "stagey" half of the indoor shots were, and how "real" the other half were. Stagey scenes appeared to have generous stage lighting and static cameras, realistic scenes had natural lighting and a moving camera (like when the kid is stealing the typewriter)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
There was a weird thing with BBC stuff where all interior shooting was done on video an the exteriors were shot on film. Which to modern eyes can be very jarring. This was BBC policy from the 30's up until the 80's. Monty Python even did a sketch about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f-kfRREA8M&t=138s
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Those sitcoms were all shot with U-Matic, an early form of video, which was practical and cheap to use on television stages because everything was wired and connected and designed for it, but actually taking all that stuff outdoors would've been a nightmare, whereas a 16mm camera could be stuck on any old tripod and moved all over the place at a moment's notice and didn't require as much intensive lighting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Purple Gromit posted:There was a weird thing with BBC stuff where all interior shooting was done on video an the exteriors were shot on film. Which to modern eyes can be very jarring. This was BBC policy from the 30's up until the 80's. lmao such a great bit Also exterior wide shots were often easily identifiable up till like the 1980s. Like clearly a different film stock from some helicopter looping around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
What was the first movie in American theaters to have an F bomb?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
GORDON posted:What was the first movie in American theaters to have an F bomb? I know it's not MASH, but MASH was like the dirtiest film ever when it came out because of how often it was used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Was it Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Was it Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Does that have an F Bomb? I should rewatch it. At some point I want to do a dramatic reading of the play with 3 friends, while getting progressively drunker. Probably need to either gender swap the roles or have two guys as one couple and two women as the other just to not permanently damage our friendship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
GORDON posted:What was the first movie in American theaters to have an F bomb? Stackexchange has a thread about this: https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/16532/what-is-the-first-appearance-of-the-f-bomb-in-a-movie quote:It was an intentional use of the word in two Warner Bros. films, both in 1933. Bosko, the cartoon, pretty clearly says, "The dirty gently caress!" in Bosko's Picture Show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVkGReG2N4
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:04
|
|
man
|
Not f-bombs, but Edgar Kennedy says "Oh poo poo!" in the 1929 Laurel & Hardy comedy Perfect Day and there's a lot of profanity in Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels (1930). I've spotted a few silent films where they clearly said profanities. I haven't seen it, but 1928's What Price Glory has Goodfellas-level amounts of profanity if you're a lip reader. The 1927 film The Beloved Rogue has a scene where John Barrymore clearly says "Son of a bitch!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Yeah, when did stages start selling the illusion of being the real life? Was it a piece of technology, was it decisions in lighting? Is there a range of years when there was a marked difference? What were some of the earliest films to sell the illusion? I'll ask a more specific question in the same ball park then. What are the different techniques for filming driving scenes (inside the car) and what are the determining factors for making each one of them look good? The simple answer would have been "Green screen looks poo poo, real life using that towing technique looks good" but I've been surprised to learn about some driving scenes that look really good that were filmed on a stage. That simple answer also doesn't account for other techniques that might exist (I'm sure there are more).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
In the spirit of the conversation and in honor of this, our four hundred and twentieth page, what's the first depiction of the use of marijuana on film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:In the spirit of the conversation and in honor of this, our four hundred and twentieth page, what's the first depiction of the use of marijuana on film? Earliest mention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjdETBXwDo8 Earliest usage I'm aware of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKbQh_3JOhw Also it cracks me up that they started enforcing code literally a month after Murder at the Vanities' positive mention of weed, which is why we got "weed is evil" as the first depictions of weed use in Marihuana and Reefer Madness Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Cab Calloway performs "Reefer Man" in International House (1933) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCUDxgYMdxI&t=12s
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Speaking of fake versus real, I always found it weird that the more cameras you use, the faker and cheaper it looks (three camera versus a single camera). I know it has nothing to do with the number of cameras, but how you use them but it used to confuse me that movies were 1 camera, whereas the crappiest looking episode of Mama's Family was 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Speaking of fake versus real, I always found it weird that the more cameras you use, the faker and cheaper it looks (three camera versus a single camera). I know it has nothing to do with the number of cameras, but how you use them but it used to confuse me that movies were 1 camera, whereas the crappiest looking episode of Mama's Family was 3. When you use multiple cameras, you have to light it so shots from each camera is lit well, which leads to kind of even, shadowless lighting, which looks "unnatural" to a lot of people. That is the distinctive look of multicamera shows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Cab Calloway performs "Reefer Man" in International House (1933)  done in by Encyclopedia Souse
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Minnie the Moocher is also in part about doing drugs though opiates and coke rather than weed. Smokey is said to be "cokey" and he takes Minnie to chinatown to teach her how to "kick the gong around" i.e. smoke opium. Also the Betty Boop short based on it is really good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_jqqJ-77xs
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Speaking of fake versus real, I always found it weird that the more cameras you use, the faker and cheaper it looks (three camera versus a single camera). I know it has nothing to do with the number of cameras, but how you use them but it used to confuse me that movies were 1 camera, whereas the crappiest looking episode of Mama's Family was 3. Single cam TV comedies really bug me with the "over the shoulder view of one person having a conversation with another" shot because 90% of the time it's super obvious the person with their back to the camera isn't an active part of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Yeah that over shoulder view always sucks, one of those things you don’t care about until you notice it then you see it every time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Looten Plunder posted:Single cam TV comedies really bug me with the "over the shoulder view of one person having a conversation with another" shot because 90% of the time it's super obvious the person with their back to the camera isn't an active part of the conversation. I see this all the time in one-on-one interviews. I don't need to see the interviewer nodding and smiling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
In my experience those shots are purely there to cover up cuts. Like if you wanna create a dramatic pause or cut out a word or two without it being obvious. Weird jumpcuts might actually be favourable to most of those shots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
They should just cut to a rock-hard throbbing dick every time they need coverage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
My disappointment in learning how actors shoot their lines in a single camera environment ranks up there with realizing there was no Santa Claus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
im sure its been addressed but a weird mid-line camera thing is in TFA when leia is talking to han before he leaves and its like the camera suddenly jump-zooms in towards her a little bit between her words. what the hell is that? i assume it had something to do with various takes of the same lines but idk
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:52 |
|
|
Parachute posted:im sure its been addressed but a weird mid-line camera thing is in TFA when leia is talking to han before he leaves and its like the camera suddenly jump-zooms in towards her a little bit between her words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbFwvTI0fCU
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 19:40
|
|