|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.106.171.152
He touched on some interesting things during the Q&A between films.He was asked about shooting digitally and he said he’s a celluloid man (with a couple of situational exceptions). He said that when shooting digitally people don’t know when to turn off the camera and you often wind up with a LOT'S of mediocre footage. He talked about Aguirre and how they shot 40k feet of film total (I’ve gotten more footage than that for a set of 4 or 5 30 second commercials) and that he was so aware about how valuable each roll of film was that he really had to be precise about what he shot with it. He had to make decisions and trust his instincts all at the same time.
The same thing is lost editing digitally. We can easily try every (or many, many) possible combination(s) and no one has to commit until the very end. I never cut on film but when they did they HAD to make a decision (yes, you can cut and re-cut but they didn't have nearly the same latitude).
He spoke about how in Aguirre they had extra’s they’d hired off the streets of Cuzco or hippie travelers in the mountain towns and they often caused trouble/started fights, etc. Herzog said that he’d kill off (and thereby get rid of) whoever the worst troublemakers were at any given time.
He spoke about the monkeys at the end and how they were biting him and the cameraman and how he (Herzog) couldn’t get rid of the one on the camerman's shoulder that was biting him without jarring the camera and messing up the shot.
He also said that the man who sold them the monkeys turned around and sold them again to someone else (an American businessman) so that when they were supposed to be available to shoot that last scene they were on their way to the airport. Herzog said he went to the airport and they were being loaded onto a cargo plane so he drove to the plane and went nuts demanded the monkeys’ vaccination records (told them he was a veterinarian) and ordered them to load the crates of monkeys onto his truck so he could take them and vaccinate them.
He was asked about his professed aversion to "self-knowledge" and he likened the trend of trying to really dig into and know our-selves to the Spanish Inquisition (in that they’d try to peek into every corner of your soul and have you try and describe your faith). He said that a home which has every dark corner illuminated isn’t one that can be lived in. He said that self-knowledge (and the quest for it) is a modern disease… a poison.
He said many other things that I don’t remember so well. He was asked about the “adventure” of shooting AWOG and Fitz and he went on a bit about how ever since the first guy set foot on the South Pole and Hillary climbed Everest there is no more adventure. That by our HAVING to bother these places we’ve made the word an embarrassment (that you can have an “adventure” in Borneo for $5000 with an “adventure” company) and that people shouldn't focus on the stories of making the films but on the films themsleves.
In regards to that he said one thing he's proud of with Fitzcaraldo is that you can trust your eyes. When you see a ship it is a ship and when you see a mountain it is a mountain. He was wishing that cinema would turn back in that direction (but he was also aware of the futility of that wish).
It was a nice evening with an enthusiastic crowd of movie lovers.
Follow Ups:
...in Russian Ark that was the whole deal.Nice note-taking, by the way.
Sounds like a fun evening, and several things he said ring true.The stuff about the digital is not significant... it is transitionary and artists will learn to use it. Not everyone is Ridley Scott and not every film from now on will be digital garbage like the Gladiator. Each time new technologies come along people tend to badmouth it... remember the introduction of sound? It was supposed to kill the films.
I like hit dark corners analogy, and I like his statement that "people shouldn't focus on the stories of making the films but on the films themsleves", which is a bit ironic, as he was there doing just that, but he gets forgiveness - he is, after all, an artists, and their art should be appreciated, while very few of them can say anything worthwhile.
s
What I know is they created a lot of images digitally. Whether these were then put on film or not is completely irrelevant, in my view. To me the carrier is not really important, it is what and how it is done.
s
My point was with the Gladiator it mattered none whether it was celluloid or hard drive, it was a digital garbage.I don't know why one should hate the digital format... it is getting close to the point where it will equal the film performance. I understand hating while it is still developing, like the early DVD's, but these are just the growing pains.
I am not gonna start another dispute on whether the film is analog or digital.
I liked the dark corners analogy as well... probably my favorite thing that he said. I'm certainly not against self knowledge but I think we know ourselves much more by living... by how we react to the twists and turns and challenges then by probing inwardly and trying to illuminate those dark corners (though I believe that has it's place... as depicted in Wild Strawberries).It's like everything though when taken to it's extreme (I must learn everything about myself... illuminate every dark corner is as bad as I don't want/need to know anything about myself and won't try to illuminate anything).
I agree that digital filmamakers will adapt and there will be plenty of worthwhile films made (there are some good one's already) and that, of course, digital film making is not the same as a film with digital effects.
is contradictory: I think he's referring to the overimportance of the adventure quality of making the film, you know, how the film about making "Apolcalypse Now" has become almost as known as the film itself.
Regarding digital: I'd agree with Herzog.
See that movie and you sense the realness of it. Now, watch "Private Ryan" or some other modern film--"Gladiator"--and it's clear that you're seeing a digital image. No matter how cleverly they try to disguise it, it looks phony as hell. I don't know it it's going to get much better, either, since it's been already quite some time without much improvement.
While I absolutely hate what is being done digitally today, I also believe this is a temporary phenomenon. Sound, color, TV, etc all had been proclaimed at one point or another to kill the spirit of the movies, and yet all eventually tamed to enhance our experience. Today we have the generation of directors not capable of using the digital properly, but that will change. Some of us old farts will lament the departure of celluloid, but just like with color, you can have it done perfectly and to your advantage, or you can have Turner colorization. Beaut Travail would not be a great film without its colors.Of course I am not talking about that abomination commonly called "special effects". Those who love them deserve what they get, we are talking about the fact that most films will be done in digital format in some not too distant future.
In the abscence of a stand-in, a digital avatar, a blue screen backdrop and Industrial Light and Magic, or the possibility of a 2nd take, Ms.Gish test drives her thermal underwear
as
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: