How Steve McQueen DOESN'T Move the Camera
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2016
- So many directors today are revered for how they move the camera, but Steve McQueen is revered for quite the opposite; how he DOESN'T move the camera.
TRACKLIST:
Mark Kozelek / Jimmy Lavalle - Ceiling Gazing
Hans Zimmer - Solomon
Mexence Cyrin - Where Is My Mind
Chilly Gonzalez - KENASTON
Wolf Alice - Silk
Memories of Murder (2003) - Ensemble Staging: bit.ly/2fK9AGr
Twitter: bit.ly/2gzMoJX
the camera in that 'the interview' scene seemed to move to distract from the fact that the kids don't really play the guitar properly, which makes it kinda worse
Yeah, it makes their performance feel saccharine and overproduced and humorless, which is the vibe I get from most authoritarian pageantry.
Seems like a wide shot would of been better if thats the case. Im sure theres other reasons why, but they had the operator straight up running back and forth
It’s supposed to make you feel like it’s fake and overdone. Because everything North Korea fakes everything and overdoes everything. That’s the whole point.
I think that was the subtle idea behind the cuts. To evoke negative feelings towards the whole spectacle.
@@jonathanakai3128 great point!
Thank you for discussing this with us. My dad was a TV director and he used to discuss filmology, camera works and the science behind shots and scenes. After he passed, I miss knowing and talking about stuff like this.
If you like this and think this style is something, you should check out the work of Yasujiro Ozu. Japanese director who died in 1963. He was a master of mise-en-scène without moving the camera. He made about 50 movies or so and by the end of his career wasn’t moving the camera at all. I guess Tokyo Story is considered his masterpiece, but every film of his I have seen has been a revelation. He was a master for sure without moving the camera. I can only wonder if McQueen was a disciple of Ozu’s films. One of my favorites is Called Good Morning from 1959.
One of the best video essays I’ve ever seen, no cap. I don’t know if you’ll ever see this, but sir, we want more, I want more.
he hasnt made a video in 6 years, and only uploaded 3 ever. Seems like he gave up on his youtube dreams, which ya, sucks cuz in only 3 videos he was really good
You did a great job on this. Love McQueen's static shots. Don't know why this doesn't have more views.
This is one of the channels that gave me the courage to start my RUclips channel 8 months ago about self development. Now I have 1,126 subs and > 900 hours of watch time. I know it’s not comparable with others but I’m still proud I started because I’ve been learning so many lessons that I could haven’t learned without getting started in the 1st place.
I think the camera movements and everything work fine for the style and scene of The Interview. Just different style, nothing wrong with it. Both are great
The Interview scene is amazing. Super funny and silly.
It’s also brilliant because it’s overdone and clearly fake which is exactly what North Korea likes to portray. This crazy solid production with excellent technique but those kids aren’t playing those notes at all. Great directing. Nothing wrong with it.
If I would have Fassbender and Seymour Hoffman as my lead actors I would drill my camera on the ground. Great performances don’t require camera movements
mmmmmaybe, but the point the presenter is trying to make is about the potential in the scene. Movement is already happening both visual and auditory. The camera movement seems entirely unnecessary given potential already present.
@@keenabarbara9118 that’s exactly the point the director is trying to make lol
PLEASEEEE upload more videos. This breakdown of Steve McQueen was awesome!!
Very interesting. I'm planning a short film with a mostly locked down camera, for practical reasons, and possibly the three camera positions you mentioned. But, given that my characters have no way of escaping their fate, your take on that scene with the two men talking, where the conversation is 'going nowhere' makes complete sense.
1:51 the boys can't really play, and the cuts / camera motion somewhat obscure that. I think that's the purpose.
I'm planning to do a video essay on Steve McQueen's framing. Looking for other essays on him, I came across this. I loved it, new sub. Please do more.
9 shots because there’s 4 people at a table which by itself is already 4 singles lol! I 1000% percent agree with you on that shot with the hanging but then there’s a david fincher in the world whose work is tops. I think it’s all just based on story and intention. Great info in this vid!
I love it! Very well said and it's great to learn more about the camera in these scenes.
Well said sir
People have gone tech crazy and forget it’s a story behind every shot and a meaning👌🏼
You talk about the three cam setup. Are those recorded simultaneously or are the cameras rearranged for separate new shots? And if it's the second: are the lights rearranged as well? If yes, do they match the shots or are they just going for what looks best and get away with lightinh not necessarily lining up? Thank you!☺️
As much as I like Steve McQueen and other directors who rarely move the camera (Chantal Akerman, Jim Jamush, Yasujirō Ozu) you can't really say static camera good, moving camera bad. That's just lazy. Remember we are watching Movies (moving pictures). Something should be moving. Either the actors, the background or the camera. A 17 minute scene without any movement isn't a movie, it's a photograph with dialogue, and nearer to a play, than a film. Or worse, it's radio pretending to be a Cinema.
Yes, No and "La jetée"
Yes, It's always all about flo. That scene though, the rim light, the subtle tilt of the two subjects, it is captivating. It might be an early attempt at meta modern?
Great analysis and thanks for the 'Silk' song recommendation
Need more content. Love this essay
inspiration is exactly what i needed today! i enjoyed this video alot and cant wait to see more
What a great video...really enjoyable and inteneresting. Great movies, great analysis.
Great video, the interview scene was funny AF
Really nice work!
What a fantastic video. Love your music choice
Excellent video, mate! Cheers!🍻
I think it's all about the context of the scene and Whether a static shot would fit better than a moving one, or vice versa.
truly excellent! learned a lot!
Fascinating video essay, sir
It must hav taken a lot of work to put this together. This is six years ago, why didnt you continue. Larry
What a a beautiful Review! Looved the music too
Great video!
Thank you for the video. ❤
Went to your page expecting more videos, dang!
This was superb, I'm glad I didn't miss out of seeing this video.
( Stealing a little credit from the director, the interchange between the two actors in Hunger is the magic that came before the chicken and or the egg ).
Great video
Excellent video.
Excellent!!
6:36 Which movie is this?
why the interview ? two different films
Excellent point….👍🏾
621 subscribers? how is that eveb possible? thanks for this great essay. its 622 now.
I'm glad Hunger was added to the Criterion Collection, but honestly, Shame and 12 Years A Slave deserve to be added, too.
You put where is my mind piano in the background
Cool
Great video bro
Keep on making videos man
Fassbender's bedclothes looked green to me. I need to adjust my monitor.
You would love the movie Playtime.
Still waiting for a single photo of Steve McQueen in this video.
rappers you can use this line "hold the camera still like steve mcqueen"
A movie can be like a theatre, you only have to change the camera with the scene. The main difference being that a camera allows for angles and images that would be impossible in theatre.
I love 'Shame'.
When does Lighting McQueen show up
good video
Thing is so many people think they need to have crazy camera moves to be ‘cool’. I look at comic books/manga for an example. They tell so much story in one frame. It’s all about framing and composition etc
It’s nice to move the camera if needed but if it’s unnecessary and just the director/DOP trying to flex then it’s pointless. I’d rather have a cool locked off shot that’s really impactful rather than a shaky cam that’s all over the place trying to do a cool ‘one shot’ but doesn’t really work.
17 min static shot and they're getting nowhere. That's where I fall asleep and 17 min is quite a reasonable nap. Thanks.
does anyone know What film on 0:12?
It’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, an absolutely fantastic movie if you haven’t seen it!
Thank you❤@@granteus_
Thank you for your angle I disagree with your statement at 1:21. I feel like it's meant to make you feel uncomfortable. 2. The reason about that scene had nine camera angles which I agree is too many but there were four characters instead of two. 3. The blue sheets it also is a color of sorrow in paintings and many different art forms that change the color not because of emotional change but that he opened a curtain to the outside world. A change for sure but maybe positive in the mind of the character. I don't believe your opinion is wrong. I am looking at it from a different view now with your interpretation.
1:50 I think this scene is so extremely unnecessarily dynamic is because the kids are not playing the guitars. To anyone with even basic understanding of string instruments it is immediately obvious. However, the extreme camera movement will hide that fact from the majority of the audience who don't care. In a more static shot, a lot more people would be forced to pay attention to the instruments. The way this is done, most people will try to hunt for facial expressions of the kids.
Not trying to justify their choices, this should have been done way differently, either cast kids who actually can play, or use different frames to hide the instruments after the establishing shot.
The whole scene is nauseating....
With the context of the movie being about the Kims and North Korea, I think the whole scene makes absolute sense.
@@chizbreds1717 Is it like a sarcastic portrayal of some private culture event for the elite henchmen and the fakery is an intentional point being made?
Let me guess, does he keep it still?
Lmaooo, this got me good
You might've misunderstood the scene in the Interview.... the camera movement is needed... it's there to show an energetic scene.... full of live and excitement.... to show the contrast to the actual audience... not gonna pretend Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogan did a great job with the camera work in that movie.... but plenty of other examples would've been much better
The complaint around 2:10 that the camera is moving around likely all the shots and stops required to film 3 children pretending to play guitar for 1-2 minutes of film.
I can tell you what happened at 2:00 either the producer or director hired a dolly and by god they had to use it that day or all hell would break loose
reminds me of sports. everyone says go faster. but noone teaches you to stop
Yeah, the camera on the little guitarists had to move so wildly to mask the fact that none of these kids could actually play the guitar.
But why?
For the shot about The Interview with kids playing guitars, I disagree.
In my perspective, we see a concert of kids playing guitars with too much movements for the cameras to create an ambiance of live concert, "party"
and finally when they reveal the audience there's a discomfort.
It makes sense to me.
Anyway, everything can be done.
I think it's just a question of opinions, tastes and creativity.
❤
I think the Fast cuts in the north korean movie is to hide that the Kids arent really playing the guitars.
👏👏👏
I think should not dictate how people choose their camera movement. It is the style of the individual. Whether it is necessary should be decided by the director, not us. Sometimes the editor wants many angles to edit. Anyway, if I were a director, I would prefer slow long takes.
Do Spike Lee next
Kubrick? He wrote the book.
The performance needs to carry the shot else you have to cut.. You are forgetting about the performance
You’re comparing a comedy to intense dramas. That’s why the shots are different.
I dont see wrong the scene from the interview. The unnecessary movement makes the scene a lot funnier
m
Classical style.
i think he's moving the camera to make it less obvious that the kids are not moving their hands in anything like real playing.
There isn’t enough artist but too many tech heads
in truth Mcqueen used LONG TAKES in your examples you used to capture the emotions he wanted.
this might be stupid but why doesnt solomon hold onto the rope above him and pull himself up so he can breathe better. if he gets tired he could take a break and then pull himself up again...?
well his hands are tied behind his back
he probably would get a bullet or whipped for doing it cuz his aggressors were watching from a nearby porch if i remembered correctly.
Hannigan the Traveling Salesman asks, “What if Steve McQueen had directed Steve McQueen? Could he tame _that_ famously fast-driving, fast-living icon of the silver screen? No _woman_ ever could that’s for certain.
Cash or credit!”
Conan: Living icon? But Steve McQueen’s dead!
Hannigan: Not to little innocent children who believe with all their hearts and my glue-sniffing snake oil salesman of a father. He once thought I was the snake producing the oil and tried to extract it from me with glass-blowing pipe and a pair of splintered wooden forceps.
I'm guessing McQueen doesn't touch it.
Obviously the author of this essay likes a camera that doesn't move. But again, is his opinion, its a totally personal and subjective opinion, and has nothing to do with truth.
Mainly, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if the camera moves or not. It doesn't really matter if you have two characters talking and shoot it in three shots or nine shots, or fifteen for that matter.
What matters, is: if the scene works. If the characters are believable, and if the story is told in a way that makes you feel invested in the story. That's all that matters. Nothing else matters.
But what is worse, is that the author of this essay is trying to imply that a film should have a rule, when in reality, most of the great films, they were great because they broke the rules.
I think it’s a sound criticism: now more than ever because filmmakers are so insecure in their ability to hold audience attention through good story and performance alone. Not to mention everything trending hard toward consuming film as content, leading to faster cutting and mindless, senseless camera moves.
Of course you can, but should you? Both Scorsese and Fincher, some of the finest practitioners of camera moves and the cut, outline in their process when they should just hold back on any gimmicks that might get in the way and just let the scene play. I think that is the big difference when camera moves don’t work: when it’s mindless nervous reaction in an attempt to try to hold attention or trying too hard to stamp your signature on a work.
Movies are visual storytelling. The author of this video essay is not laying down rules. Nor is he simply asserting a preference for locking down the camera. Rather he is showing how not moving the camera can sometimes be the best way of telling the story, and can aid in making your characters believable. The long tracking shot alluded to in the clip from "Goodfellas" is not just Scorsese showing off. It's meant to show you how connected Henry Hill is and to show how his girlfriend is pulled into the mob world.
@@brachiator1 agree. A lot of would be filmmakers copy the wrong parts of the masters and don’t consider WHY something works. Big Style without meaning. The underlying resonance and emotion is what underpins the greats, and almost compels the camera into motion-not the other way round.
i dont understand the unnecessary call out for different camera movement/direction style, by comparison ure only fixating on the fact that steve mcqueen is better and the style is superior {i love mcqueen btw} i think u shudve been more critical in choosing which clips to compare, rest amazing video
Bad scene to use. They move the camera that much because obviously those 3 kids aren’t actually playing the song live for the camera. You could have used pretty much any modern movie that uses quick cutting to try and add something extra, like the Bourne movies.
The scene you chose is terrible, I agree. But they chose to use the cuts to take away from the fact that those kids aren’t even moving their hands very much and anyone that plays guitar is looking at it and laughing, hard.
So the film makers DID know what they were doing and they did it for a purpose that you just didn’t understand. The movie is bad. I’m sure most agree.
But, just because you don’t understand why a filmmaker is doing something. That doesn’t mean it is bad, because of said scene.
Music videos do the same thing. Since the 90’s music video directors started getting noticed and got Hollywood directing gigs because of music videos (David Fincher) they had done.
I’m not comparing The Interview with The Social Network. But that specific scene you pointed out had purpose and a reason to cut it the way they did. If there was longer takes you would see those kids just pretending to play guitar and it would have probably looked worse.
I think the scene from The Interview is mocking the supposed epicness of the propaganda song.
Personally- i think the wildly unnecessary camera movements in the interview adds to the hilarity. Like- these kids are unnecessary 💀 but it's so weird and stupid. BUT YEAH!!! i totally get what you mean though
A discussion of not moving a camera without so much as a nod to Jim Jarmusch... shame, shame, shame...
depends on what you want to achieve. the scene in the interview for example is so absurd and over the top like north korean propaganda. its perfectly fitting. if the scene hast to be dynamic like a spoken fight, more cameraangles are often the way to go. ther is no one size fits all
It's to cover the fact that the children can't really play the guitar. And it's humorous.
The camera moves in "The Interview" are in on the joke. North Korea's dreary authoritarianism juxtaposed against happily enthused children, the dynamic camera reflecting the energy and joy of the kids.
Roger Deakins works in this way as well. His philosophy is if it doesn’t AID the story. DON’T MOVE THE CAMERA. Why Directors move the camera is just beyond comprehension. Moving the camera is just a gimmick created by Hollywood to boost budgets. GIMMICKS! I’m so over it. Go look at Gordon Willis in KLUTE ! David Fincher looked at this film when he was shooting Seven. He took his ideas from the MASTERS who never moved the camera.
Baz Luhrman is SHAKING!!
2:34 Becuase it's funny. It's called comedy. Ozu, before McQueen, stood still and crafted performances and meanings. Just saying. And the sheets are not blue, but turquoise. Shame.
I don’t agree. Cinema is definitely a combination of great acting and great camera moves/framing. Cinema is a moving medium. Leaving a 17 min scene static is just plain lazy or the actors were not able to concentrate with crew members moving around. Looks like the actors got the better of Steve, or Steve never saw Kurosawa, Coppola, Speilberg or Scot.
Excellent video!