A Revolutionary Gimbal For Now

As filmmakers we are always trying to get the shot no one else can get, the smoothest footage, the money shot. Recently, numerous 3-axis gimbal stabilizers have been released which have thought to be the replacement of the Steadicam. While there is a lot of controversy about this topic, a new piece of equipment has been released that might throw all we know about stabilizers out the window.

As you see in the video, Sachtler has combined the brilliant gimbal benefits, that are available through use of devices like the DJI Ronin and the Movi, and the steadicam, which has long been the go to method of tracking shots. The movie "Goodfellas" has a historic tacking sequence all thanks to our beloved steadicam. This amazing idea provides a whole new style of filmmaking. As mentioned in the video above one shot that has been created through this system is being able to peak around corners with the camera. This could be great for giving a shot the feeling that someone is watching a character in a film. Being able to invert the camera as well makes this tool that much more versatile. Low angle shots were not attainable with former steadicams. Due to this item being brand new, there are limited visuals of real world applications so far, but by combining both of these amazing stabilization systems, the world of filmmaking just got a little crazier.

(GlideCam)

Having used the DJI Ronin quite extensively, as well as owning a Glidecam, I have experience advantages and disadvantages of both systems. First off the Ronin is electric and must be calibrated for the specific weight load that it is carrying. This is frustrating because with my Glidecam and many other traditional Steadicams, all weight adjustments are done through physical weight distribution adjustments. With my Glidecam the weight distribution does not have to be perfect either to still get a smooth shot, this is great for run and gun when you can't always count on a motor holding up for the entire shoot. The motor also is very susceptible to the cold due to the intricate mechanics of the system.

The Ronin however does trump the Glidecam in certain ways though. Getting low angle shots is extremely hard when the weights on the bottom of your Glidecam are hitting the ground. The Ronin is great for these types of shots because you are almost using your body as a crane and you can control the height of the Ronin to a much more specific point. The motor of the ronin, while running haywire occasionally, does however help with any bumpy steps you are taking as well.

Sachtler having combined these two amazing tools is really on to something. As mentioned earlier a new age of filmmaking with emerge from this system, but it is also costs about 15,800 Euros at the moment and the price truly makes it a professional piece of equipment. I previously thought the Movi would be the top stabilizer in the industry for sometime, however this industry changes faster than you can adjust and I'm sure this currently revolutionary equipment will soon be outdated and the bigger and better stabilizer will be running the streets soon.

The Good, the Bad, and the Long Take

Long takes (or oners, or long shots, or whatever you feel like calling them) have been talked about endlessly among film buffs, film students, and really anybody that gives a shit about the aesthetics of film. If you know what a long take is, chances are you've got a favorite, whether it's Goodfellas or Gravity or Children of Men or Birdman or Episode 4 of the first (and only, as far as I'm concerned) season of True Detective. I'm pretty positive I even wrote a blog post last year around the time Birdman came out, fanboying over how sexy and cool the long take is, as a shot. By this point, just pointing them out is nothing new, though. They're there, they're good, and I won't talk about them any more.

While these shots should be praised for their creativity, determination, and, sure, length, I've recently gotten more interested in when it's acceptable to use one, and for what purpose. You might have seen this video about how Spielberg uses long takes in a far more subtle way than most directors; it's part of the really great Youtube channel "Every frame a painting," and it really dissects ways you can use a long shot to your advantage without calling attention to it. In particular, I think it's fascinating how you can essentially take a long shot and break it down into three or four basic shots: the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene stands out to me the most in that regard, with a wide, mid, close, and insert shot all being incorporated into a single take. It moves the scene along, keeps things interesting, and like the guy said, almost definitely saved time on set. 

What's the point of this though? Why not just do a scene four times and cover all your bases? This is just me conjecturing here, but I think every shot should elicit some kind of emotion from your audience. Don't just go about shooting everything willy-nilly: have a purpose. If a character feels isolated and alone, back that camera way up and make her look small. If someone is claustrophobic, slap that macro lens on and get in real tight. Make a powerful character more prominent in a shot than a weaker character, and switch this if their roles are reversed. All of these will, even if only subconsciously, help an audience to better understand whatever emotion you're trying to play up. 

So what emotion does a long take elicit? In short, all of these things, all at once. I know I said I wouldn't bring up Birdman again, but I lied, so deal with it. Birdman is filmed to make it appear as if the entire movie was all done in one take, using really clever transitions to cover up the cuts. It's about theatre and theatre actors, and throughout the film, you can't help but feel like you're watching a stage production instead of movie, mostly due to fluidity and lack of cuts. One of the intentions of this is to (probably) just let the actors take over and control the screen. This works, but only to a certain extent: the lack of cuts can sometimes be distracting, e.g. "oh, did they cut there? I think they cut there. But wait ok maybe not." 

This guy.

This brings us back to the subtlety of the Spielberg long take: it's long enough to let the actors act uninhibited from cuts and various camera angles, while still being short enough to not draw attention to itself. The "Every frame a painting" guy calls it "robust," and I think that's the perfect word for it. It's simple, gets a strong point across, and can free up time on set. Ideally, we'll find some way to incorporate it into our film this semester, and if we do it right, you might not even notice it.

Also, here's another great article about the evolution of long takes, both subtle and not-so subtle. Looking at you, Lubezki. 

I Love Tracking Shots

I have always loved tracking shots. When done right, the fluidity of the camera movement, the timing and work that goes into them results in cinematic magic. Some however are more successful than others; here is a list of my personal favorites.

 Kill Bill Vol. 1

The first time I think I was ever really aware of a tracking shot was in in my all time favorite move Kill Bill. I first realized I liked the shot well before attending film school, and before I even knew what a “tracking shot” was. The almost 2 minuet shot is relatively short compared with some of the other more famous ones, but still worth mentioning. The ambitious shot was done after 17 takes, but was completed in one day. “I got bounced around pretty good,” said Larry McConkey the veteran steadicam operator, “I never actually hit the ground, but I hit just about everything else.” 

Goodfellas

This is perhaps the most famous shot on the list, and the most well known. This iconic opining shot was however actually an accident. At this time in Scorsese didn’t even like to use steadicams, however when he was not allowed to go through the front door, he had to improvise. He decided to do the long shot through the back door to “symbolize Henry’s whole life being ahead of him, doors opening to him. It’s his seduction of Karen and it’s also the lifestyle seducing him.” This shot took eight painstaking takes to get right. 

3


Boogie Nights

This film has two iconic tracking shots, the first taking a page form Goodfellas. It takes us around the Club and introducing us to many of the main characters in the film in a 3 minuet seen. Then next shot was later on in  the movie during a house party, it follows William H. Macy looking for his wife, and ends with the double murder of his wife and her lover, and his suicide. 

A Scene No One Else In Their Right Mind Cares About

There's not much else to say about Martin Scorsese. I mean, come on. The guy's basically film royalty now. He made some of the most artistic films of all time while also making some of the most entertaining ones. This isn't about the guy, his movies, or even his style. Nah, this is about one single shot that over the last four years I have become totally obsessed with. And I'm not sure I've ever met anyone else who's cared about it.

The movie Goodfellas is great. Yeah, what a unique, culturally distinctive opinion. Cinematography is like nothing else I've ever seen. Blah blah blah blah. One shot stands out to me to this day and every time I watch the movie I count the minutes until I get to watch it.

It's a small moment, and it doesn't even stand out to you when you see the movie the first time. But oh ym god, this shot absolutely drips with cool. On an artistic level, it's a perfect melding of story, acting, cinematography and song choice. De Niro doesn't overplay the moment overplayed, but between the steady dolly in, the slow motion, and the blunt blues guitars, you can tell something is about to happen. The story carries an entire plot movement, which could have been an entire scene of arguing between character, and deftly executes it in a matter of seconds.

And the song. Scorsese has a bunch of iconic scenes set to song, but this one just stands out from most. It just feels like some bad stuff is about to go down.

This scene perfectly illustrates how story is not just dialog, which is a lesson I fear many young film makes forget. So much of a film is built on small moments like this, and I think this type of film making is the type that most often resonates with an audience.

How many F**ks Do You Give?

Profanity seems to be increasingly more acceptable in the media as time goes on. The question is, does this help or hurt the final product? South Park released an episode in its fifth season that literally had a "shit-couter" that went up every time the uncensored word 'shit' was used. In total, there were 162 spoken shits, and 38 written shits, making an even 200 occurrences throughout the half hour time slot. This became one of the top ten South Park episodes that changed the world, according to a 2006 exclusive documentary. This pushed the boundaries of uncensored profanity in television, and set a new standard for producers in comedy. Now, in movies, 'shit' is a common word in any movie from PG-13 and up. 'Fuck,' however, is the more controversial word. According to a chart I found on Wikipedia, there is one movie that uses the word 824 times in its 93 minutes. This, however is a documentary about the word itself, so I don't think it should count. Second on the list, though, is a movie called Gutterballs, that uses it 625 times. Now, this is not a widely popular movie, however, if you continue down the list, you'll find some very well-known, and in some cases, award-winning movies.

For example:
Casino (398)
Goodfellas (300)
Jarhead (278)
Reservoir Dogs (269)
Pulp Fiction (265)
The Big Lebowski (260)
Boondock Saints (239)
The Departed (237)
American History X (214)
Scarface (207)
8 Mile (200)
and even Good Will Hunting (154)

The rest can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_%22fuck%22

As you can see, these are some very famous and successful movies that gave a lot of fucks (mostly gangster movies). But, in contrast to this, I skipped over quite a few movies that were far less successful, and that you've probably never even heard of. So, the moral of the story is that if you're going to fuck a movie, make sure you fuck it well. Back to my question - how many fucks do you give?