rinue: (Manetmini)
I recently looked at a bunch of old photos of myself, seeking a specific old photo to illustrate an autobiographical essay, and I've been lamenting how much less photogenic I seem to be these days compared to ten years ago. What changed? I say to myself, partly because I'm growing my hair out therefore do look a bit stupid at the moment - but not sufficiently stupid to explain this dramatic difference.

But of course something major did change. Photos of me from 10, 15 years ago were overwhelmingly taken on 35mm film cameras with portrait lenses. Most of the snapshots of present-day me use cellphone cameras, which by default have the gain turned way up to keep everything bright and in-focus, plus wide-angle lenses that let you take a tremendously slimming picture of yourself from an arm's length away. Since I'm already pale and slender, I wind up looking like a rat-faced cadaver.

This among other things explains why I've never gotten into the selfie game.
rinue: (Default)
Preparing, preparing for the long trip. Mostly tedious. Lots of wading through phone trees to cancel recurring subscriptions or request paper copies of records.

For luggage reasons and because it was probably past time, I've bought a dedicated camera bag. I feel slightly awkward about it because the only bag with the right configuration to accommodate the number of camera bodies and lenses I use has Canon branding all over it, and I'm a Nikon girl. I'm trying to think of it like a false flag operation, the way people who street-park nice bicycles will sometimes spraypaint them to look rusty and not worth stealing. Here I am with this scuffed up used bag with a mismatched strap, labeled with the name of an entry-level small-format DSLR.

I'm trying to think of it like that mainly because although I have a NASA patch that I think would look great in the place where the logo is, I also think securely affixing it would mess with the bag's water resistance. Anyway, it's pristine inside and should make my life easier.
rinue: (Default)
Picked up a new lens yesterday, a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX. I've had my eye on it for a while, but was skeptical because it's inexpensive (for a lens), around $200 new. One of those too good to be true deals where I mentally add "for $200" to every five-star review. Ciro and I finally made the trek over to New England Photo, the nearby one-room Nikon shop crammed with used cameras and odd bits of kit, because he's been asked to shoot a group portrait of Mom's choir and a 35 is the right lens for that. (Basically, it gives you some width, a little more than your naked eye, but is still flattering to most faces. It makes rooms seem more expansive than they are, but feels documentary.)* By coincidence, it was the proprietor's birthday. Also by coincidence, he's Armenian and was curious about Gandolfi's new organ symphony "Ascending Light," which we saw premiere last week. (It's excellent.)

Lens is sharp and fast (does well in low light), as promised. It's compact and seems rugged. The only downsides are (1) it's noisy when it shifts focus; you can hear and feel the metal moving against itself, and (2) it vignettes a little (goes black at the corners). That's hard to avoid once you start to get wide unless you're buying thousand-dollar lenses (it takes layers of extremely precise glass to go wide and keep the picture plane flat all the way to the corners, an optics problem that can be summarized as round peg square hole), but I'm hoping it will still work cinematographically - I haven't tested yet, but I suspect the crop that takes video widescreen instead of 4:3 will disappear those corners whether I want it to or not.

There is still snow piled on the ground, but I've hauled the raspberry plant out of the garage and back up to the balcony. It's supposed to be cold hardy to -30, so it's probably safe. Probably.

Dyed eggs, then gold glazed them so they look dragon. Listened to the Moulin Rouge soundtrack while so doing; seemed sufficently color-saturated.


* I use the Nikon D800 body, so my lens measurements are "true". The 35 lens on a digital body with a smaller sensor would give the range of about what a 50 does on my camera or a film camera.
rinue: (Default)
Yesterday, Ciro and I went to see The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in 3D Imax HFR, which was kind of an ordeal because basically nobody is projecting the movie in high frame rate. Which is literally the only thing I cared about: I didn't have any desire to see a Hobbit movie, since the series has been kind of a mess. What I wanted was to see an innovative technology used by someone who had experience with it (also known as Jackson et al, since this was their third go-around).

When I say it was kind of an ordeal, I mean we travelled an hour to a movie theater and sat through a half hour of commercials and previews, and then the film started and it was not in HFR as promised, and we got our money back and spent about two hours getting to another theater to watch the film properly, while also paying live-theater amounts of money for a ticket. Which means, fairly uniquely, that I saw the first 15 minutes of the film in 24-frames-per-second 3D and then within a couple hours saw that same 15 minutes in the more correct 48-frames-per-second 3D.

It's a totally different artwork. I don't mean that in terms of "it's more spectacular." In many ways, it is less spectacular. But when you see it in HFR, it's clear that's the native format and it's what drove all the decisions of the creative team. The movie makes sense in a way it absolutely did not at 24 frames per second.

Based on my experience, I sincerely believe that if you have not seen the movie projected in HFR, you have not seen the movie Peter Jackson made. Since I'm a moviemaker and this is the kind of thing movie people always say about movies and the theatrical experience and aspect ratios and screen brightness and whatever else, this seems like the kind of claim you should take with a grain of salt. But in this case, it isn't.

I hesitate to even call Five Armies a movie: it's something else, with a different visual language and different performance needs. It was like watching some combination of an opera, Shakespeare in the park, participating in a Civil War re-enactment, and riding Peter Pan's Flight at Disneyland. It was different enough from watching a movie that it was irritating the subtitles weren't supertitles, because when you watch something on stage, translations are at the top, not the bottom, and that's where my eye kept looking for them.

In 48 fps, Five Armies absolutely works. It succeeds. There are still some script problems, like anything at all to do with Tauriel, but most of the other things that "didn't work" fall away. They only don't work if you're seeing a cover band perform them.

I use "perform" deliberately, because performance was the biggest difference - that and editing rhythm. I wasn't watching the movie going "oh, how beautiful." I was watching performances by people in a space over time. As soon as that happened, almost every actor choice seemed motivated. The 15 minutes I saw not-HFR, everything seemed very hammy. Watching in HFR? No tonal problems at all, perfectly calibrated performances and pacing.

Maybe you're reading this and you're not an actor or director. You still have experience with what I'm talking about. You use a different voice to talk to somebody who is standing right next to you and to talk to somebody across the room. You might feel the same thing, and try to communicate the same thing, but you sound different and look different when you say/feel it. If you talked to somebody who was standing right next to you as though they were across the room, it would seem odd and fake, right?

Same basic principle applies to the difference between stage and film performances. Or, in film, if you know you're in a close up, you wouldn't try to indicate that you were saying hello by waving your hand; nobody can see your hand. Moving away from acting again, you wouldn't draw somebody a picture while you were having a phone conversation and then expect them to be able to see it and act mad that they couldn't. Right?

This difference of performance distance has an extreme impact in the case of The Hobbit. The actors, who are very competent, and the director, producer, and editor, are keying performances for HFR, where there is a sense that you are watching somebody who is standing across the room from you. This is a sense that is completely, completely different from the feeling of watching a 3D film.

In a 3D film, it's very rare to have the sense that "you are there." This has to do with a combination of motion blur, physics, and separation of the image into planes. Things in normal 3D feel in many respects less real - they don't seem to have weight. They seem like skins around air at best and like stacked paper cutouts at worst. You can see what's "in front," but you don't forget there's a screen and a wall behind that screen.

(Which is kind of strange. I think of the opening of Avatar, where a corridor is stretching away into the distance, but I still knew absolutely that the corridor was an illusion because there's a theater wall there. So I'm seeing "that's far away" and simultaneously seeing "that's right there." There are battling depth cues. That is not true of Five Armies, with rare, fleeing exceptions.)

Although I unreservedly believe HFR is vastly superior to other forms of 3D, I am not making the case here that HFR 3D is better than 2D film. Instead, I am saying it is its own unique medium, and trying to critique a film which is natively HFR 3D by watching a 2D or non-HFR 3D version is like trying to evaluate the experience of being at a live concert by watching a video of it. Except it's actually worse than that, because you're probably not aware of the degree to which you are not seeing the actual artwork in its original format.

All of the decisions which I watched in non-HFR 3D and wondered "what are they thinking?" - you see it in HFR, and it's clear what they're thinking. As a whole, the Gesamtkunstwerk (a term I use because it seems like a more accurate description of the thing than "movie") has verisimilitude, or a difference of suspension of disbelief compared to a film, the result of which is that the moments feel important, like a reflection of a true history. Not that what you're seeing is real, but that what you're seeing is trying to be faithful to something that was.

You're watching a meeting and in a film you'd think, "well, why not cut this long talky bit?" But in this format, you don't think that, because of course they're showing the meeting - the meeting is what historically happened. Of course some people are making bad jokes; in a stressful situation like this, somebody would wind up making a bad joke. Of course he's waiting and waiting before he shoots that arrow; it's tremendously obvious from the lay of the terrain that he'll have a better shot if he waits.

This feeling of truthfulness is absolutely crazy in a fantasy about a secondary world. But you could have told me I was watching The Alamo.

Your eye never wonders where to go; you can just look around, but also the architecture of the shot guides your attention. Your brain doesn't hurt from trying to reconcile the wrong-physics-ness of 24-fps 3D. Animals in particular are delightful when they appear onscreen, because it's not "there is a picture of a dog." No, there is that dog. It's not physically in the room with you, but it's clearly a dog, an actual dog, that you are watching maybe through a window.

The best analogy I can think of is subractive; if you've ever watched a colorized black and white film, you know none of the exposures make sense, even if you don't know that's the term you're looking for. You just know it looks fake in a way even highly-saturated techniclor film doesn't. Same thing here. I actually think it's an extreme disservice to the filmmakers that it's possible to see Five Armies in another format, including home video, even though I know that's what makes the economics of it possible.

If you have even a passing interest in seeing this film ever, I strongly suggest going to an HFR theater even though it's very expensive, or else just decide on not seeing it. I don't think it's necessary to see the earlier two in the trilogy (I didn't), but that particular recommendation you probably could take with a grain of salt because I've read the books and already know stuff like what the arkenstone is.
rinue: (Default)
It doesn't come up much, but I can draw. My storyboards look like layout-constrained indie comics, but all the people have blank faces because I don't want to prejudge the emotional instincts of the actors.
rinue: (Default)
Just learned the "for girls" expansion of the Expendables franchise is called the Expendabelles. Because god forbid we just put some women on the Expendables team; they'd sap the manliness of the male action stars and turn them into incompetent weaklings because of all the estrogen leaking from their pores, polluting the air. As a woman, I know I only feel empowered if I'm given my own seperate woman space, where it is clearly understood that although I can kick butt I also eat hamburgers while wearing makeup and trip a lot, because I'm relatably clumsy.


Aug. 9th, 2014 10:59 pm
rinue: (Default)
For some reason, I just got a Google alert about something I did at the Dallas Museum of Art in 2010, and on the page is an artist's statement I'd totally forgotten which is still probably the most accurate summary of what I do as a filmmaker:

"Romie Faienza is a director, producer, photographer, and screenwriter who combines traditional and experimental film techniques to tell semi-fictional and semi-autobiographical stories of love and technology. Her work employs humor, narrative, and bold visuals to explore contemporary existential debates."

Not that I've had a chance to do much filmmaking lately, but there it is.


Aug. 8th, 2014 11:15 am
rinue: (inception train)
Saw Snowpiercer last night at the Somverville Theater, which I recommend. (Both the movie and seeing the movie in a good theater; it lends itself to both big-screen viewing and viewing as part of an anonymous crowd. I don't object to VOD, but this movie's an odd choice for it if you have the alternative.) It has third act problems, but that's equally true of a lot of the stories I like; it's a hazard of weird, ambitious fiction, particularly if there's an episodic element. (See also Twin Peaks, Fullmetal Alchemist...)

When I say third act problems, I'm talking about themes; I'm not bothered by the things that seem to bother other people, not just in Snowpiercer but in SF film generally. I cut films a lot of slack, by which I mean I understand what they are.

For example, film is a medium with its own grammar and limits,

which means that if it's important to understand what a character is thinking, he has to just sit down and say it, either to another character or in voiceover. Try and think of another way to do this. Usually your alternatives are either to decide you don't care whether the audience knows what that character is thinking (which reduces film to abstracted people running and shooting), or to add a lot of extra scenes to "show don't tell" which would cost you untold millions of dollars and double the runtime of the movie.

Obviously, there are more and less awkwardly written monologues, and better and worse performances. But if a film is competently made, I'm not going to ding it for having a talking scene just before the big confrontation. By the same token, when a film compresses or expands time, I'm untroubled; that's just something film does. (See also: Nitpicking Inception.)

Another thing that doesn't bother me is when speculative fiction is speculative. It's about saying "what if." If you don't like the premise, that's fine, but that doesn't make it a plot hole. If the Matrix runs on people instead of a more efficient source of power, it does. If the Empire decided a Death Star was a better weapon than a similarly-priced fleet of warships, fine. If there's a train with an engine that can run forever with energy left over for rave parties, great.

Honestly, I could say the same thing about fiction in general. If you're not willing to suspend disbelief, you're not going to get anything out of it. I can be annoyed that Woody Allen movies are constantly pairing young starlets with grizzled old men, and in fact am annoyed. But if I'm watching one I'm not going to spend the whole time saying "she'd never be attracted to him." The movie says she is. Not a plot hole. Not a plot hole when a character feels different things than I would in that situation.

starts to get spoliery )


rinue: (Default)

August 2017



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 19th, 2017 04:11 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios