Script Supervisor: person on a film crew who maintains continuity from shot to shot and records the progress of daily shooting
Catching continuity errors in movies is part of the fun of movie-appreciation, especially if the story loses your interest for a minute or two. If you've noticed a glass half empty in one shot and in the next it is all the way full, your eyes are sharper than those of the script supervisor who should have consulted their notes and insisted on draining that glass to the proper mark before cameras rolled. And you thought the filmmakers were making a subtle comment on the power perception plays in the forming of our optimistic or pessimistic attitudes.
Continuity errors occur when a shot taken at one time during production is edited together with a shot taken at a different time (maybe weeks or months from the time the original shot was taken) in which something on screen fails to match the original shot.
Next time you are watching a sub par film, play along by watching for some of these generic examples:
1. length of cigarette changes randomly
2. items of clothing missing or appearing
3. placement of actors or objects in background is inconsistent
Extreme Example: Troll 2 (This one is for my friends Sarah and Jayson who just had their 4th baby and who introduced me to this fine film.) There is a scene in Troll 2 where the dad and the mom are having a conversation. When the camera is on the mom, the dad's shirt is open (I think). When the camera is on the dad, his shirt is buttoned all the way. As this film was incredibly low-budget, I am guessing that they just didn't have a script supervisor, but it would be that person's fault if they had.
Note: continuity errors are a product of simple human oversight and can crop up in the classiest of films. They are, however, more likely to occur (or be noticed) in bad movies.
I'd love to hear some of your favorite examples.
Showing posts with label how to judge movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label how to judge movies. Show all posts
Jul 23, 2010
Jul 19, 2010
film term of the day: Steadicam
Steadicam: a camera mount equipped with a gyro that a camera man uses to prevent shaking during hand-held shots.
Example: My Cousin Vinny
Mona Lisa Vito meets Vinny outside the prison where he has been held overnight for contempt. A steadicam follows the couple as they walk away from the prison yard.
Similar shots can be produced using cranes or dollies, but the steadicam tends to provide a more intimate feeling since it can get very close to the action. Also, a steadicam can move along with the action in more versatile ways than a crane-mounted camera can.
Example: My Cousin Vinny
Mona Lisa Vito meets Vinny outside the prison where he has been held overnight for contempt. A steadicam follows the couple as they walk away from the prison yard.
Similar shots can be produced using cranes or dollies, but the steadicam tends to provide a more intimate feeling since it can get very close to the action. Also, a steadicam can move along with the action in more versatile ways than a crane-mounted camera can.
Jul 13, 2010
film term of the day: Gaffer
Gaffer: the chief electrician on a film crew; maintains lighting equipment and works with the Cinematographer to light the set
The Cinematographer or Director of Photography (DP) is in charge of the artistic look of the film. The gaffer is the grunt who gets it done. The best boy is the gaffer's assistant. The electrical crew reports to the gaffer.
Lighting is one of those things in a movie that you take totally for granted. If it is done well, you don't think about it. If it is done poorly, you will probably think or say to yourself, "Hey, I can't see what's going on." Without light, there is no film exposure (or digital image) and no movie. The gaffer will never be famous, but his work is indispensable.
Example: Sometimes there are little pinpoints of light visible in an actor's eyes during a closeup. These are special lights called eye lights. A light is set up to reflect off the subject's eyes, giving them more depth of emotion and is just one of many lights used at the same time on a given shot. The gaffer is likely to be the one who chooses the right light for this job (as well as all the others), though most DPs are quite knowledgeable about the many kinds of lights available. As a licensed electrician, the gaffer is aware of all aspects of a given light's function including its required wattage, how to handle it safely (most lights on a film set become very hot), what color gels to use in order to achieve a desired effect, correct placement of the light relative to the action or subjects on camera and so on. The gaffer maintains intimate knowledge of all lights on a film set (of which there are easily dozens of varieties and hundreds of individual units). Lights are usually rented for the duration of the production schedule from a warehouse that specializes in film equipment, and this inventory is managed by the gaffer and those who report to him.
This brief article cannot come close to illuminating the amount of knowledge and hands-on expertise a gaffer employs on the job each day.
The Cinematographer or Director of Photography (DP) is in charge of the artistic look of the film. The gaffer is the grunt who gets it done. The best boy is the gaffer's assistant. The electrical crew reports to the gaffer.
Lighting is one of those things in a movie that you take totally for granted. If it is done well, you don't think about it. If it is done poorly, you will probably think or say to yourself, "Hey, I can't see what's going on." Without light, there is no film exposure (or digital image) and no movie. The gaffer will never be famous, but his work is indispensable.
Example: Sometimes there are little pinpoints of light visible in an actor's eyes during a closeup. These are special lights called eye lights. A light is set up to reflect off the subject's eyes, giving them more depth of emotion and is just one of many lights used at the same time on a given shot. The gaffer is likely to be the one who chooses the right light for this job (as well as all the others), though most DPs are quite knowledgeable about the many kinds of lights available. As a licensed electrician, the gaffer is aware of all aspects of a given light's function including its required wattage, how to handle it safely (most lights on a film set become very hot), what color gels to use in order to achieve a desired effect, correct placement of the light relative to the action or subjects on camera and so on. The gaffer maintains intimate knowledge of all lights on a film set (of which there are easily dozens of varieties and hundreds of individual units). Lights are usually rented for the duration of the production schedule from a warehouse that specializes in film equipment, and this inventory is managed by the gaffer and those who report to him.
This brief article cannot come close to illuminating the amount of knowledge and hands-on expertise a gaffer employs on the job each day.
Jul 12, 2010
film term of the day: Adaptation
Adaptation: a version of an existing story rewritten for the screen (also the name of a film which deals humorously with the idea of adapting a best selling book to screen)
Example: William Goldman's The Princess Bride
At times containing portions of dialog that are a word for word match, both book and film were written by screenwriter William Goldman. The book is written like a movie, and the movie deviates little from the story in the book. Indeed, the book itself claims to be an adaptation - and can be seen as a clever commentary on the subject - its premise being that it is the author's favorite parts of a much older book edited together (or should I say heavily abridged?) to make a more fluid story. Both the film and the book are works of true genius.
Extreme example: The Count of Monte Cristo (starring Jim Caviezel)
Based very loosely on the famous classic novel, nearly the only similarity are characters' names and the manner in which The Count escapes from prison. There were by necessity (the book in its unabridged form is over 1000 pages) so many omissions in the film version that it is barely recognizable as the same story.
Note: lots of film adaptations fall somewhere between the two examples given above, in that many story elements are recognizable from book to film, but liberties have been taken for time or other considerations (obvious e.g. Harry Potter movies).
Personal note: I am typically against novel-abridgment, but found myself coming down on the "for it" side of the argument during my months-long attempt to read The Count of Monte Cristo. I am not averse to reading long novels (I have thoroughly enjoyed longer ones than this), but this one was rambling and inconsistent in its "voice," and just boring. I did read every last word, eventually, and am proud of myself for slogging through; but it shines in my memory as one instance in which I should have read the abridged version instead.
Example: William Goldman's The Princess Bride
At times containing portions of dialog that are a word for word match, both book and film were written by screenwriter William Goldman. The book is written like a movie, and the movie deviates little from the story in the book. Indeed, the book itself claims to be an adaptation - and can be seen as a clever commentary on the subject - its premise being that it is the author's favorite parts of a much older book edited together (or should I say heavily abridged?) to make a more fluid story. Both the film and the book are works of true genius.
Extreme example: The Count of Monte Cristo (starring Jim Caviezel)
Based very loosely on the famous classic novel, nearly the only similarity are characters' names and the manner in which The Count escapes from prison. There were by necessity (the book in its unabridged form is over 1000 pages) so many omissions in the film version that it is barely recognizable as the same story.
Note: lots of film adaptations fall somewhere between the two examples given above, in that many story elements are recognizable from book to film, but liberties have been taken for time or other considerations (obvious e.g. Harry Potter movies).
Personal note: I am typically against novel-abridgment, but found myself coming down on the "for it" side of the argument during my months-long attempt to read The Count of Monte Cristo. I am not averse to reading long novels (I have thoroughly enjoyed longer ones than this), but this one was rambling and inconsistent in its "voice," and just boring. I did read every last word, eventually, and am proud of myself for slogging through; but it shines in my memory as one instance in which I should have read the abridged version instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)