What I mean is, there seems to be a belief prevalent today that form is it, form is everything. When making a film, form is in your face every day: Where do I put the camera? Do I move it? Where will I cut? How will I cut? And so on. It demands to be merged with, and emphasized by, the form. That synthesis is really your craft.
What role do the women in your films fulfill? GRAY: Well, I always like to make the point in my films that the world is a patriarchy, that men have all the social and political and economic power. White men in particular. That making male-centric films about male centrality helps create the reality it claims to reflect?
Hollywood today is not interested in making stories. And neither is the indie art world. Americans are no longer the premiere narrative filmmakers. But for me the coin of the realm is to put as much soul and humanity into the work as I can, and the way to do that is to validate the characters. And that blind spot where acting is concerned is in a certain sense connected to the blind spot where narrative is concerned, another reason why narrative is so depressed right now. What I love in acting is when you are constantly subverting the moment.
Subversiveness is crucial to a work of art, but it depends on how you define subversiveness. And there have been great movies made in that tradition. Or you can do something that is subversive underneath the surface. But what if your story itself is saying something that makes you uncomfortable? To me cinema is best at the most personal, intimate, tender, quiet moments that you can muster. Most people are not flamboyant and loud.
Most people have their arguments in the car on the way home by themselves after the dispute at hand. Of course there are arguments that have to be had, there are moments that simply explode. GRAY: Absolutely! Why did you choose to open the film this way? I knew what I wanted at the end, so I wanted to do the complete opposite at the beginning.
So what would the complete opposite be? The real story of the movie is that this guy has something great—maybe not what his family thought was great, not what mainstream society thought was great, but it was. And they fucking ruined it. And they ruined it for adherence to some banal, moral principle of the father. And I think that is subversive, because in a perverse way, it makes the film into something of a pro-drug movie! GRAY: Absolutely, wrote both parts for both guys. In their own very different ways, I think these guys are the best American actors in their age range you can find today.
Somehow they can project that inner life which is about confusion and anger and eternal conflict. How did you like shooting these sequences? I found it quite unpleasant.
So you plan them meticulously, everything has to be planned out. Like a new sibling in the Entertainment family, TV was getting all the attention and that reflected in smaller movie going audiences. On September 30, , a film premiered that sparked off a decade long war for widescreen film formats and the result would be a new cinema aesthetic.
This process captured a degree field of view for an aspect ratio of 2. Projected on a deeply curved screen using three projectors and boasting a 7 track surround sound system — This is Cinerama, was a huge hit — running for two years at the Warner Theater in New York City. As you might be able to imagine — there were a lot of problems with shooting and projecting three cameras at the same time for the Cinerama process. One of them being — you had one and only one focal length — and it was wide. So wide that you had to position people differently to keep their eye lines correct.
Though hugely popular as an event film format, they made tons of money holding road shows from city to city featuring travelogue films, it would take 10 years, until when Cinerama would be used in a dramatic film — only two to be precise. The problem with Cinerama was it was expensive to shoot and expensive for theaters to project. But the widescreen experience was too popular to ignore.
The film also featured a three channel stereophonic sound track. With larger screens, this technique enlarged the film grain — reducing the quality of the image. New processes would have to come along. Anamorphoscope used a specialized lens that would distort an image in only one direction — in other words squished it.
CinemaScope Four: M-G-M Movies Light Up the Screen [John Howard Reid] on opthropitlasub.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. CinemaScope Four: M-G-M MOVIES Light Up the Screen - Kindle edition by John Howard Reid. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones.
Using a 2 to 1 anamorphic lens, this process which Fox called Cinemascope, delivered a 2. CinemaScope was a winner. VistaVision took traditional 35mm film and turned it on its side — literally — recording images that were 8 perforations wide for an aspect ratio of 1. The release prints would be then print back in the regular orientation — with much smaller visible grain.
Film engineers had to go bigger. Todd AO — developed by a former Cinerama associate and Broadway Producer Mike Todd along with American Optical company was a 70mm film format that sought to do what Cinerama did but with only one camera and one projector.
Using an aspect ratio of about 2. In , in the midst of this rush to widescreen, a small company named Panavision started manufacturing anamorphic lenses for cameras and for projectionists to fill the shortage of lenses. Originally only working with Cinemascope, they soon became an industry leader solving many of the technical problems that plagued early Cinemascope.
And by the late 50s, Panavision began to replace cinemascope itself. Using their success, they started developing and acquiring new camera systems and formats.