Full Frontal reviews

[Peter Wiley]

The way the lemmings in "hollywood" work DV will be poison. The opposite of the effect of remaking endlessly the same movie once a prototype makes money, money being the key thing. Anything that hints of risk will be shunned as a disruption to cash flow.

I noticed the other day a promotion, I think it was on MSN.com, that asked people to predict what new movies' first week gross take would be -- as if the gross was something people ought all know about and keep track of and use as a movie guide.

Sometimes I wonder about the culture.

[Doug Thompson]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : A quote from CNN's review of Full Frontal:

"Soderbergh shot most of "Full Frontal" on a cheap digital-video camera...."

-->>>

The irony here is that I've seen CNN crews using the XL1S and even a GL1. Guess "cheap" is good when it comes to the news operation bottom line (probably helps them pay for movie reviewers).

I doubt, however, that "Full Frontal" will poison Hollywood on DV. The trend is there and one bad film won't stop it. Kodak is certainly worried. I get mailings from big Yellow all the time reminding me that I should be using film, not video.

[Chris Hurd]

Rik Sanchez asked, "is the a breakdown of the budget?"

I saw Full Frontal at a special advance screeining in Austin on July 29 at the Paramount. Nick Katt was there to host (he plays the actor doing the Hitler bit). During the Q&A that followed, he was talking about the shooting schedule and all, and said, "where's the two million?" And I'm thinking, he's right, how did this thing cost even that much. Although I was originally told that DV was used for 80% of the production, it's onscreen for maybe 60%, meaning there's more 35mm on screen than what I had anticipated. I guess that's where the two million is.

P.S. -- I've moved this thread to "DV for the Masses," just seems more appropriate. Thanks,

[Don Donatello]

where's the 2 million ..

crews don't work for FREE just because steven is shooting dv.

SAG min .. approx 500 day plus OT plus H&W benefits ..plus $$ insurance on the STARS -julia might be working for scale but you have to insure her for what her future income ( 20 mil a film) is worth in case she gets hurt ...

grips 400 day +OT +H&W benifits
sound mixer 500 day +OT +H&W PLUS equipment rental (approx 400-800 per day)
camera ass't ( yes even with Xl he had ass't) 500 day +OT+H&W
Drivers 250 day +OT+H&W
1st AD 500 day +OT+H&W
production manager 600 day +OT +H&W
producers 800 day ..
editor 5000week +B+H&W
ass't editors 300-400 day
sound work and mix ? 300K-400K
production office rental, van rental, locations rentals, PRODUCTION INSURANCE, FOOD ....

if they worked 6 day week then the 6th day is at 1 1/2 X rate penalties for going over X hrs ( into 7th day)

this was a 18 day shoot ... probably at least 8 weeks of pre -production

it all adds up QUICK ....

[Josh Bass]

To Peter Wiley: Sadly, apparently the culture does care about the gross. Also, sadly, I am paid to watch, among other awful shows, Access Hollywood. They have entire segments devoted to how much a movie brought in on the weekend, and in total, etc.

[Doug Thompson]

<<<-- Originally posted by donatello : where's the 2 million ..

crews don't work for FREE just because steven is shooting dv.


if they worked 6 day week then the 6th day is at 1 1/2 X rate penalties for going over X hrs ( into 7th day)

this was a 18 day shoot ... probably at least 8 weeks of pre -production

it all adds up QUICK .... -->>>

Don't forget the advertising budget. It's usually factored into the cost of the film.

[Daniel Chan]

To me, Dancer in the dark is the best looking DV movie thus far, that would be one to check out for sure, but I was turned away by the handheld shaky cam effect that Lars Von Trier used throughout the film.

I also like bamboozled but I thought that the color was a bit dull...

The Anniversary Party is also a great looking DV movie very vibrant colors but I found out that it was shot on digibeta...

I still have yet to see a very cinematic DV film...

Has anyone seen a DV film with great some great framing and movement? Steadicam may be???

I just don't like seeing DV films where everything is hand held just cos you can... what filmmakers call "dramatic" to me is just dizziness and headaches...

Daniel

I'm sure Canon won't, but he (S.S.) made our camera look like a BAD VHS. If I was thinking of buying an XL-!, this film would have stopped me. Besides being a terrible movie with a poor script, it looks awful! I've seen Army training films that are more entertaining and look much better. Don't waste you money, like I did, on Full Frontal. It's a rip off and makes a great camera look real bad.

Canon Should SUE!!! I'm sure Canon won't, but he (S.S.) made our camera look like a BAD VHS. If I was thinking of buying an XL-!, this film would have stopped me. Besides being a terrible movie with a poor script, it looks awful! I've seen Army training films that are more entertaining and look much better. Don't waste you money, like I did, on Full Frontal. It's a rip off and makes a great camera look real bad.

[David Mesloh]

I remember a thread awhile back where folks were lamenting about having to have "real jobs" and weren't able to follow their dreams.

It's interesting that some members think it is amusing to bastardize a very succesful directors name (ie: sodaburger) as a form of critique. I think he deserves a great deal more respect than that.

I have always been of the opinion that film, music, theatre and book critics are just failed artists. They wish they could be out there doing something, but since they can't or won't, they bolster their own ego by degrading or falling all over the work of others.
The fact is...the majority of them haven't done squat artistically. If they were good artists, they would be creating art. But they don't.

If you don't like how he used the XL1 to shoot a movie for national distribution..shoot your own. Write a script, grap your precious camera, and shoot something. Take 18 days (what's that 9 weekends ?) and get off your ass and shoot your DV masterpiece.

The guy took a chance. Great !!! Hopefully he inspired a bunch of young kids to go out and make movies. That's more important than trying to please a bunch of cynical critics and camera hobbiests who would die for the chance to have their DV footage on the big screen. Most of us wouldn't even care if it was perfect or not. Just knowing you did something would be worth it.

Every hour we spend degrading another artists work, is an hour we could be spending on our own work....our own piece of art.

Don't get caught in the same trap that so many artists get caught in. The "I wish I would have" trap.

The is my opinion and not necessarily that of the management.

David Mesloh
Shooting good and bad DV daily.

[elusive_kudo]

Very well said David, many good points, BUT just because he went out there and turned out a piece of bore does not mean we should sit here and applaud him for it.

Nobody was ever expecting a masterpiece from this guy, but most of us would settle for a decent work. No excuse for a half assed experiment! For a guy with his connections, power and means he should have done way better than this! Period!

Anyway, how come nobody is questioning how much money has Canon coughed up for this one? I don't think that the Canon ads are all over Full Frontal official site for no reason. And I also don't think that the full page Canon ads with Sodaburger's grinning mug with XL1 s are in every single damn DV magazine for no reason. And so, today Canon will sell you the dream that if you buy an XL1s you gonna make a movie like him. And they will milk it for all its worth.

I sincerely believed that they went to Canon and they struck up a deal. It is beyond my comprehension that no one here questioned or mentioned that possibility?

[Doug Thompson]

<<<-- Originally posted by dmesloh@gimixfx.com :
If you don't like how he used the XL1 to shoot a movie for national distribution..shoot your own. Write a script, grap your precious camera, and shoot something. Take 18 days (what's that 9 weekends ?) and get off your ass and shoot your DV masterpiece.

The guy took a chance. Great !!! Hopefully he inspired a bunch of young kids to go out and make movies. That's more important than trying to please a bunch of cynical critics and camera hobbiests who would die for the chance to have their DV footage on the big screen. Most of us wouldn't even care if it was perfect or not. Just knowing you did something would be worth it.

Every hour we spend degrading another artists work, is an hour we could be spending on our own work....our own piece of art.

David Mesloh
Shooting good and bad DV daily. -->>>

David:

Very good points and I have to agree. I also don't think the film is a bore. It is a devastating look at moviemaking ala Hollywood and the Los Angeles culture (which is why I think it upsets so many movie critics).

So Soderbergh took an XL1S, cranked up the gain and added grain in post. So what? I'm not going to judge a camera's ability to produce quality work based on how any one director used it in a single film. He bleached out colors and added grain to the Mexican scenes in Traffic and I didn't see Panavision proponents claiming it would destroy use of 35mm. The different color palettes he used for different locations in Traffic made it a more compelling film.

Steven takes chances, which is what I admire about his work. He experiments and pushes the limits, which is what we all should be doing with the medium. I talked with a Canon rep the other day and he says the company has no regrets over its involvement with Full Frontal and looks forward to working with Soderbergh on future productions. I've seen Full Frontal twice now and appreciated it more the second time around. The audience in the second viewing was also more into the film than the first time I saw it. And there's a lot of subtext that is easily missed on casual viewing.

Granted, Full Frontal is not for everyone. It is a very personal film, one that Soderbergh admits will be the last he will ever shoot or edit in LA. It was a crititique of a town he finds too constricting for creative work. Instead of castigating the guy because he didn't use DV the way we would have liked, we should applaud his willingness to try something different.

[Josh Bass]

Ah, we now have one (count it, one) favorable review.

[Jeff Donald]

I just wonder how many of the armchair critics have actually spent a few dollars and gone to see the movie. If your want to critisize (or praise) something you should have at least experienced it. I don't want to hear arguments about wasting $10. Anyone who owns a $3,000 video camera + gear can afford $10 to see a movie and give an honest opinon. No arguments about wasting time, either. We waste an hour here and there every day. I know I'm guilty of that. So, go see the movie. You might come away with an idea for your next project or a technique you want to try. But, at least give me an honest and thoughtful opinon on something you've actually seen.

Jeff

[Doug Thompson]

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass : Ah, we now have one (count it, one) favorable review. -->>>

Actually, I've read a number of favorable reviews: Filmmaker Magzine, Time (Richard Corliss called it a "terrific new movie...intimate and innovative."), Res, The Independent, etc.