Why do a lot of filmmakers seem to hate deep focus cinematography?

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, and yes I noticed the deep focus, but they show mostly action scenes though. Isn't deep focus more accepted in action sequences, compared to dialogue sequences?

I was also told that a deep DOF will not work for me wanting to shoot in the same style as High and Low, cause High and Low had expensive sets, where as shooting in real non-cinematic looking locations, will not look good for a deep DOF, if that's true.

As for what that boom would have been recording, what do walkie talkies or head sets have to do with what a boom mic records?

[Brian Drysdale]

Walkie talkies are used in by assist directors and other crew members, if they don't have head sets the boom mic is likely to pick up any radio chatter during a take.

Why are you shooting at non cinematic locations? Art direction is key to a scene working and you have to really work hard to find locations that fit with your story.. Even white walls can be cinematic in the right story,

Dialogue heavy films have been shot with deep focus, "Citizen Kane" is hardly an action movie. Quentin Tarantino is hardly dialogue light. No one here suggesting you do or don't shoot deep focus, it's you that seems to be obsessing about it. !917 is being given an example of a contemporary film that has deep focus.

Again, its up to you and your DP to decide which is right for your film..

[Ryan Elder]

Oh it's just in the past, DPs did not to shoot deep focus with my projects.

As for cinematic locations, the problem with real locations is they were not designed for movie shooting un mind if course, so it's almost impossible to find cinematic looking ones, hence i was advised to put them into shallow focus.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's your art director's job to make them cinematic, they can turn the most bland looking place into something completely different. They spend money building sets that look like real locations in studios. What is something else in reality can be changed into a completely different environment, that's what your crew is for.

It's up to you, as director, to decide if your film needs deep focus. The past doesn't mean the future is set in stone.

[Geoffrey Cox]

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Apparently (I was always being told) grain = art. I suspect the fads of today were just as common in art films back then. I showed one a week for a year and hated all of them. Then I went to see 2001 at the real cinema, and it had an arty-farty goes on and on sequence in it too! Kubrick must have seen the same movies I did in the studio, and thought he'd include something similar. Now, being old, I quite like that movie!

Perhaps you should re-evaluate your whole approach then.

To watch 52 films and hate very one of them because they are 'arty-farty' suggests a rather prejudiced world view. Some of the best films ever made are what you would call art movies. My beef is with much of the commercial world that churns out 90% good looking, expertly made, drivel, that makes a shed load of money because people are like sheep.

[Paul R Johnson]

Sadly - Netflix is filled with movies I don't want to watch, and I'm happy with my history of hating art movies. I worked for the Royal Shakespeare Company for 6 months, and have to say I've hated Shakespeare ever since.

Watching a 30 minute short of a dead dog decomposing in a wood, or one that seemed to all about coloured dye in water, filmed in slo-mo have stuck in my head for 40 years+. I just don't like this kind of stuff, no matter how popular it is. I'll happily watch a few movies in a series if it clicks with me, but my switch off moment always comes very early. I'm sure my film club experience hindered my appreciation of movies, and tarnished what other people like - but I see no need to try to convince myself art movies are good - just not my cup of tea!

[Geoffrey Cox]

But 'art movie' would include 2001, Paris Texas, Seven Samuri, Walkabout, La Dolce Vita, Once Upon a Time in the West, Naked, Solaris, etc etc

You seem to equate the term with the ultra avant-garde which is obviously a very niche area.

Maybe it is par for the course for this forum which has fantastic technical and industry advice but little insight into the real art of cinema (ducking quickly - I know, an exaggeration...)

[Josh Bass]

I just watch movies to be entertained. If they also happen to art it up, more the better.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

I think I’m a pretty good judge of what’s a good movie, might not be in the mood for a particular movie or care for a genre but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. I am still shocked to this day the wildly different ratings on IMDB.. Find either the best or worst you can think of and there will be people on both extremes loving or hating it. Often movie reviews reveal more about the reviewer than the movie. While I enjoy occasionally junk/fast food I wouldn’t consider it a culinary masterpiece. Die Hard is great movie in it’s genre which I could watch many times where as 2001 is a classic that is better but not as easy to consume and has its place in movie history which warrants respect whether you care to watch it.

[Josh Bass]

Im not saying a movie has to be Die Hard or a Marvel movie. Plenty of lower key quieter movies are entertaining to. But there’s definitely a point where stuff is just too out there for my tastes and I’m not interested in trying to divine whatever message the filmmakers are trying to convey.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

It's your art director's job to make them cinematic, they can turn the most bland looking place into something completely different. They spend money building sets that look like real locations in studios. What is something else in reality can be changed into a completely different environment, that's what your crew is for.

It's up to you, as director, to decide if your film needs deep focus. The past doesn't mean the future is set in stone.

Oh well I want the movie to have a lot of wide shots of all the actors in with a lot of moving around and blocking like High and Low. So with those kind of shots, would shallow or deep focus be better? Or could either or, work?

Would these shots in High and Low work, if they were shallow focus and you could only see one actor in focus at a time?

3 Brilliant Moments of Blocking (in Kurosawa's High and Low) - YouTube

[Brian Drysdale]

You can use either, but you'd need wide aperture lenses to have a shallow DOF effect with the wide angle lenses you'd probably be using for those type of shots, The downside is that geod lenses, which don't go soft when using suitable stops are expensive, so shooting at something like f2.8 - f3.5 is a good balance.

Since you've got a camera with a similar sensor size (unless they're using full frame) shooting tests would be the way to go. Pose some people and see which you like.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay, I don't think they were using full frame since it was shot in a scope ratio, but that is my guess.

When you say geod lenses, I tried looking it up, but could not get a definition. Do you mean zoom lenses?

[Geoffrey Cox]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

Im not saying a movie has to be Die Hard or a Marvel movie. Plenty of lower key quieter movies are entertaining to. But there’s definitely a point where stuff is just too out there for my tastes and I’m not interested in trying to divine whatever message the filmmakers are trying to convey.

Well it's horses for courses I guess. I like films that stay with me long after the closing credits and I invariably find that is the type of film where a certain 'divination' is required by me - not everything is served on a plate, and to some extent, it therefore isn't just about entertainment.

I can read a novel, say a good crime thriller - I enjoy it but ask me about it a year or even few months later, and I could tell you very little about it, but a more 'difficult' novel where I am scratching my head a bit, but persevere - then they can be remembered and drawn on for a lifetime. I read a Samuel Beckett novel that was almost like a nightmare to read (no paragraphs and for much of it and almost no punctuation - it was mercifully only 100 pages long) but it was like a challenge and I finished it - something kept drawing me on. I came to the conclusion it was a work of genius and I am very glad I bothered. The fact that one of the repeated phrases in it was “You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on” sort of helped.

[Josh Bass]

Originally Posted by Ryan Elder

Oh okay, I don't think they were using full frame since it was shot in a scope ratio, but that is my guess.

When you say geod lenses, I tried looking it up, but could not get a definition. Do you mean zoom lenses?

He meant “good lenses”. It was a typo.