PDA

View Full Version : How Was This Done?



UniqueAmI
02-16-2015, 02:34 PM
On the documentary it says there was no editing back at the turn of the century. This was created in 1901.

Was the film backed up in the camera and then reshot on, or was this 3 different shots overlapped after they were developed? Or another way I haven't touched upon.

If it's 3 different shots 1, Wide full shot 2. Head 3 Smoke, how did he shoot so it would sync properly when combining negatives? Or even if he rewound the tape, how did it sync?

We don't have these problems on computers.

1901! We might have technology, but the cleverness and genius...


http://youtu.be/M9NWOQiYWxc

Mick Scarborough
02-16-2015, 10:26 PM
From my research and when in film class, these early films were all done in camera. Multiple exposures.

Anonymous Filmmaker
02-17-2015, 04:17 AM
Agreed. What Melies did was cover the part of the frame that he wanted to reexpose with black completely. Then, he shoots the first portion. He rewinds the film, and this time blacks out everything except the area with the head. He times it right, and the end result looks like it does now. The dead giveaway that it was a double exposure was the line with his head that was shaking a little. Still, this is immensely impressive for the time and this is why Melies is so highly respected of a filmmaker.

UniqueAmI
02-17-2015, 03:09 PM
THANKS to both you. That makes it even more amazing.

Marius Macrobius
02-21-2015, 12:04 PM
Who said there was "no" editing in 1901?

UniqueAmI
02-21-2015, 02:40 PM
It's in the Meilies documentary.

Anonymous Filmmaker
02-21-2015, 02:51 PM
It's in the Meilies documentary.
It's wrong. There was most certainly editing, just not in the sense that we think of today. One, it was linear editing. Two, editing clips together was pretty much all it was. There were no visual effects then, but there was certainly editing. Nice catch Marius.

UniqueAmI
02-21-2015, 03:01 PM
What the documentary was saying (and what I was asking in this thread) was there were no special effects via editing. Which is why I posted this thread in the first place.

Anonymous Filmmaker
02-21-2015, 03:03 PM
What the documentary was saying (and what I was asking in this thread) was there were no special effects via editing. Which is why I posted this thread in the first place.
Yeah I know, just saying that there "was no editing" is different from saying there were no visual effects.

UniqueAmI
02-21-2015, 04:31 PM
According to this documentary A Trip to the Moon was one of the first of the true shorts. 13 minutes long with scenes. Supposedly most films from that time were moments in time of setting up the camera and letting it run. The example they used was a woman trying to ride a bicycle, of course she fell off. One static shot, she didn't leave frame. It was at this point in the documentary where they mentioned there was no editing. So, perhaps the editing of A Trip to the Moon is the first there was. I know the original Frankenstein was just one shot, a famous one at that. I don't honestly know. I'm not that familiar with the early days of cinema.

The way he came up with the trick shot was he was shooting on the street in Paris and his camera got stuck. By the time he got it working again the people had passed and a hearse with horse and carriage were in it's place. A grand happy accident.

Either way Meilies was an incredible artist. He even owned the Robert Houdin theatre. Another magician took the Houdin name and added an I at the end, Houdini. Which makes him even cooler.

Marius Macrobius
02-21-2015, 09:26 PM
Either way Meilies was an incredible artist. He even owned the Robert Houdin theatre.

It's great to have a hero. I'm very happy for you. Meilies sounds like a great guy. And yes, owning your own theater does take the worry out of how you are going to get people to come and pay to watch your movies. It's an inspiring idea and one I might have to follow because I need ideas for my own movie distribution. This might be it! yay! Thanks my dear.

UniqueAmI
02-22-2015, 10:02 AM
Young people have a tendency to look to modern film makers for inspiration, as they should. They go to the movies, so their viewing list is quite limited. Seeking out older films is a passion not a requirement. I know many actors who refuse to watch b/w films, and film makers who care nothing for their early predecessors. The problem for these youngsters is, read interviews with any successful modern film-maker and the moral majority talk about the pioneers as their inspiration. In order to truly understand film-making you should understand the process. The greats steal much more from the pioneers than they do their contemporary peers.

I'm often surprised when I listen to young successful musicians speak and they talk about the great artists of the 50 - 70s as inspirational, especially within the rap/hip hop community where their influences are not recognizable in their own music.

I'm watching the Buster Keaton collection right now and Go West is an hour of brilliant cows and incredible filmmaking with a camera that isn't much more sophisticated than Meilies used. I sit to watch this and I know whether I like or dislike the full film, I'll be watching a movie. I can't say that about many films made in today's market. Many lo-budget movies made today are just made because they have a camera and very little of the "success" process goes into the product. The process of creating Chaplin's The Gold Rush" is the same as "ET" as it is "American Sniper". Technology enhances the process. But, you need to understand the process in order to utilize the technology properly.

As a special feature the Keystone short "Go West" is featured. It's the story of a young drunken frat boy's escapades when his father throws him out of the house. The actors are all monkeys with a few chimpanzees tossed in. It's brilliant. Shorts most people do today don't even compare in story or technique. Film is an artform, and it should be understood. So few do. These monkeys are better actors than just about every short I've seen on any forum. How is that possible? It's not. It's the film makers.

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 11:55 AM
Interesting.

Modern film isn't an art for art's sake. It's a business. The business of finding the lowest common denominator and selling that to the masses at the bottom of the intelligence triangle and make tons of money. Making money equals success. Not whether your film was "inspiring" or "brilliant" or actually "good".

So modern filmmakers need not look at old movies, except to steal a story to remake. Modern film is about what is trendy now and will sell to the masses of sheeple now, not yesterday or a century ago.

So if you want to be successful, make whatever can be easily consumed by everybody, not intelligent people only. That's probably why I'll never be successful in film, or rich because of filmmaking.

In conclusion, it's the video of a cat clawing a guy's privates that will get the YouTube views, not the overthought arty masterpiece.

UniqueAmI
02-22-2015, 02:01 PM
That is by far the saddest and worst description of the film-making business. I don't care how low the film maker is, no one starts out thinking "this script sucks but it'll sell" and heads out to make a piece of shit. NO ONE.

Do they make crap? Of course, because storytelling is down the drain. But, there are some who still believe in quality, and those film makers are scholars of cinema.

You have a terrible attitude toward film making. Why learn? Watching masters should be a joy and reveled in, it can only make you better at a craft. By all means watch a thousand youtube crap videos, and churn out garbage. I'd rather watch actual film makers. I will always stress watching people who know what they're doing as opposed to watching idiots who should have their camera taken away from them.

Anonymous Filmmaker
02-22-2015, 05:22 PM
Modern film isn't an art for art's sake. It's a business. The business of finding the lowest common denominator and selling that to the masses at the bottom of the intelligence triangle and make tons of money. Making money equals success. Not whether your film was "inspiring" or "brilliant" or actually "good".

So modern filmmakers need not look at old movies, except to steal a story to remake. Modern film is about what is trendy now and will sell to the masses of sheeple now, not yesterday or a century ago.
You can't think of any modern films you would classify as art? Sure, YouTube as a platform is not exactly art generally speaking and there is certainly some trash that comes into movie theaters. However, I think many if not most modern films at least fall into the category of "art." Film was almost from the start about gaining an audience, as is most art. Film causes enjoyment and entertainment through storytelling, and I think that's enough to be classified as art.

Nick Soares
02-22-2015, 05:31 PM
Well I can understand where Marius (http://www.filmmakerforum.org/members/marius-macrobius.html) is coming from. I do feel we lost much of the "art" nowadays. However with films like American Sniper (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/) I digress my statement :)

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 09:49 PM
Oh right. You all still worship the film god. Idealising film and filmmaking. It's wonderful to live in that fantasy.

I do filmmaking full time and love it. However, I also realise it's not the meaning of life, because life has no meaning other than what you can think up for it to mean. What I do isn't special, because no matter what I make, many millions of others are making even more film entertainment at the exact same time, so nothing will be special, unless special means just more and more and more of it getting lost in a noise of more films being churned out all over the world.

It's not the quality of the film, but the success of the marketing and promotions attempt that ultimately determine success.

You want to study the old pioneers? Go ahead. But don't make film like they did, for it is considered outdated. Film is an entertainment medium. In other words, it's there to be consumed by bored people who don't really have other meaningful things to do but waste away watching more fantasies, and more of the old black and white films may not tickle their interest one bit. They'll just click on the next movie with chicks and sex and fast cars and cats sounding like they're talking.

Anyway, let me not blaspheme your film god any more, for it is special to you. In fact, I'm late for a film editing session. Let me go make another good film in a world ever more drenched in films. I think mine is actually special. I truly do. Mine is the most special of all films in the world. It is overtly special. I have to believe that or what the hell is it for. It's all I have.

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 09:52 PM
YouTube as a platform is not exactly art generally speaking

Sooner or later, EVERYTHING ends up on YouTube. Art or fart.

UniqueAmI
02-22-2015, 10:17 PM
Oh right. You all still worship the film god. Idealising film and filmmaking. It's wonderful to live in that fantasy.

I do filmmaking full time and love it. However, I also realise it's not the meaning of life, because life has no meaning other than what you can think up for it to mean. What I do isn't special, because no matter what I make, many millions of others are making even more film entertainment at the exact same time, so nothing will be special, unless special means just more and more and more of it getting lost in a noise of more films being churned out all over the world.

It's not the quality of the film, but the success of the marketing and promotions attempt that ultimately determine success.

You want to study the old pioneers? Go ahead. But don't make film like they did, for it is considered outdated. Film is an entertainment medium. In other words, it's there to be consumed by bored people who don't really have other meaningful things to do but waste away watching more fantasies, and more of the old black and white films may not tickle their interest one bit. They'll just click on the next movie with chicks and sex and fast cars and cats sounding like they're talking.

Anyway, let me not blaspheme your film god any more, for it is special to you. In fact, I'm late for a film editing session. Let me go make another good film in a world ever more drenched in films. I think mine is actually special. I truly do. Mine is the most special of all films in the world. It is overtly special. I have to believe that or what the hell is it for. It's all I have.

It's not a fantasy to APPRECIATE great artists. Some of us actually enjoy great storytelling, you obviously enjoy shit. Not only do you enjoy shit, but you think your audience is shit, all just bored people who have nothing better to do then waste hours staring at a screen. This is the industry you work in full time and love? You should really go into banking or finance because that's where the real money is. They are the most successful of all humans in your opinion. You're much more suited to that.

If success is determined by how much money you make then many of the greatest artists of all time are flops in your opinion because they died before making a penny. Man Ray died broke and in the later part of his life had no heat in his apartment/studio. His photographs have sold for $850,000. His "Cadeaus" which he made as presents for a few, go for over $200,000. But, when he was alive he was broke. So, he's a flop.

If you want to be successful you better make a film like the old pioneers, because script structure has NEVER changed. But, obviously you don't know that. As far as getting lost, not if you make something special. Something that stands out. In case you haven't seen it "The Artist" is one of those black and white non speaking movies that won Best Picture a few years ago.

For someone who loves making movies, it sure sounds like you not only hate it, but you hate your audience. That's a winning combination.

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I'm exactly like that. I create works of art and genius but I'm still broke. Aren't I a flop?

As for "Best Picture" and whatever "awards" you so worship, as far as I know those are more about politics, and friends promoting the work of friends, colleagues marketing colleages, jews rewarding jews, gays rewarding gays etc. The merit of the work doesn't actually come into the equation much or at all. You'll find garbage being rewarded with the highest accolades. And some real works of art don't get a mention.

Sorry, now I've dissed your Awards god too. It's in my nature to question.

But yeah. I'm your definition of a genius. My work makes me not a lot of money. Actually it doesn't make me money at all mostly. But, you basically said I'm a genius if I make great artworks and still end up broke. I guess it helps to know that success as an artist equals ending up broke.

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 10:40 PM
Yeah, I'm exactly like that. I create works of art and genius but I'm still broke. Aren't I a flop?

As for "Best Picture" and whatever "awards" you so worship, as far as I know those are more about politics, and friends promoting the work of friends, colleagues marketing colleages, jews rewarding jews, gays rewarding gays etc. The merit of the work doesn't actually come into the equation much or at all. You'll find garbage being rewarded with the highest accolades. And some real works of art don't get a mention.

Sorry, now I've dissed your Awards god too. It's in my nature to question.

But yeah. I'm your definition of a genius. My work makes me not a lot of money. Actually it doesn't make me money at all mostly. But, you basically said I'm a genius if I make great artworks and still end up broke. I guess it helps to know that success as an artist equals ending up broke.

Mick Scarborough
02-22-2015, 10:52 PM
Oh right. You all still worship the film god. Idealising film and filmmaking. It's wonderful to live in that fantasy.

I do filmmaking full time and love it. However, I also realise it's not the meaning of life, because life has no meaning other than what you can think up for it to mean. What I do isn't special, because no matter what I make, many millions of others are making even more film entertainment at the exact same time, so nothing will be special, unless special means just more and more and more of it getting lost in a noise of more films being churned out all over the world.

It's not the quality of the film, but the success of the marketing and promotions attempt that ultimately determine success.

You want to study the old pioneers? Go ahead. But don't make film like they did, for it is considered outdated. Film is an entertainment medium. In other words, it's there to be consumed by bored people who don't really have other meaningful things to do but waste away watching more fantasies, and more of the old black and white films may not tickle their interest one bit. They'll just click on the next movie with chicks and sex and fast cars and cats sounding like they're talking.

Anyway, let me not blaspheme your film god any more, for it is special to you. In fact, I'm late for a film editing session. Let me go make another good film in a world ever more drenched in films. I think mine is actually special. I truly do. Mine is the most special of all films in the world. It is overtly special. I have to believe that or what the hell is it for. It's all I have.

I truly hope I never become this jaded and sad. I couldn't care less if I make money on a film, I just want to make something people remember and enjoy.

Marius Macrobius
02-22-2015, 11:58 PM
I couldn't care less if I make money on a film, I just want to make something people remember and enjoy.

That's the spirit! Demand less of your ventures and if you get exactly less, you can say "I meant not to make money".

UniqueAmI
02-23-2015, 10:13 AM
I don't watch the Academy Awards, I haven't for years. But, I pointed out The Artist because of your STUPID remark about B/W films. That's just one of the moronic statements you've made.

No, you're not my definition of genius, I'll be nice and not tell you what I think of you. I just hope your film making is better than your comprehension level.

Marius Macrobius
02-23-2015, 11:23 AM
I don't watch the Academy Awards, I haven't for years. But, I pointed out The Artist because of your STUPID remark about B/W films. That's just one of the moronic statements you've made.

No, you're not my definition of genius, I'll be nice and not tell you what I think of you. I just hope your film making is better than your comprehension level.

You know damn well only The Artist could get away with being in black and white, because of the subject matter being about black and white silent films. I loved The Artist. But with that one done, why don't you make your everyday subject films in black and white and see how that is not accepted by the modern entertainmentseeker. Can't make all your subject matters about black and white silent films. You won't get away with it again, because we live in a world of color film now. Yep, how time flew.

From your vicious reaction, it's obvious you know everything I said is the truth, for there is only one thing that can unleash that kind of hatred and anger and personal attack, and that is the truth.

Okay, let's get back to the subject matter then and I'll tell you what I thought of the suject. I didn't think the film you posted was that particularly well done, because the head on the table shook around when it should have been stable, and there was like this stripe thing that shook around with it, which should not be there.

And the subject matter of a human head being blown up and exploding was gross and macabre. Sick.

Even the background is obviously a painted fake.

I don't hold any limitations as excuses. I just want to see good work. Although this was ambitious, it needed frame by frame attention and precision. Which is lacking, ruining the whole effect.

K thanks bye chick. I'll leave your threads alone now.

UniqueAmI
02-23-2015, 03:39 PM
From your vicious reaction, it's obvious you know everything I said is the truth, for there is only one thing that can unleash that kind of hatred and anger and personal attack, and that is the truth.



Wrong again.




Okay, let's get back to the subject matter then and I'll tell you what I thought of the suject. I didn't think the film you posted was that particularly well done, because the head on the table shook around when it should have been stable, and there was like this stripe thing that shook around with it, which should not be there.

And the subject matter of a human head being blown up and exploding was gross and macabre. Sick.

Even the background is obviously a painted fake.

I don't hold any limitations as excuses. I just want to see good work. Although this was ambitious, it needed frame by frame attention and precision. Which is lacking, ruining the whole effect.

K thanks bye chick. I'll leave your threads alone now.

You're insulting a piece made in 1901 by a film making innovator. You are a fucking idiot.

Anonymous Filmmaker
02-23-2015, 06:38 PM
You know damn well only The Artist could get away with being in black and white, because of the subject matter being about black and white silent films. I loved The Artist. But with that one done, why don't you make your everyday subject films in black and white and see how that is not accepted by the modern entertainmentseeker. Can't make all your subject matters about black and white silent films. You won't get away with it again, because we live in a world of color film now. Yep, how time flew.

I don't understand your argument here. Isn't color just another medium to better present information that supports the story? Color can be manipulated in ways black and white can't, as well as vice versa. So, I think there are times when both are better, but I still don't understand your problem with color films.

Marius Macrobius
02-23-2015, 10:21 PM
I don't understand your argument here. Isn't color just another medium to better present information that supports the story? Color can be manipulated in ways black and white can't, as well as vice versa. So, I think there are times when both are better, but I still don't understand your problem with color films.

Hey don't worry about it. It's obvious the poster of this topic does not possess the ability to debate, nor to question nonsense he/she/it has been believing, nor to be mature. I think it was just looking for people to agree with everything it says, and to confirm its viewpoint so it doesn't feel so insecure. Or maybe it wanted to post and not want anybody to respond with their own thinking on the subject. Its a selfish cow obviously.

As for your question, I'll just be direct and say movies are made for people to watch. And with people, I don't mean just a few other filmmakers. Usually films are made for non film school theorists mostly.

And the average joe knows what he likes. He likes new movies. He likes movies that are with it. That means he will expect and assume that any new movies will be in color, if not also in 3D. He will expect it's in high definition or ultra definition. He will expect the effects are technically flawless cgi, as realisticlooking as it can be. He will expect the subject is of some interest.

Most importantly, he does not give two fucks about film theory, film history, terms like "isn't color just another medium to blah blah blah" type talk. Filmgoers and consumers of film are teens and young people, who dispise such high and mighty pretentious drivel such as "UniqueAmI" is defending with all her/his/its decency and respect sacrificed in the process.

Then you find that absolute swines like the poster of this topic is all like "ooooh, we should all study the mediocre stuff some film pieohnear made about a million years ago so we can learn how to make films like they did, outdated and crappy and shaky and in black and white." Nothing wrong with that. But how is that going to be practical when it comes to making your own films? You are not going to use any of the same techniques, you are not going to even shoot on film, and you will not use anything whatsoever you "learn" from it.

Yes, it was an interesting topic, but the immature dumb cow who posted it then went on to soil itself with excrement with upset over anybody taking part in its topic.

So, create all the topics you want, "uniqueAmI" asshole. You're going on ignore. And grow up.

mara
02-24-2015, 07:07 AM
First of all: one of the things that I've always liked about this site is that there has been an emphasis on courtesy in the discussions. Somehow this one seems to have gone very far off the path.

Second: I'd like to point out that there are many different movie audiences, not just one. Absolutely the young audience is the single biggest segment, but MPAA statistics for 2013 (seems like the most recent available) indicate that 53% of the movie-going audience in the US was over age 25, with 30% over age 40.

So while big budget Hollywood movies certainly need to appeal to a very large portion of the movie-going public, there's still a substantial portion of the potential audience that's older and looking for something other than CGI and 3D.

UniqueAmI
02-24-2015, 10:09 AM
So, create all the topics you want, "uniqueAmI" asshole. You're going on ignore.

Cool.

Mick Scarborough
02-25-2015, 10:56 AM
So, create all the topics you want, "uniqueAmI" asshole. You're going on ignore. And grow up.

You, as well.

khathawayart
02-12-2017, 01:41 PM
The 1910 Frankenstein was not just one shot---it's a whole BUNCH of shots. In different locations, even.