TL;DR
Were Renoir and Welles ripping off earlier examples of deep focus, or did they bring it to another level of quality, incomparable to previous examples? What are some films with incredible real deep focus apart from Renoir and Welles?
Can we discuss deep focus? What I've learned is that starting in the 80s cinema has developed a trend that calls intensified continuity:
1) The average length of each shot in a film has become shorter over the years.
2) Scenes are built up by closer framing.
3) More extreme focal lengths are used.
4) The scenes include an increased number of camera moves.
Master shots where two or more characters hold a conversation have gone out of fashion, lessening the need for deep focus. If more than one plane in the image contains narrative information, filmmakers switch focus instead of keeping both focal planes sharp. In addition, modern sets tend to have less lighting for more comfortable working conditions, and use of deep focus tends to require more light.
>If there is a single word that sums up the difference between filmmaking at the middle of the 20th century and the filmmaking of today, it is "coverage". Derived from television, it refers to the increasingly common practice of using multiple cameras for a scene (just as television would cover a football game).
>That kind of staging is a lost art, which is too bad. The reason they no longer work that way is because it means making choices, real choices, and sticking to them. That's not what people do now. They want all the options they can get in the editing room.
1/2
Usually when you see deep focus being mentioned, the examples of great films that invented it and used it well are The Rules of the Game (1939) and Citizen Kane (1941). HOWEVER I then stumbled upon this very interesting article
http://fredrikonfilm.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-deep-focus-conundrum.html
which says that deep focus was in fact used many times before these two films, and it were Renoir, Welles and Toland who was influenced by previous examples of deep focus and not vice versa.
My questions are:
1) How reliable is this article? Were there really very early examples of deep focus that are in no way inferior to Rules of the Game and Citizen Kane, or are films like Rules of the Game took it to another level and are praised not due to ignorance of film historians but rather for using it on very high level?
2) (answer this if you have knowledge on this topic, wikipedia won't help much) Can I have examples of films with great deep focus? It could be of post Citizen Kane era, or early examples, doesn't matter, but I want films with stunning real (not fake and not CGI) deep focus of close or equal level of Citizen Kane.
2/2
bumperino
>>71863695
Back then Film actors and Theatre actors weren't so heavily separated, meaning long uncut scenes were second nature to the actors and editors didn't have to put in so much work as the actors drew people into the scene instead of the editing.
Deep Focus wasn't so much a technique as much as a way of facilitating long, uncut wide shots, especially if you planned on camera movement around a room. You didn't want parts falling out of focus mid-take if you were doing the entire shot in one. Not to take away from the technical considerations directors had to take, but film making was very different then than it is now.
>>71866090
Thank you for serious answer. Your point convinced me, now I look at it from another point of view. But I have another question now. This film, from what I know, praised heavily for use of deep focus. Since deep focus was not that of an important gamebreaking technique, are there other reasons for it to be an extremely important film? I don't have such question about Kane obviously.
>>71866090
should have said game changing*
bumperino saverino this threadino
>>71866771
This is my favorite movie but others could probably explain better why its so good
>>71868517
No please do it. I was looking for you, my friend. Since it is your favorite film, please explain why you love it. This film bothers me really, I want to understand what's special about it that I can't quite understand.
Welles had no idea how cameras worked and thought you could just point a camera somewhere and see everything in focus. He told Gregg Toland what he wanted to do, and luckily Toland knew how to do it because he was a fucking genius.
>>71863695
why are embryos so obsessed with deep focus?
it's the only technique I ever see mentioned in this shithole
>>71868865
Its really comfortable and easily accessible but after numerous viewings I'm still picking out little metaphors etc that Renoir included.
It's three part structure and the three locations again makes it simple to follow but still dense with symbolism.
The themes of the intertwined relationships between the men and women have not aged at all. It feels like all romantic comedies (not that I watch many) nowadays are a watered down version of Rules.
I feel like Renoir wasn't pulling any punches and didn't make it over romanticized, instead treated the subject lightly while still making it honest.
Really nice cinematography and visuals
I feel like I may have seen Rules when I was a very small child and forgotten about it so when I rewatched it years ago it felt really familiar like I was just revisiting a group of old friends.
Can't go into specifics right now but in general this is why I love it so much.
>>71869596
All these threads are mine, so I'm the only obsessed embryo. Not really obsessed with deep focus, but rather want to understand some reasons behind some films being praised by critics for their innovative techniques, or some other hidden things.
>>71869470
Interesting. So Welles were rather rookie and made a masterpiece literally occasionally? Or was it not masterpiece at all?
>>71869660
I'd also add that it's a bitter red pill to swallow relationship wise. When I saw it a few years ago I could really relate to the pilot.
I don't know what deep focus is
>>71869660
I'd also like to add that the film is ideally paced, it is probably Renoir's best scenario. Every dramatic moment is built up to perfectly in small doses (the chaos of the party by the earier phonograph with 2 people, human killing by the horror of rabbit killing, and in each showing the ways in which these happen).
>>71869660
Thanks for the answer. I wonder how old you are. I see that Rules ranked very high among critics, but I guess that's just not my type of film. I couldn't pick that many metaphors, it just felt rather like a vulgar double love triangles story for me. Not that it's a bad film. Maybe I should watch it again.
>>71869830
I agree. Also, Renoir is very economical with his dialogue. Not much is said that doesn't mean anything. For example the scene where she is given a jacket and is told something along the lines of "its not very luxurious but it will keep you warm" is foreshadowing a relationship with one of the characters at the end.
>>71869815
It is when foreground and background are both in sharp focus without use of green screen and CGI. It requires special lenses and a lot of lighting and details being put on the background, as well as correctly composed shots and camera movements.
As mentioned above, almost forgotten technique, because modern films just use cuts and close ups, because the pace is faster.
>>71869830
I'm going to watch La Grande Illusion in a few days, hope I like it better.
>>71869856
I'm 39. I don't have a background in film theory so my attempts to explain the film probably aren't great. My top 5 would be
Rules of the Game
Persona
Raging Bull
La Dolce Vita
Rashomon
If that gives you any indication of my taste
>>71869952
Grand Illusion is good but personally I didn't like it as much
>>71869993
>I'm 39
What are you doing here dude? Bored at work?
Nice taste. 10/10. Mine must be
Vertigo
City Lights
The Godfather I-II
2001: A Space Odyssey
maybe Lawrence of Arabia
So as you see more of a flick-tier. But I currently watch a lot of 20s-60s.
>>71870134
I work from home. I don't use any social media so I just jump on this mongolian butt plug forum to shoot the shit once in a while.
I never understood the love for Vertigo but I'll have to rewatch it. I liked Rear Window better personally. I'd also have to go with Eyes Wide Shut over 2001 but to each his own.
Godfather was great, haven't seen City Lights or Lawrence.
>>71870134
Check out the Antonioni trilogy L'aventura, La Notte and L'Eclisse. Also any Bergman, Prtsona, Wild Strawberries, Seventh Seal, Hour Of The Wolf.
>>71870393
faml you're 39, watch City Lights and lawrence ASAP
>>71870393
>I don't use any social media
Same here, email only.
Vertigo is maybe my absolute favorite film, possibly tied with City Lights. The trick with Vertigo is that on the 1st view it looks mediocre. You really have to sit through it for the 2nd time. And from there you are all set. Either you don't like it, or you totally love it. There are these small things accompanied by soundtrack that are just so powerful it feels like they rip your soul apart. Terrific film!
City Lights is a wonderful film, I recommend. But then again, our tastes are a bit different, so you may not like it. It is a comedy with touching love story, that aged incredibly well. Lawrence has stunning cinematography and music, but it's kind of boring and is 4 hours long.
>>71870544
Vertigo:
1st viewing: 9/10
2nd viewing: 9.5/10
3rd viewing: 10/10
4th viewing: 10/10
5th viewing: ????
>>71870443
L'avventura have seen, didn't really like.
Some Bergman are on my list (Wild Strawberries, Persona, Fanny and Alexander). Will watch soon.
>>71870587
For me Vertigo
1st viewing: 6/10
2nd viewing: 9/10
3rd viewing and so on: 10/10
>>71870480
Lawrence's trailer really turned me off desu. I'm no sjw but the whole white guy with perfect smile comes in to liberate brown people really grossed me out.
Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong but that's the vibe I got.
>>71869952
LGI is also fantastic to me, and you may like the film visually better since it is more outwardly bold and dramatic
since we're doing this my top 5 is probably
Late Spring
PlayTime
A Brighter Summer Day
Tropical Malady
Ordet
At least at the moment
>>71870544
I'll definitely give Vertigo another chance
Its a lack of technology and innovation which restricted camera movements and lenses.
>>71871278
It is an answer to what exactly?
>>71871189
well, actually I do find the "white man saves the brown people" highly problematic myself, but on an aesthetic/entertainment level it's a marvelous film
>>71873053
Exactly. It's all about visuals and music. Don't think just give it a try. But first Vertigo and City Lights.
bumperino
bumperuno
I don't have enough much have to contribute but I'd like to say this is my favourite thread here in weeks. Thank you.
Going to watch LGI tonight.
