VIDEOBERICHTERSTATTUNG | DV-FILME | TEXTE ZUM THEMA | ARCHIV 2002
|
|
Salt ist die einfache Geschichte einer jungen Frau, die sich in den Freund ihrer Schwester verliebt. Während ich die Figur entwickelte, verwob sich eine bekannte isländische Legende über Seehunde mit der Geschichte und wurde zur Grundlage für die Selbsterforschung des Mädchens. [aus dem Forumprogramm] QUESTIONNAIRE 1 How would you describe the aesthetics of your film? The aesthetics for the film evolved from the idea of watching the main character, Hildur, constantly. Most scenes begin and end with her face. The film is created almost entirely of singles and close-ups using a shallow depth of field (long lense shots or wide-angle shots close to the subject). It was supposed to feel as if the camera was constantly floating in front of the characters but they couldn't see or feel it. 2 Why did you choose to shoot on dv? Cost. 3 What was special about shooting in dv (e.g.compared to 35mm, was it your first time with dv or are you used to it)? I think the DV camera is less obtrusive on set. It's qiueter, lighter, and fits in your hand. Also, most people are used to being filmed with video cameras and since we were working on location with non-actors I think this was an advantage. We also recorded sound directly onto the camera (which had many drawbacks) but one advantage was that we didn't need slates or beeps or clappers at the head of each shot. Another advantage was that we could turn the camera on without the actors realizing and without having to worry about sync. The camera is also easy to walk with if you have a flip out screen and use your arm as a sort of crane, something not possible with a 35/16mm camera unless you're using a steady-cam. I also think you can shoot in darker conditions with video than with film. I think that DV can look great if you are shooting hand held and concentrating on the advantages like being very intimate with the actors and its ability to shoot in very low-light conditions. But, I don't think it's good for wide shots, or locked off tripod shots. I think it forces you to follow it's aesthetics, at least for me it does. This is my second digital film of this length. I shot a documentary about a young couple living in Tokyo a couple of years ago. DV was great for that project because I was a one person crew and I could shoot very long (40 min.) moving takes. The shot could follow someone moving from inside an apartment, to walking down the street, going underground to catch a train, and waiting on the platform and I could change both the exposure and the shutter speed in the take which was very fun and changed the way I thought about making films. 4 What was your shoot-edit ratio? 83 to 1. We shot 100 hours of footage and the film's about 1 hour 23 min. long. 5 Would you have preferred to shoot in another format? If so which? We had no other options because we had no money. The film changed because we shot in DV, the story changed and the way we worked on set changed. I'm happy with the film which came out of this process so I wouldn't want to have done it differently. 6 Does using dv mean that you are considering other means of distribution opposing the established? If so which? Hadn't thought about distrubution until you asked this question. 7 One good word about dv (or two): it's inconspicuous 8 One bad word about dv (or two): it's video [zurück zur DV-FILM ÜBERSICHT] [nach oben] |
ZU slashCAM | ZUR FORUMSEKTION | IMPRESSUM | QUICKTIME PLAYER