Other recent articles:
TERMINATOR SALVATION/BALE REVEALEDThe new Batman has one drawback: Christian Bale is usually hidden in his Bat suit. No such problem with...
LOVE LIVE LONG/HEART RACINGAsk Mike Figgis to make a movie about the (in)famous Gumball Rally? Which way will he go?...
REDBELT/TWISTS EJIOFORPresumably not everyone in the world managed to bag a seat for Chiwetel Ejiofor’s recent, stunning performance as Othello...
THE DAY/WILL BE SCARYAnother promising chiller is in the can. Directed by Tom Shankland, it sounds likely to be even more scary...
SLOUGH GOES TO HOLLYWOOD/WHAT RICKY DID NEXTYes, RG – Mr Office, David B – is making a movie. Title: His Side...
EDIT SWEETSWho is the most important figure in film-making? Currently it is almost universally acknowledged that the director is king. And that is easy to understand. Some would argue the corner for the writer. Even directors will often lavish credit on the guy or girl who first gave him - or her - the script. But you only have to be around a set for a very short time to realize how different the scenes shot are from what is on the page. Maybe the script calls for a couple to be having breakfast in a modern apartment. Fine. We all know what that means. But give the scene to three different directors and you will three different products. Even more contentious is the habit of saying the film is "made" in the edit suite. What on earth does this mean? Surely the director who shot the thing knows what goes where! If only! In reality, the director is often not able to shoot what he wants, for a variety of reasons, and often what he thought he wanted to shoot doesn't actually work. Bring on the editor with his scapel! ... to be continued ... | ![]() |
Bookmark this article with: