MF camera sighting in the movie, "Closer"

[EricO]

I watched the movie, “Closer” where Julia Roberts played a photographer. It was nice to see the use of a medium format camera. I looked like a Hassleblad. She also used a 35mm. I noticed a few things that seemed like movie making mistakes. I read a little about these mistakes and found that there were more mistakes including: the sounds coming from the camera were not realistic. There were some winder noises when she was in fact advancing manually. The photos that she took with the 35mm appeared in a square format when they were displayed at the gallery showing. I noticed that she was holding the 35mm in the landscape orientation as opposed to the portrait orientation.

 

[hugopoon]

‘The photos that she took with the 35mm appeared in a square format when they were displayed at the gallery showing.’
Could've been cropped.

‘I noticed that she was holding the 35mm in the landscape orientation as opposed to the portrait orientation.’
I'm not getting how that's a mistake? Especially if the photos were printed square.

 

[NJS]

Continuity: When we see Anna photographing Alice weeping, she is using a 35mm Leica camera. At the gallery exhibition however, the picture of Anna is a full frame, medium format print complete with black borders, therefore taken with a medium format camera - a much more wieldy instrument.

source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376541/goofs


haven't watched the movie yet, though... any good?

 

[EricO]

‘The photos that she took with the 35mm appeared in a square format when they were displayed at the gallery showing.’
Could've been cropped.

‘I noticed that she was holding the 35mm in the landscape orientation as opposed to the portrait orientation.’
I'm not getting how that's a mistake? Especially if the photos were printed square.

When I shoot landscapes I hold the camera in the landscape orientation. When I'm shooting head and shoulders or portraits in general, I typically hold the camera in portrait orientation. Of course now, I'm no full time pro.

 

[GRHazelton]

I'm always amused to see a shot purporting to be through the viewfinder of a SLR, which includes a rectangle which I guess is the image area which will appear on film. I guess movie logic allows 125% area viewfinders - I wish my Pentax cameras could do that!

And don't forget the private eye shooting a 500mm tele in semi-darkness, hand-held, getting an identifiable head shot. Wowzer!

Ever notice that flash pictures, especially those using flash bulbs, almost always include a loud "pop"? Strange, all the No. 5 and M3 bulbs I used back in the day were totally silent.... Now flash powder, that might be a different matter!

 

[ic-racer]

I'm always amused to see a shot purporting to be through the viewfinder of a SLR, which includes a rectangle which I guess is the image area which will appear on film. I guess movie logic allows 125% area viewfinders - I wish my Pentax cameras could do that!

And don't forget the private eye shooting a 500mm tele in semi-darkness, hand-held, getting an identifiable head shot. Wowzer!

Ever notice that flash pictures, especially those using flash bulbs, almost always include a loud "pop"? Strange, all the No. 5 and M3 bulbs I used back in the day were totally silent.... Now flash powder, that might be a different matter!

Remember, cinematographers are our cousins over there in movie-land. What are YOU going to do when the director asks for a 'shot through binoculars?' Are you going to shoot through real binoculars or use the 'standard mask?'

Personally I think cinematographers and directors (especially people like Jeff Bridges) know a lot about still photography. Its just that their product (commercial film) is not geared for an audience as sophisticated as that for still photography so they have to dumb things down for the viewer.

 

[Changeling1]

It's common to place a human subject off-center in landscape orientation- especially in the actor's headshot industry. But movies often misuse props taking some sort of theatrical license assuming that no one will notice that an item may be being held upside down and backwards. :confused:

 

[hspluta]

Ever notice that flash pictures, especially those using flash bulbs, almost always include a loud "pop"? Strange, all the No. 5 and M3 bulbs I used back in the day were totally silent.... Now flash powder, that might be a different matter!

I remember hearing the pop of the flashbulb in the old Speed Graphic I used in the Army. Don't recall what bulb it was just that I was taught that you had to lick the bottom before you put it in to get good contact.

 

[EricO]

Remember, cinematographers are our cousins over there in movie-land. What are YOU going to do when the director asks for a 'shot through binoculars?' Are you going to shoot through real binoculars or use the 'standard mask?'

Personally I think cinematographers and directors (especially people like Jeff Bridges) know a lot about still photography. Its just that their product (commercial film) is not geared for an audience as sophisticated as that for still photography so they have to dumb things down for the viewer.

I agree. It's much more comfortable (and natural looking), for example, to hold the camera in the horizontal orientation, unless you had a vertical grip or rotating back. If I was the director I'd avoid that contorted look of having the actor hold the camera in the vertical position. I'm just amused at being able to notice those inconsistencies in film making. The best one was in "The Young Frankenstein" where the mole would appear on either side of Igor's face! That was hilarious!

 

[pentaxuser]

The best one was in "The Young Frankenstein" where the mole would appear on either side of Igor's face! That was hilarious!

A brilliant film. I really believe that only Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman could have made it what it was. These were the same kind of "touches" that characterised "Blazing Saddles"

pentaxuser

 

[Rick A]

For the ife of me, I can never figure out why people obsess over triviality in cinema. Its only entertainment, take it for what its worth.

 

[mcgrattan]

I've not seen the film, but if I remember correctly, a lot of the still photographs used are actually Steve Pyke's photographs of philosophers.

Dead Link Removed

It annoyed a friend at the time [he and I both studied philosophy], as we knew some of the people in the shots and I think they were presented as photos of random strangers.

 

[EricO]

For the ife of me, I can never figure out why people obsess over triviality in cinema. Its only entertainment, take it for what its worth.

I don't see anyone obsessing over it.

 

[WetMogwai]

For the ife of me, I can never figure out why people obsess over triviality in cinema. Its only entertainment, take it for what its worth.

For lots of people, entertainment is the extent of their continued education. They learn what is possible and how things work in fields outside their own through watching movies and TV shows. We probably all do it to some extent. That is why it is so annoying when they screw up something basic. Of course, they can't be expected to always know they are wrong. They might not even know they are wrong. You don't hire a technical consultant when you don't know you are wrong. You do it when you know that you don't know enough about something to get it right. I'm sure there is also an attempt to tailor things to the likely preconceptions of the audience so that you don't force them to think too hard.