06-13-2024, 09:49 AM
I'm always up for a good documentary about filmmaking.
This isn't it.
The main question that drives the movie is why wasn't Clue a success at the box office and yet it did go on to be big cult hit on VHS. Fair question. But if you could answer that question why something is or isn't popular, you would rule Hollywood. So, theories are tossed up but nothing definitive. Ultimately, the movie doesn't answer its main question of why doesn't everybody love this thing I love?
But, I can deal with investigating a question and not coming up with the answer. My problem is how the filmmakers went about it. The focus of the documentary is Jeff Smith, the director of the documentary. He wants to show his journey into the investigation of the mystery. I would say half of the film is him driving around in his car talking to the camera about what he is doing. Today we are going to this actors house. Today we are looking at this exterior location. Here are my opinions about the journey. I know this style is kind of in, but it just bugs me. The focus should be the story not the filmmaker.
There was a big technical reason that bugged me, too. I applaud director Jeff Smith for taking five years to make the film. He tracked down a bunch of the remaining actors and interviewed them including Michael McKean and Leslie Ann Warren and the writer/director of the film (Smith should have used him more). Good work on the research. But whatever camera he used, he shot it using an interlaced video codec. I understand this makes for smaller file sizes but when you go to blow it up to show on the screen you can see the interlacing in the picture. Lots of vertical lines cutting through the picture. It got annoying quickly. Maybe nobody else notices it. Next time shoot using a progressive codec.
Finally, the film was over kind of three quarters of the way through the movie. And yet they kept going. Smith wanted to talk to people about how much they watched the film and liked the film. There seemed to be a lot of this. And it ended with Smith reading a book he wrote about the movie where there was a fourth ending to the film. He then had animation to illustrate the story he read.
Not for me.
This isn't it.
The main question that drives the movie is why wasn't Clue a success at the box office and yet it did go on to be big cult hit on VHS. Fair question. But if you could answer that question why something is or isn't popular, you would rule Hollywood. So, theories are tossed up but nothing definitive. Ultimately, the movie doesn't answer its main question of why doesn't everybody love this thing I love?
But, I can deal with investigating a question and not coming up with the answer. My problem is how the filmmakers went about it. The focus of the documentary is Jeff Smith, the director of the documentary. He wants to show his journey into the investigation of the mystery. I would say half of the film is him driving around in his car talking to the camera about what he is doing. Today we are going to this actors house. Today we are looking at this exterior location. Here are my opinions about the journey. I know this style is kind of in, but it just bugs me. The focus should be the story not the filmmaker.
There was a big technical reason that bugged me, too. I applaud director Jeff Smith for taking five years to make the film. He tracked down a bunch of the remaining actors and interviewed them including Michael McKean and Leslie Ann Warren and the writer/director of the film (Smith should have used him more). Good work on the research. But whatever camera he used, he shot it using an interlaced video codec. I understand this makes for smaller file sizes but when you go to blow it up to show on the screen you can see the interlacing in the picture. Lots of vertical lines cutting through the picture. It got annoying quickly. Maybe nobody else notices it. Next time shoot using a progressive codec.
Finally, the film was over kind of three quarters of the way through the movie. And yet they kept going. Smith wanted to talk to people about how much they watched the film and liked the film. There seemed to be a lot of this. And it ended with Smith reading a book he wrote about the movie where there was a fourth ending to the film. He then had animation to illustrate the story he read.
Not for me.
As a matter of fact, my anger does keep me warm
