From what I've read, Mizoguchi's crane had two seats: one for the camera operator (often the cinematographer), and one for the director. This crane actually has three seats, and is probably more "heavy duty" than Mizoguchi's crane. I should note that a crane shot doesn't have to be from a high angle. In Sansho the Bailiff, there seem to be many crane shots that are made close to the ground, but display a range of camera movement that would only be possible with a crane in the 1950s.
Here's an example of what I mean:
EDITED TO ADD: There was mention of the "camera jib" in class on Tuesday. Here's an example:
As you can see, the jib is capable of moving the camera in just about any direction that might be desired.
There is one issue, however, with regard to Mizoguchi's film. I'm pretty sure that all 35mm cameras had to be manually operated in the early 1950s. If this is the case, then there couldn't have been this kind of jib.
Needless to say, I would be happy to be proved wrong on this.
Since the last two movie we saw were also made in 1954 so similar technologies would be available, I looked back at them for crane shots. There were a sparse amount in 7 Samurai (if sources are correct), and understandably none in Gojira since it was largely done with models and modest special effects. With the new Godzilla movie coming out soon (sure to be full of crane shots and other expensive special effects), and a long line of Godzilla movies released between then and now, I was wondering what you and my classmates think about how much new film techniques and special effects contribute to making a "quality" movie. Personally, after seeing how well older movies were done with minimal resources, I don't feel that today's special effects contribute the level of quality equivalent to the money and effort they take. Also, after seeing the "Godzilla" movie clips in class, I'm sure many of you would agree with me that sacrificing plot and meaningful characters for the sake of shiny explosions may make for better box office profit but not leaving an audience with any meaningful food for thought. From my (admittedly subjective, I know we don't use the words "good" or "bad" around here) point of view, a quality movie is one that improves its audience in some way, regardless of success in the market it resides in. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
ReplyDelete