Posted by Vincent at bg-tc-ppp200.monmouth.com on May 12, 2001 at 09:30:12:
In Reply to: Vincent=2 topics-DV CAMERAS AND SE7EN posted by Michael Caulfield on May 12, 2001 at 02:00:20:
: Firstly, I was wondering how the veiw askew folks felt on DV movie production.I am talking not about like what lucas is doing.But like a 2,000 dollar dv cam.
: That's real no budget filmmaking.You know your real low budget when there are bicycles that cost more then your equipment.
: So what is everyones take on Dv?I reall want to hear from vincent on this one.
DV is a great tool, but it opens a Pandora's Box. It gives young filmmakers the idea that the image quality and visuals somehow don't matter at all- in other words, if it looks like shit, so what? All that matters is the script. I find this attitude disturbing. Not that I'm against good scripts, or against talented young filmmakers with limited funds using DV to make something good, but FILM ITSELF is an artform, and I think how movies "look" is very important. The "the script is all that matters" crowd should just stick to producing plays if that's their true view as far as I'm concerned.
That being said, DANCER IN THE DARK is a stunningly beautiful film and it was shot using standard DV. How Lars Von Trier got it to look so good is beyond me, but it looked great projected on a huge, wide screen in NYC. It didn't look remotely like film, but it looked great in it's own weird way. I'd like to see more DV movies that look like it does as opposed to CHUCK & BUCK which looked like crap (although it's a great film).
: Also, Vincent, I know you've seen this movie but i don't know what you think, Se7en.Just saw it tonight.I thought it was great.Looking forward to better place and i dig the DOGMA RULES plug.
I'm a big SEVEN fan.
Vincent