From: "Bill Flavell" <billflavell3-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: re: ft-l: Basic Unit: Frame/Shot/Set-Up
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:05:06 PST


   deX blurted:

>are you for real, bill?

   Yeah, and I've been consciously interested in being a film director 
since 1973. What are you, a Gen X tourist?

>>I guess I'm the most production-oriented person on the list (at least 
>>from the posts that I've read so far),

>dream on! speaking from the position of my own CV i would have to
>strenuously disagree.

   Then put your money where your mouth is and post it so we can all 
judge for ourselves.

> your argument rests solely upon the assumption that
>the production perspective (singular? christopher columbus - you have
>worked with some strange crews?) is merely a continuation and extension 
of
>critical neurosis. 
>
>secondly, according to my CV, the Take and the Set-Up are NOT in ANY 
sense
>whatsoever the next steps in some theoretical lineage of critical 
minutiae;
>they are in NO WAY used within the same paradigm as cuts and shots, and
>your bizarre understanding of takes and set-ups leads me to conclude 
that
>you are by far the *least* experienced production person on our list.

   I've worked on 4 feature films as either a grip, set carpenter and/or 
art department grunt. I've worked on 5 16mm independent films and 5 16mm 
student films as either producer, director, cinematographer, editor or 
set carpenter. I don't have a resume because I gave up on a production 
career long ago, or else I'd post it.

> (what
>i must add here, tho, is that it in no way affects your voice or what 
you
>want to say - it just makes you look rilly stoopid if you say 'i'm the 
most
>experienced person on the list' and then proceed to tell us lots and 
lots
>of things that totally contradict that claim)

   Well, if instigating some disussion requires "looking stupid", then 
that's a price that has to be paid. I'm sure I've been kicked off more 
mailing lists than youy've ever even been on. 

>i don't know where on earth you get your understanding of these things
>from, but if it is "experience" as you claim, then it is far removed 
from
>ANYTHING that i have ever even read, let alone done myself or 
witnessed!

   You've never seen a fucking camera report? Everything is documented, 
including the focal length of the lens. Or the incredible amount of 
documentation that goes into film editing? Who are YOU trying to 
bullshit? 

>if ANY comparison of the Take and the Set-Up is to be made with the 
shot
>and the cut it is COMPLETELY the opposite to what you claim. it is 
standard
>practice for *several* "shots" to be canned from the same set-up,
>particularly if there are lots of flashbax and/or jumps forward in the
>production at hand, and the more shots which can be accomplished from 
the
>same set-up the better, for everyone! as for the take, surely logic 
would
>dictate that there is NEVER a take which makes it in entirety into any 
film
>especially dialogue sequences - mostly all takes are reduced to several
>cuts! if the cut is somehow a much more general unit than the take then
>both newton and einstein were incorrect and i'm in the wrong universe!

   OK, I agree that a "take" is often cut into several sections that 
appear as different "shots" in the finished film (in the sense that 
other shots from other camera positions are inserted into the take). So, 
yes, in that sense a "take" can be a larger "unit" than a "shot" in the 
finished film.

   This is all of your gibberish I can handle for one day.

   Bill Flavell 



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---