From: maus@fid.morgan.com (Malcolm Austin)
Subject: Re: annoying nuances in films
Organization: Morgan Stanley & Co., New York, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:53:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.223935.5210@cs.uow.edu.au> stephen@cs.uow.edu.au (Stephen Lance Rogan) writes:
>jm0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JOSEPH ALOYSIUS MCVEIGH) writes:
>
>>ceo2p@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Christine Ellen O'connor) writes:
>>>I hate these nuances!!  My question is: if they are so obvious
>>>to us, why does someone in the film-making process miss us?
>>>Don't they have people to check for these types of slips?
>
>>They're called script supervisors, and they're the people who are supposed to
>>remember how much of the beer should still be in the glass, to which page the
>>newspaper was open, what time the clock read, etc. etc., for continuity
>>bewtween different takes.
>
>>The S.S. must work without prints from the earlier (e.g.) prior day's shoot,
>>so it's a daunting task that requires a gargantuan memory. Often it's over
>>several days/weeks. I can forgive a few snafus, and to be honest, it gives me
>>an opportunity to hunt them out as a pastime.
>
>If it was such a hard task to link it all together, how can us mere mortals
>pick them out so fast ? I would prefer to think they do the best they can
>given the previous days shoot, knowing that to ask for to many scenes to be
>reshot would not be too popular.
>
>Dont get me wrong, I understand it must be a huge task, but I still think
>they must stop and look at a rough of what they are doing accasionally.
>

Well, first of all, I doubt they get a "rough" of what they are doing when
they are doing it.  Even assuming they see the daily rushes, that won't
help much when they are doing their job the previous afternoon.  And it's
not like the director is going to order retakes because someone's potato
moved on his plate.  I do think they take a lot of Polaroids, though.

Secondly, the job is de facto impossible because the script supervisor is
not involved in the post-production of editing the film, which is clearly
the source of many of the yo-yo-ing cigarettes and other flaws.  And again,
the editor is going to be doing her job based on very different criteria
than the motion of knickknacks.

These minor continuity errors are a result of the process of filmmaking,
and I don't think it is realistic to judge a movie's quality based on
these difficulties which are inherent to the medium.

All that said, I still don't understand how Winona Ryder's corpse-flinch
got missed in DRACULA.  I half expected to hear Francis shout "CUT!!!"
and restart the scene.  (Heck, I almost shouted "CUT!" myself, being a
MiSTie, but I was in a crowded theatre, so I refrained.  Next time, though
. . .)  The only explanation I can think of is that they did sixty or more
takes, and that Winona was so twitchy (or other things were off) that this
was the best of the lot.


    "George Phblat's new film, 'Benji Saves the Universe,' has brought
    the word 'BAD' to new levels of badness.  Bad acting.  Bad effects.
    Bad everything.  This film just oozed rottenness from every bad
    scene...Simply bad beyond all infinite dimensions of possible
    badness.  Well maybe not that bad, but Lord, it wasn't good."
-- 
=Malcolm Austin==w:(212)703-6134==h:(914)633-3966==maus@fid.morgan.com=====
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies