Saw Beasts of the Southern Wild twice-back to back-yesterday.
It is a film I was reluctant to watch. I am not sure why... but shaky camera work had something to do with it. If you watch closely, the close shots are shot with a telephoto lens from far rather than a wide or normal lens from close. That's what makes close shots shaky. I wonder why they decided to shoot like that. Perhaps with telephoto lenses you can create better separation of the subject from the background. You can shoot better with a Steadicam but then you need the budget for it.
I loved the film. The story is about a tug of values surrounding need, materialism and survival, quite relevant in today's times. I loved the performances, direction, art direction and make up, which is fairly obvious. But the superb casting, editing and sound design is not so obvious. I was very happy with the sound design and music. It's quite a relief compared to Hans Zimmer's scores. I changed my opinion about the camera work as well. Not that I understood the nuance of using telephoto lenses but the film is beautifully shot. Every frame is brave and beautiful.
The only 'researched' information, I'll share with you is that the budget of the film was 1.8 million dollar. Something like a 40 lakhs budget film in India. That explains the ruling out of a Steadicam. But I still can't see how they could've made it. Were Indians or Chinese involved in the making? The production values easily rivaled that of a Coen bros film production. Plus it is based on a book, whom they must have paid for the rights.
There's a lot more about the film to talk about but it's better if people have seen the film.
A note of caution: Don't see it when your mind is burdened with a hundred things. You can't set your expectations about pace. It's a film, whose pace you have to ride with to enjoy the experience.
It is a film I was reluctant to watch. I am not sure why... but shaky camera work had something to do with it. If you watch closely, the close shots are shot with a telephoto lens from far rather than a wide or normal lens from close. That's what makes close shots shaky. I wonder why they decided to shoot like that. Perhaps with telephoto lenses you can create better separation of the subject from the background. You can shoot better with a Steadicam but then you need the budget for it.
I loved the film. The story is about a tug of values surrounding need, materialism and survival, quite relevant in today's times. I loved the performances, direction, art direction and make up, which is fairly obvious. But the superb casting, editing and sound design is not so obvious. I was very happy with the sound design and music. It's quite a relief compared to Hans Zimmer's scores. I changed my opinion about the camera work as well. Not that I understood the nuance of using telephoto lenses but the film is beautifully shot. Every frame is brave and beautiful.
The only 'researched' information, I'll share with you is that the budget of the film was 1.8 million dollar. Something like a 40 lakhs budget film in India. That explains the ruling out of a Steadicam. But I still can't see how they could've made it. Were Indians or Chinese involved in the making? The production values easily rivaled that of a Coen bros film production. Plus it is based on a book, whom they must have paid for the rights.
There's a lot more about the film to talk about but it's better if people have seen the film.
A note of caution: Don't see it when your mind is burdened with a hundred things. You can't set your expectations about pace. It's a film, whose pace you have to ride with to enjoy the experience.
Comments
Post a Comment