In a recent discussion the virtues of economical filmmaking came to the forefront. What a good idea it is to reduce scene locations and actors and the like. I completely understand. Last night I signed up for Netflix for the first time (thought I would check it out as I usually stick to the classics and pray to God, the Criterion Channel will come to Australia in my lifetime.)
I decided to watch the latest blockbuster release and action movie with two A-listers, and it was clear to me from the onset that the film had been whittled down to its bare bones using an economical model. The majority of the action scenes we squeezed into one location, and they felt as if I was watching a play instead of a film. The lighting in one scene from natural sources in the scene was so overwhelming that it was hard to define the main characters in the scene. The major action scenes were fantastic but outweighed the economically shot minor scenes making the whole tone of the film inconsistent. The spicy dialogue was evident in the first three scenes then lost in the rest of the film. The acting was great, but the actors were not shot to the best advantage probably due to the limited economical staging.
I did not hang around to the end of the film and I doubt I will stay on Netflix.
I liken the success of the industry in Hollywood to a healthy river's ecosystem. The stream must be willing to feed and nurture all elements of the ecosystem to remain healthy and in balance. The same must be applied to filmmaking and the treatment of filmmakers. This in turn nurtures and sustains a healthy society and thriving world.
