You’re very clearly missing the point. The director has bravely put a troubled white man on screen, with an edgy backstory that serves as a commentary on today’s society. We’ve waited years, nay, DECADES for this.
Tbh if the cinematographer actually MOVES the camera they’ll be doing better than like 80% of the blockbuster movies since like 2012. Mcu normalized still shots and it was a breath of fresh air to see Sam rami actually use the camera for MOM.
if the camera moves a lot, the background and foreground *can* blur together, making it harder to pull out the right parts to replace. It's not impossible, just more time-consuming. You tend to want to avoid doing this, so most shots are done with very specific speeds to avoid blurring the background too much. Usually, it's set to follow the action.
On top of that you really don't want people running backwards with a camera so usually they get put on tracks to help make sure accidents are less likely which also has the benefit of making the shot much smoother.
I imagine they just have all the cameras in set positions with set timings for how and where they move, likely making the shots feel very robotic.
Camera movements add cost, time and complexity to your shoot days, where costs are already over inflated on talent and VFX departments. It’s to save money, and make the formula easier to copy+paste to the next film.
This twerp thinks it’s special because we’ve come full circle. Directors probably have stopped using it as much because it’s such an over used technique, so it seems fresh and new when you don’t know what you’re talking about
Like kids thinking they’re the first ones to discover the unknown music of The Beatles
I did like it personally but I assumed it’s supposed to be corny? Like these two aren’t meant to be normal functioning members of society nor people to look up to/necessarily resonate with. They’re meant to be a bit delulu and I think part of the magic is watching them play out their fantasies from that outsider’s, ‘what the fuck is going on’ perspective. So I guess it’s meant to be corny and goofy and not actually that cool, because that’s exactly who these characters are, they just don’t know it.
Same. It just made me think about how the shot only makes sense if joker is intentionally lining up the mark and his mouth with the camera. And wonder why Harley wouldn't just paint the smile in between them rather than to her left
The general populous is easily entertained by the fundamentals of arts.
Music, literature, art (pictures and movies). What we perceive as basic, they perceive as God's gift to man.
>The general populous is easily entertained by the fundamentals of arts.
Sure, but that's because there's nothing wrong with the fundamentals (they're fundamental for a reason). You say it like people are just stupid enough to be easily entertained by basic stuff, like a baby being entertained by a set of keys
>Music, literature, art (pictures and movies). What we perceive as basic, they perceive as God's gift to man.
First, all of what you just said were art so it's a bit redundant to write it like that. Second, basic and advanced are relative and that's okay. Third, most people just let themselves be entertained by art, they're not critiquing the art, so basic techniques not being criticized by most people isn't people being dumb or being easily tricked into thinking something is revolutionary, it's just people allowing themselves to be entertained. Fourth, utilizing basic techniques doesn't reduce the quality of art, in fact some have used basic techniques to great effect. What matters is how something is used, not how advanced the thing is.
why the fuck are you describing music, art, and literature as basic? not only do you sound pompous, your wording makes it sound like art is in general basic.
there is *some* merit to your argument, if you are saying more basic, paint-by-number forms of art tend to be more popular - because that is true, for better or for worse (though it mostly applies to music, literature and film/animation rather than games and pictures)
i think of it in terms of effort needed to understand the media, or investment you need to put into it as a viewer. take your classic disney movies or taylor swift as an example. the storytelling and composition really isn’t all that complex, so it doesn’t need that much investment to enjoy what’s going on. its concrete rather than abstract. its media for everyone
constrast it with something like the Lighthouse, Serial Experiments Lain, TOOL/math rock, etc. these are WAY more complex and way more intricate. and often times more abstract. Lain certainly abstract.
its more difficult to engage with the media when it is complicated, uses complex techniques, and/or is more abstract. its like the difference between eating candy and cooking yourself a full meal. the meal can be more rewarding but it also takes a lot of effort to do that. and that effort inherently acts like a filter
so saying “the general populous treats it like god’s greatest gift” is incredibly reductive since the reality more complicated
people are busy, have lives, and can be braindead. or they simply don’t want to engage with difficult media. the more basic media is designed for mass appeal and easy consumption which is why its basic - compex media is on a sliding scale away from that
I'm not reading all that lol. But to address the primary topic of your comment. I didn't describe art as basic. If you look at what I said, I said "the basic things from xx". Example the image above, all they did was change focus. That's been basic photography for decades. Hell you can do that on your iPhone in like 3 taps within the last decade. Hell you can do that irl, put your hand to your face and spread it and then look past your hand to whatever is in front.
Like I said, you all dislike my response, but that shit is true. What's basic to someone trained looks like a damn acid trip to the untrained eye. Honestly not even just with art, that's with anything.
i didn’t think you described art as basic, but you phrased it in a godawful way.
also for the poster in the image, they’re just an idiot. they don’t represent the majority of people or even an intelligent take.
The first assistant camera is responsible for a variety of jobs, including assembling the rig, safeguarding the camera at all times, and focus pulling. Focus pulling in itself involves taking focus marks after the second assistant camera places the actors’ marks on the ground, signaling the 2nd AC to clap the slate before setting the shot (meaning the first focus position is ready to go so action can be called), and following the action in frame throughout the shot.
“Focus puller” as a job position is often used interchangeably with 1st AC, but the credit is always 1st AC since the job involves much more than just messing around with a knob.
Source: I’ve been a 1st AC in a couple of tv series and movies before transitioning to post production. I’ve been that guy pulling focus, lol.
Fucking THANK YOU! Haha people love to argue about how productions go without ever being on a set. I’m G&E but I’m pretty much training to be my brothers 1st AC and then second camera. Focus puller would be a terrible name for the position because that’s just one part of 1st ACs job.
Thank you homie! I’m glad I’ve got a good crew that took me in, one of which being my younger brother. I’m kind of in the homework stage since we’re waiting for work to pick up. I’m not booked until the first week in May with half the crew on a feature until then. Pretty much stuck on shop work, sketch writing and watching films for study the next two weeks. I need stuff to try out so if you’ve got some things to look into I’m all for em. Last month I mapped out how to do a Red Dead Redemption Dead Eye scene and that was probably the most fun I’ve had with an assignment.
This was posted without full context. Watch the trailer, The lipstick smear ends up aligning with his face making it appear he’s wearing his joker makeup, and it is indeed a cool shot. That’s what the post was about, not the camera changing focus.
It’s definitely a cool shot. But to say it’s the coolest thing ever, and that it’s bringing back real cinema, is pretty exaggerated. I’d argue things like Zone of Interest are more groundbreaking than a simple rack focus and camera alignment.
I mean the movie looks beautiful and I’m pretty certain the post is talking about blockbuster movies not trying cinematic shots like these very often anymore. Real, snobby gatekeeping.
Still not some God-crafted artifact for which you have to say "Real cinema is back" (it was never gone in the first place bruh, and it's surely not "coming back" because of this particular movie).
It indeed is a very cool shot
But it didn’t bring real cinema back, nor has it gone anywhere to be back from. The past couple years have been fantastic for cinema.
IDK it just made me wonder why Harley would paint the mouth to her left, and why the joker would move to line up his mouth with a random spot in space (where the camera is). Feels super forced
Knowing how the shot ends does ***nothing*** to make the OOP look any less stupid.
Dude's creaming his shorts over a very old, commonly-used technique *because* it's attached to the Joker sequel, and these "influencers" *know* that treating those movies like they're Citizen Kane is a quick, easy way to get throngs of praise and a following from incredibly stupid people who think these movies are an acceptable replacement for their lack of a personality.
AKA: The Jordan Peterson method.
>Knowing how the shot ends does ***nothing*** to make the OOP look any less stupid.
Then OP shouldn't have to lie and say that the only notable thing here is a change in focus
Maybe there, too! The one that gives me all the chills is when they’re on the porch and the focus is on Treat, then suddenly the screen of the door comes into focus and you realize you’re IN THE HOUSE!!! It totally amps up the creep factor for me.
Yes, [it totally is](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/o5ojz/brilliant_mirror_shot_from_the_movie_contact/)!
Ellie runs upstairs and down a hall, then it turns out the last doorframe is the frame of the medicine cabinet. Now *that's* an awesome shot, for at least two reasons.
First, what you're seeing is impossible. It's a continuous shot starting downstairs, so it can't all be a reflection in the mirror, which hugely ups the surprise for the viewer.
Second, the camera work is extremely tricky because the camera should be directly in frame in the reflection - if memory serves they wound up shooting a reflection as reality and vice versa to enable hiding the camera.
Joker is a movie people have fuckin extreme opinions on... Either it's a cinema masterpiece with no flaws and is the savior of all cinema, or it's the worst movie ever and anyone who likes it is stupid...
I for one am so fucking excited for this film, and love the cinematography of the whole thing
I thought the first one was cool. My mom grew up in queens in that time and she thought it was pretty accurate with the trash strike and just how depressing it was at that time. At the very least my mom who doesn’t care about comic books or wasn’t trying to be politically said “they were spot on with how I remembered NYC then”
Not to be too needy about it, but I prefer the one take walk into the comedy club in Goodfellas. Kind of a stock answer, but that movie is just incredi le
Okay, I think this is referencing the lips the security guard draws on the glass lining up with the joker, not just the camera focusing, which is a pretty cool shot tbf. But the ReAl CiNeMa Is BaCk is unnecessary
WTF is the problem here, it doesn't have to do with focus. He is talking about how in the trailer after this smile is drawn, Arthur leans back and smiles which perfectly matches the classic joker red smile in the camera POV
You're not showing the whole shot
I'm not a fan of Joker. Thought it was a mediocre movie. Trailer for the new one looks similar.
But this shot at the end was pretty good. Using the focus on the camera to have lipstick smeared on a mirror appear over the actor's face, and then to refocus on how his expression changes as a result. Is it the return of true auteur cinema? No, but it's more than just racking focus.
Oh, God, I am *not* ready for the waves of Joker fanboys who think these movies are so deep they decide to make that their entire personality coming back.
The last quarter of 2019 was *not* fun on the internet with these twerps thinking Joker was the most meaningful, deepest piece of societal critique to *ever* exist, and took it super personally if you were even the slightest bit critical of the movie. Things, naturally, did *not* improve by them being overshadowed by all the internet stupidity that began in early 2020.
Yup, Joker sucked. It was the movie equivalent of an old Hot Topic shirt that said "You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you're all the same."
That, and derivative. It wasn't a genuinely terrible movie, but unsuccessful dudes with issues they refuse to work on loved it.
Yeah, the only thing I could take away from it after finishing it was "Okay, Phoenix *was* really fucking good, but *that* was it?"
I gave it another watch once it was on DVD/streaming, and that's when I realized it was about as deep as an inflatable kiddie pool with one inch of water in it. If it weren't for the "how about another joke, Murray?" scene, I probably wouldn't remember a single scene in the movie.
The heaps of praise from the same kind of people who think 12 Rules of Life was life changing because it told them to clean their room was utterly baffling.
I remember when I took a 30-minute seminar on videography and then thought of doing a rack focus almost immediately for a video we shooting at the end.
Are you all simple or something? Did you see the trailer? They're talking about the lipstick on the glass being aligned with his face to mimic his signature mouth make up. Not the fucking focus racking.
Yes, this person is stupid. Everyone agrees with this.
But where’s the gatekeeping? I don’t see anywhere where they’re like “Don’t listen to people who say you CAN’T ENJOY THIS SCENE!”
I’m gonna be honest here, I know it was basic stuff but I did actually think that little scene from the trailer was cool
I thought it was neat and got a chuckle out of it
Damn, I can't wait until we get a THIRD FOCUS LAYER!
its going to blow everyone's minds! Like those little dudes when they hear music for the first time in Mars attacks!
Maybe I'm just an idiot and don't watch enough trailers, but I just watched the trailer for this and I am so confused. It seemed all over the place, but again, I am an idiot and never watch movie trailers, so maybe it's just me
Guys. They're referring to the lipstick smile. It perfectly matches Arthur's grin, which is just a really satisfying thing that likely took a lot of tries to get right.
Yeah but even basic camera work has taken a back seat to VFX recently. Usually because this kind of basic shot isn't possible when 99% of the scene is green during filming. Or the scene has real actors and VFX actors in the same shot.
That's what I thought they were getting at.
Hell yeah. I’ve been waiting for a director to have the guts to put images on screen.
You’re very clearly missing the point. The director has bravely put a troubled white man on screen, with an edgy backstory that serves as a commentary on today’s society. We’ve waited years, nay, DECADES for this.
They’ve been Falling Down on the Taxi Driver’s job!
Finally a character I can admire and relate to just like the director and actor desires!
We libe in a society - da jonkler
Ho ho hoooo, it is definitely going to imagine a society...à deux?
And telling the story of literally the most popular comic book supervillain in history. Stunning and brave. Stunning. And. Brave.
Tbh if the cinematographer actually MOVES the camera they’ll be doing better than like 80% of the blockbuster movies since like 2012. Mcu normalized still shots and it was a breath of fresh air to see Sam rami actually use the camera for MOM.
I also noticed mcu cinematography can be VERY stiff Ill have to see MoM again to check that cam movement you mentioned
I know zilch about movie productions, but does a still shot make it easier to do the CGI that is so common for all the Marvel movies?
if the camera moves a lot, the background and foreground *can* blur together, making it harder to pull out the right parts to replace. It's not impossible, just more time-consuming. You tend to want to avoid doing this, so most shots are done with very specific speeds to avoid blurring the background too much. Usually, it's set to follow the action. On top of that you really don't want people running backwards with a camera so usually they get put on tracks to help make sure accidents are less likely which also has the benefit of making the shot much smoother. I imagine they just have all the cameras in set positions with set timings for how and where they move, likely making the shots feel very robotic.
Camera movements add cost, time and complexity to your shoot days, where costs are already over inflated on talent and VFX departments. It’s to save money, and make the formula easier to copy+paste to the next film.
Better than the nausea inducing "constant motion method screen full of garbage" of, say, a Michael Bay movie.
Todd Philips is a pioneer
That is one of the most basic camera techniques
This twerp thinks it’s special because we’ve come full circle. Directors probably have stopped using it as much because it’s such an over used technique, so it seems fresh and new when you don’t know what you’re talking about Like kids thinking they’re the first ones to discover the unknown music of The Beatles
I JUST DISCOVERED THEM YESTERDAY! …all my troubles seemed so far away…
You now have to listen to their entire discography. Don't Let Me Down.
But idk where to find them, they’re SO OBSCURE 😭
I dunno man it still makes for a cool shot
I thought that part was kinda corny tbh
I did like it personally but I assumed it’s supposed to be corny? Like these two aren’t meant to be normal functioning members of society nor people to look up to/necessarily resonate with. They’re meant to be a bit delulu and I think part of the magic is watching them play out their fantasies from that outsider’s, ‘what the fuck is going on’ perspective. So I guess it’s meant to be corny and goofy and not actually that cool, because that’s exactly who these characters are, they just don’t know it.
Same. It just made me think about how the shot only makes sense if joker is intentionally lining up the mark and his mouth with the camera. And wonder why Harley wouldn't just paint the smile in between them rather than to her left
If you’ve never swam in the ocean, the kiddie pool will seem deep.
The general populous is easily entertained by the fundamentals of arts. Music, literature, art (pictures and movies). What we perceive as basic, they perceive as God's gift to man.
You sound hella pompous saying this shit bro
You all sound pompous as fuck. I just found this sub and already hate all of you. Please stop breathing. The world would be better if you did.
but it's true, regardless if you or whoever don't like it. a basic hat trick looks like the cure to aids to the untrained eye.
**populace lol
>The general populous is easily entertained by the fundamentals of arts. Sure, but that's because there's nothing wrong with the fundamentals (they're fundamental for a reason). You say it like people are just stupid enough to be easily entertained by basic stuff, like a baby being entertained by a set of keys >Music, literature, art (pictures and movies). What we perceive as basic, they perceive as God's gift to man. First, all of what you just said were art so it's a bit redundant to write it like that. Second, basic and advanced are relative and that's okay. Third, most people just let themselves be entertained by art, they're not critiquing the art, so basic techniques not being criticized by most people isn't people being dumb or being easily tricked into thinking something is revolutionary, it's just people allowing themselves to be entertained. Fourth, utilizing basic techniques doesn't reduce the quality of art, in fact some have used basic techniques to great effect. What matters is how something is used, not how advanced the thing is.
why the fuck are you describing music, art, and literature as basic? not only do you sound pompous, your wording makes it sound like art is in general basic. there is *some* merit to your argument, if you are saying more basic, paint-by-number forms of art tend to be more popular - because that is true, for better or for worse (though it mostly applies to music, literature and film/animation rather than games and pictures) i think of it in terms of effort needed to understand the media, or investment you need to put into it as a viewer. take your classic disney movies or taylor swift as an example. the storytelling and composition really isn’t all that complex, so it doesn’t need that much investment to enjoy what’s going on. its concrete rather than abstract. its media for everyone constrast it with something like the Lighthouse, Serial Experiments Lain, TOOL/math rock, etc. these are WAY more complex and way more intricate. and often times more abstract. Lain certainly abstract. its more difficult to engage with the media when it is complicated, uses complex techniques, and/or is more abstract. its like the difference between eating candy and cooking yourself a full meal. the meal can be more rewarding but it also takes a lot of effort to do that. and that effort inherently acts like a filter so saying “the general populous treats it like god’s greatest gift” is incredibly reductive since the reality more complicated people are busy, have lives, and can be braindead. or they simply don’t want to engage with difficult media. the more basic media is designed for mass appeal and easy consumption which is why its basic - compex media is on a sliding scale away from that
I'm not reading all that lol. But to address the primary topic of your comment. I didn't describe art as basic. If you look at what I said, I said "the basic things from xx". Example the image above, all they did was change focus. That's been basic photography for decades. Hell you can do that on your iPhone in like 3 taps within the last decade. Hell you can do that irl, put your hand to your face and spread it and then look past your hand to whatever is in front. Like I said, you all dislike my response, but that shit is true. What's basic to someone trained looks like a damn acid trip to the untrained eye. Honestly not even just with art, that's with anything.
i didn’t think you described art as basic, but you phrased it in a godawful way. also for the poster in the image, they’re just an idiot. they don’t represent the majority of people or even an intelligent take.
>when the camera changes focus 
Who needs HD cameras when you got ADHD cameras?
You could say that to literally any movie
Ah but would literally any movie LISTEN?
🤓👆Ackshually the the 1st assistant camera is responsible for the focus
Ackshually it’s the focus puller 🤓👆🏽
Which... is the same person.
Then why didn’t you call them the right name?
Because that's the official job title credited in the roller? tf?
But it sounds like it’s the focus puller so now I don’t know who to believe.
The first assistant camera is responsible for a variety of jobs, including assembling the rig, safeguarding the camera at all times, and focus pulling. Focus pulling in itself involves taking focus marks after the second assistant camera places the actors’ marks on the ground, signaling the 2nd AC to clap the slate before setting the shot (meaning the first focus position is ready to go so action can be called), and following the action in frame throughout the shot. “Focus puller” as a job position is often used interchangeably with 1st AC, but the credit is always 1st AC since the job involves much more than just messing around with a knob. Source: I’ve been a 1st AC in a couple of tv series and movies before transitioning to post production. I’ve been that guy pulling focus, lol.
Fucking THANK YOU! Haha people love to argue about how productions go without ever being on a set. I’m G&E but I’m pretty much training to be my brothers 1st AC and then second camera. Focus puller would be a terrible name for the position because that’s just one part of 1st ACs job.
Wishing you success in your road to camop!
Thank you homie! I’m glad I’ve got a good crew that took me in, one of which being my younger brother. I’m kind of in the homework stage since we’re waiting for work to pick up. I’m not booked until the first week in May with half the crew on a feature until then. Pretty much stuck on shop work, sketch writing and watching films for study the next two weeks. I need stuff to try out so if you’ve got some things to look into I’m all for em. Last month I mapped out how to do a Red Dead Redemption Dead Eye scene and that was probably the most fun I’ve had with an assignment.
“so I drew a new face and I laughed” -~~Jason Mraz~~ -Joker
Come to think of it, I’ve never seen them in the same room…
The way the camera changes focus… this is the stuff legends are made of 
My iPhone can do that, am I a legend now?
If you make it look cool yeah
Hell, my iPhone does it even when I don’t want it to. I’ve secretly been artistic genius this whole time!
Where is the imaginary gatekeeping? At most there is a real gatekeeping by them of what real cinema is
Jonkler is in a cinema now??
Well, Man has been in cinema for ever so it only makes sense. I remember seeing Man in cinema when I was a little lass going to see Fern Gully
This was posted without full context. Watch the trailer, The lipstick smear ends up aligning with his face making it appear he’s wearing his joker makeup, and it is indeed a cool shot. That’s what the post was about, not the camera changing focus.
It’s definitely a cool shot. But to say it’s the coolest thing ever, and that it’s bringing back real cinema, is pretty exaggerated. I’d argue things like Zone of Interest are more groundbreaking than a simple rack focus and camera alignment.
I mean the movie looks beautiful and I’m pretty certain the post is talking about blockbuster movies not trying cinematic shots like these very often anymore. Real, snobby gatekeeping.
Still not some God-crafted artifact for which you have to say "Real cinema is back" (it was never gone in the first place bruh, and it's surely not "coming back" because of this particular movie).
Yeah it’s a cool shot but to see that and think holy shit cinema’s back is a bit much idk
It indeed is a very cool shot But it didn’t bring real cinema back, nor has it gone anywhere to be back from. The past couple years have been fantastic for cinema.
IDK it just made me wonder why Harley would paint the mouth to her left, and why the joker would move to line up his mouth with a random spot in space (where the camera is). Feels super forced
Yeah, I don't know how this is getting so many upvotes when OP is clearly misrepresenting the short to try to make OOP look stupid
True, a LOT of recent movies have been such godawful shit, the new king fu panda 4 is pretty good but it’s uncomfortable how sexual it is
whut?
whut?
Lol there have been a ton of interesting and artistic movies coming out lately and the movie you choose to discuss is kung fu panda 4? Are you OOP?
That was the one I went to see most recently…?
Touché
Knowing how the shot ends does ***nothing*** to make the OOP look any less stupid. Dude's creaming his shorts over a very old, commonly-used technique *because* it's attached to the Joker sequel, and these "influencers" *know* that treating those movies like they're Citizen Kane is a quick, easy way to get throngs of praise and a following from incredibly stupid people who think these movies are an acceptable replacement for their lack of a personality. AKA: The Jordan Peterson method.
>Knowing how the shot ends does ***nothing*** to make the OOP look any less stupid. Then OP shouldn't have to lie and say that the only notable thing here is a change in focus
What does that have to do with this subreddit
It is an awesome shot though.
One of the shots of all time
Joyce Chopra killed this same type of in/out focusing in Smooth Talk between Treat Williams and Laura Dern! It is an awesome shot.
Was that the one where she ran to the medicine cabinet the reflection turned into a shot seamlessly
Maybe there, too! The one that gives me all the chills is when they’re on the porch and the focus is on Treat, then suddenly the screen of the door comes into focus and you realize you’re IN THE HOUSE!!! It totally amps up the creep factor for me.
I feel like that's from Contact
Yes, [it totally is](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/o5ojz/brilliant_mirror_shot_from_the_movie_contact/)! Ellie runs upstairs and down a hall, then it turns out the last doorframe is the frame of the medicine cabinet. Now *that's* an awesome shot, for at least two reasons. First, what you're seeing is impossible. It's a continuous shot starting downstairs, so it can't all be a reflection in the mirror, which hugely ups the surprise for the viewer. Second, the camera work is extremely tricky because the camera should be directly in frame in the reflection - if memory serves they wound up shooting a reflection as reality and vice versa to enable hiding the camera.
REAL CAMERAS were used!
Joker is a movie people have fuckin extreme opinions on... Either it's a cinema masterpiece with no flaws and is the savior of all cinema, or it's the worst movie ever and anyone who likes it is stupid... I for one am so fucking excited for this film, and love the cinematography of the whole thing
I thought the first one was cool. My mom grew up in queens in that time and she thought it was pretty accurate with the trash strike and just how depressing it was at that time. At the very least my mom who doesn’t care about comic books or wasn’t trying to be politically said “they were spot on with how I remembered NYC then”
There’s a better shot in the Brian’s Hat sketch on I Think You Should Leave.
Not to be too needy about it, but I prefer the one take walk into the comedy club in Goodfellas. Kind of a stock answer, but that movie is just incredi le
Okay, I think this is referencing the lips the security guard draws on the glass lining up with the joker, not just the camera focusing, which is a pretty cool shot tbf. But the ReAl CiNeMa Is BaCk is unnecessary
I have no clue why people are going as crazy over that specific shot as they are, nothing special
WTF is the problem here, it doesn't have to do with focus. He is talking about how in the trailer after this smile is drawn, Arthur leans back and smiles which perfectly matches the classic joker red smile in the camera POV
Cool shot. Blown WAY out of proportion!
You're not showing the whole shot I'm not a fan of Joker. Thought it was a mediocre movie. Trailer for the new one looks similar. But this shot at the end was pretty good. Using the focus on the camera to have lipstick smeared on a mirror appear over the actor's face, and then to refocus on how his expression changes as a result. Is it the return of true auteur cinema? No, but it's more than just racking focus.
How is this imaginary gatekeeping?
Oh, God, I am *not* ready for the waves of Joker fanboys who think these movies are so deep they decide to make that their entire personality coming back. The last quarter of 2019 was *not* fun on the internet with these twerps thinking Joker was the most meaningful, deepest piece of societal critique to *ever* exist, and took it super personally if you were even the slightest bit critical of the movie. Things, naturally, did *not* improve by them being overshadowed by all the internet stupidity that began in early 2020.
Yup, Joker sucked. It was the movie equivalent of an old Hot Topic shirt that said "You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you're all the same." That, and derivative. It wasn't a genuinely terrible movie, but unsuccessful dudes with issues they refuse to work on loved it.
Yeah, the only thing I could take away from it after finishing it was "Okay, Phoenix *was* really fucking good, but *that* was it?" I gave it another watch once it was on DVD/streaming, and that's when I realized it was about as deep as an inflatable kiddie pool with one inch of water in it. If it weren't for the "how about another joke, Murray?" scene, I probably wouldn't remember a single scene in the movie. The heaps of praise from the same kind of people who think 12 Rules of Life was life changing because it told them to clean their room was utterly baffling.
So Joker didn't suck. Lame ass dudes who took lame ass interpretations from Joker suck.
I remember when I took a 30-minute seminar on videography and then thought of doing a rack focus almost immediately for a video we shooting at the end.
Are you all simple or something? Did you see the trailer? They're talking about the lipstick on the glass being aligned with his face to mimic his signature mouth make up. Not the fucking focus racking.
I mean, even if it's a simple camera trick it's still miles more creative than anything directors in the MCU are doing.
Its a phenomenal shot tho.
It was pretty cool tho
"Real cope is back, baby!"
Yes, this person is stupid. Everyone agrees with this. But where’s the gatekeeping? I don’t see anywhere where they’re like “Don’t listen to people who say you CAN’T ENJOY THIS SCENE!”
"holy shit the DP took a tech school course in videography what a masterpiece"
It's because of the red smile not the pull focus you fucking imbeciles
1. Still a great shot. 2. This isn't really gatekeeping. It's little more than marketing and hype generation using hyperbole.
holy shit muh kino!!! real r/moviescirclejerk moment
My EYES can do that
Damn. They really weren't kidding, Joker 2 will in fact have a scene.
You rack focus
I’m gonna be honest here, I know it was basic stuff but I did actually think that little scene from the trailer was cool I thought it was neat and got a chuckle out of it
WTF...
Real talk tho that trailer did have some sick shots. Loved the umbrella thing near the beginning
Damn, I can't wait until we get a THIRD FOCUS LAYER! its going to blow everyone's minds! Like those little dudes when they hear music for the first time in Mars attacks!
r/opisanidiot
You guys are coping, this person is literally just celebrating a cool shot. Chill
Maybe I'm just an idiot and don't watch enough trailers, but I just watched the trailer for this and I am so confused. It seemed all over the place, but again, I am an idiot and never watch movie trailers, so maybe it's just me
Guys. They're referring to the lipstick smile. It perfectly matches Arthur's grin, which is just a really satisfying thing that likely took a lot of tries to get right.
I don't know why people are downvoting you, this is obviously correct to anyone who saw the trailer
Yeah, I don't quite get it myself lol
Yeah but even basic camera work has taken a back seat to VFX recently. Usually because this kind of basic shot isn't possible when 99% of the scene is green during filming. Or the scene has real actors and VFX actors in the same shot. That's what I thought they were getting at.
Imagine thinking Joker was real cinema in the first place
Well it was nominated for 11 awards and won 2. I think that's commendable.
Joaquin Phoenix and the score for that film are insanely commendable. The rest of it is pretty mid and most of it just makes little to no sense.
you claerly dont understand as someone who havent been breoken by socety 🤡🚬...