SCREEN-L Archives

May 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Marc Pitre <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 17 May 1994 17:43:54 -0700
text/plain (34 lines)
On Mon, 16 May 1994, Patrick B Bjork wrote:
> However, what is perhaps most striking about _Crooklyn_ is not the
> dissolution theme but the dissolution of its production. It is, to put it
> mildly, slightly flawed,  so much so that if _Crooklyn_ were a student film,
> it would probably receive a failing grade.
> So all you tech experts out there tell me: What the hell happened? Was
> Lee so cash-poor that he couldn't reshoot or does he think boom stands
> and mikes play  intregal roles in the overall production? One other
> thing: somebody please explain to me the significance of Lee's continued
> use of dolly shots--you know, where the character, instead of walking down
> the street, rolls down the street?
I saw _Crooklyn_ over the weekend, too, and enjoyed it.  Somewhat ironically,
I thought it was a more mature story than _The Inkwell_, even though the
central character in _Crooklyn_ was much younger than the one in _Inkwell_.
I recognize that _Crooklyn_ had its flaws, but I didn't notice any of the
boom stands and mikes that you mentioned.  They may very well have been
there, but maybe they weren't as obvious as you thought.
Also, regarding the dolly shot.  I think he simply likes the enhanced visual
effect of having a character on a dolly or crane.  For example, the dream
Troy has with the glue sniffers is intensified by her "floating" away on a
crane (I think.  Not noticing the mikes obviously shows my lack of knowledge
on "tech" stuff.)  Of course, his use of these effects may now border on
Just my three cents,
Marc            [log in to unmask]
Seattle, WA