Tumgik
#i watched...three movies starring john cho in one sitting
katierosefun · 3 years
Text
have you ever watched 3 movies starring the same actor for literally 10 hours straight because 
14 notes · View notes
astarkey · 3 years
Note
IN DEPTH FANDOM QUESTIONS: Charmed and FDTD! 💖💖💖
It’s kinda long, so I’m gonna have it under the cut lol.
Charmed
Top 5 favorite characters: Piper Halliwell, Prue Halliwell, Phoebe Halliwell, Paige Matthews, Andy Trudeau Other characters you like: Darryl Morris, Leo Wyatt, Cole Turner, Barbas Least favorite characters: Billie Jenkins, (Adult) Chris Halliwell Otps: Prue/Andy, Piper/Leo, Phoebe/Cole, Prue/Bane Notps: Prue/Jack, Phoebe/Coop Favorite friendships: The Halliwells and Darryl Favorite family: The Halliwell sisters (Paige included) Favorite episodes: “Murphy’s Luck,” “Ex Libris,” “A Witch’s Tail,” “The Day the Magic Died,” and “Oh My Goddess.” Favorite season/book/movie: Season 2 Favorite quotes: “I know it’s not very P.C. but I want romance. Long, slow kisses, late night talks, candlelight. I love love.,” “It’s the 21st century. It’s the woman’s job to save the day.,” “I don’t obsess. I think, intensely.,” “I think from now on I’m gonna stop trying to control every little moment. The best ones kinda sneak up on you, anyway.” Best musical moment: All the musical guest at the club, P3. Moment that made you fangirl/boy the hardest: I think when I saw Bane make a re-appearence when he kidnapped Prue 😂 I don’t think I fangirl'd too hard, I was calm and surprised about it haha. When it really disappointed you: When they added Billie. I don’t know, I didn’t really like much of season 8 ‘cause I felt like they were making the focus on her and didn’t know what to do with the rest of the main characters. I hardly watched that season anyway, it just felt dragged out and confusing. Saddest moment: When Phoebe vanquished Cole Most well done character death: I don’t know, I guess Andy’s. Favorite guest star: John Cho Favorite cast member: Holly Marie Combs Character you wish was still alive: Prue Halliwell AND Andy Trudeau. One thing you hope really happens: I don’t know. It would’ve been nice to see the next generation of Halliwells kicking demon ass lol. Most shocking twist: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ When did you start watching/reading?: Probably around the time that s4 aired. I always saw glimpses of episodes on TNT when my mom used to do my hair before taking me to school, and I just decided to sit and watch it with her when they were showing new episodes on WB (CW). Best animal/creature: I think the Grimlocks. They kinda scared me when I was a kid lol. Favorite location: The Halliwell house Trope you wish they would stop using: I don’t know... I don’t know if it’s necessarily a trope, but I kinda noticed how they would make the big sisters seem a little bossy. Like Prue was the big sister and she was bossy, and then when she died and Piper ended up being the big sister, she became bossy later on, too. It’s like they have to have one of the sisters being the boss in the trio and it’s like why??? lol.  One thing this show/book/film does better than others: It’s three sisters that are witches and kicking demon ass. How cool is that lol  Funniest moments: Piper on the ground kicking and screaming in that episode “Is There a Woogy in the House,” and Piper calling some dude skid mark lol. Couple you would like to see: I don’t know. Actor/Actress you want to join the cast: I’m not sure. Favorite outfit: Phoebe’s outfit here [Link] It’s always been my favorite. Favorite item: The Book of Shadows Do you own anything related to this show/book/film?: No What house/team/group/friendship group/family/race etc would you be in?: I don’t know. Most boring plotline: I don’t know, I kinda stopped investing in the show when they did the whole Wyatt going to magic school like going to Hogwarts, and the warlock running the school wanted to steal Wyatt and make him evil so he could be evil!Wyatt in the future. It was like around that season and when Oded Fehr played that demon (I forgot his name, but I know it starts with a “Z”) and when Billie showed up, it just got boring later on. Most laughably bad moment: Piper’s Halloween costume as Gilda the witch from The Wizard of Oz. Best flashback/flashfoward if any: Idk, I can’t remember. There were so many 😂 Most layered character: Piper Halliwell Most one dimensional character: Uh... I don’t know. I wanna say (Adult) Chris Halliwell lmao. Scariest moment: I think a reporter was in the sewers trying to report on the Charmed Ones, but then a Grimlock popped up in front of the camera and attacked the reporter. Grossest moment: I don’t remember. Best looking male: Bane Jessup (let’s be honest here, people, lol) Best looking female: All of the sisters are good looking, lol. But I’ll say Phoebe Halliwell. Who you’re crushing on (if any): Nobody lol. Favorite cast moment: I don’t know. Favorite transportation: Orbing Most beautiful scene (scenery/shot wise): The dream sequences in the “Dream Sorcerer” episode. Unanswered question/continuity issue/plot error that bugs you: I know the reason (the Shannen and Alyssa beef while filming), but it’s weird that Prue’s spirit never shows up whenever the family’s spirits are called upon, like Grams’ and Penny’s spirit. Even in the last episode of the show, Prue never showed up, and even the characters questioned that! 😂 Best promo: I have no idea. At what point did you fall in love with this show/book: I don’t know, it kinda grew on me lol. I liked the idea of witches fighting evil, and the show gave off this warm nostalgic feeling (kinda like Practical Magic), and I think that’s what drew me to the show, as well.
From Dusk Till Dawn: The Series
Top 5 favorite characters: Seth Gecko, Kate Fuller, Richie Gecko, Kisa, and Eddie Cruickshank.  Other characters you like: Freddie Gonzalez, Scott Fuller, Ximena Vasconcelos, Jacob Fuller, Burt, Kalinda, Dakota Block, Rafa Infante, Vanessa Styles, Celestino Oculto 😎, and Kalinda Least favorite characters: Aiden Tanner, Carlos Madrigal, Sonja Lam Otps: Seth/Kate, Richie/Kate Notps: Scott/Kate, Seth/Richie, Kate/Carlos, and shipping anybody with Aiden lol. Favorite friendships: Seth and Kisa, Seth and Kalinda (even though it was extremely short, their interaction was just so nice to see), Kate and Rafa, and Richie and Kisa (I wanna say they’re otp, but I also like the mutual relationship they have) Favorite family: The Fuller family including the Gecko brothers... and Uncle Eddie ���� Favorite episodes: “Let’s Get Ramblin’,”Santa Sangre,” “Shady Glen,” and “Dark Side of the Sun.” Favorite season/book/movie: Season 2 Favorite quotes: “And every spidey since I got is tingling in every nook and cranny from eyeballs to balls-balls.,” “’Got your balls on?’ ‘Screwed on tight.,’” “’Are you here for redemption? In whose eyes? Your God’s?’ No. In the eyes of the people I love.,’“ “My family might survive if we stick together because we’re better together. When we’re alone, we’re lost.,” “Now like it or not, we are a family. A broken, messed up, sad excuse for a family. But goddamn it, we got love for each other, don’t we? Love and forgiveness. That’s how you get through the day, right?,” “Next one that pipes up gets a stake through the heart. Reptile, regular jackass, I don’t really give a shit. Got it? Fantastic.,” “You, be cool.” Best musical moment: Uh... Every musical moment was pretty mediocre, so I guess Fanglorious on stage was pretty great (those are the only 2 musical moments I know). Moment that made you fangirl/boy the hardest: Los Tres Geckos robbing a bank at the end of s3 lol. When it really disappointed you: How the creators just decided to change Sex Machine’s character from the movie into this total perv/predator in the show, like wtf. Movie version Sex Machine was my fav. AND THEY KEPT BRINGING HIM BACK EACH SEASON WHEN NO ONE WANTED HIM BACK, LIKE MAJORITY OF US COLLECTIVELY WANTED HIM TO STAY DEAD! Saddest moment: In the “Straightjacket” episode when Seth was tied up and trying to talk to Richie to get his normal self to come back while his shadow-self took over. They really got me with that one. Most well done character death: Carlos getting butchered by the main characters, leaving Scott to finish him off by decapitating his head. That was some pretty poetic shit right there lol. Favorite guest star: Tom Savini Favorite cast member: D.J. Cotrona Character you wish was still alive: Pretty much majority of the ones that have died 😂 I’ll just say everyone except Malvado, Carlos, and Aiden Tanner. One thing you hope really happens: Dude, I just wanna see Seth and Kate kiss, that’s all man 😆 Most shocking twist: I mean I wasn’t expecting Kate to show up with the brothers robbing a bank, so that was a shock lol. When did you start watching/reading?: Pfff, pretty much five years ago, now, in March! Lol.  Best animal/creature: Culebras Favorite location: I’d say the run-down motel in the beginning of s2 😂 Also Uncle Eddie’s shop. Trope you wish they would stop using: Idk... Idk if it’s a trope, but it kinda sucks seeing innocent girls getting treated like shit and killed, and then they come back from the dead and like some part of them is stripped away like they’re not as they used to be, and they’re out for blood. I don’t know... One thing this show/book/film does better than others: As cheesy as this show is, it has Robert Rodriguez all over it, which kept me hooked. It also incorporates Mesoamerican mythology and folklore, which I’m a huge sucker for, AND VAMPIRES!!!!! Funniest moments: Richie sliding out when Seth told him to shut up at the liquor store, Carlos pretending to hand something to Malvado when he’s handing him nothing and saying he’s all out of fucks to give, Seth shooting a gun in the garage with a straight face, and Seth protecting his crotch before he attempts to shoot a gas tank. Couple you would like to see: Idk, I guess Seth/Kate??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Actor/Actress you want to join the cast: Salma Hayek (I still wanna know why she wasn’t on the show. She would’ve been amazing as one of the nine lords) Favorite outfit: [Here], [here], and [HERE] Favorite item: Kate’s cross? Idk. Do you own anything related to this show/book/film?: Yep! A shirt of a fanart of the Gecko bros., a sethkate cup, and a fanart sethkate iTouch case. What house/team/group/friendship group/family/race etc would you be in?: I don’t know. Probably a culebra lol. Most boring plotline: None of them were really boring.  Most laughably bad moment: Richie just staring off into space as he’s drawing circles in his book like right after Seth said that Richie wasn’t crazy lol. Best flashback/flashfoward if any: Kisa’s flashbacks. Most layered character: Idk, there’s a lot of characters that are equally layered. Most one dimensional character: I don’t think there’s any 😂 Scariest moment: The Head Games monster taking the skull out of his victims was pretty crazy. Grossest moment: When that dude peed on Freddie while he was tied up. I’d say that was disgusting. Best looking male: That’s a tie between Seth and Richie. Best looking female: Kisa Who you’re crushing on (if any): SETH GECKO Favorite cast moment: When they all went on a group chat, and reminisced on the show and shared pics when they were on set filming. Favorite transportation: The rv, even though that rv needs to be cleansed thoroughly. Most beautiful scene (scenery/shot wise): Kate swimming and floating in the pool (before the water turns red lol) Unanswered question/continuity issue/plot error that bugs you: Like... there’s no way anyone could come out cold turkey that friggin’ quick within a couple hours. It usually would last within three days. Best promo: Season 3, I think. At what point did you fall in love with this show/book: I think it was the scene when Kate had the conversation with Richie by the pool. I loved how the creators made the interaction less creepy compared to the movie, and I found it pleasing with all these changes they made from the movie for the show. There were a lot of things they changed that I found it appealing, AND THEY CHANGED SETH’S ANSWER AND WANTED KATE TO ACCOMPANY HIM, LIKE THAT’S WHAT I WANTED TO HAPPEN FOR 20 YEARS, AND IT HAPPENED! 😩🙌🏽 It’s like they gave me everything I wanted, but wasn’t expecting to happen lmao.
Geez, sorry this took so long lol! Thank you so much for asking me these!!!! 😁💗
0 notes
chicagoindiecritics · 4 years
Text
New from Every Movie Has a Lesson by Don Shanahan: EDITORIAL: Five surprises and snubs from the 92nd Academy Award nominations
Tumblr media
(Image: Oscars.org and YouTube)
Leave it to the annual early morning Oscar nominations to always find a way to rock our worlds. Earlier this morning in an excellent show of upfront diversity, Searching actor John Cho and Insecure TV star Issa Rae presented the names and films looking for validation and immortality come the night of February 9th in front of a (thankfully) host-less crowd for the second year in a row. I know I chase this race every year on my Awards Tracker page, but there are always swerves. Here are five knee-jerk snubs and surprises from the nominees:
#1: The Academy still too often overlooks independent film and diversity.
This is the second year in a row this exact sentence makes this column space. For all of the so-called efforts of weening out inactive members and adding diversity, the results aren’t showing it between Green Book winning last year and this list of extremely plain nominations. Go ahead and get the #OscarSoWhite swag out again. The Academy deserves to be called out for this kind of thing.
The only person of color nominated in the acting categories was a mild surprise, that being Cynthia Erivo for Harriet, and not the overwhelming awards season Best Actress front-runner Lupita N’yongo for Us. Black wasn’t the only color stiffed. Zero total nominations for The Farewell and zero acting nominations for Parasite left out supporting actress Zhao Shuzhen, lead actress Awkwafina, writer/director Lulu Wang, supporting actor Song Kang-ho, and any of three women from Parasite in supporting actress from adding deserved diversity.
Speaking of women, one bright spot is Hildur Guðnadóttir’s nominated score for Joker, a rare spot for a woman. However, matching the Golden Globes and the Directors Guild of America, we have a Best Director field without a female. The flag-bearer there should have been Greta Gerwig for Little Women. When you give that film screenplay and Best Picture nominations, the solid is to honor the director for combining that work. But Greta is just one of many between Lulu Wang for The Farewell, Olivia Wilde for Booksmart, Kasi Lemmons for Harriet, and Melina Matsoukas for Queen & Slim. Where those women made films is also a point of contention.
If you look at what was nominated and from what studio they came from, you will see money and favoritism talking. The movies backed by the distributors with the deepest pockets and most lavish “For Your Consideration” campaigns (especially Netflix and their quartet of The Irishman, Marriage Story, The Two Popes, and I Love My Body) scored the spots. If you were little and independent, like A24’s Uncut Gems, The Farewell, and Booksmart, you were ignored. Those losses are consistent top to bottom and not just in the major categories. Take a snub like Wild Rose’s original song “Glasgow” being skipped as one of many spots where superior independent films were trounced by bigger entities.
It’s a minor miracle little shingle NEON squeezed what it could out of Parasite (6 nominations) and Lionsgate got anything at all for Knives Out and Bombshell. If this were politics, we would be talking about the equivalent of “campaign finance reform” from studios buying unfair favor and nominations. Maybe it’s time to open the ledgers and put some rules and limits on that.
#2: The perceived Netflix bias doesn’t exist.
This is also a verbatim repeat from this column last year. Last year, Roma and its Oscar success challenged and then broke the glass ceiling of debate for the streaming giant’s seat at the grown-up’s table. Now, it’s sitting nearly at the head of it. Once the worshiped Martin Scorsese brought his “cinema” to Netflix, any nose-holding after Roma went away in a hurry. Just look at The Irishman’s blanket treatment getting 10 nominations. The true power is demonstrated in the cache for Netflix to get even more. Five nominations for Marriage Story and three surprises for The Two Popes showed the glow, an effect that could have grown even more had Dolemite is My Name nabbed spots in Best Actor, Best Costume Design, and Best Makeup and Hair-Styling. Once they win a Best Picture Oscar, and they have a real chance this year much like last year, you know they’re never going to let the industry forget about it.
#3: The Academy needs to clarify or clean out their documentary department.
Granted, I get that the documentary market is a bathtub of obscurity to 90% of casual filmgoers, but every year there are one or two docs with high quality that earn mainstream success. They deserve recognition for that engagement and success. For the second year in a row, the Academy egregiously snubbed the film that has dominated the category the entire awards season. Last year it was Won’t You Be My Neighbor. This year it’s Apollo 11, which is arguably the best big screen experience of the year, regardless of film classification. No documentary film has won even half as many awards in this category than Apollo 11. It deserved to have a chance at the big one. Instead, head-scratchers and obscurity win.
#4: The juggernaut that is Joker is something to marvel.
Enjoy that comic book company dig! For Joker to lead the field with 11 nominations is one heck of an impressive victory. Because of its artistic and technical quality, I knew it was going to score big, but to hit 11 sure stirs the pot. The most polarizing film of the year that has been called “trash” by some and a “masterpiece” by others gets to swing its clout hard. How will it do? Gosh, I don’t know at this point. I could see it pulling a American Hustle where that film to got 10 nominations and won zero. The Irishman has that same collapsing look about it where it’s a front-runner nowhere out of its 10 nominations. Joker could easily end up like that or, like it keeps on doing, it could surprise us all. Never count Joaquin Phoenix out and laying in the weeds with their own 10 nominations each are Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood and 1917. The Sam Mendes war epic in particular is peaking at the right time.
#5: Parasite has a better chance than Roma did last year to elevate foreign film.
It may not have the gaudy totals of Joker, 1917, Tarantino, or Scorsese, but Bong-Joon-ho’s South Korean thriller Parasite is in a perfect position to become the biggest winner of the night. It’s tracking just like Roma did last year by cleaning up the vast majority of critics awards and topping “year-end” (and even “decade-end”) lists. The respect is there, unlike Marriage Story and Little Women, where Parasite is nominated in all three top leadership spots (picture, director, screenplay) to be a worthy winner for Best Picture. If the polarity of Joker burns itself, if 1917 doesn’t have enough fresh favor, and the push-back against out-of-touch white men keeps fading for The Irishman and Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, there sits the universally loved Parasite with all the polish in the world. It would take a great deal of push-back support and screening room politics, but it could legitimately and deservedly win the last award of the evening. This will be fun to watch!
Tumblr media
LOGO DESIGNED BY MEENTS ILLUSTRATED
Permalink
from REVIEW BLOG – Every Movie Has a Lesson https://ift.tt/2RhD8wN via IFTTT
from WordPress https://ift.tt/3881JdV via IFTTT
0 notes
thegloober · 6 years
Text
30 Minutes on: “Searching”
by Matt Zoller Seitz
September 16, 2018   |  
Print Page Tweet
“Searching” is one of the best films of 2018, and a major leap forward for both the thriller genre and the presence of Asian-Americans in movies. John Cho (“Star Trek,” “Columbus“) stars as David Kim, a father trying to locate his daughter Margot (Michelle La), who disappeared on a Friday night when she was supposed to be at piano practice. You’ve seen this kind of movie before, but it’s the combination of cultural specificity and storytelling skill that sets it apart. (Note: There are going to be spoilers in this piece, so if you haven’t already seen the movie, you should do so and finish this later.)
Advertisement
The totality of “Searching” is presented as if it were drawn from the contents of desktop computers and iPhones—juxtaposing, for instance, two sides of a FaceTime call with phone logs, satellite maps, open windows playing YouTube videos, etc. Other films have tried to tell a story this way (“Unfriended” is one example, though it’s nowhere near as clever as this movie, or as knowledgable about the tech it shows us). But none have done as fine a job of integrating the emotional and narrative content of a story with all the visual and sonic bells and whistles, so that it all plays as a seamless whole and feels organic and true to how we live now.
Consider the prologue, which takes us through the death of David’s wife and Margot’s mother Pamela (Sara Sohn) from cancer. It’s a little masterpiece of narrative compression that deserves favorable comparison with the opening of Pixar’s “Up,” not just because of its ability to elicit tears, but because it compresses a feature film’s worth of emotional power into a few fleet minutes without making you feel as if the movie had rushed you through anything important. I can’t think of another recent sequence that better shows how our emotions are intertwined with the boringly ordinary digital tasks we perform all day, every day. Notice, for instance, how David moves videos that will have enormous nostalgic value later into specific folders to make them easier to find (which immediately communicate how important they are to him, and how important that will be to the movie). Also impressive is the way the film treats the simple act of scheduling events (like Pamela coming home from the hospital) as indicators of the family’s fears and dreams, and devices for generating empathy as well as suspense (every time David moves the homecoming date, we can feel our stomachs tighten up a bit more, anticipating the worst). 
As directed by Aneesh Chaganty and cowritten by Chaganty and Sev Ohanian, “Searching” makes a statement about how life is lived, and how movies are lagging behind in rarely depicting that life, all without seeming to make a statement. Everything shown in the movie is something we see everyday on a laptop or phone or iPad screen, but seeing it blown up to feature film dimensions (I recommend seeing “Searching” in a theater if possible) puts the data in a new context, makes us appreciate textures we’d otherwise take for granted, and finds poetry and mystery in what we’d ordinarily think of as a technical limitations (when Chaganty zooms or crops into a wide shot of people who are pictured from head to toe, and the fuzzy borders of their heads and bodies becomes painterly). It’s analogous to the way David pores through all the available information he has in order to find clues and answers, only to keep running up against the limitations of what facts alone can tell him. This happens whenever you’re trying to solve a mystery involving someone you know. Sometimes you get a piece of data that feels relevant and useful, but there are still limits to what it can tell you.
Advertisement
I love the way the movie alternates guiding the eye and letting you look where you want. A lot of the time when David is anxiously talking to the detective on the case, Rosemary Vick (Debra Messing), to his brother Peter (Joseph Lee), or to the various teenaged classmates and acquaintances who knew his daughter far less well than he thought, we have to decide where onscreen to look. The movie always takes care to guide you when it’s crucial to see a particular thing at a particular moment; but a lot of the time you find yourself looking somewhere other than wherever David is looking; when he’s having a video chat with Rosemary, you might be looking at a window full of folders, and wondering if the answers that would crack the the case are contained in one that the hero hasn’t dug through yet. There’s also a subtle undercurrent of social satire in the images that minor characters post of themselves (like the shot of the bad boy Derek exhaling clouds of pot smoke) as well as the late sequence where characters who barely knew Margot and couldn’t be bothered to get to know her during the darkest period of her life suddenly pretend that they were all her best friend and are devastated by her disappearance. (The bleakly comedic TBS series “Search Party” is also very good about satirizing the performative grief of social media users.)
Equally notable is the way “Searching” lets its main family be culturally specific without the movie becoming a meditation on what it means to be Korean-American, to the exclusion of all else. This is not to dismiss films that are specifically about that (there should be many more of them than there currently are), but to point out one of the unfortunate pitfalls of casting genre films with predominantly nonwhite casts: even if the movie isn’t meant as a referendum on the state of a particular culture, ethnicity or race, it gets read that way by a predominately white American audiences and critics, often inappropriately. “Searching” hits a sweet spot between being a film with Korean-Americans in lead roles and caring very deeply about them as Korean-Americans rather that presenting them as “raceless,” while functioning as very effective thriller from start to finish.
Many plot elements, from the way that Margot and her mother bonded over piano to the way Peter calls up David for help with a “kimchi gumbo” recipe, will strike specific emotional notes for Korean and Korean-American viewers. But these are always adjacent to the main function of a scene, which is to flesh out the characters and drive the plot forward. Notice, for instance, how the piano stuff pays off at the end, with a revelation of why Margot stopped going to the lessons after her mother’s death, and how the discussion of the kimchi recipe pays off what had originally seemed like a purely comedic beat: David disapprovingly noticing Peter’s marijuana buds in a jar sitting in plain view on the counter. 
Advertisement
“Searching” is a formally playful film that’s constantly thinking about how to make all the media it shows us feel organic and not too fussed over, while also constantly trying to come up with ways to arrange the material that will make it more traditionally “cinematic.” One of my favorite examples is the scene where David goes over to Peter’s apartment to confront him, surreptitiously planting tiny cameras in three locations to record incriminating information. One of the angles lets us see David through the open front door of Peter’s apartment, checking the feed of all three hidden cameras on a laptop in his car—a deep focus composition worthy of Orson Welles or John Frankenheimer. As the brothers move through various rooms, the director slides from one window to the next, tracking their motions in a way that’s elegant and exciting, and that feels as he’s “panning” through a single set with a film camera on a tripod, even though he’s moving across boxes on a flat computer screen. When the brothers struggle, one of the cameras falls from its original position and lands on the floor pointing up. When David sits on a chair in that shot, the low, ominous angle is as close to a classic film noir image as “Searching” has given us. It’s wonderfully correct for that moment in the story, and delightful for how it manages to be extremely showy while acting as if that’s just where the camera happened to fall. 
There are even moments where the movie captures the intellectual and emotional sensation of being online when you’re stressed out. The movie watches the cursor move across the screen, pause over two option buttons, and then wait before deciding whether to stay online or log off, open this folder as opposed to that one, or zoom in on an image that we thought David had already studied and absorbed. The many scenes that follow along as David tries to gain access to important information by fishing through his late wife’s accounts do double duty as plot exposition and character development, filling in pieces of the mystery of Margot’s private life while showing us how disconnected David was from all of that. (His wife obviously ran the domestic sphere.) 
It’s rare to see a commercial film that’s this suspenseful and emotionally involving but that also feels electrifyingly new. This one pulled me in from frame one and never let go, and delivered all the satisfactions I wanted from a mystery-suspense film while also giving me lots to think about, purely through its decision of how to tell the story. I have no idea how well “Searching” is going to hold up in twenty or even five years; given the rapid pace of technological change, it seems possible that at lot of the software and devices presented here will seem quaint. But it’s still fun to see moviemakers treating everyday rituals that so many films ignore as being integral to its story, and thinking about how the most intimate aspects of life have become digitized and made virtual, and what that means for the species.
Advertisement
Previous Article: 30 Minutes on: “The Meg”
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by
The post 30 Minutes on: “Searching” was shared from BlogHyped.com.
Source: https://bloghyped.com/30-minutes-on-searching/
0 notes
You Should Watch ‘Beatriz at Dinner’ on Hulu This Weekend
https://healthandfitnessrecipes.com/?p=1926
Three TV recommendations, plus a roundup of the week’s entertainment news
This post originally appeared on May 18, 2018, in “Eat, Drink, Watch” — the weekly newsletter for people who want to order takeout and watch TV. Browse the archives and subscribe now.
Welcome to the weekend, a glorious time when you can ignore your inbox and bask in the glow of your favorite movies and TV shows instead. If you have a serious case of Royal Wedding Fever, you might consider waking up at the crack of dawn tomorrow to watch Will Ferrell and Molly Shannon riff on Harry and Meghan’s nuptials live on basic cable, but that is just one of many tempting viewing options that await you. Here are recommendations for three food-centric things to watch, as well a roundup of the week’s entertainment news.
Dinner with the enemy
Beatriz at Dinner/Amazon Video
Beatriz at Dinner is not quite a comedy or a thriller, but it uses elements of both genres to depict a meal where tensions between two guests smolder from start to finish.
Miguel Arteta’s 2017 film focuses on a day in the life of Beatriz, a Mexican-born holistic healer played by Salma Hayek, who gets roped into attending a dinner party at the ritzy Newport Beach home of one of her clients, Kathy (Connie Britton). Kathy’s husband Grant (David Warshofsky) is hosting his real estate pals Alex (Jay Duplass) and Doug (John Lithgow), and their wives Shannon (Chloe Sevigny) and Jenna (Amy Landecker).
As the wine flows and the food begins rolling out of the kitchen, the guests start to lose their manners. Beatriz keeps trying to place where she knows Doug, the cocky real estate tycoon across the table, and in a grander sense, understand why they were thrown together in the same room on this fateful evening. Throughout dinner, she keeps butting heads with him on a variety of broad subjects — preserving the environment, healing people versus hurting them — only to apologize and then ramp back up again.
There are a few surprises sprinkled throughout the film, but more than anything, Beatriz at Dinner feels like one sustained note — a meditation on class disparity, and the eternal struggle between people who want to fix the world’s problems and the egotists who don’t. Lithgow and Hayek are well-matched sparring partners, and the supporting cast members bolster their energy with inspired reactions to the spat at the center of the meal.
You could easily read Beatriz at Dinner as an allegory about the rise of Trumpism, but the film also works on its own terms as an example of how a discussion at a dinner party with someone from a different background can shift your perspective on the world — especially right now.
Beatriz at Dinner is now available for purchase on Amazon or iTunes, and it will be added to the Hulu library this Saturday.
Streaming selections du jour
Bill Nye Saves the World/Netflix
Bill Nye Saves the World, “Recipes From the Future”
Watch it on: Netflix
The gist: Bill Nye, the science nerd who never goes out of style, is back with a new season of his family-friendly Netflix show, and this time around, he’s exploring the ways that we might eat in the future. In this episode, supermodel Karlie Kloss heads to Japan to learn about vertical gardening, and comedian Margaret Cho offers her take on dishes made with bugs, lab-grown meat, and fake seafood. Another highlight: Michael Ian Black playing Cornell University professor Robert C. Baker, who invented the chicken nugget only to have his thunder stolen by McDonald’s. B-movie actor turned prominent LA restaurateur Danny Trejo also makes a cameo in this installment of Nye’s lighthearted show.
My Next Guest Needs No Introduction with David Letterman, “It’s Just Landmine Hopscotch”
Watch it on: Netflix
The gist: In her hour-long sit down with David Letterman, Tina Fey discusses one of last year’s most divisive comedy sketches: the “sheetcaking” monologue on SNL’s Weekend Update, where the 30 Rock star recommended eating cake as a response to the violent protests last summer. Fey reveals that she felt awful after reading the responses to the bit about the white nationalist rallies, and admits that she made a mistake by not explicitly including the line, “Fight them in every way except the way that they want.”
Another big moment in this crunchy installment of Letterman’s interview show involves Fey and the former late-night host discussing the lack of female writers on his staff — a mistake he owns up to, though rather sheepishly. And perhaps the most entertaining part of this episode comes when Letterman takes a restaurant recommendation from Fey and visits the Athenian Room in Chicago for a lunch of roasted chicken and steak fries with blues legend Buddy Guy.
And in other entertainment news…
Carla Hall says that the producers of The Chew have no intention of replacing disgraced chef/restaurateur Mario Batali as a host. Since he got booted from the show following a litany of sexual misconduct allegations last fall, The Chew has been hosted by Hall, Clinton Kelly, and Michael Symon — and that’s how it’s going to stay, for now.
Food blogger and cookbook author Molly Yeh is the star of a new show coming to the Food Network this summer called Girl Meets Farm. According to an announcement, the show will feature recipes “inspired by her Jewish and Chinese heritage and a taste of the Midwest.” It premieres on June 24.
And speaking of the Food Network, last week’s SNL had a sketch about a fake show on the cable channel called “Gospel Soul Brunch.” In the clip, Amy Schumer makes a smoothie by mixing ice, milk, and an entire pecan pie in a blender.
The poster for Little Italy looks like a gag from a Christopher Guest mockumentary, but this is actually a real movie coming out later this year.
That latest season of Iron Chef America — essentially a return to form after the Chopped-esque Iron Chef Gauntlet and Iron Chef Showdown — premieres on Food Network this Sunday at 9 p.m.
Starz’s restaurant drama Sweetbitter stumbles a bit in its second episode, but the show is still entertaining and packed with details that people working the hospitality industry will likely appreciate.
Anthony Bourdain spends around 250 days out of the year traveling, largely due to Parts Unknown filming, but he has no plans to hang up his hat anytime soon. “I might have deluded myself into thinking that I’d be happy in a hammock or gardening,” Bourdain tells People. “But no, I’m quite sure I can’t. I’m going to pretty much die in the saddle.”
Have a great weekend, and if you are partaking in the royal wedding revelry, perhaps consider mixing up a Pimm’s cup using this recipe.
Credits: Original Content Source
0 notes
lorrainecparker · 6 years
Text
Search – A Conversation with the Editors
Editors Will Merrick and Nick Johnson co-edited the film Search, which premiered last weekend at Sundance 2018. Search was written by Sev Ohanian, and is the first feature for director Aneesh Chaganty. It stars Debra Messing and John Cho, and features a story told entirely on computer screens. While visiting Sundance last weekend, I had a chance to sit down with Merrick and Johnson to talk through their process as co-editors on this very unique project.
PVC: So how did you both get involved in this film?
Merrick: Our film tells the story of a father (played by John Cho) who when his daughter goes missing decides to look in the place nobody else has looked, on her computer screen. The entire film unfolds on his computer screen and other screens. I got on the film because I met the director Aneesh through USC. He had just left his job on the creative film team at Google, and he rang me up with a movie possibility.
Johnson: I went to USC with Aneesh, I knew him from classes, and we were friends. Then he went off to New York to work at Google, and I hadn’t seen him in years. Then I got a call from him asking me to edit “Search,” and asking me to meet up with Will. Will and I met up because we didn’t know each other previously. Then we decided it would work, we could work together.
Merrick: Aneesh was hired at Google after directing a spec spot for Google Glass, and they brought him on to the creative film team. I had edited the spot that got him that job.
Johnson: I think there’s something where you want to find people that are ambitious and are going to put everything they have into a project. I think Aneesh felt comfortable that we’re creative people, Will and I, and we are also hard workers. I think there was this understanding that we were going to go 100 percent the whole time.
Will, Nick, and Aneesh in the edit bay
PVC: How do co-editors work on a project like this, how does that collaboration work?
Johnson: It’s perfect for this project. There was actually very little discussion about our dynamic. It just kind of organically happened. Because this is such an unusual film, it’s essentially an animated film. The script was incredible, but it was kind of unusual because of it being told entirely on screens. You couldn’t quite break it down into scenes like you traditionally would, so what we did was we just drew lines in the script and broke it into 26 sections. We lettered the sections alphabetically, and Will took section A, I took section B, and then we just moved that way through the movie. Then when we went into start doing the second passes, we just swapped so that we were constantly refining each other’s work.
Merrick: This happened enough times that we really can’t even remember who started what anymore. We both worked on every sequence.
Johnson: Yeah. It got to the point where it’s like, “L has a bunch of notes but Q really needs some work.” Like, “I have Q open, I’m going to take Q, you take L.”
PVC: Were you guys editing side-by-side or the same location?
Merrick: We were working pretty much in the same room.
Johnson: There was a door you could close, so it was actually perfect. What would happen is Sev, Aneesh and Natalie would come in, and they might be doing notes with Will, and meanwhile I would be implementing some notes in the other room. Then they’d come over work with me.
Search filmmakers at an ASC event at Sundance 2018
PVC: So the film takes place entirely on computer screens. Can you explain that?
Merrick: Telling a movie through a computer screen is not an entirely new idea. There have been movies like “Unfriended” by Bazelevs, the same company that did ours. Those films tend to be told in real time and in wides of the screen, kind of “Paranormal Activity” style. What we wanted to do with our film was in the same way that early movies were wide shots like theatrical vaudeville acts. We wanted to go in and sort of discover what coverage is in the computer world. We will, for instance, have a FaceTime call where we’ll cut to one person…say John Cho is talking to his daughter, then we cut down to her sort of like a reverse.
Merrick: At first, we didn’t think it would work. We thought it would be against the rules, but we found out we could make a shot reverse work by punching into the small screen where you see yourself and then punching back out to the wide.
Johnson: It was a lot like DP’ing, and we actually have a “directors of screen photography” credit on the movie.
PVC: Is that a thing?
Johnson: It is now. It really was like shooting a movie. It’s challenging because unlike a three dimensional world where you can kind of get off-axis and do your coverage that way, we were all on a two dimensional plane. So the tricky part was the shot sizes had to be significantly different when you were cutting, which gets really hard when you’ve got camera movements happening, and you might find yourself in a little middle area.
Merrick: One of the most mind blowing things we discovered was that in some cases we could cut from one punched-in area of the computer screen to another punched-in shot, without going back out to a wide. You don’t think it will work, but you just try it and you discover you have almost as much film language in there as you do in real life.
Johnson: “Unfriended” is really effective, it’s wide real-time, but we wanted to punch in. We had seen this in a “Modern Family” episode, and in “Noah,” it’s a great short film. “Nerve” did this, but all of those movies wouldn’t cut.
Merrick: They do a fast zoom. “Voosh, voosh, voosh.”
PVC: They were doing that to try to retain the geometry of the scene for the audience?
Johnson: Exactly.
Merrick: Our first cut was like that. It was actually Sev who came in and watched our first cut and told us, “Guys, what are you doing? Just cut.” We were like, “Whoa,” when we started trying it, and it worked.
PVC: So as a DP, one of the tools I can use for covering a conversation is the OTS. It’s a simple way of establishing the geometry of each person in the scene in relation to each other. But you don’t have an OTS on a flat 2D screen.
Merrick: Even when we’re almost showing a video full bleed, we usually show the edges of the video. We’ll frame with edges of browsers or videos.
Johnson: We felt like full bleed was kind of visually uninteresting, and just didn’t keep you grounded in what you’re looking at. In FaceTime calls, it’s nice because you have the little face in the bottom, so when you’re cutting to the one shot, you’ve got both people.
Merrick: It’s like a wide. That wasn’t fun to edit.
Johnson: Those are extremely difficult because unlike a shot reverse, you always have both shots playing at the same time. They have to be timed up exactly right.
PVC: Were those conversations shot in real-time on both subjects? Or were they shot separately?
Johnson: They did in most cases. I think it was helpful for the actors and for pacing, but what we found was even in those situations, the pacing was off a little bit.
Merrick: Like you always want to make the little tweaks while you’re cutting and we didn’t have the freedom to do those at first until we came up with the cutting idea. Because no matter how good your actors are, you do want to play with it.
PVC: Do you do any morph cuts or anything like that?
Johnson: We did some morph cuts. We also used one trick that gave us a lot of, I don’t know, consternation …
Merrick: We were very nervous about it, but we tried “glitching” as a transition. We tested it on a lot of people and we found you can glitch between multiple shots if you’re very subtle about it.
PVC: What do you mean?
Merrick: I almost feel weird even talking to you about it. Occasionally, it freezes up for just a little bit and it’s organic. We data moshed it slightly, just slightly, not crazy.
Johnson: We were watching it and we’re like, “This is super obvious.” I kept telling the producers, “Please ask this in our test screenings.” They were like, “It doesn’t bother anyone.”
Merrick: Everyone in the test screening were like, “What glitches?”
Johnson: We actually ended up compressing it and like pumping out super tiny H.264s to get that kind of blockiness.
Merrick: Yeah, we’d export in H.264 at like .5 bit rate, then export another one from that at like .2 bit rate. Because we used glitch software, but it’s too obvious.
PVC: Okay, so on the live action thing, I’m just trying to wrap my head around this. When they filmed the live action footage for these conversations on screen, did they film it with the actors facing each other? Or were the cameras in separate rooms?
Johnson: Well, the system that they rigged, we had nothing to do with. It was our DP, Juan Sebastian Baron. It’s like genius. I think Bazelevs has kind of slowly created this process.
Merrick: Sebastian rigged a system where basically the actors could look at each other on a FaceTime call while a GoPro is doing the actual filming. They were getting a live feed from each other so they can perform, but they’re in separate spaces.
Johnson: We actually created a full animatic seven weeks before they shot, and we pumped out wides for every scene with information like “Here’s the finder window. Here’s where John Cho will be.” Then the script supervisor was able to show them “This is where your eye line is.” The animatic helped us a lot because the actors’ eye lines were always, for the most part, pretty accurate.
PVC: This sounds like an incredibly post-heavy film. Talk to me about some of the tools you used.
Johnson: Our overall process was in three stages essentially. There was pre-post-production, post-production and post-post-production.
PVC: Oh god.
Johnson: We had rehearsals with Aneesh before we actually got in the room. Then once when we got in the room, we spent seven weeks with Sev and Aneesh, creating an animatic that was used then as a model for shooting. We were using Adobe Premiere Pro for everything at this point.
PVC: For the animatics? How do you do that in Premiere Pro?
Johnson: What we were doing was, we were using ScreenFlow. None of this movie ultimately was screen recorded but we were using ScreenFlow and taking screenshots, and then bringing those assets into Premiere Pro.
Merrick: There’s like no other place where you start with a totally blank slate as an editor. Like we didn’t even have storyboard slides.
Johnson: You take the script and you’re like, “Well, let’s make this thing.” So we opened Finder, we start screenshotting. We opened FaceTime, Aneesh would take pictures of his face, kind of performing the scenes. He would record a voiceover until we built a full cut that was shown to the crew. They were all sort of like, “Oh god, we have so much work to do to make this play.” The animatic was all these jumbled pieces, screen recordings, like screenshots of Aneesh’s face making faces with his lines underneath it. We nested everything. We decided early on that nesting was the way we had to go.
PVC: Why is that?
Johnson: We needed to be able to shoot around the desktop, so we decided in the nest, we would production design, essentially, a wide of the desktop, put all the icons, we would do all the movements, all the blocking and staging in the wide and then we would nest it and then cover it with the scale and position attributes. Every time we had a timing change, we had to go into the nest, change the time, punch back out of the nest, and move the camera moves for everything.
Merrick: This was one of the weirdest things to get my head wrapped around, because we were editing not only temporally, we were editing spatially in a way. If we moved anything, rearranged anything on the desktop, we would have to then adjust all the timing. Then we also had almost parallel sequences going on in a weird way, because we had the macro edits on the nest.
Johnson: We would duplicate our edit, and we’d have to duplicate every nest inside the edit, or else we would destroy those nests if we made changes. So we had all these macro edits and then if we wanted to make this five frames shorter, we’d have to go into the nest, move everything in the nest over five frames, then step back out and move all the other edits over five frames.
Merrick: A “Null Object” in Premiere Pro would be great. We could have parented everything to a Null Object and been able to just keyframe that around it.
Johnson: Which is how we did it in after effects.
Merrick: The animatic became our foundation for the movie, so as they were shooting we cut the live action into the animatic. Then refined that with Aneesh, Sev and Natalie into like a director’s cut and a producer’s cut, and we showed those to audiences because we knew once we moved to After Effects, we’d be talking months for small edits. So we did a hard picture lock, and moved everything into After Effects where we, with our VFX company Neon Robotic, created Adobe Illustrator files of almost everything in the computer interface.
PVC: Everything was recreated? You did the screenshots, you put the video and all those assets on top of that, you keyframed rough moves, then recreated everything again? Is there a faster way?
Merrick: We always thought there would be. We never found it.
Johnson: If there was a better way to screen record your desktop in Vector, or screen record on a 16K monitor.
Merrick: Bazelevs is actually working on a software that will do this, but it’s just, it’s so extremely hard to create that it just wasn’t ready by the time we needed to use it. Basically, the decision that made us have to recreate everything was they were punching in for so much coverage that even if we had gone for the pixelated look, which we just creatively didn’t want to, it just wouldn’t work.
PVC: So you had to recreate the interfaces themselves in Illustrator, to avoid pixelation when you punch in for coverage. It’s icons and toolbars and all that kind of stuff, right?
Johnson: Yeah, and button states.
Merrick: We have like a Google Chrome bar that has five possible tabs, because we figured out that was the most we ever needed in the movie. It has all the button states for when you close it, click a new tab, we can add new data. Basically, the VFX company we were working with, Neon Robotic, created that large asset with all the tabs and fully customizable. Then we would take it, cut it in After Effects for every scene and make it what it needed to be for that scene.
Johnson: We basically would have like in a folder, 35 Illustrator files numbered in order. So when the the mouse goes up, you got the hover state. He clicks it, and it’s foregrounded. Then also, we had to worry about drop shadows.
Merrick: A funny thing that will never make the movie or the interview is the pixel aspect ratio of the Illustrator files is the same as the size on the computer. Like if there’s a 10 pixel bevel, we just made it 10 pixels in Illustrator, and so we could make things exactly … We made it happen in like a 2048 by 1152 screen, and you could just make it that size in Illustrator and it comes in perfectly.
PVC: Would you have signed up for this if you knew that it was going to be this hard?
Merrick: Barely, but yes.
Johnson: I would say yes. But I was constantly telling myself this could not possibly be the best way to do this. I was like, “There’s got to be a better way.” I would spend maybe a couple of hours digging around, playing, experimenting, trying to find a different way and I’d always just inevitably come back to “This is the way we have to do it. We have to just animate every single state with Illustrator files.”
Merrick: I didn’t even think it would be half as hard as it was but, also I’m really proud because I think we did something that hasn’t been done before.
PVC: Well, that’s the thing. This film is unique it its time, but I think it might also be unique going forward just because the barrier for entry to make a project like this is so much freaking work.
Johnson: To be honest though, as far as if you compare this to animated movies, it’s like probably nothing. It was just the fact that it was me and Will doing all this I think. It was just a two-man sort of job with the help of Neon Robotic on the technical side. Creatively, we had a whole team, but that’s what made it so challenging. So we discovered you can find all of the icons in your computer in a folder in Mac, but they’re maxed out at like 125×125 pixels. And in our punch-ins, sometimes we’re like right on icons.
Merrick: There’s some icons that have never been as big as they are, until this movie.
PVC: I haven’t had a chance to see the film yet, but you’ve got FaceTime calls, you’ve got Finder interfaces, and texting I imagine? I’m just trying to think of how many different communication techniques can you use on a computer? What options did you have to tell this story?
Johnson: I think that’s where Aneesh and Sev, their original script was brilliant. Because I think whenever anyone watches a screen movie, you’re kind of waiting for like, “Okay, how are they going to get away with this? How are they going to cheat?” Sev and Aneesh worked really hard in making a really good narrative and a really good thriller with a great story. Then they worked to find ways to put that on the screen that didn’t feel contrived in any way.
Merrick: Yeah. I think it would be okay to say that at one point in the film, we moved to say news footage, things like that, and you can actually see the actors in there as well. We do have options kind of using video streaming occasionally. They use FaceTime a lot, but the texting…honestly, you can have a compelling scene just all on text messages.
Johnson: That was pretty surprising to us. That was a big challenge, rhythmically you would have a whole dialog scene taking place on chat, and there’s like a whole rhythm that is very foreign. As an editor, you don’t really edit chats like that, like go back and forth.
Merrick: Like if you cut in, and then a message appears, it’s weird. It’s like drawing. You have to like do all these weird tricks.
Johnson: We had a lot of tricks with cutting, because you want to cut on motion a lot of times, but everything happens on one frame in a computer. We didn’t have motion.
PVC: Don’t texts kind of “bloop” in a little bit?
Merrick: They blooped a tiny bit, yeah.
Johnson: Yeah, so we were always trying to exploit those little movements. We used the mouse moving in and out of frame a lot.
PVC: That’s your person wiping the frame?
Merrick: Yeah. Sometimes the mouse just jumps to another place, but you don’t know notice because we’re cutting at the same time.
Johnson: I think you pace it like you would a conversation. You’re not necessarily just stuck in shot reverse, shot reverse. You’re going to have your two shot, you’re going to have your master. Your two shot would be like this wide framing.
Merrick: We tried to keep the frames somewhat narrow and then we would usually start on that and then whenever there was a particularly important line, you could cut in for the closeup. We didn’t do too much cutting back and forth but like you could have one up here, and then like slide over to where they type and see the response be typing.
PVC: Ah, so that would be more like a traditional pan over to a reaction?
Merrick: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Johnson: That was something that we had to learn ourselves I think. I totally get the impulse to want to just follow the mouse everywhere and not cut. It took us a while to understand that we can do these things, and by the end it was just like editing a normal movie.
PVC: Ok, so the 16:9 aspect ratio doesn’t exactly fit a computer screen, right?
Merrick: It does actually. We may have cheated it very slightly, but when we go out to the full 16×9 wide, it looks like a MacBook.
PVC: Did you find that wide framing to be an impediment when you’re cutting around stuff? A text message thread is not really that wide, it’s kind of square, right?
Merrick: We don’t go out wide often. Normally it’s for effect.
Johnson: That was one thing that Sev, our producer, really said early on. As soon he saw the animatic, he said we should be reserving our wides for really important beats.
Merrick: Like you never use a wide as your default. You never default to the wide.
Johnson: The nice thing is that everyone’s familiar with the layout of a computer screen, so we can kind of use that to our advantage. It’s not like you need to, like in a normal scene, live action movie, you have to establish the space at some point early on maybe so that people aren’t confused. We could start a scene on a text notification, for instance, and not worry that people are going to be like, “Whoa, where are we?”
Merrick: It’s funny to even play with that sometimes. There are times where we start in closeup, and you don’t know where you are yet, and you slowly find out through context. Our best compliments were after a lot of our test screenings people said, “I totally forgot everything was on a computer screen.”
PVC: So I imagine that you used the full Adobe tool set on this project.
Merrick: Most of it, yeah. Mostly Premiere Pro, After Effects, Photoshop, and Illustrator.
Johnson: Yeah, we didn’t really use InDesign. We used Lightroom a little bit, for some photos we shot.
Merrick: We even used SpeedGrade. It was our DPX viewer.
PVC: This was before … I guess SpeedGrade has since gone away?
Merrick: Yeah, we found a way to get it back.
Johnson: SpeedGrade weirdly was the best DPX viewer we could find. But we did color, we did do almost all of the primary color in After Effects with Color Finesse.
Merrick: We found a colorist, Zach Medow, who could do it.
Johnson: Zach was one of the only people who could listen to our workflow and not laugh us out of the room. He understood what was going on in our sequences. He had to color every live action element separate from the screen without ruining the screen. He was amazing.
Merrick: He had no playback. It was terrible. Just the worst conditions you could have for a colorist. But he did an incredible job. Like he nailed it. We had a pretty short amount of time, and he nailed it.
PVC: Sound design probably plays an important part in this sort of film? Who did sound design and how did that process work?
Johnson: A company called This is Sound Design did it, and this was actually probably the most traditional part of the process. I don’t necessarily want to speak for them, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that they had to also wrap their heads around the rules of this kind of film.
Merrick: Something that was weird…Foley for clicks in a keyboard suddenly becomes very critical, like you have no leeway.
Johnson: There’s a lot of character.
Merrick: You could show emotion through the clicks and through the keyboard, like how hard somebody’s typing. They did a great job with that. Every time we’d go to … I don’t want to explain how we go between computers, but when we do, it’s a different mouse, different keyboard.
Johnson: Each computer has its own unique keyboard sound and click sound.
Merrick: Then they would pan just a slight ambiance around the room, so that you kind of felt like you were in a space and had something to hear. It’s very hard because a lot of computers, there’s not, you kind of have to justify sounds because you don’t want to just sit and it’s quiet. It’s very music heavy too.
PVC: Was there like hum from fans? Did they go that far as well?
Johnson: Yeah, yeah. I think they would have birds, they would have a lawnmower in the distance for like afternoon. Like room tone hum. Honestly, it’s pretty traditional treatment, it was just, I think, tough to wrap your head around the rules, especially with typing and clicking. And I think David’s voice is actually panned a little bit. So you have this feeling that David is right with you, and the people on the computer are just in the center track.
Merrick: They did a lot of great futz work too, because if you’re talking to somebody on the phone, it has to be just distorted enough but not distracting.
PVC: Thanks so much for your time, and good luck with the premiere!
Sony Pictures Worldwide bought the global rights to “Search” the night of the film premiere at Sundance, and a theatrical release is expected.
The post Search – A Conversation with the Editors appeared first on ProVideo Coalition.
First Found At: Search – A Conversation with the Editors
0 notes