In which we discover if the true cause for a forum’s collapse is crafting a LC thread.
There’s all sorts of arts and entertainment shit I want to discuss with no one else but the people in this subforum.
Plus like sometimes it’s cool to share something unrelated to the arts.
I feel like the subforums are pretty mixed, but maybe not.
Change the title to Arts and Entertainment LC Thread before someone accidentally posts politics here.
I guess this is where I start posting my “entertainer in legal trouble” stuff.
No no everyone in A&E is a cool little subgroup. We would never let the other kind of poster in here.
Someone explain to me why Flag by Jasper Johns is worth so much
Is this the right thread?
That is absolutely appropriate for this thread.
Umm. With all due respectus.
Jasper is more appropriate for this jammy:
Speaking of Jasper prices,
That link sucks, but that auction has this print of his coming up for sale.
Low estimate, $80,000.00. What’s not to love?
I have a perfect thing for this thread, because there is no place else for this to go.
I don’t know if any of you watch any behind the scenes movie documentaries, but there’s been a shift in how interviews are starting to be done over maybe the last 5 years. In all of documentary history, the subject has been placed at a roughly 45 degree angle to the camera and is clearly answering questions from an interviewer. It tends to de-personalize the subject. Even in this technique, 60 Minutes could generally get really good reactions from subjects that felt very personal, mainly due to the closeup framing.
While the new technique may have been popularized a long time ago with Love and Hip Hop Atlanta, it’s now extremely common in reality shows to have the subject straight on facing the camera like they’re interacting with the audience. This has now trickled into real documentaries (Pee Wee Herman’s being a recent example) and is beginning to be at more than a 50 percent rate in movie behind the scenes interviews. All of our Sinners stuff was done this way, and I’m seeing it done more and more often across many studios.
Do you prefer the person to be talking to you straight on in a documentary or do you prefer them to be slightly de-personalized by the 45 degree angle to camera? I think it’s beyond weird for a person to be directly talking to me, but I’ve gotten more used to it due to watching talking head shows where this is the norm. I think it will eventually take over and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, like the documentary subject is pleading with the audience to believe him/her.
I like when the subject looks the audience in the eyes 
Do you know why?
Triggers a stronger connection with who is speaking.
I wonder why this came about. Was it because of the reality shows? An accident? I literally don’t think any documentary filmmaker wanted to shoot a subject this way, but it’s going to take over.
Depersonalization 100%. If they’re looking into the camera then I know that they know they’re doing a film performance and they’re going to subconsciously act phony
Excellent excellent point and I agree totally. I think the idea came up from some marketing person for movie behind the scenes and then someone liked it. But those things are as phony as 3 dollar bills most of the time.
Errol Morris was the best at this because he set it up so that the interviewee was both looking directly at the camera AND looking at the interviewer.
Will you please post some still examples of the technique you like? I’ve never watched any Morris docs because they don’t appeal to me.
I strongly recommend to watch his documentaries. I’ve never seen a bad one.
