Terribly Directed
Static camera with 90% of the shots in close up. Why?
If it weren't for Woody this would have been yet another listless direct-to-DVD Canadian production.
Let me guess, your "review" is of the trailer.
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -William Blakeshare
Supa - Yours is the kind of insipid remark that offers nothing because it's pure speculation. It's also wrong.
I paid to see Defendor because I like to support Canadian cinema.
[deleted]
What was so bad about it? It looked like good direction to me.
Miley Cyrus: I wanna be a sex pot!
[deleted]
No, I know very much what I'm talking about.
When it comes out on DVD, rent or buy Defendor. The running time is 95 min. Use a stopwatch and you'll see that the great majority of shots are medium CU or X-CU (i.e. Head shots). It might be an exaggeration to say that it's 90% but I'd stake my left ear that it's 75%.
Why is this wrong? Because this is supposed to be a "superhero" action drama and close-ups should be reserved for intimacy and/or to illustrate moments of significance. But by using so many CU's, the director destroys the shot characteristic of delineating personal moments that draw the audience into a character's personal space. Don't tell me that "the whole movie is a personal moment" because it isn't. Unless you're Bergman, CUs should not be the majority of your shots, and Peter Stebbings is not Bergman.
Defendor is not a profound movie and CU's should most often be used for philosophical, reflective, or enlightened scenes/moments. This is why guys like Michael Bay are hacks - he shoots most action scenes in CU thus depriving the audience of any understanding of what is happening. It's just so much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Also, would it have killed them to have given us a few scenes that aren't shot at shoulder level? A hip angle? A high shot? A pan? A tilt? Anything to provide some variety and a sense of energy, particularly to the action/fight scenes. Even with a low budget like this film, any shmoe can rent or buy a glide-cam for next to nothing and using that for a couple of follow/chase shots would have given the film a much-needed boost of energy and a sense of higher production values.
One final comment - shot choices are the domain of directors, particularly in the indie-realm so the DOP is not to blame here.
[deleted]
Well said, Roland!
CU are for introspection, and that is precisely Stebbings intent in this film: to get us to think about standing up to evils large and small in our own way.
He seems to me to be using the form of an action film as a comment on action film conventions, as well.
Now for some personal opinion:
Defendor RULES ALL FILMS!!
Defendor RULES THE UNIVERSE!!
(lol)
But seriously, folks, Defendor caught me entirely by surprise.
From the opening moments, through the rising hope of victory, to the crushing despair of the climax, ending with the only true hope for the future of all humanity, this film is truly great cinematic storytelling.
Great writing, great acting all around, very good direction.
Hope it makes money, cuz the creator is just a no name actor who has never written or directed a film before.
If we want to see more of his work, we better buy more than we download, eh? ;-)
'Guns are for cowards.'
"""No, I know very much what I'm talking about. """
Actually, you don't. You're regurgitating what you think you have learned but are incapable of putting it into proper context.
"""When it comes out on DVD, rent or buy Defendor. The running time is 95 min. Use a stopwatch and you'll see that the great majority of shots are medium CU or X-CU (i.e. Head shots). It might be an exaggeration to say that it's 90% but I'd stake my left ear that it's 75%.
Why is this wrong? Because this is supposed to be a "superhero" action drama and close-ups should be reserved for intimacy and/or to illustrate moments of significance."""
Dude, Defendor is not a superhero movie, or an action movie. There's an ironic view of superhero ethics in a dark, gritty world of "normal people" as opposed to larger-than-life heroes. But at its heart, it is very much a drama with dark humor.
There are a lot of close ups indeed but not nearly as many as you claim. Part of this is to reinforce the dramatic nature of the flick (it's not the superheroic film you claim it is) and I have no doubt the budget locations also forced the director to make choices. Defendor was filmed in small Ontarian towns and was going for an American urban vibe, so you have to cut corners. I have no doubt a bigger budget would allow for a variety of other scenes. You do have choices to make as a director.
I'm not saying Stebbings is the next great director. But I felt he did a good job with this indie flick.
"""Also, would it have killed them to have given us a few scenes that aren't shot at shoulder level? A hip angle? A high shot? A pan? A tilt? Anything to provide some variety and a sense of energy, particularly to the action/fight scenes."""
There were shots like these. You just didn't notice them because you're a hack.
"""Even with a low budget like this film, any shmoe can rent or buy a glide-cam for next to nothing and using that for a couple of follow/chase shots would have given the film a much-needed boost of energy and a sense of higher production values. """
The director wasn't trying to kinetically blow our mind. Defendor is resourceful but like you, royally incompetent in his field of interest. Yours is cinema, his is fighting crime. No, there weren't extended chase shots because chases are usually larger than life and he was not. In virtually every scene he appears as Defendor, something goes wrong or is less than flattering for him.
"""One final comment - shot choices are the domain of directors, particularly in the indie-realm so the DOP is not to blame here."""
More talking out of your ass.
Defendor was not a Superhero movie. In no way was it meant to be a high-action and prolific superhero flick, but was instead about a mentally challenged, displaced man who was using this as his defense mechanism. I think the raw way that this movie was filmed was indicative of the raw, down-and-dirty way of Arthur's life. It was special or glamorous or particularly magnificent, because it wasn't supposed to be. It was supposed to be dull, like real life, even though he was out doing something "super". This was the same basic idea of the movie Special with Michael Rappaport. (So, if you liked Defendor, go out and see Special)
But, I will never disagree that Michael Bay is a hack.
Well, it looks like someone found a use for that film major after all.
The knack to flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.