«
»

  1. #1 by Jane on April 18, 2010 - 6:50 pm

    I did not read the reviews listed above, and this was a mistake since reviewer number 1’s identification of the book as “a complete waste of time, money, and trees.” Absolutely right: not only is the book vulgar in tone (to no real practical end), it is also SINGULARLY without any of the information about cinematography that its title (“A Crash Course in Cinematography”) promises. I learned nothing that a basic Wikipedia search wouldn’t uncover for anyone interested in the basics of cinematography. Like reviewer number one I have a major case of buyer’s remorse. I won’t even take this one to the book exchange, lest some other hapless reader pick the book up and lose even fifteen minutes of their valuable time on what is the worst book I have ever come across in my long career as a reader. Having written this review, I am now putting the book in the garbage can.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  2. #2 by Marlo Stanfield on April 18, 2010 - 7:31 pm

    I’ve made, literally, hundreds of purchases from Amazon over the last decade and this is the first time I’ve felt compelled to write a review. This book is a complete waste of time, money, and trees. It vaguely covers 101 level concepts like basic lighting, lens selection, and the concept of “crossing the axis”. Most of that info should be freely available on the internet, with the added advantage of getting to skip the authors lame hollywood fantasies about what Orson Wells and Greg Tolland might have done with hookers, drugs, booze, etc. I’d suggest Sidney Lumet’s “Making Movies” or pretty much anything other than this book. I deeply regret purchasing it and have no idea how it ever got a positive rating.
    Rating: 1 / 5

  3. #3 by Peter Giordano on April 18, 2010 - 10:09 pm

    The author knows a lot about cinematography but not much about Welles. The writing is at the high school level and full of jargon; in fact, the book is full of quite a bit of useless information, including charts and graphs that mean nothing. The story is, well, pointless. The drawing were done merely to avoid copyright issue; what you have is a book about photography with no photographs or stills. The background research was done via google and wikipedia. On the positive side, the author does admire Greg Toland.
    Rating: 2 / 5

  4. #4 by D. Farkas on April 19, 2010 - 12:06 am

    This book is perfect for upcoming young filmmakers such as myself, who haven’t learned the basics in filmschool yet or will never be able to do so.

    That is what the book does pretty well, teach you the basics, and that is what it should do! It is just enough to build up on with your own style and creativity.

    Classic Coverage for example is a technique i never heard of before, but that i use now making my shorts, and i experimenting around it. The tips in the book are really easy to apply to your everyday filmmaking, and you’ll do so quickly.

    Also the book is well written, very entertaining and not too long.

    A must-buy!
    Rating: 5 / 5

  5. #5 by Frank Fetters on April 19, 2010 - 1:05 am

    First of all, I like its “letterbox” shape. The next thing that comes to mind is the length of it. Before I read it, I felt a little dismayed because it seemed short. Then after I read it, I realized that the author had demystified the process by removing the standard BS that most books carry just to keep up the page count. I was also reminded of John Wooden’s book, which he was commissioned to write after his lengthy and highly successful basketball coaching career at UCLA. The book turned out to be just 45 pages (this one has 120 pages). When confronted about this, Wooden said something to the effect that basketball is not a complicated game. The difference between one team and another usually comes down to talent. It strikes me that the same is true of the cinema.

    I got why the author was talking about Mitchell cameras and moviolas, despite the fact that many “improvements” have been made since that equipment was standard issue. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” It’s good to know that basic understanding and terminology before you learn what has replaced it. I remember in college having to work silicon rectifier and mag amp dimmer boards. The computer-operated dimmers of today still need to be explained in the terminology of those old dimmers. This adds clarity to the history of the process, and I assume the same is true in cinematography as well.

    I like the clean, salty and straightforward explanations presented here, including the “Four T” theory. I also like the way the author explains the need to stay on one side of the axis when shooting intimate as well as large scale scenes.

    I saw another review here by someone who doesn’t have a clue about motion pictures. This book is for people who want to make movies not people who want to read great fiction about Hollywood. The potential customer ranges from “Wayne” and “Garth” down at the access TV station to serious students of film. This course clarifies and demystifies. It really says that, if you stick to these guidelines, making movies is going to be easier than you may have thought.

    Rating: 4 / 5

Comments are closed.