Robert Altman vs Alfred Hitchcock

ezway wrote on 3/16/2005, 11:32 PM

Hello,

Sure to bring out the most in everyone as they were quite different, but prayed to the same masters.
I am told tha Hitchcock worried about ever inch of film shot, and Altman burns film on almost anything.
So I guess what is to be learned is that if you shoot enough stock then you are going to get a few remarkable takes, and the rest goes on the cutting room floor.
An Mr. Hitchcock would only shoot a minimal amount of film and get exactly what he desired.

Both methods have strong points but I enjoy Hitchcock more than Altman, and I'll tell you why, I saw MASH when it ame out and enjoyed it so much, but never needed to see it again. When Rear Window comes on I make a point to see it, (10-15 times by now) and enjoy it more and more as time passes.

Not saying anyhing is wrong with Robert Altman, just my preferences.
Best Wishes,
Marty

Comments

adowrx wrote on 3/18/2005, 9:46 AM

:confused:

So, was Vegas used by either one??

Apologies for not letting it drop off the page, unless I'm missing something.

-jb

FuTz wrote on 3/20/2005, 9:19 PM

OT: I guess you've read "Hitchcock by Truffault" ?
Mmm... Hitch' used to watch at his movies without sound, to be sure everything was clear concerning situations and plot. And when he added sounds, they therefore had more impact on the drama side. Clever huh ?

...but the story doesn't tell which software he did use...

Weevil wrote on 3/20/2005, 11:23 PM

There is no one set of rules or best way to make music.

Is that a good snare sound? Is that a great rhythm? There never is a definitive answer. Things that work brilliantly in one song may sound dreadful in another.

A DAW/NLE that one person hates another may adore. The trick is finding the stuff that works for the song and for the personnel involved.

The Strokes sound great, there albums are record in a small studio with relatively cheep gear. Céline Dion, that’s a whole different kettle of fish...