If you don't want David Attenborough doing the talking (although frankly, I don't see why you wouldn't), then find someone else or some other style of narration or, perhaps, take more care to arrange the images so that the images themselves tell the story. One of the reasons (I hope) for watching what is after all a documentary, is to find out WHAT GOES ON in an ordinary meadow and if the producer thought that a human voice would destroy the sibylline loveliness of it all, that's just too bad - film-making isn't all pretty pictures. But if you find yourself asking, "What the hell was going on?" - well, you shouldn't have to ask. I don't know if this is true but it's one possible explanation for why the shots are so gorgeous, and why we feel we were given the best possible seats. It's much easier to hit upon the perfect angle from which to show the spider eating the grasshopper.
The world of the tiny gives the fellow with the camera much more control, much more room to manoeuvre.
If you want to show a lion catching an antelope then you have to point your camera at a likely spot and wait and wait and wait until the event occurs and when it does, chances are that the lighting is at its worst, the background is less than ideal and you would have got a better view from somewhere else. Insects (and arachnids and teensy molluscs) offer a possible advantage over, say, lions in that with insects, cinematography really comes into its own. Take a meadow in France that appears to consist of nothing but grass, and show us what wonders there are to be seen if you lower your eyes and look at the very very small.
0 kommentar(er)
