Visual Imagery Byproducts
12:10 AM 6/24/2009It's true what I said before: Tonight is the big night for filming the James L. Brooks movie.
I took a look outside around 10pm, and saw the effect of all that lighting. I had no idea there was going to be so many lights. In the "heat of battle", I completely forgot to take a tripod - there should have been enough light for my camera, but there wasn't always: I got interested in the views of a film crew run amok.
First I went up on my roof. Anyone can walk the whole length of the block up there. The bright lights put much of the footing in deep shadow, so even though I don't remember any great hazards, I had to step very carefully. Neighboring rooftops are at different levels for one reason or another.
Satisfied with my birds-eye view, I went back down to street level to see what I could see. I always seem to be less interested in the primary phenomenon, and more interested in the strange things that happen on the fringes. I don't care about selling photos of celebrities to tabloids - I don't have a suitable lens for capturing them at a distance anyway. The social phenomenon of crowds gawking is much more interesting.
In case you weren't convinced, Hollywood imposes a hyperreality in every location it films. This is either going to be a daytime scene, or a nighttime scene in which everything is uncannily visible. And, although they were not producing fake rain, they did spray the pavement to make it look as if it had just rained. How will the effect turn out? Who can say?
I really did have this sense while standing on the scene that I didn't care what they were filming, only that it had to be so disruptive. Yes, of course I appreciate the results of large-scale filmmaking, but I hardly find it necessary for my enjoyment. On the other hand, in my own way I look for the beauty of found art, and do not go to great lengths to create contrived alignments.