Super 8 Music video with Chloe Sevigny

[sk360]

Look like they shot it with a a pair of Canon 1014 XL's.

http://tinyurl.com/lmosrs

[MovieStuff]

Chloe Sevigny is soooooooooooooo hot.

The super 8 looks good, too.

[Andersens Tears]

I believe that she made her 'debut' in a Super 8 music video in 1992/3- namely 'Sugar Kane' by Sonic Youth.

I don't have a link to offer - but check it out - not an amazing video - others were better - Sonic Youth made several Super 8 video clips - including some Super 8 sound footage on their 'The Year that Punk Broke' documentary/concert.

[sk360]

Chloe Sevigny is soooooooooooooo hot.

And quite " skilled" in other departments too! :mrgreen:

Sonic Youth made several Super 8 video clips - including some Super 8 sound footage on their 'The Year that Punk Broke' documentary/concert.

As well as The smashing Pumpkins. They've been big fans of S8 for years. A friend of mine told me recently he worked on a video of theirs a few months back and said it was shot entirely on S8 once again. I need to check that out...

[granfer]

The only thing that impressed me about the video was that for two very brief moments it was reminiscent of "Battleship Potemkin" and Busby Berkely.
And I still prefer Judy Garland!

Granfer (a fan of the Real music "videos")

[sciolist]

I thought there was nothing even remotely worth watching in this clip. The camerawork was amateurish and the montage pointless. It just goes to show that you no longer need talent of any kind to 'make it' in today's pop music world.

[sk360]

Honestly now, would you say the same thing is it was some random guy shooting a few of his friends ? Other then the fact there's a few celebrities this is pretty much is no/low cost music video shot on the fly just for fun-and even more important- there using super 8. I

[Mana]

If you're not a film critic, I think that this video, with the music and some of the star factor, makes shooting super 8 or film look fun. Hopefully making it more appealing to new users.

[sciolist]

Honestly now, would you say the same thing is it was some random guy shooting a few of his friends ?

Yes, I would. This is filmmaking that doesn't rise above the "home movie" level - just random shots strung one after the other. Why would anyone who understands what is possible with Super 8 believe this presents the format in a favorable light?

[MovieStuff]

As an artist, I can tell you that one of the hardest things to do, if not the hardest, is to imitate a child's drawing style. There is something inherently primitive and honest about how a child sees things and how they handle the creative medium, be it finger paints or drawing with a crayola. Likewise, I have seen way too many music videos where they went for the home movie look but failed miserably because everyone involved was the consummate professional and were too used to making every shot either perfect or going overboard in trying to make the medium look trashed. Both styles will miss the mark because real home movies are relaxed and casual, which is hard to imitate and still get the information that you desire across to the viewer within a specific time frame.

This is filmmaking that doesn't rise above the "home movie" level

Then it succeeded on all points because that is, clearly, the look they were going for. It is not as easy as it seems.

Why would anyone who understands what is possible with Super 8 believe this presents the format in a favorable light?

But their goal wasn't to prove what was possible with super 8. Their goal was to make a fun, lightweight music video in the home movie style. Chloe Sevigny has a natural, no make up kind of beauty to her. Should they have also brought in a make up and wardrobe person to make her look more glamorous? Can you imagine how silly she would have looked riding a skateboard in an evening gown while they shot on 35mm? Likewise, any efforts to "over produce" the image would have spoiled that natural look. Super 8 was the perfect choice, warts and all. What should they have used? Video? ;)

Roger

[sciolist]

Their goal was to make a fun, lightweight music video in the home movie style.

I respect your powers of persuasion and appreciate that there are people, probably many, who will find something redeeming in filmmaking of the kind discussed here, but I'm not among them. Thought and effort may have been invested in this production, but it's not at all apparent to me. I don't want to watch such films, even if they were badly done by design. It comes down to a matter of taste. In this case, skateboards and celebrity don't make for riveting viewing, especially when I recall the work of genuinely talented performers collaborating with genuinely talented filmmakers.

[granfer]

I'm afraid, Roger, that I agree with Sciolist.
It is SO easy for the artistic critic to first look at the end result, in this case something that looks like a chaotic, non edited home movie and say....

"Oh, I can tell that they were trying to achieve a chaotic, non edited home movie look. Haven't they suceeded brilliantly!"
In other words one can always see an artistic merit where one does not exist, if you want to be able to.

I am sorry, incidentally, if I failed completely to spot ANY "celebrities" at all; but then that depends on how unimportant in the scheme of things one needs to be a "celebrity".

Granfer

[MovieStuff]

I'm afraid, Roger, that I agree with Sciolist.

Okay, then you agree when Sciolist wrote:

"This is filmmaking that doesn't rise above the "home movie" level - just random shots strung one after the other."

If that is the look they were going after, then I'm not really sure what there is to disagree on since that's what they ended up with and is the reason you don't like it! I mean, this isn't a case of someone trying to pass off effortless abstract art as a great masterpiece that reflects skill, time and a great deal of effort. On the contrary, it is pretty obvious that they went with a minimalist approach to avoid it looking too overworked. Was it easy? Probably. Does that make it bad because it was easy? I don't think so. But that's my opinion.

It is SO easy for the artistic critic to first look at the end result, in this case something that looks like a chaotic, non edited home movie and say....

"Oh, I can tell that they were trying to achieve a chaotic, non edited home movie look. Haven't they succeeded brilliantly!"
In other words one can always see an artistic merit where one does not exist, if you want to be able to.

I think you are making this far too complicated. They made a music video that looks like nothing more than a home movie, complete with disjointed shots and random snippets of life. Is it sloppy film making? Absolutely. In fact, it is the lack of effort and lack of professionalism that makes it work.....for me.

Now, if you want to argue that they should have made a different type of music video, something with more gloss that showed what super 8 is really capable of and has more of a coherent storyline that made more sense, well, that's a different argument. If you want to assume that they were trying to do that and failed because they are bad film makers that don't understand the medium, then that's another argument, as well. But I don't think either of those arguments are a good fit here because the film is what it is. It isn't as if they were using Super 8 to save money when they really wanted a 35mm image. They chose the medium because of the look that it had. If they were trying to hide its origins, then they'd most likely kill the shots of people holding a super 8 camera, don't you think?

Roger

[granfer]

But there's not even any relationship between the music/lyric and the visuals(thats if you can understand the lyric); one does not complement the other. Take away the music and the lyric and the impression it leaves is exactly the same; put it back again...no change. There wasn't even any mime to the lyric (I presume one of the people on screen WAS supposed to be the "vocalist"; nothing in the content to indicate that). It was as if the visuals were "The dance in the Gym " from "West Side Story" accompanied on the soundtrack by Nancy Sinatra singing "Those boots are made for walking"! What's the point? At least the most famous of all music "videos"... Disney's Fantasia... demonstrated the importance of dependency between audio and visuals.

But then it's the trend these days; dish up any rubbish... and it's not rubbish, it's ART!

[MovieStuff]

But there's not even any relationship between the music/lyric and the visuals(thats if you can understand the lyric); one does not complement the other.

Is it supposed to? Not sure that's our call to make. Most contemporary music has lyrics that are virtually impossible to understand clearly, even on repeated listening, yet a lot of people like the songs anyway and will sing along using the words they think are being said. A lot of people don't know the words to classics like "Louie, Louie" or even songs from the 70s and 80s that were their favorite.

Here's a funny example:

http://www.elwp.com/Joe%20Cocker.html

That we can't understand the lyrics in this music video is, to me, as irrelevant as the visuals. Neither makes sense but, together, they create a "feel good" moment that can't withstand the level of scrutiny that you are giving it because it wasn't meant to be take this seriously. That doesn't mean that I think it is great film making at all or that you should like it. But you can't critique a Volkswagen because it doesn't behave like a Testarosa. It is what it is. And, to me, this is a home movie being watched with whatever happens to be on the radio at that moment in time.

That's the effect it has on me. But your mileage may vary.

Roger