Skip to main content

Nothing Up My Sleeves


Miss Raspberry Beret used to do continuity on film shoots and so she is given to exclaiming “those are not his hands” while we’re watching things on the free-to-air. Put simply, this means that the hands in the close up shot that we see turning a key, loving placing a rose on a pillow or grabbing a knife handle and operating it in a stabbing motion, are not the hands belonging to the actor in the wider shot.

There can be many reasons for this. Sometimes close-up hand shots are cutaways done later in that day’s shooting when the actor has left the set already. Sometimes the shot has to be ‘picked up’ which means there was no thought of having the shot in the first place, but editing has revealed that the sequence doesn’t make sense without a close up of the hands. And sometimes the actor is a flippin’ megastar and there’s no way they’ll hang around portraying the part of their character’s hands especially when some shmo can do it.

Doesn’t half spoil the magic though, when you’re watching (for example) a Clooney character sorting through a cigar box containing the last mementoes of a dead father; you’re tearing up; the finality of it all is hitting home; and then, “Those fingers look too stubby to belong to Clooney.”

At a less exalted level, a friend of mine wrote and directed a short film and had to pick up some close shots that showed a kid letting a praying mantis walk over his open palm. It was too much trouble to get the original actor back for what was basically a three second shot – albeit a crucial one. So my friend became the kid’s hand double.

It sounded like a silly idea, but in the end his dainty, child-like hands did the trick perfectly.

Elevate the Insignificant

Mr Trivia


Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair? & David Edwards

Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Institutional Memory

Note: If you’re here, you were connected with Perth’s Film and Television Institute at some point. The FTI in the form that we know it, is being wound up and some of its functions are being taken over by ScreenWest. This is my idiosyncratic tribute to the FTI as it was formerly.
I’m not someone who plans things. Depending on how well you know me, you might be saying “Amen to that” right about now. There was no plan to have anything to do with filmmaking when my friends and I entered our first efforts in the WA Film and Video Festival almost 35 years ago (forerunner of the WASAs). We made experimental films on Super 8 movie film; in-camera editing, falling down sand dunes, raw meat and tomato sauce representing the terrible effects of our filmic violence. Super-8 was the cheapest type of movie film. 8 millimetres in width. You could shoot two-and a-half to three-and-a-half minutes depending on your frames-per-second. We had no money, so shot “longer” at 18 fps. Our tiny epics, like “Mea…