Heat - Page 3

I agree. The 2nd scene you listed always bugged me.

Swede - on no. 1 on your list....

Or maybe I remembering a different movie or shootout.

Other then that, Heat really lifts itself above the rest.

droool

This says it all for me.
My favorite movie of all time.
& my first talkie dominated drama I will be purchasing on BD.

It was another shooter in the bushes!! Oswald was not the only 1...

Regarding the scene between Pacino and DeNiro at the restaurant.

Pacino was interviewed for the special edition DVD many years ago and said they did not rehearse the scene so the unfamiliarity between the two characters would seem more genuine and that's how it was shot. ( Robert DeNiro's idea ) Wide shots clearly show the two of them together and i don't think they used camera trickery to achieve this. I see no reason why both of these actors would not be in the same room shooting the scene together.

The film itself never used a single soundstage and was shot entirely on location at 65 locations around Los Angeles. As far as i know DeNiro and Pacino got on just fine and worked together again in that awful film Righteous Kill last year.

Andy McNab was the weapons specialist on this film and he is a former UK SAS guy who has won medals for heroism in the original Gulf War and has since written many novels which incorporate tactics used by the SAS. ( Thats not his real name for obvious security reasons )

The tactics used by the gang in the shootout scene between the police is supposed to be very similiar to tactics used by the SAS in McNabs book Bravo Two Zero.

I always thought the very fact no civilian got harmed was the whole point and distinguished this movie from other films where they would just show bystanders getting shot in crossfire. DeNiro's gang were highly professional and the police were highly professional and thus the shootout is of a higher level than the normal due to the gangs SAS style tactics when trying to escape.

I specifically went through that diner scene on the laserdisc looking for such a shot, and didn't see it. That was a long time ago, but if I get time I will give it another spin, and pay closer attention.

While they very well used SAS tactics(and trust me, that tactic isnt just used by the SAS ), that tactic isnt meant to be used inside a major metrpolitan area. If you fire that much auto, bullets will hit bystanders. Thats why the police uses semi auto in the movie.

Actually the main reason Hanna's FN FNC is semiauto is that he wouldn't have had access to a selective fire version (although him having an FNC is unusual in the first place, lol). At least one bystander was hit when McCauley was dragging Sherhilis around and turning to fire at Hanna.

How is the standard DVD a/v quality? I only have a download of this movie, which isn't that great. All this talk about it makes me want to watch it now, but I'd like a better version than what I have.

EDIT: I found some reviews.

both the first and second 2 disc release have a subpar transfer with print damage, also apparently the 2 disc version is slightly squished looking:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare8/heat.htm

Thanks.

Found it at Walmart for $7.50. Not a bad quality DVD at all, especially since I've been watching/listening to BD's for the most part lately.

Many thought the massive gun battle was preposterous when the film came out, but not long after they had that even bigger shootout in L.A. where the only people hit were cops and the two nutjobs who were trying to rob the bank.

I'm not going to dispute any of the arguments people have with the "realism" of certain scenes in Heat but it is afterall a movie.
Right?

The second half of this year is gonna be so expensive starting next week w/ BSG. It's all downhill from there.

I'm watching the scene on DVD right now. There are no wide shots in the scene that show the two actors together. The entire scene is photographed from only two camera angles:





The camera pushes in progressively tighter on each of these angles as the scene goes along, until each is a close-up of just one actor. At no point do you see both faces at the same time.

This is the only shot in the entire movie where you can see both faces.



DeNiro is obviously out of focus, and the way the shot is framed would make it very easy for this to be a composite.

I'm not saying that the actors didn't work together because they don't like one another. I think it very possible that their respective schedules just prevented them from shooting on the same days.

As I said earlier, if they really were together in that restaurant, then Mann flat-out blew the staging of the scene. This would have been a great opportunity for the two actors to play off one another in the same shot. But that never happens.

However, I still think Heat is a great movie, and this was Mann's only serious mistake.

Josh, funny you did that. I watched it yesterday afternoon, and after keeping up with this thread, I paid close to attention to all the shots with (or without) the two actors in them. I'd have to agree with your assessments.

Curious, though. You think it was a mistake on Mann's part. I haven't read anything about it, but was it a conscious decision on his part or not (keeping the actors apart)?

I think they mention that they used two cameras just because of the interaction between the two actors. So they could use both angles from the same take. And in the same doc, they say that most of that scene comes from the same take. Dont remember if it were take 7 or 11.

And considering that we dealing with Mann, DeNiro and Pacino, I dont think anyone of them would be satisfied with shooting that scene seperetly.

As for no wide angle shoot. I dont think that works so good since the viewer sometimes gets distracted on whats going on behind them. And I dont think Mann ever considered that people would think it were a consipracy.

one of the greatest A-vs-B movie scenes of all time has got to be Walken vs. Hopper in True Romance. it runs over 10 min (Heat's coffee scene is just over 6 min). and not once in that scene do you see Walken's and Hopper's faces in the same shot. does that mean they weren't on the set together either? or did Scott just screw it up?

I've no problem with how the scene was staged and actually love it. Whatever Mann did worked because I can recall being in that theater and being electrified watching that scene for the first time.

I watched this again this morning. Man.....movies just don't get much better than this. Easily in my top 10, maybe even top 5.

One of my favorite scenes (not even a scene, really a moment) is when...

If it was a conscious decision, in my opinion it was the wrong decision. The scene would work better if the actors were allowed to play off one another.


Perhaps, but the staging of that scene in True Romance is more dynamic, so you don't notice the lack of the actors being in the same shot. There are close-ups and medium shots, and cutaways to other people in the room, and Scott changes up the camera angles frequently.

The restaurant scene in Heat is staged in the absolute blandest reverse-angle-reverse coverage. It's almost comical how blatant it is that you can only see the back of one actor's head while the other speaks.

That's why I was a little weary of asking the question I did: Whether or not it was a conscious decision on Mann's part. It's quite obvious after watching the movie, but I still wasn't certain.

I'd have to say, I would certainly like to have seen how it would have played out with the two of them together. Like you said, "playing off each other". Probably would have been a stellar scene, although I wouldn't have wanted it to be like that more than once in the whole movie.

The diner scene was a decision by Mann. I think he blew it too. Here is a production shot that was made into a poster that shows them both at the table...



I ALWAYS wanted a poster of this shot but never could find one (I've seen it once at a college poster sale)...

-Evangelo2


*EDIT*

Adding one more shot of Mann talking to both of them on set durring that scene...

There isn't actually a shot in the film with both of them on-camera at once, however production photos clearly show them sitting at the same table during that scene. My Michael Mann TASCHEN book also shows these photographs. But they definitely were talking directly to each other.

Right, even though shots of the pair of them aren't used, production shots clearly show that despite the fact that they could have used stand-ins for those back-of-the-head shots, they were sitting at the same table.

This shot is known as a 'disposable two shot' or an 'over the shoulder two shot'.

It's been in regular use since the '70's as one of the means of creating widescreen films which can be easily cropped for 1.33:1 (TV).

For details see Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (edited by Steve Neale & Murray Smith), particularly Neale's own section Widescreen Composition in the Age of Television.

As you note, the technique has the additional advantage of being able to film both actors at once to pick up both delivery of and response to dialogue by cutting between the two.

The disadvantage of the technique is that its very existence encourages its own use, and subsequently the lack of use of the whole frame and the ability to see both actors' faces at the same time - something directors used to do regularly before the technique was developed.

Pros and cons.

Steve W

Wow. I'd love to have seen that shot in the movie. No talking taking place, just a few seconds of the two of them on screen at the same time in silence staring at each other. Then Mann could go back to keeping them seperated if he wanted (which apparently, he did).