MovieChat Forums > Husbands (1970) Discussion > Boom Mic

Boom Mic

posted 18 years ago by sean-clifford
11 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this film for the first time. I watched a 2hr and 12min version on 35mm. My opinion of the film aside, (my least favoirte of the Cassavetes films I've seen) I can't help but wonder what is going on with the constant intrusions of the boom mic. I can remember at least a half dozen instances in which a boom mic can be seen. In the final scene, we not only see the mic, but the entire pool. Is Cassavetes serious? I'd like to believe it was intentional, but I can't. If they only had one take of each of these instances, why include it in a film that seemed entirely too long.

[–] haciendacaliente 18 years ago

I haven't seen Husbands yet, so I can't comment on your opinion (though I am really looking forward to it, since it is one of the two Cassavetes films that I have yet to see), but...

It was intentional in the sense that Cassavetes chose the shot despite the technical imperfections because of the content. He would often do numerous takes of scenes, so it is doubtful that there was only one take of a particular scene.

[–] sean-clifford 18 years ago

I understand he chose to include the shot in the film, but I can't understand why such a talented filmmaker would make that decision. The final scene, which does have great impact, is preceeded directly by a scene in which the boom mic is so visible as to be distracting. It takes something away.

[–] haciendacaliente 18 years ago

Admittedly, I have a very limited knowledge of movie projectors, so excuse me if this sounds stupid...but were you watching an open matte print or a 1.66 (I assume that would have been the aspect ratio) print? Apparently, you can see boom mics in some of his films, like A Woman Under The Influence, when watching it in open matte, though these things aren't visible in widescreen (boom mics were seen in a few shots on the Pioneer DVD version of Woman, for example).

[–] sean-clifford 18 years ago

I assume it was 1.66. The print came from the UCLA archive and was remastered through their preservation program.

I guess, in the end, it's not something to get so caught up in. However, it is such an easily preventable error that I can't help but let it bother me.

[–] haciendacaliente 18 years ago

As I said, I have not seen the film, so my knowledge of it is extremely limited. You might want to ask Ray Carney about it, though, since I'm sure he would have a better answer for you than I do (and would know a lot more about how the Gena Rowlands version [which is the one you saw] differs from John's cut. Who knows, it might not even be the shot that John picked).

[–] sean-clifford 18 years ago

very good point. i have read a bit of ray carney's work about the movie and do know that a ucla print was released in line with her wishes.

[–] Xcalat3 18 years ago

it think it was intentional no way it could happen that many times without them noticing while shooting

I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn

[–] mmarmal 18 years ago

I agree, that mic is kind of disturbing in some scenes, but on the other side, there is movie more professional (Hotle Splendide), where such mic appears much more often. Also in the movie Hannibal, which is expensive commercial Hollywood production i saw boom mic at least 3 times. So maybe it is not such a big deal, because this movie is unlike other movies to start with.

[–] BornJaded 16 years ago

Sean,

The print was probably open-matte and the projectionist did not frame it correctly, so it's not Cassavetes' fault, it's the fault of the UCLA projectionist. Hard-matted movies are a bit easier to frame, because when they're out of frame, you see black bars either up top or at the bottom. It takes an especially conscientious projectionist to always correctly frame open-matte movies, and there's not a whole lot of projectionists like that left.

[–] GARRAfilms 16 years ago

This might come a bit late, 2 years at that, but I just saw the film for the first time in glorious VHS... but never saw a boom. I don't know if any of the other posts explained it, but if you saw the film on, well, film, you didn't experience it the way a professional projectionist would present it (unless you are a professional, which then please accept my apology.) But film will always have 'bleed' (a few millimeters on each side) which projectionists make up for when framing their screens. If this extra bit of unwanted fringe material did not exist, films on screens would have funny edges, like home made super 8mm. Having said that, and being a professional editor, I can tell you from experience that most films WILL have a boom or light tree somewhere in a shot that you won't notice until a second viewing. Sometimes, like in the film "Married to the mob" for example, there's a scene on a Miami terrace where the entire boom is so visible it's almost ridiculous. Hope I clarified Mr. Cassavetes boom incursions and cleared his name. The man was a genius.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]