Second, I think most of you on here are aware of the notorious reputation Heaven’s Gate has garnered since it tanked at the box office as well as U/A. I have been an admirer of Cimino’s movies since Deer Hunter (along with Year of the Dragon and even Desperate Hours) but I had always been reluctant to check out HG. Then, on a whim, I watched it today.
To be honest, I thought it was pretty damn great. It’s not anywhere near perfect to be sure but nowhere near deserving of all the ill will it received since its release either. From the outset, that score just drew me in and Zsigmond did what I think is some of his greatest work ever. And Cimino did what I think has been his greatest strength: an evocation of time and place. He has a great flair for the flavors of a distinct period in time. Sure, it’s long but I thought the scope of the story justified it enough and the story dealt with what I’ve rarely ever seen in American cinema: whites as minorities. I think many Americans today forget that emigrating European whites were seen as undesirable foreigners too and that the concept of white majority is but a recent creation in this nation’s history.
My personal opinion is that Heaven’s Gate belongs in the same field as a film like Matewan by Sayles. They’re uniquely American films. I’ve read of the stories behind the scenes and they’re sheer insanity but then again cinephiles tend to praise Herzog for similar degrees of madness.
This is not in order from favorite to least, just the ones I enjoy most of the ones I own:
1. Night on Earth
2. Down by Law
3. Le Cercle Rouge
4. Hoop Dreams
5. Last Temptation of Christ
6. Tokyo Drifter
7. Youth of the Beast
8. Sword of Doom
9. Hidden Fortress
10. Seven Samurai
11. The Pornographers
12. Branded to Kill
13. In the Mood for Love
14. Straw Dogs
15. The Red Shoes
16. John Cassavetes box set
17. Videodrome
18. Naked Lunch
19. Mishima
20. Europa
I love it too. What’s amazing is that Doyle and WKW went against all their usual filmmaking methods to make In the Mood for Love the way they did. And it’s just as fascinating for it.
I own Tokyo Drifter, Branded to Kill, and Youth of the Beast myself and I don’t regret any of the purchases. Not only is the way in which they were made very impressive but his delirious, hyper-kinetic style of colors and crazy edits may have you revisit them from time to time.
I would actually consider watching them in the way Criterion released them. Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill are great primers. Youth of the Beast, although just as lush, is more polished and clean (as are the couple others that were released along with it). I personally don’t like Gate of Flesh as much but it’s interesting at the very least. But I think that’s more a preference too. He made genre crime films as well as films dealing with social issues (haven’t seen Story of a Prostitute but I think that falls in the latter category too).
I would have to agree with Requiem for a Dream and Kids. I wasn’t into movies much at all when I was a teenager but Requiem staved me off drugs and I remember Kids woke a lot of my friends up in high school.
Although I wouldn’t say Lelouch is a lousy director really. But his reputation more or less sums up to a one-hit wonder. But A Man and a Woman was really quite something. Hearing him speak about the making of the film, one gets the feeling it was one of those serendipitous productions where everything just came together for whatever reason.
Loki –
I checked out the link you provided and I actually liked it too. It reminded me of the aspects I enjoyed most about Frankenheimer’s Grand Prix. But I still stand by my original post. I don’t think he’s a particularly lousy director though.
I tried a search for anything relating to this but couldn’t find anything so I posted a new topic. I’m sorry in advance if this has come up before.
But I’m in film school heading into my senior year. I will be expected to work on a senior thesis. What format we choose to shoot on is ultimately left to choice. I’ve had chances to work with 16mm during my time there but I suppose I feel more at home with my DVX100. It’s like an arm to me and it suits my tendency to shoot fast and on the run. So I have a choice to make between film or digital (classic discussion) and money is not necessarily an issue as I’ve put aside little by little over the last couple years working and making good use of my financial aid.
Sorry for the exposition. My real question concerns digital to film transfer. If I were to ultimately go with digital, what would be optimal scene settings for transfer? Does a film shot on DVX100 look convincing blown up to, say, 16mm print? I used to question shooting a serious work on digital until I saw Land of Plenty by Wim Wenders which was shot on DVX. But I never caught that in theaters so I don’t know what it looks like blown up. However, viewing it at home, it looked really good. Also, how much does such a transfer cost? I’ve sent emails to post houses but never get replies back for some reason.
Thanks everyone. I really appreciate all the input.
@252: Thank you for the settings. I was aware of the master ped and detail level settings but turning the shutter off made a significant difference in how movement was perceived on the DVX. As for labs, I’d be the first to tell you I know very little about what goes on in there exactly. But would you say it’s safe to transfer most anything onto 500T?
I have another open question concerning the film look on digital. I own Premiere Pro and have edited all my own stuff as well as simply experimenting with different tools. I haven’t messed around with it enough to confirm but I’ve noticed boosting HSL contrast for every clip really gives off that sense of latitude that you get in film. Contrast naturally adds grain but one of the complaints about digital is that it’s too clean anyway so it tends to work in your favor. I’ve noticed this is particularly the case if you decide to do something in black and white on digital. It gives you those hard blacks and solid whites you find in film.
Does anyone know of any other editing techniques like this or something that improves upon the method I mentioned?
I personally love the movie but I can certainly see how others would dislike it. For me, I suppose the thought of traveling to a country far from my own, meeting a random face, spending time with that face, and then to leave without any expectation of meeting that face ever again has always felt like something that would excite me.
Coppola herself has related how fascinating Tokyo was when she visited but it’s easy to get lost so to speak. I’m Korean but my first conscious visit to Korea was only a couple years ago. I can’t speak the language as well as the native speakers can so I felt an odd undercurrent of solitude come over me – despite the hustle and bustle that overwhelms cities like Seoul. And much like Scarlett Johansson in the film, it’s comforting to meet someone you can actually relate to linguistically as well as culturally. I met a caucasian kid during my stay there who had been teaching English there for about a year. I literally exclaimed at the fact that he was from American soil and could speak English. We hung out for most of that night. So, considering my own experiences, Lost in Translation worked for me.
@Loki: Ah, that would explain it. I imagine it’s gotta be much easier to catch his films in France. Just out of curiosity, how is Luc Besson received over there? People really enjoy his movies over here (U.S.) but I tend to think of contemporary French cinema as more akin to the work of the Dardenne brothers.
@BobbyWise: I suppose where we differ is that I don’t believe in such a boundary. For me, what the spectator brings to it and makes of the connection is just as integral in making a film good or bad.
Although I don’t seek out his work as much now, I remember first catching Ichi the Killer and was blown away by the sheer inventiveness of it all. There was a huge movement I jokingly deemed the Japanese Shock Wave that followed the same brand of violence (although I believe it’s more accurate to say Kinji Fukasaku was at the front of the line). But watching entire bodies of work by other filmmakers who employed this style in comparison to Miike, you begin to see that Miike wasn’t some sort of one-trick pony.
With that said, he seems to be breaking out of that with his more current work. It’s more subdued, punctuated by brief flashes. I thought his entry in the Masters of Horror series (Imprint) was a pleasure and Sukiyaki Western Django, although flawed, was very bold.
Like the others above mentioned, he really has pushed what is visually acceptable in video. The picture quality of Visitor Q can initially throw you off because it seems like something a friend casually shot for his own amusement. Despite most of his films inherently being B-movies, his signature is undeniable. And I’m not one for quantity over quality, but for this day and age, his output is incredible.
Just for everyone’s info, there are two stores in the southern California region called DVD Planet. You may know about it if you’re from here. You can check them out at www.dvdplanet.com. All their Criterions are 35% off from the suggested retail price. That’s where I always go to pick up Criterions. Just thought I’d put it out there.
From my own experience, what got me into the classics was what current filmmakers referenced as their influences. For instance, when I first got into movies, I was a huge fan of Tarantino. Given the amount of exposure he’s had, it wasn’t difficult to figure out the filmmakers who really inspired him. He mentioned people like Melville, Godard, Leone, and de Palma among others who shaped the kind of films he wished to make. I thought, ‘hmm, I’m gonna check those guys out.’ And that’s how I discovered spaghetti westerns and the French New Wave. I loved that stuff and eventually discovered who influenced filmmakers of the French New Wave etc.
And that’s an ongoing process. I still learn about new filmmakers and discover new gems I never heard of. That’s what’s so captivating about the cinema for me. You really do embark on a great journey into the unknown. But with that said, not everyone is meant for adventure. If that was the case, all of us on this forum wouldn’t feel as exclusive as we do. We share an inherent connection to each other because we have found others who love the cinema as much as we do. However, I believe your friend will soon pick up so don’t fret.
I think, in my case, that it’s more how a film was made that teaches me a lot about the filmmaking process. I’ll list the ones I can think of off the top of my head and explain how. In no particular order…
1. El Mariachi (Robert Rodriguez) – Taught me that you don’t need a lot of money to make something as technically good as the big shots. And learning about all facets of filmmaking can do wonders for your confidence in making your own films.
2. Death and the Maiden (Polanski)/Tape (Linklater) – Although this leans much more towards Polanski’s movie, these two showed me you can make engrossing films with what amounts to more or less one location.
3. Land of Plenty (Wim Wenders) – Shot on prosumer digital (which is very affordable compared to other formats)… there’s no longer any excuse not to make a film if you so wish.
4. Tarnation (Caouette) – Editing can do wonders for a film.
5. the work of Stanley Kubrick – Particularly his latter films taught me what a great understanding of the technical can do for your images. He had an impeccable level of craft when it came to the motion picture camera.
6. My Life to Live (Godard) – Before I had seen this movie, I more or less saw pictures as master shot, medium, close up. This blew all that out of the water.
7. Ashes of Time (WKW) – “Flaws” in images are a matter of opinion. This is the one film I’ve seen that makes overexposure look absolutely gorgeous.
8. the work of John Cassavetes – You don’t need studios to get your films made. And sometimes the most effective way to say something is to say it directly and honestly.
9. the work of David Cronenberg – There are plenty of others such as Scorsese and Spike Lee who first turned me onto this but Cronenberg really emphasized the concept of exploring set themes throughout the course of your body of work for me. Up until his last couple films, there’s a clear indication of gradual progression into the themes he found interest in. Made me really consider what I wished to explore myself.
10. Hearts of Darkness (Coppola) – All sorts of great anecdotes and shared experiences. It can be intimidating, demoralizing but Apocalypse Now is arguably more classic because of its well-documented struggles behind the scenes.
@Orpheus:
I agree with you on sound. Sound, most would agree, is the one major element filmmakers tend to neglect. And it can certainly disrupt the viewing experience.
However, I disagree that the visual element is overrated. That is like saying sound in music is overrated. That’s the foundation for which all cinema stems from. Certainly, some leeway can be given in terms of quality of images (especially considering factors like budget) but it is ultimately the image that engages the viewer first. There are exceptions (such as musical preludes) but I doubt anyone pays 10 or 11 dollars to watch a movie solely for sound design.
In the context of your film, it’s very much understood. Any low/no budget film really. There usually isn’t time to do elaborate light setups let alone rent out that kind of equipment in the first place. And I’m all for neorealist filming principles. But I will also say that great lighting is very underrated. And lighting doesn’t have to be 1Ks, KinoFlos, HMIs etc. T252’s stills above in this thread were lit only with what amounts to a practical bulb (something you can unscrew from your own ceiling) and they look stunning. And it adds significantly to the mood and atmosphere pertaining to the story.
I agree with you in regards to film school projects. Although I understand that not everyone in film school has the same level of experience going in and making a film (for the first or second time in many cases) can be very stressful. After all, that’s what everyone is ultimately there for: to learn more about filmmaking. I was fortunate enough to have shot films and watch films regularly before ever applying for film school but most everyone I’ve connected with there have never shot anything and aren’t familiar with much of film history. Regardless though, everyone brings something to the table.
I feel visuals tend to be overemphasized too. But I think that further supports the idea that cinema is visual first and foremost. It’s only natural. It’s kind of like how Bazin went against the formalism of silent cinema by embracing sound and the camera’s inherent capability to capture the real.
I also agree with your second point. The idea and visual design should be clear before ever stepping on set (barring any last minute inspiration).
Sorry in advance if there’s a rule against doubleposting.
These are some frames I took off of my short film I made for my production class. The one limitation was that it had to be made in the course of a single 12-hour day. It’s about 3 minutes and is meant to be a tribute to one of my favorite filmmakers, Ozu, as well as Ken Ogata who passed not long ago. So there is an element of Mishima I was trying to incorporate too. It’s a hybrid production of 16mm (Aaton LTR-S) and miniDV (DVX100).
As for lighting, a 1K was housed in a softbox that we utilized as toplight. A 650 was used as fill. We tried to cut off light to the black behind them but wasn’t entirely successful. The miniDV footage was natural light and was preplanned for black and white. I would’ve liked a rim of backlight but lights weren’t available by then.
16mm tatami shot in a soundstage type setting like some of the scenes in Mishima.
The upper frame is miniDV. This is the frame without B/W filter and no boost in HSL contrast.
This is the same frame with B/W filter and a boost in HSL contrast. An edge feather filter was also applied.
Hmm. Maybe I find it simple because I see it as he cuts the film on video and then simply screens it while a film camera captures all of it. Then develop and screen as film. However, I’d like to know his motivations for doing so too. I get the feeling it might have something to do with degradation too.
Heaven's Gate about 3 years ago
First of all, hi, this is my first post.
Second, I think most of you on here are aware of the notorious reputation Heaven’s Gate has garnered since it tanked at the box office as well as U/A. I have been an admirer of Cimino’s movies since Deer Hunter (along with Year of the Dragon and even Desperate Hours) but I had always been reluctant to check out HG. Then, on a whim, I watched it today.
To be honest, I thought it was pretty damn great. It’s not anywhere near perfect to be sure but nowhere near deserving of all the ill will it received since its release either. From the outset, that score just drew me in and Zsigmond did what I think is some of his greatest work ever. And Cimino did what I think has been his greatest strength: an evocation of time and place. He has a great flair for the flavors of a distinct period in time. Sure, it’s long but I thought the scope of the story justified it enough and the story dealt with what I’ve rarely ever seen in American cinema: whites as minorities. I think many Americans today forget that emigrating European whites were seen as undesirable foreigners too and that the concept of white majority is but a recent creation in this nation’s history.
My personal opinion is that Heaven’s Gate belongs in the same field as a film like Matewan by Sayles. They’re uniquely American films. I’ve read of the stories behind the scenes and they’re sheer insanity but then again cinephiles tend to praise Herzog for similar degrees of madness.
Does anyone else like this movie? Despise it?
Go to Comment
Heaven's Gate about 3 years ago
Ah, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that. Thanks for the heads up though.
Go to Comment
The top twenty Criterions you own. about 3 years ago
This is not in order from favorite to least, just the ones I enjoy most of the ones I own:
1. Night on Earth
2. Down by Law
3. Le Cercle Rouge
4. Hoop Dreams
5. Last Temptation of Christ
6. Tokyo Drifter
7. Youth of the Beast
8. Sword of Doom
9. Hidden Fortress
10. Seven Samurai
11. The Pornographers
12. Branded to Kill
13. In the Mood for Love
14. Straw Dogs
15. The Red Shoes
16. John Cassavetes box set
17. Videodrome
18. Naked Lunch
19. Mishima
20. Europa
Go to Comment
What films have great examples of ensemble acting? about 3 years ago
Lone Star
Go to Comment
Satyajit Ray about 3 years ago
My hope is that Criterion will release the trilogy much in the vein of the Cassavetes set.
Go to Comment
A True Beautiful Romantic Film From Kong-Wai about 3 years ago
I love it too. What’s amazing is that Doyle and WKW went against all their usual filmmaking methods to make In the Mood for Love the way they did. And it’s just as fascinating for it.
Go to Comment
Seijun Suzuki about 3 years ago
I own Tokyo Drifter, Branded to Kill, and Youth of the Beast myself and I don’t regret any of the purchases. Not only is the way in which they were made very impressive but his delirious, hyper-kinetic style of colors and crazy edits may have you revisit them from time to time.
I would actually consider watching them in the way Criterion released them. Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill are great primers. Youth of the Beast, although just as lush, is more polished and clean (as are the couple others that were released along with it). I personally don’t like Gate of Flesh as much but it’s interesting at the very least. But I think that’s more a preference too. He made genre crime films as well as films dealing with social issues (haven’t seen Story of a Prostitute but I think that falls in the latter category too).
Go to Comment
If you could have lunch with one filmmaker, alive or dead, who would it be? about 3 years ago
Dead: Maya Deren
Alive: Sofia Coppola
I would just want to listen to them speak about sweet nothings.
Go to Comment
Movies Teenagers Should Watch about 3 years ago
I would have to agree with Requiem for a Dream and Kids. I wasn’t into movies much at all when I was a teenager but Requiem staved me off drugs and I remember Kids woke a lot of my friends up in high school.
Go to Comment
how can i get my friend to watch old films? please answer! about 3 years ago
Let’s begin with striking out “my friend is a huge film fan”…
Go to Comment
How could such a lousy director make such a great (or at least bearable) movie? about 3 years ago
A Man and a Woman by Claude Lelouch
Although I wouldn’t say Lelouch is a lousy director really. But his reputation more or less sums up to a one-hit wonder. But A Man and a Woman was really quite something. Hearing him speak about the making of the film, one gets the feeling it was one of those serendipitous productions where everything just came together for whatever reason.
Go to Comment
How could such a lousy director make such a great (or at least bearable) movie? about 3 years ago
Loki –
I checked out the link you provided and I actually liked it too. It reminded me of the aspects I enjoyed most about Frankenheimer’s Grand Prix. But I still stand by my original post. I don’t think he’s a particularly lousy director though.
Go to Comment
How could such a lousy director make such a great (or at least bearable) movie? about 3 years ago
@Loki: No I havent but it looks like it could be interesting. I’m surprised it’s a thriller too. How did you catch it?
Go to Comment
Digital to Film transfer about 3 years ago
I tried a search for anything relating to this but couldn’t find anything so I posted a new topic. I’m sorry in advance if this has come up before.
But I’m in film school heading into my senior year. I will be expected to work on a senior thesis. What format we choose to shoot on is ultimately left to choice. I’ve had chances to work with 16mm during my time there but I suppose I feel more at home with my DVX100. It’s like an arm to me and it suits my tendency to shoot fast and on the run. So I have a choice to make between film or digital (classic discussion) and money is not necessarily an issue as I’ve put aside little by little over the last couple years working and making good use of my financial aid.
Sorry for the exposition. My real question concerns digital to film transfer. If I were to ultimately go with digital, what would be optimal scene settings for transfer? Does a film shot on DVX100 look convincing blown up to, say, 16mm print? I used to question shooting a serious work on digital until I saw Land of Plenty by Wim Wenders which was shot on DVX. But I never caught that in theaters so I don’t know what it looks like blown up. However, viewing it at home, it looked really good. Also, how much does such a transfer cost? I’ve sent emails to post houses but never get replies back for some reason.
Go to Comment
how can i get my friend to watch old films? please answer! about 3 years ago
I don’t think it’s as extreme as your OP made it out to be. He’s got Stalag 17 in there. When all’s said and done, a preference is a preference.
Go to Comment
Digital to Film transfer about 3 years ago
Thanks everyone. I really appreciate all the input.
@252: Thank you for the settings. I was aware of the master ped and detail level settings but turning the shutter off made a significant difference in how movement was perceived on the DVX. As for labs, I’d be the first to tell you I know very little about what goes on in there exactly. But would you say it’s safe to transfer most anything onto 500T?
I have another open question concerning the film look on digital. I own Premiere Pro and have edited all my own stuff as well as simply experimenting with different tools. I haven’t messed around with it enough to confirm but I’ve noticed boosting HSL contrast for every clip really gives off that sense of latitude that you get in film. Contrast naturally adds grain but one of the complaints about digital is that it’s too clean anyway so it tends to work in your favor. I’ve noticed this is particularly the case if you decide to do something in black and white on digital. It gives you those hard blacks and solid whites you find in film.
Does anyone know of any other editing techniques like this or something that improves upon the method I mentioned?
Go to Comment
Why I didn't like the film about 3 years ago
I personally love the movie but I can certainly see how others would dislike it. For me, I suppose the thought of traveling to a country far from my own, meeting a random face, spending time with that face, and then to leave without any expectation of meeting that face ever again has always felt like something that would excite me.
Coppola herself has related how fascinating Tokyo was when she visited but it’s easy to get lost so to speak. I’m Korean but my first conscious visit to Korea was only a couple years ago. I can’t speak the language as well as the native speakers can so I felt an odd undercurrent of solitude come over me – despite the hustle and bustle that overwhelms cities like Seoul. And much like Scarlett Johansson in the film, it’s comforting to meet someone you can actually relate to linguistically as well as culturally. I met a caucasian kid during my stay there who had been teaching English there for about a year. I literally exclaimed at the fact that he was from American soil and could speak English. We hung out for most of that night. So, considering my own experiences, Lost in Translation worked for me.
Go to Comment
How could such a lousy director make such a great (or at least bearable) movie? about 3 years ago
@Loki: Ah, that would explain it. I imagine it’s gotta be much easier to catch his films in France. Just out of curiosity, how is Luc Besson received over there? People really enjoy his movies over here (U.S.) but I tend to think of contemporary French cinema as more akin to the work of the Dardenne brothers.
Go to Comment
Why I didn't like the film about 3 years ago
@BobbyWise: I suppose where we differ is that I don’t believe in such a boundary. For me, what the spectator brings to it and makes of the connection is just as integral in making a film good or bad.
Go to Comment
How could such a lousy director make such a great (or at least bearable) movie? about 3 years ago
Haha that made me smile.
Go to Comment
You put Visitor Q in the DVD player to clear a room. about 3 years ago
Although I don’t seek out his work as much now, I remember first catching Ichi the Killer and was blown away by the sheer inventiveness of it all. There was a huge movement I jokingly deemed the Japanese Shock Wave that followed the same brand of violence (although I believe it’s more accurate to say Kinji Fukasaku was at the front of the line). But watching entire bodies of work by other filmmakers who employed this style in comparison to Miike, you begin to see that Miike wasn’t some sort of one-trick pony.
With that said, he seems to be breaking out of that with his more current work. It’s more subdued, punctuated by brief flashes. I thought his entry in the Masters of Horror series (Imprint) was a pleasure and Sukiyaki Western Django, although flawed, was very bold.
Like the others above mentioned, he really has pushed what is visually acceptable in video. The picture quality of Visitor Q can initially throw you off because it seems like something a friend casually shot for his own amusement. Despite most of his films inherently being B-movies, his signature is undeniable. And I’m not one for quantity over quality, but for this day and age, his output is incredible.
Go to Comment
Recent Acquisitions. about 3 years ago
Just for everyone’s info, there are two stores in the southern California region called DVD Planet. You may know about it if you’re from here. You can check them out at www.dvdplanet.com. All their Criterions are 35% off from the suggested retail price. That’s where I always go to pick up Criterions. Just thought I’d put it out there.
Go to Comment
TOP 10 FILMS FROM YOUR "BIRTH YEAR" about 3 years ago
LOL
Go to Comment
how can i get my friend to watch old films? please answer! about 3 years ago
From my own experience, what got me into the classics was what current filmmakers referenced as their influences. For instance, when I first got into movies, I was a huge fan of Tarantino. Given the amount of exposure he’s had, it wasn’t difficult to figure out the filmmakers who really inspired him. He mentioned people like Melville, Godard, Leone, and de Palma among others who shaped the kind of films he wished to make. I thought, ‘hmm, I’m gonna check those guys out.’ And that’s how I discovered spaghetti westerns and the French New Wave. I loved that stuff and eventually discovered who influenced filmmakers of the French New Wave etc.
And that’s an ongoing process. I still learn about new filmmakers and discover new gems I never heard of. That’s what’s so captivating about the cinema for me. You really do embark on a great journey into the unknown. But with that said, not everyone is meant for adventure. If that was the case, all of us on this forum wouldn’t feel as exclusive as we do. We share an inherent connection to each other because we have found others who love the cinema as much as we do. However, I believe your friend will soon pick up so don’t fret.
Go to Comment
10 Films You Learned the Most From about 3 years ago
I think, in my case, that it’s more how a film was made that teaches me a lot about the filmmaking process. I’ll list the ones I can think of off the top of my head and explain how. In no particular order…
1. El Mariachi (Robert Rodriguez) – Taught me that you don’t need a lot of money to make something as technically good as the big shots. And learning about all facets of filmmaking can do wonders for your confidence in making your own films.
2. Death and the Maiden (Polanski)/Tape (Linklater) – Although this leans much more towards Polanski’s movie, these two showed me you can make engrossing films with what amounts to more or less one location.
3. Land of Plenty (Wim Wenders) – Shot on prosumer digital (which is very affordable compared to other formats)… there’s no longer any excuse not to make a film if you so wish.
4. Tarnation (Caouette) – Editing can do wonders for a film.
5. the work of Stanley Kubrick – Particularly his latter films taught me what a great understanding of the technical can do for your images. He had an impeccable level of craft when it came to the motion picture camera.
6. My Life to Live (Godard) – Before I had seen this movie, I more or less saw pictures as master shot, medium, close up. This blew all that out of the water.
7. Ashes of Time (WKW) – “Flaws” in images are a matter of opinion. This is the one film I’ve seen that makes overexposure look absolutely gorgeous.
8. the work of John Cassavetes – You don’t need studios to get your films made. And sometimes the most effective way to say something is to say it directly and honestly.
9. the work of David Cronenberg – There are plenty of others such as Scorsese and Spike Lee who first turned me onto this but Cronenberg really emphasized the concept of exploring set themes throughout the course of your body of work for me. Up until his last couple films, there’s a clear indication of gradual progression into the themes he found interest in. Made me really consider what I wished to explore myself.
10. Hearts of Darkness (Coppola) – All sorts of great anecdotes and shared experiences. It can be intimidating, demoralizing but Apocalypse Now is arguably more classic because of its well-documented struggles behind the scenes.
Go to Comment
cinematography about 3 years ago
@Orpheus:
I agree with you on sound. Sound, most would agree, is the one major element filmmakers tend to neglect. And it can certainly disrupt the viewing experience.
However, I disagree that the visual element is overrated. That is like saying sound in music is overrated. That’s the foundation for which all cinema stems from. Certainly, some leeway can be given in terms of quality of images (especially considering factors like budget) but it is ultimately the image that engages the viewer first. There are exceptions (such as musical preludes) but I doubt anyone pays 10 or 11 dollars to watch a movie solely for sound design.
In the context of your film, it’s very much understood. Any low/no budget film really. There usually isn’t time to do elaborate light setups let alone rent out that kind of equipment in the first place. And I’m all for neorealist filming principles. But I will also say that great lighting is very underrated. And lighting doesn’t have to be 1Ks, KinoFlos, HMIs etc. T252’s stills above in this thread were lit only with what amounts to a practical bulb (something you can unscrew from your own ceiling) and they look stunning. And it adds significantly to the mood and atmosphere pertaining to the story.
With that said, I like your second still.
Go to Comment
cinematography about 3 years ago
I agree with you in regards to film school projects. Although I understand that not everyone in film school has the same level of experience going in and making a film (for the first or second time in many cases) can be very stressful. After all, that’s what everyone is ultimately there for: to learn more about filmmaking. I was fortunate enough to have shot films and watch films regularly before ever applying for film school but most everyone I’ve connected with there have never shot anything and aren’t familiar with much of film history. Regardless though, everyone brings something to the table.
I feel visuals tend to be overemphasized too. But I think that further supports the idea that cinema is visual first and foremost. It’s only natural. It’s kind of like how Bazin went against the formalism of silent cinema by embracing sound and the camera’s inherent capability to capture the real.
I also agree with your second point. The idea and visual design should be clear before ever stepping on set (barring any last minute inspiration).
Go to Comment
cinematography about 3 years ago
Sorry in advance if there’s a rule against doubleposting.
These are some frames I took off of my short film I made for my production class. The one limitation was that it had to be made in the course of a single 12-hour day. It’s about 3 minutes and is meant to be a tribute to one of my favorite filmmakers, Ozu, as well as Ken Ogata who passed not long ago. So there is an element of Mishima I was trying to incorporate too. It’s a hybrid production of 16mm (Aaton LTR-S) and miniDV (DVX100).
As for lighting, a 1K was housed in a softbox that we utilized as toplight. A 650 was used as fill. We tried to cut off light to the black behind them but wasn’t entirely successful. The miniDV footage was natural light and was preplanned for black and white. I would’ve liked a rim of backlight but lights weren’t available by then.
16mm tatami shot in a soundstage type setting like some of the scenes in Mishima.
The upper frame is miniDV. This is the frame without B/W filter and no boost in HSL contrast.
This is the same frame with B/W filter and a boost in HSL contrast. An edge feather filter was also applied.
Go to Comment
Digital to Film transfer about 3 years ago
Wow. So simple yet genius to do that. Do you know what movie he did this for?
Go to Comment
Digital to Film transfer about 3 years ago
Hmm. Maybe I find it simple because I see it as he cuts the film on video and then simply screens it while a film camera captures all of it. Then develop and screen as film. However, I’d like to know his motivations for doing so too. I get the feeling it might have something to do with degradation too.
Go to Comment