Brick

[Sebastian Andexer]

Im surprised that no ones posted about this movie yet. Its one of the best films ive seen in a long time. They mixed highschool drama and noir very well. I think it was made for 500K.

 

Discuss

[David W Scott]

Is it available on DVD yet?

 

I was waiting for it to hit the arthouse circuit in Toronto, but I think the Festival Cinemas closed before it could open here... :blink:

 

The trailer did look very nice, however. Any info on stock/lenses/cameras/DP?

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

BRICK is now on DVD, with extras...supposedly.

 

It was shot 35mm. I don't know this as "fact", but i did see the film and my eyes tell me its 35mm. :)

 

It is a good film, however some peeps around me hyped it a bit much. For some reason I expected a masterpiece or something. Not that I was expecting to see a film that introduces new film grammar, it was just too hyped by some. But it is very good and a film you could watch more than two or three times. Rian "whats 'is name", the director, did a fine job. Joseph-Gordon Levit(?) is becoming a very good actor...

 

The photography and sound design are used to enhance the story, unlike some hollywood films that just produce "pretty" images.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Jon-Hebert Barto

[Sebastian Andexer]

They were playing Brick here for a bit but I found out the day after the final showing. It was shot by Steve Yeldin on either a platinum or millenium (cant remember). As far as stock or lenses go, couldnt tell you. It came out on dvd august 8th.

[Michael Collier]

I got to see it at the bears tooth, a local arthouse theater owned by the restraunteurs that own the mooses tooth up here. Not only did I see a (decent) print, I got to eat pizza and drink micro-brew beer. Good times.

 

The photography and sound design are used to enhance the story, unlike some hollywood films that just produce "pretty" images.

 

Definatley true point. Though I noticed one shot that was meant to be pretty and I think was out of place. At the end when the cut to the standard shot of a feild of birds that suddenly take flight. The cut while half the birds were still on the ground, and the ones in the air were still in frame, then they cut to a close up of the lead with not a single bird on the same feild. Definatley very noticable (at a time when I was on board the film, not really looking for continuity errors)

 

Though the best shot of the film...where the dude in white knocks the mirror while fighting with the lead. Amazing shot to see the light comming through a split basement window and bouncing off a rotating mirror. Then cut to the close up and you get the intermitten flashes to add tension. Great shot.

[Frank DiBugnara]

Thanks for bringing it up. It became one of my favorite films of the year--very refreshing. As the director put it, he "walked a tight rope" with the film and I don't think he ever lost his balance.

 

It is definitely getting a love-it-or-hate-it reaction

 

I bet they used a lot of zooms because the schedule was amazingly tight. The budget was $450K and it took 7 years to finally get it produced. Some scenes, especially the night exteriors seem very "available light". The funny thing is that it was easy for me as a shooter to forgive the low-budget look of the film and get pulled into the story.

 

These types of films can be very inspiring (Shattered Glass is another that comes to mind) which are dialogue heavy script-driven projects that rely on the strong script to carry the film. They can be produced for very little money yet have a refreshing and genuine quality to them.

 

Rian Johnson is working on a new project:

 

http://www.thebrothersbloom.com/

 

and a good interview about Brick at:

 

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=7324

[Andy_Alderslade]

The funny thing is that it was easy for me as a shooter to forgive the low-budget look of the film and get pulled into the story.

 

I really don't see how this film had a 'low-budget look' at all. It had excellent costume and production design, beautiful photograhpy, decent acting, a variety of excellent locations - it was a real triumph for its limited budget.

 

For me a film that looks low-budget is a film like Clerks (which is still a good film) or some pitifully concieved HD feature I sometimes see here in the UK.

 

Infact I don't really have any complaints about it at all - except it was simply not my cup of tea - the dialougue and characterizations reminded me of some Teens performing Shakespere on TV sort of thing. Plus I kept having visions of Bugsy Malone (which i hated as a kid).

 

But you couldn't fault the tone, supsense, tension or the way scenes were originally dramatised - these are the hardest things to get right.

 

In many ways the film was a Geek's Ultimate Fantasy (in a good way) - A school outcast not only gets to beat up the local football jock, flirt and reject the best looking girl in the school but also gets to play private eye and with complete seriousness.

[Frank DiBugnara]

I really don't see how this film had a 'low-budget look' at all. It had excellent costume and production design, beautiful photography, decent acting, a variety of excellent locations - it was a real triumph for its limited budget.

 

I agree, it was a triumph considering the budget. In my opinion the low budget look comes from things like:

 

>Wide night exterior of a house (party scene) where the entire house and front yard are almost completely black and the only illumination is a tweenie on the main actor standing in front. Very rarely would a large or medium budget resist the urge to put up a condor with some big guns in it. The DVD talks about how there was no money to light the inside of that house, so they had to put candles everywhere as general illumination.

 

> The print I saw was extremely grainy throughout. Most big budget Hollywood pictures are much sharper and snappier.

 

> Many of the sets and locations would never have been the first or second choice of a production designer who had considerably more budget. The director and production designer discuss this at length in the commentary on the DVD. They even talk about having to steal locations.

 

This being said, all of these low-budget characteristics many times are complimentary to the film. Given the incredibly fast shooting schedule and the $450K budget, I thought they did an amazing job. Often times low-budget filmmakers who pull it off deserve more credit than the ones with bigger budgets.

[James Brown]

Though the best shot of the film...where the dude in white knocks the mirror while fighting with the lead. Amazing shot to see the light comming through a split basement window and bouncing off a rotating mirror. Then cut to the close up and you get the intermitten flashes to add tension. Great shot.

 

I Agree, this really was a stand out scene. The idea of a Character bouncing a hard light from a window, into a mirror and panning it through the shadows is a great visual que for the DP. I think the Shooting of the film was handled very well, the final scene on the oval comes to mind (the long telephoto CU of the 2 really heightened the scene)

 

Brick only came out in Australia recently so the print we had was quite dirty. There was times throughout the film that had noticeable increased grain that made it feel like Super 16 at times. Although they were mainly on the Night Exteriors (at the phone booth especially) maybe budget issues with lighting?

 

I really did love this film. Everything about it made it an enjoable cinema experience (especially the dialouge). Every review i read mentioned the how great the Cinematography was or how well it supported the story. Even the Cine getting a mention these days in film reviews is great and especially when it's a low budget indie feature and not a hollywood blockbuster.

 

James.

[steve hyde]

...great screenwriting, great acting, great cinematography. A remarkable directorial debut. I was really engaged with this film, but in retrospect the story was sort of a *so what?* That said, in terms of craft, I think "Brick" is the best American Indie for 2006..

 

Steve

[Chris Durham]

I just saw 'Brick' the other night and it quickly became one of my favorite films in recent memory. It's one of those films that, as a beginning indie filmmaker, makes me say "Man, if I can make just one flick like that I'd be one happy SOB."

 

The premise of doing film noir in a high school setting is just brilliant. And I think about how he subversively inserted a noir staple - first person narration/internal monologue - by having dialogue with a character nicknamed "Brain" and it just gives me goosebumps. Very very cool.

 

Of course none of that has to do with cinematography, but the film was visually excellent. Though limited in budget, the palette and composition just fit the mood of the story so well. One of my personal favorite shots is when the main character throws something at the drama vamp's head, or perhaps the mirror behind her and when she rises from ducking the black wall behind the glass is right behind her head and the broken glass around it makes a sort of corona or halo. It reminded me of an Alfons Mucha painting.

[Robert Lachenay]

I'm afraid I found the film to be incredibly contrived, pretentious and just generally off-putting. I must say, however, that I deeply respect Rian Johnson for pursuing his vision without compromise. Audiences will have vastly different reactions (as we've seen on this very thread), however I'm sure Johnson will always be quite happy to have made this. The filmmakers I look down upon with disgust and contempt are the ones who work for the satisfaction of others before their own...I can't say that about Johnson.

Edited February 18, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Does anyone know how they did that crazy ceiling fan shot?

 

The first time I saw that I was in awe.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just saw it last night on DVD and thought it was a great example of what an indie film should do. Nice cinematography, directing, acting, editing.

 

The vibe reminded me of the pilot to "Twin Peaks".

 

The odd thing watching the movie was that I worked with Joseph Gordon-Levitt on "Shadowboxer" and one of the first characters he talks to is named "Brain", played by Matt O'Leary, who I worked with on "Solstice", and then he sees Megan Good, who I worked with on "D.E.B.S." -- that took me out for a moment.

[steve hyde]

...yeah, I agree - I would add that it is what a *first* Indie feature should be for a company that actually wants to earn a return on the investment. (it helps) The actors are great and can carry a tune. The screenplay is based on the dramatic structure of the "Maltese Falcon".

Rian Johnson enjoys getting feedback and discussing his film at:

 

http://www.rcjohnso.com/

 

 

(some might want to go there)

 

 

 

 

Steve