Francesco Bonomo Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Maybe this is a generational thing... but why assume that every magazine article exists online? Maybe this one does, maybe it doesn't, but if you are studying cinematography, you should probably get a subscription to American Cinematographer and ICG Magazine. :D so true! Besides, by using the right tools you can find other things online, like this gallery on a swiss website...the production stills say quite a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Maybe this is a generational thing... but why assume that every magazine article exists online? Maybe this one does, maybe it doesn't, but if you are studying cinematography, you should probably get a subscription to American Cinematographer and ICG Magazine. well, i was hoping that some of the things max mentioned where available online. subscriptions to oversea-magazines are a tad too expensive for the poor student i happen to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesco Bonomo Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 well, i was hoping that some of the things max mentioned where available online.subscriptions to oversea-magazines are a tad too expensive for the poor student i happen to be... Alex, one-year digital subscription to American Cinematographer costs only 29$ (22?, or 4-5 pints of beer at european rates :D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted November 24, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 24, 2006 Besides, by using the right tools you can find other things online, like this gallery on a swiss website...the production stills say quite a bit... Great link, thanks! Does anyone know what this rig is for: http://outnow.ch/Media/Img/2006/ChildrenOf...1050&h=1400 Seems like they are shooting background plates. Note that the bottom camera has a Cooke S4 lens, not a Zeiss Master Prime like the camera above and with which the film was shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Alex, one-year digital subscription to American Cinematographer costs only 29$ (22€, or 4-5 pints of beer at european rates :D ) even 7 around here... hm. i'll have to reconsider that, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted November 25, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 25, 2006 However with regards to Children of Men I can't help feeling that Curan has no intention of giving exposition of how it happened why it happened, why there's no solution, because he's simply not interested in that. Very true. Cuaron mentions this exact point in the interview I've linked below. He also speaks at length about the Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki's contributions to this film, and speaks passionately about the influence of directors like Max Ophuls and Stanley Kubrick on his work. Interview with Alfonson Cuaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 25, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 25, 2006 Great link, thanks! Does anyone know what this rig is for: http://outnow.ch/Media/Img/2006/ChildrenOf...1050&h=1400 Seems like they are shooting background plates. Note that the bottom camera has a Cooke S4 lens, not a Zeiss Master Prime like the camera above and with which the film was shot. Maybe they are going to tile the plates together vertically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I just saw the film ; I was very impressed with the technical achievment of some of the shots (and I enjoyed the film quite a lot; was able to see past the plot holes). Thank you for the 'gallery' link, very informative ; however I'm still perplexed by this car shot... I'm away from home right now and havn't been able to see my ICG (and you can't pick that up in stands here). CineFX will be publishing an article it seems, but not yet available (i think). So the shot was done with the camera on a sparrow head on some kind of slidier rig mounted to the top of the car (sans roof), from where the director, DP and operator executed, right? However, at the end of the shot the camera pulls out the window revealing the full car, and the actors step out of it and the scene continues; this must be a composite then, right? does anyone know more details? Furthermore commenting on the photography, I really feel Lubezki has come to a new stronger grounding or evolution of his past work. He usually did work that was in the realm of hyper-reality myth, almost impressionistic I would say, in Sleepy Hollow, Great Expectations, Little Princess, Unfortunate events, and even Solo con tu pareja, Like water for chocolate (but without the "fantasy backdrop"), or in the very realism oriented; Y tu mamá también, Ali, assasination of richard nixon, New World, etc. And I think in this film he blended both of those sensibilities (of course its been coming for a while). Of course the story dictates the style, but in the end a persons experience and own sensibilities will inform how they 'see' the story and in turn create the persons 'style' .... I think... I'm a big admirer of his and was thrilled to witness this growth. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance for your input. best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I just heard the interview from one of the links (thanks Wendell) ; of course absolutly amazing. I respect the filmmakers wish to not reveal the "secrets" yet... best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 27, 2006 The film finally opened here in Los Angeles. I just saw it and was amazed by the directing & cinematography. Cuaron is rapidly becoming one of the most impressive studio directors working today. The long uninterrupted takes were amazing and somewhat head-scratching for me to figure out how they achieved it. I'm always stymied by car scenes, getting a 35mm camera in there and getting any movement, and then I see this amazing scene where the car is attacked. I have to think back to "Sugarland Express" to remember such complex staging inside a moving car. The print looked great. I've never seen Expression 500T shot for 1.85 projection look that sharp on the big screen; grain was minimal and the blacks were really solid. The D.I. was near-perfect too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted December 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 27, 2006 I just saw it and was amazed by the directing & cinematography. Cuaron is rapidly becoming one of the most impressive studio directors working today. The long uninterrupted takes were amazing and somewhat head-scratching for me to figure out how they achieved it. Cuaron was on PBS's "Charlie Rose" last week with his two best Director friends, Inarritu and del Toros. He won't tell them how some of the long shots were done in "Children". Apparently Lubezki made him swear an oath that he wouldn't tell anyone - including his buddies. Alejandro and Guillermo were kidding him saying that all they had to do was get him drunk some evening and he'd spill the beans. Given your status as an ASC member maybe you could work the other side of the equation and get Emmanuel drunk some time. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted December 27, 2006 Share Posted December 27, 2006 The print looked great. I've never seen Expression 500T shot for 1.85 projection look that sharp on the big screen; grain was minimal and the blacks were really solid. The D.I. was near-perfect too. I agree holeheartedly... also surprising after reading the AC article that it was shot "super 1.85:1" as I understad the Fountain did that as well, but in contrast gained a lot of noise and the DI became obvious... Mr. Mullen, do I understand the "super 1.85" correctly? basically shooting full aperture like for Super 35mm but it only loses a minimal amount top and bottom and since it goes through a DI doesn't require the grain increasing optical step... So I guess The Fountain was grainy because of the 10% digital blow up? (I know that is what Libatique wanted) ; sorry to mix two films in the thread for one. Regarding Children of Men, I'm wondering if it will do well; it's one of my favorite films of the year, but it seems like not a lot of people outside of the "industry" have even heard of it - I'm not sure if the marketing is reaching the audience and I'm surprised it didn't get a wide realease. Any thoughts on this? Thank you in advance... Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 27, 2006 I'm sure the release is just staggered worldwide; the Christmas market is full right now in the U.S., so "Children of Men" is sort of crammed in with a lot of other releases. It might pick-up steam after the New Year. Super-1.85 makes sense if you are doing a D.I. anyway -- why not use a slightly larger negative if you aren't shooting for contact printing? But it's not a significant improvement over standard 1.85. In the case of "The Fountain", Labitique wanted more grain from push-processing and zooming into the negative, but he couldn't do that for the efx photography because they needed cleaner plates, so there is some mismatching in terms of the amount of grain in some scenes. Plus Labitique was using ProMist diffusion. So I wouldn't compare the two movies too closely considering the different effect each was trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted December 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 28, 2006 Tomorrow's my birthday. The wife asked me what I'd like to do (she took the day off work). I said "It's probably not your cup of tea but I'd like to see "Children of Men". The result? The nearest it's playing to Oklahoma City is Dallas, one screen - The Angelika. It supposedly went "wide release" December 25th. Wide as in it's a wide country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jason Debus Posted December 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 28, 2006 It supposedly went "wide release" December 25th. It's only in 16 theaters in the US right now, not sure when the 'wide' release is going to be but usually it's a week later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted December 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 28, 2006 It's only in 16 theaters in the US right now, not sure when the 'wide' release is going to be but usually it's a week later. Aha! That'll teach me to trust Yahoo Movies' descriptions. I'll wait until next week before I panic and drive to Dallas. Thanks Jason! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 Take a holiday in London, the film is still hanging around the reperatory cinemas. I'm trying to persuade everyone I know to see it to suport it, its definatly one of the best film I've seen this year. Despite some good revues there has been a potent critical backlash against the film, many of the reviewers either (judging by what they wrote) have not actually watched the film or are unconfortable with its political content. In contrast a film released at the same time, the good but very flawed film The Queen has been given an overtly possitve reception. :huh: Who understands this business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddie bonfanti Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 Andy, i couldnt agree more...i dont understand it either. this film deserves to be praised and not criticised, its the only film that made me feel very strong emotions this year, along with "little miss sunshine" and "apocalypto". "the queen" was overrated, without a doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jason Debus Posted December 28, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 28, 2006 I feel like I was overhyped for this one, kind of like I felt after seeing The Departed. It was a very good film technically but afterwards felt a tinge of dissapointment because I was expecting something more from the story. Being a fan of hard sci-fi (the ones with stories not necessarily explosions) I was hoping for something less flashy and more substance. There were some great moments though. The two long takes that have been previously discussed were very impressive. Also the operating was top notch, pretty amazing considering all of the handheld work. It gave the film a documentary quality that made it feel like they just got lucky capturing some of those explosions and fire-fights in almost perfect composition. Michael Caine's character and the 'Sid' guy really helped with some emotional pacing which could have been quite plodding without them. Even though the story didn't live up to my expectations there were some great moments and I agree it's one of the better films this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 There were some great moments though. The two long takes that have been previously discussed were very impressive. Also the operating was top notch, pretty amazing considering all of the handheld work. It gave the film a documentary quality that made it feel like they just got lucky capturing some of those explosions and fire-fights in almost perfect composition. Very true. Cuaron mentions this exact point in the interview I've linked below. He also speaks at length about the Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki's contributions to this film, and speaks passionately about the influence of directors like Max Ophuls and Stanley Kubrick on his work. "Cuaron was on PBS's "Charlie Rose" last week with his two best Director friends, Inarritu and del Toros. He won't tell them how some of the long shots were done in "Children". Apparently Lubezki made him swear an oath that he wouldn't tell anyone - including his buddies. Alejandro and Guillermo were kidding him saying that all they had to do was get him drunk some evening and he'd spill the beans. " Cuaron spills the beans to the pinkos at NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6654637 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Saw it last night. I can't remember being so impressed technically and artistically. Not only was I completely sucked into the narrative and direction, but Lubezki's work was stellar. The print I saw might also be one of the best prints I've seen of any film ever. The DI was insanely sharp and grain free. Operating superb, production design best I've seen in a long time. Let's not forget all the work that went in to creating amazing sets and locations that they could shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Rosenbloom Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Loved it. I work on some shows that - once in a while - pull off a mildly complex scene; good-lord it takes forever! I can't imagine doing the much discussed car scene. I would look at the call sheet, or the story board, and say "nope, can't be done ..." Amazing job by the actors, who had to act out (that scene!), while riding on some ridiculous rig w/ a camera whirring around their heads ... Great work by the art dep't. Wouldn't have thought the hippie house was a set until I saw those stills. Note the time saving trick of wrapping half the space-lights in ctb. That's pre-rigging at work. I was reminded of Carravagio in the scene in which Kee and Theo are being led up to their room by the old gypsy woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easton Sheahan-Lee Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Oh how I wish this was playing in Calgary. A buddy of mine from Toronto said that Clive Owen Plays the character Theo extremely well, anyone second this? Hope it comes to calgary soon! :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Rosenbloom Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 That's funny, I wish I were in Calgary ... on my way to Fernie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Just got back from the premiere in vancouver... aside from two people right in front of me talking and getting drunk the whole movie... I thought it was one of the best movies i've ever seen. Every scene had me on the edge of my seat and the one shot scenes were amazing. Lighting was remarkable... or lack there of. The way they staged the camera and actors to play into natural lighting was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now