Three Reasons to see Zodiac

[Robert Lachenay]

I was never a big "Elephant" fan except for the continuity ( too commercial for me)

 

You'll have to explain to me how it was commercial in its intent, aside from the retrospective, post-Palm D'or assessment one could make. It used mostly unknown or non-actors and was rather unconventional (though certainly no artistic breakthrough or revolutionary deconstruction) in comparison to most films.

 

Having said that, however, the film would not have worked at all, if not for the quietly agressive style with which Alex Frost played Fur Elise in his bedroom. Aside from all that came before and after, that scene could have been a short film in itself (especially if they would have excluded the cheesy shoot-em-up video game shot), as it articulated all the tense, underlying aggression that the teenagers of the film struggle to restrain throughout it. Without that scene, IMO, the movie would have been nothing.

Edited March 7, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Sam Wells]

I was never a big "Elephant" fan except for the continuity ( too commercial for me)

and I only saw the Yards on dvd, so it was hard to tell.

I think Savides forte is the dark and his smooth traveling shots.

I didn't see in the article if he uses a glidecam or steadycam or whatever.

 

I'm a major "fan" of "Elephant" and "Last Days" as well.

 

A film you should see if you're into Harris Savides' work is "Birth" if you haven't yet.

 

I'll see "Zodiac" this weekend - so no opinion yet.

 

-Sam

[Max Jacoby]

You'll have to explain to me how it was commercial in its intent, aside from the retrospective, post-Palm D'or assessment one could make.

Yeah, I don't get the 'commercial' argument either. I think it's an outstanding film and the cinematography is amazing. Somehow I doubt that a film shot on a video camera can look as good and feel as sensual as 'Elephant'.

 

Although most people don't notice it, the sound design is really mind blowing in this film. If you listen carefully, they hardly ever used background noise of a real school, but of trainstations and such. Some of the things they did are really innovative, it's almost musique concrète.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Just saw Zodiac. As usual, I was disappointed with the black and highlights when it comes to digital. But, I have a suspicion that what I was seeing was also printed on a cheaper Fuji print stock, so that may have greyed up the blacks a bit, I think.

 

Also, one of the reels was a bad stock as I could see evidenced in a few color temp changes that would happen within certain shots. And there were some bad phasing issues, similar to the strobing effects you get when filming a TV screen. The theatre's customer service was closed already, it was a late showing, so I couldn't complain and get my money back.

 

Ohhhh, but they'll be hearing from me!

 

Technical issues aside, I thought it was a good film. You can tell Fincher really disciplined himself and wasn't at all flashy with his techniques in this one. The "3 shots" spoken of, weren't that impressive, they were really just effects shots anyways. But the story concerning the obsession over the case was quite gripping, long, but it just heightened the frustration that these men must have felt.

 

(Note: Watch the poor greenscreen sequences of Mark Ruffalo driving, many lessons to be learned in that scene in regards to how NOT to shoot greenscreen)

[David Mullen ASC]

Just saw Zodiac. As usual, I was disappointed with the black and highlights when it comes to digital. But, I have a suspicion that what I was seeing was also printed on a cheaper Fuji print stock, so that may have greyed up the blacks a bit, I think.

 

Actually, the basic Fuji 3513 D.I. print stock has deeper blacks than the standard Kodak Vision 2383.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Actually, the basic Fuji 3513 D.I. print stock has deeper blacks than the standard Kodak Vision 2383.

 

Somethin' was goin' on then, because those blacks were so grey (especially in the opening scenes) that I was horribly distracted. With another ViperFilmStream film "Collateral" it was forgiveable because of the film's bluish fluorescent twilight look...but I would have just loved to see REAL blacks in this film which had such a dark subject matter.

[Angeliki Makraki]

Somethin' was goin' on then, because those blacks were so grey (especially in the opening scenes) that I was horribly distracted. With another ViperFilmStream film "Collateral" it was forgiveable because of the film's bluish fluorescent twilight look...but I would have just loved to see REAL blacks in this film which had such a dark subject matter.

 

I think that the desaturated brownish look is Harris Savides "effect". He likes detailed blacks and underexposing regular film stock. But maybe he can answer himself.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I think that the desaturated brownish look is Harris Savides "effect". He likes detailed blacks and underexposing regular film stock. But maybe he can answer himself.

 

But that's the thing...they WEREN'T "detailed black". They were potentially deep dark black areas of the scenes that were just a dark grey without any detail whatsoever.

[Max Jacoby]

With film stock Savides has a tendency (in some films at least) to underexpose by several stops and then print up again, so there would be no details in the dark areas anymore.

[Angeliki Makraki]

The characters (aside from gyllenhaal's), had these strange, almost nonchalant responses to some very grim and serious situations....it detracted immensely from the believability and dramatic pull of many scenes and ultimately watered down the movie to an occasionally interesting, but predominantly boring analytical account.

 

I thought that the underplaying worked ! Cops see murders all the time.

I didn't phase me that Gyllenhaal was overreacting, he only had himself to upset.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Angeliki Makraki

[Angeliki Makraki]

I'm a major "fan" of "Elephant" and "Last Days" as well.

 

A film you should see if you're into Harris Savides' work is "Birth" if you haven't yet.

 

I'll see "Zodiac" this weekend - so no opinion yet.

 

-Sam

 

I did sit up in my chair when I saw the cinematography in "Birth" at a movie theatre in Athens.

Since it starred Nicole Kidman I was expecting some bland Hollywood photography.

When the film was over, I checked out the credits and saw Savides name.

I also liked the low-key style of Zodiac, although I'd like to check it out in a few different theatres,

it seemed to have an uneven print quality and flickered at one theatre.

[Angeliki Makraki]

You'll have to explain to me how it was commercial in its intent, aside from the retrospective, post-Palm D'or assessment one could make. It used mostly unknown or non-actors and was rather unconventional (though certainly no artistic breakthrough or revolutionary deconstruction) in comparison to most films.

 

Maybe not in intent, but in reality, perhaps Van Sant and Savides can't escape their past in advertising.

The whole look and feel of Elephant was like an AD, (I don't know for what !) from the students that were like models to the Americana snapshot style photography. The whole thing left me with a cold feeling. I thought that Van Sant could have been more experimental, he dabbled a little bit in the time warps, but they didn't really make a point.

The music was a little more interesting.

As far as camera movement goes, I would much rather watch Bela Tarr.

His cinematography is beautiful even though the subject matter is depressing.

[Max Jacoby]

Maybe not in intent, but in reality, perhaps Van Sant and Savides can't escape their past in advertising.

I find Fincher's advertising roots much more obvious that Van Sant's.

[Angeliki Makraki]

I find Fincher's advertising roots much more obvious that Van Sant's.

He fooled me with Zodiac !

[Max Jacoby]

I can't comment on 'Zodiac' in particular, because I haven't seen the film for myself yet. But his previous films have a definite advertisment influence. I found myself chuckling when I heard Fincher talk on the commentary track of 'Seven' about how he wanted that film to feel gritty and real. Gritty and real? Grit has never looked more stylish than in 'Seven', and is a far cry from say Gaspar Noé's films or, god forbid, the real world.

 

As for the kids in 'Elephant', there was a definite homoerotic feel to how they all looked, I agree on that.

[David Mullen ASC]

The ICG Magazine article that just came out confirms that the pastel, "lifted blacks" look was intentional, to help capture the period.

 

I just saw the movie and enjoyed it for the most part. Yes, it dragged a little towards the end and the lack of real resolution was unavoidable (in fact, the movie sort of references this by mentioning how Dirty Harry was able to just shoot the "Scorpio" killer and bring closure to the case...).

 

The Viper photography was great. It shows, partly, the difference between recording in Film Stream versus HD Stream as "Miami Vice" did, but the difference is also due to the fact that Fincher / Savides was not interested in exploring any unique electronic look, so the movie is probably a good example of how close to a film look that the Viper is capable of.

 

There is an overall softness from the HD resolution, but to some extent it can be justified by the period look (they even stuck the old 1970's Paramount logo at the front.) On close-ups, it looked pretty sharp even with all the soft lighting, but the higher contrast lit scenes looked the best technically. The extra depth of field was only really noticable in the night scenes where you normally don't expect it -- otherwise the depth of field reminded of those 1970's movies that were all shot on the Angenieux zooms at T/4.

 

Only a few scenes had some mild noise problems. The camera seemed to do OK with bright day exterior scenes.

 

Skintones were intentionally pastel, brownish so it was hard to judge them. Occasionally in very warm scenes it looked a bit off, as if they were shot under sodium streetlamps (some might have been.)

 

The film does point out to me that we need to get digital cameras up to 4K soon...

 

I would say that the Viper look is similar to the Genesis, with the difference mainly being the increased depth of field for the Viper, perhaps also the increased overexposure latitude of the Genesis. I'm curious if the electronic 2.35 mode of the Viper in this case yielded a sharper image than cropping the Genesis images to 2.35 would.

[Robert Lachenay]

As for the kids in 'Elephant', there was a definite homoerotic feel to how they all looked, I agree on that.

There was a very specific reason for that and for the clothes many of them wore and for the very specific moments in which the music was qeued (total sp). I thought it was a brilliant film but, as I stated earlier, would not have been brilliant if not for the scene with alex frost playing fur elise. I did not like Zodiac. It was too nonchalant when it needed to be serious and too serious when it needed to be nonchalant. It was not, in my opinion, an inviting or enjoyable film, and those two variables worked against it's almost 2 3/4 hr running length. I did not enjoy it.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Robert Lachenay

[Leo Anthony Vale]

There is an overall softness from the HD resolution, but to some extent it can be justified by the period look (they even stuck the old 1970's Paramount logo at the front.) On close-ups, it looked pretty sharp even with all the soft lighting, but the higher contrast lit scenes looked the best technically. The extra depth of field was only really noticable in the night scenes where you normally don't expect it -- otherwise the depth of field reminded of those 1970's movies that were all shot on the Angenieux zooms at T/4.

 

Skintones were intentionally pastel, brownish so it was hard to judge them. Occasionally in very warm scenes it looked a bit off, as if they were shot under sodium streetlamps (some might have been.)

It made me think of Techniscope.

 

The skintones in the newspaper office seemed off to me. I thought this was due to the fluorescent lighting.

 

I enjoyed. But then I liked 'Dragnet' and police procedurals in general.

[Dan Goulder]

It made me think of Techniscope.

 

The skintones in the newspaper office seemed off to me.

I too thought the skin tones looked very unflattering, which has consistently been the case with the movies I've seen that were shot with the Viper. However, I wouldn't compare it to Techniscope, which achieved skin tones easily rivaling that of any other 35mm format. (Check out new prints of the Sergio Leone series if you get the chance. They are in regular cinematheque circulation.)

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Yes, it dragged a little towards the end and the lack of real resolution was unavoidable (in fact, the movie sort of references this by mentioning how Dirty Harry was able to just shoot the "Scorpio" killer and bring closure to the case...)

 

I felt it dragged a bit, as well, but it was acceptable because the hunt for the Zodiac WAS a long and drawn out process to no avail. It could have been part of the point to have us as the audience get equally as frustrated with the story as the characters were with the hunt, ha ha!

 

Strangely though, after seeing it once, I'm tempted to go back and watch it again...as if I might have missed something, a piece to the puzzle. Uh oh, I hope I'm not becoming another Zodiac obsessive.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I too thought the skin tones looked very unflattering, which has consistently been the case with the movies I've seen that were shot with the Viper. However, I wouldn't compare it to Techniscope, which achieved skin tones easily rivaling that of any other 35mm format. (Check out new prints of the Sergio Leone series if you get the chance. They are in regular cinematheque circulation.)

 

It wasn't the skintones that reminded me of Techniscope.

 

It was the slight noise and the sharpness. The greyness of overcast exteriors, made me think specifically of Techniscope movies from Universal, rather than British or Italian. Though maybe 'King of Hearts'.

Edited March 13, 2007 by Leo Anthony Vale

[John Holland]

Only Universal pic i can remember i cant hat was shot in Techniscope was "Madigan " looked really bad , hang on and "Tobruk" a bit better ,it was shot in the Californian deserts so lots of light , prehaps Technicolor in L.A just couldnt handle the process as well as Rome and London ?

 

cant hat . ignore

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Only Universal pic i can remember i cant hat was shot in Techniscope was "Madigan " looked really bad , hang on and "Tobruk" a bit better ,it was shot in the Californian deserts so lots of light , prehaps Technicolor in L.A just couldnt handle the process as well as Rome and London ?

 

cant hat . ignore

 

Well, there's all those Don Knotts movies.

I assumed that Universal was using older flarier lenses.

'Tobruk's a favorite & with all that bluescreen work.

[John Holland]

Dont think we got those Don Knott movies here , if we did never saw them , wouldnt have thought it was a lens thing ,you saying you liked the blue screen stuff ? . do you know were the major battle scenes shot for that film or reused stuff from some other war movie ?

[Daniel Carruthers]

The ICG Magazine article that just came out confirms that the pastel, "lifted blacks" look was intentional, to help capture the period.

 

 

 

I liked the shawdows in this movie it was dark but you could see into the shawdows.

You almost have to squint your eyes and focus on whats in the shawdows in order to make somthing out.

Why do people on this website always complain when a filmmaker tries somthing different.

Im personly getting sick of the traditional nighttime look in movies, overexposed highlights with crisp black shawdows. Boring.

But then again you got to do whats right for the story :rolleyes: