Edgar Dubrovskiy Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 So the movie today. Slow and amazing. Some mid-wides and wides were quite soft. Is it because of anamorphic lenses? Extreme close-ups were very sharp, so it wasn't projection fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Rosenblum Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Finally saw this movie last night. Saw No Country about a month ago. Definitely feel that Assassination was superior in almost every way, including composition and lighting. Plus, a great story with great acting, and a really good score. I'm surprised, as I read over this post, not much has been said about the transitions, except for one slightly negative remark. I felt that the fast-motion cloud shots and the static landscape shot, coupled with the slow narration was one of the best parts of this movie. (That, and Zooey Deschanel being in it!) Yea, the movie was long, but it was paced well. Even right down to the long awkward stare between Ford and James that seemed to go on forever. Yea it could have been cut down in the editing room, but I wouldn't have done it. And someone complained about the ending? Ford died the same way in this movie that he did in real life. Awesome movie. I have seen 4 of the 5 Oscar cinematography nominees. I hope this wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Karl Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Got to say "I don't know." Just caught this on DVD and find it odd to see so many comparisons written between Malick and this movie. Not that I'm trying to judge which is the better, which'd be odd, rather it seems that they're going in two different directions. I think Malick is regarded as focusing on naturalism and this film is stylistically the opposite. The extreme contrast, where every black is an inky black and every white sky is blown out, is visually dramatic. However, it's a far cry from naturalism and more akin to the DI accentuated contrast you'd expect from a graphic novel film like 300. Similarly the constant orange tone to the film grew a bit long. Granted, when everything is lit by lamps and candles there is going to be a low color temp. But your eyes adapt, so it's not like you sitting in a room talking to someone and noticing the room's a pumpkin shade of orange. Stylistically, the movie is bold. But even the train scene everyone mentions is stylistically more akin to something out of Day of Locust rather than anything you can cite from Malick. If you really want to draw that comparison, please give specific examples. Maybe the DVD's blacks are a little more crunched looking than in theatres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 13, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 13, 2008 Doesn't sound like the look of the movie in the theaters. There were cool scenes as well as warm scenes, the blacks were not crushed-looking, just dark, and the image was never saturated enough to be orange-pumpkin (maybe you've got the color level too high on your monitor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Stylistically, the movie is bold. But even the train scene everyone mentions is stylistically more akin to something out of Day of Locust rather than anything you can cite from Malick. If you really want to draw that comparison, please give specific examples. DoH: James: I think James was sort of a wannabe Malick picture. It had all the potential, all the locations, the slow pace, the big budget, the brilliant DP.... but what it lacked was... a genius and visionary like Malick. As you stated, it was kind of a faux "naturalism" mixed in with a more modern, stylized, DI kind of look. While I liked many of the shots, in hindsight I see the film as a bit of a missed opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted February 13, 2008 Author Share Posted February 13, 2008 Totally disagree. The film was brilliant character piece about the miss truths of Jesse James and the assassination of Robert Ford. The film is filled with subtleties, for example the opening, when they talk about Jesse James's; myth and the man; it talks about a condition called granulated eyelids causing him to blink more then usual, yet at that same moment they have a shot of him not blinking once, and throughout the film his stare is one of the biggest characteristics which he uses to intimidate his own friends. Jesse James was a character under constant self strife and was dealing with a vicious bipolar version of himself known as Jesse and the husband, father, and business man. In one of the best scenes in the film between him and Charlie ford Jesse even refers to himself as Jesse in the 3rd person, as if another version of himself had controlled is actions that lead to him murdering Ed Miller. I watched the film with my father and he was disappointed as well, he couldn't grasp why jesse james let Robert kill him, but the whole film is about that. Jesse James even gives the man he doesn't trust the weapon he uses to kill him as if he was preparing the boy for the task. Andrew Dominik created a great dichotomy between jesse james and Robert ford, a character striving for all that Jesse James is to him, a myth. The contrast is so deep and can even been told through the contrast in each characters face, Jesse James's face was full of texture, while Robert Ford had a young, youthful, pastel face. I felt the the staging of the film resembled Malick but the story and the way it was told were much different. I'm helping a fellow filmmaker with an essay about the film and I'll post it when it is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Karl Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 If your concept of Malick can fit on a flashcard, "wheat fields at magic hour," then maybe there is some similarity. By that same account this movie should also be a lot like Gladiator... I never said anything about Malick being better, just that the styles are different. If you read Alemendros's book, you'll take note that there isn't a chapter on affecting the look... Quite frankly, the film's interior dialogue scenes have such a short lattitude and enhanced sharpness due to the added contrast that it looks vaguely video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 If your concept of Malick can fit on a flashcard, "wheat fields at magic hour," then maybe there is some similarity. By that same account this movie should also be a lot like Gladiator... I never said anything about Malick being better, just that the styles are different. If you read Alemendros's book, you'll take note that there isn't a chapter on affecting the look... Quite frankly, the film's interior dialogue scenes have such a short lattitude and enhanced sharpness due to the added contrast that it looks vaguely video. I'm not sure who you are arguing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted February 13, 2008 Author Share Posted February 13, 2008 That shot resembles past Malick movies but were shots like that are key for establishing the setting for the story. Something that Malick utilizes in all his projects and was utilized in Gladiator too. I try to do the same things in the urban projects that I do. I don't think that makes me a wanna be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F Bulgarelli Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 I'm wondering why this film made no money. I know that sometimes there is no logic to box office receipts but it sure had all the elements to at least break even. Any theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 24, 2008 It's a very long, slow-moving movie driven by atmosphere and small details rather than plotting, and the reviews were mixed and it was hardly advertised and the release was small, maybe because the distributor didn't have much faith in it, or maybe they hoped to build word of mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted February 24, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 24, 2008 I just remember that most people didn't really know anything about it since they advertised so little. Also, it didn't seem to be playing at many theaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 This movie was barely released at all, which seems bizarre to me. Here in Orange County, it was only playing at like 2 arthouse theaters, if I recall correctly. Maybe they were hoping for Oscar buzz and planning to re-release it this year? IMO, some of the blame rests with the director for turning in a cut that was WAY too long. Even Malick himself called The Assassination of Jesse James a "mess" - too long and too slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cangi Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 The attention to authenticity made this movie very real and engaging to me. There were no artificial sounding sound effects, and the acting was invisible. Even the light, as beautiful as it was, appeared as it would if I were standing in the scene. And above all, Casey Affleck's disturbing portrayal of Robert Ford was so well executed that it left me feeling uncomfortable for the rest of the day. It is no surprise to me that this film lacked mass appeal. Most modern theatergoers are accustomed to movies that deliver instant gratification and seat-of-your-pants sound and special effects. This film, thankfully, didn't resort to such tactics, nor did it need to. One of my favorites films of the season, so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saba Mazloum Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 The attention to authenticity made this movie very real and engaging to me. There were no artificial sounding sound effects, and the acting was invisible. Even the light, as beautiful as it was, appeared as it would if I were standing in the scene. And above all, Casey Affleck's disturbing portrayal of Robert Ford was so well executed that it left me feeling uncomfortable for the rest of the day. It is no surprise to me that this film lacked mass appeal. Most modern theatergoers are accustomed to movies that deliver instant gratification and seat-of-your-pants sound and special effects. This film, thankfully, didn't resort to such tactics, nor did it need to. One of my favorites films of the season, so far. I totally agree with you Ken, I loved the part where he starts talking about suicide , how if you could just take a glimpse of the next world you would not hesitate a moment to go there. And how he tried to shoot the fish under the ice, later it showed the fish still alive, trying to tell us that Jesse has lost it. Just like you said Ken, most moving goers are only watching a movie to be excited.. they have no intention to seek in the film to see what really lies beneath. Oh and dont forget the score.. how amazing was the sound track!? loved the part where the train comes in , with that deep music in the back ground, the lights flashing by the faces of the jesse gang.. how good was that?? Loved it.. definitely one of my favorite movies from Roger and i thought it was way more stylistic than No country .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wuijts Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Just like you said Ken, most moving goers are only watching a movie to be excited.. they have no intention to seek in the film to see what really lies beneath. But then again No country wasn't an easy movie either, but people went for it like a pack of hungry wolves, and they all loved it, here in the Netherlands anyway. I believe it's all more for marketing reasons than lack of depth in the public's taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 But then again No country wasn't an easy movie either, but people went for it like a pack of hungry wolves, and they all loved it, here in the Netherlands anyway. I believe it's all more for marketing reasons than lack of depth in the public's taste. No Country had about 10 times more action than Jesse James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Wuijts Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 No Country had about 10 times more action than Jesse James. So? The assassination... had Brad Pitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) I think Deakins has been for many years at the top of his game. Will he be treated as Scorcese was? I sincerely hope not..... The man that wasn't there, O' Brother Where Art Thou, Fargo, Village, No country for old men, Assasination of Jesse James, In the Valley of Elah...... I certainly feel inspired by his work. More so, I feel inspired by the fact that he really appreciates the Coens Bros, as Directors that really understand the photographic process. They are apparently really anal about the storyboarding. Personally, I always try and convince the directors that I work with to be meticulous about storyboarding. It reduces the possibility of problems arising in that dept and also allows you space to deal with other issues that crop up during production. On a different note, does anyone know which company holds the 'deakinizers'? Cheers S Edited March 5, 2008 by Serge Teulon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 It will be interesting to see how Lubezki works with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Vincent Sweeney Posted March 7, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2008 On a different note, does anyone know which company holds the 'deakinizers'? Otto Nemenz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 It will be interesting to see how Lubezki works with them. Thats right...they've gone with 'Chivo' for their next film. By the AC mag, Deakins was already commited on another job. It will be interesting! Looking forward to it.... Maybe someone can clarify a rumour that I've been hearing for a while on sets.....Did 'Chivo' get a big feature as DP immediately after leaving the Polish Film school? Cheers S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Otto Nemenz Thanks Vincent! S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Thats right...they've gone with 'Chivo' for their next film. By the AC mag, Deakins was already commited on another job.It will be interesting! Looking forward to it.... Maybe someone can clarify a rumour that I've been hearing for a while on sets.....Did 'Chivo' get a big feature as DP immediately after leaving the Polish Film school? Cheers S Rodrigo Prieto knows more about him than probably anyone here. I think Prieto 1st AC'd Lubezki's early stuff. Maybe he will chime in. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) Rodrigo Prieto knows more about him than probably anyone here. I think Prieto 1st AC'd Lubezki's early stuff. Maybe he will chime in. :) I didn't know Rodrigo Prieto was a member.....good news! Hey Rodrigo, if you get a moment can you just give us an answer on this rumour. AC's keep telling me that "Chivo' got to DP a well funded feature fresh out of Polish Film school.......once an entertaining conversation/rumour on set, but with time it now needs closure. Btw congrats on Lust, Caution! Thoroughly enjoyed it!! Was the language barrier a tough issue to deal with in your mostly oriental crew? Cheers S Edited March 7, 2008 by Serge Teulon 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