Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted September 21, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2007 Can anyone direct me to articles on the cinematography of this movie? I'd really like to know what lenses were used. The lens flares are very interesting. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Would have been Panavision C and E anamorphics at that time . reminds me its the only film i have ever walked out on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Rupe Whiteman Posted September 21, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2007 ... tell us more John!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Appelt Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 reminds me its the only film i have ever walked out on . Same to me! I went to a screening two years ago, but about 35 minutes into the movie I got the feeling that I had to throw up if I saw another zoom shot that looked like the control of a Panazoom lens motor went out of control... ;) When I saw it on a huge screen, I became really sick by the combined zooming-in-and-out while panning too fast. BTW, Nicholas Roeg's TRACK 29 is a favourite film of mine, DP'd by Alex Thompson IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Well was a long time ago but remember it being a boring pretencious load of rubbish . I suppose most like the rest of Nic Roegs films .I left the cinema leaving my girlfriend and our friends watching it to the end met them in the pub , they said wish they had left when i had . any more info ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted September 21, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2007 I went through a bit of a Nic Roeg restrospective a while back and just couldn't sit through TMWFTE. The artsy/pretentious/dated look didn't bother me at all; I was just plain bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted September 22, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2007 Here's the shot that caught my eye. I'm referring to the rectangular prisms. Is that lens flare or is that caused by the filter pack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted September 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2007 Here's the shot that caught my eye. I'm referring to the rectangular prisms. Is that lens flare or is that caused by the filter pack? Looks more like lens flare to me, not filter reflections (filter reflections are almost always exactly opposite the light source, measured by the center of the image). But I'll let someone like Max who's more familiar with anamorphics chime in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted September 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2007 David M. made an interesting comment about rectangular flares in anamorphic being the result of rear-mounted 'scope adapters on spherical zoom lenses. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=24400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted September 22, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2007 Thanks Satsuki. That helps clear things up. It's pretty evident that zooms were all over Roeg's film. Those rectangular flares are an amazing artifact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tim Partridge Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 So am I the only fan of this film? :blink: It's Bowie and Roeg, for goodness sakes! DAVID BOWIE at his peak, with Nic Roeg directing (also at his peak)!! I'm a big fan of both. Plus, the sequence in which the girl pees herself has to be one of the most unsettling moments in cinema history. Nobody else could make that both tasteful and scary but Roeg. I really enjoyed Roeg's collaborations with Anthony Richmond. I don't care who really shot what, the images are incredible. Grain, intrusive flares, nutty operating- way more exciting than the more refined, conservative stuff Roeg did later with Alex Thomson and Harvey Harrison. To me MWFTE epitomises great 1970s cinematography, to my mind still the unequalled era of the artform. Tearing up mid speed film stock with whacky anamorphics, low light and experimental composition... Oh, and I disagree that the look is "dated"- look at any indie/guitar band album cover or video from the last thirty years and the debt to Roeg's imagery is huge. PS THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is full of those rear-mounted flares (which is full of zooms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kieran Scannell Posted September 22, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2007 You are not alone Tim! When this film premiered in London i saw it three times in one week. Loved every pretentious, hand held, anamorphic minute of it! It's often been said "There are no flies on David Bowie" and i think the same applies to Nicolas Roeg these are two artists always pushing the envelope. Something to be admired not dismissed in my opinion. Kieran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_bennett Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 I love the "sex" scene the 10 minutes of flashing strobe lights, naked David Bowie, yelling/weird music (if i remember) and constant gun shots blowing. Real fun. This movie depressed me and just upset me. Brazil depressed me but still, left me like a feeling of wow. This just made me made at the world. But it's still nice film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Nash Posted September 24, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 24, 2007 Oh, and I disagree that the look is "dated"- look at any indie/guitar band album cover or video from the last thirty years and the debt to Roeg's imagery is huge. Rock 'n' roll is full of dated cliches. And the 70's are back in a huge way in rock, at least in the "look." The movie was a product of its time, and that's not a bad thing. But again the look didn't bother me at all -- I just couldn't get through the movie. Maybe I'll try it again... Reminds me of the old joke: "That movie was so bad I walked out -- and I saw it on a plane!" :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted September 24, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 24, 2007 I think the problem is that the themes: alienation, racism, xenophobia, are very prescient and pertain strongly to today's society. It's just the execution was so vague. No one, the actors or director, made very strong choices in their behaviour. It set new records for the passive protagonist. However, the camerawork, editing and the way Roeg makes an environment work for him were very expressive and were always his strongest traits as a director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Suuronen Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 A bit off topic but those of you who have seen Track 29 is it widescreen or fullscreen? Thinking of getting that on dvd but I'm a bit paranoid that's in the wrong aspect ratio. There was nothing about it in imdb. I had to send this post cause I jsut finished Don't Look Now for the first time. Awesome movie. 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