Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted January 3, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted January 3, 2004 Just saw this today and thought it was excellent. The writing and performances (Del Toro stood out) were amazing. I loved the grainy look. Anyone knowe if this originated on 16mm or was it just pushed or skip bleached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kevin Zanit Posted January 3, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted January 3, 2004 It was shot on 35. Bleach bypass to the negative (CCE I think . . .) and it then went through a DI. I loved the film as well. Kevin Zanit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 "We also played with different film stocks to keep the grain structures in different contrasts as the stories developed," Prieto continues. "When things were looking up for the characters, we'd use a finer-grained stock." For Paul's story, that meant Kodak Vision 250D 5246 stock for the scenes following his transplant, and for most of his scenes with Cristina. (Night interiors involving these characters were shot with Kodak Vision 500T 5279.) "Then, as things get more complex, we go to a heavier grain [Kodak Vision 800T 5289]. The first third of Jack's story was 5279, and then we moved into 5289." In fact, the transition occurs in the midst of a sequence in which friends are gathered for Jack's birthday party, and the guest of honor is absent. "Scenes that show the party happening without him were filmed on 5279, and the moment he arrives, we changed to 5289," says Prieto. "It's so subtle that it's likely no one will consciously notice it." When the characters converge in New Mexico for the film's climax, the scenes are rendered entirely with the heavy-grained 5289, made harsher by the bleach-bypass process. Read the full article here: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec03/cover/index.html EDIT: Tim Please get this BBCode fixed! Had to edit my post many times, trying different tags to denote the quote from the webpage, and they never got formatted. They remained tags and never became formatted in the post! :angry: Test. This text should be in quotes. This text should be italicized. This should be a hyperlink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Tim Please get this BBCode fixed! ... :angry: Hey, man. Don't get angry with me. If something needs fixing, just post a note in the Support Forum and I'll get to it ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin Pingol Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 Tim Please get this BBCode fixed! ... :angry: Hey, man. Don't get angry with me. If something needs fixing, just post a note in the Support Forum and I'll get to it ASAP. Sorry Tim, I was just a little frustrated, as this has happened before. Reading over my post, it came out a lot harsher than I had intended. I have underestimated the power of the "angry" emoticon :D . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean-louis Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 O just saw the movie a few days ago. The most intresting is how a relatively simple story, that has been told millions of times can catch you once again when the format is new. The "puzzle editing" forces you to go back in your head to recreate the story all the time. When the director gives that kind of space to the viewer, for him to think, it's always a big step towards a good piece of work. I'm not a fan of grainy looks, they seem to create a physical barrier between the viewer and the screen. But in that particular case was not so bad, since the story was so well told. Del Toro and Penn are great, as usual, but the big name there for me was Naomi Watts. The girl is amazing, always coming up with great performances since her first major apearence in David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 saw this tonight. personally, i loved the photography: great documentary look most of the time. writing i thought was so-so. acting seemed like it had no where to go...forced into melodrama by the script and direction probably. naomi is great as usual. editing? it was cool i guess but was there a reason, or was it just too boring when seen in normal linearity? jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean-louis Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I read an interview with the writer in wich he says he actualy wrote the scenes in that order. Anyway, I believe that telling the same story conventionally it would be quite boring indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Levy Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The images are beautiful, but I think the cinematography actually detracts from the film by drawing too much attention to itself. For other films it may have worked, but in this one (being a heavy drama) it seems like a 360 degree slam dunk when you needed 3 points to win the game. Prieto's awesome, but he got carried away here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted January 27, 2004 Author Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2004 The images are beautiful, but I think the cinematography actually detracts from the film by drawing too much attention to itself. For other films it may have worked, but in this one (being a heavy drama) it seems like a 360 degree slam dunk when you needed 3 points to win the game. Prieto's awesome, but he got carried away here. No, it felt just right. And I don't know how anyone can say the acting had nowhere to go. Three great performances in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 i just thought the dialogue was kind of stupid and unrealistic, so no matter how great the deliveries the acting played "forced". not that acting has to be realistic, but in this case it was exactly what they were going for. jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Rosato Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Old topic, old movie, but I just watched it, so I thought I'd chime in. I think that the dialogue was absolutely overly dramatic, but then, it was delivered by characters facing situations far more dramatic than those we normally encounter. If they were using such melodramatic speeches to discuss their recent breakup with their girlfriend or something, then yeah, it would be stupid. But I think it works in this story. - Jesse Rosato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuefei24p Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 All the elements of this film seemed to be in perfect harmony, but the cinematography, the selection of the stocks and the framing of the composition did distract me sometimes, but that happens to everyone who works in a technical aspect. Shot in 16mm, it would have been just incorrect. What was the budget? I was shocked that Del Toro didn't win the oscar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos M. Icaza Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Saw it last night on DVD. Great cinematography, great acting, the acting sold the story, which as mentioned here before, the story has been redone several times. Some of the grainy shots as well as the handhel and interesting angles punched up the whole story. I also liked the "Memento/Snatch" story telling aspect of if. Watts performance was up there as well as Penn's and Toro's. C. 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