birth

Keith Mottram · November 30, 2004

fianlly saw this the other day and loved the cinematography. the simple lighting coupled with the narrow depth of field and long lenses suited the subject matter perfectly. especially loved the uncorrected orange tungsten hues. a friend i saw it with thought it looked a little flat at times and without the narrow depth of field he could of had a point, but i thought stylised naturalism gave it a really elegant quality. cant remember if we discussed this before but were over head kinos used for the fill?

Keith

Roberto Hernandez · December 1, 2004

I just recently read an article on Birth wich describe Harris Savides way of lighting the room rather than the actors. I have yet to see the film but from the trailer the lighting looks great, very natural.

Adam Frisch FSF · December 3, 2004

Harris is a crusader and a very gutsy cinematographer. He's irreverent and never plays it safe. Couple this with a great simplicity, and as Roberto said, a penchant for lighting the set rather than the actors (something he shares with many great DP's like Spinotti, Kimball, Biziou, Seresin, Willis, Atherton and so on). This makes him probably one of the most interesting DP working today.

Dorian Quell · December 21, 2004

I saw the film a couple of weeks ago and also read a few articles.

I like the film alot even though it was a bit slow.

The slowness added to the elegance of the film. Very beautiful shots. Some were a bit shakey at parts, the long steady ones would sometimes jerk at the end.

Reminded me very much of Kubrick. The director said that's what he was influenced by. Heh I believe him.

It was a good story and a good film. I'm glad I saw it.

Lighting the room rather than lighting the actors is a superb approach. It's almost shocking. Who would have thought it? lol but really, stylised naturalism is very interesting work. There's few films out there nowadays and back in the days like this.

Kidman was great.