2 great films, great camera work...

[Gregor Mac]

Ok,

 

Number 1 is Dark City

 

How in the world can you shoot those dark indoors scenes where you only see half of William Hurts face but the whole thing looks oh so good..

 

 

Number 2 is Training Day

 

What camera techniques did they use to convey that feeling like you are actually in LA, its almost a video like effect to me...

 

You guys have the same feelings about these films as me?

[Mike Williamson]

"Training Day" was shot by Mauro Fiore, a DP that I'm a big fan of personally, but I don't hear a lot about him. I don't know if there were any articles published about the film, maybe someone else knows of one? The film was shot anamorphically with either JDC or Hawk lenses, probably largely on Vision 250D (in ICG magazine, Fiore comments that he used the same stock on "Tears of the Sun" as on "Training Day"). I'd also be interested if anyone has any articles or links on the remake of "Get Carter" that Fiore shot.

 

I think one of the reasons "Training Day" feels like you're in LA is because they shot the whole film on location in LA in neighborhoods where most people would have a hard time filming. On the DVD commentary, Antoine Fuqua talks about how his connections with the people who live in those neighborhoods allowed them access, I think he also cast a lot of residents and actual gang members also. Photographically, the film emphasizes environments as well, you can tell there's a very conscious effort to put the characters into real places and focus on how they interact with the space around them, keeping the depth of field deep helps with that.

 

As far as "Dark City" goes, I've never been a fan of that film on any level. Besides the weak story, I thought the photography was pretty garish. There's an obvious film noir influence in the lighting, but it feels very slapped on, the use of shadow didn't feel organic somehow and I remember thinking it was also overlit. You'll probably get more insight from someone who likes it and has seen it more than once though...

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see how one could call "Dark City" garish or overlit! It's done in a monochromatic pallete for the most part and many shots are lit with a single key light.

 

 

 

[Mike Williamson]

Well, I've only seen it once and I disliked it from the start, so most of its merits were probably lost on me. My feeling is that you can learn more about a film from someone who likes it than someone who doesn't, so my comments may not be terribly valuable for someone who wants to understand the style and techniques used.

 

That said (and bearing in mind I've only seen it once), I remember the use of color being less controlled than David does. When I look at the first still posted, the color contrast of the lamp and the closet jumps at my eye immediately and is not what I would call monochromatic, although maybe I'm being picky. I would say that it's also a very chaotic frame, as I feel that the hotspot on the back wall on the left is fighting for my attention and winning, which seems to me to be distracting. In that sense, it feels overlit. I don't know how representative this is of the whole film, but I'm also not crazy about the third frame, I think because of its use of tone. That one's a bit harder to put my finger on, but there's something about it I don't like.

 

Anyhow, the problems I have are probably more a matter of personal taste. The film is obviously quite popular and has a cult following based largely on its visuals, so it's probably time for someone who enjoys to bring light to more of its strong points.

[Bob Hayes]

For me ?Dark City? is visually and dramatically a terrific film. It?s a smart science fiction film at a time of very dumbed down science fiction. It is also a great example of use contrasting color themes. In many ways it is similar to ?City of Lost Children? which is also a gorgeous film.

[David Mullen ASC]

If "Dark City" is an example of an uncontrolled movie color-wise, I'm having a hard time thinking of how many movies would qualify as being controlled! If anything, it's been accused of being hyper-controlled and over-designed, not uncoordinated and haphazard.

 

Anyway, if that's a garish and overlit movie, then I can't imagine how the average movie looks to you. Most of us can't get away with being as dark as that movie was.

 

The opening scene was lit mostly with one swinging overhead in the bathroom. He then enters a dark room and turns on the closet light and finds the suitcase, then he turns on the practical next to the bed to look inside the suitcase -- that's only three light sources established and they stick pretty faithfully to that look so I can't imagine how to use FEWER lights in this scene unless he turned off each light as he went from the bathroom to closet to bed, but then the frame would be REALLY dark.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I liked it. It did have a kind of very slightly student-filmish look to it, rather as if you were constantly expecting the bad-looking shots to come along (although they didn't) - and yes, in exactly the same way as "City of Lost Children." But I liked it.

 

Phil

Edited January 6, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

[Wendell_Greene]

IMO the three best films showcasing the look of seldom photographed areas of urban daytime Los Angeles are "To Live and Die in LA" shot by how Robby Muller, The Hughes Brothers "Menace2Society" shot by Lisa Rinzler and a criminally ignored film called "Straight Time" starring Dustin Hoffman [sadly only available on VHS]

 

Watch the DVD of To Live and Die in LA and then look at the color palette of "Training Day" and you'll see how big of an influence that film was on Fuqua and Fiore.

 

BTW Mike, and you probably know this already, but Fiore was Kaminski's gaffer so you'll find a lot of his comments in articles on Janusz's work [Amistad, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan ] and especially on their first film as a director/dp team, Lost Souls

[Gregor Mac]

Sure. Training Day does have great location shots - 2 or 3 come to mind.

 

1. When Denzel and his crew meet on the top of the building, with great shots of the business district of the city and the skyscrapers of LA in the background - some of this is in slow motion.

 

2. When Denzel takes Ethan to meet those bad guys in that apartment in the really bad district - leading to the card game

 

3. The scene where Denzel and Ethan are driving down LA streets and Denzel invites Ethan to take a pipe.

 

4. Of course, interspersed shots of the palm trees, highways, and the setting sun - typical of anything filmed in California from CHiPs to the present.

 

What struck me in particular was the almost live effect of this film - it seems to me to have an almost video type effect - although there are many outdoor scenes where the background is out of focus.

 

Also the colours seem to be very rich - maybe its the sun in California. How do you get this effect?

 

With Dark City:

 

1. Irrespective of the plot (I personally did not think the ending was the greatest), and irrespective of the actors playing roles you would not expect them to play necessarily (esp the guy from 24 - what's his name? - just kidding), I thought that this film was especially unique in the lighting.

 

Usually when a film is that dark, I don't like it - I want to see things. With this film, I thought that the use of lighting was excellent. I dont know if its possible to achieve this with cheap equipment. If it is - how?

[Keith Mottram]

I've got to agree with David on Dark City, I was blown away when I first saw it, retrospectavilly the plot is a little to comic book but we are not talking about Wild Strawberrys here it is a pulp science fiction film and in that respect it works very well. I think the lighting and colour pallate worked perfectly for what it was meant to achieve, that is a retro/ future noir look. There is no point in trying to compare it to a colour noir classic- bladerunner for example, as its heritage also lies in the tri-colour (whats the name of that process- laying colour dots on each other??) world of comic books. It reminded me particularly of Dave Gibbons work on the Watchmen comic series, which I'm sure was an influence. If only Alex Proyas had used this look as a starting point then I feel that I Robot would have been a far superior film.

 

Keith

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm trying to imagine on what planet "Dark City" would not be considered a well-photographed movie...

 

You know, it's possible to have standards that are unreasonably high. It's like saying you love food SO much that there is only one meal at one restaurant in one city that you think is worth eating.

 

The problems with "Dark City" are not the photography or production design. And if it went for a grainy look or a diffused look, I'm sure there would be people complaining about that too. As for lacking contrast, not having a any hot white references in the frame, etc. I totally disagree -- this film is more hi-con than "Seven" which mostly uses soft and underexposed lighting, while this is more lit like a b&w movie, with crisp blacks, well-exposed highlights, very little fill. And some, if not many, scenes ARE smoked.

 

I would give anything to be able to shoot something like this movie someday, something that looks this good. I'm not sure I'm good enough yet to do what he did on that film.

[Mike Williamson]

I'm not sure that my standards are unreasonably high, I can still watch my own work... :P

 

David, I'm not sure what else to say, agree to disagree maybe? Reading your list of top films of 2004, I can see that we like many of the same films, this doesn't appear to be one of them however. I wish I could better explain what I dislike about the film, let me say that I've spent a lot of time studying Fritz Lang's German films, so I guess I had certain expectations coming into this particular film, really it seems to be a very personal reaction.

 

Wendell, I'll go back and check out some of articles on Kaminski's films, I've been reading up on "Lost Souls" a lot lately. I hadn't thought of "To Live and Die..." in relation to "Training Day", that's an interesting connection. I do love Robby Muller's work in that film, the kind of rough, economical way of shooting he and Friedkin worked out is brilliant, perfect for the film.

[Wendell_Greene]

Wendell,

 

I'd LOVE to hear your comments on the photography of John Landis' INTO THE NIGHT shot by Robert Paynter. I've heard many an LA resident praise that movie for capturing the atmosphere of the city of Angels to perfection.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Is Jeff Goldblum in this film? I could stop being lazy and check on IMDB, but the range of cinematic knowledge available from you guys on this board has spoiled me! :D I think I may have seen it on TV, but I don't remember. I'm also trying to figure out why I think I remember seeing this along with Scorsese's "After Hours". Oh well, I'll have to rent it and let you know. It's gonna be raining cats and dogs here in Lala land this weekend so it's a perfect time to rent some dvds.

 

Thanks Tim for the recommendation. BTW, I was serious when I said I was waiting for you and David Mullen to do a break down of the cinematography on Lester's two Musketeer films.

[David Mullen ASC]

Reading your list of top films of 2004, I can see that we like many of the same films, this doesn't appear to be one of them however. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're talking about "Dark City", right? That's a 1998 movie. This is not complete, but this is part of the list I once posted of my favorite films (for cinematography), decade by decade. I just listed the 90's here:

 

1990?s:

Akira Kurosawa?s Dreams

Dick Tracy (1990)

Ju Dou (1990)

The Godfather, Part III (1990)

Hamlet (Zefferilli) (1990)

Henry & June (1990)

Memphis Belle (1990)

Miller?s Crossing (1990)

The Sheltering Sky (1990)

Barton Fink (1991)

Bugsy (1991)

Delicatessen (1991)

The Doors (1991)

JFK (1991)

Raise the Red Lantern (1991)

Terminator II (1991)

Tous Les Matins Du Monde (1991)

Batman Returns (1992)

Bram Stoker?s Dracula (1992)

Far & Away (1992)

1492 (1992)

Jennifer 8 (1992)

Howard?s End (1992)

Like Water For Chocolate (1992)

Unforgiven (1992)

The Age of Innocence (1993)

Little Buddha (1993)

The Piano (1993)

Remains of the Day (1993)

Schindler?s List (1993)

Searching For Bobby Fischer (1993)

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

Legends of the Fall (1994)

Natural Born Killers (1994)

The Secret of Roan Inish (1994)

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Wyatt Earp (1994)

Braveheart (1995)

Casino (1995)

City of Lost Children (1995)

Crimson Tide (1995)

Flamenco (1995)

A Little Princess (1995)

Nixon (1995)

Seven (1995)

A Walk in the Clouds (1995)

The English Patient (1996)

Evita (1996)

Fargo (1996)

Michael Collins (1996)

Amistad (1997)

Character (1997)

Kundun (1997)

Titanic (1997)

A Civil Action (1998)

Dark City (1998)

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Tango (1998)

The Thin Red Line (1998)

The Matrix (1999)

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

Snow Falling On Cedars (1999)

[Greg Gross]

I think the mood, look of Dark City is appropriate and there is not a lot

of color there. The character has been isolated to the spotlight(low intensity

of light). The character is dominant not the color. Would someone care to

comment on "JDC", "Hawk" lenses as they are new terms to me. I just have

Panavision primes going through my head per my instructor. I think I am re-

ally learning to like 250D. Like David Mullen's work with it. I judged the shots

from Dark City to have been made with 135mm,75mm,40mm does anyone

care to comment.

 

Greg Gross

[Max Jacoby]

JDC and Hawk are PL mounted anamorphic lenses.

 

Joe Dunton Company adapt spherical lenses to anamorphic by adding an anamorphic element to the lens. He has adapted Zeiss Superspeeds (35mm, 50mm, 85mm) under the name of Speedstar lenses and Cooke S3s (32mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm) under the name of Millenium anamorphics. He has also adapted longer anamorphic lenses, like the 152mm Cooke S3. In addition to that he also rents out the longer (135mm and up) Elite lenses, which are Russian made. They are currently researching to adapt the Cooke S4s as well, but that will have to be done in cooperation of Cooke optics. Some films that have used their lenses are 'The Mission', 'The Mask of Zorro', 'Manunter', 'George Washington', 'Dandelion', 'The Life of David Gale', 'Ride with the Devil'. I really like the way his lenses look and hope to be testing them for an upcoming project.

 

Hawk are German anamorphic lenses, based on Russian design, made by Vantage. You can find all the info you could possible want on the phantastic website of Vantage Film: www.vantagefilm.com. The lenses look very nice on faces I find, if you shoot them at T4 they look very sharp also. Only drawback is that they are heavy (the V-Series at least) and they breathe, like all anamorphic lenses.

 

The lens sizes you gave for 'Dark City' are they meant for anamorphic? As far as I remember the film was shot on Super35.

[David Mullen ASC]

With JDC's conversions to anamorphic, the anamorphic element is Japanese (Shiga Optics) whereas with Hawks, they come from Russia (maybe the same element is used in the Elites?)

 

Anamorphic prime lenses are spherical lenses with an anamorphic element in front to squeeze the image horizontally, usually by 2X for 35mm. So a 40mm anamorphic lens is usually a 40mm spherical lens with a 2X anamorphic element, increasing the horizontal view by 2X, so it becomes effectively a 20mm lens horizontally but a 40mm lens vertically.

 

However, the rear-anamorphic adaptors used for spherical zooms and telephotos have the opposite effect of reducing the height by half (I think that's how it works), so a 20-100mm spherical zoom becomes a 40mm to 200mm anamorphic zoom. For example, Panavisions 90mm slant-focus anamorphic is a rear-anamorphic adapted 45mm slant-focus lens.

[Greg Gross]

Yes, for example a 50mm lens would act like a 50mm vertically but as a

25mm lens horizontally. DOF will be of a value between 25mm to 50mm.

DOF should be that of the spherical prime component. In experience though

lens is said to be most forgiving, ASC manual advises one to be familiar with

each lens and do testing. Panavision anamorphic lenses use counter-rotating

cylindrical elements. Supposedly this eliminated distortion on the actor's faces

and made them famous. I'm attracted to Panavision cameras and lenses but

I have a major wealth of information to learn. You guys will laugh at this but

I didn't know that they made a 16mm camera,saw a photo of one today. The

Panaflex Elaine,it looks like a sweet camera,of course I know nothing about it.

Thank you for info on JDC and Hawk lenses and I will add them to my know-

ledge base. Have a good weekend!

 

Greg Gross