American Hustle

[Stuart Brereton]

Sorry for this lengthy explanation - I'm a bit of a physical optics nut! :) I should also mention that Panavision's Dan Sasaki contributed to this posting.

 

Greg, please don't apologize for your explanation. That was one of the most informative posts I've seen on this forum in months.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I owned a set of Canon K35 lenses and it's true that every lens had different degrees of focus rotation. One particular focal lenght (35 or 55mm) was limited to 90º. But I loved them for their creamy look and spectacular flares, even though there were obviously not made for this kind of shooting situation. Too bad there aren't enough rehoused sets out there, upgrading this glass with modern mechanics, because its optical performance is very appealing to my eye.

 

I found that the Zeiss glass intercut pretty well with the K35's (perhaps a bit sharper and contrasty?), but I found interesting that one particular scene (the one with Jeremy Renner giving the microwave to Christian Bale as a gift, from the back of his car) showed a triangular bokeh in the background, as if it was shot using the earliest generation of Zeiss T/1.4's (often referred as "B Speeds" or "MKI"). IMDB just credits the K35's together with Zeiss Standards, which have a more round iris.

 

The picture looks pretty sharp, considering the focus issues, the vintage glass and the fact that it has been originated in 2-perf.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Rather enjoyed this, the constant steadicam floating and panning gave it a really intoxicating and freewheeling feel that suited the plot and personalities perfectly. The lighting plus the texture of the 2-perf really helped conjure that period look - nice to see film still used in such a creative way.

 

Interesting to hear about the focus issues, looked very good to me!

[joshua gallegos]

I think Nebraska was pretty great, as far as performances are concerned and the look it has. Wolf of Wall Street was predictable in the sense that it was structured like every other Martin Scorsese picture made in the 90s. In Sundance there's new life being injected into the cinema, which I feel is needed. There's a film by Mike Cahill called 'I, Origins', which is a very creative film. That being said, this year will be far more exciting with the release of PTA's 'Inherent Vice', Interstellar by Chris Nolan, Aronofsky's 'Noah'.

 

I was surprised Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for American Hustle, she was completely over the top, it just wasn't a very good picture. I prefer the look Robert Elswit created for Boogie Nights, now that was a believable picture!

Edited February 6, 2014 by joshua gallegos

[Gregory Irwin]

That being said, this year will be far more exciting with the release ... Interstellar by Chris Nolan ...

 

 

Funny, I'm looking forward to that one as well!

 

G

[Andy_Alderslade]

 

I was surprised Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for American Hustle, she was completely over the top, it just wasn't a very good picture. I prefer the look Robert Elswit created for Boogie Nights, now that was a believable picture!

 

See I found Boogie Nights completely unbelievable, the montage of them beating people up, which is followed by no consequences (or guilt) or many of the other obscure sequences.... but then I suspect the intention was never meant to be 'believability'.

 

Brings a question is 'believability' a measure of 'good'?

 

I actually enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence going over the top, she was an over the top character, and when there were moments when she needed to show sensitivity and to crack I thought it was rather good, but all the characters were a little bit over the top, that was much of the fun! You could make the same film with all the characters whispering to each other.... but that would be a very different film, and less funny.

[Ryan Kaercher]

Thank you Mathew. To answer your last question, Geoff and I were direct requests by David. He wanted us for SLP as well but we were not available. And I believe that was one of the issues our DP had. He didn't have his crew since Geoff and I were "forced" upon him. But we tried our best to look out for both his and David's interests. That got a bit tricky at times.

 

As far as your other observance, you're correct. David does not rehearse, there are no marks and we haven't a clue to what's going to happen during a take till after we have shot it. It must be quite a sight watching the steadicam operator, the focus puller, the boom man as well as the gaffer, who was booming a china ball on a stick, all negotiating for the same space while trying to stay out of eyelines and the key light! We all got into the habit of keeping an eye out for each other and signaling to which direction any of us needed to shift whether it was ducking either under the boom or even the lens! Even the cast got involved with the calling of audibles during a take and were extremely respectfull of our challenges as we were of theirs. The script supervisor would always ask me what the shot would be and I would smile and say " I'll let you know after we've shot it."

 

Finally, I accidently omitted the name of our 3rd steadicam operator who spent just a couple of weeks with us. Dave Thompson also made a huge contribution to AH. Sorry Dave!

 

G

 

 

Greg: I was wondering how many feet of film you guys shot for "American Hustle" I have a very experienced line producer budgeting a feature for me right now that I intend to shoot 2 perf 35mm with a 35 day shooting schedule and he's got us budgeted for 350,000 feet. This seems really high to me.

I did the film footage calculation and it comes out to around 5400-6300 ft at 2 perf and 8100 to 9450ft at 3 perf if it were to run 2 to 2hr20min (if it ran really long).

I had a meeting with him about it and he said that he will budget whatever I want but if he drops it any lower than 300,000 feet that we'd be getting some very nervous DPs.

We aren't processing that much, just budgeting for it. We're processing circle takes and doing digital dailies.

The guy has been around for a long time and done a lot of movies, many that were shot at studio levels on film so he definitely knows his stuff. I'm just a bit confused by that number.

He basically said that to shoot film all in it will cost about $350,000.00 more than if we were to HD such as Alexa. All those lines for film, processing, telecine, prints go to zero when HD.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers

Edited March 27, 2014 by Ryan Kaercher

[Gregory Irwin]

 

 

Greg: I was wondering how many feet of film you guys shot for "American Hustle" I have a very experienced line producer budgeting a feature for me right now that I intend to shoot 2 perf 35mm with a 35 day shooting schedule and he's got us budgeted for 350,000 feet. This seems really high to me.

 

I did the film footage calculation and it comes out to around 5400-6300 ft at 2 perf and 8100 to 9450ft at 3 perf if it were to run 2 to 2hr20min (if it ran really long).

 

I had a meeting with him about it and he said that he will budget whatever I want but if he drops it any lower than 300,000 feet that we'd be getting some very nervous DPs.

 

 

We aren't processing that much, just budgeting for it. We're processing circle takes and doing digital dailies.

 

The guy has been around for a long time and done a lot of movies, many that were shot at studio levels on film so he definitely knows his stuff. I'm just a bit confused by that number.

 

He basically said that to shoot film all in it will cost about $350,000.00 more than if we were to HD such as Alexa. All those lines for film, processing, telecine, prints go to zero when HD.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Cheers

 

Hi Ryan,

I just spoke to my UPM on AH and this is what he told me. We were a 2 camera show shooting 2 perf, but for the most part we were only one camera shooting at a time. We shot about 9,600 ft. of film per day. For a 35 day schedule, that equals 336,000 feet of film. It sounds like your producer is right on. Hope this helps and good luck!!

 

G

Edited March 28, 2014 by Gregory Irwin

[Ryan Kaercher]

 

Hi Ryan,

I just spoke to my UPM on AH and this is what he told me. We were a 2 camera show shooting 2 perf, but for the most part we were only one camera shooting at a time. We shot about 9,600 ft. of film per day. For a 35 day schedule, that equals 336,000 feet of film. It sounds like your producer is right on. Hope this helps and good luck!!

 

G

Thank you so much for clearing that up for me and looking in to this! I really appreciate it. He thought we were a two camera shoot the entire time but I just need two cameras for 6 out of the 35 days for the really complicated sequences. Otherwise I think we'd prefer to work single camera.

 

Do you find it more or less efficient when shooting 2 cameras? Do the actors seem to like it better or can you tell a difference? Does it seem to cause issues for lighting a lot?

 

Thank you again Greg.

 

Cheers

 

PS. I saw you worked on Valentine's Day. That was the first big film I worked on right out of school. I was one of the office PAs. Chuck Minsky was a really cool guy to chat with and Gary was such a nice and genuine man.

[Gregory Irwin]

Please realize that the nearly 10,000 feet per day was primarily one camera. As for shooting with 2 cameras, that's really a question for your cinematographer with regards to lighting. You really should have a good B cam operator who understands the role of finding shots that are good for editorial. Whether they are different coverages or cut aways, the B camera could be very useful. Without that sort of experience behind it, the second camera could become a hinderence.

 

As for VALENTINES DAY, what a blast working with Gary. He is a true one of a kind.

 

G

[John Holland]

I love your posts on here Greg. Thanks.

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Greg,

 

You and Greg did an amazing job on American Hustle, it sucks that you were originally forced to use the wrong gear for the job. Unfortunately that is becoming more and more the norm.

 

Thanks for your Excellent post's. Tell Jeff I said hello!

 

Eric Fletcher SOC

Edited April 6, 2014 by Eric Fletcher S.O.C.

[Gregory Irwin]

Thanks for the support Eric! I will be sure to say hi to Geoff for you. We're working together now on FAST & FURIOUS 7 (shameless plug!) :)

 

G

[Freya Black]

Thanks for the support Eric! I will be sure to say hi to Geoff for you. We're working together now on FAST & FURIOUS 7 (shameless plug!) :)

 

G

 

Have they swapped out the crew?

Maybe that is a good idea, to have lots of people coming at it kind of fresh, sort of.

 

Hope you can help James make it all work, sounds like theres still a lot to shoot and he has a huge job ahead!

I've got my fingers crossed for you all that you can make it happen! :)

 

Freya

[Gregory Irwin]

Have they swapped out the crew?

Maybe that is a good idea, to have lots of people coming at it kind of fresh, sort of.

 

Hope you can help James make it all work, sounds like theres still a lot to shoot and he has a huge job ahead!

I've got my fingers crossed for you all that you can make it happen! :)

 

Freya

It's the same crew. I'm simply playing catch up with them. I've keyed the First Unit on several of the FAST movies but had to originally pass on "7" due to my commitment to the recent Chris Nolan picture. Now, we all will be reunited in a very difficult situation. Thank you Freya - it's going to be emotionally tough without Paul but the picture must be finished.

 

G

[Geoff Fong]

Thank you Mathew. To answer your last question, Geoff and I were direct requests by David. He wanted us for SLP as well but we were not available. And I believe that was one of the issues our DP had. He didn't have his crew since Geoff and I were "forced" upon him. But we tried our best to look out for both his and David's interests. That got a bit tricky at times.

 

As far as your other observance, you're correct. David does not rehearse, there are no marks and we haven't a clue to what's going to happen during a take till after we have shot it. It must be quite a sight watching the steadicam operator, the focus puller, the boom man as well as the gaffer, who was booming a china ball on a stick, all negotiating for the same space while trying to stay out of eyelines and the key light! We all got into the habit of keeping an eye out for each other and signaling to which direction any of us needed to shift whether it was ducking either under the boom or even the lens! Even the cast got involved with the calling of audibles during a take and were extremely respectfull of our challenges as we were of theirs. The script supervisor would always ask me what the shot would be and I would smile and say " I'll let you know after we've shot it."

 

Finally, I accidently omitted the name of our 3rd steadicam operator who spent just a couple of weeks with us. Dave Thompson also made a huge contribution to AH. Sorry Dave!

 

G

 

 

Hey Gregory, thank you for sharing and great work on the film. Just curious, was there a focal length that you guys primarily stayed on? I'd imagine swapping lenses frequently you'd have to take the time to rebalance the steadicam. Thanks.

[James Malamatinas]

Bit late to the party but this thread just got a mention on one of the bigger camera assitant groups in the UK - deeply fascinating read, both regarding the lens and the insights about the shoot.

​Cheers Greg for being so forthcoming with your experiences, posts like this make this site a extremely valuable resource - not the kind of info you find in a text book!