Andrew Sachs

Maybe this would be better as a new thread, but since I found this one, here goes: I just saw this historic double feature tonight at the new beverly theater in LA, where Tarantino has programmed classic b-movie double features for all of march and april. the audience lined up starting early, and there was quite a scene on the sidewalk for hours in anticipation. for some reason the two founders of myspace had a little photo shoot with a little banksy stencil that just happened to be about ten people into the line. but I digress. by tix sales time at 9:30pm (11pm show) the line was around the block. on the way out I saw that people were still queued up, and a second three hour show had been added to start sometime after I left at 2:30am. as for the films, I am will say a few things but I am also eager to hear other cinematographers perspective, and am bumping this thread in the hopes that many of you will see it and comment here. the entire three hours contains not only the two features, rodriguez's Planet Terror and tarantino's Death Proof, but also several hilarious fictional(?) trailers for other b-movies. overall the cinematography was inventive, technically assured, and mastefully composited. of course they use lots of grain and dust kind of "dirty" effects on the "look" as you have seen in the trailer. this didn't bother me at all whereas the very repetitive and blunt air-brushed look of "300" was to me quite tiring and banal. here I think both films excel in inventive uses of framing and camera movement, and it appears that some great lenses were used, all the flares look pretty real. even if not, the overall effect is visceral and combines current post magic with some very classic iconography in lensing and camera placement. this is why these guys are making movies. I enjoyed the b-film plots of both films, but I enjoyed tarantino's ironic use of Kurt Russell in Death Proof, and Zoe Bell (Xena stunt woman among her credits) really shines, as do all the girls. I'd really like to watch some behind the scenes to understand how much of this crazy action is in fact "real," there is clearly plenty of opportunity for greenscreen but the action is seamless. in fact I really don't consider myself a HUGE fan or particularly knowledgable about the classic b-movies that are referenced here, nor am I usually drawn toward horror or the current crop of teen (T&A) comedies. however Tarantino (and RR) have completely captivated me here; I will likely try to see it again, in the theater, and then again on DVD, just to begin to understand the depth of references and rythym of camera movement that these autuers have constructed. I use the controversial "a" word as I think it is appropriate, though I think all the multiple-credit nonsense is just that . . . why can't these guys respect the obviously very talented teams they are working with? whether it's "a film by" or just taking every other credit, it just gives me reason NOT to give the Director(s) the kudos due here. . . .

Are you looking for a DP? or a steadicam operator? or a gaffer? I know there are many talented people here who would be eager to jump on board, given more information/requests. However, if you have already asked someone else to be the DP, and they are still on board, there is all the more reason to be very specific about who needs what, and to be clear with all parties involved.

Leon, thanks for the guidance. as there are a few degrees of separation between me and the intended recipient, I do not know if it is a replacement, but I doubt it. if cost were no issue, what would you recommend and why? if you wanted to get the best value for your money, or cost was a concern, what then? Thanks! Andrew

Greg, thanks for the humor, of course. As I wrote, this is not for me. I prefer to have the assistant carry the VF and a few cases of primes ;-) Thanks, Andrew

A friend is interested in buying a director's viewfinder for her director friend; does anyone have advice/recommendations for models, and where to buy? I personally prefer the ones that have a PL mount for using actual primes on the set; this is obviously not appropriate in this case. Thanks Andrew