Matthew McDermott

Regarding Motorcycle Diaries only telling part of the story: It's been a while since I read Che's actual diaries, but I seem to remember that he wasn't nearly so sympathetic towards the poor in the beginning of his trip as the film makes it out to be. His views certainly changed as the trip progressed, but in the beginning he makes few remarks about them that aren't disparaging. I guess a gradual change in character is harder to portray than a dramatic one... I also forgot that they kept crashing the bike. It's just as humorous in writing as on the screen.

Ah those pesky bats. . . Re: homemade softboxes; I'm all for DIY and I've seen some pretty impressive ones made that work well in a pinch, but none of them really hold up over time. And do you really want to be measuring foam core to get four matching Isoceles Trapezoids every couple of times out? Unless you've got an X-Acto knife fetish, and I know some people can't get enough of the things, I'd save my money and get a proper softbox. Chimera's are certainly expensive for a bit of cloth with velcro, some metal poles and a metal ring, but they work like a dream. I think you could buy a four season single person tent for less money, but then again it'd probably catch on fire. . . I think the bats are taking my meds too. . . Cheers.

It may be depressing but it is quite accurate. Perhaps realistic is a better way to describe the situation. It's easy to be enthusiastic when starting out, but after a year or two working for little to no money (in comparisson to industry-standard rates, not what you could you'd making working at Borders or Starbucks...) and it doesn't get any better, it becomes hard to keep your enthusiasm from flagging. Psychologically, the fact of the matter is that if you are not really and truly going to become clinically insane by _not_ working in film, you're probably better off doing something else. The potential rewards, financial and creative, are quite high, but the chance of failure is essentially so high as to be guaranteed. All of this is of course rendered moot if you're within one degree of someone with Coppola as a last name. If the options were starting over in another career or work on crap productions the rest of my life, I'd choose something else.

Cinema clowns? They all come piling out of a small Fiat, a bunch of guys in web belts hung with carabiners and gaffer's tape all carrying a Pelican case and a C-stand, whilst talking on a two-way radio? And the last guy out is a sound engineer, arriving five minutes after everyone else, reading the newspaper and drinking a coffee. Now that's funny...

Film school is very expensive, and unlike other expensive programs (law school, medical school), your chances of getting employment are very low. I don't know if it's statistically accurate, but something like 4 out of 5 film school graduates are not working in film within 5 years of graduating. If you choose LFS, make sure you stick it out for the full six terms. The interesting part of the program really doesn't happen until the second year. When considering the cost of LFS, keep in mind that all your film and processing (other than your graduation film) is included in the fee. In fact you are not allowed to spend your own money on any of the films you make to increase the amount of stock you have. You're also not allowed to rent outside equipment either. When I was there, there was a controversy because a student wanted to rent a crane for their term four film. They were told that it was outside the scope of the assignment, and couldn't rent it. They were told this after paying for the rental and went ahead anyway. The school was in a fit; I think there was talk of not giving him credit for the term. They allow you complete control of your projects, but set the boundaries very close.

Getting as much experience as you can is very important. Far more important than what equipment you own is who you know. Personal relationships will get you farther faster than anything else. Of course you do need some ability, and if you know people and have the equipment then all the better, but it really comes down to knowing people. This doesn't neccesarily mean people with a ton of money at first, but people just making films where you can get on-set experience. Some thoughts on LFS specifically: I went there for one term before dropping out. I had a good deal of experience going into the program, but felt it would help me to get some credentials. (My degree is in Writing & Literature.) I was bored to tears with the curriculum. I knew it would be a slight step back for a couple of terms, but I thought I could put up with it. I couldn't and decided just working more would be more beneficial. If you work on as many shoots from now through college, you'll have more experience than going through the program.

Well, you've got to do something to preserve your sanity on a shoot where the director's completely lost control...

I second Phil; I know very few people who own much personal gear. I've got a light meter and a bunch of filters, plus a DVX100, a couple of lights and lavs so I don't have to rent just to do a quick interview. Anything else gets rented. Buying a miniDV camera can be good when starting out so you inexpensively practice composition, but beyond that don't worry about it. Develop your other skills.

I work with a number of directors who are quite capable behind the camera. They may not know all the ins and outs of the camera department or all of the technique, but they certainly have a very good idea how to compose a shot. In the larger world, there are quite a few directors who are good photographers: Kubrick was a photojournalist first and Wim Wenders has several books of photos published, just to name two.

I feel that either method can yield a good result but the working method needs to be thoroughly discussed and decided upon before production starts. There's nothing worse than going into a shoot thinking you're in charge of framing only to find that it isn't the case.

Obviously the wings will always _look_ homemade. I don't think it's intended that the actor is actually making the wings. Also, by just starting on the top of the cliff I think you've actually cut out the entire story, at least based on what we've been given. It's much more interesting me to see someone going through the actions of getting ready to hurl themselves into the darkness than actually doing so. The character's perspective at the top of the cliff is certainly important, but without showing what brought him there it would not be nearly as effective as an emotional moment. Though you're right that it's difficult to know what's the "right" way to interpret the scene without knowing what comes before and after, and whether the character is actually going to fly or just plummet.

This all assumes that Andrew knows he isn't going to actually fly on these wings and this is in reality a melodramatic suicide attempt. I might shoot it differently if he really thinks he's going to fly. EXT. CLIFF TOP - NIGHT An enchanting night. Cold. WS. Andrew is small in the frame. We see him from behind, in the far right side of the frame. From this angle we cannot exactly see what he is doing, only the movement of his arms. We can however hear him much more clearly than we actually would. His breathing laboured and everything he touches seems slightly amplified. He is backlit; all we're seeing is his outline, the outline of the cliff and some grass along the top. Hold slightly longer than is comfortable. the audience should be thinking, "shouldn't they have cut by now." He looks up, turning his head toward the camera, and goes back to work. Shivering, young Andrew adds some finishing touches to a set of -HOMEMADE WINGS A crafty mixture of metal, cardboard, tar and feathers. Sturdy and reliable. Reverse angle. A series of locked off close-ups of his hands, the feathers, the tar, the metal, the brush going into the bucket of tar. His motions are quick but deliberate. Finished, he gets up. Andrew fastens the wings and heads to the tip of the cliff, over looking a gut-wrenching 50 foot drop into a hungry ocean. Start low and jib up as Andrew rises, putting on the wings. We pull back as he throws them over his shoulders, revealing for the first time the wings in their entirety. Andrew stands, adjusting the wings. MCU. Slightly high angle. Andrew dead center in the frame, the wings extend to either side Back to previous angle, the camera leads Andrew as he walks forward toward the cliff (out of shot). As he gets to the edge we whip to the right, behind him and up, revealing the drop into the ocean. The stars look down on Andrew anticipatingly while he closes his eyes and takes a deep breath. Beat. CU. Andrew closes his eyes, takes a deep breath, looks down. MS. The ocean surf and beach at the bottom of the cliff. Very low key, all we can make out is the whitewater and a slight glistening on the sand where the waves have drawn back. The sound of the water is deafening. CU. Andrew's face is short-framed, partially out of shot. Most of the frame is filled with one of the wings as he raises them and jumps. He exhales -- then jumps off the cliff. WS. From the ocean. A small figure plummets from the top of a 50' cliff to the sand below. MS. From the cliff top. Andrew lies in the surf, his broken wings splayed out on either side of him. The waves run over his body.

The angle of view will change from about 60 degrees to 25 degrees. If you want the angle of view of what your 27mm lens is giving you on S16 , you still need a 27mm lens from 35. I don't really think in terms of feet when discussing field of view, but the American Cinematography manual has extensive tables showing field of view in feet for different lenses in different formats, based on subject distance from camera.

A Normal lens for 16mm is about 13-15mm, not 25mm. It's a bit of a contentious subject as I think what we consider a "normal" lens has actually gotten wider over time, but in general a normal lens in defined as one that is equal to the diagonal of the image area. This supposedly approximates the natural perspective of human vision and approximates an angle of view where vision is most sensitive (about 40-45 degrees). However, I've always found that definition a bit misleading. I've found that my natural perspective is in the 60 degree range. If I shoot with a classic normal lens I really feel like I'm zooming in and isolating what I'm framing compared to how I regularly see it.

I just got confused. We've been talking about 35mm SLR lenses, 35mm and 16mm lenses. You're saying that something around 25mm is a normal lens on which format?

I don't do much editing, but I was once asked this. It was just a bunch of head and shoulders interviews and one of the subjects was the producer's girlfriend. Apparently she thought she looked too fat on film. Which of course she didn't. I just stretched the frame a bit and called it a day. It was so silly but everyone was happy.

No. You still have it backwards. A 35mm lens has about a 60 degree angle of view on 35mm still film, about 45 degrees on 35mm motion picture, and about 20 degrees on Super16. It goes from being slightly wide angle to slightly telephoto. You are right though that a 17mm lens on S16 has about the same angle of view as a 35mm lens on 35 motion picture film.

Actually, a 15mm lens on 16 is not particularly wide at all. It's more like a normal lens. A 9.5mm is definitely wider but really is just an average wide angle lens, nowhere near fisheye. To get that degree of coverage you'll have to go out to 4mm or 5mm. There aren't 35mm SLR lenses, other than Nikon and Sigma circular fisheyes, as wide as 10mm. The widest lenses that are in the 14mm-16mm range. Nikon and Canon make zoom lenses for digital SLRs that go wider but they don't have aperture rings on the lens, so you couldn't mount them on a motion picture camera. You've also got your logic backwards; a 10mm lens on 16 would give very roughly the same field of view as a 20mm in 35 motion picture, or a 30mm lens in 35 still film. A 10mm lens on 16mm gives about 60 degrees of coverage.

I assume you're talking in the abstract and talking about long term investment, in which case I'd go with 16mm. The technology isn't changing quickly like it is in video, nor does the equipment wear out as quickly. There's little chance of having buyer's remorse when a camera comes out next year that makes the camera you just bought look like crap if you go with 16mm as you can always use the latest emulsions. I've got to ask though, why do want to buy your camera? Film cameras are seriously expensive items to purchase and unless you've got several projects lined up over which you can split the costs, it doesn't really make financial sense...even if money is no object. I'd put the money into other aspects of your productions and rent the equipment when needed. Obviously each project has different technical requirements and the camera you buy may not suit your needs for all contingencies. There are certainly more steps in getting your film into a format you computer can use with film than video, but the potentially superior results will more than outweigh the convenience of plug and play firewire. All this really depends on what your project(s) is going to be. What are you planning on shooting?

Gollum worked well as a bit of CGI and I very quickly gave myself over to the character, but when I first saw him (it?) in his entirety I thought it was horrendously fake looking. I'm not sure if it was better animation or the fact that you do get emotionally drawn into the character and begin to ignore his artificiality. Additionally, once you've seen Andy Serkis in the white suit--flopping around in that small stream chasing a fish for example--it all becomes unintentionally humorous for me. Forced perspective is when you arrange objects or characters in relation to the camera so that their relative sizes change from what they would naturally be. You can move people or objects backward or forward of one another so that say the person in the back appears much smaller than they actually are. You could also cheat the camera down or up as required to make one person appear taller or more dominant in the frame. It's done all the time in a subtle way (or least I do it all the time) to give emphasis to one character or another in a conversation. A more complicated way to do it is was used in Casablanca. In the scene at the airport at the end, there is an airplane being repaired by some mechanics far off in the distance. Or that's what you think. In reality it was a smaller replica airplane being repaired by little people. Since they're sufficiently out of focus and not the center of attention in the scene you never notice that they're not what they seem. If someone can explain that in a more succinct way, please be my guest.

I've witnessed an AC I know carry around tape rolls around with him to bars, and this was on day we weren't shooting.

My personal favorites: Birth -- despite the grain and weak blacks that Audris brought up, I thought the cinematography was as daring as it was beautiful and very well matched to the story. The Bourne Supremacy -- Despite focus problems and overly shaky hand-held work, the beginning parts in India were particularly good. Collateral -- maybe I'm a sucker for cities at night, but it was just great. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -- inventive production design and in-camera effects work, creative practical lighting and a perfect story for when your relationship goes sour. Unfortunately I haven't yet seen some of the late season releases (The Aviator, A Very Long Engagement, et al.)

The ripped perfs might have something to do with it. I didn't think of it but perhaps the film itself is skipping a little bit as the teeth move the film along. The result being these burned in areas where the film has been severely overexposed. Going against that explanation though is the fact that the overexposed bits seem to be so regular and I can't imagine the film having broken perfs at such regular intervals over an entire roll. Also, it probably wouldn't be _that_ overexposed. It would more likely be just double exposed there and you'd still see some detail--especially in those darkish conditions. I guess I just talked myself out of that explanation, huh. Although I can't think of a specific explantion, maybe it does have to do with the age of the film. How old was it again? Processing the new film and seeing if the problem reoccurs will certainly help isolate the issue. When you do it make sure you shoot at a variety of shutter speeds and keep careful notes.

I've never seen that before either. Since the overexposed parts are going vertically through the frame and the shutter on that camera travels vertically, I don't think they're being caused by a sticky shutter. If the camera had a horizontally travelling cloth shutter (a la Leica M or older SLRs), maybe that might be the cause. Were those the only frames with the problem or is it every frame and those are just representative? Have you shot with the camera since?

You really have to rig the camera to actor to get the look you're going for. The key to the look seems to be that the camera and actor move in complete alignment while the background changes. I don't think you can easily acheive this with an actor and separate camera operator. Obviously the smaller the camera, the better for the actor who's got to wear the rig. Check out the Requiem For A Dream special features; I think there's a pretty good shot of the rig in some of the behind the scenes footage. I haven't had a project where the look was appropriate, but it does look neat. If the majority of the film was shot that way it might become oppressive and overly confining. Though if that's what you're going for could be a good thing...