Viktor Kaganovich

Well, I'll say this much - it's videoish, the colors are terribly pale (especially the greenery, sky, etc.), and it makes you appreciate just how much more disciplined, compact and artistically precise the first "Predator" movie was (which, essentially, what the second part was all about). There were some attempts at recreating the stylized, 2D mural-like compositions that we know from pre-colombian art, but they were not consistent or bound by any internal logic. And I'll make no comparisons to "The New World" for fear of offending Mr. Gibson's endowments. BTW, how come at the end there was no disclaimer to the effect that "No jews or animals were hurt in the making of this film"?

I shot a lot of reversal film (stills) and don't think any contemporary film has that look. I'd venture that pushing very high speed negative film, like 800 to 3200 will get a little closer to that look (with a ton of grain, though). I am more inclined to think that it all comes down to die-transfer Technicolor process, which is inherently very color-discriminating.

couldn't find anything better that this: and a great link here: http://movieimage1.tripod.com/pierrot/

no, I tossed it a while ago - it was frustrating enough. it was obvious that no general curves/saturation adjustments could bring that look. and masking each element in the picture and adjusting it separately (though standard procedure for stills) is not what is done in normal DI practice, AFAIK. Some elements, the rest - general application of curves and timing. Certainly not enough to emulate the dye-transfer strength of color. Same goes for stills, actually - those David Eggleston photos would just not be the same on the c-prints.

I was just in the screening of Jean-Luc Godard's "One or Two Things About Her" and was reminded of how much I like that ultra-saturated look. This is not just JLG's look - many Hollywood films of that era had the same "Piet Mondrian" look: maximum reds, blues and yellows, while the rest of the tones were gathered around the same mauve-beige-brown-taupe axis. "Charlie Varick" comes to mind immediately, "Our Man Flint", some Doris Day films and similar stuff. What is fascinating about this look (other than its "modernist" punch) is how it gathered all blues and made it one fantastic baby blue or dark navy, all reds were blood red and all yellows were luminous safety yellow, and all the tones in between beautifully softened to nearly off-white. At the same time, the blond-to-brown hair, skin, wood paneling all became different strengths of the same color. Obviously, art direction had a lot to do with it, but they couldnt've repainted every car and billboard in town. How can one get this look today? P.S. Please don't suggest DI, I am a professional photoshop retoucher and I still could not get it right.

Please post your INFORMED opinions (other schools seems to elicit quite a deluge of angry posts, many of them based on hearsay). Especially appreciated will be any information regarding the artistic slant/direction prevalent and cultivated at the school. Thanks!

Thanks, Leon! This are very inspiring words.

Thanks, Morgan, I appreciate your comments. I'm thinking about film schools as well as alternatives to film schools, it's just I don't know enough about the industry and practice to make an informed decision.

I would like to be a complete filmmaker, a director who is completely technically versed in all phases of putting a moving image n the screen - like Kubrik. I don't want to be another Kieslowski, but if they really make beautiful films in Lodz, I'll think of somehing to say (and from what I heard, now - because of the money, mostly, - NYU and USC make the slickest, most visually impressive student films). Are there any schools stateside that have the same 'auteur' slant and let you shoot a lot of film, and (ideally) help you get jobs, get into the festivals, and not just take your money and leave you out in the cold the moment you're done?

Folks, who can give me that decisive, helpful bit of advice? What school in your opinion would give me the best film education? The reason I am itching to study film (now, at 36, after about 10 years in design and advertising racket in NYC and Hamburg, Germany) are the great films by directors listed above. I know quite a bit about still photography, film history, art in general, etc. I made a 15 min short, video art rather, it was shown at Transmediale in Berlin. But the last few years were - financially - bleak, so 30K a year for a private school is very, very, very unlikely (especially considering how un-commercial my aspirations are). I know that VGiK first comes to mind, but I heard that it's not what it used to be, and Moscow can be a bit hard on one's nerves, wallet and digestive tract (language is no problem, it's my mother tongue). Other considerations: The two best German schools don't take students over 30. Other German schools produce unbearable, uniformly saccharine "telenovela"-style melodramas (makes one yearn for a good car chase with explosions and good old ultraviolence). Lodz is probably underfunded, but what a great tradition. What about MFA programs stateside? After reading the postings here, I am even interested in Brooklyn College - no MFA, but good program from what I could gather. What are your opinions on the subject? P.S. I don't want anyone to think that I am putting anybody down who makes or likes Hollywood films. Some of my favorite films are by Sigel, Frankenheimer, Fleischer and Mann. It's just Hollywood is not what it used to be, and it's not what I want to (or think I can) do.