Shawn Mielke

My eye isn't as trained as many here, but... The DP not getting mention in conversations, at least by enthusiastic laypeople, about Kubrick's films is kind of understandable, if this is indeed the case. The original poster has already touched upon it. His films often look and behave similarly. Those eerie closeups... It does feel like, if you were to ask any of his DPs what they thought of their own work in a Kubrick film, they'd reply, "I made look like what Stanley wanted." This conversation has brought up two interesting points about the history of Kubrick. That he was a relentless perfectionist. That he was super patient and after the magic. It sounds like he rehearsed EVERYBODY, the DP included, to the max, trained them up into the perfect KUBRICK vision. (How else does an artist get to be an artist, within a collective?) I know that Kubrick was my first conscious love, as filmmakers go. That bold style, that push on the limitations I found in other styles or cinematic conventions. That sense of clockwork precision. I was totally into it. Not so much anymore. I agree, now, with some of the feelings conveyed by the original poster. Lack of soul. His films don't "breathe" enough for me. They are precise but not what I would necessarily call organic. I think it's just where I'm at, and not at, now, stylistically and philosophically. But, as famed modern day trumpet player said in Ken Burn's Jazz, art does not come to you, you come to it, and I haven't spent a great deal of time with the body of Stanley Kubrick's work in recent years. Sometimes regular bouts of exposure is all it takes to "get it."

Godard could be considered prolific.

Russian Ark IS a tracking shot, it's true, with more speed changes than any other tracking shot, probably. From stopped to a light jog. Tarkovsky's films have some of the most soulful tracking shots I've ever seen, but there's a particularly lovely one in his The Sacrifice that makes for the first seven to ten minutes of the film. A whole scene of two men and a child walking (in a straight line) and talking occurs. A few pauses in their pace, a casual conversation about Nietzche and this and that, with the actors and the camera not quite parallel, so that the actors begin at a distance and, very gradually come quite close in view. The shot doesn't scream "clever" the way the one in Touch of Evil might, but instead streamlines the viewer's consciousness into the piece via real time. Really nice. You can pretty much do with your audience what you will once you've assumed their sense of reality and time. I also love the tracking shot in Cocteau's Orpheus, where Orpheus and his guide make their way along a corridor in the underworld. The backdrop is the floor, the camera is mounted from above, actors are desperately trying to keep their feet on the "ground" and guide their own bodies along the "wall" with the strength of their arms, and it's all just pretty cool if you ask me.

Yep yep yep. Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Bladerunner, Godard's Weekend, Fellini Satyricon and 8 1/2... They have all shaped me, without a doubt. Even as Fellini's Freudian comic book antics wear off on me, 8 1/2 remains one of the most stunning black and white films ever made. D. Sloan: Cassavettes, absolutely. It's just that I couldn't choose any one of his films to be on my list. Same with Godard. Coutard's camerawork puts me into cinematic heat (???). Btw, I thought our film interests might be similar after you posted something about Jodorowsky (being a genius) a few months ago.

I'm rather new to the pursuit of cinematography, and I haven't made a film, but I am irrevocably committed to motion picture media and cinematography. My story is newer than some, and practically happening in real time. Factors that contributed to my passion: 20 years of watching films still photography (that mystical relationship with a viewfinder begins...) the films of Andrei Tarkovsky, as proof that masterful art in cinema is indeed actually possible a year of shooting events with DV cameras the films that have inspired me most: Stalker, by Andrei Tarkovsky Mirror, by Andrei Tarkovsky Sans Soleil, by Chris Marker Persona, by Ingmar Bergman Koyaanisqatsi, by Godfrey Regio Heart of Glass, by Werner Herzog The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, by Raul Ruiz Russian Ark, by Aleksandr Sokurov The Color of Pomegranates, by Sergei Paradjanov

I thought The Order to be very strong, cinematographically. It is said of Barney that he is a filmmaker secondly, however. But, I agree: beautiful, and insane. Just the way I like 'em, I'm afraid. He seems to have worked with the same DP throughout the entire series. I'll keep reading...

I've only just scratched the surface of the web resources for the films and their creators. My post here had as much to do with checking in with others about this film. I've seen a lot of strange and wonderful stuff, and this one has really caught my attention. But then, The Order is only a thirty minute sitting. :-]

Does anyone know anything about this film? About the DP, Peter Striettman? About what it was shot on (HD?)? I've just discovered it (them) and am wanting to know as much about it as I'm able. Shawn

Is this not the time to buy a medium sized SD camera system? I too have considered the DVC200 as an affordable pro camera package that might last me some years, to be applied to various event type situations as well as personal projects and general growth and learning as a cinematographer. What's the DVC's life look like in five years? Yes, I am referring to HDV...

Crash is next on my viewing list. I first saw it in the theatres, as double billing with Lynch's "Lost Highway". Crash was much more interesting to me, btw. Sterility, yeah, but then there is some of that in all of Cronenberg's films. It adds to a sense of voyeurism, I think. It seems intentional. I like Existenz quite a lot too. Again, that surreal artifice (lighting and angles), in combination with muted human interactions and behavior.

The lenses on both cameras are fine, or, in other words, neither lens is going to be a deal breaker here. People seem to like the GL2 very much...in plenty of light. It depends on what you're shooting, as always. If what you're shooting is in good light, or in controlled light environments, such as studios, and you have a distinct need for such a long zoom, the Gl2 is a good way to go, as is the Panasonic DVC30, which I would rather have, of the two. However, if you need to be able to shoot in less than ideal lighting conditions over which you have no or little control (documentaries, weddings), and you want the cam to have good audio connections, and you think that you could really use the more refined manual controls, the PD170 rocks. I wish I could explain pixel count and DV CCDs to you, but I don't entirely understand it myself, other than: The bigger the CCD, the better. More pixels does not necessarily = better DV image, or, more resolution. Pixel count and pixel size affect the CCD's ability to capture light. It seems that there is a generally ideal proportion between CCD size and pixel count. Hope this helps! Shawn

Krull...hee. Not in many, many years. I think I'm mostly familiar with him as Cronenberg's #1 DP for the last ten or fifteen years. There is just something about their crafted pictures of an imagined NY and Tangier in Naked Lunch, particularly Tangier (Interzone), that stand out for me.

Just wanted to shout out loud about his work on Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. Watched it last night. I've seen it before, but the lighting stood out like never before, this time around. What a frickin' eye for detail! humbled, Shawn ps. great commentary by Cronenberg and Weller too

Hi Rick! Yeah, I'm starting to wonder about whether to shoot S8 or S16 now. It sounds like, camera and lens expenses aside, the costs are about the same? Or no? I have another thread around here somewhere also addressing this. I don't know! There certainly is a difference between a $500 and a $2500 camera cost, but is seems like being able to put a proper lens on the front is crucial to making the most of a small format like S8. Beyond that, I'm not yet sure what all features are truly desirable. A stab: interchangable lenses stabilized film mechanism 24fps proper VF (whatever that is...) crystal sync quality assurance (new vs. used when ordering online?) If a real cost difference exists between the two formats, then S8 is perfectly fine with me. But if people shoot S8 just for the look of S8, the desire for more resolution might just win out, here. Thanks, Shawn

Heh, I AM new to all of this...By transfer I assume you mean S8/S16 to video, for editing. Yes, well, I don't need to edit right away, but I would like to have a good little system so that I may begin shooting and watching and learning and becoming a better cinematographer who is able to use more than one medium. Perhaps a $2.5-3.5k camera seems steep for an "experimentalist", but I want learn as much as possible, including good controls and use of different lenses. I don't know. It may be that I break down and get the wind up cam first, to begin playing sooner. Whatever it takes! Thank you for your reply. Shawn

Good early Saturday afternoon from rainy Northern California. I'm wondering if good S8 projectors are still being manufactured? I'm not sure which are the better, or how to go about safely buying one used. Buying new is fine with me. I've been shooting DV for the last year, and am quite new to film. Super8 seems to be the cheapest way to shoot film, although it seems like some have contended that shooting S16 isn't that much different in cost? So, I'm interested in what people think of that, also. Cameras. Is anyone out there using Pro8mm's Classic Pro camera? This one stands out favorably for me, as a new, if rebuilt ("renewed", shall we call it?), S8 cam with lens interchangibility, and a good array of manual features, crystal sync, etc...Again, I'm new to this medium and it's cameras, and their features/controls, but general and/or specific thoughts on this camera are welcome. So, I'm trying to put a package together so that I can see the initial cost of getting into S8, or S16, and appreciate your input. Thanks! Shawn

GL2 - smaller chips, less image control, not so good side screen. It's a step down from the other two; why bother, unless sudden budget cuts demand it (in which case, consider the Pana DVC30 too).

Good hello. I've scanned pages of Amazon.com for books on editing technique, theory, history, etc and have come up with a list (a rather short one), but I wanted to ask who has read and liked what and why? You should know about me that I shoot DV, and consider myself first and foremost a cameraperson/cinematographer but who fully, intellectually if not practically, grasps the intimate connection between camerawork and editing. While I am interested in the technical side of what it means to cut actual film, I don't see myself working with anything but DV and NLE for at least a few years more, so I'm not after books and info that is so film specific as to be somewhat lost on me, in terms of immediate applications. What I really want to know is the history behind the current conventions and theories, not to mention the techniques and theories themselves. In any case, here are some of the obvious titles found in my Amazon search: The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film In The Blink Of An Eye, by Walter Murch When The Shooting Stops, The Cutting Begins, by Ralph Rosenblum The Visual Story: Seeing The Structure Of Film, TV, And New Media, by Bruce Block Post: The Technique and Theory Of Digital, Nonlinear Motion Picture Editing, by C. Melinda Levin Selected Takes: Film Editors On Editing, by Vincent LoBrutto Film Editing: History, Theory, and Practise: Looking At the Invisible, by Don Fairservice First Cut: Conversations With Film Editors, by Gabriella Oldham Editing and Postproduction (Screencraft), by Declan McGrath If you know of books that get into principles of cinema, and have healthy sections of editing, I am interested. Hope this wasn't too long winded, and thanks in advance for the thoughts. Shawn

This thread has been listening to crickets chirping for much too long, unfortunately. David, Jodorowsky is a genuine article in the world of cinema. A genius, yes, I'll agree with that. I have seen El Topo and Santa Sangre, I own Fando y Lis on dvd (his first), and I would be on Survivor in order to see The Holy Mountain. His later day one with Peter O' Toole is...ok. Can't remember the name of it. El Topo was tough the first time around, but astonishing on the second. We were robbed when he was never able to direct Dune, with Salvador Dali as the Emperor. Robbed. In any case, I have certain filmmakers close to my heart and mind that make too much of the rest of cinema look thin blooded and wasteful, and Jodorowsky is one of them. Stay strong! You aren't altogether alone in this world. :-] Shawn

Thank you all for the replies. I'll check out the Reflections and Screencraft books, as well as the Bande A Part disc. It's great to see all of these Godard films getting the treatment from Criterion, and nice to know that Coutard seems to be overseeing many of the transfers. I'm working with DV at this point, and yet consider myself a disciple of Tarkovsky, first and foremost, but his techniques don't translate well to 60i images, whereas the Coutard verite style does. And not only that, but Coutard's compositions are sometimes so jarring, so not "picture perfect", they remind me that creating moving pictures isn't the same thing as still photography or painting. You more than one shot at conveying meaning, and so you can build to an associative tableaux, rather than in just one shot. Your depictions can be more abstract, they work together, accumulatively. Godard and Coutard did this rather well (It's My Life).

Does anyone have a beat on some particularly juicy if not lengthy text on or by this guy? I would like to know everything about his work and career. Probably lots of vicarious stuff in the Godard books... S.

I second Ed Wood. Brilliant. Thank god for Black and White.

1/30th and anything slower will mean a loss in resolution, if this matters to you (only the look to your eye should matter). It isn't exactly a film look, but it will brighten up your picture and it is an interesting effect, if needed.

Really? That's unfortunate. The IDEA of it seems pretty great. I wonder if there is a legitimate version GetaMentor out there. Thanks, Shawn

Thanks for your reply. I wouldn't dream of becoming a film only sort. I'm totally fascinated by video and shall at least be priming my pump with it for a good while. I guess it will all come to me as it ought, but I'm curious about how to properly start, or where. Mentoring seems like a well rounded way in, film or video. Shawn