anthony le grand

Beautifl list Tom. It's a shame that I haven't see Yi Yi yet, everybody tells me that it's an absolute masterpiece. There are a lot of great films that I haven't seen but... Here's my list: Oh, before the 10 I just want to mention directors like Haneke, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Jia Zhang-ke, Carlos Reygadas, Arnaud Desplechin or Laurent Cantet who all made films that I truly admire. 10. The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford - Andrew Dominik Strange film, like a dream about the Self, the fascination for one other, and the unexplainable link between what we are and our relationship with what's around us. 9. Lost in Translation - Sofia Coppola Simply beautiful, the birth of love without any cynism and with just the beauty of a brief feeling. 8. The Royal Tenenbaums - Wes Anderson Every second, every shot of this film is full of funny, beautiful and moving ideas. Cinema has rarely been so creative and enthusiastic. 7. Paranoid Park - Gus Van Sant Simple, modern, almost experimental, Van Sant created a mental film where everything seems to exist with the character's subjectivity. 6. Saraband - Ingmar Bergman Bergman's last film, a beautiful testament where the swedish director let cinema to its simplest expression. 5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - David Fincher I think a very underrated film and maybe the deepest exploration of Time that the american cinema gave us this decade. 4.The Yards - James Gray Extremely moving. A modern tragedy close to the italian opera. The actors, Harris Savides and Howard Shore helped James Gray to give to this simple story a timeless feeling. 3. Mulholland Drive - David Lynch What else can I say? 2. Millenium Mambo - Hou Hsiao Hsien Simply gorgeous. A poem about time, our place in the world, the conflict with modernity and the difficulty of finding your way by one of the greatest director of the last 30 years. 1. The New World - Terrence Malick Tom said almost everything. Since The Thin Red Line, Malick gave us a new idea of filmmaking, meeting philosophy, musical montage, poetry and making cinema a transcendental Art. Maybe the greatest film I have seen in my life and cinema in its purest form.

I sometimes pulled film stocks when I was shooting 16mm and I think it looked great. But the result will depend a lot of your exposure. Do you plan to overexpose to compensate the pull process or do you want to let the overall negative underexposed? Chris Doyle did that quite often, with Wong Kar Wai and maybe Paranoid Park? It looked like. Lady in the Water was pulled one stop as well. And of course, Harris Savides. I think The Yards and Birth were pulled 2 stops but severely underexposed so it may be a different look of what you want. Maybe he did that with Gus van Sant's "trilogy" but I'm not sure sorry. Last Days and Elephant were low contrasts and soft, he used 7229 and 5263 and I wouldn't be surprised if pulling was included. Here's a ad where he was cinematographer for Sofia Coppola, the underexposure is important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNoD1Lemyw Two Lovers by James Gray was pulled one stop as well without compensation and I think it looked gorgeous. But generally speaking, pulling, underexposing and printing up may give you a softer look you're after. You shouldn't have a grain increase if you do both and will have something very soft.

Surely, the film industry is not really good for the environment because many chemicals are involved in the whole process. But it's nothing compared to a lot of industries, all the energy that transports need etc, etc... Have a look at this very interesting article : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html Sure there are so many things to do for the environment and it's a real emergency but this shows all the hypocrisy of our governments.

THAT is the most stupid, unprofessional, dumb thing I have heard here. How can you insult people like that? I'm not surprised if you think what Bale said is normal then. We can complain about people but respect is the most important thing (I think) on a set and there are no reasons to insult people during a shooting, and here neither. And if you're not open-minded enough to think that everything doesn't have to be locked down well, that's your problem. But Shane's an ASC member and has done some great work before. If he moved the lights when it was rolling it's just because he was thinking that it was the best thing to do at this moment. And Bale's an actor, I guess no sound engineer told him how to act. Saying Shane is not professional is just stupid. Who are you to say that? But anyway, the point is not there. I'm really sorry for you Tom, we usually don't say words like that in France. I won't translate exactly what it means but I guess you know it. Those words are so violent they have nothing to do here, especially on this forum where people are usually so kind and helpful.

I can't find this picture either! But this shot is absolutely gorgeous and may be my favorite too. This single shot is almost more beautiful than looking at Rembrandt's philosopher. But it's almost impossible to choose only one. Also this one of Days of Heaven: and my favorite shot of Barry Lyndon: Also, and I can't find the picture, one of the last shot of Death in Venice when he looks at the young boy on the beach, during the sunset.

Thanks very much for those words and for your time. As you say, Toll's work here is not "normal" and the final result looks gorgeous. It's always incredible to watch those kind of movies where the work of the best DoPs like Toll or Lubezki meet the vision of a great artist like Malick. Not to forget Hans Zimmer's beautiful score and the work of all the people who worked for and with them... Thanks again!

Thanks very much! That explains why the blacks are not so hard in the film and why the colors are so rich. The look of the film is quite unusual, vibrant but natural. At first, I thought that Toll overexposed the film a lot but then I didn't understand how you could get those blacks and not having too much contrast with the Queensland light. Do you know Dominic if they exposed the film stock at 100 for the '48 and 500 for the '79 then? I just remembered that Toll said that he exposed for the shadows in the Daintree rainforest but don't know for the rest... You're right David, we often tend to think that there are tricks when it looks so good but I believe hard work is sometimes not enough. I guess you say that because you're a hard worker and all your work shows it BUT you also have a vision, a great talent and fantastic ideas for light. I guess experience and work can give it to us, but I think that the best work comes from something else, a kind of sensibility. I've never seen a film shot in natural light looking as good as The Thin Red Line except some part of The New World even it's a bit softer and difficult to compare. I tend to think that when you push the limits of the film, you have unusual result and a particular texture which can give a lot of emotion and help the storytelling. Maybe it's just my taste but The Thin Red Line is just one of those examples. I also think of Kubrick pushing all of the film 2 stops for Eyes Wide Shut or Harris Savides having very very thin negatives, sometimes underexposed 3 or 4 stops. For me, those extreme methods create something on the texture of the film, and not in the light itself and make the film almost alive. But you're right, hard work is necessary as well. What would be The Yards without the beautiful lights (and shadows) of Savides and those perfect frames...?

Hello everyone, I just searched for it on the forum but couldn't find anything about it. The Thin Red line remains a mystery to me, not only the film which is one of the best I have ever seen, but also the cinematography of John Toll. This gorgeous film has very rich and strong colors, but keeping everything natural. It's the same with the contrast I guess. Even if they're higher than in a lot of movies, Toll managed to keep them natural and quite soft I think because the light in Queensland is VERY hard. And they didn't shoot everything at dusk or dawn as Malick loves to do. I'm thinking for instance of the long scene on the hills, during the attack. Also, Toll used the '79 film stock I think which is more saturated and contrasted than the new stocks (well, except the '80) and used only natural light with some negative fill. So my question is: do someone has any clue concerning how Toll and Malick got this look? Did they use any particular processing or anything unusual, a particular exposure of the film stock?? Thanks for your help!

Bienvenue en France Nick! Well, if you're looking only for digital, there's Tatou in Paris who has a lot of equipment. And they now have a Red. (http://www.tatou.fr/index.php) It won't be easy to find something in the south west, maybe Toulouse? Otherwise, you may find something in Lyon. Also, Panavision has something in Marseille. It's the east but it may be closer to your place. Where are you exactly? I guess you're happy to be under the sun now!

Thanks for your answers. Joe, I would love to see something you shot, timelapse with IR film must be impressive. Was this film a negative or a positve? Unfortunately, even in B&W, only Ilford still makes infrared films for still photography. But I'll try to contact Kodak about that. I'm wondering if there is a way to approch the colors of an IR film with a 'normal' negative or positive. In B&W, it looks a bit like a classical negative with a red and a green filter mixed. I doubt this is possible but maybe...?

Hello, All is in the title, I like IR films a lot for Black and white photography/cinematography but was wondering if it exists for colours as well? I've already seen it for still photography in order to create irrealistic colours, especially with a orange or red filter but never for motion pictures. Do you guys know if it exists somewhere? Also, if the answer's yes, do you know movies that were shot with it? Thanks, Anthony

Do you have any informations showing that it could be such a new experience? What is this 3rd version? Will the ''voyage of time'' be included in Tree of life or be something different? I heard it would be this fantasmatic prologue about the creation of the world. I remember myself, waiting for the first screening of The New World. I was scared of being disappointed cause my expectations were extremely high. From the 1rst shots I knew I wouldn't be. And the last 5 minutes confirmed me that The New World was everything I expected the cinema to be. Definitely the most moving experience I had in a theatre.

Thanks for your answers. How do their lenses compare with lenses like the Beaulieu's Angenieux, Schneider optivaron or the Canon's ? Are they in the same range of quality?

Hello, I have the opportunity to get 2 Rollei S8 cameras but never heard anything of them. I shoot medium format photography and Rollei is for me synonym of the best quality but how good are cameras like the "movie 6" or the "XL12"?? And most important, how are their lenses? The first one has a vario 1.7 so I guess it's good.. Thanks for your help!

Hi guys, I'm really surprise to see a message here again! I think Malick is the only "giant" now, a true artist who brings cinema to the highest level. Coppola is not a myth like Malick, but very faithful to his art. "Tetro" seems to be very ambitious and "youth without youth' is very underrated I think. There are not a lot of "old" directors like Coppola who are as faithful as him to the idea they had of cinema. Maybe Hou Hsiao Hsien will considered like them in a few years or James Gray in 30 years... Oh, and to go back to the original topic, I saw Eyes Wide Shot in a theatre a few weeks ago. It was REALLY grainy, and some colours, especially the blue and red were very saturated. Strangely, the green weren't as saturated.. But every shot of the movie was gorgeous.

Yeah, the CP-16 is definitely hard to hand hold, especially compared to the Bolex or Scoopic. But I think this camera is cheap for all its qualities.. Will, I wish I had enough money to buy a A-minima! I wouldn't even have posted this topic. Such a fantastic camera.. As I said, a Scoopic would be perfect for me if I can find one. Otherwise, an electric R16 or Bolex with motor would be good.. Thanks guys for all your answers

I was thinking also of the CP-16, they can be found quite cheap on ebay now. But no always easy to find one in a very good shape. Do you know guys if all the Bolex models accept a motor?? I especially think of the H16. I knew the EBM one but didn't know it was originally electric.

oh, didn't know for the bolex. I tought that motors were always added.. good to know! I have a K3 but plan to buy an Eclair ACL when i'll have a bit more money. But I'll have to wait... I'm just looking for simple electric cameras. I just feel limited by the 25 sec of the K3 sometimes so I was wondering what could be the possibilities... And the scoopic 16 is not easy to find. Thanks guys!

Hi everyone, I was recently searching for low end 16mm electric cameras and allow longer shots than 30 sec. I heard that the B&H 240 can shoot almost 1 min long shots (but with spring wind) but that's pretty much all I know. Otherwise, there's the scoopic.... but does anyone know if there are other electric cameras like that??? Thanks

Khondji shot with fuji eterna, which is a bit grainy naturally. I suppose they pushed the film for the int. night scenes and lit mostly with practical, giving those deep blacks and this large grain. It's just a guess but Doyle used push processing a lot with WKW before so... I like the grain of the fuji stocks, it can be really nice. So fuji stocks and push processing are certainly the cause of this it. As well, I like large grain like that, especially what Kubrick did for Eyes Wide Shut & Barry Lyndon, pushed with kodak stocks or The Brown Bunny by V. Gallo shot in 16mm. Those night scenes in My blueberry nights were really beautiful. But those by day were too saturated for me, especially the very blue sky. They also did a DI, certainly to match the saturation between everything. But as you can do almost everything with a DI, there's a lot of possibilities, also concerning the blacks you liked in the movie.. Don't know if it's the end of their collaboration. But after 2046, Doyle said that WKW was always doing the same movie so maybe he wasn't interesting by doing My blueberry nights...

Or maybe a cruise wouldn't be that expensive?? I would take the rolls with me and process everything in NYC. I'm sure it wouldn't be so expensive compared to the price differences between us & some european labs.. But more seriously yes, I considered the UK as well. But you know Karl, the UK is part of Europe. They just don't want to make things the same way than us! And they have their own food. But London is just a 2h trip from Paris. I've been searching a bit and emailing some labs this weekend. Ilab in London & Color by Dejonghe in Belgium are offering very reasonable prices for students like me. I heard very good things about their work and they're both very nice & helpful.. so I might go with one of them.. Thanks for your help guys

Haha, yes things can always go wrong Karl! But to be serious, I'd prefer to stay in Europe, it's too much risks to send the work overseas, even if it's cheaper. I wouldn't sleep, wondering all night if the rolls arrived well. A lab in Paris or like Dejonghe who can pick it in Paris is the best for me. It's just often really expensive. But i'm a student so I can always ask for a better price... :) I don't agree with you, american labs are cheaper but the quality is as good in Europe, really. You can see it everyday with movies made here and with labs like Eclair who are considered as some of the best you can find. You're right for ''Valkyrie'' though. But this happens sometimes, anywhere in the world. We heard a lot of this just 'cause it was Tom Cruise and a very important scene of a very important event of the 20th century. I guess it happens sometimes, anywhere, for independant features. We just don't hear of it. But yeah, if other people have experiences with some other labs in France or close to France, with 16mm processing and telecine, I'll be happy to hear your feedback. Cheers

Yeah, that's mainly why I'm asking. I'm always surprised to see that big difference between some labs in the us and in europe. And if you look at well known labs like LTC Paris, you'll see that it's way more expensive than those prices.... Thanks Marc for your answer. You're right, it's very important to have a good feedback.. and I only had good ones from Color by Dejonghe. 1€ for the negative & print is ok, actually i'm going for the processing, cleaning & telecine. I didn't know Arane, thanks, I'll give them a call. If you guys have any other adresses or other ideas, that would be great! Thanks for the answers, Anthony

Hi everyone, I'm actually looking for a lab, if possible in France, at least in Europe, who processes 16mm with a great quality and for a reasonable price. I know Andec, who makes a very good job but I was wondering if I could get something a bit cheaper, i.e. less than 0,60€/meter?? Moreover, do you know a good place for the telecine?? I heard that Uppsala is making a good job and they have low prices. They're making it on a sniper (which I don't know at all). I've done 16mm telecine before on a spirit and had fantastic results, how's the sniper compared to that? Cheers

Hi Serge, Thanks for your answer. I'm not a fan of the Z1 neither but unfortunately I don't have so many choices.. I'll see if I can test the DSR450. Yes, I meant in the 'golden hour' to have a soft light and no hard shadows. Did you ever try low con or diffusers with digital? I usually like the very very soft ones, enough to diffuse a bit the highlights but not strong enough to 'touch' too much the subject. I think S8 would look better, I just have to see how much it will cost with a good telecine, that's the issue. Is the 7280 the only reversal made anymore by Kodak for S8? I heard Fuji makes some velvia but does it make a softer reversal as well? Cheers