Jump to content

Wendell_Greene

Premium Member
  • Posts

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wendell_Greene

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

4,245 profile views
  1. Great work, Stephen. How did like working with the Arri 8R lenses?
  2. I remember watching a MoCo company's DVD reel a few years ago that included a detailed behind the scenes breakdown of how they used the Milo on this Fiona Apple video. I think the company may have been Mark Roberts, but don't hold me to that. As for the look of the video, it was more than likely shot on color neg stock and the final look achieved in telecine, as opposed to shooting with a B&W stock. Here's an excerpt from a page on the PT Anderson website. Consult the page directly for more info and photos. Hope this helped. across the universe. fiona apple covers the beatles classic 'across the universe' for the film 'pleasantville.' this was paul's first music video with fiona apple, which is a re-creation of the soda pop vandalism scene from the film. fiona, wearing large old fashioned headphones, sings & travels unfazed by the chaos and destruction surrounding her. an interesting note: the version of the video that lives on the pleasantville dvd, the camera hangs on fiona's face for several seconds before slowly fading out, whereas the version on the '6 videos by PTA' (a dvd paul made after the couple's break-up) that shot barely exists before a rapid fade out ends the clip. breakdown the music video was shot on location with a motion control camera. the presence of mirrors and complicated rigs made this a fairly expensive shoot. the idea behind motion control photography is that the camera can perform the same movement twice, which is very useful for compositing two shots where the camera is moving. the video is only made up of five shots made up of many composited shots. the music video opens with a stained glass section of the shop window being destroyed. the glass and the bench that is thrown through it are computer generated and have been motion tracked into the shot. real glass elements are added as characters jump through the window. the motion control aspect of the video is apparent as the camera moves through the window to see fiona apple in front of a mirror, which the camera is not present in. it is likely that another camera performed a mirrored motion track with that side of the set partially removed. the false nature of the mirror is visible just after a chair is thrown through the foreground at about 8:29, where the mirror's image seems to fade into itself, likely the bridging of two separate takes. as the camera moves closer to fiona, her reflection is more visible and has some unusual properties to it that seem to defy description. at this point fiona begins to move through the set without walking (she is sitting on the rig at this point). the shots that follow are a combination of high speed photography of the set being destroyed and footage of fiona shot with the same camera movement only without the action in the background. some of the compositing is visible around her neck/headphones near the end of the first shot. look carefully for small sections on her left side that seem to be wavering or wobbling, these symptoms of compositing are different than blue/greenscreening ones. the spinning shot is simply a variation of the previous shot, with fiona attached at the waist to a rotating rig. rotating debris was composited into the foreground to further distract the eyes as ILM's tricks hide everywhere in the frame. the third shot is the simplest in the video, and features a lighting change on fiona as the camera moves closer to her. the beginning of the fourth shot begins extremely close on fiona's face and pulls out partway through, further suggesting that the percussion of the song is responsible for the damage being done to the store. the camera moves around her face 180 degrees to pull out with another lighting change as fiona walks across the counter. keep your eye out for some ridiculous extras through the window in the top right corner of the frame. as the camera pushes back into fiona's face, wavering softness is visible around the edges of her hair suggesting more tricky compositing. the final shot of the video is one of the more complicated ones, and begins with fiona sitting cross legged in front of the door. since the lighting changes caused by people running through the door and obstructing the major apparent source of edge lighting (the sun), the light highlights were changed on her body when the video was being composited. this is apparent especially when the shiny part of her hair is changed: we should see the individual strands of her hair, but instead the white glow just turns grey. fiona exits the frame to leave us with more slow motion photography, and ends as the camera pushes in on her again. computer generated letters spelling 'the end' have also been composited in the background.
  3. FYI, Matt, if you want to see a video shot with the Panavision Genesis, check out Janet Jackson's "So Excited" video. Directed by Joseph Kahn.
  4. The industry is changing, budgets are low and IMO they're never going to be what they were in the golden era of music videos. That said, you simply have to adapt and improvise if you want to keep working in the arena. Whether you shoot film or digital, there are so many more things you learn on each project that you can use to help make you a better filmmaker. Congrats, Matt. Feels good to see your work being aired, doesn't it?
  5. Caveat emptor. Early Reviews of Hearts of Darkness DVD are NOT good: DVD Talk - Review DVD Beaver
  6. TP is using the template fellow director Marc Klasfeld [who also owns Rockhard, the production company Petrossian works for] used for singer-songwriter Jewel: Jewel -Intuition [MTV] Jewel - Intuition [You Tube] With this template the artist can employ the production design, lighting, wardrobe, make-up and other elements commonly seen in hip hop videos,[ and hopefully get as many plays or views on YouTube as those videos] yet escape being called hypocritcal sellouts and risk alienating their core fanbase, since everything in the video is presented with an acknowledged "wink" of the eye by breaking down the fourth wall and showing the strings being manipulated by the puppet master(s). In other words, the artist is saying to their audience, "Hey! Look! We're not really serious, we're just making fun of these kind of videos" IMO, the only exception to the aforementioned statement about an artist losing their fanbase and being called sellouts, would be The Roots and their video, "What They Do" directed by Charles Stone III back in '96 The Roots - What They Do [MTV] The Roots - What They Do [You Tube]
  7. Rolfe, will your budget allow you to do touch up/beauty work in Flame, Inferno, etc.?
  8. Joe, would you mind commenting on your approach to filming the Jesse McCartney "She's No You" music video that you DP'd for Sanji? I've always admired your cinematography on that video. Thanks
  9. An excellent book to read on this subject is Neil Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood
  10. Build a solid platform of plexiglass to a height that rises an inch or so beneath the surface of the water. Be sure it is of the width and length of the area you need the actor to walk. That's how Ric Ocasek did it:
  11. I hope that you two [and many others] will enjoy reading this interview I had the privilege of conducting with Chris back in '04. Music Video Wire Interview by Wendell Scot Greene CHRIS SOOS-CINEMATIC ALCHEMIST "Passionate", "Subversive", "Innovative", "Artistic" and "Honest", are only a few of the adjectives that have been used to describe Director of Photography, Chris Soos. Hailing from Canada, Soo attended film school at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto where he majored in Film Studies. He cut his teeth in the industry shooting music videos and commercials, developing a reputation for quality work that made him an in demand cinematographer. The recipient of five Canadian Society of Cinematographers Awards for Best Music Video including a pair of trophies with director and creative soul mate Floria Sigismondi for their work on Tricky's "She Makes Me Want to Die" and Marilyn Manson's "The Beautiful People", Sooshas photographed music videos for No Doubt, Erykah Badu, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, David Bowie and Pink, and commercials for Target, Coca-Cola, BMW, and Sony, to name only a few. The sci-fi thriller "1.0" which debut at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, marked his first feature film credit, and Soos' cinematography was singled out for praise by several critics including The Hollywood Reporter, for his unique use of "...colors to solidly establish a mood of feverish paranoia." Wendell Scot Greene: You had a close family member who worked in the film business as a director and producer. Did that association better prepare you for entering film school? Chris Soos: My uncle, Bob Schultz, with whom I have a special relationship introduced me, psychologically speaking, to the sound-stage/production company environment at a very early age in Toronto. Nepotism wasn't directly in the mix, it was a combination of meeting 'film types' from the past through my uncle and being very comfortable with a sound-stage environment made me very strong psychologically going into film school. I strolled into the film school thing with confidence and a bit of an attitude, kind of feeling of "me against the world" and "the odds are against me", but I was in for the fight. I spent a year in Business school, traveled the world for a year, and now with my enrollment at Ryerson, I was ready to kick ass despite my uncle's recommendation to get into dentistry. WSG: What was the film school experience like for you? CS: Well the very first week in school they handed us 16mm Eyemo cameras. Wow, I was hooked. I had the added benefit of personally knowing some of the commercial DPs my Uncle had worked with in the past. Two guys in particular, Laszlo George and Gabor Tarko. I spoke to them regularly about everything. I knew I wanted to shoot and the school gave me the freedom, but I also kept teaching myself. The environment also introduced me to a handful of committed filmmakers, we're still friends, that's the main thing you get out of school, friends. WSG: Were you concentrating on building your reel while still in school? CS: I knew that from being around commercial production companies that coming into the market without a reel was suicide. So, I used the time in school to produce a DP show-reel. A show-reel with commercial stuff, music video stuff, narrative, the works, I even shot a 35mm commercial in my 2nd year just to have a quality looking job on a student reel. Armed with smart witty business cards, an actual reel with stuff worth showing, and an attitude straight out of business school, I knocked on doors with my perfectly formatted resume, and worked it, trying to "break-in". WSG: What was their response? CS: (Laughing) "Wow, your stuff looks great, good luck! Door slam!" "Wow, your stuff looks great, good luck!, Door slam!" "Wow, your stuff looks great, good luck!, Door slam!" "Wow, your stuff looks great, good luck!, Door slam!" WSG: Oh, man, over and over again, I feel your pain. So what did you do next? CS: I told you film school was important, right? Well, I reconnected with a friend from Ryerson, named Jeff Renfroe [Director of the feature film "1.0"] who used his talents to weasel his way into a young music video company. I started gaffing and used the money to produce low budget music videos and hired myself to shoot them. They were played, got some attention, and the ball started to roll. After working with other music video directors and getting notoriety, I signed two years later with a commercial company to shoot 'in-house' as a full time staffed DP. I met everybody in the commercial industry working at that company and from there the rest just snowballed. This experience was my 2nd film school. I learned to shoot fast, good, and cheap. The combination that's impossible to break. That's the secret. WSG: The time right after you finish film school is usually followed by a period of "paying dues" - doing PA work, camera assisting, trying to build contacts, and gain set experience. What did you learn from that experience that helped you later in your career? CS: A lot of the experience I learned "paying dues" meant nothing, while other experiences, even though insignificant at the time, provided the building blocks for my own psychological make-up. Paying your dues in the hard physical sense is important. You learn endurance regardless of your physical condition. This annoying "physical sandbag carrying period" is film army boot camp. You soon learn film is more like a circus, and decide whether this is the life for you or not. You do it because you love it. And it's true, you have to love it, because there's too much competition.. This "paying dues" moment also introduces you to a cross section of the sociological breakdown of the environment. Since you're probably going to meet your soul mate and best friends doing this, you might as well like it. Learning empathy is important, knowing what it's like to be yelled at, or working until you drop, will probably affect the way you talk to people and work with groups of people on film crews in the future. All this said, now I know how to become a better human being, and profit from my experience as a PA when I'm working on set as a hot shot DP. WSG: And you were trying to shoot as much as possible as well, right? CS: Yes, in fact, the best experience I've had 'paying dues' was shooting low budget stuff with creative control. This is when you get an opportunity to stand out as a filmmaker. Shooting creative lower budget projects, which have the potential of gaining recognition, is the key to being recognized by people with money. Money people give you power on set, that's it really. The more experience you have, the stronger the chance of being hired for something else. The bigger the projects you shoot, the stronger your show-reel, and your career snowballs a little more. WSG: A few years ago you were quoted as saying that music videos were an exciting medium for me because it's a "creative highway where music, fashion and painting meet and are transformed by each other." Do you still feel that way? Or do you believe the medium of music videos has begun to feed off itself? CS: Feed off itself, yeah sure, but life comes in waves, as soon as I get sick of the music video environment and feel the medium is being used essentially to buy up industry talent, some cool track comes out, you get the call for the job, you're working with your favorite director, your crew's available, Hurray! The music video on it's own is obviously a commercial to sell units. It does this through attitude, like a can of Diet Coke sells units by looking 'cool'. WSG: I noticed you said "on it's own". So what, if anything, is needed to elevate it to an artform? CS: Well, what if a director has a dream or nightmare, and what if a DP has the same kind of feelings about the director's thoughts? What if the director and DP all of a sudden really and truly get excited about each other's ideas, what if these ideas once visualized in your head remind you of a photograph you once took, a place you visited, a painting you saw, a picture a relative showed you years ago, the inside cover on last month's "Italian Vogue", an installation you saw in New York, some camera trick you saw in a 1930's film? The possibilities are endless. Now, all of a sudden the band wants the creative team to have creative control, they like your ideas, and feel comfortable fusing music with your fashion sense, absorbing visual icons and subconscious creative moments that are essentially property of Director/DP, it's a special relationship, and it's art. It takes two to tango baby, and you can quote me on that. A successful commercial hit that's huge and captained by a megalomaniac is the product of one person, but when you get a special fusion of not just the surrounding art forms, but of people connected without conversation, simpatico, a secret relationship between two people or more, that can't simply be defined or repeated, you have art. It can happen, it's not often, but occasionally it can happen. The relationship I'm trying to describe and I'm getting very alchemistic on you right now,(laughs) happens more on music videos then commercials, so go figure. There's no magic medium, no film, no genre, no decade, no fashion trend, no secret filter, no nothing. Nothing's perfect, and so it shouldn't be. Life's unpredictable. In any special relationship life grows, that's why art is analogous to life, and why art is Real like life is Real. It's a fingerprint, an echo. A reminder that the things that grow, also begin to die. I mean forget about predicting the individual or medium, but trends do exist, as soon as you accurately predict the death of the creative music video as an art project or art form, here it comes again, hopefully by someone different. Change is good, as long as he or she isn't trying to take my job. WSG: You've collaborated with several directors on music videos and commercials but your best known for your creative partnership with Floria Sigismondi. What makes this relationship so special and your work together so striking? CS: Something just clicks. We're close friends and I think that's most important, there's a human relationship present. When we work, it's totally professional. Sure, we goof around, but we both know, with a combined effort evident in our past working relationship, we produce an environment that's artistic. It's not visible in terms of the props, sets, make-up-- that's the theater. The real art shines in our working relationship. I have it with other directors and she has it with other DP's, but the connection I have with Floria is unique, it's unlike any other relationship I've had with another director. When I work in different situations, and maybe I'm asked, perhaps not directly, to put on the "Floria vibe"--the implication being 'that's why we hired you', it just doesn't work. Like I said before, it takes two to tango. And that's it, I don't know how to duplicate the relationship or even explain it. Sometimes it's important not to think of what you're doing, you just do it. When we're working there's a secret non verbal language we use, we find some abstract place in our heads, and play together, while the everybody else in the crew, spends their time catching up to the ideas that generally go back a forth and eventually magnetize into some form. I'll still argue our process is the most significant work we'll accomplish. You can't duplicate that kind of stuff. No amount of money, no physical duplication of the environment can do it, because the initial excitement is lost. The excitement! That's really what it's all about! You get excited working towards something you think is great, free, artistic, you both connect visually, the positive art vibe just takes over the whole space, production office, stage, telecine, the mechanics of film is simply the medium to spread the pigment. WSG: You've have the reputation as a DP who loves to shape and contour the characteristics of a film stock in the lab and/or telecine to fit the specific needs of the video or commercial. What type of tailoring did you use on the Kodak 5218 500T to support [Director] Laurent Briet's vision for the Red Hot Chili Pepper's "Fortune's Faded" video? CS: I needed a sharp look under low light (i.e. practical lighting) for speed. We had a lot of set-ups that required the use of an EFX team for reference and tracking information, and I knew ahead from having had to rehearse the steadicam moves not to waste time lighting for a lower ASA since the floor space was valuable. The new Vision stock is very sharp. The 'toe' sees deep into the shadows for low contrast flat pass work in post. The final look, inspired by Bill Henson's photography, was dug into by Sean Coleman at Rushes, and the metallic lighting, aided by the new LED ring light, added to the effect. The rest was pretty much practical lighting with some added key, fill, and slashes here and there, nothing too complicated. WSG: I want to read you another quote: "There are two things you do as a cinematographer ? you add light, and you take light away. And the balance that you achieve is relative to everything inside of you" ? Chris Soos So based upon your statement would I be correct in saying that your approach to lighting is motivated by aesthetic considerations more than technical ones? CS: Yes definitely. It's just the way I am. Motivated light sources, technical lighting, and careful attention to consistent key to fill ratios, I find this stuff boring. I see the need for it, but it's just a process that really doesn't turn me on. I think, basically I'm turning egocentric. My way is the best way, cause I think it looks the best. Sure I put a narrative or the whatever 'product' in context to my job, it has to fit into the big picture, the director's vision, the vision of the job but it might be a vision, that maybe, nobody can see except me. It's a weird position to be in. Sure, sometimes a director is a bit lost; even they don't really know what your film will look like. In a way you have a clearer picture than anybody, you see the visual texture, the film beauty, you feel the synergy of light and sound before the rushes. When you reach this stage, play with the medium, it's your right as a creative human being, and that's why, I'd like to think, they've hired Chris Soos for a reason. I just like the idea of me being hired because of me, because of the respect for my work, lighting, attitude, my process is very much about myself, it's for me to design and to be comfortable with. My work is a different story, a selfless story, it's very much about my environment, my environment is my focus puller, my gaffer, my key grip, my director, and everybody working hard. WSG: On Christina Aguilera's "Fighter video you used grads [filters] to control the light from the Kino Flos used to light her. When did you start using this technique? CS: I love grads. I've been using them since film school. I usually pull them out on static portrait stuff. Grads shape light. Cutting a large soft source with a blade [flag] looks different than a grad in-camera. It's lighting, negative lighting. WSG: You recently photographed Pink's "God is a DJ" music video. [Directed by Jake Scott] Was spontaneity the operative word to describe your approach to lighting that video? CS: No, I think easy/trashy lighting would best describe it. It was a run-and-gun Super-16 [Aaton] A-minima filmed music video, fast and light. Stick a light on top of the camera, shoot in real looking environments, glamorized up a bit, shot more documentary style with a couple flash glam elements. Sort of pop video meets Chris Doyle*. [* Chris Doyle was the DP for Director Wong-Kong Wai's "Chungking Express", "Fallen Angels" and "In The Mood for Love"] WSG: There are two opposing schools of thought: "Fix it in post" versus "do it in camera". What's your opinion? CS: Do I think all shots traditionally done in-camera should stay in-camera? No. Do I think all traditional post 'fixes' should stay, by film law, as a post thing, never to be tackled in-camera? Again my answer is No. The issue of 'capturing the images before you get to post' defines the craft of cinematography to the cinematographer, not to the producer. Producers like to save money, that's their job. If it's cheaper and easier, time wise, to shoot 'in-camera', then by all means, shoot in-camera. If it's cheaper and easier to shoot plates and 'fix it in post', then by all means, fix it in post. End of story. The job of the cinematographer, in context to doing what the director wants, should be working with all departments to make the shot look as good as possible. It's all about the narrative/photographic comprehension of the scene in context to the big picture, something shared in a good relationship between Director and DP. So when the visual comprehension gets filtered down the hierarchy of all departments, and the numbers come-in, it's up to the producer to OK any budget stressing decisions. Playing the safe way out, in other words, choosing what's cheapest doesn't make for good movie making. With too many shots for post, particularly under the wrong kind of creative supervision, combined with the lack of time and/or money is a recipe for disaster. WSG: As DPs we're often caught in the middle of the financial-creative tug-of-war. What's the solution? CS: It's a balance like anything else, and it's vital for DPs to fully understand the quality they're buying into by agreeing to certain elements for a particular scene being shifted to post. For a DP to allow himself to be blindly dragged into bad decision-making is career suicide. The quest to save money blinds producers from the final image. All too often I've witnessed producers consoling their directors when certain shots obviously don't look good, "Ah, looks great?People will never notice that tiny thing...oh, you're a genius!" ass kissing poop like you've never heard, but at the end of the day if the shot compo sited either 'in-camera' or in post, looks like poop, you get to live with it for the rest of your life. Do you think producers live with this privilege? WSG: Not a chance. So what you're telling me is that sometimes you have to be willing to fight for what you really believe in? CS: You always have to fight. It's your career. The industry is as independent and freelance as competitive so what job security is there? Actually, I figured out the secret, make sure your lighting, framing, attitude, creative relationship, are amazing. Then all the rest falls in place. Be a good cinematographer, not a good wing of the post FX team, not the producer's 'yes' man, not so blind as to walk into visual barf both on camera or six months later, you'll kill yourself. It's simple and boils down to one thing: IT'S GOTTA LOOK GOOD! IT'S GOTTA LOOK GOOD! IT'S GOTTA LOOK GOOD! I guarantee, no matter how loud the screaming match, if the shot looks good, and you were correct in your opinion, no matter if the shot went to 'post' or stayed 'in-camera', you'll be working again. WSG: Good to know. But obviously if you want to keep working as a cinematographer you're going to have to face the reality of shooting FX laden videos and commercials. What's your practical approach to shooting these types of projects? CS: My formula for a FX heavy project is to construct at least 50% of the final composited scene in camera and to never allow a CGI image to occupy more than 10% of the frame. Anything bigger then 10% the amount of finesse work in post goes up exponentially when CGI objects look big. This especially applies on commercials since they don't have six weeks in post to finesse CGI elements for each shot. The main thing overall is trying to maintain a photographic look. WSG: What are your thoughts on lighting and capturing images in HD? CS: HD's limited latitude scares me a bit since lighting is trickier, the highlights bleed, and shadows aren't black enough. I would have the tendency to treat the HD medium, not as a replacement for photography, but as an information data-gathering machine. Therefore, to work fast with the medium, shoot everything as a flat pass, flat lighting, nothing original or edgy, and define the photo look later in telecine along with using plug-ins. The non-commitment process scares me, for one thing, it's boring, and two, you're relying on too many other people in post to define a 'look' that will define you as a cinematographer. WSG: What advice would you give aspiring DPs and Directors who want to break into music videos and commercials? What should they keep in mind when putting together their first show reel? CS: My personal recommendation would be to always take a chance, be risky. Put together a reel of extremely original, full of attitude, edgy, subtle/extreme images, something with unique camera movement. As long as its something interesting and different that catches the eye of someone at a production company, no matter how small the budget, no matter where it's from, no matter what language, whatever the quality, 1/2 or Digi Beta-- it doesn't matter.. Production companies, directors, producers, are always looking for interesting people, not boring people. Boring people are a dime-a-dozen, particularly in Hollywood. What's not interesting is a show reel full of boring dull commercials and generic music videos. Proving you can light doesn't mean poop. First of all, lighting is easy; it's not rocket science. If good lighting and smooth camera work sparked interest in show reels, the industry masses would probably be populated by gaffers, they work harder than DPs anyway, but it's not the case. Remember, lighting is easy and practice makes perfect, so breaking into the craft is simple. A basic digital camera and 35mm SLR, as well as all those how-to books out there, make it pretty easy to figure out the basics. WSG: Final question, what's next for Chris Soos? CS: I'm shooting a music video for "The Strokes" in New York with [Director] Jake Scott. I'm on hold for a bunch of projects after that. I don't know, hopefully I'll find an interesting film project by the end of the year. I'm looking for a good film so let me know if you hear anything. And thanks for the questions.
  12. VARIETY - 10 Cinematographers To Watch: Henry Braham Tim Fleming Larry Fong Eric Gautier Alwin H. Kuchler Mihai Malaimare Jr. Rain Li Tetsuo Nagata Martin Ruhe Michael Weaver
  13. Link to Article: Music videos embrace the YouTube aesthetic and go cheap as budgets dry up By JAKE COYLE September 6, 2007 at 1:29 pm NEW YORK (AP) - The music video is shrinking. With the music industry in crisis from falling sales and file sharing, labels have less cash to subsidize elaborate videos that will mostly be seen in miniature on computers. The result has been a major shift in the art form, as artists increasingly embrace the YouTube esthetic with cheap, stripped-down, low-production videos. The shrinkage of the video will be obvious Sunday at the MTV Video Music Awards, where grandiose, ambitious videos will seem like an exotic species facing extinction. "The business is changing radically. It does feel smaller, cheaper," says veteran music video director Samuel Bayer, whose many clips include Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit," Blind Melon's "No Rain" and Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," which won six awards at the 2005 VMAs. Even Kanye West - one of the most video-conscious artists in music - experimented with a small, quirky clip for his new hit "Can't Tell Me Nothing." Instead of the flamboyant rapper, the video stars the bearded, dishevelled, unmistakably white comedian Zach Galifianakis. Pimping an orange tractor on a country farm, he lip-syncs: "Homey, this is my day." When MTV's award show kicked off 24 years ago, the network was ushering in a new era where the video was king: a branding tool and an art form rolled into one.Today, the channel broadcasts mostly reality shows while YouTube, iTunes, MTV.com and various other online destinations have become the dominant viewing platform for videos. Directors are gradually adapting to the smaller-sized medium. Chris Applebaum's video for Rhianna's "Umbrella" is nominated for five VMAs, including video of the year and best director. It's a sleek, beautiful creation, and Applebaum was conscious of where it would be most watched. "I had a lunch with Rhianna and Jay (label head Jay-Z) and we talked about the fact that most people are going to watch things on their laptop," says Applebaum. "It's important to be bold and simple and to find the elegance in simplicity." Bayer's video for Justin Timberlake's "What Goes Around . . . Comes Around" is nominated for numerous VMAs, including best video and best director. Starring Timberlake and Scarlett Johansson, the video has a distinctively cinematic feel, complete with a car chase and end credits. In this way, "What Goes Around" feels old-school - like a rebellion against the new esthetic. Instead, Bayer aimed for an experience more like Michael Jackson's landmark 1983 "Thriller" video, directed by John Landis. "I said, 'We gotta go big,' " says Bayer. "If I'm going up against an OK Go video with four guys on a treadmill that plays millions of times on YouTube, how can I do something that is the opposite of that?" In the late '80s and through the '90s, budgets and ambition ran high. Mark Romanek's 1995 video for Michael and Janet Jackson's "Scream" is considered the most expensive ever, at an estimated US$7 million. There have been many videos in the $2 million range, including Brett Ratner's "Heartbreaker" for Mariah Carey, Hype Williams' clip for Busta Rhymes' "What's It Gonna Be?!" and David Fincher's "Express Yourself" for Madonna. "What Goes Around" cost approximately $1 million but Bayer thinks it could be one of the last big-budget videos. "A comet hit the earth and the dinosaurs are dying," says Bayer. "There's a new age coming. I think those days are over with." Stavros Merjos, founder of HSI Productions and a longtime producer of videos for acts ranging from Britney Spears to Will Smith, doesn't expect to ever see another $2 million video: "The record industry as a whole has shrunk. There's not as much money to throw around." Merjos sees the effect particularly in hip-hop, where sales declines have been the steepest and extravagant videos by the likes of Notorious B.I.G., Dr. Dre, Diddy and Jay-Z used to be commonplace. "You were expected to have a big video if you were a top-flight or a serious up-and-coming hip-hop artist," says Merjos. "They're not doing the size that they were doing in the heyday." Many artists and directors are now creating videos knowing they'll have to compete for eyeballs on YouTube. OK Go's famous treadmill-choreographed video for "Here It Goes Again" was perfectly suited for viral distribution but the power pop band is far from alone in its reconsidered methods. The Decemberists and Modest Mouse both asked fans to fill in the background to a video shot in front of a green screen. Jessica Simpson did a version of "A Public Affair" composed entirely of fans dancing and lip-syncing to the pop song. Last year, Death Cab for Cutie sponsored professional videos for each of the 11 songs on their album "Plans." For his album "The Information," Beck personally created a video for every track. The silly, lo-fi videos - which ranged from puppet versions of the band to someone dancing in a bear mask and poncho - were posted on YouTube and many copies of the album included a bonus DVD. And perhaps no one has taken more advantage of the freedom of the Internet than R. Kelly, whose absurd and expansive "Trapped in the Closet" series is ideal for the web (though it has also run on cable TV). None of the aforementioned videos will wow you with special effects or giant yacht parties, but they are all refreshingly unconventional. "The new esthetic is that it's very low-budget, lo-fi, very do-it-yourself, not at all dedicated to the old style of music video which was always bigger and louder and more explosions and more money," says Saul Austerlitz, author of "Money for Nothing: A History of the Music Video from the Beatles to the White Stripes." "This is more a punk-rock esthetic," he adds. "It's very exciting." Applebaum wouldn't disclose the budget for "Umbrella" but said he voluntarily did the video for free. Like many music video directors, he's increasingly making most of his income through commercial work. With budgets slashed, being a music director doesn't pay like it once did - which could threaten music videos' status as a breeding ground for directing talent. Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Romanek and Fincher are just a handful of video directors who have gone on to become acclaimed filmmakers. And for a languishing industry, turning the page on one of its most successful promotional tools would be a mistake, says producer Merjos. "In the end, even if you spend a lot on it, a video is a cheap way to get a band out there," says Merjos. "There have been groups that have built their whole record sales on videos, not touring. "You've got to put a face on an act."
  14. Evan, appreciate your comments on the RED camera. Could you or perhaps have your friend, go into detail about the specific problems with the RED workflow? Thanks in advance.
  15. Although Pi was produced on a shoestring budget, the production had what is known as E&O Insurance [Errors and Omission]. This is what distributors [and programs like Independent Lens on PBS] require from a production in order to protect themselves from lawsuits that may result from violating a third-party trademark, or an accidental failure to obtain consent or a proper license. So let say that you, like Darren Aronofsky in Pi, sneak into the subway with your camera hidden inside a bag and film scenes with your actor. Well, a distributor probably isn't going to ask to see a copy of the permit authorizing you to film in the subway. But they will want to see a copy of your E&O insurance that would protect them from a lawsuit from Coca-Cola or Nike because you filmed this and other scenes with your lead actor [who portrays a subway serial killing maniac] who likes to wear a Nike shirt and drink a 20oz bottle of Coke. As far as shooting "guerilla or run and gun style" on music videos, yes, you probably can shoot without permits in most areas in Southern California, as long as you're not blocking streets or sidewalks and/or using a large genny. You see film students from all the local schools shooting all the time, especially on weekends. However, if you're working with a record label and a budget, and your treatment calls for filming a moving vehicle, or filming in high traffic areas, and you have to park production trucks, trailers, honeywagons etc, you're going to have to work with a qualified producer, location manager and other film professionals who will coordinate and expedite matters with the local film office to pay for and obtain the necessary permits. Btw, several indie guerrilla styled music videos often get picked up and are aired by MTV or BET, etc, but if they infringe on a logo or trademark and/or violate the network's policies, you'll see the offending logo or action(s) blurred. This is also true of artists associated with major labels-- the Superman logo was blurred in the very popular "Crank Dat" music video by Soulja Boy. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. I am not associated with Viacom, Pi, Darren Aronofsky, Soulja Boy or his record label. :)
×
×
  • Create New...