frederico parreira

i think it is sad when a cinematographer is so involved and obsessed with the technical values of its job, that he forgets that an image power has more to do with the feelings and sentiments it evokes, than the small talk technical issues. everyone is entitled to his own taste, but to limit other's taste using yours as a mirror is not an appropriate thing to do, i think. karl, somehow i think you are too rational about this. the art of filmaking is not allways rational... prizes are the same. fred

i really dont understand it. film, digital, filters, lights, bla bla bla, they are all tools! just tools. who cares if they used digital instead of film? they did what they wanted to, and that's it. why are some people talking about slumdog if they even seen it? are you seriously talking about something u know nothing about? thats not exactly correct, i would say. i actually didnt like de movie, but i think it was visually interesting. i would vote for pfister, but not because it was imax, or whatever. cinematogtaphy is the art of telling stories visually. it s not about ligting. its not about choosing film over digital. these are small portions of it. its about telling stories, and thats it. if u feel digital will help u, and would be more interesting than film, go for it. if u feel u want a tiny camera, use it. if u want a canon still camera, use it. u can manage to make great cinematography with all these tools. what matters, is how the audience reacts to the images, and pardon me, it has nothing to do with 'preetiness', thats just plain wrong. maybe some people here should study a little bit more the history of cinema, worldwide. the more u know, the more humble and open to new things u get, i reckon.

hello all. i've just seen Sokurov's Father and Son, and i wonder: what kind of distortion was used on the mouth shot, right in the first scene. i highly appreciate any info on this. thank u fred

Tom Stern

'the shining' 'amores perros' 'stalker' 'letters from iwo jima' 'irreversible' ...

understood. from my experience, i can say that i also like to direct and DP and also write, etc, and the final result ends up being more 'mine' than when working with a big crew, but generally i havent unlimited resources/time, so i think it's a mistake to direct and also DP. of course, sometimes to do everything only brings beneficts, other times not really. happily i work with some great friends/partners, so i prefer goupwork.

hmhm. i understand and agree with the idea you are defending, however, there are 2 or 3 points i want to clarify. first, and picking up what you said about the editing yourself versus having that work made by an excelent editor, i think this was a bad example :P u being the director and the editor have no logistic disadvantages ( where i live, portugal, a country in southern europe, directors always edit, or most of the times). you being director and DP, on the contrary, has. you cant be an excelent director and also a great DP and perhaps a great actor's director if u are making all these things at the same time. first of all, because you ll miss all the details. second, maybe u can be the director and the DP, but then u ll need a great crew helping you with this. either way, i think making films is about teamwork (not only, but u know what i mean). on another direction, dont you think it is interesting to work with people that are not in your mind, and therefore bring fresh ideas, ideas that u havent think of, different angles, different aproaches ? i think the clash of ideas is allways a good element in the creative process.

i believe the concept to have in mind here is 'specialization'. i think is perfectly possible for a director to also DP and also write. but i cannot say i believe the work will be done as good as if there is a specialist for each role. final product will never be as good. making films is a group activity, and i think one director as only to gain by being suported by a talented DP, or vice-versa.

hey first post on this forum. this is probably the film i most liked in this last months. liked it even more than 'there will be blood' (didnt like 'no country for old men'). here in Portugal, the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford was in almost every theatres, and even with brad pitt playing, it had almost no people watching it. and those who did weren´t expecting that kind of movie, so i think that helped it's bad performance. fred