Brian Rose

That kitten doesn't look so helpless to me. Looks like he's become self aware! I won't live in a world run by damn dirty cats.

I'd love to be the guy who recovers "Firelight," his first feature. As the story goes, he loaned the one copy to a producer as a work sample. The producer ran off, and Spielberg was left only with a few clips and excerpts, which are the ones usually seen on docs about him. Man, wouldn't that be the best "foot-in-the-door" with him, if you found that film?

I see a lot of problems with this method. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear "get a bigger budget," or "shoot all digital," but that's your problem. You're hell bent on shooting film, yet unwilling or unable to commit the kind of budget that endeavor demands. Film is not something you can cut too many corners with, and why would you? Its your hard earned money, don't you want to make the best you can? Yet it seems like you've lost all focus on what matters. Because really, for all we pontificate about film or digital, formats and mediums are rather a small part of the picture. What's your story? How are you going to tell it? You should be allowing that to dictate the course of the production, and instead you're ramming the production through this fine, fine window that will allow you to shoot film, but will likely produce something all mangled when it comes out the other side. Why do you need to shoot film? Forget for a moment that you "love it." I love 65mm Panavision, but I have no illusions that I'm going to shoot my next film in the process. Does film add something to the story that digital doesn't? Why is digital so bad? There is just as much artistry with one as with the other. The fact that your picture was shot on celluloid certainly won't make it good or professional. For example, you say to shoot film you can do no more than two takes. Really? How long is that rule going to stay in place? Do you really expect your performers to hit their mark on the first or second try EVERY TIME? No, they're human, and stuff happens, and there are going to be circumstances beyond your control, and since you've left yourself so little room to breath, you're going to quickly find yourself strangled. You mentioned having digital as a backup for the film, in case they don't get it on the first take. This may seem like a good compromise, but mixing mediums is one of the worst things you can do. You're setting yourself up for the worst kind of situation, where you're forced to intercut film and digital. It's a recipe for disaster. It'll take you right out of the story. Consistency is the key. It's why DPs plan their lighting ratios, and have their f-stops planned, so the DoF can be consistent. There are so many variables. And mixing film with 7D...the compression, the rolling shutter issues...I think it would be one of the worst formats to try and mix with film. And what about lighting, camera support, costumes, production design, makeup...all the other things that are so crucial to the production? Really your format is the least of your worries. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I believe in being honest now, before time and money have been spent that can never be recovered. Based on what you've described, I don't think film would be a good idea. You've shaved so many things so thin, it reaches the point where you've got to ask, "Wait, why am I so obsessed with shooting film?" You should worry about trying to tell a great story as best you can. Because would you rather have a piece of junk on film, or an excellent work of art shot on digital? BR

I'd add every other shot from Linklater's "Slacker." That film completely refutes the idea that low budget somehow is a pass/excuse for your film to look like uninspired poop. BR

I love Arri, and I have to think the camera is better than this. Having thought about it, the real issue is it was a bad camera test, and I hope someone might have a chance to do some tests with proper lighting in a controlled environment so we can really see what it can do. BR

Reminds me of an offer I was given to DP a series of instructional magic and card trick videos. The guy couldn't pay me anything, but assured me he was close to finalizing a deal, and the sales could be over a million, which he'd cut me in on the back end. He wanted to shoot 30 vids...I suggested just one as a "proof of concept" for his backer. He said he wanted to do all of them, because he was so confident they would sign with him, that he wanted to be ready to begin producing DVDs. He also said he was going to save costs and boost profits by hiring people with special needs to do labor... Needless to say I declined his generous offer to allow me to work for him free. Perhaps I denied myself untold riches reaped from the massive, here-to-fore untapped market of aspiring magicians...but I somehow doubt it. :) BR

Agreed. It struck me as very blah looking, and honestly reminded me of all the DSLR footage I see floating about. I'm really perplexed by the growing obsession over lowlight performance. How much lowlight will be good enough? So what if a camera performs in even the dimmest areas? It won't necessarily mean the footage will look good. You'll always need some lighting. And meanwhile, color just seems to suffer horribly, because it is dependent on adequate light (and light to shadow ratios). The demo footage was milky in the shadowy regions and utterly drab...it made Eastman's debut monopack color look like dye transfer three strip Technicolor. Not long ago, when you shot color, you shot COLOUR, and otherwise, you opted for black and white. Now, it seems like we're steadily moving closer to merging the two to yield an image that is uniformly blah, and likely to induce seasonal affective disorder. There is something very, very wrong in teh state of Denmark, when a color process (Technicolor) extinct now for fifty-five years remains superior to the most cutting edge processes being developed today. Granted, Technicolor was a major headache to use, but few would argue the resultant images weren't worth the trouble. Today, it seems the greater emphasis is being placed upon what is faster, cheaper, more convenient, and the result is footage that just plain sucks. Wheewwww, now that I've got that out of my system... BR

I bust out laughing each time I see that bit of home footage, of Jack next to his camera, and he just shrugs as though he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. You get the sense of what a fun guy he must have been on set, and it belies the fact that he was in greater grasp of his powers and abilities than just about any other DP working then (or now). I sure hope it'll be available stateside! BR

A good point, but I knew prior that the purpose of the shoot was to get a client testimonial. So it was pretty much a locked down, talking head type shoot. On this occasion, there wasn't going to be any hiking, just a lot of standing (I ran audio) hence why I opted to shoes I could stand in for a while, as opposed to boots. BR

Well, the Alexa certainly is good for getting that "depth of field look"... The DP sure loves his rack focus!

Michael, Yeah, he was definitely serious, and he's an experienced guy who I respect a lot, so even though I was pretty surprised by his advice, I want to seriously consider it, so I avoid future problems. However, you all have given me a lot to think about, and it's reassuring to think that I wasn't way off base in my thinking. Thanks! BR

Here is a question, involving proper attire for a location shoot: I was ACing on an interview of a farmer in his field for a corporate client. I thought everything went well, but after it was over, the cameraman said I was dressed inappropriately. It was hot that day, and humid, and we were working out in the sun. Knowing this, I opted to wear a nice white polo, with khaki shorts, tucked in with a belt. Shoes were your basic running shoes, clean and comfortable, but ones I could get muddy if need be. Hair combed, teeth brushed, deodorant, etc, etc, and so forth. The cameraman, however, said I should not have worn shorts, because all the farmers wore jeans and boots, and I needed to dress like them, or I would stand out (he said the farmers were probably talking about me after we left, and he added that, "If you wear shorts on a farm, you're either saying you've never been on a farm before, or you're gay.") Fortunately, I'm not gay or I would've been a bit miffed. And I've been on plenty of farms...my grandparents live on a farm, so I spent many days since childhood on a farm. And jeans or shorts never came up, except to protect against bugs. I'd always opted to use bugspray, since in hot conditions, I do not feel comfortable in jeans-I get sweaty, I chafe, and I just can't focus on the work at hand. I just don't like to wear them in those conditions. Instead, I seem to have violated some code I was never aware of until now. Up to now, I always dressed with the intent of being clean and professional looking, yet with a mind towards comfort depending on the conditions I'm working in. But I am worried about making another mistake like this, by not dressing right for the client. I want to consider this man's advice, because he is so much more experienced than me, but in the hot and humid conditions I was working in, I wonder if I was so off base to wear a nice pair of shorts rather than stuffy jeans. Did I make a mistake, or do you think the cameraman overreacted? What emphasis do you all place upon attire at a film shoot? What balance do you strike between the need to look the part of a working professional, while keeping a mind toward the conditions you're facing, to be comfortable and able to function at your best? Sincerely, BR

Phil, It's hardling "peddling" if it's worked. I'm not speaking in terms of "well, a friend knows a guy who..." I'm speaking from personal experience. Nor am I working in LA. I work in Kansas city, which is as far from New York and LA as you can get, which is a SMALLER market, a tougher market than London. It's competitive as hell here, especially since a number of prod. houses went bust and their workers are now all freelancing. I've sent God knows how many inquiries, and only a handful have panned out. But the few that have panned out make it worth it. I'm building connections and getting work. Yes, the work I've done is small potatoes compared to what you're probably used to, or expect. The commercial was shot on DV for a website. I haven't come near a Red camera or a Panny. I'll be the first to say I'm a working hack DP. But it's work, and I'm getting paid, and it's more things to add to my resume, and best of all, I get to practice my art, rather than let it go to waste having to work an office 9 to 5 to pay the bills. So all in all, I feel like I'm doing pretty damn good. And I owe a lot of that to Craigslist. There are lots of different paths. I've taken a different one from yours, and it's way to early to see which, if either, will work. I don't recall it being a race, or a competition, and I hope we can both succeed by our own methods. It's fine for you to disagree and express your concern over my choices. It's good, because it will give Phoebe a better, more nuanced view of her options, so she can make the decision that is right for her. I for one was unaware that Craigslist had not caught on as much in the UK as it has in the States, so I'm glad you made that clear. But please don't belittle my advice. I don't care how long you've been on this board, how many posts you've made, how experienced you are. If you had an Oscar or built a new camera for Panavision or had been dubbed by Vittorio Storaro to be the greatest asset to cinematography since celluloid came it, it still wouldn't give you the right to treat me or anyone else who here who takes the time to give honest, personal advice, such condescension. Brian Rose

I'd be glad to, once the ASC invites me to become a member. Ball's in your court fellas! ;) Seriously though, Eric's a great guy, and David is an institution on this board, so you're doing awfully well. Best of luck in your search! BR

One word: Craigslist. 9 out of 10, if they respond at all to you, wind up being deadbeats who pay nothing, or SAY they can pay you nothing so they can pocket more of the money for themselves. Yet they are vital, because to survive, you must develop a finely tuned bullshit meter. This way, you can be ready to make a call on a legit filmmaker who has everything EXCEPT financing. Through craigslist, I did some free work for two filmmakers, each of whom were doing a short, and needed extra hands. One of them later got a gig directing a commercial, with a legit budget, and tapped me to DP. One day of work, and I got paid very well. He tells me there are at least two more commercials coming from the same client. The other fellow is now developing a feature he hopes to get some funding for, and as with the previous, I'm set to DP. I never would've met these two filmmakers were it not for Craigslist, and for all those deadbeats I dealt with. It's proven invaluable, and I check it almost as frequently as my email. BR

Ditto on what he said. Generally, don't buy on ebay, especially if you're getting one with analog (i.e. moving parts) like a Spectra or Sekonic. Pay a little extra if need be, to get a nice meter from a reputable dealer. Meters are like health insurance coverage...it's easy to get one very cheap...but those savings are quickly lost when something goes wrong. In your case, the few bucks saved on a meter could translate into hundreds for reshoots, and thousands for lost work, when that director never hires you again, and tells his friends not to hire you (okay, this is all a bit extreme, but it's not unrealistic, in this biz where EVERYTHING is word of mouth). Good Luck! BR

I swear by my Spectra Pro. Used it for six years now, and while I subsequently got a spot meter, I always keep my spectra on hand. BR

I believe in cinematography based on function above all, and any stylization derives from that function. You should always be asking, what is the purpose of this shot? How is it conveying what I want to convey? Because, with so many conventions, it is so easy to "sleepwalk" through a picture: over the shoulder shot here, shaky cam for "realism"... I can't think of the number of films I've seen that end with a crane shot as two characters walk away. Why? Often I suspect the director and DP never asked this question, but rather bowed to convention...that's how you end a movie...with a crane shot. Another example: I've worked on a bunch of films where the director is deadset on shooting a bunch of scenes at magic hour, never regarding the headaches, the crucial timing, and the short work span. Not to mention never contemplating WHY they have to film at magic hour, other than that it's "beautiful" or they want it to look like "Days of Heaven." They never bother to learn that "Days of Heaven," the quintessential magic hour movie, arrived at this look through a very logical and practical manner. As Malick and Almendros both pointed out, they did not choose to shoot so much at magic hour "jus 'cause," but rather because it made sense within the story, and it conveyed an important aspect of the lives of the characters who toil on the land, who would start work at dawn, and work until dusk. It made perfect sense to film at these times, because that is when they would be getting up, finishing work, etc. The magic hour shooting was adopted because it functioned within the storyand the look, the feel of it which in its own way is quite stylized, derives from that function (I recall Malick as he was color correcting the film for Criterion, jokingly forbade the use of the word "beautiful" as they timed the film, because that was not their aim...to make a beautiful film). An example from my own work...I recently completed a documentary, a biography on an American president that involved traveling all over the country, road trip style. I wanted to avoid the conventions of the form...no shaky cam verite, but no staid, tripod bound stodgy shots of historic sites. And being on a limited budget with few crew and a tight shoot schedule, my solution for all of this was to shoot on a glidecam. It enabled me to grab more shots quite quickly, and because I had a nice, fluid camera movement, it allowed more freedom in the editing suite, by relying upon longer shots where a scene unfolds, rather than choppy pacing. And the end result was something distinctly different in the look, and feel of the picture. Finally, I recall a famous story told by Spielberg, of his encounter with John Ford. Ford told the young aspirant to look at a landscape painting, and tell him why the painter set the horizon line where he did. Spielberg couldn't answer. Ford told him to think about it, and said that when he understood where to place the horizon (i.e., not in the center like some damn postcard), he would be a good director. BR

I used him once before, years ago to service an RX. As I recollect it took a few months for me, but he did good work. Still, the timeframe you describe sounds rather unreasonable. Keep after it, and hopefully he'll send you your second SBM. BR

Robert, I agree with you that there should be no reason for such secrecy, since presumably Biograph has either the copyright to any supposed footage, or has rights by way of the fact that the would surely possess the sole surviving copy, and therefore have control over its use. And they don't even need to release any moving footage to silence doubters. I know many who are so intimately familiar with the Titanic's layout, and its differences between its "identical" sister ship Olympic that one or two choice framegrabs could be enough to authenticate the footage. I can only guess that they're hoping to generate some buzz and hype over this project. If that is the case, it is indeed working, but perhaps not in the way they expected, considering the legitamte doubts and questions that have been raised. Of course, if they do indeed possess footage of Titanic, that they know to be absolutely authentic, well then they know that all doubts will be silenced upon release, and so perhaps they are secure in that knowledge? I do find Karel's comments on Mrs. Marvin quite interesting. While her story does change (broken arm here, broken spine there), the common thread through these (and other accounts I've read) all seem to agree that she left the ship with something. This indeed raises the possibility and the plausibility that footage could have been saved. What is unclear is how the footage could have survived, and remained unseen. The accounts tend to agree that she destroyed her wedding footage, and Karel mentions that she might also have destroyed the Titanic footage at the same time. If it has survived, it would seem because she did not destroy it, but kept it hidden from view, hence it's unavailability until "now." This is pure speculation mixed with a lot of uneducated armchair pscyhologizing, but it seems plausible that, grief stricken though she may be, she was compelled to hold on to the last memory of her husband, via this footage. And since he entrusted it to her, handed it to her in that lifeboat while he stepped aside and died, seems to me quite a strong gesture, and hard to imagine that she could have destroyed it after what her husband did to ensure its survival. Again, a lot of speculation, heaped onto a lot of second and third hand evidence that could all be myth. Really, the ball is in Biograph's court and hopefully soon they will step up with some more concrete answers. BR

Hi Robert! Glad to see you chime in on this. I've been a long time Titanic scholar, in addition to my film work, so I've been following all this pretty closely. Your words express a fundamental concern a lot of us have, namely that the story of Titanic has been so thoroughly examined, both when it happened in 1912, and of course, in more recent years, that it does indeed beg the question of how such an important film clip, if indeed the Marvin film has been recovered, could have gone unseen for so long. And because Biograph is unable to reveal more information, we are left to speculate until they do. To begin, we can surely rule out that footage was rescued from the bottom, considering the chances of film surviving that long in those conditions are nil, and there hasn't been an expedition since 2005. According to a plot summary on imdb, it is stated that the footage was taken off the ship with Mrs. Marvin in a lifeboat. I'm not sure who wrote that summary, or where it came from, but I have my doubts. It would have taken a lot of foresight to save a can of film on a ship, when even many of the officers did not realize until late that the ship was truly doomed. The story sounds too good to be true. However, it could be possible that the footage got off the boat at Cherbourg or Queenstown. If Mr. Marvin captured, say, the near collision with the New York, in Southampton, he might have deemed the footage too important to wait, and got it off the boat to be processed at once. However, this too is a stretch, because if I had such footage, I would not let it out of my hands, and certainly not in a foreign country. Suppose, then, that the film did indeed escape as claimed, via a lifeboat? Why wasn't it shown? Surely such news would have made the papers (Film Saved by Lifeboat...it makes great copy). And perhaps it was shown...there is indication that at least footage of Titanic's launch at one time existed, because there exists descriptions of at least one period newsreel that describes such content. Of course, this could also be Olympic footage substituted, as Mr. Harris noted. I think, if indeed footage was saved by Mrs. Marvin, that the most likely possibility is that it was never shown. There is strong anecdotal evidence that Mrs. Marvin destroyed the lone print that recorded her wedding to Mr. Marvin, the first of its kind and something of a mini-milestone in cinema. She was too grief stricken. Perhaps that same grief led her to withold the footage she was given....yet because Daniel entrusted it to her, she was unable to destroy it as she had the wedding film. Again, it's a ton of speculation, and until Biograph comes out with something more definitive, we must still exercise some healthy skepticism. I would again cite the precedent set by Metropolis. Considering the extent to which the Murnau foundation searched for materials, for it's early 2000 restoration, many had reasonably assumed that the hope of recovering the 1926 Berlin Premiere cut was an impossibility. And yet, a miracle happened. I think another miracle could be possible, but only time will tell. And thank you Robert. Your input on this is most appreciated! BR

I think I laughed hardest at the comment, "It gets great depth of field." Oh if I had a nickel for every time I heard a director or producer say that.

Hey Tom, Brian R. writing. I'm the one who has made some inquiries, and I just want to thank you for posting! Your news is quite exciting, and I hope you will forgive my earlier comments about your legitimacy. It was nothing against you, but rather a bit of healthy skepticism. You can understand, in the field of Titanica, there are often times when we hear about a new photo or film footage (the most common is someone saying they have a photo of the actual sinking) and 99 times of a 100, it comes to nothing, and so it has become somewhat ingrained in us to take everything with a dose of salt until we have seen it with our own eyes. Your words breed great confidence, and I'll be sure to share them. I can say there are many who will welcome what you have to offer, very much! Understanding your need to maintain confidentiality, but will there be at any point in the near future some kind of press release? I think where many of us were initially confused was that such a huge discovery had slipped beneath the news radar, so to speak. I'm sure some kind of announcement would be most appreciated! Encylopedia-Titanica is a great group who could be a potential asset to you, and I know would buy the final film. Thanks again, and best of luck with the endeavor! Sincerely, Brian Rose

Adrian, I think your assumptions are right on the money, and such a shame. While I'm no anti-digital, technological Luddite, it is such a shame to see such a glorious format as 15/70 slowly replaced by inferior digital. Through some digging, I have found that the theater where I saw "Inception" has indeed gone digital; in 2008 it was still 15/70, and I can clearly remember how glorious Dark Knight was. Inception looked uniform and rather blah, considering the extent to which 65mm was used. It's practically a crime; I saw "Hamlet" in 70mm a few years back, and it was stunning...the whole thing with intermission was 4.5 hours, and I could've watched it for eight! With the loss of 15/70 at my particular theatre, I'm now in a desert (I live in Kansas). There isn't a theater (apart from science documentary oriented Imax venues) for hundreds of miles that shows 15/70. I kind of hate Imax now. Shame on them for watering down their legacy!

The tech specs on imdb, while listing the printed film format as 15/70, it is listed as a DMR blowup, so a 65mmm source film seems unlikely. A bummer. While I don't realistically expect a complete 65mm revolution, surely I hope even just one film in the next five years will be shot entirely in large format...it's been nearly fifteen years since Hamlet came out, and that is way too long! BR