Jump to content

Navinder Singh

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  1. You've a completely wrong impression of the movie :P Give it a shot, you won't regret it.
  2. I sense some sarcasm :P Anyway, do you think it's better than The Social Network?
  3. Not really. English is the secondary official language of India. From my 19 years of experience in the country, I can safely say that you will find more people communicating in English than in Hindi, which is the official language of India. All the big companies, service sector industries, and even the Hindi movie stars, they all communicate in English. And there is a huge population in India who love Hollywood movies. Movie industry in India is the biggest movie industry in the world, but don't confuse it with Bollywood. Bollywood is the movie industry which makes movies in Hindi. There are different industries for different languages. Canadians are themselves responsible for the current condition of their movie industry. The Canadian Cooperation Project in 1948 killed the Canadian movie industry. More on this - http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/film/clips/8999/
  4. It's not possible for every country to be like Bollywood. India is a big country where people love cinema and treat movie stars like Gods (I know it because I'm an Indian). However, Bollywood is suffering from the same problem as Hollywood; majority of people over there only make popcorn movies and not thought provoking cinema. But of course, there are filmmakers like Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap etc who make movies which are both entertaining and have a theme at the same time; however, they don't work that well at the box office in comparison to mindless entertainers that Bollywood churns out every year. But things are changing very slowly, many small budget movies are doing good at the box office. It all comes down to the A list actors. If these actors start doing such movies, the quality of movies will improve to a large extent. PS - India doesn't put any kind of quota on Hollywood movies and still has its own industry. That's not an easy thing to do. Coming to the topic, I agree with you that great filmmaking is both entertaining and imparts a message at the same time; however, it's not easy to do. The ones who can do it are few in comparison to popcorn filmmakers. Nolan, Fincher, Cameron, Coen Brothers and Speilberg are some good examples.
  5. As far as I've seen in film programs, they basically teach you everything. While you are in the program, you'll automatically come to know what you want to do. I've some friends in the film program in my college who wanted to be directors when they enrolled in the course; however, after a year or two, they realized that they were happier while performing the duties of an AD or a DoP.
  6. Lol, I was talking in terms of how happiness would become a regular thing and not exciting without sadness. If everyone starts making arthouse movies or thought provoking cinema, then it won't be that much fun. Classic movies are classics because they are rare. If they become a regular thing, then they won't be classics anymore.
  7. At the end of the day, movie making is business, and in order to run a business successfully, they have to make profits. Simple economics. And it's a harsh reality that movies like Little Fockers or similar movies will do more business than an "artsy" movie. In addition to that, most people think movies as a medium of entertainment and not as a medium to learn great life lessons or moral conducts from someone. No one can change that and that's why movies like these exist. They are only made to entertain people and not to display the creativity of an artist. When I talk about movies like Citizen Kane or other classical movies with people, they would say that it was boring or something similar. And they don't give a $hit if it had some hidden meanings, symbolism etc. All they want to be is entertained. And lastly, movies like Little Fockers should exist because if they don't, watching all those classic movies won't be that fun. It's like we need sadness to experience joy. If there was no sadness in the world, how would we experience joy and happiness?
  8. As Freya mentioned that you are vague about the specifics, so all I can think is of two things. Try to get the look that he wants with whatever camera he is choosing. If that's not possible, tell him beforehand that it won't be your responsibility if the music video doesn't turn out to be the way he wanted. There is no point in taking the blame if it's not your fault.
  9. Proved my point. I'm not a big fan of 3D myself, for people are not using it properly. The only film that I can think of which used 3D properly is Avatar and to a certain extent, Step Up 3D.
  10. Don't blame the technology, blame the people who use it poorly. Your argument against DI is the same as that of against 3D. Is 3D a poor technology? No way, if used properly. Avatar is the perfect example of how 3D can be a whole new experience for the cine-goers. Blame the greedy producers and directors who are trying to convert their 2D movies into 3D and thus, giving the technology a bad name. Don Norman, I read the article that you pointed out. The writer makes good points; however, he is blaming the technology instead of the people who are using it. For example, he rants about the use of color correction during post production. Color correction, in my opinion, is a very handy tool just in case something turns out to be wrong, but filmmakers have become irresponsible and lazy, for they just rely on color correction to get the image right instead of capturing it right with the camera. As far as Film vs Digital is concerned, I think it all depends upon the type of film you are shooting. For an indie filmmaker who is short on funds, Digital would be the perfect way (Paranormal Activity is a good example); however, for a filmmaker who has a lot of money, it can be both. And I've seen that many filmmakers are using both film and HD to make their movies. Black Swan, for example, was shot both on 16mm and Canon 5D and 7D. Lastly, it depends upon the director. Director like Fincher prefer Digital over film; on the other hand, directors like Nolan and Tarantino prefer film over digital.
  11. Yeah, it was awesome. From what I've heard, they used 6 to 7 different coffins to shoot the movie. Good work by DoP, too.
  12. Just watched it and I've to say that the film was excellent! The decision to use old Beta cams to shoot the fight sequences was a good one! It looked amazing on screen! If I'm not wrong, some fight sequences were filmed with the regular cameras instead of beta cams, right? I'm talking about the matches which Micky fights after returning from the injury. Three or four continuous wins. Did you guys film them in a small location? The crowd area was not lit at all. I've another question. Did you use the original tapes of Micky and Dicky from their childhood or did you film them on 8mm? Lastly, an Oscar for Christian Bale! What a terrific performance by him :)
  13. Hi all, I went on a shoot last week as a PA, and there I saw that the DoP was controlling everything and the director was agreeing to whatever the DoP told him. It was clear that the director didn't have any knowledge about cinematography. The DoP was doing his job perfectly, but the director was not. He was just saying Action and Cut. That's it! In my opinion, he was not a director. So I've this question for the DoPs here, how much, according to you, a director should know about cinematography? Do you prefer a director who knows the stuff and participates in the process or do you prefer a director who lets you do your own thing? Thanks!
  • Create New...