Max Jacoby

ELCAN only did the assembly of the Primos, while Panavision themselves are responsible for the design (both optical and mechanical). The Technical Academy Awards for these lenses all went to Panavision employees, not anyone from ELCAN.

The only film that I know of being shot on the Leitz is Est Ouest by French director Regis Wargnier. They are mostly used as Macro lenses, not for whole features. These are the R-Lenses that got converted, not the M-Series which the Noctilux is part of.

And what does that actually mean for filmmakers? If you are successful, then your films will get financed, no matter how 'ideologically unconform' they are, which shoots down your whole argument that state funding only supports politically correct films. Actually I am not a big fan of his films either, but there is no denying that he pushes the artform and has a big influence on cinema. A talent like him would never have flourished in Hollywood, he is a pure product of European cinema, which is my point. This is an oversimplification of two different systems. For one, the time of strong producers in Hollywood that you describe has been over since at least the fifties. At the moment even people in Hollywood complain that it is run by a committee of suits. You can't argue that the current output of Hollywood is anything to write home about. As for Europe it is once again not true that we only make vanity projects by hack directors. There are talented people in both systems, producers AND directors. And the quality of a film is determined by the talent of those involved, not what 'system' they are made under. Funny that you should mention Spielberg and Kubrick, because Kubrick had a co-writing credit on all his films and Spielberg also has a strong hands in shaping his script. It's not like they showed up on set and were handed the pages.

They are converted stills lenses. Vantage Film, Panavision UK and other companies have similar conversions. The drawback of these Leica lenses is unfortunately that their stops vary between T1.4 and T2.8.

Hi Alex Not sure what you exactly mean by 'European Hollywood'. If it is the hope that Europe should make the same type of 100M+ blockbusters that the US makes, I don't think that is a very realistic option. The US are a huge and pretty uniform market with the same cultural background, whereas the EU is an amalgam of countries that all have their different identity, so appealing to all of these (and making ones money back in the process) is exponentially harder. The only solution would be to make American films, but what's the point of that? If on the other hand, if you mean by 'European Hollywood' that European films would get seen more, I hope for the same thing. But I don't think the quality of the films themselves are to blame for that, but rather the issue lies in the distribution, which is dominated by Hollywood films. Small European films, no matter how good they are, simply cannot compete with the Hollywood marketing machine. If Joe Public goes to the cinema on a whim and has the choice between the newest Tom Cruise film whose ads he has seen in every paper and a small European film that he's never heard of, we all know which one he'll pick. Earlier this year I attended a think tank which dealt with these issues of getting European films seen more. In Europe there are some pretty weird things going on. For instance the French speaking part of Belgium doesn't watch any Flemish speaking films and vice versa! Even worse, the Flemish and the Dutch, who pretty much share the same language, don't even watch each others films! This is obviously not the fault of the films themselves, but a question of audience attitude. And if that needs to get changed if we want our films to be seen in different countries.

Well state funding, in form of the Swedish Film Institute, did get involved in his follow-up film Du Levande. Having seen both films, I don't think anyone would dare to suggest that Roy Andersson has suddenly sold out on his 'political convictions' in order to get government money. So clearly there is more to getting government money than having the right political convictions: international success and recognition, as in this case, being prime reasons for sure.

I don't think Hollywood has a much better percentage. In fact I would argue that since the suits took over in Hollywood the quality of the films has really gone downhill. Any given year I see 1 or maybe 2 films that I think are authentic masterpieces. And none of them are Hollywood films, but their are either European or Asian. So these must be doing something right. I find it funny that you guys have this Soviet style system in mind that only allows ideological conform films. Even if that were the case (which it obviously is not), that would not prevent people from making 'subversive' films. Does the name Tarkovsky ring a bell at all? Or Abbas Kiarostami, one of the greatest living filmmakers, who is making his very personal films in Iran. The simple fact of the matter is that a filmmaker is never truly independent. You always need to convince someone to finance your film. Be it a Hollywood studio, a body which dispenses public money, a television station, a distributor, etc... Of course some people have their foot in the door already and have easier access to money. Sure there is a certain 'being part of the club' aspect, but that is also the case in Hollywood. Yes there is access to money, but don't be fooled by that, because in return you are giving up creative control. In the US the filmmakers (mostly director/screenwriter) are subjugated to the studio's wishes (you can count the people who have final cut on the fingers of one hand), whereas in Europe the law actually protects the author much more when it comes to final cut, which is a given in most countries as far as I know. No one can take you film away from you, quite unlike the US! I would argue that such a creative freedom is worth more than money to most people. Exactly, they are making 'typical Hollywood fare', so they obviously didn't go there to make the subversive films that evil European state funding didn't allow them to! Eh these people are 'forced' to go to the States because in Europe one does not have simply the budgets available to do the kind of films they want to make. Period. That has nothing to do with the state funding per se, in the sense that you are suggesting, i.e. that their films films would get turned down on an 'ideological' basis, but simply because there is no money. His films are such completely inoffensive popcorn fare, he surely would never had problems getting state funding in Europe if he had been interested in making his films there. Once again, the choice to go to Hollywood is not because of ideological freedom, but most likely the desire to make bigger films with bigger stars. Look what it comes down to is that we are looking at 2 different systems here: the more commercial driven approach of Hollywood and the more cultural approach of European countries. Both systems have their advantages and drawbacks. As filmmakers we can chose where we want to work. I think it's good that we have different system, because they make films for different audiences, so almost everyone should find something they like.

I'm afraid I completely fail to see your logic here. Even if you don't more your camera, you will still need to pull focus, especially at T1.7 where the depth of field is minimal. Also you still need to change stops, depending on the shooting conditions. Imagine you're outside in full sunlight, how many NDs it's going to require to get you down to your T1.7 stop... The whole point of a shooting lens is that it should look good in almost any situation (including minimum focus to infinity and throughout its stop range). I think you're trying to reinvent the wheel here when there is absolutely no need.

That's exactly why designing shooting lenses is more complicated: the parametres vary. A shooting lens has to look good at all stops and distances, not just one.

Isco designed the Arriscopes. On their website there is a flyer for a new series of anamorphics they wanted to build, but nothing ever came of it. Shooting lenses are more complex than projection lenses, and making good anamorphics is the hardest thing.

There is an article in the AC. Ultra Primes and Arri cameras as far as I recall.

These lenses first appeared in 1953. On the Robe, the first Cinemascope film, they only had one lens, a 50mm. Dops hated them, because they were not sharp, had barrel distortion, etc... Even on dvd you can see their lack of sharpness. By 1958 no films were shot on them anymore, most people used Panavision and other lenses that were much better. I don't think anyone rents out these early Cinemacope lenses anymore, they are mostly in museums, and I doubt that there are versions with a PL or PV mount that one can use on modern cameras. David Bordwell as a good article on early Cinemascope lenses in his latest book The Poetics of Cinema

They sucked. Hence why everyone switched to Panavision when they started releasing their own lenses that eliminated anamorphic mumps.

I watched a bit of Clockwork Orange on HD DVD and it looks incredibly good. Can't wait to get a Blu Ray setup.

I absolutely love the look of EWS! I have seen it 3 times in the cinema and the texture the grain adds it just gorgeous. Too bad the Dvd looks anything like it...

Being part of the club doesn't prevent him from making good films does it? Whether people like his films or not, there is no denying that he is a very daring filmmaker who really pushes the envelope of the art form. I don't like these 'worthy issue' films anymore than you do, but let's face it, they are not just an outgrowth of government funding, but of humanity in general. You have the same in Hollywood, all these 'prestige' films released at the end of the year with an eye towards an Oscar nomination. The big problem is that people in general have the tendency to think that films about an 'important' subject automatically must be good, when most of the time they are far from it. They are unable to separate the subject from the film itself, like all these horrible Oscar-winning films about the Holocaust for instance. Also I think it is wrong to just judge films solely by their commercial success. There are many films that have become classics that when they got released didn't find and audience, but only later people came to realize how good and important they really were. Similarly many commercial success of their time are completely unwatchable by now. Luckily state funding does give people more artistic liberties, because there is less commercial pressure. Really, most the exciting filmmakers of our time are not American, but European or Asian. Theo Angelopoulos, Bruno Dumont, Lars Von Trier, Abbas Kiarostami all make important films that have artistic integrity and advance the art form, which cannot be said for the vast majority of main stream cinema.

I'm sorry but that is simply an incorrect generalization. Could you see a film like Lars von Trier's 'Idioterne', which is funded by the Nordisk TV and Film Fund, coming out of Hollywood? Thought not. Hollywood, on the other hand, makes films by comitee and crushes any individuality because they only care about the bottom line. Like Richard said, a quota system has done wonders for the South Korean film industry, both from an artistic and commercial point of view. It's gone so far that in the UK and other countries The Host got a general release and played in multiplexes, instead of being confined to art house cinemas. Again, what's not to like about that? I think filmmakers should all be in favour of encouraging diversity, because it creates a situation where our films can be seen.

Yep, more European countries should introduce a quota system. The French system, which raises a tax on every ticket sold and pumps that money back into the local film industry is very good also. It is not a coincidence that they have the most commercially successful film industry in Europe. Really, the reason people watch mostly Hollywood films is not because they are better, but simply because they spend more money in marketing, raising awareness for their products, creating stars, etc...

I'm surprised that the spherical Primos have more distortion than 65mm lenses. If they'd shot anamorphic I'd have understood, but I always thought that 35mm sperical lenses are pretty good when it comes to lack of distortion. Of course even older 65mm lenses have hardly any distortion at all, because the focal lenghts are longer (a 40mm equals an 18mm in 35). I'd guess there is more to the decision to chose 35mm over the Genesis than strobing aerial footage. I mean how much aerial footage can there be in the film?

I guess the simple answer is that they liked the Optimos and the Cooke better. I haven't tested them myself, but from what I hear the Optimos are a tad sharper with better contrast wide-open. The Cooke is a true T2, which is just as fast as primes. If time is of the essence, you can just leave it on the camera and use it as a variable primes, instead of changing lenses. The lens is not superlight, but can still use it for handheld/steadicam. All these zooms have a universal mount so there is no problem changing them to PV mount. The lightweight Optimos (15-40mm and 28-76mm) are also regularly used on Panavision cameras. Up to now Panavision has never had Primo lightweight zooms only adpated stills lenses (17.5-34mm and 27-68mm), but they recently introduced a lightweight Primo zoom that goes from 19-90mm and is a T2.8.

What I found interesting in reading the Iron Man article in AC is that although they shot on Primo Primes, they didn't use Primo Zooms, but instead chose the 17-80mm T2.2 and 24-290mm T2.8 Angénieux Optimos and the 15-40mm T2 Cooke Zoom.

The ASC does not nominate films for the Oscar.

The film was in Cannes last year. I liked it, but it wasn't as good as Songs from the Second Floor.

Who's Jim Jannard again?

So you're attending London's most expensive cinema ;) I haven't been there since I can't get student discounts anymore. I was never too keen of the layout anyway: if you're sitting on the ground floor, you can sit the correct distance to the screen, but it is slightly angled. If you're sitting on the balcony, the screen is at the right angle, but you're too far away...