joshua gallegos

Amazing!

I should note that it's not on the prestigious annual Black List but on the site's monthly Top List, which is a huge difference. I don't really see it as an achievement, but it's better than nothing I guess. I really wanted to do more hands on cinematography with work that I haven't written myself as well, I don't think I'll get in, but it's worth the try. I've also looked into the New York Film Academy, the goal is to meet like minded individuals and do projects, so I suppose that's also an alternative.

I was thinking about applying to the AFI Conservatory, I mainly have experience as a screenwriter, I've had 2 screenplays on the Black List's Top List, which leads me to believe that I have a better chance of breaking in that way. I learned how to write on my own, and i feel like I can get better at it. I'm currently 26 and my passion is really in all areas of filmmaking, but sadly I have no resources to make other short films. It's a frustrating affair, since I have no filmmaking friends who have the time and equipment. I feel like I need to network with people that have similar interests, because there's no way I can fund my own films. Like Orson Welles put it, it takes an army to make a film, I can't do it on my own. I wanted to learn more about cinematography and make films with other students who are truly passionate. I feel cinematography is the language of cinema, the real challenge is transferring words into images. I already started an application for the 2015 semester, and I imagine it will be difficult to get in, but ti's worth the attempt.

Motion interpolation definitely destroys the very definition of what is cinematic, it's commonly referred to as the "soap opera effect", this effect completely diminishes the artistic integrity of what the filmmakers intended to show. Motion pictures should always maintain motion at 24fps as it looks absolutely perfect! I think one of the reasons why this is happening is that films are becoming so subpar that audiences are no longer able to distinguish them as something important, movies are virtual roller-coaster rides, they're just there for fun and amusement. I think independent cinema is the only dim flame that is keeping the artistic integrity of filmmaking alive, but even so, you'll find most of these films playing in art house cinemas, or they just end up playing in a major cineplex for two to three weeks before the whole theater is taken over by a major blockbuster. Shows like The Bridge, Mad Men, The Strain, Walking Dead, and so many others have become more cinematic as these shows are more character oriented. The Walking Dead alone will get an average of 13M viewers per episode! Television is where the future is, mainstream, cinema will continue to cater for major motion picture projects which are usually comic book adaptations, or major best selling novel adaptations. Even so, I think digital cameras like the Alexa have produced tremendous results when in the right hands, I can see no difference between film and digital.

Frank Capra once said that the one cardinal sin for filmmaking was dullness, and I am guilty of that. Making my first short was such a dispiriting affair, that I don't think I fully recovered from. It was a learning experience to say the least, but I still feel like I don't understand what a director truly does. There are those intelligent directors who surround themselves with great actors, and the actors are truly the ones that carry the film. I saw an interview where Gordon Willis talks about his contribution to the Woody Allen films he shot, he mentions how Woody merely nailed the camera and performed in front of it, the camera didn't capture any type of dynamism and everything he filmed was absolutely dull. Gordon really managed to interpret Woody's stories with great visual tone and command, he turned his ordinary stories into grand visual poetry. I think the true genius lies in the cutting, a cinematographer understands the orchestration of images as if he was composing music, the rhythm of it, the way it should flow on screen to its audience. I suppose the true responsibility of a director is to communicate the things brewing inside his/her imagination, and perfecting it within each take. That is why so many directors do different takes, in a sense it is almost like writing with the camera, and every take is a draft with unexplored possibilities. I think the best way to go on about it is to start from the very bottom, doing PA work in sets to watch professionals work, that way I don't feel like I'm questioning myself all the time, I suppose what ruined the experience was the fact that I was absolutely clueless about everything.

Congrats Mr. Mullen, I'll keep an eye out for the show!

You can't afford grip equipment, a camera, and lenses with 5 thousand dollars. At best you could get a Canon 7D with a PL adapter and rent cinematic lenses like Zeiss primes or Canon cine lenses to give you a better image quality than standard EF lenses. Two features that come to mind were shot this way: Tiny Furniture and Sound of My Voice, it's the best option for the price.

I think moonlight in interiors works more for isolated locations where light pollution isn't a factor, it just seems false to me when I see a film set in a modern setting, where moonlight is so pronounced - especially in an interior setting. Most of the light that washes into a dark bedroom at night would come from outdoor lighting of a house or a street lamp, but hardly moonlight.

some silent films were tinted to heighten the mood, other silent films were colored by hand, the most famous of all is Georges Melies' 'A Trip To The Moon'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRE6gmGA_nI Usually blue emphasized night and for romantic settings. Ben Hur also has tinted scenes, as well as Nosferatu and many other silent films.

I think every horror movie scene at night, in a forest should be lit the way Tobe Hooper lit 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre', he did it without a budget with 400ASA stock. I like how it looks quite realistic by letting the background go completely dark, it's very good blocking.

Silent films weren't very prominent by the 1930s, I think you mean the 1900s/1910s/1920s - after the Jazz Singer's success in 1927 everyone was making talkies.To me, one of the most quintessential directors of the silent age was Fred Niblo, I particularly enjoyed the films he did with Greta Garbo like 'The Temptress', I have the TCM collection, but you can watch a clip here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNjZR5jVHF8 Usually silent films were shot at 18-20 fps, which is why they look so jumpy, and most of the most prominent ones you see have been restored, and I imagine that is how they looked when they were released at the given time, so the scratches and excessive grain other silent films have are due to the deterioration the film stock has suffered over time. Most silent films have a distinguished look because they were shot on sets, so most of them have a dreamy-like state, not to mention the poor emulsion and excessive amount of light needed, which affected the make-up actors wore, etc. I don't think a "silent film" look can be achieved on camera without looking a bit false, unless you're making a period piece like The Artist (2011).

I really didn't like this movie, it just has too many technical flaws and it was a dull effort, compared to 'The Passion of the Christ', every image Caleb Deschanel created was like moving poetry. I thought the movie was filmed on film as I was watching it, because it was so grainy, but to my surprise it was filmed with an Alexa Plus with Arri zoom lenses, it seemed like a very lazy effort by the cinematographer, the composition was uninspired. It really didn't feel cinematic at all, I felt like I was watching a re-enactment on PBS, it was so poorly made!

You just don't know what you're talking about, that's the problem.

I don't understand the need to buy equipment, you're better off renting equipment to suit your needs. You can even rent softboxes, faster lenses than can stop under f/2 and Arri kits for affordable prices. I rent my lenses here, and there is a wide assortment of fast Canon lenses, that you can rent for sixteen dollars a day. Mole Richardson units are also very affordable, you don't have to buy anything, just check with local rental houses - Kino Flo units are also very affordable and you can get a variety of tbes from 32k, 56k, and most of them have dimmable ballasts.Just take a proper light meter reading and a reasonable stop to film the events. http://www.photorentalsource.com/Normal_c_3.html It also depends what venue you're filming in or if it's being done in an exterior location. usually stages have Source 4 units and dichroic PAR lamps which have a 5000k cc, but it really depends what location you're filming in, the best tool to have is a light meter.

I remember reading an article in which Elia Kazan explained how serious he was about the color palette of his films. Namely in East of Eden, he was very crafty in picking the wardrobe, and interestingly enough, I seem to remember that beige sweater that Caleb (James Dean) wears in the movie, the color yellow and certain variants of it, seem to dominate the look of the entire picture, and most of it was achieved by coloring the walls of the sets, the furniture, wardrobe etc You don't see so much detail go into modern day films, and it affects the entire picture, because cinema is all about the experience, and if you don't believe what you see, then it's not "real". That was the main problem with American Hustle, there wasn't too much attention to detail, it was a cartoon, and there was no suspension of disbelief in that regard, so I felt it was a very lazy effort by David O. Russel, I suppose the point is that a great director knows how color affect the feeling of a movie, it evokes a certain emotion. When I see East of Eden it feels modern, the sensibilities of a human never change, no matter how long ago a story takes place. The story, which is really the biblical story of Cain and Abel, made me realize that history repeats itself in every generation in manifold forms, if there's a picture with important and insightful cinematography it's 'East of Eden', it's more than just about the look and more about feeling what you see. Cinema is about emotions, which is something I don't see too often anymore, great cinema is felt.

It's interesting how there hasn't been much progress regarding faster emulsion speed in modern stocks, Kodak only has 500T. That's very interesting technique, how would that differ in digital? i thought that kind of a look was achieved by adding a series of filters, but it seems most of the real work is done in the lab and manipulating the film to achieve the look the director is after. Do cinematographers work with colorist in pre-production (digital) to get the look they are after before they begin filming? Or does the cinematographer work by himself? I would think modern cinematographers would require an extensive knowledge as to how to manipulate color on a computer, as opposed to the old way of altering the film by printing it at a certain number and photo-chemically changing it - or however that was done!

Wow, they had 400T stock in1985! I had no clue, I thought film stocks would be slower. I've never seen anything quite like the monochrome look the movie has, it looks like an actual painting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtnE-iUjMb8

What I've noticed among great filmmakers is that they're professional individuals who share a common passion. Through this passion mutual respect is formed and friendship. I don't think people would want to be friends with you for being a nice guy, it's all about common interests and working hard. There's no way anyone could hate someone who is a complete ass if they make you look good and get you more work by making a great film. Sofia Coppola is a bit of an introvert, but that doesn't make her a bad director. If anything, I feel personality of the director creates the atmosphere on a set, and as long as people are passionate and working hard, they're all going to want to be there everyday.

I didn't see a topic on Sven, but I've been trying to find technical information as to the type of film stocks he used in The Sacrifice. No one in cinema has ever used natural light the way he did. On the documentary of the making of 'The Sacrifice', I noticed in the filming of the exterior house which burns in 'The Sacrifice', that he didn't use any equipment at all. Was his specialty knowing how the sun behaved at a certain point in time by doing some scouting, photographing the scenery before the production commenced? His images are moving poetry! Added to the music and incredible vision by Tarkovsky, it's like i'm watching a painting moving in real life. He was masterful in both black and white and color in Bergman and Tarkovsky pictures.

Sure, I'm a beginner, but I feel I've absorbed a lot of knowledge from reading film books, watching many films and listening to legendary filmmakers speak. I do like some short films, but they're mainly from the past. i feel many short films play like shoe commercials. The stuff on Vimeo is all eye candy, just because it looks good, it doesn't make it a good film. Here's an example of a great short film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2SaL40rrWo made in 1960. All I'm saying is that no one remembers short films, all the great film directors of the past made features not shorts.Except perhaps if you count some films of the silent age.

What do awards have to do with anything? Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar, but that didn't make him any less of a filmmaker.

If anything short films open up opportunities, but even so that's not enough. Martin Scorsese didn't make a career out of his short films nor did David Lynch or Lars von Trier! If you plain and simply can't make a feature film, then you're not a filmmaker. It's the cold hard truth.

I know of dozens. My point is that no one remembers short films, they really are irrelevant. I personally don't care for them, it's a different breed of cinema that stands on its own, I feel confident I could make a feature, I can't think on a smaller scale.

The brilliance of that film wasn't in the lighting, I wasn't taken by the look it had, but his ability to tell a pretty intricate story with images was quite excellent. I thought the camerawork was what made the film a complete success, the way it was assembled in the cutting room. The film has its plot holes, but he managed to make a great film with virtually no resources, which is an impossible endeavor. If you look at modern filmmakers like Mike Cahill, Zal Batmanglij (who are currently my absolute favorite), they've embraced a kind of cinema, where they can go out there and make a movie without raising a million dollars, or even getting location permits. Sound of My Voice was made with two Canon 7Ds with a PL attachments for Cine lenses, but he did have Rachel Morrison as DoP, but either way, it's a pretty remarkable achievement, considering it was made with very little money. I like the whole Cassavetes approach, it's truly the only way to make a film. The most important thing is writing a good script, which is what all these no budget films have in common.