joshua gallegos

I was actually fortunate enough to see Darren Aronofsky's short films that he made at AFI (Fortune Cookie, No Time) and they were pretty lousy! Aronofsky has refused to put them up online but they were leaked by "Cinephilia & Beyond". It comes to show you that short films are irrelevant, not many people can make them because they are very different to a feature film. I personally don't enjoy short films, there are a few which are captivating, but they don't mean much, think of them as practice. No one makes a career by making short films. Here's a clip from 'No Time', which was shot by Mathew Libatique and directed by Aronofsky. I feel with 'Pi', he truly reinvented himself, he truly became a filmmaker. I used to be discouraged but not anymore, short films don't mean anything.

Roger Deakins is a #BEAST. yes I just hashtagged that. He kind of reminds me of God - in cinematographic powers, that is.

I think Nebraska was pretty great, as far as performances are concerned and the look it has. Wolf of Wall Street was predictable in the sense that it was structured like every other Martin Scorsese picture made in the 90s. In Sundance there's new life being injected into the cinema, which I feel is needed. There's a film by Mike Cahill called 'I, Origins', which is a very creative film. That being said, this year will be far more exciting with the release of PTA's 'Inherent Vice', Interstellar by Chris Nolan, Aronofsky's 'Noah'. I was surprised Jennifer Lawrence was nominated for American Hustle, she was completely over the top, it just wasn't a very good picture. I prefer the look Robert Elswit created for Boogie Nights, now that was a believable picture!

I think over the course of the past year I've managed to learn the very basics of cinematography. I feel I could definitely talk and understand a professional cinematographer, should the occasion arise in the near future. In my next project, which will be my first feature, I've decided to hire a cinematographer, knowing I will make mistakes. I've mainly learned from David Mullen , Roger Deakins, and the American Cinematographer's manual. Also, 'The 5Cs of Cinematography' really helps you understand the fluidity of camera movements, which is something I struggled with in my first short, and where the cut should be, which is very important.

I own the t4i (canon650D), it's a decent camera for any entry level filmmaker, it gets noisy when you rate it at 800 ASA, so I would use it with fast prime lenses - especially if you're filming at night, I wouldn't use the kit lens that comes with the camera,, but I got better results when I used it at 400ASA. I'd also get an external monitor as the small flip screen can be quite deceiving, you have to look more at the histogram to make sure you don't lose detail in the shadows (when filming at night). As for taking photos, the viewfinder is very small and inadequate, so you have to rely on the screen to take pictures. I think a 5D Mark II or 7D would give you better results as you can manipulate ASA and color temperature without having to white balance. That being said, any camera is a storytelling tool, so in a way it's irrelevant - if you can't tell a story with one of these little things, then you won't be able to do any better with a RED or Alexa.

Found this wonderful Stanley Cortez interview where he discusses 'Night of the Hunter', and what it means to be a cinematographer. That closing part brought a tear to my eye. I feel cinematographers are the unsung heroes of the cinema,

Well, every filmmaker borrows from other great filmmakers, some even do it frame by frame. When James Cameron introduces the Kate Winslet character in Titanic, if you watch Bette Davis in 'Now, Voyager', you will see just how much he "borrowed" from that moment. In the case of Boogie Nights, I felt the technique didn't get in the way of the story, it was charged with energy, because it mainly dealt with very eccentric personalities. If anything, I would say Boogie Nights is more or less like Raging Bull, it's very biographical in the sense that we get to know every little aspect and nuance of the pornography industry, just as much as we got to see the inside and out of the boxing world with Jake LaMotta. The attention to detail in both films are quite profound. Even Tarantino who borrows from his favorites, manages to integrate that into his own style. In, American Hustle it felt the whole thing was a complete ripoff, I think it was done on purpose because David O. Russell has a definite style of his own, as in Silver Lining's Playbook -- so, it was that aspect that drew too much attention, and it took me out of the story, because i just didn't believe anything I was seeing, it felt too false to take seriously.

I never really said it was bad, it's actually a very entertaining film, I just didn't feel it was as good as everyone said it was, but in a way it's growing on me a bit more, perhaps I missed its genius. I need to see it again.

It suddenly dawned on me that the whole film IS a forgery! That is why the film imitated Scorsese so much! Ha! That's very clever of David O. Russell. Maybe there's more to this film than what i thought, I should definitely see it again.

Something was amiss, I can't quite diagnose what it was exactly, but it's certainly a film that draws too much attention to itself, and most of the scenes with Amy Adams took me out of the story, she is too much to handle.

It's certainly not a bad film, it's entertaining, I just don't see its brilliance. Usually after I watch a great film, I leave with that adrenaline you get, where you want to tell everyone how good it was, but I honestly felt nothing for it. The film was certainly over the top, and I must say Jennifer Lawrence was pretty horrible in this movie, and you never really feel any of the characters are in any real danger. Compared to Robert Redford who was shot at and chased mercilessly in 'The Sting', you really felt scared for him, but in American Hustle I never felt that kind of danger for the Christian Bale character, when he goes through the entire 'ordeal' of a certain operation.The film just didn't leave an impression like it did with Silver Linings, the film is certainly over-hyped, I was very disappointed.

I saw American Hustle today, and I don't comprehend the hype surrounding the motion picture. I was aware from the get-go about the actors, the acting didn't feel sincere, it was acted. I was watching caricatures the whole time, in the exception of Jeremy Renner, who was truly believable. The film is listed as a crime/drama on IMDB, but it's really more of a comedy than anything else. I really loved O. Russell's 'Silver Linings Playbook', which reminded me of Wilder's 'The Apartment', but this film you can completely see so much of Martin Scorsese's form being completely ripped off! The freeze frames, the slow motion, the music, the staging, and even the 'Mean Streets' look that they were going for in the cinematography. It's just not an original piece of work, and the ending was completely foreseeable. The film had its moments, I particularly liked watching Amy Adams for the obvious reasons, but other than that, I was aware I was watching a movie thee whole time. Has anyone else seen it?

I think characters can be sympathetic without being purely good. For instance Peter Lorre's performance in 'M', in the end you feel something for this man, even after committing many monstrosities. You feel something for Cagney in White Heat when his mother is killed while he's locked up in prison. I love anti-heroes, because it really shows the duality of men, how people are neither good nor bad, and even those who are "bad" have love in their lives, and it humanizes them. I think people will relate to anything that is human, not necessarily good or heroic, but human. It's part of the reason why I deeply enjoy Josef von Sternberg films, people are too intricate to merely classify as being one thing, a person is many things, and even that person may not understand why he is the way he is. Life is a journey of discovery, I think every day we discover something new about ourselves, and I think the greatest films reflect that aspect of life. But, there is also the type of cinema that is made to merely entertain the audience, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a matter of what someone likes.

I think the true self which we hide deep inside is the one that emerges in a time of dire circumstances. When I say "feel good", I mean movies like E.T., which is basically Lassie, but with an alien. The Pianist really reveals so much about the Adrian Brody character, and I don't see it as a happy ending, just because he survived. He has to live with the trauma, and death that he has witnessed for the rest of his life! The same with Chinatown, which I think draws many parallels to today's corruption, it's just something that you can't stop. I don't feel like a pessimist, but evil never truly goes away, neither will death or despair. I believe it was Orson Welles that said that a happy ending depends on where you end the story, but does one really ever die happy? For instance in Nights of Cabiria, Fellini ends the film on an uplifting note, by having Gulietta Masina smile before the camera as she weeps, it means she will continue to live to fight another day, it shows her strength to carry on. But will her life ever be a happy one after that night? The answer is no, she has no money, she sold her home, she'll have nowhere to go. it's all very subjective, but life has no true happy endings, at least it's the way I see things, but that's just me.

If you're really serious about writing and want to get honest feedback from a community of aspiring writers, I suggest you join this site. You will find the way you truly feel about writing, and why you like doing it. I used to be a part of this community when I was 16 years old, and after four years I felt I had a better grasp at film structure and how movies work. Also, the one book I would recommend is Syd Field's (Screenplay). It's not a "how to book", but it teaches you the fundamentals of screenwriting by giving you detailed analyses from screenplays such as Chinatown, Shawshank Redemption, etc. As for screenwriting software, you can get Celtx for free, and once you master the format you can upgrade to Final Draft, which the standard software for professional writers. I've noticed screenwriters are a lot like cinematographers, in the sense that you write and write for a great portion of your life, and most screenwriters become adept at the craft in their late 30s or 40s. I've been doing it for about six years now, and I've written 6 features, but none of them are good. until recently I feel the newer ones I've completed are doable. Short films are harder to write, I can't seem to get a good idea that is short enough to write in less than 20 pages. I would focus more on structure, the way a story is structured is important, I spent a lot of time dissecting the structure of Citizen Kane and All About Eve, and these stories are stories that are told through memory with a final resolve. Plot is not terribly important, but the footprints the characters leave behind are. Here's this writing website, also it's a place to get a good critique on short films. The community is constantly active. http://labs.triggerstreet.com/

I loved that sequence from Sabotage, because it's a stark reminder that no person is immune to death, no matter how young or faultless. In the movie the boy must deliver cans of nitrate film which unbeknownst to him is packed with an explosive, when he gets into the bus, the explosive goes off and kills everyone in the bus. The film was ahead of its time, back when people were used to happy endings, I hate films that are made to make the audience feel good about themselves, I feel life isn't that way, people die everyday and it's a part of our reality. The same with Treasure of the Sierra Madre, in the film John Huston had Bogie's character decapitated by the bandits, but it never really made it into the movie. I don't know why people feel the need to make things so sappy and unrealistic, I can understand that in a kid's movie, but life is filled with tragedy and movies should at least reflect that in an honest way. At least in Bambi the mother dies, to me that's realistic, the same with The Lion King, and I think babe died of the swine flu. but i don;t remember if that was in the movie?

I think certain sequences in Vertigo are incredibly surrealistic, but Robert Burks still manages maintain continuity in the lighting, whilst creating mood and revealing depth in character through pure imagery, even a surrealistic film like The Cabinet of Caligari has motivated lighting, with lanterns, etc. I think the imagery could have been better, because you're attempting to convey the paranoia of the person, but with the way he is dressed, etc seems to contradict what you;re attempting to do. As you can see from this clip of Vertigo, every subtlety in the lighting and movement has definite meaning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc2s9uSXWKM

It makes me wonder why the light is coming from the top in such a way, and the cookaloris effect isn't very convincing because they seem to be slanted, when the blinds are horizontal, and there doesn't seem to be sufficient light coming from the outside to cast the shadows in that fashion. Also, if someone is coming to kill him and he's expecting it, why didn't he have the gun drawn out, ready to fire and why didn't he lock the door? The light just isn't properly motivated in my opinion, it seems to change drastically on a shot to shot basis.

Roger Corman is more of a business man than a filmmaker in my opinion, I don't see anything that is remotely brilliant from the films he directed, and that's as far as it goes for me, it's all about what he has done with a camera, not as a businessman and game-changer.

I would choose Robert Burks, I just really love his composition and his ability to compose and orchestrate an image on any canvas, he was quite the genius and died so young.

I just want to get it right before I do something again, it feels like such a waste having the proper tools and time to make something and then mismanaging the opportunity by making stupid mistakes, having shots that can't cut together, poor staging and many more countless mistakes. I forgot that every shot is visual information and it says something about something or someone, it's not just where you put the camera, but the sets, the clothing the actor is wearing, how they walk, talk, there's attention to every little bit of detail. most amateur films look horrible because none of that is considered, and cinema is the expression of ideas through imagery, I just couldn't believe I somehow forgot that. As I look back it felt as if I was just forcing the camera and pressing record, it wasn't very well thought or dramatized for that matter.

But how do you explain Orson Welles, he did a short film and the newly discovered 'Too Much Johnson' before he made Citizen Kane, yet he repeatedly said he learned a lot by watching John Ford movies, in particular 'Stagecoach'. Granted there has never been a cinematic genius like Orson Welles nor will there ever be one like him, but it makes me believe observation and study is integral before going out to make a picture. See, but that's exactly my point, I've observed that films have a definite tact that usually stems from the writing. For instance, Preston Sturges was in his 40s when he directed his first picture, and he was only a playwright, the same with Joseph L. Mankiewicz who directed Dragonwyck at the age of 40 for 20th Century Fox, he spent time on the set of Ernst Lubitsch movies who was his mentor. It seems the directors of the so called "golden Age' learned by observing the masters, and implemented their own concepts as they grew. I know movies still have to be made but I can't seem to explain how some have managed to make great films the first time they've ever directed a motion picture.

I agree that learning by doing is a good way to learn, but I believe observation and study is a better way to learn. Hitchcock illustrates in this video his theory as to how how film can be manipulated in the cutting room, but this theory was already put into practice by Pudovkin and Eisenstein many years before when they experimented with subjects. I know Hitchcock is merely illustrating how this concept works, and was long aware of it, but I feel learning and understanding how cinema truly works and unleashing its awesome potential can only be understood and not merely learned by doing. A case in point would be someone like Ed Wood who failed to construct a film that was at the very least, coherent, in his entire career. The same could be said about Roger Corman and many modern day "filmmakers" who have been making movies for many years, yet don't have a great understanding of the craft.That little clip reminded how important it is to form ideas with images and not words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruoPT9JeYHA , I believe film wisdom can only be attained by thinking critically and observing the works of the past, and lastly by doing. Filmmaking is more of a chess game than a playing field, or at least it should be in my mind.

I think one of the perfect films ever constructed is Vertigo, it seems film is all about giving the audience sufficient information to construct the film little by little in their own minds, a great film makes you imagine things not so much based on what is said but from what is seen. What's so great about Vertigo is that we experience everything that is going on inside Scottie's head, his nightmares, his affliction and trauma. If there's ever been a perfect marriage of director/cinematographer it would be Hitchcock and Robert Burks. But as a cinematographer what do you hold on to when filming a movie? Do most of them simply hearken to what the director tells them and operate in such a way, even if they are wrong? Gordon Willis said he pretty much disagreed on most of the decisions Francis Coppola was making on the Godfather, how he still had a "film school" mentality and he kept him grounded most of the time. Great filmmaking is still very much a mystery to me, every simple gesture in a film has meaning, I suppose it comes to how much attention is paid to the performances, pacing things perfectly for the editing room, yet other directors construct their films in the editing room by shooting different takes, etc. as in George Stevens, Elia Kazan. As you said, it seems there are infinite possibilities to make a film, but making a great film is something else.

I think one of the common mistakes beginners like myself make, is that too much emphasis is made on making the image look good, when it is really more about figuring out the language of the story through moving images. I watched the first short by Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station), entitled 'Locks', and it's a really stripped down story, there's no pretentiousness involved, it really reminded me of Frank Capra who had this raw vision, and he made great films about people and social injustices. Little bits of information are given little by little in the short, the importance (heritage) of his hair, and what it means to him. It's in essence a silent film, and the visuals are paced perfectly. There's very minimal lighting for interiors, since the short was shot on 16mm film, it would depend on the stock. In any good film you feel the presence, the point of view of the person behind the camera, making the image mean something is the pinnacle to great movie making. Considering Coogler went to USC it makes me wonder what they teach to their students, I felt his sense of structure was terribly precise, every image in this short means something. Not many directors have the mind to construct films so efficiently, it really blew me away how good it was. It brings the question about how cinematography should work, I think many cinematographers have the ability to make everything look good, but very few can make it MEAN something, which is what really matters in narrative films as opposed to a music video or Jeep commercial. I know many stories are told differently, since Coogler is more of a personal story teller as opposed to Francis Coppola who can only make epics. But what do most cinematographers look for in a script? And how much input are they allowed? I read that Robert Richardson once tried to give Scorsese notes on one of his movies and suggestions on what shots to use, and Scorsese threw his notes away and said that he was the only one who could design the shots. Here's the short by Ryan Coogler https://vimeo.com/19513968