joshua gallegos

The cinematographer in my opinion is one of the most integral players in the making of the film, quite simply, because light is everything. All life could not exists without light, and everything that a cinematographer knows about light he draws from nature, even the famous paintings of centuries past were inspired by nature, they tried to emulate the way light actually behaved, but when photography was born, artists took a more impressionistic approach like Vincent Van Gogh, because photography itself became an independent art. What I've noticed in cinematography, is that it's important for the light to have dimension, you will notice in everyday life that light doesn't look anything like it does in the movies. Of course there is no better light, than that of the sun, but because of the weather's inconsistency/clouds, etc, cinematographers have to rely on artificial sources that have a rich CRI. All light is comprised of a multiple wavelength of colors, ROYGBIV; everything that you need to know about light is in the color spectrum that Isaac Newton decoded with a prism. The sun is actually white, believe it or not, and imagine you're looking at a red apple, why is it red? What's happening is that the apple is absorbing ALL the colors of the spectrum, except red. Scientists are able to understand the universe by understanding the energy of the photon, by measuring wavelengths, and likewise, I feel cinematographers have a unique understanding of light by observing and interpreting the way nature works, I don't think they're thinking about what works best for the story, because if you think about a film noir, why is it so dark and moody?

 

Well, the logic is in a film noir, a private detective would operate in the shadows, he's methodical and covert about his operations, he might "shadow" someone at night, and most film noirs take place in big cities like New York. So, the cinematographer can have an idea about the mood of the picture just by understanding the setting, and the life in which that certain character operates, day or night, does he sleep in the dark? etc.

 

By merely observing the way light naturally works, you begin to understand it more, if you look at the lightbulb above you, it will most likely appear "yellow" and distorted, it looks nothing like the way the sunlight looks, white and pure, that is because of the wavelength in the color spectrum, and tungsten balance sources have more red. So, in cinematography light is the imagining of the way nature works, but nowadays there are more noticeable distortions, such as when the cinematographer changes the color temperature in the camera, and we see the entire frame tinted in a certain color, like in The Matrix. Color is also a way to convey information to the viewer, they used to do it in silent films too, night scenes were tinted with a blueish tint, etc.

I saw 'Wonder Woman' a few days ago, I actually liked the movie, primarily because Gal Gadot is actually marvelous to look at, but she's also genuinely funny and would've been a worthy rival to Marilyn Monroe or Sophia Loren in old Hollywood. Modern cinematography is indistinguishable from one another, and I think the greatest error is that every cinematographer is OBSESSED with getting the perfect, flawless image. Heaven forbid if there is slight grain in the image, everything is becoming eye candy as opposed to using cinematography as a form of expression. One of the best shot films in my opinion is Wim Wenders' 'Alice in the Cities' by Robby Muller, it's not perfectly shot in the sense that it looks visually beautiful, but it feels right, you feel something, and that's worth more than a pretty image. It seems the digital technology of today is overkill for filmmaking. I can understand an 8k camera that is used to film the outer solar system, it has more scientific use, because you would want to capture the celestial objects in outer space with the greatest resolution. Cinema isn't like that, I'm sure actors don't want their faces seen at such a high resolution. For instance Sandra Bullock's legs were actually touched up for the film 'Gravity', because of the high resolution of the picture.

As you may or may not know, Jonathan Demme passed away yesterday. There are a couple of his films that I was quite fond of, one of them being of course: 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Rachel Getting Married'. I remember the first time I bought an old DVD of 'Silence of the Lambs', I ended up watching it 3 times in a row. I was about 16 years old at the time, and I was also a huge George A. Romero fan, who actually has a cameo in the film. The scene that stuck the most was when Jodie has a flashback as a kid, and we see her as a child slowly moving down the pews in her father's funeral, it's really one of the most untalked of scenes in the entire movie, but I felt it was the emotionally strongest of them all. There's something about cinema, where viewers can at least grasp an understanding as to how the past is still very much alive in the present. In the film Clarice, has shunned the past away only to confront it in her present age, it's a very deep film, because it delves deep into human consciousness. Nowadays films have characters that have no dimensions at all, such great talent will always be missed! And I hope to revisit his films very soon.

I saw the whole thing, and primarily what I noticed is that the tone is all over the place. You don't settle with one idea, you seem to chase one, abandon it and then go after another. Nick isn't really an integral part, because he disappears after he borrows the money. You also use way too many master shots, so nothing is cinematically defined. If you look at the very early silent films by Melies or Edwin Porter, they used nothing but long shots and played the whole scene without moving the camera at all. Films have come a long way since then, and cameras are far more compact, so you have to be more creative in movement. I also made that mistake in my first short film. This short wants to be a comedy, but the tone isn't there, and the overall coloring that you used goes against it. I think in order to make a good film you don't have to blow anyone away with visuals, I guarantee that if you find an actor who is interesting enough and can hold the screen, you'll give someone a reason to keep watching, and of course, everything begins with a good screenplay.

 

And it's okay, because I've realized that failure is an integral part of making anything that is a worthwhile endeavor. The German V2 rocket failed 14 times before it succeeded.

I normally stay away from "comic book films", but I thought the film 'Logan' was exceedingly spectacular. It's no surprise that James Mangold is a very talented director, and the performances by Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart are dimensional and come from the heart. For anyone who has seen it, the film pays homage to George Steven's grand western 'Shane', and it is also very much a road movie like 'Alice in the Cities'. Just thought I'd drop by and write a little something about my favorite film of the year. I've seen it 3 times already, and I completely love it.

And 'There Will Be Blood' and 'The Master' are masterworks, they deserved a heck of a lot more. But then again they choose to shower a film like 'La La Land' with way more nominations than it deserved. Not a serious award anymore, it's not. They're sucking the prestige out of it.

There Will Be Blood won 2 Oscars. Titles like Nightcrawler or guys like Spike Lee are REAL Oscar snubs.

 

 

 

 

I haven't seen many movies this year but you have to be kidding me with Rogue One. Like the production itself is impressive but that isn't even close, from an artistic or entertainment perspective, to being the best picture of the year.

Rogue One was an exciting film, and if Mad Max can get nominated for Best Picture, why not Rogue One? The Oscars are like the MTV awards, a pathetic attempt to reach younger audiences. Today's films are tailored for teenagers, there just isn't that great sophistication that used to make movies a serious art. For instance, when will we ever see the likes of another Carol Reed and a film like 'The Third Man'?

The best films are the ones that don't win a thing. Evidence: Kubrick, Hitchcock, Orson Welles...

I thought most of the nominated films were absolutely subpar, compared to the great films of the past. 14 Academy nominations for 'La La Land' is absolutely ludicrous, I liked the movie, but it's not that good. The Academy has lost its credibility as a serious award ceremony, it has become nothing short of a circus. All the great films of the past ten years have been snubbed: There Will Be Blood, The Master, Mulholland Drive, Black Swan, and many more amazing films that have been overlooked. I thought Rogue One deserved a nomination, it was truly the best picture I saw all year long.

 

I find it insulting to cinema's past that a musical like 'La La Land' should garner more acclaim than a musical like 'Singin In the Rain' or 'Sound of Music'. The Oscars are a complete joke, stopped watching since last year.

Like I said, the movie was great, it was just the 5 year lapse that made it bumpy near the end. It's not a perfect film, nor would I consider it one of the greatest musicals ever made. If you look at all the great musicals of the past, this one would be just an okay one. But as I was watching it, I felt detached after those five years, it wasn't the same movie anymore. Of course the alternate reality sequence gives us more insight, as to what might've been, but if they loved each other, why would they completely disconnect from each other? She still got married and a had a child, just made no sense that they would give up on each other.

 

 

If people want "real life" they can watch the news. You pay 15 bucks to watch a movie and get AWAY FROM "real life."

 

R,

"Real life" was the wrong expression, I meant to say 'suspension of disbelief'. If you witness a character that is completely broken down after a failed play, and being mocked by some a-holes, then the confidence level will be at an all-time low. To think that a novice actress would undertake a job in a feature film and hold her own is absolutely incredulous. There just had to be a scene where we could see that she could hold her own, is all I'm saying. We saw her fail to the point of quitting, and then five years later she's magically a big movie star, there just needed to be that moment where we saw that was possible. But, yes, the film is about sacrifice, just like Casablanca, the theme of sacrifice for a greater cause/vision.

 

the ending did have a tinge of gloom since SPOILERS they had to break up to achieve what they wanted and weren't exactly happy about it.

true, but

 

SPOILERS AHEAD ----

 

I mean, she becomes a big movie star after everyone laughed at her play, and he opens a jazz club, and what are the chances of that happening in real life. It just seemed unnatural. There's a similar musical with Judy Garland called 'Presenting Lily Mars' with Van Heflin, and it's a similar story to the one in 'La La Land', Judy tries to achieve stardom in broadway and she pesters a successful playwright to cast her in the billing, and fails many times before she actually succeeds. What the film lacked is showing that Emma Stone had the ability to hold her own in a movie production, and 4 months of filming in Paris for a novice and inexperienced actress is a bit too much. Even someone like Audrey Hepburn needed a master filmmaker like William Wyler to get the best out of her, I just didn't believe that aspect. But still. great film.

Watching the film just instantly brought memories of all the wonderful classics I've absorbed, you can see his influences right away. I think it's great there's hardly anyone around who loves these films so much, they'd want to show a new generation of clueless filmgoers the power of classic cinema!

 

Just came from the theater and was overall impressed. Some of the musical numbers seemed a little forced but solid acting, good music, original ideas. Especially notable was the cinematography, although it was perhaps too notable. Almost every shot featured bright red or blue lights filling up faces. Very nice to look at but I was wondering what you guys think of something like that. Is it a little ostentatious? Should EVERY shot have beautiful sunsets and red neon?

 

Just curious...

Well there are a variety of different musicals, 'La La Land' is a fantasy musical, we're not truly dealing in the real world. Think about a film like 'For Me and My Gal' with Judy Garland and Gene Kelly or Yankee Doodle Dandy, the music in those films come out of the characters, because they are actual musicians. Then there's the Vincente Minnelli type where it's a color and fantasy, as in 'Meet Me in St. Louis' or 'The Band Wagon', and that is precisely where 'La La Land' falls under. So, I thought it was a remarkable production that has reinvented the classical musical where everyone can enjoy it without shame, or feeling uncomfortable! Is it as great as 'Singin in the Rain', hell no! But, it's a wonderful ode to the musicals of the past, and it works. I loved it.

Saw the film today, as it barely opened yesterday in Houston, and I thought it was a lovely love letter to cinema. If you really think about it, it's Casablanca the musical, the melody that Gosling plays in his club, and the reference to Paris and Ingrid Bergman. The cinematography reminded me so much of Robert Elswit, also a lot of heavy references to Vincente Minnelli - particularly 'The Band Wagon', and of course Meet Me in St. Louis with the changing seasons and color outfits. You can tell Ryan Gosling was watching a lot of Gene Kelly, his dance routines were suave and catchy. I don't like the pacing in terms of how they easily break into song. It was Gene Kelly who once said that a character only sings, when words can no longer express their feelings. Overall, I loved it, though I hated the happy ending where everyone succeeds and get what they want out of life. It should've been far more pessimistic.

 

Why not Lynch , Haneke or Van Trier? :)

 

Lynch woud've shot it on his trusty Sony PD150,

Haneke would "kill" with his long static camera shots,

and Trier would "dogme"-tize it and do what ever the "F" he feels is right for the "story"...

 

:) LOL

 

...

 

I might have taken it too far, however there was a time i was fascinated with the idea

for a movie experiment where 3 directors would take the same script, sets and maybe the actors

and everybody would do their own take on the story.

 

...

 

I have hopes for "Rogue One" to be better then TFA.

Expectations are high, however there is a caution moment in me,

there might be some truisms in what Tyler says about the story moments.

 

 

David Lynch was actually offered an opportunity to direct a Star Wars film, but he rejected the offer.

But wasn't Empire received better and not written by him? Then the next time he manned the typewriter everyone was upset? Storytelling and screenwriting aren't completely identical entities.

Empire Strikes Back is deeply adventurous and beautiful, but you have to remember that the screenplay for 'A New Hope' wasn't written by a hack, Episode 4 has tons of memorable moments, the dialogue is snappy and humorous, the part written for Alec Guinness was outstanding, and the expository element was well disguised. For instance the hologram messages were genius and creative forms to deliver heavy exposition which would've become cumbersome if done in some other fashion. This is why episodes 1 & 2 were "boring" to a lot of people, because of the heavy political exposition. You have to realize George created a unique style through his writing by revitalizing old genres. The template for all Star Wars movies derive from the original one.

Lucas was a god damn genius, but not for screenwriting. Film making innovations.

I disagree. He's not the best dialogue writer, that's for sure. But if you consider the mass Star Wars universe and how he managed to convey to the audience this epic story of the Skywalker family, and their battle to down the Empire, it's uncanny how he managed to do that so effectively. I don't think anyone realizes how much of a genius he is! He did everything, from creating all the exotic worlds, to Han Solo, Obi Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader! Who else can create such great characters?? and his screenplay for 'A New Hope' was beautiful, he even described it as a chess game, you can learn a lot by listening to his commentary on A New Hope, this film almost killed him, all the stress and immense pressure and ridicule. Yet the end result was a timeless adventure space film.

It's true. Writing a good Star Wars script is super easy. Now excuse me while I go beat Tiger Woods at golf. :P

i hate how the younger fans don't give Lucas the credit he deserves, they all complain about Episodes I & II being horrible, but I actually find them vital in the original saga. What is inconsistent is how the early Anakin Skywalker doesn't speak in a plush manner like his future Darth Vader, the sentence structure and use of words are inconsistent. I do think they're getting carried away by making all the leads female characters, believe it or not gender does set a different tone.

Garett wasn't a writer, but just by watching the film once, I can tell he is an incredibly gifted director. My favorite Star Wars episode is still A New Hope, most likely because of Alec Guinness, he was the actor who gave the entire franchise legitimacy, a Jedi and all this talk about 'the force' would've become a great farce, had it not been for his brilliant performance. I understand what you are saying about the non-stop action, but keep in mind that 'Rogue One' is pretty much a document of a special operation to get the plans for the Death Star, and for what it is, it was very well made. So, all the action is justified, and how much character development do you really need in a film like this? Deviating from the plot would've been distracting, and the emotion of it wall was well translated in the acting as well. This film could've easily been a videogame, it was uneccessary, BUT it brings George Lucas' beautiful universe to life! You gotta admit seeing those familiar places brings a tear to your eye. When I pay to go see a movie, I want to enjoy it, I'll even make an effort to enjoy it, and Rogue One didn't disappoint.

 

 

Otherwise, Tyler, as always, does not disappoint with his regular trashing of movies he doesn't find up to his standards, which is to say, about 99 % of movies released today. No surprise there. Also, since Tyler has no idea what he's talking about BO wise, a spin-off is never going to do what TFA did, and TFA was an absolute beast making 2.1 billion WW, making 936 million DOM alone, which is pure insanity.

The Force Awakens felt too easy, in terms of the characters overcoming obstacles quite easily, that alone made the movie unberable for me. And Adam Driver as a Sith is the worst casting decisions ever! How can Han Solo's son act so wimpy, that was a terrible blunder by JJ Abrams. Not to mention Solo was murdered in such a p--- ass way. 'Rogue One' on the other hand added a greater realism, you actually felt the danger, it was tense, and no one was invincible! JJ could learn a thing or two from Gareth Edwards.

With that out of the way, 'Rogue One' is a poorly conceived, single plot action film that if it weren't for some good acting, decent sets/costumes and the 'Star Wars' name attached, would have bombed at the box office. Why? Because frankly, it's uninteresting. All of the great and interesting dialog scenes that would have helped generate sub stories to keep the audience interested, simply didn't exist. It's as if this movie was a sequel and the previous movie had all the information we needed, yet this isn't a sequel. 'Rogue One' is a unique movie that fits between Episode III and Episode IV, featuring only TWO of the characters from the entire 'Star Wars' Franchise. Yes, there are brief cameo's with other characters, but that doesn't count.

 

 

 

I think they skipped the iconic titles, because everyone knows it's a prequel to a New Hope, and explaining everything would've made the entire first act remarkably useless, in a sense that the information would be repetitive. The reason I really loved the film was because I love the Star Wars worlds, and seeing them refined with such rich detail was breathtaking. Felicity Jones was also great in the film, and bringing back Peter Cushing to life was mind-blowing! That alone made me jump out of my seat, and also Princess Leia in the very end, looking exactly like she did in A New Hope. I think for a film that was just supposed to tie in to Episode 4, it was remarkably well made. I thoroughly enjoyed it, it's a great holiday movie. It was a great story of sacrifice, it makes me appreciate the franchise more knowing such a backstory.

 

If anything 'The Force Awakens' wasn't nearly as good as 'Rogue One'.

*delete*

About actors working for free, as long as they're not SAG members, it's good. There's actually a pool of talented actors in Texas. Especially Austin-Houston-Dallas-San Antonio. The actors that worked for me for free now have representation (not because of me), but just giving an example how ambitious actors will start from the bottom and work their way up. I think I have a good eye for acting talent, and most of them have liked the stuff I've written. I do have very poor technical skills, something I will work on. But when I say 'silent films', I don't mean 14fps with actors emoting melodramatically.

Just look at the beginning of 'There Will Be Blood'. I was thinking of doing poem like short films. Where there's narration and a series of images and still images.