joshua gallegos

I actually think most of the films shot professionally before digital color grading looked simpler and relied more on costumes, art design, etc. For instance a film like 'Black Narcissus' or Vincente Minnelli's 'Meet Me in St. Louis'. It seems nowadays cinematographers are relying too much on color grading, shifts in color temperature are beginning to look very distracting, especially on TV, some scenes look green or are exaggeratedly warmed up. If you look at Elswit's 'There Will Be Blood', it has a classical tradition to it, because it only uses tungsten and day balanced stocks. I have nothing against digital, but there seems to be a cinematographic revolution on TV where images are being deeply altered in post-production and it's very noticeable, especially in shows like Mr. Robot, and that is tradition is beginning to creep into modern films. I think films shot on digital should at least maintain more of a classical approach to photographing, it looks better.

Truly, the only downside of digital is that many young cinematographers will rely heavily on post-production to find a look, there was an article where Paul Thomas Anderson expressed concern about this, how future cinematographers will not be able to light a film proficiently without cheating it in post. From what I've seen from master cinematographers like Deakins, Elswit, Richardson, is that they have great attention to detail, the work they do is unparalleled. Perhaps they will be the last of their kind, now that digital has birthed a more lazy approach.

Cinema isn't just about being visual, words are important too, and in some films, dialogue can become nothing short of poetic. As Joseph Mankiewicz wrote so cleverly in 'The Barefoot Contessa': "there's more to talking than just words."

I think this happens because most of them don't know what their story is about, it gets away from them. Once the first act is meddled with, the entire screenplay will suffer, because it will inevitable alter scenes in the second and third act, which often creates more confusion in the narrative. You normally see this in big budget hollywood films where they hire multiple writers for rewrites, and this is because first acts are normally expository, and hardly anyone has patience with expository scenes. Hitchcock's 'Vertigo' for instance has a heavy expository scene, in the ship yard office that will have Scotty follow Kim Novak, that one scene is incredibly important, because it will set the entire film into motion. I've noticed younger directors have no patience for these scenes, which normally lead to very confusing narratives. It's really a matter of attention span. In 'Vertigo' we know from the first act that Scotty is a retired detective and has an illness (vertigo) that prohibits him from ever returning, it's really all done in sequence from the opening chase to the the call from an old friend, and finally the voyeuristic scenes. Films require structure, and when younger filmmaker don't understand that, that's when careless errors and cuts are made.

Film look doesn't necessarily come from the camera, whether it be digital or film, I've seen plenty of student films shot on super 16mm that didn't look very cinematic at all. It's really in the eye of the filmmaker, the way the shot is composed, lit, the art design, it's a conglomeration of so many components that make up the image. It's beyond me how anyone expects to make their film look like Mulholland Drive or what ever film they're trying to emulate, by color correcting, etc. It just doesn't work that way. David Lynch made 'Inland Empire' look incredible, despite using a subpar camcorder.

I think it's easy for certain beginners to get into moviemaking with unreasonable expectations, I found out there's very little room for impatience, to form your own unique visual understanding in cinematic storytelling is quite difficult, and it takes a lifetime to develop and master certain techniques. It's very easy to beat yourself up for not being as good as the filmmakers you look up to, but in doing so you begin to understand that you can't just copy Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock, you can't be them, you have to find a way to reinvent everything that you love about cinema and transform into your own visual experience. What makes certain cinematographers unique, isn't so much their style, I think style is empty without giving the images resonance, without making a film come to life, there is nothing but pretty pictures. Robby Muller's work in 'Alice in the Cities' is a profound film, because it has a certain natural feel to it, he captures moments which I can only describe as poetic, not because they are perfectly lit or because the image is clean with no grain- all of that doesn't really matter in this film. There is a quote by Carl Theodore Dreyer that popped into my head after I saw 'Alice in the Cities', and this is the only way I can explain the genius of the photography in 'Alice in the Cities'... "Nothing in the world can be compared to the human face. It is a land one can never tire of exploring. There is no greater experience in a studio than to witness the expression of a sensitive face under the mysterious power of inspiration. To see it animated from inside, and turning into poetry." - Carl Theodore Dreyer I think more than anything, this is what every cinematographer should aspire to do in their lifetime, it seems so many are concerned with technical perfection, and many do achieve this perfection, but their images are usually bereft of life, and they just become meaningless works. I wish someone would have told to me that I should simply create without expecting anything in return, just be diligent and don't be discouraged by your failures. I think now, little by little as you find your own voice, develop your eye, and increase your intuitive senses, your ideas will become all the more effective. I'm working on making my third short film- and I'll feel better about making it, because I know now that it's unimportant if anyone else likes it, all that matters is what I think of it.

It just seems you have an unsupportive attitude based on your first post. I mean if you agreed to sign up to do a project then why complain about how terrible it is? Makes no sense, this "turd project" you're working on will have your name on it. You have to give people a chance, they don't just become brilliant filmmakers overnight. If you look at the early short films of Darren Aronofsky you never would've guessed he would become the filmmaker he is today. And the failed first feature of Quentin Tarantino that he never finished, which was pretty atrocious (My Best Friend's Birthday). Filmmaking is incredibly difficult and I doubt you'll be inspired by watching good student films. You actually learn more from the bad ones you make. I've also seen most of Reed Morano's short films, because they're accessible on Vimeo, and she worked on some student films that weren't interesting, but I can tell she did the best she could on every single project she worked on, and grew from that experience. And one of my favorites she has done is a recent PSA she did with Olivia Wilde.

I think cinema is open to anything, there are no set of rules or standards, it's all about finding your own way of seeing the world. Offering your own unique vision of life through a lens. I watched Andrea Arnold's short film 'Wasp', and it's not a cinematographic marvel, it's a little shoddy, but the writing and performances are very strong. She adds a level of realism to her movies, and it basically deals with an impoverished family and a negligent mother who goes out on a date. So, you don't have to do anything that is forced, it just has to come from you.

I disagree that a director could ever make a film out of a dull concept, a smart director knows that the screenplay is the first step into making a film that might turn out good. William Wyler said it was 80% script and 20% finding the right actors. I despise short films that are special effects heavy and rely on budgets that are over15k-20k. Any director can be made to look good if he surrounds him/herself with talented people. As for student films, I think the most important thing a young director could offer to his crew is his enthusiasm. I wouldn't surround myself with negative people that are looking over your shoulder and giggling about what you're trying to do. You have to understand that people who want to make films are trying to find a way to express themselves somehow, they might feel they have something to say and have no clue on how to do it, but student films should always be learning experiences. It sounds like you need to move up a level and stop working on student films, because you have to realize that student filmmakers have to be creative with no money, no acting talent, and to top it off there's crew people like you who make the experience all the more discouraging.

Hitchcock's 'The Birds' is in technicolor.

In no particular order Psycho Night of the Hunter Nights of Cabiria Cat People The Third Man

Sound and sight are equally important. There are some directors who choose not to ADR important scenes as the original emotion in the actor's voice is gone and replaced by something less effective. Orson Welles was known to turn his back on the image from time to time to listen to his actors speak, the rhythm and tempo of it all is incredibly important just as the image. From what I understand, there are a lot of sound people who own their own equipment and offer it to the production for a rate, any producer should be reasonable enough to hire at least one of those guys who own their own stuff.

From what I saw he's incredibly perceptive and intelligent. I think it's more about asking yourself the right questions, chasing certain ideas and knowing which ones feel right. In the beginning you see he's dreading the fact that he has nothing brewing in his mind, but later on he seems to be inspired by the locations or a certain type of lighting set up, it's as if he finds the little things that give the scene a certain life. I don't believ experience is everything, because even some of the most experienced filmmakers can fall flat on their ass, it's just about knowing the story, knowing the character, it's a pursuit of truth.

Here's just one example of a masterful director at work. The way he can communicate with his actors, have a certain intuitive nature, seeing the little things that inspire him...

I'm referring to hands-on labor. A director brings together a band of talented people to do the things he cannot do himself, and there's nothing wrong with that, that's their job. But the more useful of directors are the ones who can actually elicit better performances from his/her actors, there are some directors who have absolutely nothing interesting to offer, someone like 'McG' who is the worst director I've ever seen in my life. Most of them come from directing music videos and have very little understanding of narrative filmmaking. Consider someone like Alfred Hitchcock, he had great sense of what was cinematic and what wasn't, he knew what he wanted from the time the screenplay was being developed to the final cut of the movie. He wasn't just a 'director', he was a complete filmmaker. I'm not diminishing the role of a director at all, but simply saying that a director doesn't have to do much at all but watch his vision come to life and either say "I like it" or "I don't like it, let's do it again". There are actually some cinematographers who do most of the blocking for directors, so I don't really see what's so special about being a director UNLESS you can be a useful instrument in getting better performances from an actor. To me the actual making of a movie is in the cutting room, that's where I believe a director is most useful. That's what separated someone like Hitchcock from everyone else. That's where the film is truly made. I have directed a couple of short films that weren't very good, and because of those little movies I learned the importance of getting someone who is more experienced and talented to execute the idea for me. I like to think I have good ideas but poor technical abilities to execute them visually. So I think the position of the director is overblown, unless the director can be useful to: actors, the writer, or even have the ability to put the camera in the right place/ framing. Otherwise, you end up like McG.

I just saw the post that was locked, and I have to add that Paul Thomas Anderson wouldn't be much of a "genius" if it wasn't for his crew and Robert Elswit's guidance. You can see his first short film 'The Dirk Diggler Story' where he did everything himself, and it wasn't very good at all! When he finally made his second short film 'Cigarettes and Coffee' he understood the importance of having a professional crew. In the commentary for 'Sydney' or 'Hard Eight' you can hear Paul talk about Robert Elswit's contribution to his films, he admitted that Robert taught him a lot of things he didn't know, and how he's still learning. The function of a director is to merely COMMUNICATE, everyone around him does ALL the real work, and a film would be nothing without the cinematographer or the sound man, or make-up, art department, etc. It's a collaborative medium, I think the challenge for any director is for his/her vision to come together into a singular idea. This is why filmmaking is unique, because it's not like sitting alone in a room to paint or to write, you have to be able to know how to talk and respect other people, to get the best from them. You can't undermine the experience of others, you need a whole army of people to make a film, there is no other way.

I can't argue that 'Mulholland Drive' is one of the greatest movies ever made on film, but David's work shines through on any given format. The man can make a movie on a VHS camera and make it art. David actually champions the digital format as it allows him to express himself even more freely. He's quickly becoming my favorite filmmaker of all time, because he is a rare artist who doesn't give in to the masses, even if his films weren't commercially successful, he still remains true to his vision. I think 'Mulholland Drive' will become a very important film as time goes by. What amazes me the most is his film structure, it's unlike anything I've ever seen, his movies are abstract, but at the same time very comprehensible. And his transitions are absolutely gorgeous, I've never seen a dissolve or fade to black quite like he does it. For those who are accustomed to mainstream American cinema, his films may seem "weird", but David is a true poet of the movies, it's a shame he hasn't received the proper respect. Perhaps 'Mulholland Drive' will become the next 'Citizen Kane' or 'Vertigo' many decades from now, it's ahead of its time!

It says he's filming digital on imdb. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4093826/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

He also used it to film Inland Empire and also served as his own cinematographer. that just shows me this whole "prestige" in moviemaking doesn't come from pretty images, a lot of cinematographers are obsessed with getting the cleanest image possible. I've never really liked that, it shouldn't have to be that way all the time. David is just a great reminder that cinema is anything that you want it to be.

I just saw the short and thought it was incredible. I don't like how almost all cinematographers are conditioned to create impeccable images that look pristine with no visible grain, etc. in a way cinematographers can be pretty snobbish when it comes to creating images. I like cinematographers like Gregg Toland who were more about composition and movement, image size. If you listen to David Lynch speak in certain interviews, he's not zoned in on narrow-minded thinking, but he uses anything within his disposal to be creative, whether it be using a DV camera to continue making his great work.

I used to review my favorite Grindhouse movies, was amazed at the authenticity. I found my old profile, brings old memories. Back when I was burning with movie passion. It's great that there's variety, I hate that all major hollywood movies look the same, there has to be more unique films out there. http://www.grindhousedatabase.com/index.php/User:Biohazard I remember watching George A. Romero films, and he was one of the most creative minds in the independent scene, wish there were more filmmakers like that who are completely audacious.

I was watching her films on vimeo and she reminds me of Bob Downey who made some pretty outrageous films! She has a wicked sense of humor, I think she's going to become one of my favorites. And she kind of looks like Tura Satana, she's hot! I loved this scene so much, I have to rent 'Viva'.

Saw the new trailer for 'The Love Witch' and it brought me back to the time when I saw 'How To Steal A Million' by William Wyler! It has the same feel and lighting of a color MGM movie from the 1960s, also mixed with way color was used in certain Vincent Price movies like The Abominable Dr. Phibes. Would you categorize it as a 'grindhouse' film? Blood and Black Lace also came to mind, it's a very unique look! Loved it.

That's interesting, didn't know her first feature was rejected, I found it charming, because she's a natural dialogue writer. But I don't really think her short films were very cinematic at all, she just grabbed a camera and recorded her stuff. I think she learned the importance of having a good camera man as she was making her first feature, I remember watching an interview where she mentioned that she didn't even write 'Creative Nonfiction' in proper screenplay format. Here's an example of one of her early short films... her writing and acting is what got her through.

Well, if I were to make another short film, I would make it about mental illness, particularly schizophrenia which is a profound medical mystery. The illness itself presents some very disturbing symptoms such as auditory hallucinations, which makes its sufferers hear threatening and abusive voices. If there's such a thing as an alternate reality, it exists somewhere in the deepest shores of what we call insanity. If you research some interviews on youtube, you can see the people suffering from this illness are full of fear and paranoia, they are haunted by their own thoughts. Sadly, some are driven to commit suicide, since they suffer from racing thoughts of death. Of course if you were to put this into cinematic context you'd have to delve into the person it is affecting. Some mental health students made this brilliant simulation of what sufferers go through. I actually think it's better than most of the short films on Vimeo or official Sundance selections. I wouldn't exploit such a subject-matter, but this is certainly something I want to make a film about.