JosephKHansalik

OK, thanks a lot. JKH

Ok, that was exactly the situational analysis I was looking for, from someone who knows. Thank you so much. -Joseph

Hi all, Everybody knows that Ridley Scott got his start in commercials, and I was wondering if anyone with experience knows how to break into the commercial industry in the U.S. from the ground up, perhaps with some local TV stations, and any tips you might have. Thanks! -Joe

Thanks so much, Bill. -Joe

I am aware of the big 3 (Sundance, Toronto, and Cannes) but wondered as I will be making work throughout the year what there is in the way of a comprehensive list so I can shoot for dates or groups of dates. I do some composing and there's a site like that for composers: http://www.composerssite.com/opps/results/taxonomy%3A2 So I thought I'd ask around--could be a benefit to others as well. All best, JKH

As for Westerns, anything by Sergio Leone or starring Clint Eastwood is a good start, but to me, the epitome of the western is the late 60s and early 70s episodes of "Gunsmoke". Many have huge impact and really illustrate the nature of evil. Sadly, I don't believe any of the color episodes are out on DVD at the present time. JKH.

Thank you for the posts everybody; I just found 69 good reasons to watch 2001 again. JKH.

The Godfather The Godfather Part II (much debated because it was thought that Gordon Willis went too dark) Alien Raging Bull Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom All are generally considered classics. I'm still working on those-no time for lesser known stuff now!

LOL.

Obviously casting is a major, major, major concern.

You would probably be amused to find out that I do want it back for artistic reasons, and that crosses over into the territory that I am comfortable with: directing. I zone in on small things, like soft Mancini music playing in "The Pink Panther Strikes Back", or colored lights, or a scarf around the neck, or someone wearing sideburns, and then I want to make the whole movie like that. I think there were a lot of great 70s dystopia movies that were never made and should have been, and I want to fill out the decade before I get started with any mdern stuff. But that's off-topic and also makes me sound like a lunatic when really all I want to do is make a good film from my POV.

The basis of my confusion is that oftentimes, people will say, "Just use these smaller lights and a faster film and it will come out about the same" and in reality, it doesn't come anywhere close. I am tempted to think that the slower speed and the very high wattage lights have a very specific impact on the final image. On the other hand, you have people who mindlessly adhere to a certain lens or a certain way of doing things without being open to a LEGITIMATE alternative that, to a discerning eye, would look just as good as these particular films that one admires. My attitude is that there's something about many, many films I have seen on 5254 ("The French Connection", "The Godfather", "Sisters", "Soylent Green", "Dirty Harry", "Jaws", and the list goes on) that is very intriguing. All shot very differently, but it's the similar qualities I am honing in on. Am I closed off to doing it in digital? No-but I am very clear on what I want and it would have to look significantly different than most any film shot on digital that I've ever seen. And of course the disclaimer to go with that is that I'm not a zealot and I have seen great looking films shot on digital-but not like 5254.

OK, thanks for additional info Ari. I'll look into it! JKH

Hold on; didn't say anything about garbage! Disclaimer: Still studying all this stuff. I will say I suspect that many elements of the 5254 look I like are unique to 5254. My primary interest is, in the absence of that film, what to do to get in that 100T, 1970s ballpark and I think the best teacher in that case is personal experience. I would go to great, great lengths to get results that actually legitimately look like like "The Godfather" and its sequel to a discerning eye on a huge screen (edit: Not the "restored version" which looks nothing like the film that I saw that is represented very well in the initial DVD release) I have a lot of way to go, but what I am hoping is that there are things that can be done, and I suspect that in this day and age, assuming I could get a very, very high quality and very, very lossless scan every step of the process (I don't know what that would be, 8K or higher?), then computers might nowadays be able to deliver a chemical-looking color grade that's more similar to 70s labs than today's labs. Grain could be manipulated. etc. etc. etc. It just seems like a lot of effort when they could just bring the film back. EDIT: And of course this is about the format, or aesthetic...obviously the cinematography and lighting itself has to be great. That is a whole other discussion, and it is the main reason I am on this forum: read, and learn.

Am curious what "Star Wars" was shot on-it is a big mystery to me because the DVD release doesn't resemble the original at all, and even the '95/'93 masters were color-adjusted (which is what I am most familiar with) so it is difficult to tell. Based on my memory of 80s home video releases (not the most reliable, but better than the DVDs), it looked like different film was used for Tatooine (maybe 5254) than for the Death Star stuff, and I seem to remember 70mm was used for the special effects, although I could be wrong on that. ??? Edit: By Star Wars I mean 1977

5254 has a very soft look and responds very well to being pushed and hard-lighting looks great on it. All this makes close-ups of leading ladies look great on it. I'm kidding...kind of! 5251 (the predecessor) looks nice but has a more artificial feeling and I'm not advanced enough (yet) to be able to explain it. Alien being on 5247, what I like is the coldness of the cinematography, and I think it's just a masterful piece of art. How that would look different on something other than 5247 or 100T, I am still studying, but as it is, there is something alarming about it which works perfectly for that movie. Obviously we are here talking about negative films only and not print stocks...print stocks from then would also have to be rolled out again because I understand it's a combination of the two.

No no, I'm not saying it wasn't a downhill slide after 5254. It didn't happen immediately. For example, I watch the cinematography for "Alien" and I get very excited...it's perfect (to me of course!). But something is going wrong, and I'm glad you brought up digital intermediates. I have used Fuji film for still photography and thought it was interesting. Just because a film is not shot on my favorite film doesn't make it bad, but what I am saying is that I think they struck gold in the late 60s, and having compared both that film and current movies extensively up close, I get the sinking feeling that either the people in charge of things don't care, or the people who go to see movies these days don't care. It is truly a combination of screen size, film projection in the theater, lack of DI, better labs doing coloring (as many have testified to from back then), better film in my opinion, and different styles of cinematography. This last I think is not a disappointment...if anything cinematographers may be more versed now than ever before in various methods of lighting a scene. There's lots of competition and everybody is keeping up. This forum is an example of something that is very non-disappointing to the extreme. I am just disappointed as an aspiring director when I see something so obviously good left behind for something so obviously not as good and hopefully things will turn around soon. JKH.

All I can say is that when I saw 5254 on a huge screen in a theater, 4th generation print, there was utter magic, something touching your soul. In contrast, you go to many modern movies and it's showing on a very small screen in straight digital projection and it's been artificially tinted, and it's like you're watching a live cam or something. I don't mean to disparage films like "Skyfall" that worked in digital and really impressed me, and certainly the industry is full of talent...nonetheless, I feel something big has been lost and there's really no explaining that one away.

I am less knowledgeable when it comes to black and white films, but the films of the 40s look absolutely remarkable in a theater on film, as does "The Twilight Zone" restored and on a large TV, just beautiful. I was shocked when I saw my first black and white film up-close and in-person in the theater, "Gaslight" (1944) in 35mm. Stunning. I am glad there are still black and white films available because it is a truly wonderful aesthetic.

If you want to know the truth, I really love Technicolor tremendously, but that seems very unlikely right now and also very different aesthetic than the best modern film stock, IMO-Kodak 5254 (and I am aware that the processing system was changed for the new late 70s film also-it is telling that cinematographers were very, very slow to use 5247 and shot every last foot of 5254 they could because they so loved the creamy tones, the way that it pushed, etc. etc.) If I were really pushed to choose a 3rd aesthetic (Technicolor and Kodak 5254 representing pinnacles in my mind), it would be digital on whatever "Skyfall" was shot on as this was in my mind pretty impressive. I wish all 3 were available to choose from at a reasonable budget.

Well, I don't have a crystal ball, but you may be right!

It seems like a bleak situation, but I'm sure if customers demand something better, companies will step up and provide something good. What confuses me the most is what the point of using film even is if it now looks so similar to digital, which nobody can accuse the 70s of being.

Thank you for consistently providing the most up-to-date information in the field, Mr. Mullen. It seems like quite a bit of work when one could just shoot film, but if this is what the industry is doing now, I'm actually kind of glad because it represents a return to deliberate texture.

Seinfeld. This is a classic, but maybe my observation will not be: I like it when there is normal lighting, and then one character says something particularly poignant (transcending comedy) and then the lighting will go into hard lighting, lit from one side. Most wouldn't say that Seinfeld is moving, but there was definitely something up with a few of those episodes. It does have a heart in places!

Thank you Mr. Heckert. That excites me not just as a filmmaker, but as a film enthusiast! I am based in New England, but I have family in New York and may well find myself in PA before too long...I will certainly give your suggestions a try if I do! Have a great day, JKH