gustavius smith

Good luck Michael. If you believe in yourself then others will too. Gustavius Smith NY, NY

I don't think that worked her is a link. http://www.bennettsartgallery.com/images/l...ing_a_Story.jpg

Attached is the paintng by Stephen Young Scott whom I using as a visual reference for the flashback scenes. I think it looks Polaroidish. Gustavius NYNY

The Polaroid look it's interesting that you mentioned this David. I am writing a feature set in the Bahamas I intend on producing next year. The five main characters experience flashbacks that take place in the 80's. The opening sequence, mostly of establishing shots of the island, and the first sequence of the movie is a flashback that ends with the two main characters posing for a picture, this frame turns into a Polaroid still. I figured that I would design the flashbacks scenes to have that Polaroid picture look thus distinguishing the flashback scenes from present scenes. So far my first step was to find an old Polaroid camera and get some film and ofcourse looking at polaroids. To me they have the quality of Super 8 film. Do you know of any examples I can look at where this look was replicated? Gustavius Smith NY NY

I think you are right. I gave it too much credit. i should look to Loach for social realism. It did look good though. I think the same crits were said about City of God.

Being a writer/director my favorite part of the movie going experience is discussing it afterwards much to the dismay of my girlfriend. After watching director Kevin Macdonald and Cinematographers Danny Boyle Anthony Dod Mantle's film The Last King of Scotland ( I belive that cinematographers should be above the line) I proclaimed, "see fiction has nothing on real life" only to learn today that Scottish doctor Nicholas Garrigan who unveils the sadistic regime of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin doctor in the movie was a fictional character. For an explanation as to why I was so fooled I will quote incontention.com (http://www.incontention.com/2006/09/the_last_king_of_scotland.html) "What the director does so brilliantly in his first foray into narrative filmmaking is draw upon his instincts as a documentary filmmaker. ?The Last King of Scotland? is not shot like a typical narrative political thriller. The camera wanders frequently to various peculiarities in the scene, typically finding the motion of Amin?s hands, no matter how mundane the gesture. The usage of zooms and erratic camera movement recalls guerilla filmmaking above all else, and it really feels like we are watching true events unfold, not dramatic interpretations of them. Danny Boyle and ?Dogme? regular Anthony Dod Mantle served as cinematographer. I only watched Constant Gardener this month and I was impressed knocked off my seat. However, despite the fact that the scenes in Africa like in the market and at the clinical trails were not staged the emphasis on great shots and heavy handed post work reminded me that I was watching a fiction based movie. Because I cared about Africa beforehand I did come out feeling like something should be done about the clinical trials but it wasn't really because of the movie. In comparison, Amin's bedroom was decorated with lion heads, animal furs, in other words designed to look like a lion's den. there were no closeups of the animal heads, furs nothing, it seemed like a natural interior for an African leader in the 70's. About thirty-45 minutes later when the audience has now learned of Amin's brutal savage ways he summons Garrigan to his office after reading damning international press reports, the camera roams the room with Forest Whitiaker, who plays Amin, as he paces and stomps around like you guessed it, "a raging lion". As I write this I can't think of a moment in the Constant gardener that brings all of the elements of filmmaking together like that, maybe someone out there can. Meirelles admited in interviews that he depended heavily on DI work for that movie and maybe that took away from the message in the film. If I want to study a film for color techniques and style I would watch Gardener, if I want to study a film that captures your imagination to the point that you think what you are watching is real and feel for the characters then King of Scotland is the ticket. The problem for Gardener is that to their credit they wanted to teach me a big lesson about clinical trials in Africa but all I want to learn from it is how to saturate my blues.

About $7000 half of that went into labor for a 21/2 day shoot (dp/w camera, ac, gaffer, key grip, makeup, ) my construction supervisor, myself, asst director, editor, and production designer built the oval office ourselves, about $1000 in materials (the set, costumes, ) then ofcourse processing, telecine, festivals costs, food, taxi fare, it was very expensive for someone who never shot a film before...I would do it again in a heartbeat though

Thanks guys your comments are rewarding.

Check the website www.withoutabox.com

Gustavius Smith gustaviuss@hotmail.com I sent you a reply the other day took your advice in the message and posted the movie on this site. Holla!

Thanks. Yeah I asked that the camera never be moved to emulate the old films. I have to admit that as director I was such a rookie when the DP gave me the portable viewfinder I didn't know which way to look through. I am a journalist turned filmmaker. The Osama scene was the first time I ever directed for film. My DP got his masters and works on a lot of productions but there were times when he made some less than professional mistakes with his Aaton in my humble opinion. For example we made tittle cards and he shot them of centered so we were not able to use them and just didn't have the time or money to reshoot. But overall based on the budget and the time contraints he really tried to give me my vison which was as you can see a 1920's look and feel. Thanks. I applied to many festivals got into two The Bahamas Internationl Film Festival and the New york Short Film Festival but after spending more than $500 buck on festivals I felt like I was being taken and just stopped. Now that it has been a year I am braodcasting it in as much places as I can. i wish I had taken that route first. But Bush is so bad this thing may have life for years to come.

I moved this post over from first time filmmakers. Many members, David Cox, David Mullen, Phil Rhodes, Nate Downes, Brian Wells, provided advice on "creating a 1920's silent film look" last year that was put into action. Decided to use 16 mm expired film stock in the end instead of creating the aged look in post. This forum is an amazing resource! The movie website is http://www.crudethemovie.com/. Gustavius Smith Filmmaker NY NY

I was speaking to a friend in the forum and realized that I never sent the finish the work of my silent film. The advice I got on this forum was pivotal in crafting the finished product. I ended up using expired 16mm film stock, my DP had an Anton I can't remember which one, he also covered the lenses with silk stockings which I think made the black and white workprint toodark (many questioned why he ordered a b&w print and we ended up using the color negative for telecine and got a better image it was a very scary day when we couldn't see anything) I spent about $7000 in film stock, labor, processing, telecine, costumes, the set, food, for three days of shooting. This was my first screenplay, film, everything. It premiered at the Bahamas Film Festival accepted to the New York Short Film festival. It was a scary process but I felt I had to do it. You can view the movie at http://www.crudethemovie.com/. Thanks to all that helped! Gustavius Smith NY NY Filmmaker

No I like the close-ups. I think it is cleaner than having headroom actually because all the focus is on the talker's face. What do you think of the Ikegami HL-DV7W as compared to something like your BETASP camera. It is a great price. Thanks I checked this out and it is a great price.

It all depends on how old you want it to look. For my film which I shot to look like an old 1920's silent movie I used expired film stock. This gave me an instant natural grainy look instead of attempting to create th look in post. However I strongly advise you to run tests on the stock before shooting to gurantee that the film is not badly damaged. Gustavius Smith Producer/Director NY NY

Nice. I will use this post as my guide. I checked out that Panasonic SDX 900 Tomaras was talking about, $450 per day! Why do they insist on framign the heads so close when the end result will be cut off foreheads on most televisions.

Hello, I am in pre-production for a documentary and I would like my 'talking heads' to look like that of Frontline on PBS. Do they shoot the interviewees on digital or film? If film I assume they are using a 35mm camera? Thanks Gustavius Smith NY NY

Right you are Dominic! The lab suggested that I make a color print bumped it up a but and it was better. I ended up with two options, a grainy (due to the expired stock) milky look or when pushed on the telecine a grainy hi-con look. Both work well for a 1920's old film look. Why my DP suggested a b&W print is beyond me and it was $300 I could have used to buy food : ) I will probably end up with a look that is a cross between milky and hi-con. Word to the wise, EXPIRED FILM STOCK MUST BE THOROUGHLY TESTED AND YOUR METHODS FOR OBTAINING A PURE AGED FILM LOOK MUST ALSO BE TESTED BEFORE YOU START SHOOTING. The film was so bad there is no need to ruin the print I got the look I wanted and there simply is no more time to hand edit if I am hoping to make SUndance short film deadline.

Some expired color stock just bit me hard. We shot about 1400 feet of expired stock tryign to duplicate the look and feel of an old Charles Chaplin film on 16mm. Guess what...it worked? The film looks grainy and old but it came out severly underexposed. The lab is blaming it on the film stock my DP admits to not checkign all of the rolls. We made a black and white workprint from the color negative so I could go ahead and damage the film some more but it was way to dark, the color negeative is a bit better but not by much. My last ditch effort to salvage the film is to lighten it in the transfer. Any suggestions for correcting underexposed footage. My first film and murphy's law.... Thanks Gustavius Smith 718 300 7163

Some expired color stock just bit me hard. We shot about 1400 feet of expired stock tryign to duplicate the look and feel of an old Charles Chaplin film on 16mm. Guess what...it worked? The film looks grainy and old but it came out severly underexposed. The lab is blaming it on the film stock my DP admits to not checkign all of the rolls. We made a black and white workprint from the color negative so I could go ahead and damage the film some more but it was way to dark, the color negeative is a bit better but not by much. My last ditch effort to salvage the film is to lighten it in the transfer. Any suggestions for correcting underexposed footage. My first film and murphy's law.... Thanks Gustavius Smith 718 300 7163

I will try this tonight because we have a porjector. Thanks

I used the advice I got from this post and shot my short black and white poltical satire using a 16mm film camera with expiried stock and at a higer speed than normal. I want the film to have the look and feel of an aged slightly damaged Charles Chaplin or Charles Bowers film. We shot between 1000-1500 feet of film. I was thinking that I would hand edit the film usijnga steambeck in order to add the "damage" to the workprint. However I don't know any true techniques if there are any for doing this. I have heard that the digital effects programs are not natural looking but again what are the rules for damaging your film on purpose? Sincerely Gustavius Smith

That would be fantastic. Let me know as soon as you can. Gustavius Smith Producer 718 300 7163

I am scheduled to shoot August 19th and the 20th in Petersburg Virgina at Millenium Studios' Oval Office set. Thanks for your help.

I got swept up a bit. This camera supply store is in LA I am in New York and will be shooting in Virgina. Plus my DP works with a digital camera and not film. We have not committed to working with each other as of yet. And well I guess this is why it's called pre-production. Working with film and using your suggestions will require me to hire a DP that is confident with the Bell and Howell who is either based in New York or will fly in from LA or something. Are these cameras easy to work with so any capable film DP would be able to work with it? Plus it appears I will burn two days of rental just to ship the camera to me in New York..i guess i can negotiate a week rental--I will still be burning cash though. Creativity versus the checkbook--what a battle!