Jump to content

Adam Frisch FSF

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    2086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Adam Frisch FSF last won the day on February 21

Adam Frisch FSF had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

111 Excellent

About Adam Frisch FSF

  • Rank

  • Birthday 07/24/1971

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles, USA
  • Specialties
    Swedish cinematographer now in Los Angeles.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.adamfrisch.com

Recent Profile Visitors

18757 profile views
  1. On the plane back from a job I finally caught A Cure For Wellness. I can understand that it didn't connect with an audience, but it is simply one of the most spectacularly shot and designed movies I've seen recently. I'll go even further and say it's for sure one of the best shot and lit films in the last 10 years. And I say this knowing the competition from all the awarded work of the usual suspects. Bojan is just one of those DP's who go pretty much unnoticed from year to year, never gets big nominations, never gets talked about much, but just turns in stellar work consistently. Go back and look at films like The Ring, Lone Ranger, Mr & Mrs Smith, Pirates - all world class camerawork and lighting. I wish sometimes this industry would award or celebrate some of this talent out there rather than alternate the admiration between the usual 3-5 suspects. But we all know cinematography is context - you can have the best cinematography in the world, but if it's not in a film that connects or breaks out, it doesn't matter. Likewise, pretty ugly movies can win for best cinematography, if it's a great film. A Cure For Wellness should have for sure had a nomination for best cinematography in 2017. Especially since it was a very weak year for nominations in that category. If you haven't seen it, see it for the cinematography alone.
  2. Darius has himself mentioned that he gets bored with beautiful shots, so he's always interesting to watch. He serves story these days. I get a sense that a lot of people want him to replicate the groundbreaking work he had when he did Seven and Delicatessen etc, but he wants to move forward. I respect that and can feel the same thing many times. "Beautiful cinematography" can be a trap. I thought Uncut Gems was good. Lighting is very real, even "ugly" at times, but it feels absolutely right for film. I love the long lens stuff. Nice to see after so much wide stuff the last decade.
  3. Well, if the discussion expands to why some make it and some don't, I have to mention one big elephant in the room: social skills. I don't know how many PA's or new-to-the-business people I've met where I after 5 minutes can tell they won't last. Not because they're not good people at heart, but they just lack social skills, or don't have an ease with people and can't see spontaneously what needs to be done. Intuitive, I suppose. Add a little laziness to it, and you're sure to not last long. I shoot in all corners of the world and one thing that always strikes me is that they all have social skills and play well with others, they're collaborative and they're hard workers. You have those three attributes - you'll make it.
  4. Owning gear has always been a trap, in my opinion. Do you want them to hire you because you come with "free" gear, or because you're good cinematographer? Here's the followup to that, if they do hire you because you come with gear, then they're loyal to that "free" gear, not to you. So when they get the bigger job with the better budget down the line that's much more creative, they'll get the DP that has the good reel, not the DP that has gear. Now, I'm not saying you can't get ahead with a little gear in the beginning. But it shouldn't be viewed as the ticket into it - your talent is that.
  5. I personally find that I gravitate towards the "human eye" field-of-view lenses. A 32mm and 40mm are pretty much the only lenses I need. Twist my arm and add the 50mm, too. That said, I can respect and see the beauty in wide-angle photography at times, it's just not something that I gravitate towards personally. I honestly think that any lens under 30mm is not very flattering on faces. I will use a 25mm or a 27mm for wider vistas, or an establisher, but I tend to avoid them for any closer work. Even the 32mm is on the edge for faces at times - I find the 40mm is the perfect balance. Long lenses I love - I grew up with Tony Scott and Adrian Lyne films after all, so I'm well into that aesthetic. It's kinda out of fashion these days to use telephoto lenses, but I do enjoy that look and will try to work it in when I can. There's something absolutely magical about shooting "wider" images by backing the hell off and using a long lens and just flattening it like a painting.
  6. Simple. If you shoot away from the windows and into the wall as background, just augment. Maybe use nothing but neg, maybe use a bit of artificial to help the daylight feel along. Sidelight, motivate from window. Shoot into the window as background and now it needs a little more attention. Depending on stylistically what you want (is it OK play characters as compete silhouettes?), then you need to make choices. What I do in this scenario most of the time (when I can't play silhouettes), is that I pretend that the light hit a wall/floor somewhere. And based on where that hit, that's my bounce/key light on face. It can be a floor bounce (very likely), or a wall bounce. Works great from that motivated standpoint, and you'll have a natural looking scene.
  7. Trailer looks amazing, Jarin. What a dream project for a cinematographer! On the Arris (and I think Panavisions), you can order them with a special black pressure plate. Because of the weak backing on B&W film, what happens when you have bright objects in image, is that the light actually goes through the film, bounces in the chrome plated pressure plate and then re-enters back into film, creating a weird halation and greatly reduces contrast. It's a classic problem when you shoot into light sources. With a black pressure plate this problem is greatly reduced, if not eliminated.
  8. No, I'm not a wide lens lover. They pull me out of a film - too freakish. For me the sweet range is mids - 25, 27, 32, 35, 40mm. That's where it's at for me. I could do an entire movie with just those. But there are times when you must use wider lenses. But I never carry wider than 18mm on a regular job. And I almost never have to break it out.
  9. Yes you can. One of my old Swedish gaffers used to use a C-stand with a flag arm at 45 degrees (and clamped in middle). At the knuckle end he put a 4x4 bounce card, at the pointy, other end of flag arm, he put a little Redhead light bouncing into the card. It was a single stand, moveable soft unit, almost like an umbrella light. Worked well. Today with LED soft units, it's less need for it, but good trick to know.
  10. $500 is way too low, but I've had offers for low budget features in that region. I earned $1200/week for my $2M horror feature Don't Knock Twice, so that's kind of the realistic range we're looking at. More than $2K/week for a low budget non-union film is probably rare.
  11. Huge Netflix show with a major star in it paid $6K/week for the DP. He later moved to an even bigger show, also for same network, and it bumped to $8K/week. I'd expect that is as much as you'll ever earn doing TV. Big features with a big time DP might pay a little more, but we're talking the top 20 guys here. Us mere mortals, on a $1-5 million movie, probably looking at anywhere from $500-3000/week. Which might sound like a good living, but if you're in LA or NY and have a family, really isn't.
  12. I can only say that editing is one of the most important tools in the making of a film. It is by far one of the most creative crafts in the arts. You can completely change the tone of any piece in editing, based on the exact same footage the director shot. It can take a film from bad to good all by itself, and vice versa, of course. So whenever I see it getting pooh-poohed, and treated as merely assembly that anyone can do with the right software, well, I just very strongly disagree. It is highly creative and very few people are good at it. But most think they are.
  13. Greg - saw it at the BAFTA screening. Manu - you'll just have to see if it feels that way like it did for me. Yes, John Wick 3 kills a lot more people, Expendables etc, it's not about the actual body count or violence per se, just the intersection between the emotional impact, in conjunction with the times, and this being a character that attracts a lot of followers that are already turned away socially. In many ways it is like Taxi Driver, but there weren't any 'incels' back then that went home and stocked up on assault rifles.
  14. Great movie very nicely shot by Lawrence Sher, ASC. A performance of a lifetime from Joaquin. He simply will win Oscar for it, there is no other option. Film is uncomfortable, very angst-ridden and full of impending doom and dread. Not necessarily a pleasant watch, but engaging and very well made. It's a character piece rather than an action movie. I have to be honest, I am a little worried in these strange times what it might motivate in the disenfranchised young (mostly) males. There was a Q&A after film with director Todd Phillips and a woman raised this very question. He kind of did what all us filmmakers do, and that is to say it's not up to us to filter, shy away from violence or not show mental illness, we can only ask questions, yada yadda etc. And normally I would agree with him, but like I said, I can't but help share that woman's fears, slightly. Seen by someone removed from good human interactions, perhaps with some confidence issues or mental problems, it could inspire the wrong thing. It is a powerful film that doesn't necessarily condemn it. First time I've ever felt that we as filmmakers actually do have a responsibility. Or maybe I'm just getting older. Nevertheless, a very powerful movie. It feels a little bit like it will create debate like Fight Club did 20 years ago.
  15. New bigger sensor, which is welcome. Not sure how they can call a 23x13mm sensor Super35 in size - it's nowhere near that. But hey, I'll take any sensor enlargement they got!
×
×
  • Create New...