Steven C. Boone

Three insert shots in 2046 that, in context, are sad and beautiful enough to make you weep: A doorknob, a tin cash box, the tip of an ink pen poised over the paper. A nearly silent wide shot of Swoff exploring charred carnage in the desert-- Jarhead. The frame is almost theatrical; the oil slicks, debris and blasted corpses feel harmonious, serene, haunted. Oldboy: Some kind of rocking camera motion in the pivotal sex scene. The camera is at some distance with a long lens, but it might as well be a third partner. More intimate than voyeuristic. You literally feel the love.

I hope this qualifies. The Matador, which just opened in NY and LA for the weekend. The cinematography came together with the production and costume design to make this a, er, fiesta of phosphorescent blues, lime greens, all kinds of warm pastels and well-placed shadows. Lean, crisp compositions, graceful steadicam as well. This movie has the look and feel "Lord of War" seemed to strain for with a heavier hand. I'm curious to see what the "A-listers" on this board think of it.

My question is, is David Mullen an actual person or a vast database located in some underground repository at USC? Unfair that somebody can shoot movies so well <i>and</i> have such a command of history. (No, I'm not gunning for a job.) Anyway, much appreciated.

Agreed. To each his own, but if there isn't a thematic/dramatic motivation for this contrast, the average viewer will just subliminally think "they went cheap."

Well, with no Bergman point of reference at age 7, I found Empire's soft lighting to be an eye-popping "escape" from hard-lit everyday reality. I wanted to crawl into that cozy ice cave and stay. But thanks for the Scope info.

I just light the space that the subjects occupy, use long lenses if possible, and let the walls fall off into a muted gray, defocused zone. Flags and barndoors. Looks good to me. But if it's important to show off the walls and couches, or the blocking dictates wider lenses, bounce from the ceiling...?

A re-transfer, sure, but even on VHS and cable in the '80s, the cool palette was always there. Design is design. S'like saying the deep focus in Citizen Kane is the result of remastering. Well, you know what I mean...

Possibly the dreamiest integration of cinematography, effects and production design ever. Or at least ever to spring from G. Lucas's head. It looks so gorgeous on the special edition DVD. It's as blue as "Matrix Reloaded" is green. This and Cronenberg's equally icy "Crash" make Peter Suschitzky one of my favorite of the bigtime Ho'wood DP's. Dumb general question: What, cinematographically, contributed to Empire's cool, refrigerated look?

I'm shooting a short film starring a pre-op transsexual actress. She is very pretty, shapely and feminine, but my intention, for the sake of the story, is to photograph her to appear as convincingly female as possible. Whenever her eyes are level with the lens, they sparkle and take over the scene. Perfect. But when her eyes are downcast, her broad, prominent forehead and slightly aggressive jawline suddenly steal the show. The illusion is gone. I've already been testing angles and lighting during rehearsals. Got a bunch of muslin and diffusion, for starters. But I don't want a heavily augmented look. Shooting 24PA on the DVX-100A. Mostly extreme long lenses and interiors (day & night). Don't want to rely on heavy makeup. Her skin is generally smooth, but the nose and cheekbones can look pretty severe in 3/4 profile under bright light. "Chungking Express" would be a model for the look of this film, but my actress needs to be as enticing as the women in "In the Mood for Love"/"2046" for this thing to work. Too ambitious? Any tips/sugestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm shooting in two weeks.

Is there such a thing in the works? Sort of a dv version of Super 8? (Just as the 3-chip 24Ps can be thought of as analogous to 16mm and HD to 35...) I would love to see a camera like this, with prosumer controls and a nice lens. You'd see even moregreat stuff being made by poor folks like me. At any rate, I'd run out and get one yesterday if such existed.

Not to beat a comatose horse, but I would love to see some of these freewheeling auteurs embrace the DVX-100A, which produces some gorgeous images, even in the hands of nobodies like me. Love to see Wong Kar-Wai and Chris Doyle do some run-and-gun stuff with it, for instance... But in the end it's an aesthetic choice, as David says. Lynch just likes the industrial video/porn look, I supppose. Judging from his previous films, coulda fooled me.

I hear that, Jason, but my perplexity has to do with his choice of a camera that can't give him 24 progressive frames, not with the low resolution of SD digital video, which I love (Super 8 and 16mm reversal blown up to 35 can be gorgeously grainy, for instance). I am not surprised by his rationale at all, but I think he does lose something by adding those six frames per second.

for some of his projects when there are now comparable cameras in that class that feature 24p? His short "Darkened Room" looks like porn, not because of the content but because of the drab dv look. Now he's doing "Inland Empire" with either the 150 or 170, not sure. Even no-budget 'hood movies are turning up with gorgeous images made by the DVX-100A or the XL2. Why shoot ugly?

Watching Belly on BET. This is heresy, perhaps, but Sayeed seems the bravest underexposer since Gordon Willis's interiors for Godfather part II. At any rate, what a brilliant showoff kid Sayeed was. Every shot in Belly is gorgeously over-the-top. Blue light on black skin smeared with what looks like vaseline. Filters. Greenish fluos. Wide angle lenses. Shutter tricks. Star-shaped lens flares. Dumb movie, but hard to look away from.

I just saw Clint Eastwood's Firefox for the first time since I was a kid. The Russian accents are insane. I closed my eyes and could hear Bela Lugosi, Lech Walesa, Werner Herzog and Boris Badenov (at least he's Russian, if a cartoon). They were all lit from below the chin, like the villain in Battlestar Galactica. The Cold War was something else. But I digress...

Great advice, all. It was my hunch that I could "get away" with this kind of lighting, providing that it fit the mood or source motivation of the secens, but wasn't 100% sure. Certain scenes in the Korean film "Oldboy" had this patina, in my opinion, but I don't have any info on that one. I'll post stills when I've got something to show. Thanks again.

Excellent advice, Matt and Michael. Let me take a detour with this question: Is there ever a situation, in your opinion, where this greenish cast might be put to good use? Do any pro DP's ever shoot under raw, unbalanced fluos? I'm assuming some of those verite-style commercials I see, and maybe some of the more freewheeling work of DP's like Lance Acord or Chris Doyle? Or you guys?

I shoot on a DVX-100A, so can these augment my existing 3-piece light kit in any way? The lights are soft and warm. 30 watts, puts out 100 watts worth. Good for faces with diffusion? I know, I know: test them. But I was wondering if any no-budget types have anything to report about such lamps...?

I know that HD can supplant 35mm and that 24p dv can stand in for 16mm, but are there any plans to make a cheap (likely single-chip) mini-dv camera w/a 24P mode? It would be great to have something under a thousand dollars that captures a film look. I'm thinking that such a camera would be analgous to Super 8mm film. A Kodachrome look. Is such a thing in the works? Am I way off base?

A film about folks trapped in a mansion and forced to fight to the death. The whole thing seems lit (and beautifully) with kino flos or somesuch fluorescent units. Anybody have info? Sorry, the only good shots I could find are from some T&A website. But you can get a sense of the lighting scheme.

It's really no more than a After School Special in terms of drama, but visually it feels like a continuation of Boogie Nights's anamorphic bliss. It's the '70s-as-a-dream kind of luminous look I have in my childhood memories of that time. Anyone have any detailed comparisons between the visual strategies of both films? Or an article?

:rolleyes: Quite true. Every DI's beautiful, in her own way.

I guess my lecture had more to do with the way we take in films upon first viewing, which is not something one can exert much conscious control over, I suppose. But I think it is possible to relax some of the muscles and feelers that search for things like bad DI and excessive grain and simply let the film affect you. Or not. Me, I LOOVE grain. The super-sharpness of certain recent films feels as clinical as a hospital john. Different strokes. And "bad DI" is such a subjective notion. What if a filmmaker doesn't want all that damn resolution? (see the Super 8 forum) Some people drive an Altima when they can afford a Lexus.

If this question is for me, I never said that it was necessary to agree on artistic merit, which is why I posted my disagreement. This always crops up in forums, someone feeling compelled to remind us that we all are entitled to our opinions. But what about our opinions of those opinions? Let's argue freely, without shame. But you do make some excellent points about Doyle and Wong's methods, and I have learned a lot from you on this and other forums over the years, David, so hats off.

I think the sensation, ideas and emotions one wishes to elicit should be the primary consideration for any choice of lens--not whether the DP was sufficiently challenged. Shooting 2046 another way would result in a completely different film experience--granted, one that would feel less suffocating to you but likely less enthralling to me. Different strokes. But to me, the telephoto lens is a great liberator for low-budget filmmakers. In the right hands, it lends atmosphere, gravity and mystery to a location or set. THX-1138, for instance, wasn't all close-ups, but many of its most dazzling evocations of the future happened in very tight closeups that took advantage of Walter Murch's tanatalizing sound design. And again, the claustrophobia also resonated with the theme. I see so many clunky-looking shows on the sci-fi channel that could have gotten more out of their okay-looking sets by lighting and shooting them with a little more "mystery." There IS a skill involved here. The anamorphic gorgeousness of "2046" never signaled creative compromise or insufficient budget to me. But to have that experience of a film, one must sometimes get away from the clubhouse atmosphere of the crews and take in the work in a more intimate way. The way one writes and dreams of films is the way one should watch them. Alright, this soapbox is about to collapse, so lemme pack it in...