Sideways

[Brad Grimmett]

I saw Sideways last night and really liked it. Good story, great acting, and it's very funny. The cinematography was very nice, but I noticed from the very beginning until the very end that it's pretty heavily diffused. I couldn't quite figure out what was used....I'm not sure whether it was nets or filters. Does anyone know what was used? I like the look, but the diffusion was noticeable throughout the film. I was taken out of the film on many occasions because of the heavy diffusion. Practicals glowed and daylight skies blew out to white. Is this a staple of Phedon Papamichael's work? I've seen many of the films he's shot, but don't think I've noticed this before.

Anyway, the film is partially about wine, and they drink A LOT of wine throughout the film. I had to go have a couple of glasses after the film (it was a good excuse). I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts.

[Guest Michael Cathcart]

I have seen this movie four times and honestly think that it's the best movie of the year, and I agree with you that it is pretty diffused in some places. Example: the opening scene where Miles opens the door is very diffused, but that did needed to be. I don't think that it detracts from the films beauty at all, instead I really think that it's subtle enough that it doesn't really stand out (for me anyway). So I would like hear other people's comments on this aswell.

[John Pytlak RIP]

I really enjoyed the film too. Usually the diffusion worked to the benefit of the story, but occasionally, it was somewhat distracting. Sometimes, the softness seemed like a Super-16 blow up, but AFAIK, it was all 35mm.

[DavidSloan]

I haven't seen this film, but Johnathan Rosenbaum wrote an interesting review of Sideways, as part of his top 10 of 2004:

 

Rosenbaum 2004

 

I'm somewhat reluctant to see this film because I have a feeling it's gonna be a major disapointment. I remember when American Splendor was all the rage and when I saw it I thought it was rubbish.

 

I'll wait for the DVD.

[Dan Salzmann]

I thought the look of "Sideways" was interesting because it was different from the contrasty California daylight exteriors we are so used to seeing because most of the time lots of sun means slower filmstocks and the saturation and contrast that goes with them.

I felt the film was overall a good, intelligent "buddy movie".

What is perhaps most encouraging is that Hollywood decision makers can see that a film with relatively unknown actors and no special effects or gratuitous violence can make money.

[Jeremy]

Does anybody know exactly what stocks were used for the film? I have a guess, but wanted to know for sure.

 

Also, I read an interview in which Alexander Payne said that he never uses storyboards. Thought it was interesting; how many oscar nominees can make that claim?

[steve hyde]

I saw SIDEWAYS last night. In a word I would call it authentic. The story really connected with me. It had so much to say about American culture in both sad and funny ways. It just seemed like an honest portrait so I can see why the screenplay won an award from the IFP.

 

The photography on the other hand, is tough for me to judge in part because the print I saw looked like it had been used to decorate a Christmas tree before being put in the projector -- but I too noticed the extreme diffussion and personally did not see how it acheived a particular mood.

 

Nevertheless, I was surprised to hear (in this thread) that it was shot on 35mm. The opening scenes of the film particularly looked like 16mm to me with lots of visible grain etc. If the director wanted that look, I wonder why they didn't just shoot the film of S16 (??)

 

Great film, I recommend it.

 

Steve

Edited March 13, 2005 by steve hyde

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Can't say I think it looked pretty - but appropriate. All by design, naturally. Phedon Papamichael is an extremely talented DP and it's the mark of a good DP to allow himself to shoot movies where every frame isn't nescessarily pretty. It can be hard to give up prettiness many times. I know since it's happened to me a couple of times just recently and i had a real hard time doing it.

 

Film is brilliant and has probably the best ending shot I've seen in years.

[Greg Gross]

Great film,I loved it! Cinematography seemed okay to me,but I'm a newbie,I'm

sure you guys picked up on some things. I thought the script was good. Yes, I

agree with Adam final scene(end) was exceptional. No dialogue was needed the

camera, action said it all! So far I see it this way:

 

1.Million Dollar Baby

2.Sideways

3.Hotel Rhuwanda

4.The Aviator

 

 

Greg Gross

[McKenzie Moore]

Apparently, I'll be alone in my feelings, but I thought Sideways was one of the worst movies I've seen. It was two hours long, and five hours into I was looking for anything that might be more entertaining than the film. Why?

 

1. The acting was good, but the script just wasn't there. You can't have just acting in a film. The best acting in the world will not save a bad movie.

 

2. It dragged. There was nothing to catch my attention.

 

3. It was unbelievable. I don't care how good you think your friend is, there comes a point when you realize he doesn't care about you. So what do you do? Apparently, let him ruin your life, more or less.

 

I could go on, but what I wanted to say was that the cinematography was good. It fit the film really well, I believe. And the very last scene was amazingly good. But that was the only scene.

 

They say that you either hate the movie, or you love it. Seems I fit into the former catagory.

[Brad Grimmett]

What is perhaps most encouraging is that Hollywood decision makers can see that a film with relatively unknown actors and no special effects or gratuitous violence can make money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think the main reason this film got made is that Alexander Payne directed it. He's known as a profitable director so he got a small amount of money from an indie arm of a studio. It's not exactly a HUGE vote of confidence from "Hollywood", but it's a start. Payne also had to fight like crazy to get that cast. George Clooney lobbied very hard for Thomas Hayden Church's part, and the studio wanted him, but Payne managed to fight them off and get the cast he wanted (at least that's the way I heard it). Does that mean that studio's will let directors have more freedom casting their movies in the future? NO!

[Matt Pacini]

I agree with your last statement 100%, Brad.

 

It seems like situations that clearly disprove the status-quo are seen as an anomaly, and they just stick with the "tried & true" (supposedly) methods:

 

Get name actors (whether or not they're right for the part).

Throw boatloads of cash at it.

Let everyone from the stars to the mid-level executives try "fixing" the script (even though it was apparently brilliant when they paid $1.2 million for it) until it's a total mess, but that guarantees the star is in every scene, even if it ruins the movie.

And if all that fails, put a bunch of CG & explosions in it.

 

Matt Pacini

[Brad Grimmett]

Agreed, Matt! Another problem with these big budget explosion and CG movies is that the studios make such a huge investment on the front end that they have no choice but to promote the hell out of them when it's time to release them, whether it's a total piece of crap or not. So they spend another 50 million on it on top of their initial investment. They're so committed by that point that they have to continue to throw money at it. A movie like Sideways confuses them, and they don't know what went right, so they're afraid to try it again. Instead of just trying to make good movies, they're just trying to make good profits. Big difference.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Sorry to dig up an old post, but I just caught this film for the first time in HD on tv and wanted to comment on the diffusion used. It looks to me like a net, though of course I can't say for sure. I thought it worked beautifully for most of the interiors and night work, but looked horrible on many of the day exteriors, especially against sun. It made me wonder what I would do in this situation since they clearly wanted to impart that diffused look to the whole film. I think maybe I would have shot the day exteriors clean and used digital diffusion in DI for more control. Or if no DI was possible, then there's the old trick of burning select areas of a front mounted net with a lit cigarette. Or even using ND grads may have helped to keep the skies from blowing and leaching into the blacks. It's a tough situation since the effect is pretty heavy, so simply removing the filtration for some scenes probably would have been too inconsistent for the audience.

 

Loved the film though. I started watching at like 5am and couldn't turn it off. Wow, I understand Miles waaay too well... :ph34r: