Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan Bowerbank

"Inglourious Basterds"

Recommended Posts

This film was probably the most fun I've had in a theatre in a while. Great tension as mentioned above, and a very 'smart' fillm, not the pointless bloodbath the trailer had me expecting.

 

I also enjoyed Richardson's work, although the heavy-top down didn't always cut it for me. There were some great, dramatic, almost noir feeling shots where heavy back/top light really worked wonderfully. However the scene that really bothered me was the very first, the conversation at the table, perhaps it was an overly bright projector, but that table was just so incredibly hot, and so obviously coming from source directly above. The scene being in an otherwise dim cottage, with windows on the sides, the light just seemed strikingly out of place. Perhaps you could say it was a skylight, but given how much brighter the table was than even the ext. seen through the windows, it didn't seem justified. However scenes such as the bar (particularly the SS agents introduction) made up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked it, it seemed more "mature" than previous QT-films, besides the fact that Pulp Fiction was an exciting introduction to a new filmmaker and IB still share this style, I think IB was his best movie so far! Of course there were the characters, the dialogue scenes... but the story itself felt more "fluent" after getting used to the fact that this movie isn't the "basterd Brad Pitt killing nazis"-flick at all.

 

It's great that a filmmaker like QT with a clear artistic vision can bring it to the big screen without having to compromise it, stil with a decent budget allowing professional production standards and becoming the #1 from the boxoffice-perspective, too! You don't have to make stupid movies to make money!

 

I was also surprised that Brad Pitt wasn't the main character at all, it was Christoph Waltz! As a German it was fun to see all those familiar faces, many of them are just "TV-stars" in Germany never got the chance to play in a decent project. But Diane Krüger was clearly the weakest actress, the others were great!

 

The cinematography was nice and after the first few minutes the 35mm-projection I had was fine, too - stable, clear and sharp - I have yet to see a home-cinema with such an IQ - no need for 2k-DLPs... But why the hell a 2k DI in such a movie? Why not 4k (much cheaper movies already get a 4k DI)? Why even a DI at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Why even a DI at all?

 

Ditto.

 

Then again, "Julie & Julia" and "Time Traveler's Wife" are also DI films.

 

I have no idea why. It is still cheaper to go to optical finish, right? I know HD deliverables for TV are all but required these days, but even there it is a lot cheaper to telecine a timed master positive than a negative, right?

 

I just don't get the whole notion that the convenience is worth the noticeable loss of quality.

 

When less than maybe 1/8 of the movie has CG in it, what is the point of a DI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its just that the two major labs have done a great selling job to silly producers about the wonders of a DI , because they make so much money from doing a DI !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its just that the two major labs have done a great selling job to silly producers about the wonders of a DI , because they make so much money from doing a DI !!!

 

I have to admit, John, that this one looked pretty good, especially for 2K anamorphic, but EFilm DIs still tend to look pretty wonky to my eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really remember anything in the film that would have required the DI at all...this film could easily have been timed photochemically, apart from the few effects shots. I haven't read the AC article yet, so perhaps it delves into it a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really remember anything in the film that would have required the DI at all...this film could easily have been timed photochemically, apart from the few effects shots. I haven't read the AC article yet, so perhaps it delves into it a bit.

 

Yeah, that is what is so surprising.

 

Some of the scalpings & killings looked CG, and maybe Pitt's scar could have been CG at times (thought it by no means would have needed to be CG).

 

Everything else seemed to be very straight pyrotechnics, so the DI seems to have made for an easier HD deliverable, easier color timing, with the "mere" loss of sharpness and detail.

 

Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that is what is so surprising.

 

Some of the scalpings & killings looked CG, and maybe Pitt's scar could have been CG at times (thought it by no means would have needed to be CG).

 

Everything else seemed to be very straight pyrotechnics, so the DI seems to have made for an easier HD deliverable, easier color timing, with the "mere" loss of sharpness and detail.

 

Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again?

 

 

That's what I was saying also!

 

I mean, I want to see some good anamorphic, especially from a master like Bob Richardson whose earlier photochemical anamorphic work is among some of the best, in my opinion. In fact I thought the DI in this film looked a little too contrasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a DI have also been a factor because of all the sub-titles? I know in the old days subtitles meant another generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could a DI have also been a factor because of all the sub-titles? I know in the old days subtitles meant another generation.

 

Well, they were added to the 2nd generation, the master positive stage usually. So, now you would just make the hold out neg. and the blue title neg. digitally, but print it optically.

 

Apparently, still to this day, for some foreign releases it isn't even a photographic process used to add subtitles, just some sort of laser burner that burns the actual film base.

 

I guess that could have been a factor, though they seemed to be just straight, unmoving, yellow-colored titles at the bottom of the screen with a standard font.

 

Compare that to the much more stylized font-work in "Pulp Fiction" and the titles in this film were quite straight-forward. To put it another way, there was nothing that was "outside the box" with the titles in this film ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All around great film. Gorgeous cinematography, acting, writing, and especially directing. One of Tarantino's best. I thought Hitler's make-up was atrocious. He looked like Al Pacino in Dick Tracy. Really distracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again?

 

 

Whenever I feel that urge I watch 'There will be Blood."

 

I agree, it was contrasty, but for the most part it didn't bother me at all. Seemed to fit the often direct lighting style quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whenever I feel that urge I watch 'There will be Blood."

 

That was the last one I saw too.

 

Problem is: Without a 35mm projector in my home, how do I see sharp anamorphic prints?

 

 

As for the contrast in "Basterds" didn't mind it at all. Some people have criticized the unmotivated lighting in the film. While it was obviously stylized, I very much liked it. Hearkened back to early Daguerrotype portraiture I've seen where they used a hole in the ceiling as the light source.

 

I'm sure they were just using diffused HMIs here, but it very much looked like skylight in the opening scene in the farmhouse.

 

Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . .

 

September 2009, with "The Baader Meinhof Complex" on the cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . .

 

September 2009, with "The Baader Meinhof Complex" on the cover.

 

Just got finished reading it. They don't say why he chose to go through a DI, but there's some very interesting commentary from Yvan Lucas at Efilm who did it.

 

I also really like Robert Richardson's explanation for his affinity to muslin... no highlights coming back whereas plastic materials give a shine off the makeup or skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there were several factors why a DI finish was used. During the shooting of the film a Photochemical finish had been anticipated, and great care was taken during shooting to allow this. I think a combination of time constraints, subtitles, and 65mm material made going a DI route acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a great film and definitely a welcomed departure from 'Death Proof'. The film references particularly the German ones were fun to see and true Tarantino style to set most of the film in a cinema.

The fictitious nature of the film was done well by mixing some real people and situations into the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually wasn't speaking of those scenes. Those actually looked really great for focus - I was especially taking a look at those. I'm talking about I think later in the film that were just simply static shots. Kinda strange. I saw it at the Ziegfeld though, and I doubt it had anything to do with the projector or what have you.

 

I remember that shot,its the only one I notice to be soft

brad pitt kept taking steps towards the camera,and the last step he took must of been to close.

I agree with Jonathan on that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This film was probably the most fun I've had in a theatre in a while. Great tension as mentioned above, and a very 'smart' fillm, not the pointless bloodbath the trailer had me expecting.

 

I also enjoyed Richardson's work, although the heavy-top down didn't always cut it for me. There were some great, dramatic, almost noir feeling shots where heavy back/top light really worked wonderfully. However the scene that really bothered me was the very first, the conversation at the table, perhaps it was an overly bright projector, but that table was just so incredibly hot, and so obviously coming from source directly above. The scene being in an otherwise dim cottage, with windows on the sides, the light just seemed strikingly out of place. Perhaps you could say it was a skylight, but given how much brighter the table was than even the ext. seen through the windows, it didn't seem justified. However scenes such as the bar (particularly the SS agents introduction) made up for it.

 

 

in the recent ASC mag, richardson says he purposely kept hot top lights even though they where not justified,or not very natural?

he said he likes the mood it creates,and doesn't always try for naturalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may not have been a lot of effects, but the film looked pretty heavily graded to my eyes. Both overall looks (almost burnt yellow in the beginning and abundance of dark green/blue when the Basterds are in the filed) and secondary CCing (poping the blue in eyes) may have helped make the case for a DI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the recent ASC mag, richardson says he purposely kept hot top lights even though they where not justified,or not very natural?

he said he likes the mood it creates,and doesn't always try for naturalism

That's just part of his lighting style, he does it in every film. We might as well just call it the 'Bob Richardson effect'. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Tai Audio



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Abel Cine



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Visual Products



    The Original Slider



    Metropolis Post



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Wooden Camera



    G-Force Grips



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Just Cinema Gear



    Ritter Battery



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    FJS International



    Glidecam



    CineLab



    Serious Gear


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...