Jump to content

Lance Acord


Filip Plesha

Recommended Posts

I've just seen Lost in Translation again on DVD. The images fascinated me even more this time.

 

This is the only film in the last few years that I've just HAD to have in my collection of DVD's because of its cinematography.

 

It's so simple, yet beautifull. Natural available light chosen in very profound ways.

It felt like a beautifully shot documentary.

 

Really great movie, story and photography. My favorite of recent 3 years.

 

 

Anyway to get to the point.

In the Kodak DVD documentary "the difference" Lance Acord was talking how fast the stock that they have shot with was. He didn't say which stock was it, but If I remember correctly it was that low contrast low saturation stock that lasted for one year (was its number 5264?)

Anyway, he said that they were able to shoot night scenes even by stopping down to f4, which I find currious. Is Tokio at night really so bright?

 

I've never been to such a large city, but can you really shoot a night scene

with say ISO800 (he said the have rated it at more than 500ISO) at f4 at 1/50s?

 

At least where I live, road high pressure sodium lamps give you light for about 1600ISO with wide open lenses (f1.8) at 1/50s

 

I assume that all those neons and light ads in Tokio give extra light, but so much extra? 4 stops more than usual road lights?

Edited by Filip Plesha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I believe he used 5263, the ultra low-con 500 ASA stock Kodak had for awhile.

 

I'm sure there are parts of Tokyo that are so full of neon and flourescent signs that it's like Las Vegas or Times Square, and in those cases, one could stop down the lens with an 800 ASA on your meter to keep the colors from washing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The stock was 5263. There was an article in the AC about it.

 

I saw the film in the cinema and there it didn't look too good. The blacks were really weak and milky, and the whole thing felt like it wasn't lit at all (which it probably was), but in a bad way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well if the DVD is an indication of the intentions at color timing, then it must have been the print, cause the DVD has deep blacks

 

5263 didn't have great blacks -- that was one of its characteristics, a certain milky soft look. Plus pastel colors, grain, etc.

 

On a video transfer, you could make the blacks as black as you want, and standard def video won't really resolve much of the grain and the sharpness of even soft 35mm is more than adequate to look sharp on a TV.

 

That said, I felt the rough milky look of the prints was appropriate. Accord did something similar for the look of "Being John Malkiewicz" by underexposing 5277.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the film once on TV, an older TV with lower contrast, the second time I've seen it was on my computer on DVD.

Of course the computer DVD version had deep blacks and saturated colors compared to how I saw it on TV.

But since I've seen it both ways, I must agree with you, this film looks better with soft contrast. So I'm sad that I've missed the print

 

anyway, I like the images either way.

 

 

My favorite shots were that shot in the train where she is looking out and has headphones on her head.

Then that shot when she is sitting on the window and is looking out.

And those nighttime shots shot from the cab. Watching all those lights makes me feel like a mosquito being attracted to that glowing thingy that kills bugs

 

 

I understand that Lance shot "Buffalo 66" too, which, while being a complete oposite of this film in terms of the look, is also a film that I visually like because it is so gritty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've shot Tokyo twice and yes you would need to shoot at around T2.8 @ 500asa at least to retain the background colours.

 

As for LiT it certainly lost me, awful film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I felt the rough milky look of the prints was appropriate. Accord did something similar for the look of "Being John Malkiewicz" by underexposing 5277.

 

The print I saw of "In The Mood For Love" (some kind of a point of reference ?) had something of this quality too. (I was disapointed in that transfer a little --- to snappy)

 

I liked LIT really. A chamber film.

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the look of LIT was milky, and very low con, but not in a bad way. I rather enjoyed the simplicty of the look. It's usually what I strive for. Lance can wear different hats though...remember that Travis music video?

 

As far as the film itself, I felt it was a failure. The director displayed no control of the medium. Formally and structurally it offered nothing, and the script was a wanna be Antonioni film...except it was really cheesy and sentimental.

 

I recently saw "Last Life In the Universe." A Thai film that succeeded at being what LIT wanted to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...