Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[benfilm]

I cannot remember who said it (either Spielberg or Hitch) but they made it a point to say that every shot should be bookended compositionally.

Interesting. It would be great if you could post the source, so we could have Hitchcock's or Spielberg's complete discussion.

[J.R. Hud]

I will see if I can't track this down benfilm.

[Tom]

ha, nice. David himself got the 1000th post. :)

[supernovafilms]

Hi, just spent two days catching up on this thread and so wish more threads were as concise and interesting. Refreshing to see lack of flames and over opinionated POV's. My first question is in relation to reflecting off cards/boards for interiors. Have you tested or is there any knowledge on using boards that have gradients printed on them? To get that fall off affect? or is the effect just to soft to work with?

[David Mullen ASC]

Usually you would use a Double of Single Net flag to feather-off the intensity of a bounce or diffused light. A graduated bounce card would probably just be less efficient and less soft. I have wondered though about creating large grey cards, because sometimes a white card has the right amount of softness from a bounce, but is too bright.

[Phil Bates]

David,

I assume you have used the F900 in various shoots. Have you had problems with CA in some of the B4 zooms like the Fujinons? How big of an issue was it for you? Have you avoided these lenses because of this?

Thanks,
Phil
www.artbeats.com

PS: Will you be attending NAB?

[David Mullen ASC]

I've seen a little CA but not enough to bother me -- breathing is a much worse problem I think in some of the longer-ratio zooms.

No, I can't get to NAB this year -- I'm shooting a feature in Vancouver until mid-May.

[benfilm]

I was reading your interview on http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/mullen_interview.htm, and if I understand correctly, you mentioned something along the lines of telephoto lenses producing images which are both more abstract (hence potentially more pleasing as stand-alone images), and less immersive (hence less useful for pulling the audience into the film).

Is that correct, would you say that using a long lens is a short-term investment which produces a more pleasing frame on-the-spot, but ultimately hurts the immersion into the world of the story?

edit: I am asking this because I usually get this impression that deep focus and short lenses immerse the viewer better, but I sometimes get the opposite impression: that using a long lens with a very open framing on something which is geographically at the center of the scene (with other elements partially appearing only as non-specific blobs) gives this feeling of being at the heart the scene. It's a bit confusing: is there a general tendency of short lenses being just 'better' for the drama?


Thank you.

[supernovafilms]

Usually you would use a Double of Single Net flag to feather-off the intensity of a bounce or diffused light. A graduated bounce card would probably just be less efficient and less soft. I have wondered though about creating large grey cards, because sometimes a white card has the right amount of softness from a bounce, but is too bright.

Thank you. So how far from the reflected material would the net flag go generally. It there a percentage point between reflector and subject or is it just a matter of playing around to get the desired effect?

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally the net is far enough away from the bounce (or close enough to the subject being netted) that the object you don't want to get netted is facing the open gap between the net and the bounce card. If the net were just up against part of the card, all you are doing is making the bounce darker overall.

[David Mullen ASC]

I was reading your interview on http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/mullen_interview.htm, and if I understand correctly, you mentioned something along the lines of telephoto lenses producing images which are both more abstract (hence potentially more pleasing as stand-alone images), and less immersive (hence less useful for pulling the audience into the film).

Is that correct, would you say that using a long lens is a short-term investment which produces a more pleasing frame on-the-spot, but ultimately hurts the immersion into the world of the story?

Thank you.

I don't mean emotionally immersive, just physically immersive on the big screen, that a moving (forwards or back) wide-angle shot on the big screen tends to create a stronger sense of motion and mimics human viewing experiences, plus you often see more of the location surrounding the actor. However a long lens with shallow focus is more selective in what you see in focus, so that can also make an object stand out more for the viewer and perhaps minimize a distracting background. There is no right or wrong choice.

[Jason Ing]

What was the general rule of thumb for falloff (something to do with inverse...). Is there a more practical method of understanding and making use of it? I love the shadow falloff on classical paintings (they use candle light, right?)... but can that be created on set or is it done in post? My lights are always too bright, not bright enough, etc. I usually end up getting the level of control I want on my shadows in post. Maybe I just don't have enough equipment (flags, filters, scrims, nets, etc.)?

[supernovafilms]

If i could just add to jings comments. Do you sometimes use two light sources in order to create artificial fall off? I was looking at a highlight the other day with my own eyes (i think i was looking at a bird or something) and i noticed the highlight to my eye was really bright (blown out) right in the centre of the reflection from the sun, but detail just around this highlight was maintained in brightness. Could this be artificialy reproduced by having an ultrafine spot in centre and another light on the same point but a wider area?

[supernovafilms]

I just wanted to ask also, when you look at the world through your own eyes to determine lighting approaches do you consider perception and how that affects the dynamic range, as well as focus? If I can explain, I was driving around the other night and stopped at a set of traffic lights and as you do every now and then, I thought wow what a nice scene. So I thought how would I light the inside of the car to get this view? I looked outside onto the street and assuming that the vision of the story occurred outside (say a person walking past the car) but wanted to get it wide from the driver’s perspective. So in my peripheral vision, I noted how I saw my hands on the driving wheel in relation. As you can imaging the focus was out but also the steering wheel was fairly dark with no detail. So I changed focus onto the steering wheel and noticed there was very nice (and fine) detail on it and my hands (from the street lights above). So what I am trying to say without intending to create a complication is, If I lit this scene and I was considering reality perception, should I care less about lighting the wheel as I saw it when I was looking at it through the story's eyes or do I light it from the perspective of how I saw it when I focused upon it? I notice with a lot of reality cinematography the type you talk about and the current strong trend in "Hollywood" movies. Is that it doesn't necessarily take this perceptual illusion into consideration. It's not my intention to condemn or anything like that, rather, an artist wants to extend themselves, and so I just wanted to know have you had these thoughts and if so how do you approach it in lighting style? I can image coming up to a scene and saying to myself right this is what I see in the composition but in the story that may not be the POV of the plot line.

[karapetkov]

Offtopic:

I'd be also nice if we had a "Ask Steven Soderbergh Anything" thread, here at REDUser.

:).

[J.R. Hud]

Offtopic:

I'd be also nice if we had a "Ask Steven Soderbergh Anything" thread, here at REDUser.

:).

I'd ask him why he's so overrated.

[David Mullen ASC]

The inverse square law technically applies to a point source only, but it can loosely be applied to soft sources in that the fall-off is more dramatic when the subject is close to the source than when far away. In other words, someone's face only three feet from a 6'x6' soft light will get much brighter and darker when the person leans towards or away from that light, whereas a 12'x12' soft light farther away may produce a similar shadow softness... but the fall-off will be less dramatic as a person moves a few feet closer or farther away from the source.

There is no right or wrong amount of fall-off, it just depends on the shot and the scene action. Sometimes you want the fall-off to be less extreme because the dynamic range of the camera doesn't handle big jumps in brightness well.

As for the other question:
Some people will combine a soft key mixed with a hard light (usually an eyelight) to get a hard glint in the eye.

And the other:
Your eye has the ability to quickly shift focus and exposure as it glances around, which tends to average out or balance extremes in exposure, at least, it appears to. Sometimes you need to light a scene with a less extreme contrast range to simulate how your eyes can handle the range, other times you actually want to do an in-camera exposure change to compensate as your eye might when to glances from one area to another.

[J.R. Hud]

David

In the 80's there was this massive trend to use smoke to create some nice (and not so nice overkill) atmosphere.

Is smoke still widely used if even not terribly noticed or has that trend gone away ?

[David Mullen ASC]

I used smoke quite a bit on a couple of my recent features, so I'm still doing it... though probably in lighter levels than used in some 1980's movies. Certainly it's used less these days, except for period and fantasy films where you want shafts of light all the time.

But you still see smoke used a lot by Kaminski in Spielberg's movies, for example.

These days, smoke is reserved more for select scenes -- old basements, hazy bars (though no one is allowed to smoke anymore in many bars...), anything meant to look dusty, etc.

[Nick Wolf]

Hi David.

Do you know of any feature film that have been entirely shot and edited in camera....Basically one take-stop new setup, or freeze and then start?

I supose many super8 family films have that style and perhaps documentaries and there are several very famous long takes lasting much longer then 5 minutes without interuption, maybe more I have no idea.

But treating the subject in a scene and shifting focus to different objects without depending on panning or zooming but cutting in camera, as many cuts as a normal feature length film would have.

Have you played with this tecnique on your own?
what do you think it gives if anything?
Is there a theory behind it as with most other approaches to filmic grammar?
if so who has codified it?

Thanks very much for your wisdom and patience.

DogDay

[Joofa]

Do you know of any feature film that have been entirely shot and edited in camera....Basically one take-stop new setup, or freeze and then start?



DogDay

According to Wikipedia "at least two theatrically-released feature films, Timecode and Russian Ark are filmed in one single take."

[David Mullen ASC]

No. I've done it in a 1-minute Super-8 short film and it was a pain in the a--- because the character jumps from Los Angeles to Death Valley and then back to where they started, so I had to drive out there to Death Valley and then drive back just to shoot the cut back to the same shot.

There's no reason to shoot a feature this way. It makes sense in Super-8 mainly because it eliminates splices.

Doing a movie in one take is different than doing a feature-length movie with an average of 1000 cuts, but all cut in-camera. Besides, many cameras don't make clean cuts shot to shot, and most feature-length movies are not silent, but have dialogue, which makes all that cutting in-camera even harder.

[Joofa]

Doing a movie in one take is different than doing a feature-length movie with an average of 1000 cuts, but all cut in-camera. Besides, many cameras don't make clean cuts shot to shot, and most feature-length movies are not silent, but have dialogue, which makes all that cutting in-camera even harder.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the information. Makes sense.

[David Mullen ASC]

Besides, a movie all in one take is possibly striking -- but a movie with conventional cutting done in-camera? Wouldn't that just look rather ordinary? Besides, every cut would have to be a perfect first take! No second chances (unless shooting digitally and erasing the bad take.) You eliminate the ability to select takes for performance, build the tempo of the scene in post, etc. It's very hard to precut dialogue-driven performances.

[Nick Wolf]

Yes yes very funny example about driving back and forth...you really make your point.

But what I have noticed and would like to develope and explore is thi9s quality of an intuitive through line.

If the edits are basically arrived at academically albiet with the ingreidents of pre visualizing hence incorperating also the imagination they still somehow are informed by an arkive ( however remotely subconcious ) of schooled referances and yes hopefully even ones own collection of impressions from life itself. They often lack in the emotional immediacy of a more subjective approach IMHO.

There are the conventions and they work yes but in terms of finding definitive phrasing-sequences for the content at hand and finding a suitable form I find that this method is a great tool. Because it marrys both aspects of Photgraphy and editing at once. The decision is made in the instant based on the sensibility of who is there observing the situation. Subtext is what then informs and dictates movement or lack thereof or breaking of attention for how long etc etc etc

I really think that at a certain point the form will be looking to expand, how many variables really to choose from and to combine?

Am I making any sence at all?

I just have always felt a deep reluctance to working with camera men because of this issue of sencing one thing from a situation and wanting to follow that and then handing over a camera to another personality and findiong that frequency where they get what you get, its sencibility we are talking about and that has to do with something beyond tecnique, and in the heirachy of intrest I think ultimatly an audience wants to follow whats really going on...even if its through a key hole they will hush up and hunch over to get a peek.

If you go to a party or a wedding and you give the camera to an adult especially a trained adult you may have stunning images if on the other hand you hand the camera to a child very often there is an unbroken red through line that guides which images that are selected...The needs of the child are what dictate where they aim the camera...Dogs, cake, presents, windows, squirels, etc boring to us perhaps but for another child its riviting stuff.

Maybe the appeal of this method for me is that the invisible through line-point of view which can sometimes be very elusive to get and keep ahold of becomes the tight rope wire on which one is forced to balance on because its all you have to guide you through the seemingly random spectrum of choices that present themselves.

DogDay

David and Guys: Please dont get me wrong I love art and all types of beauty and have a huge respect for the craft of cinematography I am not talking about a handy cam free for all I am talking about exploring an aesthetic.

[Nick Wolf]

I am not arguing just taking the opportunity to discuss whats been on my mind with other folks interested in this craft.

I mean when trying to push the envelope and find new moves ( of course that serve the story ) but still new, meaning tailored and unik suited to the content...

Sometimes doing all the math in ones head can only get you so far and sometimes actually dealing in three dimensions with the material forces you to find unexpected solutions...I heard that in French Connection some of the scenes were blocked but not revealed to the DP before hand and he was forced to instantly follow depending on what his gut and intution told him was going to unfold...This as just a tool to find or stumble onto something freash instead of the established prefabricated solutions that alot of us myself included strive to emulate.

The film of Kennedy getting assasinated how text book is that? not very but never the less the compelling content overrides the heirachy of criteria informing how it "Should" have been properly filmed..."It" ( The subject ) is more important and thus the camera must align itself accordingly and not visa versa as is most mise-en-scene and framing is commonly approached.

DogDay

[David Mullen ASC]

You can certain try editing a movie in-camera, but I think you're probably just going to end up with a movie that looks poorly edited, not special or unusual or more artistic, just cruder and clumsier.

Now one variation that some people have experimented with is basically the live switching approach used by some soap operas and whatnot, which is basically multiple cameras feed to monitors and a switcher and the editing done live, though the cameras are also recorded individually so bad edits can be fixed later.

But again, given that some soap operas are essentially cut live, are they more artistic or is the editing particularly interesting for doing so?

There is a whole artform to editing in post that I don't see a valid reason for overturning or avoiding. Even after Hitchcock's experiments with the single-shot sequences in "Rope", he came to the conclusion that editing was one of the key artforms of cinema and it was silly to avoid it. And I don't see how editing in-camera is somehow better than editing in post. It would only be interesting for certain experimental projects where you were creating sort of a free-form montage of a complex event on the spot, and it would be hit or miss -- which is one of the things about moviemaking, generally you are trying to wrestle control over the process because the stakes are high. So there are limitations to leaving things up to fate and chance or luck.

But there's no harm in trying it once (editing in-camera) just to prove to yourself why it's generally not a good idea for narrative fiction films.

[Mike Prevette]

Dogday, your comment about being reluctant to hand the camera off is valid. Thats why this industry is based on relationships. You strive to find people that are on the same wavelength as you.

[davide]

In an interview on the Branded to Kill DVD, director Seijun Suzuki says that he edited in camera, or at least simply lined up all the raw footage in the order it was shot and made that the movie.

[David Mullen ASC]

That's not exactly the same thing, which is shooting in continuity. Certainly that involves some pre-visualization of the editing, but it's not the same thing as in-camera editing.

[Nick Wolf]

Maybe you have seen this before maybe not, its a film I did demonstrating this tecnique I am interested in developing more. The subject is abuse and delusion, it takes place in the inner landscape of a man haunted by his actions and in an attempt to justify his actions is locked into the loop of selective memory to survive the truth of what he has done...Its repulsive so please be warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0nrwN2O2U

I will be posting soon another film also entirely shot using this tecnique though of complete other subject and treatment.

In this film you watch ( everything cut in camera only speed change, titles, music added in computer ) I discovered that feeling the kinesthetic relationships first leads to organic sequences like in a dream, when we think of dreams we always focus on the visual aspect but actually so much of what conditions the particular dream you have is where you sleep and what position your body is in.

One thing that I stubled onto in this experiment is a move that corresponds to some dialogue that is really archetypical, which perhaps could have been arrived at conciously but isnt the creative unconcious always right? isnt that what Picaso meant when he said " I dont search I find "???

I get your points and they are valid but if we look at the evoluition of certain stylistic conventions didnt some of them occur as work arounds imposed by tecnical or financial limitations? hence the old saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention" ... So why not pre-emtivly purposfully construct obstructions in order to shake out some new solutions?

Finding intricate staging patterns that are unik and valid for the material and also consistant for 90-120 minutes is quite a task, because "Looks" cannot simply be approached cosmetically in terms of color---yes yes yes very important but just a fragment of the issue in creating a world and realm for a particular story.

I want to try an experiment where the staging comes about in layers, first silent, then deploying the dialogue in the appropriate image & moment, but construction a sequence with lip reading that corresponds to dialogue being spoken seems antiquated somehow. Why must we see people moving their mouths every time they utter something? isnt it time to put sound in its proper place in relation to image?

I really dont know what I am talking about so let the film speak for itself and I hope we are on speaking terms after you have viewed it.

DogDay

P.S. Mike-I never thought of it that way it makes total sence...In that case I feel very alone ... I wish my Dog Pepsi could be my DP because she is the only one I really feel in sync with, or maybe Gunleik I feel in many ways we see eye to eye.

[benfilm]

I am sorry if you have answered this question before (I haven't found anything with google).

Could you describe the most common mistakes of first-time directors? Especially the mistakes which require a lot of practice and attention to correct, not the technical mistakes that just require a few words on the set to correct.

In other words, what areas do you think first-time directors should focus on or pay attention to long before they get to the set?

Thank you.

[J.R. Hud]

Maybe you have seen this before maybe not, its a film I did demonstrating this tecnique I am interested in developing more. The subject is abuse and delusion, it takes place in the inner landscape of a man haunted by his actions and in an attempt to justify his actions is locked into the loop of selective memory to survive the truth of what he has done...Its repulsive so please be warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0nrwN2O2U

I will be posting soon another film also entirely shot using this tecnique though of complete other subject and treatment.

In this film you watch ( everything cut in camera only speed change, titles, music added in computer ) I discovered that feeling the kinesthetic relationships first leads to organic sequences like in a dream, when we think of dreams we always focus on the visual aspect but actually so much of what conditions the particular dream you have is where you sleep and what position your body is in.

One thing that I stubled onto in this experiment is a move that corresponds to some dialogue that is really archetypical, which perhaps could have been arrived at conciously but isnt the creative unconcious always right? isnt that what Picaso meant when he said " I dont search I find "???

I get your points and they are valid but if we look at the evoluition of certain stylistic conventions didnt some of them occur as work arounds imposed by tecnical or financial limitations? hence the old saying "Necessity is the Mother of invention" ... So why not pre-emtivly purposfully construct obstructions in order to shake out some new solutions?

Finding intricate staging patterns that are unik and valid for the material and also consistant for 90-120 minutes is quite a task, because "Looks" cannot simply be approached cosmetically in terms of color---yes yes yes very important but just a fragment of the issue in creating a world and realm for a particular story.

I want to try an experiment where the staging comes about in layers, first silent, then deploying the dialogue in the appropriate image & moment, but construction a sequence with lip reading that corresponds to dialogue being spoken seems antiquated somehow. Why must we see people moving their mouths every time they utter something? isnt it time to put sound in its proper place in relation to image?

I really dont know what I am talking about so let the film speak for itself and I hope we are on speaking terms after you have viewed it.

DogDay

P.S. Mike-I never thought of it that way it makes total sence...In that case I feel very alone ... I wish my Dog Pepsi could be my DP because she is the only one I really feel in sync with, or maybe Gunleik I feel in many ways we see eye to eye.

I've been following these last handful of posts Dogday and respectfully, what are you talking about ? :blink:

I have to fall on the side of a film being edited in-camera comes across as shoddy, but the real question I have is "Why?

What purpose does it serve ? I used to edit in-camera when I got my first Super8 because I had no choice at the time. When I finally got a little splicer my short films were much much more, not just from a technical or polished aspect, but from a creative side.

Editing always brings out the hidden layers of our films, things that may not have been discovered on set.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you would want to do this ? O course you are free to pursue any atack you want. Just curious. :blush:


I am sorry if you have answered this question before (I haven't found anything with google).

Could you describe the most common mistakes of first-time directors? Especially the mistakes which require a lot of practice and attention to correct, not the technical mistakes that just require a few words on the set to correct.

In other words, what areas do you think first-time directors should focus on or pay attention to long before they get to the set?

Thank you.


I'd like to see this addressed.

From my own experience, failure to make shot lists, lighting/ shot diagrams and lack of storyboarding have been my downfall.

[Nick Wolf]

J.R.

Thanks for asking ... I am not saying I am against editing I love the tools available and I love the process and also have the utmost regard for those who have mastered the art and craft of both Cinematography and Editing.

I am from the Theater and there its normal for moments of expressionism to break into a narrative. There is a nerve in the Theater of danger always present in the air at any moment someone could jump off the stage and grab a hold of you.

With film often its like with a message on an answering machine you dont quite have the same respect for the voice as you would face to face.

So these experiments are devised to find ways to get some more spontinety and danger into it...I think I will do rehersals using this tecnique to find my phrasing and then hone them maybe even story board them and then set up properly so every thing is lit right and smooth transitions etc. Its just a tool.

If you consider that actors ( myself being one of them ) use their imaginations to condition their behavior so that it coinsides with the fictive situation they are to be experiencing in a scene then I dont get why not do the same with the camera? to actually place it within the peramitors of a situation, isnt that a bit where the whole 3d thing is striving for? To enhance the viewer experience by breaking with traditional modes of capture? To somehow increase the subjectivity of the viewing experience so that identification can pull you in.

I think that when things get too standardized then conformity and predictability come in and take hold...Genre trends can be read as an escape from the monotony of basically seeing the same film again and again just with another line up...

Since there are so many elelments involved and since the constraints of economics have limited and hampered the developement of the form in many ways (or at least what it could have been these past hundred years had we had available yesterday what we have today ) ...Why not explore the other elements and let them perhaps become primary for certain types of moments in storys?

We are at the point where we accept films with talking Penguins and Insects etc I think we are all ok with two hours of agreed suspended disbelief as long as there is something of value to us somewhere either form or content wise.

So why not form experiments if they support the content? Look at the other art forms, Painting, Sculpture, Theater, Music, Architecture, Literature, Dance, Photography, So many styles to choose from even within the dominantly figurative ones so why not film?

Especially film which is really a magical hybrid of these other arts...

Just a thought...Whose time has come.

DogDay

David my appologies if this is high-jacking its unintentional but perhaps can be moved to another place if it is disruptive to the main flow of this one???

[J.R. Hud]

Thanks Dogday for that post. I can appreciate your desire to explore filmmaking in new ways.

David, I too am sorry to Jack.

[davide]

J.R.

If you consider that actors ( myself being one of them ) use their imaginations to condition their behavior so that it coinsides with the fictive situation they are to be experiencing in a scene then I dont get why not do the same with the camera? to actually place it within the peramitors of a situation, isnt that a bit where the whole 3d thing is striving for? To enhance the viewer experience by breaking with traditional modes of capture? To somehow increase the subjectivity of the viewing experience so that identification can pull you in.


How will the viewer know you are breaking from traditional modes of capture? Most viewers don't even know what that traditional process is. Maybe they have an idea of it, but not the whole picture. I understand that you want film to feel more spontaneous and real, but are you sure that editing in camera is the best way to achieve that? Editing-in-camera adds a sense of immediacy to the filmmaker but I don't think it translates to the audience. I think the film Naked felt more like a theater performance than almost any film I've ever seen. And that was done just like any other movie: the actors memorized their lines from a script and the film was edited in post production. But it felt real and immediate (or dangerous as you put it) because of the power of the script, the performances and the cinematography editing.

davide

[Zk2007]

David, do you have any tips for lighting small (location) rooms and avoid unwanted spill and shadows between walls and talent, in both directions? In a studio set where walls and ceiling is fake and you can light from above it's easier. But to light master shots on location when rooms are small is a challenge.

[David Mullen ASC]

Unless you can edit out the bad takes in camera, you're assuming that the first take will both be technically perfect (no mics dipping into shot, etc.) and the acting will be the best on the first take with no lines flubbed, etc.

This is where I think philosophy or ideology starts to get in the way of making a good movie. Sure, you may capture more spontaneity, which is why many directors shoot the rehearsal or use part of the first take in editing... but that only works for a certain percentage of the time. Ultimately if you've hired professional actors, they shouldn't have to rely on spontaneity and first impulses to get the scene right, they should be able to repeat and refine their actions for the camera. Plus there is the whole issue of directorial control over the process, which includes the acting. Sometimes a performance has to be tweaked to adjust the pace or keep in mind the bigger story arc of the movie, whereas acting is often "of the moment".

Plus some actors are good on Take One and the other actor in the scene is the best on Take Five, or whatever.

[David Mullen ASC]

I am sorry if you have answered this question before (I haven't found anything with google).

Could you describe the most common mistakes of first-time directors? Especially the mistakes which require a lot of practice and attention to correct, not the technical mistakes that just require a few words on the set to correct.

In other words, what areas do you think first-time directors should focus on or pay attention to long before they get to the set?

Thank you.

Pace, pace, pace. Both in the tempo of the scene and the tempo of the production. More first time directors have complained to me later that they didn't pay attention to the pacing of the scene, of the camera moves, etc. and were stuck in editing with scenes that played too slowly, and thus a movie that was too long, requiring whole scenes be dumped.

Also, another problem first time directors have is understanding how the movie will be cut and what will likely remain in the final movie -- they fall in love with everything: every scene, every line, every location, every shot. And you end up wasting a lot of time and effort of stuff that won't be in the final edit. Narrative flow in a movie, particularly a comedy but also genre movies like action or horror, is relentless, a train or shark that doesn't stop moving. Anything that impedes that movement is cut out in editing. So think about the fact that in post, you will probably jump into a scene as late as possible, and cut out as early as possible. All the dead wood is trimmed out. So think about what the story needs and don't get sidetracked.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, do you have any tips for lighting small (location) rooms and avoid unwanted spill and shadows between walls and talent, in both directions? In a studio set where walls and ceiling is fake and you can light from above it's easier. But to light master shots on location when rooms are small is a challenge.

First, avoid white walls -- darker walls deal with spill better and fall-off faster naturally. Second, don't overlight -- don't solve a problem by adding another light, which needs another flag, etc. Move the key light around until it solves most of your problems. Of course, careful use of flags and nets are critical too.

[Nick Wolf]

Pacing...I read somewhere that De Niro did certain scenes in Once Upon A Time I America to music...Would that work to get the fragmented elements into a sort of cohesive Rythm-Pace? its one thing for a music video when you have play back but for narrative work how do you solve that issue? I mean so much else is measured is the timing also measured and how? or is it simply feeling it when you do it?

Is this what is meant by orchestration? If you are looking over your script and your boards and making decisions for color scemes etc are you also making rythmic and pacing decisions? or are you shooting dry and letting the editor set that sequence up so that the pacing works?

DogDay

[TheDigitalWizard]

Hey David, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about Scarlet? Do you think, based on the specs red has given us, that it would be something that could be used to shoot feature films? I know it's not about the camera so much as the story, but do you think you might like to use it at all?

[Zk2007]

First, avoid white walls -- darker walls deal with spill better and fall-off faster naturally. Second, don't overlight -- don't solve a problem by adding another light, which needs another flag, etc. Move the key light around until it solves most of your problems. Of course, careful use of flags and nets are critical too.

Thanks David. I just find it difficult to light for example a master shot in a small bathroom for example, when you can't have light hanging from the ceiling. pretty much anywhere you put the key will cast the actor's shadow on the wall, unless it's coming from the top, which is not always possible or from the camera axis, which would make it flat. If you want a side or 3/4 key it will most likely shadow the wall. Now when the walls need to be dark, like in lighting a dark scene, the problem is even harder to solve. Lighting background and talent separately in a small room is a nightmare. Do you know what I mean?

[J.R. Hud]

It is also prudent to light the shot as motivated as the presumed (established) light source. A Lamp, maybe sunlight coming through the window or light coming in throug hthe doorway ....

How much light can a small room have in reality ? Always look at the light in the scene and start from there.

[Michael Grugal]

Mr. Mullen, sir. How is "Jeniffer's Body" coming along? What week are you in?

[David Mullen ASC]

In a small space it becomes even more critical to find the right space with the right practical lamp in the right place so that it looks good just with the practical light. If I have to dolly 360 degrees around someone at a desk at night, for example, I will look at a lot of desk lamps to find one that can do most of the lighting for me.

[David Mullen ASC]

Mr. Mullen, sir. How is "Jeniffer's Body" coming along? What week are you in?

I'm just finishing Week Five. Three more to go. We are just finishing our last day of all-night shooting, after two weeks of it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey David, I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about Scarlet? Do you think, based on the specs red has given us, that it would be something that could be used to shoot feature films? I know it's not about the camera so much as the story, but do you think you might like to use it at all?

Any camera can or has already been used to shoot a feature film, including some cheap consumer video cameras, so there is no reason why you couldn't make a feature with the Scarlet.

Personally, I don't like using really small cameras for shooting features myself; they are great for running around handheld with but often hard to use on dollies doing smooth moves w/ complex operating and focus-pulling (I'm speaking of the limitations of using small DV cameras.) Not that some people don't pull it off.

The lack of an interchangeable lens is the only issue about the Scarlet that concerns me because I can't predict on a feature what sort of lenses the director will want to use.

So it really depends on the nature of the production and the style of filmmaking to be employed. If I'm going to do something in a classic narrative style, hardly any handholding, etc., then I'd probably want a more conventional camera design. If I'm going to do something for small-scale, intimate, running around in small spaces, etc. then the Scarlet design might be great for that sort of stuff.

[David Mullen ASC]

Pacing...I read somewhere that De Niro did certain scenes in Once Upon A Time I America to music...Would that work to get the fragmented elements into a sort of cohesive Rythm-Pace?

DogDay

There is the famous example of the climax to "Black Narcissus" being acted (silently) to music being played on the set (the score was composed in advance for the scene).

But I'm not talking about anything that specific, just being aware of the tempo of the scene and asking yourself if you will be happy with it when you get into the editing room, especially if the scene or the movie runs long. It's more obvious in cases, like, when a 2-page dialogue scene takes four minutes to play out, then you have to ask yourself if the actors are indulging themselves too much.

One expression Alexander Mackendrick used to use with actors was "sooner, not faster". Meaning, don't act the scene faster in speed, but make your mental choices moment by moment sooner before you speak and move. Think faster, don't talk and move faster.

[benfilm]

Thank you very much. Otsukaresama.

[benfilm]

Could you elaborate on what factors determine the choice between the 1.85 and 2.35 ratios -- what enters into consideration, and what the advantages and drawbacks of each ratio are?

Things like the apparent (to me) need to move further from the action with 2.35 when one wants to show the physical layout of the scene [simply because of reduced vertical space], so that the actor's behaviours are more difficult to read. Is that a factor or am I somehow mistaken?

Thank you.

[J.R. Hud]

Great question Benfilm

I asked this at DVXUSER in 2006 and posted this list regarding Steven Spielberg

This may have gotten lost Cheese; what's your opinion on this? Steve shot Scope the first 7 / 10 times and only 3 of the last 13 times

I can't see any ryme or reason to the choices. Can you ?

Maybe throw Indy and Jurassic out of the equation due to sequel purposes

Munich 2:35:1
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
AI 1:85:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Amistad 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Hook 2:35:1
Always 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
E.T. 1:85:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
1941 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
Jaws 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1

Here is the thread:

http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=697764&highlight=schindlers#post697764

-

Love to hear David's thoughts on this !

[Zk2007]

In a small space it becomes even more critical to find the right space with the right practical lamp in the right place so that it looks good just with the practical light. If I have to dolly 360 degrees around someone at a desk at night, for example, I will look at a lot of desk lamps to find one that can do most of the lighting for me.

Yep, that works sometimes. But like the other day I had to light a bathroom day interior and the window took a whole side of the wall, so when we filmed to that side, the actor had to be backlit by it to make sense. I added a kicker from the top coming from the window just above frame but it gets hard to add a key since you can't really have a light coming from the side wall, unless you have a practical there and in this case we couldn’t add one. Then for the reverse when the actor was facing the window, he normally should be flat, but you don't really want that, and again you can't give him a side key. I hate working in spaces like that.

[benfilm]

Thank you for the link, J.R. Hud. It seems against the general trend to shoot big epic films like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds in 1.85, but the reason might be simple. Someone at the forum you linked to mentioned that Spielberg said he preferred 1.85 simply because it looked more like the human eye.

Also, someone else mentioned that Kaminski said he and Spielberg shot War of the Worlds in 1.85 simply because the aliens were tall, so with 1.85 you could include them more easily in the frame. The same argument goes for the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park.

Still, 2.35 definitely looks 'better' to many people, and I don't think it's only because of the association with epic films. It looks intrinsically better, maybe because, for some reason, we pay more attention to horizontal information, so 2.35 feels more immersive.

[David Mullen ASC]

There is no right or wrong choice regarding aspect ratio, just personal taste and personal justifications for one format over another.

You can either think on 2.35 as being wider or less tall than 1.85. You say that you need to move back further with 2.35 to keep the same vertical view, but you can also move closer with 2.35 in some cases because of the wider horizontal view. For example, James Ivory, when he made "Howard's End" in 2.35 (Super-35), noticed that he could hold two people side by side (like at a dinner table) in a tighter shot in 2.35 whereas he'd have to pull back wider to hold two side-by-side people in 1.85.

"Waterworld" shot in 1.85 because the director said a ship on the ocean is naturally vertical, whereas Ridley Scott made "White Squall" around the same time, another ship on the ocean movie, in 2.35 and didn't seem to have problems framing a ship at sea - there was just more ocean on the sides of the frame.

Spielberg started out shooting his movies in 2.35 anamorphic because that was common for studio movies of the 1970's, and his first DP, Vilmos Zsigmond, was famous for his scope movie work for Robert Altman around that time. Then after he did "Raiders of the Lost Ark", he did "E.T" with DP Allen Daviau, who was not as big a fan of anamorphic lenses nor anamorphic projection in theaters. So he and Spielberg started making their movies in 1.85 (actually with a 1.66 hard matted gate). This was also a time in the 1980's when scope photography was on the decline for awhile, partly due to the rise of home video and the lack of letterboxing as an option for release. Spielberg also once said that he worked faster in 1.85 because he had less of the frame to compose for, deal with, fill, etc.

But with the rise of Super-35, some of the objections that some directors had to working with anamorphic lenses went away (since they could shoot with spherical lenses), plus 2.35 became popular again (along with anamorphic lenses) in the 1990's because of movies like "Dances with Wolves" and "JFK", and letterboxing as an option on laserdiscs and then DVD's.

After avoiding anamorphic for years, Spielberg and Kaminski returned to it for the new "Indiana Jones" movie, partly I think just for the continuity factor for how the other three Indiana Jones movies were shot by Slocombe.

[Tom]

David did you catch that piece about Searchers 2.0 in AC? Some really top rate guys went out with prosumer cameras and shot a feature for under 200K. Apparently, according to the article, they got some great shots of Monument Valley and stuff. I'm definitely going to try to find this one on bluray or dvd, or at the arthouse.

[benfilm]

Thank you again. Otsukaresamadeshita.

[LEON]

I have a question:
I work mainly in Europe (PAL tv 25)
if i start a RED project made for printing on film, my impression is that I should set the Project Frame Rate at 24 because i do not like the idea of the film slowed down when screened,
but what happens to the same editing transfered on HD tape for delivering to TV ?
Is there a risk of jump frame, saccades visible in certain shots or will it run smoothly ? ( I don't mind the slight 4 or 5 % acceleration)

[DorkmanScott]

If you're sanguine about the 4% speed increase in home video, then you're good to go. That's the only effect you'll see. With the 1:1 frame mapping you shouldn't see any additional artifacting.

[Zk2007]

David, do you have any tips to speed up the lighting process?
We are shooting a short right now and I can already see we are going to go over schedule. It's just been incredibly slow with an average of 4-5 set ups a day. We are using a dolly and tracks quite a bit and sometimes a dolly with a jib arm, but I guess the lighting is what is taking the longest. It's all day and night interiors with very stylised lighting. I'm already getting prepared to start rolling without the lighting being ultra perfect, but would you have any tips that could speed up the lighting process? The crew is pretty small. It's a DP/Cam op. AC, two PAs, AD, scripty and a soundman. Shot in HD.

[ldill]

David,
Can you recommend your three favorite books on cinematography or instructional DVDs from beginner to advanced? Also, is there any must have tools that you recommend to become a great cinematographer like yourself.
thanks!
lonny

[acehole]

Bout time this thread stuck!

[Jason Ing]

Finally! :)

[Rudi Herbert]

I have a question: I work mainly in Europe (PAL tv 25)
if i start a RED project made for printing on film, my impression is that I should set the Project Frame Rate at 24 because i do not like the idea of the film slowed down when screened

Leon, as far as I know, most film projection in Europe is also done at 25fps, so unless you're thinking of crossing over the Atlantic, you should not worry about it.

[Mat@imageWork]

Hi David,

Thanks to be here and listen to us. Me and my DP try to get a organic look and feel from the RED. We agree together to say, there is something missing compare to 35 mm, something too krisp, too perfect, too numeric. We can pointed the dynamic range (11 stops), the way the highlight are handle. We shoot with zeiss master prime and see all default on the skin ( most of the time close-up). Recently, we saw a commercial here (nestcafé) shoot in anamorphic with LOMO lenses (old russian lenses, for other people here) Result are really good, because those lenses loose details, desaturate color, and give an overall organic effect.

I would like to get your impression, and a way to optimize result form your experience. Optimize results to reach a 35 mm film look.

Thanks in advance and sorry if you have already heard 1000 time this question.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just keep in mind that if you plan on transferring to 35mm negative for printing, some "texture" (i.e. grain) will be added and some softening will happen in projection, so that may be enough of the "film look" added for you.

If you are shooting for digital projection or HDTV broadcast, then you may want to experiment with diffusion filters and/or older lenses for a softer look. I find a #1/8 ProMist (or the similar #1 GlimmerGlass) does a nice job of taking the edge off of things without being too much diffusion.

Otherwise, I tend to believe that you should embrace some of the unique characteristics of the format you are using, otherwise you'll never be happy.

[karapetkov]

Bout time this thread stuck!

Yeah!

And the Bayer thread by Mr. Nattress, maybe.

I see a zillion similar threads from now on.

[benfilm]

My question is rather off-topic and somewhat vague.

I am having trouble writing bad guys in a contemporary western setting, especially when the bad guy is the main source of opposition in the story: many of the well-known ones are psychos or serial killers (Silence of the Lambs) or just gangsters, which I am not really interested in. They don't fascinate me at all: psychos are boring to me, and I am not really drawn to the crime/gangster world.

The bad guys I find interesting tend to come from different worlds (and be somewhat cartoonish), like Amon Goeth (Schindler's List) or very cartoonish people like Agent Smith from the Matrix. Even a well written and more or less 'normal' (not the psycho/serial killer type) bad guy like Hans Gruber from Die Hard feels like an uninteresting plot-device to me: he's just after some money, and he doesn't fascinate me at all somehow.

Maybe I have trouble writing them because a bad guy who lives in the world we live in feels too 'real' and I have trouble understanding/identifying with him, so it's difficult to write him.

Any advice/insight?

Thank you (obviously I welcome answers from everyone).

[Nick Wolf]

I think one of the main charatceristics of true bad guys is their lack of insight into themselves...They have no reason to change or question their behavior or motives...Evil resides in innocense...You need inspiration...Look into the mirror and dont look away untill you find your fault begin from there...The old adage of it takes one to know one is a key tool for any writer or creator after all its all about you even when its not.

DogDay.

[benfilm]

Thanks. I don't know if I even want a bad guy anymore, but building a strong unique source of opposition without one seems difficult to me.

I need to ruminate about all this.

[David Mullen ASC]

Generally you think of it in terms of the protagonist and his goals, versus the antagonist and how he works to keep the protagonist from achieving his goals, rather than think of it as a good guy vs. bad guy issue.

[David Mullen ASC]

David,
Can you recommend your three favorite books on cinematography or instructional DVDs from beginner to advanced? Also, is there any must have tools that you recommend to become a great cinematographer like yourself.
thanks!
lonny

My favorite cinematography books are not necessarily technical, some are more just artistically motivational.

"Masters of Light", a series of interviews with DP's in the early 1980's, was a major source of inspiration for me.

"Film Lighting" by Kris Malkiewicz also, a mix of interviews and technical info.

For a general overview, I can recommend both "Cinematography: The Third Edition" by myself and Malkiewicz, and also Blain Brown's "Cinematography".

But the truth is that I've read almost every book on the subject because I love the subject, so there's no way three books is ever going to satisfy you if you love the topic.

"Visions of Light" is a very inspirational documentary.

I also like these books: "Cinematography Screencraft", "Image Control", an old 1970's British book called "Practical Motion Picture Photography", "Matters of Light and Depth".

[Tom]

David, didn't you mention a while back that you have a copy of Almendros's "Man with a Camera"? If you have read it, is it more about his life, or cinematography, or both?

[ninefifteen]

David,

I've been following this thread for a while and have been learning a lot. I appreciate an artist who is so generous with their time and knowledge.

I am shooting a short on Red in July that will be shot almost entirely in controlled interiors. The look I am going for is a cross somewhere between Todd Field and Antonio Calvache's work on "In The Bedroom" and "Little Children" and the work of a photographer named Gregory Crewdson.

Crewdson usually constructs his sets on sound stages and shoots with a cinematographer and lighting crew. I want to channel the darkness in his interiors and the way it's cut with the light from the windows while utilizing a few random practicals for highlights. I've attached one of his photographs below.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0703/amstaged_0305.jpg

The question I have is concerning lenses. Right now I am looking at either getting a Zeiss super-speed set (18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) or four Zeiss Master Primes. I know I will need the T1.3 for the low light and the extremely shallow DOF but I am wondering which glass is going to give me the clearest and sharpest image in low light. I want to avoid grain and noise at all cost.

The set of super-speeds will cost me a little more than half of what the the four master primes will, but I am wondering if it would be worth the quality. I'd love any advice you might have. Also, if you had to pick three or four of the master primes to shoot interiors and close-ups with, which ones would you have on hand?

Thanks again for your time and this excellent thread.

Rob
Nine Fifteen Productions

[David Mullen ASC]

If you need a sharp image at T/1.3, definitely use the Master Primes if you can afford them. I generally try and avoid opening up a Super-Speed faster than a T/2.0-2.8 split, because they get soft below that.

But if you don't mind softness, the Super-Speeds wide-open can be pretty.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, didn't you mention a while back that you have a copy of Almendros's "Man with a Camera"? If you have read it, is it more about his life, or cinematography, or both?

It's another great book, very inspirational, more about his growing philosophy over the years towards lighting and filmmaking, and about the directors he has worked with.

[ninefifteen]

David,

Thanks for the quick reply. I think I will go with the Master Primes. Could you suggest three or four focal lengths you'd use for interior shoots?

Rob

[David Mullen ASC]

18mm, 27mm, 35mm, and 50mm -- if you can live without a longer lens for close-ups. Otherwise add a 75mm to that.

[Wheatloaf]

Hi David,

Thanks so much for this thread. It continues to be edifying and inspiring!

My question is more about your process as an artist than anything technical.

I find that I am consistently disappointed by the things that I miss in my planning and on the day, and as a result I never feel satisfied with my pictures. I see all the things that are missing, or the opportunities that were not picked up. If the subject lighting is satisfactory, there is a flat wall somewhere, or an opportunity for foreground that I didn't think of. The missing eyelight or kicker that would have really popped the actor in an important scene... the realisation that if you had just tweaked the blocking a bit you could have incorporated another important or pretty element and taken the shot to the next level. The bump in the move, the flat background, the great idea thought of too late.

These things irk me to no end, and I'm never happy with my pictures no matter how anyone else feels. I love what I do, and I put all of myself into it so it's hard when it feels like it's not at the level it could be.

Does this mellow with age and experience? Or does it just slowly drive you insane?

Thanks again!

[David Mullen ASC]

I feel the same way you do every night when I get back from shooting.

[Wheatloaf]

:( I was afraid you would say that!

At least it is somewhat comforting to know that we, and others like us, are in the same boat.

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't used any IR filters yet.

[Pawel Achtel]

David,

What is your experience and opinion about differences in optical performance between Ultra Primes and Master Primes at the long end, say 135mm or 180mm Ultra Prime versus 100mm or 150mm Master Prime. Is there enough contrast and corner resolving power differences to justify the extra cost of Master Primes? Say I would like to use them between f/2.8 to f/11, no need for T/1.3. Can you estimate (in ballpark) corner resolving power in lp/mm at f/2.8 for those lenses? Would the camera resolution be a limiting factor or the glass? Also, what about contrast differences at lower frequences?

Also, any other differences you can think of, like mechanical, etc...

Many thanks in advance.

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't made a direct comparison, but it would be simple to go to a rental house and put the two lenses up on a lens projector bench and look at the resolution differences. My gut impression, having used both on my last feature (but only three days with the Master Primes) is that the Master Primes may be a touch more contrasty / less flarey than the Ultra Primes. They may have some other improvements in terms of distortion, etc. but if you don't need T/1.3, I'm not sure I could justify the extra cost if budget was an issue (if budget wasn't an issue, the only argument I can see against the MP's are the extra size & weight compared to UP's.)

I'm not a lens fanatic -- if I get to rent any of the decent (i.e. expensive) prime lenses out there, Primos, Ultra Primes, S4's, etc. -- I'm usually happy. They all work for the majority of what I have to do. There are real world factors that will mitigate differences that you can see by shooting charts, so I try to not get to anal retentive about it. But then, I'm not evaluating them for purchase.

[Harry Clark]

I would suspect that corner resolution and distortion are mostly phenomena associated with wider focal lengths. Longer lenses usually have more of an issue with portholing wide open.
I've not seen any portholing on longer Master or Ultra Primes.
Contrast aside, I would not be surprised if the difference between Ultras and Masters 135 and 180 at a 2.8 is small.
Cheers,
Harry

[benfilm]

You previously recommended Alexander Mackendrick's Sweet Smell of Success to learn about blocking the actors to the camera, and I have learned a lot from this movie. Could you recommend others but with 2.35 cinematography (apart from Spielberg's movies)? 2.35 framing appears to require more thought and hence more practice.

Also, having different story elements at different depths simultaneously in acceptable focus seems to give a vivid feeling of being in the scene: do you have any special advice/examples producing this effect? (apart from, I suppose, using shorter lenses and stopping down the lens)

Thank you.

[Johan Pabon]

Hi David,

I've got a question so stupid that I hardly dare to put it on your forum, but here we go:

A stubborn photographer friend of mine keeps on telling me that photography lenses are not as good as cinema lenses. I've not worked with cinemalenses a lot but my answer is:

1) Cinemalenses in most cases are used with smaller stops, so they need to be better from the lowest stop.

2) Cinemalenses have to run more smoothly because you pull the focus and you use the zoom during a shot.

3) It would be stupid to run million dollar movies with cheap lenses.

4) Any unsharpness on a negative has more to do with movement than with the quality of the lens.

Can you give me some more arguments so I can really finish the discussion?

Thanks beforehand,

Johan Pabon

[David Mullen ASC]

Someone once said that putting the final 5% of extra quality in a lens is responsible for 90% of the cost.

This is why if you aren't looking at critical things, you wonder why a cine lens is so much more expensive than a still camera lens.

You listed most of the issues. Cine lenses have elements that move during the shot, not between the shots. This is even harder to deal with if you are making zoom lenses. A still camera doesn't care if there is side-to-side tracking problems as you zoom the lens, or breathing problems as you rack-focus the lens, or even exposure loss at the extreme end of the zoom.

Most people don't focus still camera lenses based on the distance markings on the barrel. In 35mm movie photography, focus is constantly being adjusted and if you tape measure that an actor in a close-up is 4' 5" away and leans forward to 4' 8", you want to be able to find those marks on a lens. Plus how long it takes you to rotate a lens barrel from minimum focus to infinity affects the feeling of a focus rack -- if the barrel rotation is too short, you feel the focus racks more because you snap more quickly from one point of focus to another, not roll into them.

Fewer cine lenses are sold than still camera lenses, so economies of scale come into play in terms of cost of manufacturing -- cine lenses are hand-built one by one, not mass-produced.

Because cine lenses tend to have to be physically larger, to allow bigger barrels and better distance markers, plus design out distortions and give you more speed, etc. -- they also have to be built stronger, more robust, so that the extra size and weight doesn't cause the lens to fall apart when put on a camera mounted to a car during a bumpy ride, for example.

And finally, the degree of magnification of a 35mm cine frame (half that of a 35mm still camera frame) to fill a 75' wide cine screen is quite extreme, so subtle lens defects become more pronounced.

And yes, there is a lot more shooting at wide apertures because you don't have the advantage of just using longer shutter speeds.

[David Mullen ASC]

You previously recommended Alexander Mackendrick's Sweet Smell of Success to learn about blocking the actors to the camera, and I have learned a lot from this movie. Could you recommend others but with 2.35 cinematography (apart from Spielberg's movies)? 2.35 framing appears to require more thought and hence more practice.

I recommend watch Kurosawa's 2.35 movies from "Hidden Fortress" to "Red Beard" to see the how of longer telephoto lenses for staging.

Leone's Techniscope westerns.

David Lean's widescreen movies.

Nicolas Ray was considered a master of widescreen in the 1950's from dramas like "Rebel without a Cause" to epics like "King of Kings".

Michael Mann / Dante Spinotti use the widescreen frame in interesting abstract ways in "The Insider" and "Heat".

[Johan Pabon]

Thanks very much, very logical, I wouldn't have thought of some aspects you mentioned.

[Mat@imageWork]

Just keep in mind that if you plan on transferring to 35mm negative for printing, some "texture" (i.e. grain) will be added and some softening will happen in projection, so that may be enough of the "film look" added for you.

If you are shooting for digital projection or HDTV broadcast, then you may want to experiment with diffusion filters and/or older lenses for a softer look. I find a #1/8 ProMist (or the similar #1 GlimmerGlass) does a nice job of taking the edge off of things without being too much diffusion.

Otherwise, I tend to believe that you should embrace some of the unique characteristics of the format you are using, otherwise you'll never be happy.

I'm agree with you concerning the unique characteristic of the format. I just think that audience see tons of TV stock shoot on HD. They also see movies. The perception with digital cinematography tends to associate the specific digital cinematography to network and 35 mm to story and movies. This how I feel when I see a movie. The overall perception comes probably with DOF and dynamic range. Probably... As director, I don't want mismatch the perception of the story. What is your perception?

[David Mullen ASC]

There are textural differences between digital and film, and 2/3" HD versus 35mm in particular, and you can work to de-emphasize or emphasize the differences according to the needs of the project... but I feel that if you absolutely need your project to look 100% like film you should shoot it on film.

Some viewers are more attuned to those differences than others. I'm sure a large percentage of people watching "21" or the Jackie Chan film "The Forbidden Kingdom" were not aware that they were shot digitally instead of on film, or that "Deception" was half on film and half digital. The differences are there -- mitigated by the depth of field of the Genesis since it has a 35mm sensor -- but for most viewers, they are subtle.

And viewers are seeing more and more digital footage in movies every day, so each passing year, they are more conditioned to see digital images in moving pictures. And while that is happening, digital cameras get closer and closer to a film look. So while a digital movie shot in interlaced-scan HD in 1999 would be quite distinctive compared to a traditional 35mm movie, and slightly less so with 24P HD that came out in 2000, and even less so with even better digital cameras, some with 35mm sensors... you see where this is going. Most people are not going to notice the final transition to digital cinematography for movies when it finally comes.

And in the meantime, either shoot film if that's absolutely the look you want, or shoot digital, minimize any aspects you don't like, embrace the ones you do like, and figure a lot of people aren't going to be thrown off either way if you get in the ballpark of a film look.

I mean, how many people who watched "Superbad" were thrown off by the fact that it was shot digitally? Or "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story"? Or the upcoming "Get Smart"? You see the trailer for that and you don't think "digital".

On the other hand, "Speed Racer" is clearly going for look that is uniquely digital.

[Mat@imageWork]

Many thanks David,

We're schedule to shot a side-by-side comparison of 35mm and RED based on same aperture, same lenses, same light, same subject. I will post here to get your feedback. Actually, the only think that still makes me "feel digital" is the way the highlight are handle. There is a gap without softness when the higlight clamped. On an high-reflective object, a RED loose information. I just don't like it very much....

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't say there are many times when the lack of overexposure latitude of all digital and HD cameras could be considered a "plus" over film...

But the problem can be minimized through exposure, lighting, filtration, etc.

[Johan Pabon]

David, I had a look at your website and read a lot of your posts. Reading all of them at once seems impossible because I stepped in later. Things I noticed is that you like vivid light when you can use it, that you find it hard to come to terms with security (nowadays) and more expression (formerly) with lack of equipment and youth that you sometimes wish back.
I like the perspective you use. Camerawork serves the bigger goal. It's all about the story.
You sometimes refer to meaningfull books.
How about writing one in the perspective of Red Camera, using our questions?
And by the way: I read you like the Japanese Cinema. I like the story of Narayama. Saw it five times one after another.

[el_duderino]

I didn't notice Superbad was shot digitally. I was too busy laughing.

[davide]

Hi David,

I saw your posts on this thread about deep focus color cinematography on the Cinematography forum: http://www.cinematography.net/CML%20Dearth%20of%20Deep%20Focus.htm

I was wondering if you had some examples of films which you thought were able to accomplish this look and make it loog good via very well thought out art direction.

[David Mullen ASC]

Not a lot of examples of deep focus color cinematography for interior scenes these days, except for the occasional trick deep-focus shot, like when using split-diopters and slant-focus lenses.

One DP who was fairly consistent about lighting to high f-stops in color was Douglas Slocombe ("Raiders of the Lost Ark") -- "Lady Jane" is an interesting example of a candlelit period movie shot in high light levels with deep focus. Or at least, for a number of scenes.

The first Adams Family movie, the portions shot by Owen Roizman, had some deep focus photography. So did some of "The Quick and the Dead", shot by Dante Spinotti. Both benefitted from a somewhat monochromatic production design so that all that in-focus background was not distracting (unlike the current deep-focus color movie out right now in theaters, "Speed Racer", which is quite an eyeful of aggressive color and detail.)

[J.R. Hud]

Okay David

This one's a visual.

In Steve and Janusz's War of the Worlds I always notice the following shot. I have always joked that it is Spielberg putting in some sacred Hebrew text ...

Is this silk ? A filter ? What exactly ?

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2928/after1bs.jpg

[David Mullen ASC]

Some shots used a net filter in front of the lens, others used a Classic Soft filter.

Netted shots:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw2.jpg

Classic Soft filters:
http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/wotw5.jpg

[Tabula Rasa]

Hi David Mullen!

I am a film student who right now is researching deep focus. I just saw the the 7-minute preview of Speed Racer that Warner Brothers made available online, where there is one striking deep focus shot. Then I checked out this thread and saw that you mentioned the deep focus look of this film.

http://vidvinkel.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/picture-1.png

Here is my question to you:
Is the shot above achieved with the use of greenscreen? Or is it captured by the use of enormous amounts of light and small apature?

Question 2:
I read you post about the telephoto deep focus look of Akira Kurusawa's Red Beard, but i can't find it again. So I wonder which lenses Kurusawa used? 200 mm +? Which lightning levels? f22?

Sincerly,
Tabula Rasa

[David Mullen ASC]

I suspect that shot from "Speed Racer" is a composite.

"Red Beard" used long lenses, sometimes a 500mm anamorphic, often lit to f/22.

[J.R. Hud]

I love the 'Split Diopter' technique (if even a composite).

-

Thanks David for the WotW answer. I love the look.

[Tabula Rasa]

Thanks for the answer, Mr Mullen. :) To use a 500 mm anamorphic lens and get focus in all planes sounds very impressive. That set must be a hot place to be!

Maybe the answer to the Speed Racer-question is revealed in the latest number of American Cinematographer. I wonder if I should buy it online.

I love the 'Split Diopter' technique (if even a composite).

Split Diopter? I'm not a professional, but I can not spot any indication of use of diopter. The wall with the drawings is in focus on both left and right side of the girl's face.

Loved your blog, J.R. Hud! It must be the only of its kind on the web!

[Evin Grant]

Although I suspect David is right (who am I to question him?) bare in mind that Speed Racer was shot on the F-23, a 2/3" camera, it would be much easier to get the DOF in this shot on that format.

[Rudi Herbert]

I agree with that, monochromatic backgrounds make a big difference when using hyper focus. After all, the most touted example of this technique, Citizen Kane, is a black and white film, and you can see how as the scene moves deeper, the colors tend more towards greys and blacks, as opposed to lighter tones in the foreground, in fact somehow "homogenizing" the background to keep it from interfering with the points of attention intended.

Another famous user of this technique, Sergio Leone, cleverly positioned his actors in front of vast expanses where the backgrounds were always arid landscapes far away from the actors, whose faces furthermore usually filled up half the screen real estate, so as to not allow the background to diverge the viewers' attention while still keeping everything in focus. For the interiors, Leone was also smart in that, although he still tried to keep everything is as much focus as possible, he blatantly used his lighting to underline the important parts of the scene while leaving the other parts basically in darkness. "Once upon a time in the west" is one of the best examples of this Leone style, and a film that an old mentor of mine insisted, should be mandatory for all film makers venturing into features shot on HD, as the 2/3" sensors would simulate that style on their own.

Hyper focus on color films where the authors don't want, or care to, make a distinction between the different focal planes in the scene, as Speed Racer seems to do, will probably be distracting to say the least, and counterproductive to story telling and character association, though most reviews I've read seem to agree Speed Racer is not really big on either of those...

[J.R. Hud]

Thanks for the answer, Mr Mullen. :) To use a 500 mm anamorphic lens and get focus in all planes sounds very impressive. That set must be a hot place to be!

Maybe the answer to the Speed Racer-question is revealed in the latest number of American Cinematographer. I wonder if I should buy it online.



Split Diopter? I'm not a professional, but I can not spot any indication of use of diopter. The wall with the drawings is in focus on both left and right side of the girl's face.

Loved your blog, J.R. Hud! It must be the only of its kind on the web!

Oops

Sorry Tabula

I meant the term in the look of the frame itself; aand assuming it's a composite.

Thanks for the comments onb my lil Blog. Have to do a fresh article very soon (my wife has all 300 of my DVD's) :P

[Adam Clark]

yeah, according to the speed racer article in american cinematographer - there is a lot of comp work done to intentionally create a very hyperreal dof

[Nick Wolf]

Hi David,

Lets say you have a paragraph of prose. And in that paragraph you get the who, what, where, when, why, and how of whats going on. When putting it all together each and every element would you asign various information to different levels of expression? For example the quality of the Hero or heroine is courage, would you give some thing of that to the music to convey, to photography, how do you go about distributing the burden of expression? Do you think its good to have several elements working for it or better to have them juxtaposed?

A film like the "Exorsist" I think works so well because in many ways its like an Ibsen play in construction. Its very straight and normal. Playing against the "Super-Natural" elements that are introduced as details breaking with the established norm and developed into an increasingly omininous pitch.

How would you for example present the information of "Old" through explicitly dressing the character or by contrasting it with something that it "Was not" and thus infering the fact.

There is a scene in the Godfather where some toddelers burst into the room and are quickly gathered and ushered out by Tom Hagen...This flurry detail that interupts whats going on in the room is very memorable and I dont think its just a way of changing tempo though it also serves that purpose. Isnt it that whats going on in the scene is an age old ritual of power and its macanisims and that it is so far away from the fancy free frolicing of child like innosence?

Another scene after a meeting the last detail when Vito is presented with a corination of flowers from Johnny Fontaine...Another memorable and seemingingly inconsequent detail but isnt that also a way to "Show-Express" that the formalities and pagentries are simple decorations quite worthless and lacking substance compared to the realitities of "Business" and yet a nessisary token in demonstrating ones respect through petty acts of gratitude?

I guess I am curious about how you view and regard the process of making choices and what guides and informs your mental process to arrive at the final material and its organisation.

Thanks for your time!

DogDay

[10s]

David, what sort of rules, logic, motivation do you/& director use for when to move the camera? I noticed the ASC was having some event with a title suggesting something similair to this, so I thought I'd ask :)

Example: Lighting has motivation, characters too, what about the camera movement. Why & when is it best to go from static to dynamic?

Some will suggest it to create: eye candy, excitiment, take a small tour at the begining of a scene for audience orientation, to follow the character, to reveal new information, to play the POV role of a character, to add new information when a static has already delivered it's information, and when moving from static to dynamic it hints at pending action.

What is your take on this?

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, you pretty much nailed it. You have to first determine the visual language of the whole piece to have some sort of guidelines for lens choice and movement, though you will bend those rules. Often the movement, unless there for obvious reasons, like following someone around, is tied either to emotional dramatic elements (how emotions are captured, portrayed, enhanced, etc.) or plot elements (how information is revealed or concealed). And it also depends on how subjective the scene is, how much does it follow a character's perspective on the action.

[10s]

David, I watched again "Fiddler on the Roof" (it's been a while) and the deep staging/blocking blew me away. I guess it's the Broadway choreography influencing the shot designs. I also have been reading David Bordwell's "Figures Traced in Light" and he explores the underemphasis of staging in depth in modern cinema. Everything is "stand and deliver" 2.5 to 5. second shots, masters, two-shots, singles, inserts, mainly CU -- on to next scene. As Bordwell says, the most radical thing to do now is keep the camera shot still and let the drama take place.

Are there directors/cinematographers still interested in deep staging of long 10-20...(I dare say) 30 second static shots?...or is the industry largely accelerated in an ever increasing quest for creating hyper stimulation?

I would think both static and dynamic camera movement, deep staging/focus and shallow focus/seperation would be full range tools used to their fullest so one can create the tension & release good art requires.

[David Mullen ASC]

DP's have to follow the director's lead in regards to staging to lens and coverage, though I often help out in that. But both DP's and directors are subject to popular trends, for career reasons (to be perceived as hip) or because they actually like the popular trends.

There are still directors who like long takes, group shots, etc. -- you see that in David Fincher's "Zodiak" for example, or Wes Anderson's comedies. Some directors like a moving wide-angle master with minimal cutting in a scene, or at least, now and then. I noticed that Verhoeven's "Basic Instinct" was shot in anamorphic on a Steadicam with lots of complex moving master shots. Same goes for a lot of Brian DePalma's movies.

[Rudi Herbert]

What about "There will be blood"? I was just watching the DVD and notice how much the camera is used as a tool to influence the audience/character interaction. There are 15,20, even 30 second shots where the camera does not move one inch and the action keeps getting progressively farther from the camera, to the point where, VERY important things, such as Day Lewis' character being reunited with his long gone son, or meeting a brother he never knew he had, take place VERY far from us, succeding in making us isolated from the character, but also alienating us from most of the emotional impact of the performances IMO.
Then again, Day Lewis won the oscar for this role, so the academy must have been able to see right through all that, but this is definitely one case where long and distant framing is the norm, and at least for me, it did not work towards keeping me emotionally involved in a story that is almost three hours long with a very slow plot...I don't know, sometimes it feels like going against the grain, which nowadays is movies with average cuts every two seconds, just to go against it, does not neccessarily serve the story telling process.

[J.R. Hud]

Longer takes and minimal cutting are exactly what excites me when visualizing a scene. I like to approach it purely from a visual standpoint and not let the dialogue dictate it.

Moving the camera or the actors can change the entire composition of a frame without a single cut and is much more interesting eye candy than cut after cut after cut.

I think many filmmakers cut too much for lack of confidence (or planning). Like too many close ups that end of muddling the frame instad of coming out wide and letting the audience into the world you're trying to create.

Films like NO COUNTRY and THERE WILL BE BLOOD feel like pure cinema with every frame a masterpiece.

[David Mullen ASC]

What about "There will be blood"? I was just watching the DVD

Well, that says something right there... a medium or wide shot on a 75' theater screen has a different impact than on a 40" TV screen.

The environment was just as much a character as the people in that movie... so it makes sense to constantly frame people against it. Also, with a performance that big, it isn't a bad idea to back off a little with the camera... :wink:

[Nick Wolf]

Dave sorry for being a pest...I have something to shoot and am having trouble organizing the material and getting to the heart of it...I have been to the locations and what I want to stage there just doesnt seem to be working visually...So I am wondering maybe if its a glut of info on the visual line of expression...Should I seperate the grammar and dispurse it over the different elements or what sort of system is needed for arriving at the scenes visual logic...You mentioned about determining the type of language...Can you eliborate on that, are you talking about genre or what?


DogDay

[J.R. Hud]

Try and look at each scene in the context of emotion. What is the purpose of the scene ?

Have you determined the visual style for the piece yet ? Hand held ? Locked down ? Hyper spaz epileptic THE SHIELD style ? Steadicam ?

Imagine telling the story in visual terms if the dialogue was completely removed. Would the audience still get it ? That is how I would approach it; shoot it with the idea that the only the visuals are going to tell your story.

Eagerly awaiting David's opinion !

[Nick Wolf]

Yes but I want to hear if there is an order or hierarchy from where sub-choices are made from, the determining factor that inform all other choices...For example a premise, a context, yes a genre, but a choice as to if its hand held or locked down is made based on what?

You have the circumstances and the situation, the plot and the subtext of the scene, story points, and you have an interpretation, a subject and a premice or point of view, what are the elements that these facts will be distributed over? and how to determine what gets what?

Landscape, int-ext, art direction, color, light-dark, casting etc all the elements combined but if you where to line these elements up one after the other in an order of their existance layer after layer, how would you load each layer, everything striving for the same effect at once or syncopating them or contrasting them? and most importantly is it that you first make a phrase in verbal language and then find a visual to express it or how to break it down to convey the meaning of the scene so it works.

I suppose the first thing would be to find a key word for a theme or motif??? or?

An example of a telling chioce based on a hiden determining definition is in "Raging Bull" when after a fight the public goes nuts and starts tossing chairs there is a quick insert of a woman sitting playing an organ through it all...That says something about the nature of organized conflict as a channeling force for the inherent chaos in us the spectators, having the ultimate symbol of ordered chaos the key board of a organ and a woman bound to it churning out a melody is quite clever, and more importantly serve a function in not only the story but in the dealing and treatment of the premise of the subject..."Demons"??? Perhaps???

Everyone talks of beautiful pictures but I think its a difference between a picture and an image...An image is something that is emblazoned on ones memory cutting through all the other visuals we pick up on. To have an image be symbolic there has to be an invisible factor informing the choice determining it, a blue print, an interpretation that conditions all else.


dogday

[10s]

I hate to butt in, but here I am! Dogday, it sounds like you're after those wonderful iconic mise-en-scene allegorical images we all want.

allegory
an art form, as a story, painting, or sculpture, in which the components have a symbolic, figurative meaning. — allegorist, allegorizer, n. — allegorical, adj.

I think the answer lies in understanding whose story it is,...most often it's the Hero's story-- they are the cornerstone of this design. The heart of the hero's journey often is not just the outer physical journey but the inner mental/spiritual journey. If this is so, then the images i would seek would symbolically reflect this character arc, and the forces opposing the hero throughout the conflicting drama. Even basic simple screen direction starts to give clues to blocking: hero journeys from right to left > while the opponent moves left to right< to eventually clash. I know you're way beyond this but it still is informative for creating a pictorial foundation of blocking.

You might look into art theory, cultural anthropology (symbols) Joseph Campbell and theater set design. This reminds me to once again watch Visions of Light....it should be mandatory viewing for everyone here:)

Your reference to Raging Bull and the cut to the organist suggest theory of montage, Eisenstien. The power of the contrasting images in your mind produce a 3rd image (demons?) in your head, that's the synergy of montage.

[Nick Wolf]

I cant believe your words! I was jsut thinking the word allegory when reflecting over that scene again with the organist...Because it somehow seems to step outside the immediate circle of "Who story it is" into another circle that has more to do with the thematic conflicts surrounding the issues, that yes we characters embody but in the Greek-Mythological sense also exist in everything that is present within the realm of a particular story.

So somewhere when trying to deduce or divine a line of expression its vital to find the characters archetype and journey type???

That approach is more explicit in "Oh brother where art thou" blending that philosphy of story treatment with the actual origins of that insight in the adapting of the old greek epos.

But where certain directors use figures to express these forces I like also to experience the ones who actually give the forces of nature IE art direction also a role in it, using atmosphere to also convey things so its lighter and not so heavy handed.

And yes Eisenstein and Meyerhold and Pudovkin with that concept of the moment before and after adding inflecting to what fact needs to get across.

Its a kind of reasoning and retorik, sometimes it can be too well made.

The bloody analysis to find those nuggets really is demanding. I guess its also important to deside what the grammatical purpose is in relation to who the story is being told. Thats one of the key determining factors.

I think starting with the place and the actions in the place against and in relation to the norm could lead to some usable information to start making choices from.

A house can be a home it can also be a prison.
A prison is a jail but can also be a sanctuary.
Etc etc etc.

DogDay

[David Mullen ASC]

For one thing, it helps to simplify everything down to the basics, whether it is the lighting in the scene, the framing, the movement. You can't have twenty ideas in one shot and expect the audience to digest it in the ten seconds it may be on screen. So don't get too subtle, too complex, too diffuse -- this isn't a novel, it's more like a short story or poem, condensed and pithy.

When I'm lost trying to figure out how to cover a scene, I sort of fall back on the Hitchcockian notions of point of view and subjectivity, i.e. shoot what the main character sees and shoot the reaction shots of the main character to what they are seeing.

I just shot a funeral scene yesterday and the questions of how to cover it came up. We did a conventional wide master and two-shots and singles, but we also shot the whole scene, wide and close, from the point of view of the main character, who was standing off in the distance watching things unfold. So now in editing, we have options in terms of how to play the scene, when to break from the strictly POV approach. But the POV shots are also a fallback, and a way of shortening the scene because perhaps in editing, they may decide not to concentrate on the emotions of the other characters at the funeral but just play the main character watching things happen from a distance and catching only snippets. You can then cut back to the main character watching and hearing, off-camera, a lot of the big feelings being expressed by these people at the funeral, who are ultimately minor characters to the story, but going through a big emotional moment. So there is always the issue of how much do you want to give a smaller character a "big" scene, or whether the scene only matters in context to how the main character feels about it.

[Nick Wolf]

Yes when you say that it helps I automatically started visualizing in a more concrete way...

So moment to moment starting from the last moment ( Or point of scene-Conclusion ) tracing a logic of thoughts that need to be captured. Then build some coverage from MC-POV and some reaction of SC-POV in scene.

Man o Man if I can get a Hitchcock kinesthetic reaction from the scene I am going to do I will be very happy.

That scene in the Cemetary in Vertigo where they are so close yet so far from discovering each other. But also James Stewart was so specific in his mimic-expressive abilities you really could literally see what he was thinking and the story could move along just by close ups on him and some coverage.

I find working with actors very often because of lack of tecnique not talent they dont know what to think when and it becomes very general and white washing with broad cliche emotional fire works instead of concrete moment to moment readable behavior and expression.

I hear you and it helps David. But I am still worryed about the cohesive quality that binds it all. I have seen so many productions with huge budgets that still miss an essence because it doesnt have the intention injected into every element. But maybe as David Mamet suggests in his book if I understand correctly he talks about not inflecting and letting the editing and music lift what is dorment in the takes. In that case less would be more.

And maybe even to willfully play against whats going on in the scene..."Take the gun, Leave the Canoly"

DogDay

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem with Hollywood movies is less about how they are shot and edited and more about a lack of interesting ideas in the writing itself to build off of for the performers or the people shooting. Sometimes there's no "there" there, no heart to the scene, no nugget of truth to get to. It's just there for eye candy, plot exposition, or for no reason at all.

[10s]

Let a nail do a nail's job and not try to be the house. As Mamet would put it, let your shots be uniflected (simple, raw), together they will build to say something meaningful, (montage). I believe David just said something similair.


David, maybe these stories need a little: http://www.moralpremise.com/

[Nick Wolf]

I agree. Though I believe that quality is on its way back big time. We now know both ends of the spectrum are possible to create a hybrid from as several TVS have demonstrated this last decade proving that great writing and acting can coexist within a medium designed to sell wheaties. Some of these series have set a new bench mark for all else to be measured against.

Also with saleries plummeting I think folks in the Biz want to do stuff at least with some sort of merit if not for the cash than for the challenge and prestiege.

Maybe off topic...For anyone on the inside and you David specifically: I have a story I really believe in, I will be shooting a teaser for it mid June. I have been rubbing sticks together and some things are happening yet its still little means and no backing as of yet. I have a dream actor who I had in mind while writing, John Savage. How to get to a known actor without having to harang with managers and agents who are only interested of a fat wad of cash waved at them through the peep hole at the gates?

I am sitting on a great vehicle and could do it as is with unknowns, I have a line up and am itching to do it even hyper indie micro budget but I feel if I can just get to this guy and pitch him he might just bite.

The other option is I have a project tailor made for a European audience which is a very controversial down and dirty gritty psycological-political thriller...That is possible to do now-soon and can fly with unknowns and using an indiginous language say of French or German...I like this story too maybe thats the way to gain access by building a track record.

Preferably I want to do both and have the one working parrallel while the other is in the works.

Any advice? I have some pieces of the puzzle in place. I need however to get my Ace of Spades and that is my leading Man & Woman.

I might add that yes the fact that he is known plays a role in my choice of him but that is maybe 15% of my motivation the rest 85% is really because I think he has the acute sensitivity to understand the trails and tribulations of the main character and also the chops to express them. Had I found an unknown with his artistic prowess I wouldnt hesitate a moment doing it with that person instead.

DogDay

P.S.
I just got that book from Amazon a week ago its really good.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't really help you much on issues like casting, finding money, etc. -- I'm only a cinematographer. People find name actors in a wide variety of ways -- either they know the actor or they know someone who knows them, or they hire a casting director who knows how to reach actors, or they contact the actor's agency. The trouble with name actors is the money issue, not necessarily that they will charge top dollar all the time, but even on a small film, there are certain requirements to prove to them that you have the money before they will sign a contract.

[Nick Wolf]

I am determined to say the least and will keep all posted as to what transpires...

Thanks again you have helped tremendously with every bit of knowledge and encouragement not only to me directly but to everyone who visits this amazing fountain of wealth and generousity !!!

Many Thanks David,

DogDay

[jpp]

If I may, I think the search for "allegory" or "symbolism" is a often a backwards and misguided one, that Joseph Campbell really won't help anyone to either write or direct material, because Joseph Campbell only works after-the-fact, for analysis, but not creation.

While the shot of the organist works wonderfully well, particularly in that marvelously cut scene, you could argue that it doesn't mean anything more than what it is: a woman doing her job while the riot proceeds below. And I'd wager a dollar that it was the writer, not the director, who came up with that shot, because it's more of a literary conceit than an obvious directorial choice. If that claim sounds counterintuitive, you can find exactly that kind of cross-cutting in literature long before the emergence of cinema.

Which kind of gets back to what David was saying: sometimes there's no "there", there. We could point to all sorts of brilliant moments in classic films, but the only explanation for them is inspiration, wherever it may have come from. It's not really a question of allegory or symbolism, because the idea is internally conceived. There is no external reference or meaning; what meaning there is develops from the scene itself and grows outward. That it seems larger than it is doesn't mean it's "symbolic". This quality of "largeness" is what distinguishes brilliance form mediocrity, but there's no obvious means to achieve it.

[Nick Wolf]

Yes sometimes an ice cream cone is just an ice cream cone except when the girl licking it happens to be called Lolita.

I disagree but do enjoy listening to your point of view.

The roots of certain schools of thought both in the theater and the cinema especially the American cinema are decendants of the Stanislavsky system. Its not only a school for actors but a school of thought obsessed with choices and how to make them so that with a minimum of expression you can express a maximum of relevant information.

Most European films have this tradition for different cultural reasons. A sofisticated way for getting through censorship. Things must be disguised. Meanings incrypted.

For a story to work on a larger level someone lets say a director has to deside what its really about...A theme, a point of view, all material serves the purpose of delivering that information in a hidden way so as not to distract from the illusion. Information is interwoven and becomes symbolic since it isnt explicit. A detail implies something else thus becomeing significant of something more or else that isnt necissarily present. Its a conclusion drawn by us the spectators speculating around that detail, Conciously or unconciously.

Setting up such a shot of that organist must have taken lots and lots of labour. Costumes. Props. Lighting. Casting. Composition. Etc etc etc. An accident you say? Without a function serving the whole?
They are not finger painting these are masters at work here.

Scorcesse and De niro reherse for hours trying to figure out the way a character would tie their shoes because it has to speak. Some of it is prose as you say in a script but most of the time its a choice deduced based on other analysis.

When De niro in GodFather II Wraps the pistol in a towel and then assinates Don Fanucci in the darkened hallway...That was a choice neither written nor desided by the director that was the actor as collaborator determining the choice of what to do in the scene...There is a system for that, its based on deductive reasoning, its about locating archetypes, its all sybolic and historical. Interpretation. Thats what seperates one director from another one version of Hamlet from another. The vision is called in-sight, the ability to penetrate into the deeper and hidden meaning of things. You need to first know "What" to express. That is the ultimate choice that informs all other choices within the context of the storys realm. Thats why its important to as soon as possble determine what genre it is and isnt.

What is a towel archtypically? what is it used for? what is its norm? now how is it being used in this context? what is the significance? yes on one level its a silencer on another level however it speaks of never being able to be clean again.

I think its called conotative & denotative language, correct me if I misquote someone.

Watch "Close encounters of the third kind" and look at the art direction its so many covert referances to the Bible as a source of myth embedded in the background.

DogDay

[jpp]

The roots of certain schools of thought both in the theater and the cinema especially the American cinema are decendants of the Stanislavsky system.

Only in the most bastardized of forms. Very few people in this business have actually read Stanislavsky, and most of those have only read the first volume, which doesn't really account for his thought. The American "method" approach is based on a partial and distorted reading, and as a training manual it's been a disaster, apart from the few notable actors, like Brando, associated with it.


Most European films have this tradition for different cultural reasons. A sofisticated way for getting through censorship. Things must be disguised. Meanings incrypted.

There's no doubt encryption went on in totalitarian societies, but I wouldn't want to argue that censorship is at the heart of mystery in art. Might there not be a deeper impulse at play?

For a story to work on a larger level someone lets say a director has to deside what its really about...A theme, a point of view, all material serves the purpose of delivering that information in a hidden way so as not to distract from the illusion. Information is interwoven and becomes symbolic since it isnt explicit. A detail implies something else thus becomeing significant of something more or else that isnt necissarily present. Its a conclusion drawn by us the spectators speculating around that detail, Conciously or unconciously.

This probably isn't the place, bu