|
Post by clownation on Jul 1, 2009 1:49:51 GMT
Wow, Clownation! It only took three and a half years for you to make a post. I'm a slow starter.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 3, 2009 19:01:32 GMT
Better late than never!
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jul 14, 2009 2:02:30 GMT
The fact that he used just four characters in one location and also made a film with some depth, inspires me personally to think about film-making ideas in a small scale. My impression was that that's what you were going for. Sorry, I can't remember if you've seen Springtime in a Small Town (2002) which is not to be confused with the original Spring in a Small Town (1948). It also has one location and three leads and one supporting role with perhaps one or two other really small roles (with like five lines or less). It's a beautiful film. The cinematography might remind you of In the Mood For Love, the same guy was a co-DP on the Wong film.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 14, 2009 15:11:14 GMT
Thanks Kino. Your recommendations are much appreciated No, I haven't seen this. I'll be adding to the Q.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jul 16, 2009 4:05:10 GMT
Capo, I know you have touched upon the use of digital quite a few times in the past, both in the context of Mann and Lynch. I would be very interested to know your thoughts on this in a little more detail. Actually I would be very interested to know everyone's views on digital. Personally, I haven't watched much of digital or remember anything medium specific from even the films that I have seen that were made in digital (like Miami Vice). What do you mean by this statement: or remember anything medium specificI like hi-def digital video. The Mann films, Three Monkeys, Climates, The World, Still Life, Fay Grim, etc. A nice looking little indie film is Quiet City, but I don't think it was hi-def. Not a fan of the lower grade digital cameras like the one Lynch used on Inland Empire. Aesthetically unpleasing.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jul 16, 2009 4:21:05 GMT
If shooting in super 16mm isn't all that expensive compared to dv (higher than consumer-level), I'd like to see more of it. Old Joy was shot on the former. It looks fantastic. (I'm ignorant on rough shooting costs using such-and-such equipment.)
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 16, 2009 20:22:59 GMT
What do you mean by this statement: or remember anything medium specificI meant that I don't remember anything from the film which was specific to digital. Like (just for illustration), "the colors were saturated, because it was shot in digital" or "it was grainy like film" or some such thing. All I remember from Miami Vice was some shot of pink sky (and I am not even sure if that shot is there actually in the film or my memory has made it up afterwards ), a shot of a motor boat and a shot of Colin Farell (probably a memory of the poster, rather than the film). BTW, I am not too adept at differentiating between digital and film - I watched climates recently and could not even make out that it was shot in digital. I came to know of it first time in this discussion. Maybe if you tell me, I can go in looking for it, but it was not obvious to me.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Jul 16, 2009 23:43:08 GMT
What do you mean by this statement: or remember anything medium specificI meant that I don't remember anything from the film which was specific to digital. Like (just for illustration), "the colors were saturated, because it was shot in digital" or "it was grainy like film" or some such thing. All I remember from Miami Vice was some shot of pink sky (and I am not even sure if that shot is there actually in the film or my memory has made it up afterwards ), a shot of a motor boat and a shot of Colin Farell (probably a memory of the poster, rather than the film). BTW, I am not too adept at differentiating between digital and film - I watched climates recently and could not even make out that it was shot in digital. I came to know of it first time in this discussion. Maybe if you tell me, I can go in looking for it, but it was not obvious to me. It's hard to describe. DV looks "plastic" and crisp in comparison. It's easier to tell with the lower grade DV cameras. For instance, sunlight and light will be burnt out (look overexposed) even on hi-def dv. Lower grade DV also looks foggy in a digital way. It looks like home or most viral videos. Also, DV hasn't matched the ability of extremely low contrast of celluloid; DV has higher contrast. Pixels-wise, it's celluloid in a landslide. It's easier to tell on DVD transfers, I think. Try watching Quiet City and try to use it as a baseline. That is, if the compared film looks even more cheap, it's a lower grade DV; if the compared film looks better and harder to tell it's DV, then it's higher grade.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyreed on Jul 19, 2009 17:50:53 GMT
Los Angeles Plays Itself is going to finally get a DVD release!
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 19, 2009 22:13:32 GMT
That's good news.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 22, 2009 23:20:10 GMT
I think I'm going to start taking notes during films.
Anybody else do this?
|
|
|
Post by bobbyreed on Jul 22, 2009 23:22:55 GMT
I've done it a few times when watching something I'd heard beforehand was difficult. Had a class last semester too where I had to take notes during films and turn them in during the last class or I'd get some points docked from my final grade.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 22, 2009 23:32:11 GMT
I think I'm going to start taking notes during films. Anybody else do this? I do this alot, if because I'm reviewing alot of shit at the same time, and I want to get down on paper some particular themes or thoughts that came to mind....but afraid they might be forgotten by the time I get around them. Shit I saw CHE complete cut, and still got my notes here somewhere. And they're from May.
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jul 22, 2009 23:55:56 GMT
When I was young and ambitious I would listen to director's commentaries and take notes. I still have my notebook. I even have pictures in it of certain shots.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 23, 2009 4:12:36 GMT
That's a terrible idea, unless you are reviewing the film or something, like RRA.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 23, 2009 4:17:24 GMT
That's a terrible idea, unless you are reviewing the film or something, like RRA. I don't think it's a terrible idea. Everyone has their own method of madness. And really, the best director's commentaries are basically lectures and not just in tech talk and self-applauding, but also about what he/she wanted to present in ideas to the audience. Then some are just hilarious, like Bruce Campbell's track for THE EVIL DEAD.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 23, 2009 16:35:50 GMT
I remember one of my first lectures at university; I'm sitting there being told to take notes on... how to take notes. UGH!
But I'm feeling more and more inclined to take some notes. Just little moments, every now and then, that might spark discussion or a point of critical departure. I'm all for further research now, too. One time I would have gagged at that last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 23, 2009 18:55:21 GMT
The RRA Metamorphasis.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 24, 2009 21:57:04 GMT
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jul 24, 2009 22:15:23 GMT
Yes, I have. No where near as visually striking as I had hoped, but Sam Rockwell does a remarkable job in a role that is a bit challenging (if you see it, you'll know what I mean). He was the film for me. The use of models was nice, and there were good moments. Not mind blowing like I had hoped.
|
|