Kubrick: Panavision v. Arriflex
Steve Guyer
majority of Kubrick films were filmed with ARRI cameras.
Was his reason for choosing between ARRI and Panavision cameras that he
liked their ease of operation or was it more that the cameras served a
specific function for his films?
I'm somewhat of a novice when it comes to motion picture, but what is the
reason that the majority of the large big budget movies are filmed with
Panavision cameras. Is it simply the Panavision name?
Thanks,
Steve
Jan
> 2001:ASO was filmed with Panavison cameras but I've noticed that the
> majority of Kubrick films were filmed with ARRI cameras.
>
> Was his reason for choosing between ARRI and Panavision cameras that he
> liked their ease of operation or was it more that the cameras served a
> specific function for his films?
IIRC he said he liked - among other things - the way Arri viewfinders
were set up: one has more a feeling of looking into a dark tunnel
with the image at the other end, not unlike the feeling of sitting in
a movie theatre. Another reason might have been that perhaps John
Alcott liked them?
> I'm somewhat of a novice when it comes to motion picture, but what is the
> reason that the majority of the large big budget movies are filmed with
> Panavision cameras. Is it simply the Panavision name?
They are available, they work, and their rental price list is
acceptable. I can't think of anything more profound here...
Jan Bielawski
Brian Siano
Might also be that _2001_ was filmed in 70mm, which required some
massive cameras, but the majority of the rest were 35mm.
>
>
seandelgado
only. I read K liked to own his own camera.
I have seen more pix of K shooting with Mitchell than Panavision.
Why do more big shows shoot with Panavision? Maybe because they have
those big ass high speed lenses and basically superior equipment that
they stand behind.
But if K shot BL with a BL1, then a BL1 is good enough for me
dev_n...@yahoo.com (Jan) wrote in message news:<5a3651e8.02121...@posting.google.com>...
Greg Lowry
it back to the production. With his long shooting schedules, he could pay
for the stuff from one shoot. ARRI equipment can be purchased outright,
Panavision cannot. I know he used a combination of personally-owned
equipment and rented equipment for all of his films from ACO on.
On 12/12/02 6:51 AM, in article ata7ar$fno3$1...@netnews.upenn.edu, "Brian
Siano" <si...@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
--
Greg Lowry
9713d0e8.02121...@posting.google.com, "seandelgado"
<seand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Also the fact that you can own Arri equipment, Panavision is rental
> only. I read K liked to own his own camera.
>
> I have seen more pix of K shooting with Mitchell than Panavision.
SK never used Panavision except for 2001 (and that was 65mm).
>
> Why do more big shows shoot with Panavision? Maybe because they have
> those big ass high speed lenses and basically superior equipment that
> they stand behind.
ARRI equipment is every bit as good and reliable as Panavision. But
Panavision definitely won the hearts and minds of the big guys in LA.
>
> But if K shot BL with a BL1, then a BL1 is good enough for me
>
>
>
>
>
> dev_n...@yahoo.com (Jan) wrote in message
> news:<5a3651e8.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>> "Steve Guyer" <spg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<uvg7qpr...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>> 2001:ASO was filmed with Panavison cameras but I've noticed that the
>>> majority of Kubrick films were filmed with ARRI cameras.
>>>
>>> Was his reason for choosing between ARRI and Panavision cameras that he
>>> liked their ease of operation or was it more that the cameras served a
>>> specific function for his films?
>>
>> IIRC he said he liked - among other things - the way Arri viewfinders
>> were set up: one has more a feeling of looking into a dark tunnel
>> with the image at the other end, not unlike the feeling of sitting in
>> a movie theatre. Another reason might have been that perhaps John
>> Alcott liked them?
>>
>>> I'm somewhat of a novice when it comes to motion picture, but what is the
>>> reason that the majority of the large big budget movies are filmed with
>>> Panavision cameras. Is it simply the Panavision name?
>>
>> They are available, they work, and their rental price list is
>> acceptable. I can't think of anything more profound here...
>>
>> Jan Bielawski
--
David Mullen
>Panavision definitely won the hearts and minds of the big guys in LA.
Mainly because they are the biggest rental house in L.A. with a large
inventory and an excellent technical support department. A lot of big
Hollywood shows have huge equipment needs -- "Pearl Harbor" for example
rented some thirty CASES of anamorphic lenses (took a month to prep them
all), something that no other rental house in Los Angeles could do.
But no one is going to be able to look at a movie and tell if it was shot on
a Panaflex or an Arriflex. Lenses affect the image, but everyone rents
great lenses. You can get Primos at Panavision or Cooke S4's and Zeiss
Ultra Primes elsewhere. They are all pretty similar in overall quality,
although DP's will favor some over others. If you want to shoot in
anamorphic though, Panavision has the biggest inventory.
David Mullen
Warhola
>
What's a BL1?
Warhola
"seandelgado" <seand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9713d0e8.02121...@posting.google.com...
David Mullen
Warhola wrote in message ...
>> But if K shot BL with a BL1, then a BL1 is good enough for me
>What's a BL1?
It is a 35mm Arriflex sync-sound self-blimped reflex movie camera. In the
early 1970's Arriflex and then Panavision both developed smaller, quieter
35mm reflex movie cameras (the Arriflex BL1 and the Panaflex). Sound
cameras from the 1960's were much larger.
The Arri BL1 was limited to 400' loads (5 minutes) but later a 1000'
magazine was developed. The Arri BL2, BL3, BL4, BL4S, and BL-Evolution
followed, then the whole thing was redesigned into the Arri-535 camera. Now
Moviecam and Arriflex have merged and created the Arricam system, which
combines the best of the two companies' designs.
David Mullen
Greg Lowry
wRvK9.5076$MV5.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "David Mullen"
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Agreed. The fact that ARRI never established an owned-and-operated rental
facility in LA, along with fact that they never developed a full range of
anamorphics (or even seemed committed to anamorphic cinematography) was a
strategic error. Still, ARRI as a company has done just fine on worldwide
basis and is in much better financial shape than Panavision which has
endured multiple buyouts since the days of Gottschalk.
--
Greg Lowry
ekIK9.595$qA3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, "David Mullen"
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It's a little known fact that ARRI has owned Moviecam since about 1985-86,
but the two companies always operated independently until the Arricam
project.>
--
Boaz
This is certainly better than the merger between the magazines Dissent
and Commentary, thus creating Dysentery.
Sorry, David. I couldn't resist a little Woody Allen here.
Also, either camera is much better than the Ultracam, which didn't get
its nickname "Ultra-jam" for nothing.
Boaz
Warhola
I found a site last night about the old cameras. Found an old BL1 for 12k.
Thanks again for the info.
Warhola
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ekIK9.595$qA3....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
seandelgado
> Thankyou!
>
> I found a site last night about the old cameras. Found an old BL1 for 12k.
>
> Thanks again for the info.
>
> Warhola
Watch it if you are considering a buy, or even playing with the idea
in your head... K shot BL in 1974, the cameras were new then, even
though he might have mantained his until FMJ 1985. He still had
serious upkeep, I read somewhere that when they broke out Ks kit for
EWS a lot of it was warped, so they shot with another system, I don't
know what, I've seen a pix of K standing next to a lady stedycam
operator and it looks like an arri strapped on, but then again it also
looked like a stripped down moviecam, which, I understand, is very
popular in EU.
Also, many complain about the BL1 being noisy, and it is, although
blimped, sound comes out the front of the lens, so in a small location
this can be a pain.
This BL1 for 12k probably doesn't include lenses, which is the key to
any good image.
Kevin Koehler
example being that during his filming of Barry Lyndon he aquirred a 0F? stop
precision lense from Nasa (maybe designed for the Hubble Telescope?) which
he use to achieve the exposures he had wanted with minimal practical
lighting. Evening scenes lit by candlelight or firelight to synthesize the
lighting of the period (no electricity). I don't know about the film stock
speed or any special lab process stipulations since I haven't been able to
look futher into it yet. But I know he had to have an Engineer modify some
cameras aperature and lense mounts permanently to use this lense, I don't
think motor speed was changed or would need to be. I don't know if he did
this to more than one of his cameras or just one, and I don't know if he
later used this particular camera setup in his later films or if the unit
was retired or sold. I don't think Panavision allows much in the ways of
modification to it's cameras. But I don't know much about Panavision except
their proprietary history.
Kevin Koehler
correctly in the Pull-Back zooms in Lyndon thread. Thanks
Padraig L Henry
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>ARRI equipment is every bit as good and reliable as Panavision. But
>>Panavision definitely won the hearts and minds of the big guys in LA.
>
>
>Mainly because they are the biggest rental house in L.A. with a large
>inventory and an excellent technical support department. A lot of big
>Hollywood shows have huge equipment needs -- "Pearl Harbor" for example
>rented some thirty CASES of anamorphic lenses (took a month to prep them
>all), something that no other rental house in Los Angeles could do.
But are these "thirty cases" of pathetic logistics something we should
be >boasting< about? No offense, but is your uncritical admiration
here not a wee bit misplaced?
>
>But no one is going to be able to look at a movie and tell if it was shot on
>a Panaflex or an Arriflex. Lenses affect the image, but everyone rents
>great lenses. You can get Primos at Panavision or Cooke S4's and Zeiss
>Ultra Primes elsewhere. They are all pretty similar in overall quality,
>although DP's will favor some over others. If you want to shoot in
>anamorphic though, Panavision has the biggest inventory.
Mmmm, forgive me for asking, but what, exactly, is the point, exactly,
of all of this technobabble, if at the end of the day, all of this
macho-optical technical posturing just winds up being conspicuously
wasted on yet another irresponsible, infantile Pearl Fuckup? All
sounds awfully like the sterile, distant, and dehumanising attitude
currently on display in the present War Room, now fully "preped" and
ready to shoot. Not that there will be any Primos, Cooke S4's, or
Zeiss Ultra Primes rented out or on hand for investigative film-makers
eager to record an angle on the coming lens-censored mass bloodbath
.. Panavision me arse ...
Padraig
Greg Lowry
Koehler" <klko...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The lenses you refer to were Zeiss f0.7 lenses reportedly built for NASA
(for Hasselblad still cameras during the Apollo era), heavily modified by
Cinema Products to mount on a non-reflex Mitchell BNC, and used only on
Barry Lyndon. And that was long before Hubble, btw. Apparently there were
requests by other cinematographers to use those lenses, but SK declined. The
film stock at the time was (5254) 100 ASA, (pushed one stop for BL). I'm
sure David Mullin will fill in the blanks.
--
David Mullen
in Hollywood. They have a large inventory for shows with large equipment
needs and they have a great technical support staff. This isn't bragging or
boasting (I don't even work for Panavision), it's just an explanation of the
trend -- if you have a different explanation, please tell me. So I don't
get the hostility to my remarks. I never said "Pearl Harbor" was good (in
fact, it wasn't), only they needed a large number of anamorphic lenses and
only Panavision can provide something like that -- that's simply a FACT, not
a boast. Unless you know of another rental house with a bigger anamorphic
lens inventory and can correct my mistatement. I could have named any
number of other large-scale Hollywood productions shooting in anamorphic.
Blaming rental houses for the size and breadth of their equipment packages
for the poor quality of scripts in Hollywood productions is downright
misplaced hostility. There's no connection between whether a Cooke S4 is
used and if the movie is any good.
I'm simply trying to answer the original poster's question: "what is the
reason that the majority of the large big budget movies are filmed with
Panavision cameras?" I'm trying to be HELPFUL to someone and I don't need
to be given a lot of shit for taking to time to answer someone's question.
I don't need to be attacked for giving an explanation of Panavision's
success in Hollywood. Like I said, if you can answer the question better
than I can, then go ahead. You tell all of us why Panavision is more
commonly used for big productions in Hollywood than the other two big ARRI
rental houses, Clairmont Cameras and Otto Nemenz Cameras.
At what point did mentioning the fact that "Pearl Harbor" rented a lot of
lenses imply "uncritical admiration"? Simply because I didn't add some
comment that "Pearl Harbor" sucked? A simple statement of fact is an
example of "uncritical admiration"? Or did you mean that I shouldn't admire
Panavision's technical staff? Did you have a bad experience with them that
you'd like to share?
And my point about mentioning the other lenses was simply to suggest that
there WASN'T a quality difference between Panavision and Arriflex
productions since equal quality lenses are available for either camera
system - in case someone was trying to make some point that Kubrick used
Arriflex cameras because they created "better" pictures. Again, what that
information has to do with the quality of movies made in Hollywood, I don't
know. If you don't like reading posts about camera technology, then don't
read them -- don't jump all over people who ARE interested in technical
details. You don't think Kubrick ever got into highly technical discussions
of Cooke versus Zeiss lenses with some optical technician or
cinematographer? But you want to accuse anyone else of having such
discussions of being soulless, unartistic Hollywood drones?
I really don't need your shit -- if this is the level of discourse on this
newsgroup, then I'm gone.
David Mullen
David Mullen
>(for Hasselblad still cameras during the Apollo era), heavily modified by
>Cinema Products to mount on a non-reflex Mitchell BNC, and used only on
>Barry Lyndon. And that was long before Hubble, btw. Apparently there were
>requests by other cinematographers to use those lenses, but SK declined.
The
>film stock at the time was (5254) 100 ASA, (pushed one stop for BL). I'm
>sure David Mullin will fill in the blanks.
Not if I have to take shit from Padraig for simply answering the question.
Besides, you pretty much covered all the facts.
David Mullen
JSpringer0953
>From: "David Mullen" dav...@earthlink.net
>Date: 12/19/2002 10:37 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <CBmM9.526$_V5.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
JSpringer0953
>From: "David Mullen" dav...@earthlink.net
>Date: 12/19/2002 10:37 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <CBmM9.526$_V5.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
I agree. Padraig was way out of line and he shouldn't have been involved in
this thread in the first place. I for one respect David and appreciate his
knowledge and helpfulness. He has never had a harsh word for anyone here that I
can remember. That was very bad form, Mr. Henry.
JOn
Wordsmith
I must concur. Stop it, Padraig. You're bumming us out.
Wordsmith :(
Matthew Ryder
wrote:
>>
>>But no one is going to be able to look at a movie and tell if it was shot on
>>a Panaflex or an Arriflex. Lenses affect the image, but everyone rents
>>great lenses. You can get Primos at Panavision or Cooke S4's and Zeiss
>>Ultra Primes elsewhere. They are all pretty similar in overall quality,
>>although DP's will favor some over others. If you want to shoot in
>>anamorphic though, Panavision has the biggest inventory.
>
>Mmmm, forgive me for asking, but what, exactly, is the point, exactly,
>of all of this technobabble, if at the end of the day, all of this
>macho-optical technical posturing just winds up being conspicuously
>wasted on yet another irresponsible, infantile Pearl Fuckup? All
>sounds awfully like the sterile, distant, and dehumanising attitude
>currently on display in the present War Room, now fully "preped" and
>ready to shoot. Not that there will be any Primos, Cooke S4's, or
>Zeiss Ultra Primes rented out or on hand for investigative film-makers
>eager to record an angle on the coming lens-censored mass bloodbath
>.. Panavision me arse ...
>
>Padraig
Padraig, your subversion of a completely harmless technical discussion
about optics into a spittle-flecked political rant about US policy
suggests you've finally gone completely over the edge.
Your hysterical terror of technology seems to be building to a
fever-pitch. Best keep this sort of outburst to yourself lest we all
write you off as a section-eight.
(Instead, why not just croon these menacing floridities to your rifle
while lovingly recalibrating her in readiness for Bush's "mass
bloodbath"?)
Matt.
ps. Seriously, there's something very disturbing about these
diatribes. Go easy, man.
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>
>I agree. Padraig was way out of line and he shouldn't have been involved in
>this thread in the first place. I for one respect David and appreciate his
>knowledge and helpfulness. He has never had a harsh word for anyone here that I
>can remember. That was very bad form, Mr. Henry.
On the contrary, David is totally out of line here, as are you, as
always. If he chooses to piss off, and not for the first time, its
because he would rather do so than face up to the real world, the one
that exists outside the realm of vacuous, self-defeating technobabble
...
Padraig L Henry
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Jeez, Padraig -- all I'm trying to explain is why Panavision is so popular
>in Hollywood.
No, "Ask David", you're not "just trying to explain". You come off as
someone uncritically promoting a bland, technocratic Hollywood by
means of industry sub-culture technical-talk. "Forget about the films
themselves, just sit back and admire the technical achievement and
gizmo know-how. Any problems, then just Ask David" is your mantra,
repeated ad nauseum here at AMK over the years. Indeed, your response
to my post here is identical to your response, last year, to another
post of mine where I took you to task for your pathetically
unquestioning acceptance of standard-issue Spielberg rhetoric and his
AI aberration. Then, as now, rather than confront your easy
assumptions about Hollywood and your obsessive retreat into "safe"
film technology, you chose to run away, with similar indignant
expressions of "I'm not going to take this shit!" But you've no
problems taking large doses of your own variety of shit?
>They have a large inventory for shows with large equipment
>needs and they have a great technical support staff. This isn't bragging or
>boasting (I don't even work for Panavision), it's just an explanation of the
>trend -- if you have a different explanation, please tell me. So I don't
>get the hostility to my remarks.
Listen, Ask David, using salesman phrases and marketing rhetoric like
"excellent technical support department ", "rented some thirty CASES
of anamorphic lenses", "something that no other rental house in Los
Angeles could do", and " If you want to shoot in anamorphic though,
Panavision has the biggest inventory" tells me much of what you're
actually about here ...
>I never said "Pearl Harbor" was good (in
>fact, it wasn't), only they needed a large number of anamorphic lenses and
>only Panavision can provide something like that -- that's simply a FACT, not
>a boast.
Its your very selective choice of facts here - devoid, as they are, of
the wider film-cultural context - and your keen, obsessive emphasis
on narrow technical considerations to the exclusion of virtually
everything else, thats the problem, making you come across as the
Leonard Wheat of film technology
>Unless you know of another rental house with a bigger anamorphic
>lens inventory and can correct my mistatement. I could have named any
>number of other large-scale Hollywood productions shooting in anamorphic.
Gee, you really are missing it here, aren't you?
>
>Blaming rental houses for the size and breadth of their equipment packages
>for the poor quality of scripts in Hollywood productions is downright
>misplaced hostility.
What makes you say this, Ask David? Film technicians and the Hollywood
technocracy suddenly know all and everything about "the poor quality
of scripts"? Yet nevertheless they pump millions of dollars and the
very latest in film technology and mass-PR hype to elaborately render
many more of such poor quality scripts into film? If, as you are here
claiming (and by talking about nothing else), film equipment and
technology is so outstanding, but film scripts like Pearl Harbor are
so lousy, then why, pray, are all of your posts about the former, and
none about the latter? Am I missing something here? Like there's no
connection, or anything? And taking into account what I said earlier,
"forgive me for asking, but what, exactly, is the point, exactly, of
all of this technobabble, if at the end of the day, all of this
macho-optical technical posturing just winds up being conspicuously
wasted on yet another irresponsible, infantile Pearl Fuckup?" Or a
Black Hawk Down, or an AI, for that matter ...
>There's no connection between whether a Cooke S4 is
>used and if the movie is any good.
Really!? Then why all your endless blabbering about such film-quality
indifferent pieces of film equipment? Or don't you care any more
whether in fact (and a "very simple statement of FACT" it is) a film
is any good or not? Preferring to exclusively concentrate on the specs
of all those shiny, glowing pieces of pristine audio-visual equipment
instead?
>
>I'm simply trying to answer the original poster's question: "what is the
>reason that the majority of the large big budget movies are filmed with
>Panavision cameras?"
But these are the only kinds of questions that you ever endeavour to
"simply try to answer." Why so? Are you operating some kind of AMK
Technical Help Desk? That's very charitable of you, Ask David. Except
that its not charity, is it?
> I'm trying to be HELPFUL to someone and I don't need
>to be given a lot of shit for taking to time to answer someone's question.
Hey, this is the real and only world we are living in, Ask David. You
have a very naive, unreconstructed notion of being "HELPFUL".
Actually, I'm here trying to be HELPFUL to you - by pointing out some
of the obvious shortcomings of your unexamined "helpful" stance.
Sometimes its very constructive to be "given a lot of shit" :-)
>I don't need to be attacked for giving an explanation of Panavision's
>success in Hollywood.
If my questioning of your chosen perspectives about the film world,
and specifically about Hollywood and your immersive techno-endorsement
of it ("Panavision's success", etc), is to be perceived - by you - as
an "attack" on you, well then I think you have much to learn about
film culture, not to mention about constructive discourse ...
>Like I said, if you can answer the question better
>than I can, then go ahead.
I did that already (by broadening the issues), but you dismissed it
all as "a lot of shit."
>You tell all of us why Panavision is more
>commonly used for big productions in Hollywood than the other two big ARRI
>rental houses, Clairmont Cameras and Otto Nemenz Cameras.
But that isn't the question we are actually attempting to answer here.
After all, as you previously implied, none of these companies has any
effect whatsoever on the quality of the movies that are projected on
our screens, so the question is an irrelevance :-)
>
>At what point did mentioning the fact that "Pearl Harbor" rented a lot of
>lenses imply "uncritical admiration"? Simply because I didn't add some
>comment that "Pearl Harbor" sucked? A simple statement of fact is an
>example of "uncritical admiration"?
So, like, we should have assumed that you thought that particular film
"sucked"? In which case you were really criticising Panavision for its
poor aesthetic, among other, choices in its rental policies? Pigs do
indeed fly.
>Or did you mean that I shouldn't admire Panavision's technical staff?
Your gushing description of its Pearl Harbor rentals did indeed inform
us of such admiration, but your continued failure - and aggressive
refusal - to see a wider problem, for film and the wider culture, in
all of this, is the real issue here ...
>Did you have a bad experience with them that
>you'd like to share?
You've never been very good at sarcasm, Ask David. But maybe that
could change.
>And my point about mentioning the other lenses was simply
You like using "simply" alot, as if to suggest a modesty or humility
that resides in a virtual reality world, where actions never have any
real consequences. Oh well ...
>to suggest that
>there WASN'T a quality difference between Panavision and Arriflex
>productions since equal quality lenses are available for either camera
>system - in case someone was trying to make some point that Kubrick used
>Arriflex cameras because they created "better" pictures. Again, what that
>information has to do with the quality of movies made in Hollywood, I don't
>know. If you don't like reading posts about camera technology, then don't
>read them -- don't jump all over people who ARE interested in technical
>details. You don't think Kubrick ever got into highly technical discussions
>of Cooke versus Zeiss lenses with some optical technician or
>cinematographer? But you want to accuse anyone else of having such
>discussions of being soulless, unartistic Hollywood drones?
I'm really glad you've mentioned Kubrick here, albeit in an entirely
false and fundamentally misleading comparison. If there was ever a
film-maker who ridiculed all notions of "professional specialisation",
who - as an artist - strived for diversity, complexity, generality,
universality, inter-relationships, of always relating the insular, the
narrow, the specialist, to the wider picture, it was Kubrick. Sure he
was interested in technical "discussion"; unless one is a complete
Luddite, who isn't? But not in discussion that is so completely
disconnected - and deeply alienated - from anything of any real
substance that is actually happening in the larger world, discussion
that pretends to be apolitical or neutral or harmless or "simply
helpful", but in fact betrays and promotes a disturbingly
conservative, if not reactionary, view of the social world and of
human culture.
So yes, an exclusive preoccupation with such supposedly context-free
"technical" discussion is indeed the preserve of, as you point out,
"soulless, unartistic Hollywood drones" ... And whats more: the drones
are taking over, so you're in very good "safe" hands ...
I recall an issue of Sight and Sound magazine, where the credits alone
for Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace took up over one and a
quarter pages, of which some six columns were devoted to the various
technicians who worked on the film's digital effects. That's roughly
three times as many as the magazine listed for Jurassic Park in 1992.
What exactly does this prove? That the new Star Wars is the most
artificial film ever made? That's plain the moment you look at it.
That the digital realm of computer-generated imagery is fast
supplanting bricks-and-mortar reality on screen? That's a condition
we've lived with for several years now. Watch any Hollywood
blockbuster and you realise that we're already attuned to the textures
of a numerical, immaterial cloud-cuckoo-land, in which images, even at
their most solid, often have the most fluid, vaporous presence.
In the trade press, what's most often at stake in discussions of the
digital explosion is the industrial implication. As ever more
spectacular effects can be created by boffins sitting at workstations,
will the old trades disappear - will stunt artists, set designers,
even stars become redundant overnight? But a more immediate question,
as far as viewers are concerned, is the aesthetic one. We know that
any spectacle imaginable can be created digitally and look more or
less real. But that's very different from looking effective or
possessing a real imaginative tangibility. The new Star Wars is a good
example of this. Some of its images are too familiar to have much
effect - its breakneck pod-race sequence is the Ben Hur chariot
routine remade as state-of-the-art arcade-game whizz-bang. And some of
its aliens might as well have been made the old-fashioned way. Its
much-loathed clown, Jar Jar Binks, is created through motion capture,
whereby the gestures of a real actor dictate those of a chimera, yet
Jar Jar still has the feel of a floppy latex Muppet. Yes, the New
Hollywood. Technicians rule okay, and you're a part of it, Ask David.
Happy now?
And whatever you do, don't mention the w a r ...
>
>I really don't need your shit -- if this is the level of discourse on this
>newsgroup, then I'm gone.
What a very childish thing to say (making empty, adolescent threats
about leaving AMK unless or until all the discussion here uncritically
conforms to your untainted specialist requirements). And, in case
you've perhaps forgotten, you also expressed precisely this self-same
sentiment before. Remember? :-)
Padraig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Padraig L Henry
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>The lenses you refer to were Zeiss f0.7 lenses reportedly built for NASA
>>(for Hasselblad still cameras during the Apollo era), heavily modified by
>>Cinema Products to mount on a non-reflex Mitchell BNC, and used only on
>>Barry Lyndon. And that was long before Hubble, btw. Apparently there were
>>requests by other cinematographers to use those lenses, but SK declined.
>The
>>film stock at the time was (5254) 100 ASA, (pushed one stop for BL). I'm
>>sure David Mullin will fill in the blanks.
>
>
>Not if I have to take shit from Padraig for simply answering the question.
Its not shit, David, and you know it. Don't you dare try to dismiss
serious discussion of issues of unprecedented world importance as
"shit" just because you seem to prefer to be willfully indifferent to
them. Instead, you once again prefer to go crawl away, back inside
your camera equipment ...
Padraig
Mike Jackson
wrote on 12/19/02 6:18 PM:
Jeez, come on Padraig, push back from keyboard for a second and realize this
is apples and oranges. As a photographer, David's "technobabble" as you call
it interests me greatly even if it's about equipment I'll probably never lay
a finger on.
I sympathize with your concern over the shithouse world politics are at the
moment, but it doesn't seem to connect at all with David's recent posts.
Be a big man and just say you're sorry. David's an important contributor and
resource for those of us that ARE interested in the part technology plays in
making a movie.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
--
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Design
http://www.mental-pictures.com/
Phone/Fax: 228-696-2702 Cell: 228-918-4596
Boaz
not an endorsement of "Pearl Harbor" or the people responsible for
making it.
I would still like to throw my two cents worth in about the fact that
"The Lord of the Rings" production went with Arriflex, shooting in
Super-35 with spherical lenses, because there weren't enough
Panavision anamorphic lenses available in New Zealand for the number
of different units shooting this film simultaneously. Jackson was
concerned with making sure there was a consistency in the images. So
in that case it was necessary to use the same brand lenses. This was
especially important for all of the multi-generational work, using
blue screen, CGI and then blowing up from a full-frame image to one
using half of the image that when projected will look as though it was
shot with anamorphic lenses (ending up with a 2.33 to 1 aspect ratio).
I would also like to say that a lot of the non-technical people on
this thread, however well-intended their questions and comments are,
need posts like yours to clear up a lot of myths regarding Panavision
and Arriflex cameras and the people who use them. "Pearl Harbor" is
proof that one can shoot with the best cameras and anamorphic lenses
and still make a forgettable piece of crap. I'm not a "brand name"
kind of filmmaker. I do expect quality and quality control, but in the
long run it's not so much the equipment but how one uses it and what
the end result is. Anyone who makes 35mm cameras and they aren't good
and they don't deliver good images (the same goes with those who
manufacture the lenses) should not be in the camera and lens business.
Plain and simple.
I would recommend to many posters here to look at films made pre-1950
and see the quality work done with those cameras, lenses and film
stocks. (Huge cameras, non-reflex viewing, slow film stocks.)
Boaz
"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<CBmM9.526$_V5.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Greg Lowry
that's being charitable). I don't give a flying fuck what Padraig has to
say about that, and I certainly won't be reading any more of his insane
rantings.
On 12/19/02 4:37 PM, in article BA27C24F.3C70%men...@digiscape.com, "Mike
Jackson" <men...@digiscape.com> wrote:
--
Padraig L Henry
<greg...@hd3dmovies.com> wrote:
>Padraig's response to David Mullen is that a border-line psychotic (and
>that's being charitable). I don't give a flying fuck what Padraig has to
>say about that, and I certainly won't be reading any more of his insane
>rantings.
It is you and Ask David who here most qualify for your self-styled
"border-line psychotic" slander, with your pathological indifference
to the human world.
Many "flying fucks" and "insane rantings" coming to a screen near you
real soon, folks ...
Padraig
... are you, by any chance, one of the eleven percent of "Americans"
(as The National Geographic recently reported in its survey) who can't
find America on a map?
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
Well thank you, Matthew, for your terminally Section Eight
"fever-pitch" response, but shouldn't you be directing your very
revealing "go easy, man" political rant and "menacing floridities" to
your sociopath in the White House, and to the self-serving buffoons
who inadvertently specialise in pointedly distracting our attention
from present urgent realities by taking evasive refuge in the
superglow of the radiant techno-ghetto?
Padraig
... your true colours (distinctly grim monochrome) are now projecting
themselves.
gh
The Irritated Irishman phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry) babbled:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:37:54 GMT, "David Mullen"
> > <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >They have a large inventory for shows with large equipment
> >needs and they have a great technical support staff. This isn't bragging or
> >boasting (I don't even work for Panavision), it's just an explanation of the
> >trend -- if you have a different explanation, please tell me. So I don't
> >get the hostility to my remarks.
Don't bother trying to understand him, David. An illustrative comparison
here: Jack the Ripper's victims didn't comprehend the psychotic
hostility manifested at them either. I'd wager that your use of the
phrase "large equipment" may have set him off into his latest psychotic
tangent.
> Film technicians and the Hollywood
> technocracy suddenly know all and everything about "the poor quality
> of scripts"? Yet nevertheless they pump millions of dollars and the
> very latest in film technology and mass-PR hype to elaborately render
> many more of such poor quality scripts into film?
Padraig, the skilled motion picture technicians employed on Hollywood
films do not "pump millions of dollars" into "poor quality scripts".
They are hard workers, typically raising families. They try to stay
gainfully employed in their chosen field to buy food and pay their bills
consistently, sometimes regardless of the quality of any given project
that is offered to them when they need a paycheck. If they are employed
on a great film that is a good bonus, but consistent employment is the
primary goal if one works in motion pictures. Of course, marketable
skills and gainfull employment may be a concept that is foreign to you,
Padraig.
> If there was ever a film-maker who ridiculed all notions of
> "professional specialisation", who - as an artist - strived for diversity,
> complexity, generality, universality, inter-relationships, of always
> relating the insular, the narrow, the specialist, to the wider picture,
> it was Kubrick.
How do you know what Stanley Kubrick really thought about anything,
Padraig? Did he tell you this personally? Or did you arrive at your
conclusions in the course of solitary all-night drunken reverie?
You've really gotten carried away with yourself, Padraig. Your posts
are embarassing to read.
G
Your Pal Brian
> Well thank you, Matthew, for your terminally Section Eight
> "fever-pitch" response, but shouldn't you be directing your very
> revealing "go easy, man" political rant and "menacing floridities" to
> your sociopath in the White House, and to the self-serving buffoons
> who inadvertently specialise in pointedly distracting our attention
> from present urgent realities by taking evasive refuge in the
> superglow of the radiant techno-ghetto?
Pretty soon you'll be posting in all-caps.
Brian
Winston Castro
wrote:
>
>Padraig, your subversion of a completely harmless technical discussion
>about optics into a spittle-flecked political rant about US policy
>suggests you've finally gone completely over the edge.
>
>Your hysterical terror of technology seems to be building to a
>fever-pitch. Best keep this sort of outburst to yourself lest we all
>write you off as a section-eight.
>
>(Instead, why not just croon these menacing floridities to your rifle
>while lovingly recalibrating her in readiness for Bush's "mass
>bloodbath"?)
>
>Matt.
>
>ps. Seriously, there's something very disturbing about these
>diatribes. Go easy, man.
I hope I'm not the only one who believes that David Mullen owes
Padraig an apology. Some of David's comments, along with his idle
threats to leave the group, were simply uncalled for.
JSpringer0953
>From: phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry)
He and I do live in the real world, because we are both professional
filmmakers. I suppose you could be considered a "projectionist" of sorts.
You're the one in the vacuum, and worst - you don't listen. You assume that you
are the only person with enough social conscience to care about the looming
possibility of war or its terrible consequences. What an ignorant (and
arrogant) assumption. You seem to be filled with rage, and willing to construe
provocation out of the most innocuous posts, and attack someone's good
character without the slightest provocation. You seemed to get bored and
frustrated when instigating assholes like me aren't around to bust your balls
and thereby give you a platform for your ridiculously hyperbolic (or borderline
psychotic) rants. This recent episode with David Mullen really took the cake. I
think the general consensus in this thread - (aside from your usual sycophantic
lackeys like IHD) is that you are either certifiable or drunk - or maybe you're
a brilliant oddball comic like Andy Kaufman, seeing just how outrageous or
bellicose you can be and still get away with it. But you can rest assured that
you will never be PLONKED by anyone. Actually, you should charge!
JOn
Mike Ackerman
boa...@yahoo.com (Boaz) wrote in message
news:<2f0136e5.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> I would still like to throw my two cents worth in about the fact that
> "The Lord of the Rings" production went with Arriflex, shooting in
> Super-35 with spherical lenses, because there weren't enough
> Panavision anamorphic lenses available in New Zealand for the number
> of different units shooting this film simultaneously. Jackson was
> concerned with making sure there was a consistency in the images. So
> in that case it was necessary to use the same brand lenses. This was
> especially important for all of the multi-generational work, using
> blue screen, CGI and then blowing up from a full-frame image to one
> using half of the image that when projected will look as though it was
> shot with anamorphic lenses (ending up with a 2.33 to 1 aspect ratio).
>
> I would also like to say that a lot of the non-technical people on
> this thread, however well-intended their questions and comments are,
> need posts like yours to clear up a lot of myths regarding Panavision
> and Arriflex cameras and the people who use them. "Pearl Harbor" is
> proof that one can shoot with the best cameras and anamorphic lenses
> and still make a forgettable piece of crap. I'm not a "brand name"
> kind of filmmaker.
As one of those non-technical people, I thought I'd mention that I just
rented The Cell (co-starring Vincent D'Onofrio) and listened to part of the
commentary. The outdoor scenes were shot with Panavision equipment, and
indoors with Arri. (Hi-Def video was used too, I think) This movie was in
2.35:1, and used non-anamorphic lenses, meaning this big movie was shot on a
very small aperture. The CG effects required that the film had to go
through an extra interpositive-internegative cycle. I think it is a tribute
to the quality of modern film that this movie could still look very good.
Mike
seandelgado
> Padraig an apology. Some of David's comments, along with his idle
> threats to leave the group, were simply uncalled for.
Yes, David Mullen should be sent to the concen, um, re-education
camps!! It just goes to show how subtle war mongering propaganda can
be. Arri and panavision are both `western' made capitalist cameras
made by those supplying nuclear and chemical weapons to the Iraqis.
Why shouldn't Iraq have these weapons? The US does. What makes the
US better than Iraq that they should keep these things to themselves?
Anyway, padraig is right that people should not discuss production
equipment or motion pictures while US soldiers are stomping children
to death.
I agree with Padraig that Iraq and destroying the US is all everyone
should think about and why shouldn't it start with movie equipment?
David was way out of line writing about lenses and camera made by war
pigs.
Remember when you buy stock from Kodak, and use german equipment like
zeiss lenses you are supporting the oppression of those in the
mid-east. According to padraigs informative post, Kodak is selling
nuclear missiles and zeiss chemicals to Iraq (who should have them or
not)
PS how dare you refer to this mass of hatred and confusion as a
`group'? If this were a real group padraig would have you all
swinging by the neck. Filthy american pig.
Greg Lowry
Castro" <at7000_nospam@nospam_Hotmail.com> wrote:
I sincerely hope you ARE the only one who believes David owes Padraig an
apology. I thought his response was restrained under the circumstances. As
for what you refer to as "idle threats to leave the group", I didn't
construe his comments that way. When one is assailed for making informative,
ultimately innocuous comments relating to camera technology, one must
certainly wonder if it's worth the effort to contribute at all. David
Mullen is one of this groups most valuable, solid posters. I for one hope he
sticks around and just ignores the Pinhead (my new appellation for Padraig).
It's more than curious that those of us who actually work in the film
industry are singled out for attack. Why does a guy who apparently now
despises the film industry and its workers (but who formerly had some
interesting, intelligent things to say about movies) choose to continue to
post at AMK? Stanley Kubrick may not have loved "Hollywood", but that's
where he got his movies financed and distributed. There is little doubt that
he respected his peers around the world. And he clearly loved movies -- of
all kinds. SK was very much a part of the system that the Pinhead so
reviles. His continuing posts at AMK are nothing more than an abuse of this
newsgroup.
But having said that, perhaps it's a good thing that the internet provides
an outlet for someone who appears to have become mentally unbalanced to a
spectacular degree.
--
Josh
>newsgroup, then I'm gone.
I hope you won't read Padraig's sentiments as echoing the rest of ours. I, for
one, am glad that you post here, and as a film student, you're one of the
people that have made and continue to make AMK a valuable resource for me in
the course of my studies.
Josh
Me (cool stuff) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
David Mullen
unproductive hostility around here. Letting myself get baited into an angry
response shows a lack of maturity and a lapse of judgement on my part that I
have little reason to be proud of. You'd think being 40 I would have
learned to control my impulses by now, not be petulent, and behave like an
adult. Sorry to all, including Padraig.
As for discussions of film technology and production techniques, even if
related to Kubrick, some of these questions might be best sent to me
privately by email, so as to not bore others who have heard some of it
before.
I do consider myself primarily an film artist, not a technician, but I've
never felt comfortable discussing the art side for fear of sounding
pretentious. Cinematographers have traditionally been ill-at-ease
presenting themselves as artists instead of craftsmen, due to a certain
amount of anti-art and anti-intellectualism in Hollywood.
I certainly have read many of the posts on AMK and simply not responded
because others are better at expressing their opinions than I am, and have a
greater insight into the work than I do. But it does not mean that I don't
have opinions of my own about all of this.
Just for the record, I'm politically liberal, I have certain "difficulties"
with modern capitalism, I'm pro-choice, against the death penalty, pro gun
control, dislike George Bush, have yet to hear a legitimate reason to go to
war with Iraq. Now what saying all of that accomplishes here, hell if I
know...
David Mullen
Boaz
I'm guessing you mean a small frame area. Aperture is the lens
opening, which not only affects the amount of light that is let in to
expose on the negative, but it also determines the amount of depth of
field, depending upon its f/stop.
Even with half of the 35mm frame used (like the old Techniscope
process), Super-35 is still superior in terms of resolution than
Hi-Def video.
> The CG effects required that the film had to go
> through an extra interpositive-internegative cycle. I think it is a tribute
> to the quality of modern film that this movie could still look very good.
>
> Mike
And that's all the film has going for it, that it looks good. Also, it
is also an example of more and more films mixing their formats in
order to produce their end product. If that means anything it is a
greater flexibility on the part of the filmmaker. However, the
rule-of-thumb of having something to say in the first place still
applies, no matter on what format a movie is made.
Boaz
Boaz
> > Warhola wrote in message ...
> > >> But if K shot BL with a BL1, then a BL1 is good enough for me
> >
> >
> > >What's a BL1?
> >
> > It is a 35mm Arriflex sync-sound self-blimped reflex movie camera. In the
> > early 1970's Arriflex and then Panavision both developed smaller, quieter
> > 35mm reflex movie cameras (the Arriflex BL1 and the Panaflex). Sound
> > cameras from the 1960's were much larger.
> >
> > The Arri BL1 was limited to 400' loads (5 minutes) but later a 1000'
> > magazine was developed. The Arri BL2, BL3, BL4, BL4S, and BL-Evolution
> > followed, then the whole thing was redesigned into the Arri-535 camera. Now
> > Moviecam and Arriflex have merged and created the Arricam system, which
> > combines the best of the two companies' designs.
> >
> > David Mullen
>
> This is certainly better than the merger between the magazines Dissent
> and Commentary, thus creating Dysentery.
And it looks as though the commentaries on this thread have turned to dissent.
Boaz
Winston Castro
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Actually, I do wish to apologize for contributing to the level of
>unproductive hostility around here. Letting myself get baited into an angry
>response shows a lack of maturity and a lapse of judgement on my part that I
>have little reason to be proud of. You'd think being 40 I would have
>learned to control my impulses by now, not be petulent, and behave like an
>adult. Sorry to all, including Padraig.
>
David, most mere mortals of the world would not have had the
courage to state what you just posted. You have garnered my utmost
respect. I look forward to your future posts. Your technical knowledge
related to film, is awe inspiring BTW.
Regards,
Winston
Mike Jackson
Mullen at dav...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/20/02 6:27 PM:
Well spoken and I hope you won't leave in a huff.
I don't know what got into Padraig other than maybe tying one on and
bellying up to the keyboard before his brain was sober enough to edit what
was spewing from his fingertips. I share some of his outrage but I don't
know what he expects the average American poster in AMK to do about George
Bush...
On the subject of your posts on technical matters, I have filed more than a
few in my "memorable posts" folder, but like a lot of others here probably
don't post a "great post" or "thanks for the info" kind of response often
enough that would seem to clutter up the archives to my mind.
Lack of such posts may leave you feeling as if you are lecturing an empty
hall and ask yourself "What am I doing this for?", but I really enjoy them
even though at 40 myself I think the ship has sailed on a career working
with any of said equipment.
I think most of your posts edited together would be the basis of a great TV
series a la something like "Cinema Secrets" which AMC seems to have
discontinued for no good reason. If your writings any indication I think
you'd be a great writer host for the kind of show I'd like to watch.
Anyway, keep the great posts coming.
And thanks for all the great posts past.
Mike Ackerman
boa...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/20/02 4:40 PM:
> Mike Ackerman <acke...@covadSPAMDELETE.net> wrote in message
> news:<BA28ACA4.102D%acke...@covadSPAMDELETE.net>...
>> This movie was in
>> 2.35:1, and used non-anamorphic lenses, meaning this big movie was shot on a
>> very small aperture.
>
> I'm guessing you mean a small frame area. Aperture is the lens
> opening, which not only affects the amount of light that is let in to
> expose on the negative, but it also determines the amount of depth of
> field, depending upon its f/stop.
>
I was using the first of two commonly-used definitions for "Aperture". See:
http://www.stlcc.cc.mo.us/mc/users/dcarson/filmexp/glossary.htm
Mike
Jan
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:37:54 GMT, "David Mullen"
> <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Jeez, Padraig -- all I'm trying to explain is why Panavision is so popular
> >in Hollywood.
>
> No, "Ask David", you're not "just trying to explain". You come off as
> someone uncritically promoting a bland, technocratic Hollywood by
> means of industry sub-culture technical-talk.
Oh, come on! Pathetic. Are you on something?
> "Forget about the films
> themselves, just sit back and admire the technical achievement and
> gizmo know-how.
How can you just sit there and write such unmitigated nonsense.
Jan Bielawski
Wordsmith
> Padraig's response to David Mullen is that a border-line psychotic (and
> that's being charitable). I don't give a flying fuck what Padraig has to
> say about that, and I certainly won't be reading any more of his insane
> rantings.
It was uncalled for. David is a fine friend and very informative. Padraig,
strange as it may seem, also has worth.
Wordsmith :)
Padraig L Henry
>phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry) wrote in message news:<3e0261b6...@news.iol.ie>...
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:37:54 GMT, "David Mullen"
>> <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeez, Padraig -- all I'm trying to explain is why Panavision is so popular
>> >in Hollywood.
>>
>> No, "Ask David", you're not "just trying to explain". You come off as
>> someone uncritically promoting a bland, technocratic Hollywood by
>> means of industry sub-culture technical-talk.
>
>Oh, come on! Pathetic. Are you on something?
You mean "on to something."
>
>> "Forget about the films
>> themselves, just sit back and admire the technical achievement and
>> gizmo know-how.
>
>How can you just sit there and write such unmitigated nonsense.
You will need to elaborate further than this summary dismissal, as on
its own, its an astonishing example of "unmitigated nonsense." Perhaps
you should be on something? Otherwise, rotate back to your angular
velocity dissertation ...
Padraig L Henry
Fuck off outta here you dumb, racist prick ... and take your fucking
bloodmoney with you.
Padraig L Henry
<greg...@hd3dmovies.com> wrote:
>It's more than curious that those of us who actually work in the film
>industry are singled out for attack. Why does a guy who apparently now
>despises the film industry and its workers (but who formerly had some
>interesting, intelligent things to say about movies) choose to continue to
>post at AMK?
What a load of condescending garbage. Firstly, you know nothing about
me. Secondly, don't you dare misconstrue what I said as some kind of
generalised "attack" on "those of us who actually work in the film
industry". I was questioning the intellectual - and artistic - poverty
of exclusively technocratic thinking, discourse, and practice within
Hollywood and environs, something that is long overdue. Why don't YOU
go post at some technical newsgroup.
>Stanley Kubrick may not have loved "Hollywood", but that's
>where he got his movies financed and distributed. There is little doubt that
>he respected his peers around the world. And he clearly loved movies -- of
>all kinds. SK was very much a part of the system that the Pinhead so
>reviles. His continuing posts at AMK are nothing more than an abuse of this
>newsgroup.
Listen up, Prickhead, what the fuck is all this Hollywood-sychophant
garbage? You clearly have nothing of substance to contribute to this
discussion about the present Hollywood malaise, preferring to fall
back on sentimental, infantile cliches while simultaneously
misappropriating Kubrick's name to your own shallow ends.
>
>But having said that, perhaps it's a good thing that the internet provides
>an outlet for someone who appears to have become mentally unbalanced to a
>spectacular degree.
Like others here, you really like rushing ahead to scrape the bottom
of the barrel, demonising anyone attempting to engage in serious and
urgent discussion just because it might make you feel unconfortable.
Now Fuck off to your shrink, Prickhead.
Padraig L Henry
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Actually, I do wish to apologize for contributing to the level of
>unproductive hostility around here. Letting myself get baited into an angry
>response shows a lack of maturity and a lapse of judgement on my part that I
>have little reason to be proud of. You'd think being 40 I would have
>learned to control my impulses by now, not be petulent, and behave like an
>adult. Sorry to all, including Padraig.
Well, I'm sorry too, but I think there is much more to be said here
than discussion-stopping apologies. First off, you have not really
addressed much if any of the issues raised in my post responding to
your "load of shit" remarks. Those latter remarks, as you well know,
were not provoked by me; you chose to so respond for reasons that
remain unspecified. If you re-read my first post - impulses aside -
you will realise that I was asking very legitimate questions.
>As for discussions of film technology and production techniques, even if
>related to Kubrick, some of these questions might be best sent to me
>privately by email, so as to not bore others who have heard some of it
>before.
>
>I do consider myself primarily an film artist, not a technician, but I've
>never felt comfortable discussing the art side for fear of sounding
>pretentious. Cinematographers have traditionally been ill-at-ease
>presenting themselves as artists instead of craftsmen, due to a certain
>amount of anti-art and anti-intellectualism in Hollywood.
I'll say! So why do you post hostile responses to someone who was
actually drawing attention to the promoters"of anti-art and
anti-intellectualism in Hollywood"? Aren't they the ones who are the
real purveyers of pretense? Or have I yet again missed something here?
This is a newsgroup, David, an open - often combative - forum, not
some miserable little clique of morally bankrupt Hollywood-wannabe
philistines (though its fast becoming that too, to judge from many
recent posts). Sure, I understand that freedom of speech (increasingly
unless its a pro-war, pro-bloodlust, pro-Bush dogma) is fast
disappearing in contemporary America, but isn't that all the more
reason to come out and defend it? Before long, even that will no
longer be possible (very likely once the Homeland Security Dept is up
and running, BTW, and this imminent dreadful war takes its ugly
domino-effect course)? "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" is
more relevant than ever in contemporary America, whether in Hollywood
or in Washington ... or at AMK; notice how the majority of your
supposed "defenders" here are the ones who endlessly spout the most
obnoxious, right-wing sociopathic views on this newsgroup, while much
of the rest sit in silence or send me private E-mails of support.
Perhaps in your part of the world, cinematographers have
"traditionally been ill-at-ease," but the ones I know over here have
no such insecurities. Indeed, it is why some of them fruitfully
progress to successful film directing (eg Thaddeus O'Sullivan, and -
soon - Declan Quinn, neither of whom have any difficulty broadening
any film discussion out to include wider artistic or political
concerns ...)
>Just for the record, I'm politically liberal, I have certain "difficulties"
>with modern capitalism, I'm pro-choice, against the death penalty, pro gun
>control, dislike George Bush, have yet to hear a legitimate reason to go to
>war with Iraq. Now what saying all of that accomplishes here, hell if I
>know...
But isn't your last sentence here an admission of your >apolitical<
liberalism? And also a part-explanation for why you veer away, as many
others do, from any discussion of the relationship between film (and
Hollywood) and wider issues? Understandable, yes, its - here and
elsewhere - the norm, the status quo stance in America. But its not a
liberalism that actually means anything in practice, is it?
Padraig
gh
Poor, sad phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry) ranted:
> Fuck off outta here you dumb, racist prick ... and take your fucking
> bloodmoney with you.
This is a usenet newsgroup, not your hovel; you don't own it and so have
no basis to order anyone to "fuck off outta here."
"Dumb, racist prick"? My "bloodmoney"? What is that about? Like I said,
you are embarrassing yourself here with your posts.
G
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
<displaced sociopathic rant snipped>
> your ridiculously hyperbolic (or borderline
>psychotic) rants.
... And here's a page-turning, stomping good suspense-filled,
spine-tingling read about the "personalities" of such outstanding
citizens as Mr Springer and George W Bush:
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/
The Psychopath's Brain
Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD
Introduction: Tormented Souls, Diseased Brains
Emotionally Insensitive Psychopathic Serial Killers
Introduction [Extract]
As Dr. Robert Hare, the noted Canadian researcher on the phychopathic
personality, has pointed out in his book, most persons are unable to
understand how a criminal and antisocial personality such as that of
serial killers, is possible in a human being like ourselves. [The
same difficulty apples to the emerging syndrome "BIOSOCIOPATHY".]
Not only serial and mass killers, but a large proportion of violent
criminals in our society (as much as 25 % of the inmate population)
show many of the characteristics of what psychiatry has named
"sociopathy", or more properly, "antisocial personality disorder"
(APD), a better and more precise term than psychopathy. DSM-IV, the
important diagnostic manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists,
defines APD as a disorder entity and lists its main characteristics,
which can be easily recognized in affected individuals. The World
Health Organization has also defined sociopathy in its classification
of diseases, ICD-10, using the term "dissocial personality disorder".
[Here is the DSM-IV definition of SOCIOPATHY:
http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n07/doencas/dsmiv_i.htm
DSM-IV: Antisocial Personality Disorder Definition
Sociopathic Personality or Antisocial Personality Disorder is a
personality disorder whose essential feature is a pervasive pattern of
disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in
childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. The
individual must be at least age 18 and must have a history of some
symptoms of conduct disorder before age 15. It is diagnosed by the
presence of three (or more) of the following:
* failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
* deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure
* impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
* irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated
physical
fights or assaults
* reckless disregard for safety of self or others
* consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure
to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
* lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the
course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. Some of the associated
features are: depressed mood, drug addiction and erratic behavior.
Source: APA, DSM-IV, 1994.]
[*** NOTE: BIOSOCIOPATHY may not be visible by age 15 years. It may be
masked by 'legitimate activities' such as hunting or ATV & mountain
biking tearing up habitat and maiming animal targets of opportunity
not easily recorded on any record. It also may be learned in parental
homes, and be conformity to parental role model(s), which in other
households would be considered "failure to conform to social norms
with respect to lawful behaviors" If the sociopath learns the
"cunning" trait early, all abnormal behaviors may be concealed, and
acted out only treacherously.]
Sociopaths are characterized by a disregard for social obligation and
a lack of concern for the feelings of others. They display
pathological egocentricity, shallow emotions, lack of insight, poor
control of impulsiveness (including a low tolerance for frustration
and a low threshold for discharge of aggression), irresponsibility, a
lack of empathy for other human beings and of remorse, anxiety or
guilt in relation to his/her antisocial behavior. They are usually
callous, manipulative individuals, incapable of lasting friendship and
of love. They shamelessly lie, cheat, steal, abuse, neglect their
relatives and families, and endanger themselves and other people in a
reckless manner. Hare characterizes them as "intraspecies predators
who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control
others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience
and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want
and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without
the slightest sense of guilt or regret."
Sociopaths are unable to learn with punishment, and modifying their
behavior. When they discover that their behavior is not tolerable by
society, the react by hiding it, never by suppressing it, and by
cunningly disguising their personality traits. Thus, in the past
psychiatrists have used the term "moral insanity" or "insanité sans
délire" to characterize this psychopathology. The classical sociopath
has been Donatien-Alphonse-François de Sade (1740-1814), a French
nobleman whose perverse sexual preferences and novels (such as
Justine) originated the term sadism.
The sociopathic individual usually displays a superficial charm to
other people and has a normal or above normal intelligence, and does
not show symptoms of other mental diseases, such as neuroses,
hallucinations, delusions, irrational thinking or psychoses. They may
have a serene countenance on normal social intercourse, and have a
considerable social presence and good verbal fluency. In some cases,
they are leaders in their social groups. Very few persons, even after
lenghty contact with sociopaths, are able to imagine their "black
side", which most of the sociopaths are able to hide succesfully
during their whole life, leading a double existence. Fatal victims of
sociopathic killers perceive their true side only moments before their
death.
Most scaring is the fact that between 1 and 4 % of the population is
sociopathic in a lesser or larger degree. Of course, most of the
persons with SPD are not criminals and are able to control it within
the limits of social tolerability. They are considered only "socially
obnoxious" or hateful personalities, and every one of us knows of
someone who fits the description. Corrupt and callous politicians,
social or career fast climbers, authoritarian leaders, abusing and
aggressive persons, etc., are among them. A common characteristic is
that they engage systematically in deception and manipulation of
others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted
non-violent sociopaths can be found in our society. An NIMH
epidemiologic study reported that only 47% of those who met the SPD
criteria had a significant arrest record. The most relevant events for
these persons occur in the area of job problems, domestic violence,
traffic offenses, and severe marital difficulties. Many people avoid
individuals with this personality disorder because they are irritable,
argumentative, contentious and intimidating. Their behavior is
oftentimes brash, unpredictable and arrogant.
Sociopathy is recognized early in an individual: it begins in
childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood (the
diagnosis is possible around 15-16 years old). Sociopathic children
manifest tendencies and behaviors which are highly indicative of their
disorder. For exemple, they are seemingly immune to parental
punishment, and are not affected by pain. Nothing works to alter their
undesirable behavior, consequently parents usually give up, which
makes the situation worst. Violent sociopaths show a history of
torturing small animals when they were children, firesetting and
vandalism, systematic lies (truancy), stealing, aggression to school
mates and challenge to the authority of parents and teachers.
However, a tiny fraction of sociopaths develops into violent
criminals, rapists and/or recidivist killers. In more severe cases,
the disease can evolve into cannibalistic and sadistic rituals of
torture and death, often of a bizarre nature. The is widespread
consensus that these extreme forms of violent sociopathy are
untreatable and that their bearers must be confined for life in
special asylums for the criminal insane. A typical sociopath of this
kind has been portrayed by Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter in the
"The Silence of the Lambs" book and film. Or, they are executed, in
countries or states where the death penalty is adopted.
Violent sociopaths describe themselves as "predators" and are usually
proud of it. They lack the usual type of aggressive behavior, which is
violence accompanied by an emotional discharge (usually anger or fear)
and an arousal of the sympathetic nervous system (pupil dilation,
increased heart rate and respiration, adrenaline discharge, etc.).
Their kind of violence is similar to predatory aggression, that is
accompanied by minimal or no sympathetic arousal and is planned,
purposeful, and without emotion ( "cold-bloodness"). This is
correlated with a sense of superiority, so that they like to exert
power and unrestricted dominance over others, ignoring their needs and
justifying the use of whatever they feel compelling to achieve their
goals and avoid adverse consequences for their acts.
David Mullen
>actually drawing attention to the promoters"of anti-art and
>anti-intellectualism in Hollywood"? Aren't they the ones who are the
>real purveyers of pretense? Or have I yet again missed something here?
Yes, you seemed to take offense at me describing the technical support staff
at Panavision as "excellent", which I still stand by. I've worked with them
and you haven't. And I don't think it's proper to become hostile at some
group of opticians, camera mechanics, and electronic experts because they
worked on the cameras that made "Pearl Harbor." What, they were supposed
to have read the script and then walked out of the repair shop in protest???
Everytime I answer a question about what film stock was used on a certain
film, I have to remember to taking a parting shot at how bad the film was?
For example: "To answer your question, "Pearl Harbor" used 5277... and
Michael Bay has no taste and a brain the size of a walnut. Some of the
release prints used the Technicolor dye transfer process... which failed to
mask the stench everytime Ben Afflick had a love scene with Kate Beckinsale.
The use of the older C-Series anamorphic lenses was clearly an attempt to
promote American nationalism since they chose not to use German-made
optics."
Personally, I HATE that kind of internet poster, the one that implies that
people were stupid for asking the question in the first place -- it's like
in the DVD group when someone asks when "Spider-Man" is coming out and
instead gets some asshole telling him how ignorant he is for liking such a
worthless piece of crap. Sorry, I don't want to play that game.
You took offense at me explaining that the reasons behind Panavision's
success was their ability to handle large scale productions because I didn't
take the time to condemn such productions, because I wasn't willing to take
some sort of moral stance against the film industry where I work everyday
(well, if I were employed more often....)
I didn't because that I was just trying to answer the question, simply and
concisely. It's my "philosophy" about internet posts and I'm not going to
change it into YOUR philosophy, which is use a simple question as another
opportunity to get onto a soapbox. You and I are different creatures -- let
me be me and I'll let you be you.
Anyway, you do such a good job at putting down Hollywood, anything I add is
not going to be as colorful!
I personally don't see what it accomplishes here in AMK to thrash through
each other's political and religious beliefs -- is ONE person going to have
their minds changed? Or will a lot of antagonism be created for no reason?
All I see is a lot of posturing going on, followed by a lot of bad feelings,
and in the end, nothing has changed other than people are pissed off,
followed by regrets for pissing others off.
>This is a newsgroup, David, an open - often combative - forum, not
>some miserable little clique of morally bankrupt Hollywood-wannabe
>philistines (though its fast becoming that too, to judge from many
>recent posts). Sure, I understand that freedom of speech (increasingly
>unless its a pro-war, pro-bloodlust, pro-Bush dogma) is fast
>disappearing in contemporary America, but isn't that all the more
>reason to come out and defend it?
Someone asks why Panavision is used more than Arriflex and I'm supposed to
see this as an opportunity to stand up for the First Amendment? Sorry, I
don't make the same mental leaps that you are able to.
>But isn't your last sentence here an admission of your >apolitical<
>liberalism? And also a part-explanation for why you veer away, as many
>others do, from any discussion of the relationship between film (and
>Hollywood) and wider issues? Understandable, yes, its - here and
>elsewhere - the norm, the status quo stance in America. But its not a
>liberalism that actually means anything in practice, is it?
Maybe because I'm half-Japanese, raised by a Japanese mother (not
Japanese-American), I was taught to maintain some degree of civility in
conversation for the preservation of group harmony. It's just a different
set of values -- I'm NOT comfortable with conflict. When I got into
arguments with my brother or sister, my mother would say "the person who
stops arguing first wins the argument." Of course, she was referring to
pointless arguments such as children have. But there is a point where there
is no value in continuing an argument where people simply repeat the same
points they've made in the past.
If someone makes a racist comment, I generally pipe-up unless the point is
to ignore a troll. But if someone makes the same point that I was going to
make, and does it better than I could, then I don't say "me too!" Anything
I follow-up with just sounds lame and only adds to the white noise going on.
I'm a liberal but I'm also a Christian -- I can understand some of the
points of the religious right even though I disagree with most of them (I'm
also upset that Christianity has been co-opted by the right wing, at least
publically.) But that leads me to the next point...
What's the point of THIS newsgroup? I think it's to bring together people
into a community, joined by a common love for good cinema and Kubrick's
movies in general. The atmosphere should be like a group of friends meeting
at a pub; arguments are fine if made out of a base of mutual respect. If
the atmosphere gets too hostile and the group disintegrates, then what does
that accomplish? You had your say but no one is left to listen to anything
else you have to say after that. So I don't see the point of hashing out
over political and religious issues that no one is going to change their
minds about because the end result is unproductive. I certainly don't feel
better about it afterwards, and I don't feel that anything was accomplished
either other than displaying the size of my ego.
If I'm going to promote my political causes, it will be in how I vote as an
American and how I educate myself on the issues -- not how clever I can be
to work them into a discussion on Kubrick, camera technology, etc.
David Mullen
Mike Jackson
wrote on 12/21/02 3:14 PM:
> On 20 Dec 2002 16:09:42 GMT, jsprin...@aol.com (JSpringer0953)
> wrote:
>
> <displaced sociopathic rant snipped>
Padraig, what's the POINT of these posts? That Bush is an idiot? That he's
the most dangerous President that the United States has had since Nixon or
Reagan? That we are living in some of the most immediately dangerous times
since WWII and the height of the Cold War? That's a given!
Hell I've had a front row seat all week to the satellite trucks and press in
normally sleepy Pascagoula, MS as Trent Lott was home unsuccessfully trying
to apologize his way out of the terrible things he said recently.
Don't you think you are largely preaching to the choir that are the mostly
moderate and liberal posters here? What do you expect us to DO about Bush?
What has disappointed me is that you haven't seemed to have taken the time
to be THOUGHTFUL about the terrible things you said to David Mullen when he
was merely talking shop about some mere pieces of movie equipment. As
someone who's a major camera and still photo gear geek I have nothing but
bafflement for the personal attack.
I'd like to think since you've been a largely entertaining and positive
poster over the years you misread the intent and got carried away, but
compounding that mistake with more of them isn't helping your cause.
Sit back and reread those posts and your responses.
You OWE David an apology.
And we need to keep this community with Kubrick's name above the door the
fun, creative and informative place it is.
My two cents...
David Mullen
>Japanese-American), I was taught to maintain some degree of civility in
>conversation for the preservation of group harmony.
Before you remind me, I'm well aware of that history has taught us the
downsides to such a cultural philosophy... however, I still hold that to be
mindful of other's feelings is more of a virtue than a vice.
David Mullen
Boaz
> Actually, I do wish to apologize for contributing to the level of
> unproductive hostility around here. Letting myself get baited into an angry
> response shows a lack of maturity and a lapse of judgement on my part that I
> have little reason to be proud of. You'd think being 40 I would have
> learned to control my impulses by now, not be petulent, and behave like an
> adult. Sorry to all, including Padraig.
No apology necessary to me, David. But that's just me speaking.
> As for discussions of film technology and production techniques, even if
> related to Kubrick, some of these questions might be best sent to me
> privately by email, so as to not bore others who have heard some of it
> before.
I, for one, do not find your posts boring. I love a little "shop talk"
on this forum once in a while.
> I do consider myself primarily an film artist, not a technician, but I've
> never felt comfortable discussing the art side for fear of sounding
> pretentious. Cinematographers have traditionally been ill-at-ease
> presenting themselves as artists instead of craftsmen, due to a certain
> amount of anti-art and anti-intellectualism in Hollywood.
I run into this same problem myself, and on all levels of the
industry, high and low. I never liked being labeled a "technician" by
people. "Oh, you're just a technician. The director is the real
artist." That largely depends upon the director a cinematographer
works with. My feeling is that if they respect you as an artist then
they themselves are artists. When a director contemptuously regards
his cinematographer as a mere "technician," that is only to cover up
their own insecurites and inadequacies, if not lack of artistic
abilitiy or even talent. There is a funny line in David Mamet's "State
and Main" in which the director of the film-within-the-film, played by
William H. Macy, describes himself as an "interpretive artist." Yes,
he is, but the subtext of that line also suggests Mamet's feelings
towards the directors he's worked with on the films in which he did
the screenplay only. But I'm sure you have your share of "war stories"
as well, David.
> I certainly have read many of the posts on AMK and simply not responded
> because others are better at expressing their opinions than I am, and have a
> greater insight into the work than I do. But it does not mean that I don't
> have opinions of my own about all of this.
How many artists really like to go into a deep examination and
explanation of their own work? I have often avoided it myself because
it takes me back to college and even film school, and I think I've had
enough examinations and analyses of films to last me a lifetime.
However, I often like to see what others have to say on the subject of
Kubrick's films. I think it was also because a professor used to say
that "everything is subjective," that I try not to put any
interpretation of anything I see or read into stone. I try not to be
the type to dig my heels in as far as having an opinion on
interpreting a film, especially a Kubrick film, where so many
iterpretations can be made (and have, both here and in other reviews
and essays I have read). I like to read what David Kirkpatrick has to
say; I would never have looked at a Kubrick film the way he has, and
his own take on examining the films is fascinating. On the other hand,
I do tire of coming into AMK and finding what amounts to a dorm room
style pissing contest which degenerates into a "my philosopher can
lick your philospher" debate. That's almost as bad as the "what
Stanley would have done" type of posts, when the poster can't possibly
know what was on Kubrick's mind when making his creative decisions.
This inspired a private joke, but I think I will now share it with
everyone here: "How many AMK'ers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because they are too busy arguing with each other over how
Kubrick would have done it."
But when the discussions stay within a level of civility that doesn't
suggest the need to call in a referee then the reading here is worth
one's time to log on and settle in for a spell, so to speak. The
better posts inspire further discussion, engaging the poster to dig
deeper, delving further into their own thoughts and interpretations,
and finding the incentive to share their own spin on what they see in
Kubrick's films (or whomever others that we may decide to throw into
the mix in a regular OT thread). Rancorous posts only serve to put
people off, creating discontent among the rest of the group, many of
whom just want to throw their two cents worth in without necessarily
having their heads bitten off.
> Just for the record, I'm politically liberal, I have certain "difficulties"
> with modern capitalism, I'm pro-choice, against the death penalty, pro gun
> control, dislike George Bush, have yet to hear a legitimate reason to go to
> war with Iraq. Now what saying all of that accomplishes here, hell if I
> know...
>
> David Mullen
Nothing, except you share the same politics you describe here as I do.
To paraphrase Bogey in "Casablanca," the problems of a group of
Kubrick fans don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the problems
of the real world. However, I don't see where it is necessary to lay
the problems of the world on the doorsteps of everyone who posts here
on a regular basis either. It recalls my college days when it seemed a
small group of people would disrupt the activities of the rest of the
group with their Cassandra-like rants on the state of the world, as if
they were on a perpetual caffine jag, and as if that behavior would
actually work in solving the problems. Yes, we know what's happening
outside in the real world, but coming off like a Hyde Park nutter who
refuses to step down from his soapbox isn't going to make a difference
either. On the other hand, I also don't see where going on and on
about the world's problems on AMK is going to lay the foundation for
solving them either. This is a forum for discussion, not a think tank.
Maybe discussing the more intricate technical details of filmmaking
(particulary cinematography) is interpreted as a head-in-the-sand
means of avoiding the more serious problems of the film industry, but
it is also a refreshing change from the more annoying attempts to play
intellectual games with one another on this NG. David Mullen has an
enthusiasm towards his craft that I admire, and I think it is great
that he is willing to share his knowledge with us here on AMK. While I
have, unfortunately, only seen one feature he has shot, I can say that
he does possess an artist's eye and is very skilled and professional,
and he can put his money where his mouth is. It is too bad we didn't
get a chance to "chew the fat" after the "Cinerama Adventure"
screening at LACMA, but I don't know what you look like, and you don't
know what I look like. We could have been the proverbial two ships
passing in the night, for all I know.
And there is certainly nothing wrong with discussing merely the
technical aspects of making a film here. We have enough "scholars" on
AMK as it is; it is nice to hear from someone who has actually been
"in the trenches," so to speak. Besides, this NG is one of the best
around, among the most intelligent, well-read and articulate. What is
wrong with DIVERSITY as well? David can clear up a lot of mysteries
regarding the photographing of a feature. I try to, but David's
encyclopedic knowledge and having had more feature experience in that
discipline suggests I step back and let him provide the discourse. I
still shoot, but I am working more towards directing myself,
developing my own screenplays (on spec) to realize that goal, though
without wishing to go into the details of the politics and personal
angst of working towards that goal at the present time.
I can only recall once that Padraig and I "chewed the fat" at length
on AMK, and that was in regards to the two versions of "The Shining"
and Kubrick's choice of adapting novels rather than attempting to
write original screenplays (which I believe was on the same thread). I
found the discussion enjoyable, refreshing and intelligent, as well as
insightful, finding Padraigs's comments a good sounding board to many
of my own thoughts and questions. I would also like to bring up here
what Padraig posted earlier about the long list of names working on
"Episode 2," I believe, in the Film Comment. I see the names and read
that as people working, being employed, earning a paycheck. That's
what this business is, a job of work. Not everyone in this industry is
a writer, director or producer or even actor. They work and get paid,
and they are skilled craftspeople who can make a lot of money and earn
every penny. Why do certain films cost more than others? Apart from
what is on the screen, look at the end credits. Every name you see is
someone who earned a paycheck on that film. Is it being exploited to
work on a big movie or a bad one? Only if one works for nothing. Or is
it the suggestion that no one work on a film at all unless it has the
potential of being a good movie. Is that supposed to be the equivalent
of not buying grapes, boycotting Shell Oil and refusing to wear mink,
or even going on strike against GM? Will the industry sink because of
the inability to get people to work on a movie or have people even go
see their movies once they are made and out in theaters if we all band
together and strike against the Hollywood power-mongers? The problem
with that theory, of course, is that human nature, and even individual
thought, will circumvent such a notion. People will continue to see
movies, even if they are a well mounted crock of shit. People will
continue to want to work in movies if they have the chance to do so,
either in front of or behind the camera. And no amount of James Joyce
articulating and J. D. Salinger posturing will change that reality.
As for myself, I am not riding off into the sunset from AMK. I am,
however, going to take a hiatus from posting for at least a couple of
weeks. I am flying out Sunday night to spend the Christmas and New
Year's holidays with my family back east. And I think it's best that I
keep away from posting on AMK while I'm gone, spending time with
friends and family. My father is in his 80s, and even though we e-mail
each other every day I would like to spend as much quality time with
him as possible while I am back there. So, unless there is a good
reason for me to post again before Sunday night, I'm out of here.
Happy Holidays to the rest of AMK, and I'll see you next year.
Boaz
Lev28
of all of this technobabble, if at the end of the day, all of this
macho-optical technical posturing just winds up being conspicuously
wasted on yet another irresponsible, infantile Pearl Fuckup? All
sounds awfully like the sterile, distant, and dehumanising attitude
currently on display in the present War Room, now fully "preped" and
ready to shoot. Not that there will be any Primos, Cooke S4's, or
Zeiss Ultra Primes rented out or on hand for investigative film-makers
eager to record an angle on the coming lens-censored mass bloodbath
.. Panavision me arse ...
Padraig >>
It is not by accident that Kubrick only used a camera that he could OWN - ie an
Arri....
It is not by accident that it was ILLEGAL to own a 16mm camera in the Soviet
Union...
The 35mm Camera is chained by money to only shoot the "offical" cinema of
studios and governments.
Digital Cinema ...
MAKE A MOVIE.
David Mullen
ie an
>Arri....
His primary camera on "Eyes Wide Shut" was rented -- an Arri-535 from Arri
Media. He mixed that with his own camera equipment. His primary reason for
camera ownership was NOT to free him from studio financing, but to give him
more creative flexibility, so he could modify equipment to his personal
needs, adapt specialized gear to it, shoot tests whenever he wanted to, etc.
His ownership of so much camera and editing equipment gave him greater
control and flexibility, but it was not an attempt to sidestep studio
financing in order to make whatever features he wanted to (since the studio
let him make whatever he wanted to, it wasn't necessary for him to sidestep
them...) Plus, I think he was something of a "gear hog", someone who LIKED
owning cameras and lenses, and had the money to indulge in his passion.
As for digital cinema, it would have been interesting to see what Kubrick
would have done with it, but I think he would have also pushed the
technology to its limits and found it somewhat lacking. It's hard to imagine
him settling for 1080 line progressive-scan camera that only shot at 24, 25,
and 30 fps, for example. The sheer BREADTH of possibilities with 35mm
equipment does not yet have its equivalent yet in High-Definition. There is
no tiny "Eyemo" 1080/24P camera, there is no way of shooting at 300 fps,
there isn't the exposure latitude possible of color negative, etc. All of
which he would have found frustrating, especially if there was no good
reason for him NOT to use 35mm.
Let's face it -- Kubrick had enough personal money and enough camera and
editing equipment that he could have shot some low-budget 35mm production
without any studio financing. He didn't need to be "freed" by digital
technology - it wasn't the film format that was getting in his way. And
the types of films he DID want to make needed a real budget (and name actors
to ensure some degree of financial return), and at that level of financing,
the cost savings of HD over 35mm isn't going to be the sticking point over
whether the film gets made. He made "Eyes Wide Shut" on a 60 million dollar
budget, using a small crew but big sets and a LONG shooting schedule.
The 35mm format was not the reason it cost 60 million dollars, was not the
reason for the long shoot, was not the reason why he wanted to work on
soundstages, nor was the reason he didn't just go out and make it on his own
dime without funding from Warner Brothers.
>The 35mm Camera is chained by money to only shoot the "offical" cinema of
>studios and governments.
That's funny -- I shot a 35mm feature called "Northfork" that will be at
Sundance in January, financed independently and made under the complete
control of the filmmakers, from their script to their final cut. Neither
the studios nor the government were involved that I can remember...
At the lowest end of budgets, yes, I agree that digital technology has given
many people the freedom to just go out and make the movie without arranging
as much financing as a typical 35mm film. On the other hand, I've shot 35mm
features with budgets as low as $100,000, so unless you are referring to the
guy with only $20,000 or less in his bank account who wants to make a movie,
the shooting format is not always the primary stumbling block.
Your problem, Bernard, is that your experience has mostly been with bigger
studio projects and the attendent woes from being beholden to them, and
you've channelled your frustration away from them and onto the 35mm format.
I've ONLY been in the independent world only where there's no studio
interference to be found, and from where I'm standing, digital technology is
only freeing those filmmakers with the lowest of low budgets. In the
approx. $200,000 to one million dollar budget range, the debate over whether
to use digital or film technology tends to be both about financial needs and
aesthetic needs, and if the filmmaker feels that film is the right aesthetic
choice and worth shifting more of the budget in that direction, the budget
is high enough to allow it. You place way too much emphasis on the
recording medium as some sort of liberating force, when it's only one of
many issues that the low-budget independent filmmaker has to address. 35mm
is not the enemy and it certainly is not the reason why Hollywood
productions are so dumbed-down these days. If the ENTIRE industry could
magically switch to digital overnight, all the same problems would still be
there because all the same people would still be there. The same mentality
that greenlighted "Scooby-Do" would still be there. The same mentality that
doesn't want to put even a few million dollars in a small risky project
would still be there. The same mentality that doesn't want to distribute an
art film is still there.
I really hope you're right and digital cinema, both in shooting and
distribution, opens the door for a new cinema made outside of studio
control. I just fear that all it will mean is that we get more handheld,
grungy, poorly-lit slice-of-life Dogma-95-ish movies -- and there's only so
many more of those I can take. I'm still waiting for the new Michael
Powell, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, to emerge using digital technology, not
the millionth John Cassevettes wannabee...
David Mullen
seandelgado
> and 30 fps, for example. The sheer BREADTH of possibilities with 35mm
editing. I mean reaction shots, close ups, how you can manipulate the
image so much more and quicker than film. 99% of posting is digital.
K would have and did love the editing and post production of today.
> the shooting format is not always the primary stumbling block.
>
>If the ENTIRE industry could
> magically switch to digital overnight, all the same problems would still be
> there because all the same people would still be there.
ha ha thats the truth!
>The same mentality that doesn't want to distribute an
> art film is still there.
>
> I really hope you're right and digital cinema, both in shooting and
> distribution, opens the door for a new cinema made outside of studio
> control. I just fear that all it will mean is that we get more handheld,
> grungy, poorly-lit slice-of-life Dogma-95-ish movies -- and there's only so
> many more of those I can take. I'm still waiting for the new Michael
> Powell, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, to emerge using digital technology, not
> the millionth John Cassevettes wannabee...
But thats what it is. you see? The cinema outside the studio is the
one without cranes and dollies, with digital you want to get more
into that cinema verite and realism with digital. studio digital,
might as well shoot 35, I think you'll need less light in the end.
K liked shooting and using the studio system. and hes said that too.
Brian Siano
>I really hope you're right and digital cinema, both in shooting and
>distribution, opens the door for a new cinema made outside of studio
>control. I just fear that all it will mean is that we get more handheld,
>grungy, poorly-lit slice-of-life Dogma-95-ish movies -- and there's only so
>many more of those I can take. I'm still waiting for the new Michael
>Powell, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, to emerge using digital technology, not
>the millionth John Cassevettes wannabee...
>
>
Amen to that. BTW, David, you're one of the few people on this newsgroup
I make an effort to read, and I'm not keen on the crap Padraig and
others have dumped on you.
David Mullen
>one without cranes and dollies, with digital you want to get more
>into that cinema verite and realism with digital. studio digital,
>might as well shoot 35, I think you'll need less light in the end.
Yes, outside the studio there are fewer resources, smaller sets, less crane
shots, etc. -- all of which are possible to be shot with a film camera.
Remember the French New Wave? Italian Neorealism? The cheapness of digital
is a benefit to many who can't afford film, but there is also a middle
ground between the no-budget self-financed movie and the studio-financed
movie where people are going to continue to choose between digital or film
for aesthetic reasons. And the notion that digital = more realism requires a
big leap in logic. Look at "The Believer", shot in Super-16 on 800 ASA
stock in a gritty neo-realist style. It didn't need digital technology to
go for a level of realism. And then look at "Attack of the Clones", shot in
Hi-Def video. One can use either technology for whatever stylistic aims one
wants.
The issue is not really the acquisition format, other than for the lowest of
budgets. I will admit that IF one can afford to buy a $100,000 HDCAM, there
is some freedom in THEN being able to run out and shoot 50 minutes of
high-quality images on a 60 dollar cassette tape whenever one wants to. But
that's a serious outlay of capital and not much comfort to the guy with
$10,000 in his pocket who wants to make a feature of near-35mm visual
quality. Technical quality still costs more, even in the digital world.
The real issue is DISTRIBUTION and EXHIBITION. A creative artist can and
will use every acquisition medium from Super8, DV, HD, 16mm, 35mm, etc. to
get the kind of images they want, but the stumbling block is getting the
final result out to the public. If digital technology can help here, I'm
all for it.
The problem is that only the mainstream cinema chains seem interested in
investing in a few digital projectors, so they can screen "Signs" or "Harry
Potter" digitally. I don't see much movement in the art house cinema chains
in installing a DLP projector in at least one of their theaters to allow
digital moviemakers to screen their works.
And I'm not even counting internet distribution -- call me old-fashioned,
but I like the idea of crowding a group of people together into a theater
and showing something on a large screen for a communal experience. How
knows if a viewer is really concentrating on your film if they watch it at
on over the internet? Besides, the bandwidth requirements are huge if you
want high-quality images, and then you get into piracy issues...
Anyway, I only bring all of this up because I'm not happy with reductive
"digital will revolutionize cinema" statements -- it's nothing more than
propaganda and hype if it's not delineated into more concrete terms, usually
promoted by people who just made a digital movie and want to get people's
attention to it. Having been in the indie world now for over a decade, I'm
all too aware of all the things directors have to do and say to promote
themselves. Look at George Lucas, wanting to be thought of as the father of
a new digital era so that people won't notice that the script and acting in
the new "Stars Wars" films is rather mediocre.
David Mullen
seandelgado
> with any of said equipment.
Hell, they let Sven Nykvist use one and hes gotta be 90! You can rent
a IIC mos camera for 50 bucks ODD (out de door). If you’ve
never shot 35 and you w
You’re an image guy, right? Take that bad boy and blow off 400
feet of D vision like on sunsets, pretty waves in the bay or your
girlfriend. Get the negative telecined to DV and you can pull out
some nice jpegs or run it on your web page and it’ll be
beautiful (so what if by using Kodak you support nuclear
proliferation) not all images should be politically motivated, some
things are beautiful without reason.
A technician is an artist.
Lev28
is some freedom in THEN being able to run out and shoot 50 minutes of
high-quality images on a 60 dollar cassette tape whenever one wants to. But
that's a serious outlay of capital and not much comfort to the guy with
$10,000 in his pocket who wants to make a feature of near-35mm visual
quality. >>
Have you seen the new D-VHS consumer level machines? They retail for around
$1,500.00 and record at 1080i.....Larry Thorpe (from Sony) told me that a 1080p
mini DVcam is in R & D at Sony and will retail for about $3,000.00 initially.
Just today I got a quote for a G4 with a terrabyte of drive space. With final
cut pro and pro tools on this machine you can post produce at 1080p
uncompressed...ie: spit out a finished movie....
The cost of then writing out the 1080p tape to 35mm interneg has also dropped
to around $10,000.00....of course you only need his for theatrical
distribuition...
Mike Jackson
Mullen at dav...@earthlink.net wrote on 12/23/02 10:28 AM:
> Anyway, I only bring all of this up because I'm not happy with reductive
> "digital will revolutionize cinema" statements -- it's nothing more than
> propaganda and hype if it's not delineated into more concrete terms, usually
> promoted by people who just made a digital movie and want to get people's
> attention to it. Having been in the indie world now for over a decade, I'm
> all too aware of all the things directors have to do and say to promote
> themselves. Look at George Lucas, wanting to be thought of as the father of
> a new digital era so that people won't notice that the script and acting in
> the new "Stars Wars" films is rather mediocre.
>
> David Mullen
Another important point would probably be that in the traditional Hollywood
system there are few auteurs who do it all; write, direct, direct the
photography and produce. The reason for that is that it's a pretty tall
order to be good at all of those occupations. Making a 'film' even in
digital is a collaborative art and even if you have the digital tools that
are cheap you STILL have to get people that are good at all the skills you
need.
The closest I've ever come to this is making a TV commercial myself and to
have people acting (if in most cases you can even use that term generously),
getting the make-up and hairstylist, scouting and securing locations, the
logistics of moving all the people around, feeding them and on and on of the
things you have to do to shoot a TV commercial are a far greater task than
the act of securing a camera and lights to lay down images with.
Just to shoot footage that will fill up thirty seconds can be something that
can eat up only an entire day if you are lucky, much less the commitment of
shooting the footage for something that will run a lot longer.
Two years ago at the annual meeting in Jackson, MS the Mississippi Film
Office screened Mississippian Jeff Davis' indie film "John John in the Sky"
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0301479
The film was feature length shot in 35mm (but for some reason it was
projected digitally from Beta I think on equipment that the Sony reps at the
show had brought and it looked terrible with all the video artifacts, though
you could tell that the original 35mm print and production was probably on
par with any Hollywood film.) It was all shot here on location in
Mississippi where the overhead for making such a film couldn't be much
cheaper and still looked quite competent.
The cast included country musician Randy Travis and Hollywood actress Rusty
Schwimmer (who you might remember as the heavy red headed lady romanced at
the bar by one of the fishermen in "The Perfect Storm") which while not that
big of a set of names to have in a film were far and away bigger known stars
than most first time directors could get to be in their film. Davis' also
did some pretty astounding things like getting his hands on via begging and
borrowing an admirable amount of vintage cars to use. Even here where there
are a lot of them about, it's no easy task to get a hold of them all on a
few days when you need them.
In the end, though the film was a small period piece set in the 50's with a
bit of present day stuff most of the people that saw it would have only
recommended it to someone else because of the curiosity of seeing the rare
indie film made here by a Mississippian. Davis did a question and answer
session after the film was screened and the assembled Film Commission
members were polite and asked a lot of questions about how he did it all on
a shoestring, though I forget how much he said it cost.
The best thing I could say about it is that he was a competent director
though not much of a storyteller, but the film at least showed he was worth
hiring as a director for something. Davis was a really nice guy and we were
all happy for him, though I think the consensus was we wouldn't want to sit
through that film again.
Making a movie is just more than getting the equipment & resources to do it
with. It's ultimately having a fantastic story to tell and point to make. If
you can do that with hand puppets on 8mm it'll trump the 35mm full fledged
film with CGI by ILM every time.
Many is the time I've joked with friends of mine who between us have all the
tools we need to make a small digitally shot film that all we need is a
brilliant idea. So far we grin that we haven't had such an idea yet. And
probably won't.
Mike Jackson
seand...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/23/02 11:08 AM:
>> even though at 40 myself I think the ship has sailed on a career working
>> with any of said equipment.
> You're never too old to pick up an Arri!!
>
> Hell, they let Sven Nykvist use one and hes gotta be 90! You can rent
> a IIC mos camera for 50 bucks ODD (out de door). If you've
> never shot 35 and you w
>
> You're an image guy, right? Take that bad boy and blow off 400
> feet of D vision like on sunsets, pretty waves in the bay or your
> girlfriend. Get the negative telecined to DV and you can pull out
> some nice jpegs or run it on your web page and it'll be
> beautiful (so what if by using Kodak you support nuclear
> proliferation) not all images should be politically motivated, some
> things are beautiful without reason.
>
> A technician is an artist.
I just posted a thing about that topic. I've read a lot of things that I
think could be made into great films that probably never will be by
Hollywood, say any of the books by Southern writer Walker Percy. At one time
I remember hearing that they were going to make his book "The Moviegoer"
into a film I think with Ben Affleck as the star, but nothing seems to have
come of it. I can't tell you how wrong Mr. J Lo would be for that part
either...
Percy was a great writer and his book "Lancelot" for example shares a lot of
themes with "Eyes Wide Shut" where the protagonist discovers his wife's
infidelity to him and how he handles it make Dr. Bill's actions in EWS look
reasonable by comparison.
If I had to pick something that I would make into a movie myself I'd love to
try that because there have been so few movies that got what the South is
like right. But it would be a huge undertaking being a period piece set in
the mid-1970's and requiring a plantation style house, at least a dozen
speaking parts and generating a faux hurricane which are far outside an
indie budget. And to find the right cast to get the mood right to make it
true to what Louisiana was/is like rather than the typical Hollywood actors
doing the typical phony accents and stereotyped southerner slant is damn
near impossible.
If you can't do it and knock it outta the ballpark, I'm persuaded there's
little reason in trying. The hardest part to making "Lancelot" as I see it
is getting anyone to see it as the psychological drama that it is rather
than seeing it as a film set in the South, which typically means a film that
deals with racism in one way or another.
The only film I can think of shot here off the top of my head that broke
that mold was "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" by the Coen Bros. And it only
seemed to get away with breaking that "Mississippi Burning" mold by being an
allegorical comic fantasy and the pure directorial power that the brothers
bring to making a film on their terms.
And writing is the all important skill. I might be able to pull off shooting
the footage, but I know that the writing even when I have the great story
there right in front of me to work from is beyond me.
I have a lot of friends who work in the advertising community making TV
commercials and though we've done a lot of the kinds of things you need to
know how to do to make a movie, it's not anywhere near the same thing as
actually making movie.
Wordsmith
Folks, with this post, David Mullen has further verified his worth to this
group. Lead on, Dave. Happy Holidays to you and all!! (Even *you*, Padraig!)
Wordsmith :)
Winston Castro
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Anyway, I only bring all of this up because I'm not happy with reductive
>"digital will revolutionize cinema" statements -- it's nothing more than
>propaganda and hype if it's not delineated into more concrete terms, usually
>promoted by people who just made a digital movie and want to get people's
>attention to it. Having been in the indie world now for over a decade, I'm
>all too aware of all the things directors have to do and say to promote
>themselves. Look at George Lucas, wanting to be thought of as the father of
>a new digital era so that people won't notice that the script and acting in
>the new "Stars Wars" films is rather mediocre.
>
>David Mullen
>
>
If you had used the statement; "Digital *has* revolutionize
cinema," I'd agree that this has not yet occurred.
However, "Digital will revolutionize cinema" is a reasonably fair
statement IMO. It makes no mention of *when* this might occur. Ten
years, a hundred years, a thousand years? Anyone's guess.
I'm sure you're familiar with the physics of digital processor
chips and such; every two years the processing power is doubled, the
technology is vastly superior and so on...
In 20-30 years, perhaps the common layman will have the means to
visually compete, by means of reasonably cheap digital cameras, with
today's top quality film cameras in use by major studio productions
and such.
So to me, it is conceivable that at *some point in time,* digital
will revolutionize cinema. It has already been mentioned that in
postproduction, it already has to a large degree.
Winston Castro
wrote:
>"David Mullen" <dav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<RFyN9.2059$ka5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> >It is not by accident that Kubrick only used a camera that he could OWN -
>> ie an
>> >Arri....
>>
>> many more of those I can take. I'm still waiting for the new Michael
>> Powell, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, to emerge using digital technology, not
>> the millionth John Cassevettes wannabee...
>>
>> David Mullen
>
>Folks, with this post, David Mullen has further verified his worth to this
>group. Lead on, Dave.
Yes, if you enjoy off-topic, right wing diatribes. ;-)
>Happy Holidays to you and all!! (Even *you*, Padraig!)
>
>Wordsmith :)
Same to you Wordsmith, and everyone else from AMK as well! Let's all
have a wonderful Christmas and a bright and shining New Year!
(As we all plunge head first into societal chaos and unprovoked
mass global warfare...he he...)
JSpringer0953
>From: phe...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry)
>Date: 12/21/2002 3:14 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3e04d99f...@news.iol.ie>
I was cured alright...:)
Merry Christmas and God Bless you, Mr. Padraig Henry, and God Bless us
all...each and every one of us. And God protect us as this storm approaches.
JOn
Padraig L Henry
<dav...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I'll say! So why do you post hostile responses to someone who was
>>actually drawing attention to the promoters"of anti-art and
>>anti-intellectualism in Hollywood"? Aren't they the ones who are the
>>real purveyers of pretense? Or have I yet again missed something here?
>
>Yes, you seemed to take offense at me describing the technical support staff
>at Panavision as "excellent", which I still stand by.
Again, go back and READ (as in COMPREHEND) my original post, instead
of setting up straw man irrelevancies here. It was you who took, as
you have already admitted, offense.
>I've worked with them and you haven't.
As I've already said to Brian Siano, be careful what you say here. I'm
just as familiar with Panavision as you are (they have had a
subsidiary over here for decades, providing equipment to dozens of
film productions over here, many of which I have been all-too
involved with) ...
>And I don't think it's proper to become hostile at some
>group of opticians, camera mechanics, and electronic experts because they
>worked on the cameras that made "Pearl Harbor." What, they were supposed
>to have read the script and then walked out of the repair shop in protest???
[sigh] Aren't you, again, completely missing the point here? Have I to
repeat it all over again? (Not that I'm going to; you're quite capable
of comprehending it for yourself).
<some snippage>
>Personally, I HATE that kind of internet poster, the one that implies that
>people were stupid for asking the question in the first place -- it's like
>in the DVD group when someone asks when "Spider-Man" is coming out and
>instead gets some asshole telling him how ignorant he is for liking such a
>worthless piece of crap. Sorry, I don't want to play that game.
So you really think I'm playing some little >game< here? Shame on you
...
<rest of charmingly narrow-minded rant relegated below-the-line>
David, you >still< have not even bothered to address any of the issues
that my post raised, instead, seeking refuge in subjectivist
rationalisations about such as "your "philosophy" about internet
posts" , your contempt for meaningful political discussion
(film-industry related and beyond) , and your ridiculing of "some sort
of moral stance against the film industry" on the basis of working
there every day!
Really, David, I had higher hopes of you, but if this is all you can
respond with ...
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
What "crap" would that be, Brian?
David's posts here are simply making the - well-argued - point that
film technology (apart from his ill-considered cheapshots directed at
me in another post), of whatever format, is not the >deciding< factor
in most film-making; there are other determinants - economic
(financing, distribution and marketing), aesthetic (scriptwriting,
acting, creativity, vision), political (the most important, but, oops,
can't get into that, can we?) - influencing what films get made, and
what films we get to see ...
This was the original basis of my criticism of his near-exclusive
concentration on film-technology issues (criticisms about-which people
here seem to be oh-so-touchy, for apparently obscure reasons).
So be careful what you say, Brian (and that also goes for certain
other posters here), as your above, uninformed dismissal only makes
you look unnecessarily foolish.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
wrote:
>I was cured alright...:)
>
>Merry Christmas and God Bless you, Mr. Padraig Henry, and God Bless us
>all...each and every one of us. And God protect us as this storm approaches.
>
>JOn
So, we finally have something that we can - broadly - agree on. Good
J'ON ya, Mr JOn, theological constructions aside!
[Though I think John Lennon's 1970s XMas song might now be in need of
some refining: "And so this is Christmas: War is Here"]
Padraig
David Mullen
>$1,500.00 and record at 1080i.....Larry Thorpe (from Sony) told me that a
1080p
>mini DVcam is in R & D at Sony and will retail for about $3,000.00
initially.
You know how much HDCAM is compressed, so imagine what's going to happen
when they try to compress HD onto a Mini-DV tape, with tiny HD CCD's inside
the camera. You'll get a high-res image for transfer to film, but little
else to recommend it. Plus current HD zoom lenses sell for around
$25,000 -- imagine the optical quality of a zoom stuck onto a $3000
camcorder. It all sounds exciting, but if what gets released is a consumer
camcorder but with more resolution, then all the problems of shooting on
consumer gear (permanently mounted lenses, small CCD's, limited image
controls, etc.) not only come into play, but you've got the extra resolution
of HD to make all your mistakes more visible!
Anyway, it's hard to have a debate on vaporware. I've also heard about
JVC's Mini-DV HD camcorder in the wings. I'm in a wait-and-see mode.
>Just today I got a quote for a G4 with a terrabyte of drive space. With
final
>cut pro and pro tools on this machine you can post produce at 1080p
>uncompressed...ie: spit out a finished movie....
I know a director right now who bought an F900 and a G4 system with
Pinnacle's Cinewave to cut uncompressed HD on it. Cost him an arm and a leg
though. We shot a feature in 15 days with just me, a sound guy, and three
P.A.'s as the crew -- he's cutting it right now. But we're still talking
budget figures that don't preclude film if desired. Of course, the MORE
films he makes, the more his equipment investment starts to pay off.
>The cost of then writing out the 1080p tape to 35mm interneg has also
dropped
>to around $10,000.00....
Sounds interesting -- where? The lowest bid I got for the price to do an
Arrilaser recorder transfer of a feature-length project to 35mm interneg was
$45,000, from Digital Film Labs in Copenhagen. EFILM, Cinesite, etc. are
still charging more like $70,000. CRT recorder transfers cost maybe half
that of Arrilasers, but I can't imagine $10,000 -- that's pretty much just
the cost of the stock & developing for a 35mm internegative alone. For
example, if you go to FotoKem and ask for a simple 35mm I.N. to be struck
from a I.P. using a contact printer, no color-corrections (one-light), it's
about $10,000 for a feature-length project.
All of this still doesn't address the bottleneck of theatrical distribution,
which you should be aware of more than anyone. Even if twice as many people
make movies because of access to digital equipment, the problems of getting
it out to the public remain until digital theaters start popping up devoted
to art house cinema.
The problems for indie films in the theaters is worse than ever. When we
had "Twin Falls Idaho" released, it played at various theaters around the
country for a month. When our follow-up "Jackpot" opened two years later to
the day, it was pulled from the Laemmle Theater chain after a week even
though they had booked it for a month because the tickets sales weren't high
enough and they wanted to move something else in. I mean, we opened the
same weekend as Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes"! It's annoying that a
small art house film is expected to generate most of its revenue in its
first week, just like a major studio film, with no chance to build an
audience. And the only way to make more money in the opening week is to
spend more money of advertisement, which puts more burden on the film to
open well, raises the P&A costs, etc. -- an endless cycle that dooms most
indie films from making any money.
I really don't think the issue is the acquisition format -- it's really the
distribution and exhibition system. Besides, digital post and digital
exhibition is possible for film-based productions as well.
David Mullen
David Mullen
>visually compete, by means of reasonably cheap digital cameras, with
>today's top quality film cameras in use by major studio productions
>and such.
Yes, but how many common laymen will have the SKILL to create high-quality
images? It's not just the technology that creates image quality. It's just
a starting point. Almost anyone today has access to oil paints but not
everyone can create a good painting with them.
I wouldn't even say 20 years -- the technology is changing FAST. On the
other hand, I see a long cohabitation between film and digital. There will
always be someone who would rather shoot film.
> So to me, it is conceivable that at *some point in time,* digital
>will revolutionize cinema. It has already been mentioned that in
>postproduction, it already has to a large degree.
Yes and no -- post has been revolutionized by digital technology, but are
Hollywood films fundamentally different? What good is a revolution if you
just end up with twice as many Michael Bay movies, edited twice as quickly
at half the cost?
We all know that ultimately what matters is that people have better IDEAS,
better imaginations, better scripts. Maybe digital technology will give
more people more access to moviemaking, and through sheer volume, there will
be more great movies made. Or maybe all we'll find out is that the average
person can't make a decent film no matter what technology you hand them.
Maybe good art will always be rare because the limitations are within us,
not outside of us.
David Mullen
David Mullen
problem is that I'm addressing one aspect of your posts and you're
addressing another issue in my posts, and neither of us want to talk about
the SAME issues. And now we're just repeating what we said before, going in
circles, and I'm in danger of just letting myself get more and more snide
and/or offended & defensive again and I don't want to do that and have to
apologize all over again!
I just hope that every time in the future that I answer a simple technical
question with a simple technical reply, you will refrain from jumping in to
complain or make rude comments. Or else I'm simply going to have to reply
to all technical questions through private email and thus deprive others who
might have been curious to hear the answer.
We agree on a lot more issues than you think, but I'm not you and I'm not
going to start emulating you, or your writing style, or your content. Let
me be me. This is who I am -- someone more comfortable discussing facts
than expressing opinions, unless they are closely connected to factual
information or real-life experience. I can't discuss philosophy, religion,
or politics with the skill and insight I feel would be necessary to elevate
and advance such a discussion.
David Mullen
Wordsmith
Christmas at Ground Zero! *LOL*
WeirdAlsmith :)
Simon Howson
> Just for the record, I'm politically liberal, I have certain
"difficulties"
> with modern capitalism, I'm pro-choice, against the death penalty, pro gun
> control, dislike George Bush, have yet to hear a legitimate reason to go
to
> war with Iraq. Now what saying all of that accomplishes here, hell if I
> know...
>
> David Mullen
Not to mention a great cinematographer, I just wish they would start
releasing films you shot in cinemas in Australia...
Simon Howson
Brian Siano
>>Amen to that. BTW, David, you're one of the few people on this newsgroup
>>I make an effort to read, and I'm not keen on the crap Padraig and
>>others have dumped on you.
>>
>>
>What "crap" would that be, Brian?
>
Specifically, the brouhaha over _Pearl Harbor_. I didn't see where the
aesthetic qualities of that film had any relation to the technology used
to film it, and your comments to David on this point were extremely silly.
>
>
Josh
>>visually compete, by means of reasonably cheap digital cameras, with
>>today's top quality film cameras in use by major studio productions
>>and such.
As David has pointed out far better than I could, maybe the technology will be
there, but that doesn't mean people will have either the skill, imagination and
distribution that real professional filmmaking requires. I'm a film student
now, so between my miniDV cameras and Adobe Premiere, I could spit out a
digital movie. Or, I could check out my college's 16mm film equipment, rent a
35mm camera, and take the film back to school and use their Avids to edit the
thing. But I'm fully aware that I don't have a feature length story worth
telling just yet, and that if I did and made such a thing, I don't have anyone
outside my class or friends who would see it.
For me, filmmaking at some level has to involve a seperation between me as an
artist or craftsman and the audience. It may be fun, and creatively fulfilling
to play in a garage band in front of friends and fellow students, but I
wouldn't be on the same level as the guy making a living doing it playing at
arenas or theatres. That's just the way it is. Digital filmmaking for me has
been a great tool - just being able to shoot and learn how to do continuity
makes it worthwhile, as does shot composition, etc. But it doesn't mean that
because I have a camera, I can be an overnight genius. I wouldn't consider
myself a professional, and I wouldn't want to be a director if all I'm doing is
shooting miniDV stuff to put up on the web. I want my stuff to play in a
theatre where people who don't know me go and pay money to gather and watch it,
or on television where there is a wide audience outside of people I know.
So yes, digital technology will continue to grow and allow amatuers to make
movies, but unless people have great stories to tell, an amateur mindless
action or comedy flick won't do as well as studio backed one, and amateur films
won't catch on without an audience. That must be the hardest challenge of any
indie filmmaker - if you work for a studio, you know they're going to pay for
prints and get them out into theatres and pay for ads. If you're an indie,
after all of the pressure simply to get it made, then a whole new nightmare
about distribution begins. (I wonder if it's easier or harder to get indies
out there now that companies like Miramax are owned by major corporations and
aren't really independent anymore. I would imagine that would make it harder.)
Josh
Me (cool stuff) http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me
CDR Trading:
http://members.aol.com/vertigoman/me/bootlist.html
seandelgado
> will use every acquisition medium from Super8, DV, HD, 16mm, 35mm, etc. to
> get the kind of images they want, but the stumbling block is getting the
> final result out to the public. If digital technology can help here, I'm
> all for it.
thinking that theatrical distribution is the only 1st tier
distribution. Its not. Especially if the product fits into one of
many `marketing'outlets available. What I mean by this is Genre. So
many of these no budget digital movies are without genre or theme
sometimes intentionally so. All you have to do is follow the TV
channels, look at whats happening, now they have the love channel, the
mystery channel, the sci-fi channel and many more. These exhibitors
are looking for product.
At last years AFM market they screened no less than 20 movies made
digitally, some even in mini-DV. And some of them got picked up for
video and cable release. Just as I’ve seen material shot on 35
that looks like video, I've also seen DV work that rivals film up on a
big screen, and if the movie is in a genre or something that these
guys can bite onto then your odds are increased.
I read that in 2001 something like 2500 movies applied for MPAA
ratings, yet there were less than 300 movies released theatrically.
These other 2200 guys are crazy, if you don't have a big star, or a
bigger genre element (blair witch) then forget about theatrical
distribution.
> Anyway, I only bring all of this up because I'm not happy with reductive
> "digital will revolutionize cinema" statements -- it's nothing more than
> propaganda and hype if it's not delineated into
Here if you say digital cameras I agree to a point, otherwise I don't
agree at all. Post production is entirely digital, and over the last
10 years completely revolutionized, the look of an editing room and
its equipment and personel is completely different, and what you could
do is amazing and inconcievable only a few years ago. Would EWS have
been banned altogether had they not digitally superimposed? Could
they have done it on film using old style matting? Sure, but at what
cost and loss of quality?
If you have a project thats not cutting negative and will deliver on
tape, or make a print from tape, then digital truly is a revolution in
what you are able to envision and execute, simply on a desk top
computer.
Heres a quick example, I was editing this ladies demo tape and she had
a scene at a table, cutting it down for a demo it missed a certain
reaction that would have gotten to the punch earlier, so I took a move
from another clip, reversed the motion, so instead of leaning in she
leans away, I slowed it down a little in the motion, and when I put it
in it was perfect. I completely created a reaction shot that was
never actually `shot'. This could not have been done in film without
flipping internegatives and all kinds of printing, that would not have
been worth it due to generational loss, so much so, to attempt it
people would say it was stupid.
Was it trufault who said: film will become a true art only when its
materials are as cheap as crayons.
Viva la revolution!
David Mullen
don't think movies are necessarily better edited now, so it is a revolution
that didn't really change the artform fundamentally, just cosmetically.
Things are easier, faster, cheaper, more options are available, etc. so I'm
not complaining -- it's a good thing.
Actually, while I think that the emergence of expensive technology like the
original AVID's only changed film editing in superficial ways (with
exceptions), the real revolution is more recent -- the availability of such
systems for home computers at low costs. I think the ability to edit and
even online at home IS a major development, although again I think what it
changes is ACCESS more than it changes the artform of editing. We shall
see.
I went to a lecture at AMPAS on the history of movie sound, with loads of
clips projected (starting with early 1930's films and going to present day),
and the height of the art of sound editing and mixing at the screening was
demonstrated in a 6-track mag sound 70mm print of "Apocalypse Now". The
digital soundtracks in the last few clips that followed, also from some
famous sound supervisors, were less interesting (not technically, just
aesthetically). Randy Thom then spoke about how the digital revolution
didn't make sound in movies any better compared to the best analog work done
(like in "Apocalypse Now") but that it raised the quality of the AVERAGE
movie so that even your typical Adam Sandler comedy has a pretty complex
sound design. So digital technology increases access, it increases speed
and complexity, it increases the ability to fix poor production tracks,
etc., all of which help the general filmmaker -- but the best of the best
has little to do with digital vs. analog. The bar for sound design hasn't
been raised by digital technology, just lifted those nearer the bottom. I
don't think there have been even been films since to reach the sheer visual
quality level of 1960's films like "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia". So
while the "digital revolution" will give those struggling at bottom a leg
up, will empower more people to make movies, we shall see if it really
raises the artform to new levels.
David Mullen
Josh
>don't think there have been even been films since to reach the sheer visual
>quality level of 1960's films like "2001" and "Lawrence of Arabia".
I agree with you there - the desire to keep moviegoers in theatres and away
from television led to some pretty imaginative developments in film formats and
projection, and having that huge canvas must have been an amazing inspiration
for someone like David Lean or SK who was deciding to make an epic. I just
read an article in my local paper on Long Island that the last single screen
movie theatre with a balcony on Long Island was shut down, and only two or
three single screen theatres remain. Now you have huge multiplexes in every
town, which you would think would lead to more choices, except that they're
never screening anything I want to see, and on 18 screens in each theatre in
ten neighborhoods might be carrying the same 6 or 9 films, so what's the point?
If you're a filmmaker, why bother to make a visually stunning film like
"Lawrence of Arabia" if you know it's going to be projected on movie screens a
fraction of a size of what they once were, that won't be able to recoup its
cost because a modern audience won't pay to see a breathtaking three minute
shot of the desert sun setting without digital effects and fast cuts. Which is
not to say that all of those things are automatically bad, but they shouldn't
be the sole way of doing a picture.
I really should have been born to either make movies at the height of the
studio system as a George Cukor or Frank Capra or Howard Hawks, in the age of
musicals, comedies, westerns, genre pictures, Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, or
perhaps in the sixties like SK and David Lean. I do sometimes scratch my head
and wonder why I'm looking to find work in an industry that on the whole no
longer makes or supports films that were the reason for me falling in love with
film in the first place.
And, as much as I hate to say it, if I had an $80 million budget, lots of
explosions, stunts, expensive digital effects, good technicians, I could
probably, with a little training, make a totally slick action movie, and then
given a $30 - $50 million advertising budget, make it the "must see" movie of
the week, and gross $100 million or more. (It was called "XXX") But why would
I want to do that? And if I did do that, then I could probably make a $20
million dollar movie without any action sequences full of sappy melodrama, call
it my "personal project", have my movie studio spend $50 million on an Oscar
campaign, and win a bunch of awards and be acclaimed for being bold enough to
turn my "blockbuster skills" into telling a heartwarming (or heartbreaking)
tale. Am I being overly cynical? Probably. I remember reading some interview
or seeing a retrospective or something where a studio boss was asked about what
films he was putting out for the year - it may have been Jack Warner or Harry
Cohn. He said something like "One or two are going to make a lot of money,
another couple will do well, two or three will bomb, and then I have high hopes
for one to be a great picture." The only studio I can think of now that
doesn't put out a zillion pictures a year that does seem to make top-notch
blockbuster pictures as well as support filmmakers with something to say, and
take risks on talent, is DreamWorks. Maybe I'm imagining this, but didn't it
used to be where studios made a bunch of films each year, and they made a few
high profile films expected to be big earners, cheaper genre pictures that
would do a little business, and then be sure to support at least one director
or one project that might not make a dime but just had to be made because it
would be *good*?
What this has to do with Panavision or Arriflex, I have no idea.
seandelgado
change cinematic or narrative techniques. Narrative stemming from
Aristotle and before and cinema from porter and many others possibly
earlier.
Cinema is still basically the same conceptually, the materials have
only gotten better at creating emotive moments of realistic immediacy.
I can see this same discussion being around the introduction of sync
sound. People said it didn't do anything for the actual cinematic
art.
I mean whats really changed? The editing of say, Run Lola Run can
fit into definitions of types from podovkin. And similarities of
technique between the makers of RLR and eisenstein can be made.
> will empower more people to make movies, we shall see if it really
> raises the artform to new levels.
Movies haven't gotten better because of digital but they certainly
haven't gotten any worse. There must have been a lot of movies
released along with 2001 in '67, and I'm sure there were a ton of
stinkers.
The digital revolution frees up the creators but doesn't free the
creation. To think that should happen is similar to saying the fine
art revolution caused by acrylics is not important because the artists
were still using canvas. All it really did was make it cheaper and
easier to paint, like you wrote, it provided access, and thats the
thing.