It's actually daytime, but "Good Night" sounds more dramatic.
312 has been a great class, and one of the few where I have a hard time imagining anyone walking out disappointed or feeling like they didn't learn anything. It's kind of sad when a class you really love dissolves. I know I'll still be seeing and working with a lot of you next semester, next year, and maybe even years to come, but it's still sad to see your class go. You get attached to idiosyncratic, dynamics of a good class - where everyone sits, the awkward silences between critiques, Anthony's cravings for pizza pie. But I'm comforted by the fact, that everyone has grown so much through the semester. It was weird to come into the class in position of experience ( I use that term relatively) because I was in exactly the opposite position last semester. There are just so many things I could talk about that I loved about this class, I'll keep it to a few...
"Cinematography for Directors" was an excellent book. Rachel did a really great job picking the reading material. This book in particular was so interesting to me though. I like that it dealt with cinematography in a "why" mindset other than focusing on the "how"
Filmmaking is an active and you really have to motivate yourself. Rachel structured the class in a way to reflect that. We did tons of stuff, but how high you set the bar was usually up to you. The scene assignment, the portraits of the place were awesome. I love going through the entire process of working with people, getting something of the ground and completed.
Being around gear and cameras and all that other good stuff lights a spark to learn more. I spend a lot of terms hanging out in the dvxuser, rogerdeakins, creativecow, and cinematography.com forums trying to learn more, but I attribute the spark of that desire to Rachel and the 312 class.
I read in each and every blog posted. I really got excited about seeing what everyone had to see, and I feel like I know everyone better through them.
It's already been said, but there's a lot of talent in the class. The opportunity to be in a school that's actively building it's film department and be surrounded by other filmmakers who are eager to share and talk about their ideas is a blessing.
-Henry
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
I Googled "Money Shots"...
...and I don't think most of the pictures are "classroom appropriate".
I'm not exactly sure how I define the "money shot" when it comes to filmmaking. In class we seemed to talk about them mostly in terms or epic time lapses or some grand shots of the Grand Canyon at sunset. Those can certainly be beautiful , but a lot of times it's just beauty for the sake of beauty.
So in the context of an entire movie, money shots, for me, are those moments when everything comes into perfect harmony. Color, framing, light, wardrobe, production design, direction, ect. It creates a special moment, and it's that whole moment, not exclusively the cinematography, that makes it work. Here are some...
"Hero" this is visually stunning movie. Very stylized and full of money shots.
This is a still from one of my favorite scenes in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". Great scene.
"There Will be Blood" The use of wideshots in this movie is incredible. The entire scene with the explosion, the spewing oil, and Daniel Plainview covered in oil holding his son is awesome.
I'm not exactly sure how I define the "money shot" when it comes to filmmaking. In class we seemed to talk about them mostly in terms or epic time lapses or some grand shots of the Grand Canyon at sunset. Those can certainly be beautiful , but a lot of times it's just beauty for the sake of beauty.
So in the context of an entire movie, money shots, for me, are those moments when everything comes into perfect harmony. Color, framing, light, wardrobe, production design, direction, ect. It creates a special moment, and it's that whole moment, not exclusively the cinematography, that makes it work. Here are some...
"Hero" this is visually stunning movie. Very stylized and full of money shots.
This is a still from one of my favorite scenes in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". Great scene.
"There Will be Blood" The use of wideshots in this movie is incredible. The entire scene with the explosion, the spewing oil, and Daniel Plainview covered in oil holding his son is awesome.
My torrid affair with DSLR's
I'll preface this by saying I'm a hypocrite. I currently own and shoot on a DSLR. Sue me.
For the most part, I've already given my two cents about the DSLR craze, but I'll say it again. I like the cameras, hate the users (or atleast a lot of the users) so I'll try to add something by trying to be objective about some of the pros and cons I've found in DSLR's
CONS
1. These are small cameras. They're not built for video, nor are they built to support all of the gear/add-ons to turn them into professional production cameras (despite Zacuto and other companies best efforts to shove every possible piece of gear down our throats). Let's stop trying to make them something they're not. A lot of the supposed benefits ( low-light) are sometimes negated by the fact that you have to open up the aperature so wide to get a decent exposure. It makes pulling focus a nightmare, especially off of a non-articulated LCD screen. At time, they feel very impractical for bigger productions.
2. Dynamic range is not so hot. I've heard and read some people trying to crown these cameras as legitimate professional tools suitable to take over the music video, commercial, and yes, even the television markets (der der did you hear they filmed House with it? der der). Right now, that market is still pretty dominated by 35mm, 16mm (The Walking Dead), and newer digital camera like the Red and the new Arri's. Once again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you think the 5D is a suitable replacement to those you might be high. The dynamic range and latitude for manipulation in post is simply not there. I've personally felt a few times that some of my 5D footage didn't hold up so well after transcoding and color grading. It's still incredible footage for student purposes, but it seems pretty crazy that if given a the choice (cost not being a factor), that anyone would pick the 5D over proven and other high-end emerging digital options.
3. The transcoding process is kind of a pain in the butt. And 5-11 minutes max clip times kind of sucks.
4. They're cheap. Wait, what? That's a bad thing? Well kind of (here comes the hypocritical stuff). An important question to consider - is the democratization of cheap, powerful cameras a good thing? I don't know, but peruse vimeo for awhile and you can decide for yourself. There's some good/great stuff and a lot of really bad stuff.
I digress...
So what do they do well?
PROS
1. They are perfect for travel. I think this is the real bread and butter and revolutionary aspect of the camera that's not being talked about. Who cares if they're limited in they're ability as professional tool. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PROFESSIONAL TOOLS. For me, the ability to throw my T2i in a small, over-the-shoulder bag and take in anywhere is incredible. It makes a great training tool for any aspiring cinematographer. If you can take a camera with you everywhere you go, you can start training yourself to see the world in a different way. You can teach yourself composition. You can learn how to see light in a different way. You can learn what you like. That is awesome.
2. They make great images. I've seen some incredible things shot on a DSLR. In the right hands and with a good set of lenses, they can can do wonderful, beautiful things.
3. They've inspired me any many others to learn more and make more. Whether or not they really offer everything they're being made out to offer, the perception is what matters. People feel like they can shoot something awesome now. And the upside to all of the squabbling over spec between this cam or that cam has pushed me to learn just what the poo all of that stuff means. It's an exciting time. Everyone's creating and learning.
4. They're cheap. Yep, really, really cheap considering some of the features you're getting. There may be a million hipsters out there shooting vintage, verite' style poo-poo, but if there is some twelve year old right now preparing to shoot the next "Citizen Kane" that would be worth it.
Ahh, so many of the pros are also cons. I guess that's what we in the long-winded, circular logic business call a double edged sword. Any tool is only as good as the filmmaker holding it.
BYE, BYE
-Henry
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Artist Statement
Sometimes the answer is as simple as "Because".
For me being a cinematographer is matter of purpose. Horses run, monkeys climb, and I shoot.
It's a deceptively simple mantra. I don't have any grand notions about what an artist does or doesn't do. I don't even consider myself an artist. I'm just doing what I feel like I'm suppose to do, and I believe it's that sense of purpose and instinct that drives my work.
My first real experience as a filmmaker was shooting a short documentary about teens coming of age in small-town Alabama. For me, this was a foundational experience. I learned how to tell a story and communicate through visuals. It was trial by fire and the resulting images weren't always the best, but there was a sense of earnestness in many of the shots that came from following my gut. Although I've since moved on from that exhilarating first foray into documentary and into a variety or other styles, I feel like there is a piece of it carried into every project. It's still early, and my journey as a storyteller will surely be filled with it's share of road-blocks and frustration. But during the hard times, I take comfort in the simplicity of my "Because". It's the answer to 14 hour shooting days, early call times, and blown shots. Whether the project is a small backyard shoot with friends or a large film set, I come to shoot with wide eyes and eager hands. Most importantly though, I come to shoot because it's what I'm supposed to do.
-Henry
Sunday, November 28, 2010
What Makes a Good Reel
What makes a good reel? I don't know.
The End.
No seriously, I think the most difficult thing about reels (and for the purposes of this post I'm talking about DP reels) is that they're so subjective. I think the first question you need to ask to piece together the answer is "Why am I making a reel?" Fun? Class assignment? Internship? Employment?
Although, our reels are primarily for the purposes of this class, I'm hopefully putting together a reel that will snag an internship or job when the time comes. So I try to think about my reel from a perspective employers POV.
When I'm watching a reel there are a few things I like to see. Some of them are nit-picky, borderline A-holeish things, and some of them are major. Most employers, now prefer online reels, and let's be honest 2.5 minutes of internet time is like 4 hours of real-world time. How many times do you click on an internet video and turn it off thirty seconds in? Do you want that be your reel?
-For crying out loud, pick a decent font. It sounds trivial, but I think it's pretty big. Part of being a DP is sense of style and design, and those standards should extend across your reel. From the perspective of any busy employer, if I turn on a reel and your name comes up in Comic-Sans I will turn it off. Any kind of overly elaborate font/graphic can be an equal turn-off. If you don't feel confident, stick with something safe or spend some time researching. And please don't stick with the default font in Final Cut.
-Music. I've read a lot of different stuff when it comes to music in reels. I've heard everything from no music (because some employers will actually mute your reel to focus on the visuals) to music is one of the most important pieces of your reel. I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Rachel touched on this in class. Please don't select music with sucha driving beat that pacing feels dictating by the song. I'm not saying that occasionally editing to the beat is a bad thing, but allow your shots to speak for themselves. Think about the content of your shots, and the best natural compliment to them. Also keep in mind that your reel is a showcase for an employer and not a mix-tape to impress your girlfriend or boyfriend. Apple loops? Please don't.
-Can you light a scene? No, seriously, can you? For me, this is a big one. This is another by-product of the DSLR wave is that people aren't lighting scenes anymore. If your reel is entirely outside shots with natural light, I'm going to assume you don't know how to light a scene no matter how beautiful your exteriors are.
-Strong beginning, middle, and end. It sounds like common sense, but alot of reels seem to either front load or back load.
-Cohesion. If you can't edit, that's fine. Hire someone who can. The fact that it's a DP reel doesn't excuse a poorly edited reel. Keep in mind that your entire reel is representation of you. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. On the opposite end of that comment, it's a DP reel and not an editing reel. Don't edit the poop out of the footage.
and most importantly...
-Your personal stamp. There are tons and tons of DP's that can shoot some pretty pictures, especially with the influx of DSLR filmmakers. I like to feel something when I watch a reel. Although the shots may be from a ton of different projects in a variety of styles, I like to feel a common thread running throughout. That thread, I think, is what separates you from other DoP's. That's what gets my attention. That's why I hire you.
Here are some I've seen on vimeo that I like.
http://vimeo.com/6134256
http://vimeo.com/7462334
http://vimeo.com/12215902
http://vimeo.com/13846247
BYE, BYE
-Henry
The End.
No seriously, I think the most difficult thing about reels (and for the purposes of this post I'm talking about DP reels) is that they're so subjective. I think the first question you need to ask to piece together the answer is "Why am I making a reel?" Fun? Class assignment? Internship? Employment?
Although, our reels are primarily for the purposes of this class, I'm hopefully putting together a reel that will snag an internship or job when the time comes. So I try to think about my reel from a perspective employers POV.
When I'm watching a reel there are a few things I like to see. Some of them are nit-picky, borderline A-holeish things, and some of them are major. Most employers, now prefer online reels, and let's be honest 2.5 minutes of internet time is like 4 hours of real-world time. How many times do you click on an internet video and turn it off thirty seconds in? Do you want that be your reel?
-For crying out loud, pick a decent font. It sounds trivial, but I think it's pretty big. Part of being a DP is sense of style and design, and those standards should extend across your reel. From the perspective of any busy employer, if I turn on a reel and your name comes up in Comic-Sans I will turn it off. Any kind of overly elaborate font/graphic can be an equal turn-off. If you don't feel confident, stick with something safe or spend some time researching. And please don't stick with the default font in Final Cut.
-Music. I've read a lot of different stuff when it comes to music in reels. I've heard everything from no music (because some employers will actually mute your reel to focus on the visuals) to music is one of the most important pieces of your reel. I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Rachel touched on this in class. Please don't select music with sucha driving beat that pacing feels dictating by the song. I'm not saying that occasionally editing to the beat is a bad thing, but allow your shots to speak for themselves. Think about the content of your shots, and the best natural compliment to them. Also keep in mind that your reel is a showcase for an employer and not a mix-tape to impress your girlfriend or boyfriend. Apple loops? Please don't.
-Can you light a scene? No, seriously, can you? For me, this is a big one. This is another by-product of the DSLR wave is that people aren't lighting scenes anymore. If your reel is entirely outside shots with natural light, I'm going to assume you don't know how to light a scene no matter how beautiful your exteriors are.
-Strong beginning, middle, and end. It sounds like common sense, but alot of reels seem to either front load or back load.
-Cohesion. If you can't edit, that's fine. Hire someone who can. The fact that it's a DP reel doesn't excuse a poorly edited reel. Keep in mind that your entire reel is representation of you. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. On the opposite end of that comment, it's a DP reel and not an editing reel. Don't edit the poop out of the footage.
and most importantly...
-Your personal stamp. There are tons and tons of DP's that can shoot some pretty pictures, especially with the influx of DSLR filmmakers. I like to feel something when I watch a reel. Although the shots may be from a ton of different projects in a variety of styles, I like to feel a common thread running throughout. That thread, I think, is what separates you from other DoP's. That's what gets my attention. That's why I hire you.
Here are some I've seen on vimeo that I like.
http://vimeo.com/6134256
http://vimeo.com/7462334
http://vimeo.com/12215902
http://vimeo.com/13846247
BYE, BYE
-Henry
Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC
Alright, alright. I think Roger Deakins has been named dropped in nearly every post I've done this semester. He's an amazing photographer capable of creating anything, but my respect for him goes beyond the stunning images he creates. The biggest reason he's my favorite cinematographer is because of his commitment into giving back and helping grow the interest of other DP's. If you've never been to his site - www.rogerdeakins.com - it's an invaluable tool for an filmmaker, especially cinematographers. Here he runs an open forum to which he and a community of other filmmakers provide answers, advice, and feedback to aspiring, curious filmmakers. Besides running the gamut of topics from cameras and lights, there's great insight here (both from Deakins and others) into the mind of a good cinematographers.
Deakins began painting at a very young age which developed into an interest in photography. From here, he moved into shooting documentaries. He shot around the world for nearly seven years before moving into features. For me, shooting documentary was probably the most valuable education experience I ever had. It teaches you about movement, interaction, and most importantly how to start thinking like a visual storyteller. Listening to Deakins talk, he seems completely free of pretension. In the documentary "Cinematographer's Style" I found him to be the most consistently interesting voice. He speaks openly and honestly about his passion: He shoots because he likes it. I like that mantra, and I feel like it's one I've adopted as I've grown. It's as simple as that most of the time. When asked about metering his exposures, Deakins has said on multiple occasions that he lights mostly by eye, and only checks his meter for reference.
Deakins' straightforward, old school personal approach always seems to carry into his work. There's a reality to every scene he shoots. I think a big part of that is that he approaches things from a practical standpoint. When asked about how he lit a particular shot, his answers always seem surprisingly simple - bounces, practicals, natural (or atleast augmenting natural light). He respects the details the shots. It seems like people are always talking about getting that "film look" by crushing their depth of field, but Deakins doesn't rely on this. In fact, actively seeks to preserve details. His focal length of choice? A 32mm. Deakins has said (both in "Cinematographer's Style" and on his forums) that he's shot entire films almost exclusively on a 32 mm lenses. His camera movements are so beautiful you often don't even realize their moving because they flow so well from shot to shot.
I actually feel kind of stupid posting pictures or clips from some of the films Deakins has shot, mainly because of been harping on them throughout the semester (Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford being among my three favorites). So now I'll just highlight a few among them that I haven't touched on.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yrEAEXFJGo0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess"
"The Ladykillers" It's not the most popular Coen Brothers film, but I really like it. The period-feeling photography is beautiful too.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6hB3S9bIaco?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6hB3S9bIaco?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
"The Shawshank Redemption" I think this was one of his first movies in American that really drew him lot of attention.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUiCu-zuAgM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUiCu-zuAgM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
The Coen Brothers remake of "True Grit". It's our Christmas Day, and it's going to be insane.
The end
P.S. honorable mentions to Robert Elswitt, Nestor Almendros, and Sven Nykvist ( I haven't actually seen too may of the movies he shot, but I watched a very good documentary on him called "The Light Keeps me Company" - it's on Netflix instant
Deakins began painting at a very young age which developed into an interest in photography. From here, he moved into shooting documentaries. He shot around the world for nearly seven years before moving into features. For me, shooting documentary was probably the most valuable education experience I ever had. It teaches you about movement, interaction, and most importantly how to start thinking like a visual storyteller. Listening to Deakins talk, he seems completely free of pretension. In the documentary "Cinematographer's Style" I found him to be the most consistently interesting voice. He speaks openly and honestly about his passion: He shoots because he likes it. I like that mantra, and I feel like it's one I've adopted as I've grown. It's as simple as that most of the time. When asked about metering his exposures, Deakins has said on multiple occasions that he lights mostly by eye, and only checks his meter for reference.
Deakins' straightforward, old school personal approach always seems to carry into his work. There's a reality to every scene he shoots. I think a big part of that is that he approaches things from a practical standpoint. When asked about how he lit a particular shot, his answers always seem surprisingly simple - bounces, practicals, natural (or atleast augmenting natural light). He respects the details the shots. It seems like people are always talking about getting that "film look" by crushing their depth of field, but Deakins doesn't rely on this. In fact, actively seeks to preserve details. His focal length of choice? A 32mm. Deakins has said (both in "Cinematographer's Style" and on his forums) that he's shot entire films almost exclusively on a 32 mm lenses. His camera movements are so beautiful you often don't even realize their moving because they flow so well from shot to shot.
I actually feel kind of stupid posting pictures or clips from some of the films Deakins has shot, mainly because of been harping on them throughout the semester (Fargo, No Country for Old Men, and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford being among my three favorites). So now I'll just highlight a few among them that I haven't touched on.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yrEAEXFJGo0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess"
"The Ladykillers" It's not the most popular Coen Brothers film, but I really like it. The period-feeling photography is beautiful too.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6hB3S9bIaco?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6hB3S9bIaco?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
"The Shawshank Redemption" I think this was one of his first movies in American that really drew him lot of attention.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUiCu-zuAgM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CUiCu-zuAgM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
The Coen Brothers remake of "True Grit". It's our Christmas Day, and it's going to be insane.
The end
P.S. honorable mentions to Robert Elswitt, Nestor Almendros, and Sven Nykvist ( I haven't actually seen too may of the movies he shot, but I watched a very good documentary on him called "The Light Keeps me Company" - it's on Netflix instant
Monday, November 22, 2010
Scene Assignment Recap
The scene assignment had been my favorite project. It teaches more than you even realize your learning at the time. It's more than storyboards, shotlists, and casting - it's about learning how to work with others and how to conduct yourself.
Personally, I'm way more comfortable in the DP role. It feels more natural to me. I love to be kind of the right hand man, the foil to suggestions, and the person who helps the director visually articulate their vision. I had a lot of fun working with Hamilton on his scene assignment. I learned a lot about working with someone with a different workflow. I'm a planner (atleast when it comes to filmmaking). I love having everything worked out beforehand. I like to really know what I'm going to be shooting and I try to stay ahead of it through - visual references, detailed storyboards, lighting and blocking floor plans, and other OCD habits. On the other hand, Hamilton is a little bit more relaxed about preproduction, and I think it was good for me to work with him because it allowed me to practice some improvisational lighting. We did a lot of it on the fly without too much planning. With that being said, I think the results came out well. There are a lot of things I would go back and change, specifically the wideshot, the two-shot, and some small details in the CU's. Then again, I think the idea of a "perfect shot" is a myth. There is no perfect shot, and that's why we keep shooting.
I also learned a lot about directing from this exercise. That's actually kind of an understatement. I knew going in and that I had a lot of things I needed to work on as a director. I tried very hard to work through the details of the scene before hand so that I knew my vision in and out. In certain areas like casting, wardrobe, blocking, and location. I still struggled when in actually came to working with my actor. Taking my vision of a performance and bringing it out from an actor is really hard for me. Luckily, Andrew really picked up on the scene and did a great job. My other big struggle is to not be the DP. We shot everything in one day. During the first part of the day I did a much better job staying relaxed and trusting Hamilton. For some of the more complicated shots I let Hamilton shoot them for several takes, and if I was still looking for something I might take a few tries. As the day wore on though and time got thin, I found myself sidelining Hamilton more and more. At the time I rationalized this as quickest way to push through. But looking back, I was depriving myself of an opportunity to grow as a director and for Hamilton to grow as a DP. I also made the mistake of shooting the most pivotal part of the scene (the dialogue) towards the end of the night when everyone's energy was running a little low. Bad move on my part, and the results suffered some.
All in all though, it was nice to see a lot progress between this and my last efforts as a director. I really can't thank everyone involved enough, you guys were great. Thanks for the patience.
-Henry
Personally, I'm way more comfortable in the DP role. It feels more natural to me. I love to be kind of the right hand man, the foil to suggestions, and the person who helps the director visually articulate their vision. I had a lot of fun working with Hamilton on his scene assignment. I learned a lot about working with someone with a different workflow. I'm a planner (atleast when it comes to filmmaking). I love having everything worked out beforehand. I like to really know what I'm going to be shooting and I try to stay ahead of it through - visual references, detailed storyboards, lighting and blocking floor plans, and other OCD habits. On the other hand, Hamilton is a little bit more relaxed about preproduction, and I think it was good for me to work with him because it allowed me to practice some improvisational lighting. We did a lot of it on the fly without too much planning. With that being said, I think the results came out well. There are a lot of things I would go back and change, specifically the wideshot, the two-shot, and some small details in the CU's. Then again, I think the idea of a "perfect shot" is a myth. There is no perfect shot, and that's why we keep shooting.
I also learned a lot about directing from this exercise. That's actually kind of an understatement. I knew going in and that I had a lot of things I needed to work on as a director. I tried very hard to work through the details of the scene before hand so that I knew my vision in and out. In certain areas like casting, wardrobe, blocking, and location. I still struggled when in actually came to working with my actor. Taking my vision of a performance and bringing it out from an actor is really hard for me. Luckily, Andrew really picked up on the scene and did a great job. My other big struggle is to not be the DP. We shot everything in one day. During the first part of the day I did a much better job staying relaxed and trusting Hamilton. For some of the more complicated shots I let Hamilton shoot them for several takes, and if I was still looking for something I might take a few tries. As the day wore on though and time got thin, I found myself sidelining Hamilton more and more. At the time I rationalized this as quickest way to push through. But looking back, I was depriving myself of an opportunity to grow as a director and for Hamilton to grow as a DP. I also made the mistake of shooting the most pivotal part of the scene (the dialogue) towards the end of the night when everyone's energy was running a little low. Bad move on my part, and the results suffered some.
All in all though, it was nice to see a lot progress between this and my last efforts as a director. I really can't thank everyone involved enough, you guys were great. Thanks for the patience.
-Henry
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Scene Assignment - "The Beaver"
Friday, November 12, 2010
Camera Movement
"Heaven" - Directed by Tom Tykwer, cinematography by Frank Griebe
I haven't actually scene this movie, just bits and pieces, but some of this stuff is pretty incredible. I've never seen aerial photography like this.
1:25 - 2:15, 5:55, 7:07-7:40ish, 9:44-10:30ish
"Children of Men" - Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, cinematography Emmanuel Lubezki
Sorry I can't find the actual clips in their entirety online, but if you haven't seen the movie you definitely should.
"He wanted to do it (a six minute plus take involving explosion, tons of extras, intense choreography, and closing down a London street) all in one shot, kind of in a documentary fashion, and he said, ya know, 'can we do it? can we try this?'...and I said, 'yeah, we can. it's a tricky job to do'" - Emmanuel Lubezki, great quote
"Taxi Driver" - Directed by Martin Scorcese, cinematography by Michael Chapman
Watch 6:10- 7:40. As Travis Bickle is rejected on the telephone by the girl he's been seeing, the camera trucks across the hallway and rests on the view of the long, dingy, empty corridor. It's a really effective, motivated move that deepens the scene.
"Raising Arizona" - directed by the Coen Brothers, cinematography by Barry Sonnenfield
A movie from their pre-Deakins era. I actually don't really care that much for the cinematography of Sonnenfield in the early Coen films. He does a lot of crazy wide-angle, speed dollies that feel more like something out of Sam Raimi's "The Evil Dead" trilogy (Raimi, who is good friends with the Coens, gave Joel Coen his start as the editor for the first "Evil Dead" film, maybe that's the connection) but damn, this scene is awesome. The goofiness of "Raising Arizona" fits perfectly.
Beautiful Light
I don't think it's really fair to talk about "beautiful light" as a standard that I hold across the board. For me, it's more about the marriage of the style and the content of the story that creates something beautiful. Sometimes that can be a more traditionally "beautiful" sometimes it's pretty darn ugly "Winter's Bone". So I'll just move through some movies that I've seen lately where the cinematography and story seemed all of one piece.
"Days of Heaven" - Directed by Terrence Malick, cinematography by Nestor Almendros
The whole movie is pretty much a moving painting. It's a powerhouse of composition and beautiful natural light that feels completely at home in story of time and place. If you've never seen, netflix it. It's amazing.
"Where the Wild Things Are" - Directed by Spike Jonze, cinematography by Lance Acord
Okay, must people were really let down by this movie, but I loved it. It's an unusual movie that wasn't the happy childhood adventure that most people thought it would be. It works pretty much exclusively on an emotional level. The visuals are a huge part of that. The images are at times as sparse and simple as the plot and at others, they're soaked with as much melancholy sadness as the frustrated monsters who inhabit them. The ending with Carol walking into the water is heartbreaking.
"Persona" - Directed by Ingmar Bergman, cinematography by Sven Nkvist.
I had a lot of fun shooting in black and white on Hamilton's project. It's really a different approach. The challenge is in creating contrast between the tones, whereas in color you can get your separation through color. I really love this still for it's intensity in the contrasted foreground against the extremely flat background.
"Punch-Drunk Love" - Directed by PT Anderson, cinematography by Robert Elswitt
The color palette is such an important part of the beauty and meaning in the film
"Jarhead" - Directed by Sam Mendez. Really beautiful contrast and handheld camera work throughout.
"The Man Who Wasn't There"
"A Serious Man" - Directed by the Coen Brothers. This movie is full of the kind of some really great understated cinematography.
"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" - Directed by Andrew Dominik
Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC, bad-ass
I'm going to give Roger his own section of the post. He's also sure to reappear in my upcoming favorite cinematographer post. His name alone is enough to get me to watch a movie, and it doesn't hurt that he's the Coen Brother's go-to cinematographer.
"Days of Heaven" - Directed by Terrence Malick, cinematography by Nestor Almendros
The whole movie is pretty much a moving painting. It's a powerhouse of composition and beautiful natural light that feels completely at home in story of time and place. If you've never seen, netflix it. It's amazing.
"Where the Wild Things Are" - Directed by Spike Jonze, cinematography by Lance Acord
Okay, must people were really let down by this movie, but I loved it. It's an unusual movie that wasn't the happy childhood adventure that most people thought it would be. It works pretty much exclusively on an emotional level. The visuals are a huge part of that. The images are at times as sparse and simple as the plot and at others, they're soaked with as much melancholy sadness as the frustrated monsters who inhabit them. The ending with Carol walking into the water is heartbreaking.
"Winter's Bone" - Directed by Debra Granik, cinematography by Michael McDonough
It's hard to find an "beautiful" images from this movie, but the cinematography is so affecting and complimentary that it elevated the movie higher in my book. I have a lot of respect for movies like this and "The Wrestler" that really commit to the truth of the story. The movie takes place the meth-ravaged, Ozarks. It's an ugly place filled with a lot of ugly characters, and the cinematography never makes an attempts to hide that. I told someone after the movie that I didn't really know whether I "liked" the movie (I thought it was great, but it's so bleak that it's hard to "like") and I told them I didn't know. But I did say that anytime a movie feels so real that you feel like you can smell it and touch it, that's a pretty big feat. It's definitely the case here, thanks in part to the excellent cinematography to compliment the great writing, directing, and casting.
"Persona" - Directed by Ingmar Bergman, cinematography by Sven Nkvist.
I had a lot of fun shooting in black and white on Hamilton's project. It's really a different approach. The challenge is in creating contrast between the tones, whereas in color you can get your separation through color. I really love this still for it's intensity in the contrasted foreground against the extremely flat background.
"Punch-Drunk Love" - Directed by PT Anderson, cinematography by Robert Elswitt
The color palette is such an important part of the beauty and meaning in the film
"Jarhead" - Directed by Sam Mendez. Really beautiful contrast and handheld camera work throughout.
"The Man Who Wasn't There"
"A Serious Man" - Directed by the Coen Brothers. This movie is full of the kind of some really great understated cinematography.
"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" - Directed by Andrew Dominik
Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC, bad-ass
I'm going to give Roger his own section of the post. He's also sure to reappear in my upcoming favorite cinematographer post. His name alone is enough to get me to watch a movie, and it doesn't hurt that he's the Coen Brother's go-to cinematographer.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
"No Country for Old Men" - Bell's return to the hotel.
"No Country for Old Men"
directed by Joel & Ethan Coen
photographed by Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC
I'll come back and drop in the screenshots later...
Here we see Bell for the first time in a close-up. You can feel the tension and anxiety in his face
Now we return to Bell's POV. Clearly the anxiety in Bell's expression is related to returning to the hotel room, and this shot only brings us closer into that fear.
Again to Bell's face as he stops in front of the hotel. Bell briefly pauses then exhales before exiting the car. There's nothing that exciting about the shot itself, but I think it's important to note that sometimes the best thing a shot can do is not distract from the performance. We don't need any bells and whistles here, the pause and expression from Jones are strong enough to be left alone
Bell steps out of the cruiser and begins his walk toward the door. Deakins frames Bell in a cowboy shot as he exits the cruiser and we end up in more of a traditional medium shot as he walks toward the door. I like that choice because it reiterates the western feel of this movie and reminds us of Bell's position as a law man. Although the color scheme here is not particularly pertinent to meaning of this scene, Deakins does a remarkable job of maintaining a consistent color scheme of blueish /cyans and different shades of yellow. Not only do these colors suit the West Texas landscape and period well, but in color theory, they make one of the most appealing color pairings. Here those colors are incorporated through different colors of street lights.
Now we have a slow dolly towards the doorway as Bell's shadow from the headlights are cast against the door. The color scheme is again reiterated through the yellow police tape and teal door.
Medium CU on Bell
Back to our dolly shot as Bell enters frame.
We get a MCU profile here as Bell comes up to the door. I suspect this is not only to vary or shot selection, which up until now has been mostly shot/counter shot, but to also show Bell literally coming up against his fears about what waits inside.
The XCU of a blown lock only heightens Bell's suspicions about what's inside the hotel room
The reverse of the previous shot shows Bell in a low angle CU. The headlights and flood light illuminating the hallway form add some kick light around Bell's figure. It's a very low-key scheme that adds to the intensity
Lock again. Tensions building.
Now we see for the first time, at least partially, what's inside the hotel room. In the mostly dark frame, orange light spills through the blown door lock and a sliver of light slashes across Chigurh's face. The suggestion is one of uncertainty. To me, the shot is about how our worst fears tend to lurk out in the darkness. I think it's important to remember that we're experiencing the scene from Bell's POV. So are we as viewers simply being privileged to information that Bell is not, or are we seeing Bell's imagination about what's inside? It's one of the more ambiguous aspects in an otherwise very literal movie. I also think that the orange light in the dark room could provide some clues. This image is later described by Bell in a dream he has about his father at the end of the movie, "an orange light out there in all that darkness"
Back to Bell in a CU. As he makes his decision, his narration from the beginning of the film comes to mind. "It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to do to even do this job - not to be glorious. But I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something that I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He's have to say, 'Okay, I'll be a part of this world.'" This is literally that moment, Bell accepts his fate regardless of its relevance in the world. He draws his gun, and pushes his chips forward.
Bust shot of Chigurh.
XCU on the light spilling through the hole in the door.
As Bell pushes the door open, we cut to a reverse wide shot from inside the hotel room. The door swings open against the wall where Chigurh was presumably hiding. This is where the element of uncertainty really starts to become a factor. Was he or wasn't he there? Light spills in across the dark room and Bell is seen silhouetted by his headlights.
We cut to a CU of Bell as we surveys the room. The light in this scene in beautiful in its own right, but what I love so much about Roger Deakins is that you never call into question the authenticity of his sources. The light is always motivated, by the headlights in the this case.
Now we have a slow pan across the room from Bell's POV. Again, the motivated light is actually used to enhance the story. The two headlights from the squad car, cast broken shadows across the room; it's a subtle suggestion of Bell's troubled mindset.
Bell looks down and notices...
...the blood stain on the carpet. The decision to include a cutaway of Bell stepping over the blood stain speaks to his character and his aversion to violence around him.
In a back quarter profile, we follow Bell as he walks through the light from the doorway into the darkness again. We still haven't seen Chigurh, but all of the darkness and shadow suggest that he could be anywhere. With his gun drawn he flips on the bathroom light. He stops and looks down.
The XCU on the window locked still locked. There's a nice balance in the film of simple shots like these (POV's, cutaways, ect) that together tell us exactly what's going from the practical action to the more complex character thoughts. Even without dialogue, we can gather that Bell inspected and decided that no one has left the room. "Show, don't tell"
Low angle wide shot as Bell reemerges and cross through an eerie mix of hotel tungsten lights and outside moonlight.
Again through shot/ counter-shot we can gather what's running through Bell's mind. He sees the screws on the ground and seems bewildered. Bell's gamble may not have cost him his life, but he has ultimately met something beyond his understanding. The CU of the screw on the beige carpet dissolve into the similarly beige Texas landscape. It's one of the only non-cheesey cross dissolves I've ever seen, and I think it works for two reasons: 1) Color and texture are both carefully matched so that the dissolve is so subtle we barely notice it's happening 2) Thematically, the end of the scene ends with Bell in bewilderment of what he's experienced. This feeds right into the next scene where Bell visits an old friend to discuss the changing times.
-Henry
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Growing Pains
Robert Rodriguez says everyone has about 20 really bad ideas to get out of their system before they start producing consistently good work. I've got a poop-ton more than 20 bad ideas, but the point still applies
Making turds is part of "the process" (I'm big on Saban-isms).
My main problem?
... I did not approach this project with a story first mentality. That's a pretty big problem. There are some good shots throughout and some nifty edits in a few spots, but it's a crutch. My project does not stand on it's own as a story.
Why?
...Because I never filled my role as a director for the project. Instead, I drew David a lot of storyboards and gave him a rough shotlist. That's all fine, but I never discussed a "story" with him. I never sat down and said, "Hey David, I've got this really cool idea for how to tell a story about this football game". How can I reasonably expect him to deliver me the shots that tell a story if I never told him the story to begin with? He did a great job with what I gave him, and after editing we talked about ways to improve for next time. That's what I love about David. Before, during, and after every shoot, he wants to know one thing, "How can I make it better?"
As a result of laziness on the front end, I tried (poorly) to cobble together a story for the project in the editing lab. Projects shouldn't be directed in the editing lab, and that's what I did with this one. Bottom line.
-Henry
Making turds is part of "the process" (I'm big on Saban-isms).
My main problem?
... I did not approach this project with a story first mentality. That's a pretty big problem. There are some good shots throughout and some nifty edits in a few spots, but it's a crutch. My project does not stand on it's own as a story.
Why?
...Because I never filled my role as a director for the project. Instead, I drew David a lot of storyboards and gave him a rough shotlist. That's all fine, but I never discussed a "story" with him. I never sat down and said, "Hey David, I've got this really cool idea for how to tell a story about this football game". How can I reasonably expect him to deliver me the shots that tell a story if I never told him the story to begin with? He did a great job with what I gave him, and after editing we talked about ways to improve for next time. That's what I love about David. Before, during, and after every shoot, he wants to know one thing, "How can I make it better?"
As a result of laziness on the front end, I tried (poorly) to cobble together a story for the project in the editing lab. Projects shouldn't be directed in the editing lab, and that's what I did with this one. Bottom line.
-Henry
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Portrait of Place
Tuscaloosa County vs. Hillcrest. Vimeo has been giving me a ton of trouble in the last 24 hours, and for some reason the embed code won't post. Here's the link...
http://vimeo.com/15152651
http://vimeo.com/15152651
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sony vs. JVC
I'm not even going to pretend like I have a hard time picking which camera I like better. I'll take the Sony hands down over the JVC. That doesn't it's actually better, I just prefer it.
The two cameras are fairly similar in terms of performance. So I think that the biggest thing when comparing two similar cameras is comfort and how well you know one over the other. Pretty much everything I've shot in the last year has been on the Sony, and I feel like I've gotten to a point where I know how to max its potential. I haven't shot with the JVC nearly as much, but I'm sure if I shot with it I'd feel equally as comfortable.
Low Light
It seems to perform a wee bit better than the Sony in low light. Neither do extremely well, but the noise structure on the JVC seems a little more organic - it actually looks a little bit like film grain. The Sony's noise structure is pretty lousy. I've got away with 6db or maybe even 9db once or twice when I was shooting stuff for Documenting Justice last year, but if you have to bump it past 15db it's going to be poop.
Function & Ease of Navigation
The Sony has it's share of quirks (some settings always seem to reset themselves on the Sony), but for me, the JVC is really a pain to navigate and operate. The white balance seems to be much quicker on the Sony, and I love the variations on the white balance presets. You can scroll between -8 & +8 for any white balance preset to cool or warm the image. It's great for documentary or something fast paced where you're dealing with constantly changing lights. I can just hit the presets and scroll around until I get a workable color temperature. And last but not least: 2 barrels vs 1 barrel...I think we all know which one is better (it's 2)
Tape vs. JVC
I'll call this one a draw. A card workflow as opposed to a tape workflow sounds too good be true, and for me, it kind of is. I don't like the paranoia of my media disappearing forever after I wipe the card. We all know drives can and do fail. So it's nice to have he backup of a tape. The tape workflow can also be a great advantage to an editor. The log and capture process really allows you to make notes that help the editing. With that being said, tapes are kind of a pain in the ass. They're expensive, they drop frames, decks tend to eat them, and the workflow is slower.
Image quality
I'll throw this out there - I don't actually know anything about the technological side of image specs. It's gibberish to me. However, under the ol' eyeball test, I'd go with Sony. The sony captures does well with color preservation. The JVC image always looks kind of flat and muddy to me. That probably has more to do with having used it a lot though.
In the end, you're the one that's gotta shoot with it. Grab whatever's most comfortable.
The two cameras are fairly similar in terms of performance. So I think that the biggest thing when comparing two similar cameras is comfort and how well you know one over the other. Pretty much everything I've shot in the last year has been on the Sony, and I feel like I've gotten to a point where I know how to max its potential. I haven't shot with the JVC nearly as much, but I'm sure if I shot with it I'd feel equally as comfortable.
Low Light
It seems to perform a wee bit better than the Sony in low light. Neither do extremely well, but the noise structure on the JVC seems a little more organic - it actually looks a little bit like film grain. The Sony's noise structure is pretty lousy. I've got away with 6db or maybe even 9db once or twice when I was shooting stuff for Documenting Justice last year, but if you have to bump it past 15db it's going to be poop.
Function & Ease of Navigation
The Sony has it's share of quirks (some settings always seem to reset themselves on the Sony), but for me, the JVC is really a pain to navigate and operate. The white balance seems to be much quicker on the Sony, and I love the variations on the white balance presets. You can scroll between -8 & +8 for any white balance preset to cool or warm the image. It's great for documentary or something fast paced where you're dealing with constantly changing lights. I can just hit the presets and scroll around until I get a workable color temperature. And last but not least: 2 barrels vs 1 barrel...I think we all know which one is better (it's 2)
Tape vs. JVC
I'll call this one a draw. A card workflow as opposed to a tape workflow sounds too good be true, and for me, it kind of is. I don't like the paranoia of my media disappearing forever after I wipe the card. We all know drives can and do fail. So it's nice to have he backup of a tape. The tape workflow can also be a great advantage to an editor. The log and capture process really allows you to make notes that help the editing. With that being said, tapes are kind of a pain in the ass. They're expensive, they drop frames, decks tend to eat them, and the workflow is slower.
Image quality
I'll throw this out there - I don't actually know anything about the technological side of image specs. It's gibberish to me. However, under the ol' eyeball test, I'd go with Sony. The sony captures does well with color preservation. The JVC image always looks kind of flat and muddy to me. That probably has more to do with having used it a lot though.
In the end, you're the one that's gotta shoot with it. Grab whatever's most comfortable.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
When I Grow Up...I Want to Jroll
I'll start off by saying that my "a" key on my computer is not doing so hot these days. I really have to give it a good mashin' for it to register. It's strange to think about but it really takes you out of a rhythm while writing..erm, typing. When I write, things usually start out pretty mechanically - it's the cadence of thoughts beginning to stir. Things start out in more of a pecking manner and then eventually evolve into machine gun stacatto. Hearing that steady click of the keys keeps me going. It gets me in the zone and I don't really have to think about anything. Unfortunately, that's not the case tonight. Things are little more measured, and little more stiff, and frankly, it makes me sad.
In first grade our teacher asked us the questions what did we want to be when we grew up. We were given a sheet of paper with "When I grow up..." already printed, and we were supposed to finish the sentence and the draw a picture of our future selves. I wrote in, "I want to jroll". Of course what I meant was that I wanted to "draw" but years of mangled Southern dialect rendered me incapable of "sounding out" the words I didn't know how to spell. Anyone may have look at that sentence thought, "Man, this kid is dumb as a rock", but I'll be damned if the picture wasn't spot on. Fastforward 14 years...
Hmmm. What do I want to do? I want to work in film as a cinematographer for stories that I'm passionate about. I want to work in commercials. There's so much potential for beauty, inspiration, and creativity in the micro short form. They're so immediate and visceral. Surely we can use the form to a more worthy goal than hawking for people to by boner pills.
Those are the things I would like to do. Here's the more complicated answer about what I will do.
Whenever I ride in cars, particularly on longer trips, I look out the window the most of the time, and if I'm lucky enough, I do so with the windows down. I could drive for hours just looking at the land and listening to the sound of wind. After returning from a trip, people always ask one thing, "What was your favorite part?" A normal response to that may be something a long the lines of a concert, a restaurant, or some kind of destination/ activity/ event. Mine is normlly something like "It was really foggy one day, but the sun started to shine and everything looked really cool." I'm constantly in awe of the complete beauty of the earth and the juxtaposition of the ugliness that often exists in it. It's bittersweet. I experience and understand the world visually, and I want to share it that way as well.
This could, and does, mean a lot of things for my future. But I think accepting this as my understanding of the world and as the catalyst behind what makes me tick a little bit more prepared for the future. I feel more flexible to share this passion in a lot of different capacities.
Cinematography is the most passionate way that I share my understanding of things. I do it other ways too: painting, photography (mostly bad photography), and other hobbies, but cinematography drives me. I like to do it because I feel like that's what I'm supposed to do.
But a man has to eat right? Touche'. I don't want to sit around forever waiting on a golden opportunity to do exactly the thing I want to do. That's dellusional, but it seems to be the shared dellusion of a lot of people, particularly in film. I'll go where I'm needed. Collaboration can be such a disasterous enterprise, usually ending in group apathy or individual domination. I never thought that collaboration would be a strength of mine, but I think over time, that skill set is starting to shape up. I've been blessed with a strong work ethic, and hard workers will never be in short supply. I have no idea where that will take me, but I can only hope and try my best to pursue my passions.
So where does all this hippie mumbo-jumbo fit into our class? Well...
I want to get my hands dirty in 312. It's sad that a discipline as experience oriented as film, our department has really done a pour job of fostering hands-on opportunities for students in the past. I can't wait to get my hands on everything we have. I 5d's, 7d's, Ex3's, Redrocks, Zeiss Primes, flex dolly tracks - it's an exciting time. Even though the tools of film are constantly changing, and learning the specifics of each one is really only usefull from a (relatively) short term viewpoint. Heck, we'll probably be shooting with moon lasers in like two years. The point is, trends come and go, but the field experience and the language we create with the tools (whatever they may be) are essential. They're enduring and invaluable. I feel like 312 can offer me some of those outcomes.
From a more idealistic perspective, there's a really great group of smart, talented, and hard-working people at the heart of the TCF department. Had it not been for students like the ones we have and some equally passionate, hard-working faculty, this department was one jelly donut away from keeling over and dying a horrible, sweaty, bowel empyting death. But it didn't. There's life here yet again, and it's very inspiring. I know one of my goals for the year has been to mobillize the talent outside of class. We're talking, we're sharing, and hopefully we'll start producing some really great stuff outside of class, as well as in it.
I hope that TCF 312 will be an extension of that goal. I want to grab all of the opportunities we have in this class - the equipment, the readings, the instruction, and the people - and do something awesome with them. In addition to the things we do in here, this class can be launching pad for other projects. I think about 312 as a taste of other things. I don't mean that to undermine the class; I'm certainly going to pour myself into, and I know there will be plently of late nights in Reese Phifer. But I think the best kind of class is the one that inspires you to do it on your own, and I have a good feeling that this class will do that for many.
In other news, here's a short promo Carly and I put together over the weekend for Creative Campus. Take a look and check on their website http://www.creativecampus.ua.edu/
I'll leave you with a song off of Nick Cave's soundtrack for "The Proposition". I've been listening to it a lot the past week. Maybe you'll like it.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. Goodnight everyone.
-Henry
In first grade our teacher asked us the questions what did we want to be when we grew up. We were given a sheet of paper with "When I grow up..." already printed, and we were supposed to finish the sentence and the draw a picture of our future selves. I wrote in, "I want to jroll". Of course what I meant was that I wanted to "draw" but years of mangled Southern dialect rendered me incapable of "sounding out" the words I didn't know how to spell. Anyone may have look at that sentence thought, "Man, this kid is dumb as a rock", but I'll be damned if the picture wasn't spot on. Fastforward 14 years...
Hmmm. What do I want to do? I want to work in film as a cinematographer for stories that I'm passionate about. I want to work in commercials. There's so much potential for beauty, inspiration, and creativity in the micro short form. They're so immediate and visceral. Surely we can use the form to a more worthy goal than hawking for people to by boner pills.
Those are the things I would like to do. Here's the more complicated answer about what I will do.
Whenever I ride in cars, particularly on longer trips, I look out the window the most of the time, and if I'm lucky enough, I do so with the windows down. I could drive for hours just looking at the land and listening to the sound of wind. After returning from a trip, people always ask one thing, "What was your favorite part?" A normal response to that may be something a long the lines of a concert, a restaurant, or some kind of destination/ activity/ event. Mine is normlly something like "It was really foggy one day, but the sun started to shine and everything looked really cool." I'm constantly in awe of the complete beauty of the earth and the juxtaposition of the ugliness that often exists in it. It's bittersweet. I experience and understand the world visually, and I want to share it that way as well.
This could, and does, mean a lot of things for my future. But I think accepting this as my understanding of the world and as the catalyst behind what makes me tick a little bit more prepared for the future. I feel more flexible to share this passion in a lot of different capacities.
Cinematography is the most passionate way that I share my understanding of things. I do it other ways too: painting, photography (mostly bad photography), and other hobbies, but cinematography drives me. I like to do it because I feel like that's what I'm supposed to do.
But a man has to eat right? Touche'. I don't want to sit around forever waiting on a golden opportunity to do exactly the thing I want to do. That's dellusional, but it seems to be the shared dellusion of a lot of people, particularly in film. I'll go where I'm needed. Collaboration can be such a disasterous enterprise, usually ending in group apathy or individual domination. I never thought that collaboration would be a strength of mine, but I think over time, that skill set is starting to shape up. I've been blessed with a strong work ethic, and hard workers will never be in short supply. I have no idea where that will take me, but I can only hope and try my best to pursue my passions.
So where does all this hippie mumbo-jumbo fit into our class? Well...
I want to get my hands dirty in 312. It's sad that a discipline as experience oriented as film, our department has really done a pour job of fostering hands-on opportunities for students in the past. I can't wait to get my hands on everything we have. I 5d's, 7d's, Ex3's, Redrocks, Zeiss Primes, flex dolly tracks - it's an exciting time. Even though the tools of film are constantly changing, and learning the specifics of each one is really only usefull from a (relatively) short term viewpoint. Heck, we'll probably be shooting with moon lasers in like two years. The point is, trends come and go, but the field experience and the language we create with the tools (whatever they may be) are essential. They're enduring and invaluable. I feel like 312 can offer me some of those outcomes.
From a more idealistic perspective, there's a really great group of smart, talented, and hard-working people at the heart of the TCF department. Had it not been for students like the ones we have and some equally passionate, hard-working faculty, this department was one jelly donut away from keeling over and dying a horrible, sweaty, bowel empyting death. But it didn't. There's life here yet again, and it's very inspiring. I know one of my goals for the year has been to mobillize the talent outside of class. We're talking, we're sharing, and hopefully we'll start producing some really great stuff outside of class, as well as in it.
I hope that TCF 312 will be an extension of that goal. I want to grab all of the opportunities we have in this class - the equipment, the readings, the instruction, and the people - and do something awesome with them. In addition to the things we do in here, this class can be launching pad for other projects. I think about 312 as a taste of other things. I don't mean that to undermine the class; I'm certainly going to pour myself into, and I know there will be plently of late nights in Reese Phifer. But I think the best kind of class is the one that inspires you to do it on your own, and I have a good feeling that this class will do that for many.
In other news, here's a short promo Carly and I put together over the weekend for Creative Campus. Take a look and check on their website http://www.creativecampus.ua.edu/
Creative Campus Promo from Henry Busby on Vimeo.
I'll leave you with a song off of Nick Cave's soundtrack for "The Proposition". I've been listening to it a lot the past week. Maybe you'll like it.
Stick a fork in me, I'm done. Goodnight everyone.
-Henry
Thursday, August 26, 2010
How I See It
My grandmother didn't know that chandeliers were made of lots of individual pieces of glass and light until she was twelve years old. That's when she got her first pair of eyeglasses. She said it was like seeing for the first time.
I think that's pretty inspiring because your eyes are the most valuable tool you have as a cinematographer. You've got to treat them that way too. What do you show them? How do you train them? How can you look at the world in a different ways?
Here are some things that I like show my eyeballs
1. See my first post - I've been on a big kick with those movies lately, but I don't want to keep going on and on about them. You may have noticed but some of those movies seem to hang together visually and maybe the reason that I've connected with them so deeply is because they are films I hope to emulate
Wally Phister's work on Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight"
What a great representation of the Joker as pure anarchy
One of my favorite scenes from John Hillcoats film "The Proposition"
A commercial spot John Hillcoat did for Levi's. It's amazing how underutilized commercials are as an art form.
2. Highway Houses - I couldn't find a reference for this one so stay with me. Have you ever been driving late at night on one of those unbelievable dark nights? I'll often drive long stretches of highway without passing anything for miles and miles at a time. Then you see it - a tiny little ramshackle house on the side of the road resting under the electric glow of an orange sodium streetlight or green flourescent wall fixture.You pass by so quickly that you normally only see part of the house and surrounding patch of crab grass before it falls back into darkness. It's like a nite lite in the middle of all that blackness. It reminds you that the absense of light can be as beautiful as anything. Reminds me of Hopper, which leads me to...
3. Edward Hopper - It's not just his light, but everything about his paintings is incredible to me. His colors and compositions are so provocative. I feel like so many of the things I gravitate towards visually all come out of this early - mid 20th century period. Andrew Wyeth, Norman Rockwell, Arthur Rothstein and other FSA photographers - all of this stuff still feels so geniune, and a lot of art is missing that
But if you take the time to really sit and think about what you want and what your shot will be about, do you really want to lose all of those carefully considered details in a sea of blurry crap? I don't. I know I'm guilty of it all the time though. I've been in that spot so many times where I felt like I just could not frame a shot interestingly so instead I just said screw it and blew the DoF out as a crutch. But I don't ever want that to become my default measure to "fix" a shot. It takes hard work to make everything in your shots interesting. That's the challenge though and the rewards can be so much higher when you capture your images in ways that are so richly detailed and considered.
Okay, I'm done with the rant. I feel like a pretensious butthole now so I'll clear a few things up. I'm not saying deep focus shots are the be all, end all of cinematography. I'm not even saying that one is inherently better than the other. They both have their place. I'm just tired of laziness and the way people abuse extremely shallow DoF as a crutch to hide other problems with a shot. The End.
I think that's pretty inspiring because your eyes are the most valuable tool you have as a cinematographer. You've got to treat them that way too. What do you show them? How do you train them? How can you look at the world in a different ways?
Here are some things that I like show my eyeballs
1. See my first post - I've been on a big kick with those movies lately, but I don't want to keep going on and on about them. You may have noticed but some of those movies seem to hang together visually and maybe the reason that I've connected with them so deeply is because they are films I hope to emulate
Here are some film clips I find pretty inspiring
Wally Phister's work on Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight"
What a great representation of the Joker as pure anarchy
One of my favorite scenes from John Hillcoats film "The Proposition"
A commercial spot John Hillcoat did for Levi's. It's amazing how underutilized commercials are as an art form.
3. Edward Hopper - It's not just his light, but everything about his paintings is incredible to me. His colors and compositions are so provocative. I feel like so many of the things I gravitate towards visually all come out of this early - mid 20th century period. Andrew Wyeth, Norman Rockwell, Arthur Rothstein and other FSA photographers - all of this stuff still feels so geniune, and a lot of art is missing that
This is actually kind of the same lighting I
was talking about the highway houses.
The incredible thing about Hopper is that I feel like I can see elements of his paintings (real or imagined) in so many of my favorite films.
these hills makes me think of the opening shots in "No County for Old Men"
reminds me of Malick's "Days of Heaven"
and a little bit more overt, but Conrad Hall's work
on "Road to Perdition" was practically a moving
Hopper painting. Great stuff
Andrew Wyeth's painting, "Christina's World"
4. Tracey Snelling - If filmmaking is about creating worlds and environments, everyone should be able to draw a little inspiration from her work. I don't know too much about her other that she spends a lot of time creating worlds that examine the dark side of Americana, particularly motel life. That's all pretty cool in my book.
link to her site - http://traceysnelling.com/home.html
5. Robert Bechtle - hyper realist painter. Pretty awesome
6. Details - The story's in the details..or not. Who knows? I tend to think it is, but a lot of people don't. It seems that cinematography is reflecting this. As the field continues to boom with cheaper tools available, the growing trend for cinematographers is to zoom in, open that aperature all the way up, and say "the Hell with it".
Everyone's a cinematographer now. It's a double edged sword. Everything's getting cheaper, and particularly with the DSLR revolution, very powerful filmmaking tools are there for the taking. The problem is that a lot of people aren't ever really stopping to sit and think about their images because the camera will "make it pretty". Usually this attitude manifests itself by people disregarding compositon, color, and all of those other considerations that make a shot special and simply blowing the background out on any given shot so that we're basically looking at a pair of super crisp, sharp eyeballs floating on a blurry mound of flesh. I get it. Shallow DoF does have that "wow" factor sometimes. Its the kind of shot that makes people that don't know anything about film say "how did you do that?"
But if you take the time to really sit and think about what you want and what your shot will be about, do you really want to lose all of those carefully considered details in a sea of blurry crap? I don't. I know I'm guilty of it all the time though. I've been in that spot so many times where I felt like I just could not frame a shot interestingly so instead I just said screw it and blew the DoF out as a crutch. But I don't ever want that to become my default measure to "fix" a shot. It takes hard work to make everything in your shots interesting. That's the challenge though and the rewards can be so much higher when you capture your images in ways that are so richly detailed and considered.
Okay, I'm done with the rant. I feel like a pretensious butthole now so I'll clear a few things up. I'm not saying deep focus shots are the be all, end all of cinematography. I'm not even saying that one is inherently better than the other. They both have their place. I'm just tired of laziness and the way people abuse extremely shallow DoF as a crutch to hide other problems with a shot. The End.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
My top 10 Films of the Moment
Here are some of the films I've been thinking about a lot lately...
1) No Country for Old Men - Four of my ten were from 2007 (1, 2, 8, 9). Three are photographic masterpieces (1, 2, 9). Two are masterpieces across the board (1, 2). And one is without a doubt my favorite movie of all time. So call it Friendo.
10) Troll 2 - This movie will change your life.
1) No Country for Old Men - Four of my ten were from 2007 (1, 2, 8, 9). Three are photographic masterpieces (1, 2, 9). Two are masterpieces across the board (1, 2). And one is without a doubt my favorite movie of all time. So call it Friendo.
2) There Will be Blood - Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick had a baby and named him Daniel Plainview...oh yeah, and then Johnny Greenwood scored the whole thing
3) The Proposition - It's violent, desolate, and hard to swallow just like every good Western should be. Almost all of the films on my list are really beautifully shot movies (3 of them by Roger Deakins), but something about the rawness of the cinematography here really draws me in. It's the kind of thing I'd like to shoot one day. Nick Cave's score and John Hurt's role are big bonuses.
4) Fargo - So many memorable scenes, lines, and characters wound into a powerful, unsettling and/or hilarious film about the worst and ocassionally best in people by the Coens Brothers and company.
5) Memento - There are so many reasons to come back to this movie again and again.
6) An American Werewolf in London - John Landis wrote his first draft of this at age 19. I wrote a little picture called The Dinner Guest...ever heard of it?
7) House of the Devil - There are so many things to admire in Ti West's throwback to 70's occult horror. Plus, it will scare the Hell out of you.
8) Superbad - Hilarious, dirty, dumb, and slightly homoerotic. Sounds like high school to me.
9) The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - Roger Deakins doing his thing in Andrew Domink's Malick-esque meditation on the fame monster. It wanders for a long time, maybe too long, but the last hour of this film is incredible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)