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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)