We are a production company that's making videos to help you learn to become a better director, cinematographer and filmmaker. Our mission is to provide a high quality and free alternative cinema educational system for filmmakers and film enthusiasts who want to be successful in doing what they love. By studying the success of the people who are at the highest level in the film industry, we hope to provide as much value as possible to aspiring filmmakers!
How does he know what you get taught at film school? He wasn't in any of my classes. Love a lot of his work, but that was a nonsensical and inaccurate statement.
Ridley knows how to make a striking image. Some of his films are misses, but the visuals always hit. He also knows how to make powerful character moments and Gladiator was the peak of that for me. Ridley Scott is one of the best directors of all time.
Excellent advice indeed, this is the sort of stuff we cover on Creative Constitution! Gotta absorb the learnings from all the greats and add that to your own power, fantastic!
“That’s the way the world is going” you hear this too much now. The world is made up of people that can make decisions. Newer is rarely better for established mediums at this point.
"Whats your toughest challenge on the martian?" "None!" Yeah, that's exactly what that movie felt like to me. Too slick, too easy, zero grit. Now I know why.
He's talking about putting the film together. Technical stuff. Napoleon suffered from a bad script. Often these things are out of a director's control. Also, bear in mind he's old -- he's never going to do anything great again. BTW if you're talking about bad films, try Kong: Skull Island or The Haunting.
I had a hard time with Napoleon as well, I simply couldn’t get past the accent used by Mr. Phoenix I certainly tried, I really wanted to like it!! But I’m also open to experimentation with films for English audiences about other cultures. I certainly would not have enjoyed three hours of subtitles. And hearing historically, French characters speaking British English would have been laughable. I don’t know the answer, but what they did just didn’t work in my opinion. I’m hoping gladiator 2 is a good outing!
Also depends what you do with the digital image in the color grade. Films like The Revenant, The Hobbit, and Blade Runner 2049 looked too sterile and clean.
Tarantino's conception that 35mm and 65mm is out there for people "who CARE" is delusional and elitist. No cinemas in my country have film projectors anymore, except for an archiving institution that sometimes shows old prints. So, what, because I don't want to drive several hours and across a national border I don't care about film? If I'd want to see a 65 or 70mm print, like for example oppenheimer last year, i'd have to get on an airplane. Not everyone lives in LA. As an added note, this attitude is pretty hypocritical from someone who famously got his film knowledge working at a video store. A 4k laser projector means you dont care, but vhs is fine?
Steve Yedlin, Rian Johnson’s long-time cinematographer, is one of the only professionals in the field actually _proving_ you can get the “film look” with a digital camera. His display prep demos are well worth watching.
Hey all, just wanted to stop by and let you all know that God loves you very much, and He proved it by sending His Son Jesus to die on a cross and rise again for us! The Bible teaches that we are all sinners and rebels against a Holy God, who have broken His Laws (The Ten Commandments) and we deserve eternal hell as punishment. BUT, if we repent of our sins and surrender our lives to the risen Jesus, we will be saved and forever forgiven of our sins!
1:05 Yes. But. I didn’t know that this gentleman even existed. Take Blade Runner for example. People like me praise the movie, the actors, maybe the director. That’s just not right. What about the rest of the team?
Imagine what would they think of the new AI's coming to take everyone's job in the industry. movies are going to be spawned in a matter of seconds by anyone who can write a phrase.
QT is a master craftsman when it comes to putting together a film and an amazing student of cinema...who has always lacked an original vision. I put little stock in his opinions on the future of movies.
Although I'm a huge Tarantino fan. I have to say that Deakins is way more logical and "liberal" on the subject -although I prefer film too. It depends on the project and you want to make out. Digital is sharper and more clean, easier to use, has better dynamic range etc. While film is more "dirty" and closer to the human eye. Deakins understands that every director/D.O.R. have different opinions on the art, while Tarantino only sees things black and white.
How great it would be if there was a "sequel" to Visions of Light, with the new generation of DPs, or perhaps re-editing a longer version of the film to include the 8 or 10 great DPs active now that were not in the original version. Considering the first ¼ of the film was introducing the audience to the invention of filmmaking, adding 8 or 10 new people would increase its time by maybe 90 to 120 minutes max, making it essentially into a 3 to 3½ hour movie. A fascinating movie that would be the ultimate film photography masterclass for anyone.
QT hate for digital is absurd. Most of his shot in 35 mm is converted to digital composites. Then transferred back. So QT your damn movie has a ton of digital elements to it. And u don’t see what u get. With film. And loading mags. And only 10 min of film vs 60 min of digital where u can do long takes. Not call cut. Actors can reset faster with digital. I have 100 more. And I challenge you QT to tell the difference. QT you make good movies however your hate for digital is absurd.
Most pf these wise things he said applies to most things in art in generell. What a great artist. His whole way of describing his art sounds like a critic on modern society.
It always surprises me how rigidly conservative and traditionalist some directors can be. The only thing that matters is the visceral and emotional impact that the work has on an audience. The process or technology to get there is unimportant, nor the method of projection. I’m sure there were objections from silent directors to the inclusion of sound, and objections to color from those accustomed to black and white. And of course there are hoards who decry CGI in favor of practical fx. All technological advancements are only more tools for the toolbox. If the audience digs the end result, who cares what the methods were to get there. I love Tarantino but on this matter he sounds like a crotchety old geezer.
If i took a time machine and traveled back in time to the 60s, then gave Francis Ford Coppolla a digital camera, im pretty sure he would never want to use film again since at the time, shooting multiple frames per second was all they had at the time in order to make the picture move.
