Posts

Showing posts from May, 2007

It's about Passion

Image
I was sitting watching the series " Entourage " on HBO, and a piece of dialogue stuck with me. It was when a producer tells the main character on how he got into the business. He explains to the character that he lacked the passion others had for the craft. Earlier in the show the main character tells his manager that Hollywood is all about power and not making films. People buy scripts that they have no intention of making. I've heard of such things, and I've never really worked on a high budget film, but I've talked to a lot of directors and producers, and they do say that it's a frustrating business. And there's the rub. I've been a crew member on several low-budget films, and a multitude of commercials. Long hours, and low pay were the norm. Some commercials payed okay, but I was part of the agency who made it, so you could say I was an agency employee on several commercials. Passion. I know you hear about it, and talk about it when we're talki

Reflection

Okay nothing fancy here. Just a quick brain dump. I still struggle to figure out what this blog is all about. The only thing I wanted in here was writings about cinema, and making films. I had the opportunity to finally see " Four Eyed Monster ", and I liked it of sorts. I'm not a big fan of twenty-something angst films, but I did enjoy it, and was impressed with the film making skills of it's creators ( Susan Buice & Arin Crumley ) . That's as glowing a review as I can give. I still think people should buy the DVD , and check it out. Support true indie filmmakers! While watching it I became increasingly interested at the subject matter. The filmmakers made it a personal film, and it works for them. I've been thinking about my own personal stuff, and feel that maybe I just need to do something about that. So no more fictional stuff for now. I've decided to turn the camera in-ward, and see what's there. Maybe it's therapy, or maybe it's just

Lighting 101

The above video is an exercise we had to do in film school. I was required to shoot something in the daytime, and make it look like night time. My professor liked the results, but I didn't like the beginning of the film. Naturally I used hard lighting to give the picture some defined shadows, but what I should have done is light the background a bit. My friend Jim is lite, but the background falls into darkness. I shot it with a film stock called 7294. Kodak has discontinued the stock, but the stock that comes close to it today would be KODAK VISION2 500T - 7218. I rated the stock at 400 ISO, and I overexposed the negative by a stop and 1/2. Negative film likes saturation. Don't underexpose, or you'll get mud. I've actually overexposed footage three stops and gotten a good picture, but I'd only do that on a night time shoot. Most of the times I've exposed one and half stops, and I've always come out with a nice rich negative that the lab can play with. I sho

Kicking the Tires!

Image
You know how we can get so caught up in technology, and want to figure out the best way to do things, and then we just get lost in it? Well that happens to me. When I started my film "Deadly Obsessions" digital video wasn't around. Non-linear editing was only seen on higher level productions because they were expensive. I remember seeing my first Avid, and even editing on a machine called the "Cube". I knew that the only way I was going to make a film was the old fashioned way, and that was edit on film. I even found a 6-plate editor, and bought it off a fellow filmmaker. Transporting that puppy was hell. I had to have my uncle come over to get it into the apartment that we lived at the time, but it worked and served me well. I should have gotten my work print edged numbered after I synced up the dialogue to the picture, but a well skilled mixer saved me. His name was Tom Agnello , and he is one of the greatest film technicians this side of the Mississippi . g