Soderberg on RED

[Kim Frank]

MMOST And Steve...
I don't want to argue with anyone, just telling my feelings without knowing a lot of Hollywood buiseness, in fact ive never been to the states.
Of course I know what directors with a great vision could get out of DV cameras, meaning the Dogma period of Denmark like FESTEN by VINTERBERG or BREAKING THE WAVES by TRIER. I am no one trying to glamorize the RED.
But I know the movie scene over here in germany, and even in this small country its all about money.
For me the the RED offers the Chance to really step up to the image quality of international movies but getting the chance to do it by my own without a big studio telling me what to do.
And I just thought, wished, hoped, Mr. S felt the same...
Im sorry. I just interpret and projected too much of my own feelings I think...

 

[Roberto B]

Don`t know what the case is in the U.S., but here in Germany there were and are lots and lots of cases where people got fired / not hired because of their social community-profiles / forum postings or comments on boards. So it`s really not that far-stretched what JPP stated - and btw, it would be a great lost if he would be banned from reduser, as I enjoy his views and contributions.

jpp is a must.

 

[Jarred Land]

I can 't comply with Jim Jannard's request, so this will be my last post on reduser. Even better, it will be somebody else's words.

see ya...

 

[Danish P.V.]

I can 't comply with Jim Jannard's request, so this will be my last post on reduser.

Byebye. What a pity.

P.S.: Before I get asked again and again. Danish IS my real name and since Jarred offered to use initials I use "P.V."

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Soderberg do what he want and how he want and that is amazing thing for everybody. Some people don't know what they want and some people are simply scary to try it. :bath:

 

[Lyndel Crosley SOC]

Very nice work if I may say

 

[Joe G.]

"He can put the Focus to the back whenever he wants to do it.
Or hide the star beheind a piece of furniture in an important Dialog. I think RED freed him."

Because, no other camera could have allowed that of course.

There's appreciation, and there's sycophantism. Perhaps some exploration of the difference around here in general.

 

[T. vd Hoff]

I honestly think that this is an incredibly restrictive way to shoot. Let's say you want to do a scene inside a room, it's high noon, there are no clouds, and you not want the windows to blow. How do you do that without either a decent light kit and/or 1.21 gigawatts of bounce cards?

Stephen

Close the curtains?

 

[christopher witzke]

“It's not what you light, it's what you don't light” that's important.” –John Alton, ASC

 

[cinemano]

i keep saying i hope one day we have sensors so low-light that we can shoot with just available light and have 50ASA type grain.. lets aim for that in progress rather than adding resolutions, cos until then, we'll always be faking rather than capturing..

 

[Robert Jackson]

Yeah, but putting the 'artifice' back in 'art' is what makes the gig so much fun.

i keep saying i hope one day we have sensors so low-light that we can shoot with just available light and have 50ASA type grain.. lets aim for that in progress rather than adding resolutions, cos until then, we'll always be faking rather than capturing..

 

[Tyler Black]

By coincidence, I just saw "Bubble" last night. I had heard that SS was in the process of making several films on RED, Che being one. I didn't know anything about "Bubble" which is a thing with me. I don't want to know ANYTHING about a movie going in. So I had hoped to see beautiful RED images. I knew nothing of the "unlit" philosophy going in. What I will tell you was that I had a feeling of disappointment in the look of the film. I knew by the look that it couldn't possibly have been shot on the RED, the actors were non-professional, and it was shot with what seemed to be nothing but existing light. I thought it might have even been a very early work of his shot on hi8 or something... seriously. What kept running through my mind was "this is why home movies look like home movies and it's why you hire a DP with lights to shoot your freakin' movie." I am a HUGE fan of Soderbergh's work on Ocean's Eleven, Traffic, and Erin B. And I think it's great that he's trying to grow himself and the industry by seeing what the digital cameras can do. But I have to admit that I was just a little appalled by his comments in the commentary where he described the images as beautiful (or something to that effect). I wished he had said something like "new technology is getting better and better and this was an experiment. In some ways it succeeded, and in some ways it failed." I don't doubt that if I sat 300 people from this board down in a theater not knowing who had made it that 98% of you would have said "a college student with a bright future." And I don't mean to put words into JPP's mouth, but since he may not respond on this board again I'll have to take the chance of speaking this thought for him. What I think JPP and indeed what I found distasteful was the promotional back-slapping of a poorly made (technically speaking) film. And I want to emphasize that I don't begrudge Soderbergh for making it, or his approach to making it, or ANYTHING about it, other than the fact that nobody wanted to call it what it was.

Edit: I forgot to say that from the screen grabs I've seen of "The Girlfriend Experience" it looks beautiful and I can't wait to see it. I'm certainly expecting more. And by the way, it took nearly 1/2 an hour to compose this letter to say what I think I want it to... and I have the utmost admiration for all of you who spend so much time here writing lengthy tutorials for all of us to benefit by. Thank you David Mullens and others...

Tyler Black

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, keep in mind that "Bubble" was shot on the Sony F900 HDCAM, and though I didn't see it, if the earlier DV movies of Soderbergh are any indication, it was not shot to "hide" its digital origins. Sometimes he actually enhances that electronic look, or conversely, adds a lot of film grain over the image, at least in that earlier DV movie "Full Frontal." In other words, he likes to play around with the image -- he's not out to sell a camera. Though I hear "Girlfriend Experience" looks nice.

He's an accomplished cinematographer in his own right, so his movies look the way he wants them to look. I thought "Solaris" was one of the best-shot movies of the year that it came out.

 

[M Most]

didn't know anything about "Bubble" which is a thing with me. I don't want to know ANYTHING about a movie going in. So I had hoped to see beautiful RED images.

Considering that it was made in 2004/2005, at least 3 years before the Red One existed, that would have been unlikely.

...But I have to admit that I was just a little appalled by his comments in the commentary where he described the images as beautiful (or something to that effect). I wished he had said something like "new technology is getting better and better and this was an experiment. In some ways it succeeded, and in some ways it failed." I don't doubt that if I sat 300 people from this board down in a theater not knowing who had made it that 98% of you would have said "a college student with a bright future." And I don't mean to put words into JPP's mouth...

But apparently you do want to put words into Steven Soderbergh's mouth. Honestly, he has his opinion and you have yours. He was happy with it. You weren't. Any such feelings are personal opinions, and everyone is entitled to have them. You don't have to agree with his, but it doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. This is art we're talking about, and in this case, he's the artist. And David is right - Steven tends to favor some extreme photographic techniques on certain projects. Traffic and even the Oceans' pictures are good examples of this. So his tendency in "Bubble" to not hide the video nature of the piece was not out of character at all.

 

[Tyler Black]

Yes, I read on the DVD jacket after renting it that it had been made in '05. Obviously I knew at this time for sure that it was not shot on RED but on a camera with prior technology. I didn't know until reading this thread, however, that it was made on an F900. And I thought I was clear in my previous post that I don't hold anything against Soderbergh or think less of him as a cinematographer for making these movies the way he has. I think much like Jim Jannard himself that Soderbergh is pioneering the potential of the RED camera. My point, and I think JPP's point, is that you can't sit in a screening room being interviewed for the supplementary section of the movie you just made and tell the world and the people that are distributing for you "I was disappointed with the outcome... I learned from it and the next 5 will continue to get better." It just doesn't happen that way. I'm saying I'm of the opinion that the visual standards that I like to see weren't met on this picture and I'M OF THE OPINION that if it didn't have Mr. Soderbegh's name on it, it would receive less attention. Everything in this world is given a value. A "Zippo" lighter from 1942 owned by Adolf Hitler has a helluva lot more value than one bought by my grandpa. The name has value... and the name Soderbergh brings a certain value to a film whether it's warrented or not.

Tyler Black