Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

I met the alive cinematographer... He says "Beautiful and Pretty are different"

Minu Park

Minu Park

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
313
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Seoul, South Korea
Website
www.caveman.co.kr
I met the alive cinematographer... He says "Beautiful and Pretty are different"

I met Edward Lackman,

He came to the lecture himself. He seems his leg is uncomfortable. A lady was helping his walking. When he comes into the building. My heart was beating a bit faster as he comes in.

A blonde glassed lady opens the door and talks to him something. I could hear, he said that he has wanted to go to the bathroom. Suddenly, he looked at me than made a smile.
Eventually, I happened to be there having time with him on his way to bathroom... (Haha)

"Korea? I was going to work with Lee Chang Dong last year" Lachman said that when I have talked to him my nationality. Than he said, "Yeah, I really wanted to work with him..."
We had really short talks, soon, the lecture begins in a theater.

In summary of the lecture...

Edward Lachman said that there are too many clean pictures we can find even if you shoot with film. Edward Lachman eventually had have to shoot Carol with super 16mm.
Firstly, he chose it, because while he was researching that period, 16mm black and white films could be easily found footage with heavy grains. 16mm was an essential tool to make audience to experience that era as close as possible.

Secondly, he finds that due to development of technology, almost all cameras can make a clean pictures. The problem is that if you wanted to shoot a picture that is not as "clean" as, it's hard to find. For the purposes to shoot "beautiful picture, not the pretty picture" he had to shoot 16mm.

At the end, he finished his lecture about importance of understanding arts in general. Edward Lachman originally started as a painter(fine art), than photographer, and than started as a documentary shooter. He says that at first, he started this field to make money.
He also added that but, as the time goes by, he wanted to add something more than just making a pretty pictures. He says that "that's when you need to study art, philosophy, literature, classical music, all kind of things... to improve"

He lastly says "study, study, and study, I am 68 years old, but I am still studying(Laugh)"
Suddenly, I realized myself that there are so many pretty hipster videos on vimeos, but these didn't make me cry. The one that made me cry has a sprit in it, or something else. The lecture made me realized that do I want to make a pretty image? or Beautiful image that one could cry for it?

I hope Mr. Lachman's health get better and bring us another beautiful two hours moment again.
 
Thanks for this, Minu Park. Very descriptive and insightful.
 
I love this. So true what you say about all the pretty videos on Vimeo. It's not hard to make something pretty; it's a real challenge to make something raw and real.
 
Thank you for sharing, Minu. Carol did indeed look beautiful, but I think it's worth discussing the comment that "grainy super 16 is essential to make the audience experience the era as closely as possible". I understand that film grain is a convention for period films, but it's not like REAL LIFE used to be grainier or have gate flicker. It's just that MOVIES from that period were grainer and had gate flicker. It seems to me that the choice to use grainy film stock is more out of nostalgia for the movies of the past rather than an accurate representation of what the past really looked and felt like.

For example, you can have a very clean digital movie like The Revenant that I would say "makes the audience experience the era". And alternatively you can have a grainy S16 movie like Black Swan that feels very modern.

What do you guys think?
 
I agree. However it can be argued that the nostalgia is part of the reason why it works. What is nostalgia but an emotional state of mind that elicits the association of memories? It seems to me if we can put the audience in that mindset we have them right where we want them; minds open, engaged and freely identifying with what we show them.

For instance; when I see colors like this I am immediately reminded of photos from family albums of my siblings and myself as children. That in turn opens a floodgate of emotions.
a49c94c39191ae21d78a459405a4bbc6.jpg


This red cast is very typical of prints from the 70's.

00QtYw-71771584.jpg


Would you agree with that?


Julio Quintana said:
Thank you for sharing, Minu. Carol did indeed look beautiful, but I think it's worth discussing the comment that "grainy super 16 is essential to make the audience experience the era as closely as possible". I understand that film grain is a convention for period films, but it's not like REAL LIFE used to be grainier or have gate flicker. It's just that MOVIES from that period were grainer and had gate flicker. It seems to me that the choice to use grainy film stock is more out of nostalgia for the movies of the past rather than an accurate representation of what the past really looked and felt like.

For example, you can have a very clean digital movie like The Revenant that I would say "makes the audience experience the era". And alternatively you can have a grainy S16 movie like Black Swan that feels very modern.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
People have argued both sides successfully. Some people feel that once you put all the period elements in front of the lens, there doesn't need to be a photographic treatment and in fact, that sort of texture or stylization will only distance the viewer from the action. On the other hand, look at an extreme example of the flip side -- shooting "Public Enemies" in 2/3" HD with a very long shutter speed, or mixing smaller camcorder footage into the action, etc. so you had very "modern" digital artifacts in a period story, which was done to make it seem more real and immediate, raw, and yet threw some people out of the movie who were used to a more traditional look (i.e. film look.) So at one end, you have grain, diffusion, desaturation, etc. for a period texture and on the other end, you could use a modern digital look that is hyper-clean, saturated, maybe using high frame rates, long shutter times, etc. to make the past feel more immediate. If it works, it works.

I remember an interview with Gordon Willis, who while rejecting an overly diffused rendition of the past for "The Godfather" still did things like use older Baltar lenses and pushed-processing to take the edge of the picture, saying something to the effect that a period movie shouldn't look like it just came back fresh from the Fotomat (look it up if you'e too young to remember those...) And I remember James Cameron saying that he didn't want "Titanic" to have some sort of distant faded period look, and yet he also used light ProMist filters to take the edge off a little. So most people do something subtle, maybe a hint of smoke, diffusion, or slight desaturation, or use older lenses -- it's mainly a matter of degree.

Even "The Revenant" was color-corrected to be slightly desaturated, not so much for a period effect but probably to take any postcard look away from the scenery.
 
Scott Crawley said:
I agree. However it can be argued that the nostalgia is part of the reason why it works. What is nostalgia but an emotional state of mind that elicits the association of memories? It seems to me if we can put the audience in that mindset we have them right where we want them; minds open, engaged and freely identifying with what we show them.

For instance; when I see colors like this I am immediately reminded of photos from family albums of my siblings and myself as children. That in turn opens a floodgate of emotions.
a49c94c39191ae21d78a459405a4bbc6.jpg


This red cast is very typical of prints from the 70's.

00QtYw-71771584.jpg


Would you agree with that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think your point is valid. I guess I was responding to the idea that modern digital cameras and modern 35mm film stocks are somehow too clean for a period film. I think the more accurate way to state it is that modern formats are too clean for the nostalgic feel that Mr. Lackman was going for on this project. At the end of the day this is a subjective art form, and Carol could have been shot by Lackman, Lubezki, or Mullen on three different formats and they would all be beautiful in their own ways (and they'd probably all be pretty as well :)
 
IMO we should go by feel, and not rationalize too much. I like film because it looks great and I like the physicality of it. There's no need to be too intellectual about it.

Me, I just think that Carol looks amazing (I still haven't seen the film, but only the trailer). Partly because it was shot on 16mm film, partly because of the lighting etc.

Too Late also looks damned good. I can't wait to see it as well. I love film noir and in fact I'd love to make one, or at least write one (my real ambitions are in documentary, not narrative). Maybe in b&w on the EPIC Monochrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top