Interesting Tarantino Quote

[Shawn Nelson]

"Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird."

I don't agree with him, but it's interesting.
Here is the full article,
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49432

 

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Hmmm... I sense quite a HUGE amount of misunderstanding about how complex good digital cinematography can be.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I love Tarantino, but he's a very big headed guy IMO.

That statement is quite, well, what's the word, retarded?

Just because a Cinematographer can see the monitor doesn't mean he/she will light it well, the same goes for anyone attempting that role, it obviously alot of talent to compose well and light well, not just a fucking monitor view it.

 

[ChrisLyon]

Lighting is still an art and I'd hire a DP to do that and keep me on track photography wise anyway. I guess he's saying that he can do a DP's job but he's too stupid to do it without being able to see it on a monitor? I'm so lost.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I was always thinking that Tarantino has a character that is very close to mine .

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

This quote is just a little out of context. If you actually go over and read the FULL statement he's basically explaining how Robert shoots. The quote thrown up there is pretty much what Robert has been saying since he shot Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

 

[Dylan Reeve]

I think I have a love/hate relationship with QT, and Rodriegez. They are both pretty gung-ho, which is okay, but isn't always the best way for everyone and statements like that just end up with people ending up unhappy with the end results.

I can light, operate a camera, direct to some extent, edit... But I'd never dream of doing all those roles on any serious project... I have my areas of expertise, and I recognise that others have theirs... I think it's important that people respect the skills of those that can help them.

 

[Stephen Webb]

But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.

Apparently no-one told him that 300 was shot on film then...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I love Tarantino, but he's a very big headed guy IMO.

That statement is quite, well, what's the word, retarded?

Just because a Cinematographer can see the monitor doesn't mean he/she will light it well, the same goes for anyone attempting that role, it obviously alot of talent to compose well and light well, not just a fucking monitor view it.

I think you need to calm down a little, There's no need to get pissed off about it.
Robert Explains what exactly this means in I think it's called "A night with Robert Rodriguez Film is dead."

He's not saying that Digital Makes you better at lighting but rather that it helps you to work a lot faster to achieve the look your after (something like that).

 

[Adam Levins]

It's more difficult to light for Digital IMO. As one needs to control the Highlights a bit more.

DP work is not just about lighting it's also organizational role as well as being a buddy to the director and talking through the shots and in some cases basically shooting the film for them. Look at how the Sam Mendes/Conrad Hall relationship worked.

Then again some Director are DP's as well, so who knows what context he was speaking in.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Apparently no-one told him that 300 was shot on film then...

All he meant was that it was a digital film in the essence that the entire film was green screen with CG backgrounds.

I think you need to calm down a little, There's no need to get pissed off about it.
Robert Explains what exactly this means in I think it's called "A night with Robert Rodriguez Film is dead."

He's not saying that Digital Makes you better at lighting but rather that it helps you to work a lot faster to achieve the look your after (something like that).

I'm not angry, my words just came off the wrong way to you I guess.

I disagree though Craig, Quentin is very anti-digital, that's been known for a long time.

Infact, I find Quentin and Rodriguez's relationship somewhat of a competition.

With the popularity and success of Sin City, Quentin seems somewhat threatened IMO.

Put it this way, imagine that you and your Gaffer (let's say you're a Cinematographer for this instance) have stopped working together for a while and 5 years later he comes out and shoots this film Sin City and it's a smash hit and is praised for not only its Cinematography but its Directing and cutting-edge technology and stroy-telling technique.

You may at that point feel a bit like, hey, how did he do that? I don't remember him being that talented. That's somewhat how I read Quentin's attitude towards Robert and digital in general. They both have a friendly competition with one another....hence his decision to both Direct and DP Death Proof as Robery normally does.

Here's the one comment that makes no sense at all to me.

"I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me."

If he couldn't tell it was shot digitally while watching it and thought it was a masterpiece, why in the world would his opinion change due to the fact that it was?

Once again though, I think Quentin is a genius! Pure story telling genius.

 

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Here's the one comment that makes no sense at all to me.

"I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me."

If he couldn't tell it was shot digitally while watching it and thought it was a masterpiece, why in the world would his opinion change due to the fact that it was?

Because digital is "easier". It's one thing to get magnificent imagery on film when you're essentially shooting blind, unable to be sure you got what you got until the dailies come in. Whereas digital is fairly WYSIWYG, so you KNOW what you got as soon as you hit record.

Therefore, in Tarantino's estimation, it is less of an achievement to shoot something brilliant on digital than on film. It doesn't lessen the film, it lessens the effort put into making it.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Therefore, in Tarantino's estimation, it is less of an achievement to shoot something brilliant on digital than on film. It doesn't lessen the film, it lessens the effort put into making it.

So you're telling me (let's just say for the sake of argument that I was Jordan Cronenweth shooting Blade Runner, I WISH!).

I shoot the entire movie digital.....I had a set monitor to do so.....that makes my work less respectable due to the fact that i'm not sticking to relic analog film making techniques that don't allow for a high-quality preview?

What the heck are you talking about?

That's like saying that if there were a new age Michael Jordan, who scored more points and won more championships than M.J. that he wasn't as great of a player due to the fact that his shoes were more advanced than M.J.'s were.

Or that a painter should do all of his painting while wearing a heavily diffused set of shades only to be able to take them off when the painting is finished to take a look at what he's done.....cmon.

 

[Justin Anderson]

Because digital is "easier". It's one thing to get magnificent imagery on film when you're essentially shooting blind, unable to be sure you got what you got until the dailies come in. Whereas digital is fairly WYSIWYG, so you KNOW what you got as soon as you hit record.

Therefore, in Tarantino's estimation, it is less of an achievement to shoot something brilliant on digital than on film. It doesn't lessen the film, it lessens the effort put into making it.

So he thought the PROCESS of "Apocalypto" was a masterpiece until finding out it was on film?

 

[Stephen Webb]

All he meant was that it was a digital film in the essence that the entire film was green screen with CG backgrounds.

No he didn't.

He was just plain wrong.

:biggrin:

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

So you're telling me (let's just say for the sake of argument that I was Jordan Cronenweth shooting Blade Runner, I WISH!).

I shoot the entire movie digital.....I had a set monitor to do so.....that makes my work less respectable due to the fact that i'm not sticking to relic analog film making techniques that don't allow for a high-quality preview?

What the heck are you talking about?

That's like saying that if there were a new age Michael Jordan, who scored more points and won more championships than M.J. that he wasn't as great of a player due to the fact that his shoes were more advanced than M.J.'s were.

Or that a painter should do all of his painting while wearing a heavily diffused set of shades only to be able to take them off when the painting is finished to take a look at what he's done.....cmon.

It's a legit chain of thought, With film you have to really know your medium.
There's a lot of specialized work that comes into play when shooting film. Not to mention the enormous pressure on the focus puller you could shoot a whole day and not realize the whole days shoot was a dud. In digital with those big monitors you can see instantly during the shot that your going out of focus.
He's just saying Well they climbed a smaller mountain than me it's all subjective but it's not a completely ridiculous notion to suggest.

 

[Martin Drew]

his argument is basically that in theory you can do everything yourself. It's failing is that it assumes everyone is just there purely to render exactly what is preconceived in the directors mind and that there is no benefit in the creative process being collaborative. I suspect it is a model that wouldn't work to the best for most directors.

M

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I have always liked this quote:

"If you're going to wear three hats, you'd better grow two more heads." Mel Gibson.

It's damn true, cause there's just too much work, information and decisions for a single brain.

In theory, you can do most of the things yourself, but that results in many mistakes, if not in - full disaster.

The role of the directors is to make sure that the whole team goes in the same.. direction.

Like a conductor, who makes sure the orchestra plays the same symphony...

Working with a co-writer and\or a script editor may improve the script greatly.

Working with a good DP will result in better pictures.

Accepting suggestions from actors and crew can improve the picture [if the suggestions "go in th same direction"].

Working with an editor can prevent mistakes and add new meanings, no matter how good an editor the director is otherwise. Directors are usually subjective on their material which results in mistakes, etc.

Etc....

It'd be cool if you could do all of it well on your own, but it's just not possible. It's a mental and intellectual limitation, not a technological one.

My 2c.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

It'd be cool if you could do all of it well on your own, but it's just not possible. It's a mental and intellectual limitation, not a technological one.

You know it's quotes like these that make me want to make pledges to never work with a DP or get someone to edit my films.

Collaboration is a good thing and under the right conditions only the best stuff can come out of it. However Sometimes having a few hundred people running around behind the camera to get a shot just ends up being a burden. Heck some really bad ideas often come from collaboration.

I'm not even sure what you mean by do it all, Some Directors make great DPs. The beauty of film making I think is that there is no one absolute way to make a film. Everyone has their methods success depends on the creative minds behind the film.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Silly quote.

I wonder if QT still uses a chemical 35mm still camera??