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 :)

Knight of Cups Trailer

dino g

dino g

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
1,847
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Venice, CA; Rye, NH; Boca Raton, FL; NYC
Website
red31.com
Cameron K said:
Details please!
We must know!

What is Malick like????!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

As many know here, I have done 5 movies with him and unfortunately we are basically required to not talk about any of it....however, i have been authorized from time to time to speak about it....you can search for some of that here in this forum...


dino
 
dino g said:
As many know here, I have done 5 movies with him and unfortunately we are basically required to not talk about any of it....however, i have been authorized from time to time to speak about it....you can search for some of that here in this forum...


dino
Click to expand...

Dino would you be able to talk about the lenses Malick used? He seems partial to wides. I know he's shot on the MP 18mm before. Anything wider here?

thanks!!
 
Nick Morrison said:
Dino would you be able to talk about the lenses Malick used? He seems partial to wides. I know he's shot on the MP 18mm before. Anything wider here?

thanks!!
Click to expand...


Yes to this! Being that it's in the cinematography section I'd love to ask if you would download as much info on lens choice, filters, settings, camera movement and intent etc as you can.
It's great to see it, but let's talk shop in this section of the board Vs the Shot on Red section:-)
 
Eric M Hurt said:
Yes to this! Being that it's in the cinematography section I'd love to ask if you would download as much info on lens choice, filters, settings, camera movement and intent etc as you can.
It's great to see it, but let's talk shop in this section of the board Vs the Shot on Red section:-)
Click to expand...

I regret to inform you that all of these types of things are trade secrets that we are not allowed to discuss, now if chivo talks about them in a mag article then i can elaborate a bit. the only thing i will say is that it is always very much the same and an 18mm lens is a long lens.
 
Eric M Hurt said:
It's great to see it, but let's talk shop in this section of the board Vs the Shot on Red section:-)
Click to expand...

The Shot on Red section is for pictures actually shot using Red cameras. Knight of Cups was shot almost entirely on Arri Alexa and film.
 
M Most said:
The Shot on Red section is for pictures actually shot using Red cameras. Knight of Cups was shot almost entirely on Arri Alexa and film.
Click to expand...

Not a true statement. there may be shots that were shot with a red that made it into the movie ( like the last two malick films), there were other cameras involved besides several types of film cameras and the arri alexa. as was seen in this forum many years ago, some scenes at ACL in 2011 were shot with EPIC, now whether they made the cut is left to be seen. additionally even though principle photography had 4 types of cameras primarily used, others were used prior to that and others may have been used after. i will say that terry is an equal opportunity camera user. i personally shot some red footage that may or may not make it into the cut.
 
Sidney L. Plaut said:
Lets not turn this forum into a place were we insult Terrence Malick or question his cinematic "eye":))
Click to expand...

What would be the use of a forum where we DIDN'T question cinematic "eyes"? Seems like that would be boring and unproductive.
It doesn't seem to me that there should ever be a cinematographer or director who is above question.

I don't think he's insulting the cinematography. If I'm hearing him correctly, he's stating that the very wide angles along with the proximity of the camera to the subject is distracting to him. This is a totally valid point and I too find it slightly distracting. The reason I can live with the distraction is because it's such a conscious choice by the DP and Director and is motivated as such, so I'm buying into it.
The bigger question in my mind (and totally my opinion) with this film is will it bring back some of the heart that his great films like Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line possessed. Malick is one of my favorite directors, hands down, but I'm of the opinion that his last films have digressed behind a wall of (oft recycled) style, culminating in what was (compared to his other films) the vapid "To The Wonder". Hopefully this will be a new chapter.
 
Last edited:
U
dino g said:
Not a true statement. there may be shots that were shot with a red that made it into the movie ( like the last two malick films), there were other cameras involved besides several types of film cameras and the arri alexa.
Click to expand...

Since we processed all of the dailies on this project (as well as the one that followed it that we won't mention by name) I'm pretty familiar with the many devices that were used. But to my recollection, there was considerably more use of Alexa and film than anything else. Hence the statement. Perhaps "almost entirely" is a bit of an exaggeration, but "primarily" is not.

I don't know when it became acceptable or accurate to refer to a project with a few shots done on Red equipment as having been "shot on Red." You might as well call just about every picture made today "shot on GoPro", and every picture shot up until about a year go as being "shot on Phantom," or "shot on 5D", because one or all of those devices were used on practically everything. On many projects today, Red is used as a specialty camera, brought in for things like overcranks and aerials. That doesn't make it the "A" camera, although it does make it valuable.
 
M Most said:
U

Since we processed all of the dailies on this project (as well as the one that followed it that we won't mention by name) I'm pretty familiar with the many devices that were used. But to my recollection, there was considerably more use of Alexa and film than anything else. Hence the statement. Perhaps "almost entirely" is a bit of an exaggeration, but "primarily" is not.

I don't know when it became acceptable or accurate to refer to a project with a few shots done on Red equipment as having been "shot on Red." You might as well call just about every picture made today "shot on GoPro", and every picture shot up until about a year go as being "shot on Phantom," or "shot on 5D", because one or all of those devices were used on practically everything. On many projects today, Red is used as a specialty camera, brought in for things like overcranks and aerials. That doesn't make it the "A" camera, although it does make it valuable.
Click to expand...


I never stated SHOT ON RED, In fact I made the conscience decision to put this thread in cinematography not Shot on red, because of the film, alexa and other cameras involved. PRIMARILY is a good phrase to describe the cameras involved.
 
Sidney L. Plaut said:
Lets not turn this forum into a place were we insult Terrence Malick or question his cinematic "eye":))
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty bizarre request in a cinematography forum.
Do you have a list with other people, I should not question?

It's just Malick, not the pope.
Of course I can question his style.

And for the record, I questioned the pope before.
 
Frank Glencairn said:
Sounds like a pretty bizarre request in a cinematography forum.
Do you have a list with other people, I should not question?

It's just Malick, not the pope.
Of course I can question his style.

And for the record, I questioned the pope before.
Click to expand...

what you probably already know, which has been said over and over again by his actions is, he makes what he makes without regard to what anyone really thinks. of course he is very careful to make the best possible movie, but not specifically to please anyone in particular. his form of communication is his films....some of us use this forum to communicate, others email, others the phone, others through writing, others choose to make movies and then spend 6 months on talk shows and in magazine interviews explaining what they were trying to communicate in the movie. not terry....he has chosen to speak to anyone who wants to listen through pictures and sound sync'ed together. if you like it, great, if not, still great. what he has recognized i think is that films will last a long time, like books have, so 200 years from now he will not be available to explain his movies...the movies will explain the movies. so if you are unimpressed or do not like his style, by all means do not spend 15 dollars on seeing it in a theatre and speak out as much as you want, i am certain you will not change him, his dogma, or influence his next projects cause they are already in his head just waiting to come out when he finds the time, money and people to help him get them out there. as far as the last part of that, for the record the people part is the easiest part because he is like a drug, once you have it, you are addicted and will gladly participate again and again. that is why some of the crew members like jack fisk have been around for 40 years!
 
dino g said:
what you probably already know, which has been said over and over again by his actions is, he makes what he makes without regard to what anyone really thinks. of course he is very careful to make the best possible movie, but not specifically to please anyone in particular. his form of communication is his films....some of us use this forum to communicate, others email, others the phone, others through writing, others choose to make movies and then spend 6 months on talk shows and in magazine interviews explaining what they were trying to communicate in the movie. not terry....he has chosen to speak to anyone who wants to listen through pictures and sound sync'ed together. if you like it, great, if not, still great. what he has recognized i think is that films will last a long time, like books have, so 200 years from now he will not be available to explain his movies...the movies will explain the movies. so if you are unimpressed or do not like his style, by all means do not spend 15 dollars on seeing it in a theatre and speak out as much as you want, i am certain you will not change him, his dogma, or influence his next projects cause they are already in his head just waiting to come out when he finds the time, money and people to help him get them out there. as far as the last part of that, for the record the people part is the easiest part because he is like a drug, once you have it, you are addicted and will gladly participate again and again. that is why some of the crew members like jack fisk have been around for 40 years!
Click to expand...


This may of course all be true. He might very well not care what people think, but regardless of his cult following he still speaks in cinematic language, one that can be legitimately questioned, liked, disliked, be found to be effective or not, etc. He still releases his films to a wide audience and features some of the most prominent actors of our time so it's unlikely that he's working in a vacuum of creativity. He responds to things all other filmmakers and humans respond to and those things are all reflected in the films he makes, so let's not make a god out of any man, better to instead look at the language he's speaking and discuss what it does well and how we feel it lacks.

There are ups and downs and new chapters in all careers of artists: that's the very thing that makes them interesting, not some notion that they can do no wrong. Terry may be the bees knees to work with, and I know Jack who is a fabulous individual; that's not what we're talking about here on the Cinematography board. We're talking about his films, how effective they are, how they look, feel and perhaps in regards to the filmmaker, how they fits into the body of his work. These are all legitimate topics that should not be tossed away by fanboyism.

The thing I find so interesting about his body of work is the arch it's taken since Badlands... you can watch him meld his narrative filmmaking with a fresh style all it's own in Days and beyond. I think that style took over at some point (perhaps beginning in New World). Of course it's my opinion but after To The Wonder, which in comparison to his other work I find lacking, I'm personally hoping he comes back full circle and we get to see something fresh again, much like Days or Thin Red Line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top