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 :)

Magic Hour only

J

Jason Cochard

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
0
An actress friend approached me about an intimate project she was self-producing, and I told her the story seemed to call for a Malick approach where they key was shooting handheld and only shooting at magic hour, and that while her shoot length would be doubled, but that I could do it with no crew or equipment except a focus puller.

She said yes and here's the teaser. I think it is a great way to work, especially for the actors. They loved it. The night work was all lit with practicals. Zero film lighting equipment was used, not even a bounce card.

http://cochard.net/solely (720p version)

Scarlet + my Leica/Dalsa set. Ungraded.
 
get the app Magic hour its amazing, tells you when the sun sets and rises and counts it down for you and its free
 
Such kind comments. Thanks guys. I don't usually promote myself.

Samir, yes the Dalsas were a rehousing of Leica R's, some Summilux and some Elmarit. There's also a 180mm/2 Summicron which kicks tons of ass.

I'm not sure what focal length the last shot was, but I want to say it was either a 24 or 28, because of the hexagonal iris artifacting. The 35mm is a 7-bladed iris and it's way too wide to be a 50mm, yet not wide enough to be a 19mm. So my money is on the 24 or 28. I didn't have a second AC doing a camera log, this was super run and gun. Although since I tend to skip a lens when I go tighter, I'd imagine I shot some wides with the 19mm and then went 28mm next. We'll never know.

Frank, do you know Terrence personally?
 
Frank Weeks said:
Nice work Jason. Love the no light scenario. Beautiful results. Terrence would approve.
Click to expand...

Beautiful results indeed! Although Malick and Lubezki make it a point not to flare the lens, and shoot almost entirely on steadicam as opposed to handheld as seen here. Either way love what you shot Jason.
 
Jaime, it's for a short film. Although I have a feature in mind that I'd like to make. Financing is the ever looming question.

I guess the rest of this is a response to Carlos. I do thank you for the compliments...I wasn't able to sit tight after reading your post though.

When I watch a Malick film, it is clear to me that he has no rules, except the rule that the camera (ie the camera operator) must always be "listening" to both the light and to the scene, with the skill of a lover and the precision of a dancer. It is just like the difference in authenticity between whether or not an actor is "listening" to their scene partner. A lot of the problem of a bad performance stems from the easiest thing in the world to remedy — not listening. The cameraman who listens will have more life to his shot, because the shot will subtly become less about the cameraman's will, but the will of the scene, and the will of the light, and what manifests in the camera is your reaction to those things, instead of steamrolling it with your preconceived notions. In this way, cinematography can be likened to love. So I would assume Malick's modus operandi would be, if the light is going to flare the lens, listen and receive it. If he doesn't want a flare for a specific story/metaphoric reason in a specific shot, but he knows the sun is going to be in the middle of the frame, could he opt for Master Primes instead of a more flare-y lens? Yeah sure, that's a directorial choice of brush. Regarding movement, the question of whether the listening is best accomplished on Steadicam or handheld is again a choice based on — budget aside — a directorial interpretation of the scene. But even if To The Wonder and Tree Of Life were each 95% Steadicam and 5% handheld, I still don't see any dogma in Malick. That might be a strong statement in light of his thematic considerations in those films. But I would say that while his themes come from a specific point of view that have immense dogmatic connotations, his treatment and exploration of them are non-dogmatic, non-rule-based, and show a sense of listening and searching. This is the basic reason his shit doesn't stink.
 
A lot of amazing moments in this trailer. My favorite is the hand transition...from inside the apartment...back out to the beach. Bravo. That was truly inspired.

Well done.

Can't wait to see more.

Plus love seeing those telltale Leica purple flares.

So pretty.
 
Nick Morrison said:
A lot of amazing moments in this trailer. My favorite is the hand transition...from inside the apartment...back out to the beach. Bravo. That was truly inspired.
Click to expand...

That transition was great. I agree.
 
Jason Cochard said:
Jaime, it's for a short film. Although I have a feature in mind that I'd like to make. Financing is the ever looming question.

I guess the rest of this is a response to Carlos. I do thank you for the compliments...I wasn't able to sit tight after reading your post though.

When I watch a Malick film, it is clear to me that he has no rules, except the rule that the camera (ie the camera operator) must always be "listening" to both the light and to the scene, with the skill of a lover and the precision of a dancer. It is just like the difference in authenticity between whether or not an actor is "listening" to their scene partner. A lot of the problem of a bad performance stems from the easiest thing in the world to remedy — not listening. The cameraman who listens will have more life to his shot, because the shot will subtly become less about the cameraman's will, but the will of the scene, and the will of the light, and what manifests in the camera is your reaction to those things, instead of steamrolling it with your preconceived notions. In this way, cinematography can be likened to love. So I would assume Malick's modus operandi would be, if the light is going to flare the lens, listen and receive it. If he doesn't want a flare for a specific story/metaphoric reason in a specific shot, but he knows the sun is going to be in the middle of the frame, could he opt for Master Primes instead of a more flare-y lens? Yeah sure, that's a directorial choice of brush. Regarding movement, the question of whether the listening is best accomplished on Steadicam or handheld is again a choice based on — budget aside — a directorial interpretation of the scene. But even if To The Wonder and Tree Of Life were each 95% Steadicam and 5% handheld, I still don't see any dogma in Malick. That might be a strong statement in light of his thematic considerations in those films. But I would say that while his themes come from a specific point of view that have immense dogmatic connotations, his treatment and exploration of them are non-dogmatic, non-rule-based, and show a sense of listening and searching. This is the basic reason his shit doesn't stink.
Click to expand...

Like I said I thought you're footage looked great, not trying to hijack your thread. But in regards to Malick, you'd be surprised just how different his approach to filmmaking is than you think:

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php

Excerpt:

When they began planning The New World, Malick and Lubezki sketched out a set of rules that, over time, evolved into what the crew called “the dogma.” However, Lubezki observes that rules have always been a mainstay of his own work. “In all the movies I’ve done, I always worked with a set of rules — they help me to find the tone and the style of the film,” he says. “Art is made of constraints. When you don’t have any, you go crazy, because everything is possible.”
He says his previous movies were dictated by rules such as using only one lens, or shooting the entire film at T2.8. Although there is no written version of the Malick-Lubezki dogma on Tree, interviews with the cinematographer and some key collaborators suggest some parameters:

• Shoot in available natural light
• Do not underexpose the negative Keep true blacks
• Preserve the latitude in the image
• Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
• Seek depth with deep focus and stop: “Compose in depth”
• Shoot in backlight for continuity and depth
• Use negative fill to avoid “light sandwiches” (even sources on both sides)
• Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk; never front light
• Avoid lens flares
• Avoid white and primary colors in frame
• Shoot with short-focal-length, hard lenses
• No filters except Polarizer
• Shoot with steady handheld or Steadicam “in the eye of the hurricane”
• Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
• No zooming
• Do some static tripod shots “in midst of our haste”
• Accept the exception to the dogma (“Article E”)
 
Interesting that I chose the same word, dogma, although I think I'm using it slightly differently. I am not arguing against being technically methodical or building a framework from which to work. That's what we all do in prep on every film. But I doubt they kept a laminated checklist of those bullet points while on set, or stopped a magic hour shot to have a conversation about how this setup was a violation of rule 6, and whether that was okay with Terrence. They just kept shooting because the light doesn't wait for us to get our shit together. So, I'm sure they digested the constraints and made it a part of themselves, so they could forget about it later and focus on the intangibles of the filmmaking, such that, while on set, only the last bullet point was consciously relevant, which is basically an encapsulation of my listening idea, an infinite loophole for Lubezki's constraints to be broken on a per-shot basis...and of course, broken because of the listening.

So I don't think we disagree. I do think that describing their process in the form of words for the benefit of the readers of American Cinematographer is (has to be) a bastardization of the fullness of what is really going on inside Lubeski and Malick, and really every artist. So I take it (and every AC article) with a grain of salt, knowing that the real magic can't be expressed in words, which is why we make movies.
 
I don't think we disagree at all actually, but us being on an internet forum words are all we have to discuss these things we spend most of our time and effort on, so its worth discussing even if the words will never truly do the process justice. Their dogma is a known thing though, and I found the process quite fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top