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 :)

Michael Mann’s Public Enemies

Christopher Grant Harvey said:
I should add that my question, and purpose in posting was not about the F23 at all, rather I asked if people felt that a "video" look (regardless of the source camera) suits a period piece?

People are allowed to feel what they want and have their opinion...:gun:
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with the look; I think the typical look we associate with period pieces is usually more appropriate for nostalgia, which is probably not what Mann wants to evoke with this film. I like the idea of keeping with his modern digital approach for something that takes place 80 years ago. To me this style almost seems less pretentious in a way, more casual and "here it is", if that makes sense.
 
I actually had the opportunity to see an early screening of this movie in Sherman Oaks a couple weeks ago. I had heard about the film a couple months back and being a huge fan of Michael Mann and his aesthetic, I was really excited to see it.

However, knowing that Mann has, with his more recent films, developed a very modern style, I was curious to see how that, combined with the video, would work with a period piece. Now, I know his "style" was applied to Ali as well, but it was shot on film and to me, Ali was more similar to The Insider than Miami Vice and I think the 60s are modern enough to not be bothered by it while the 30s are (i think the 60s are just closer to our modern world, whereas the world of the 30s is just too different). Back in college I shot a film that took place in the '40s on digital video and for some reason it just didn't really work. Now, a F23 is way better than an XL1 but it's just the nature of video.

The movie was definitely an unfinished cut. The 3rd Act was way too long and the film had pacing issues...but honestly, being such a fan of his work, I enjoyed every minute of it.

But...sometimes the film looked amazing and other times it looked like a really high budget re-enactment. During a major shoot out and during several other scenes later on, it looked like you were watching "behind the scenes footage." It literally looked like 60i, home video camera.

Now, we did see it on a digital projection system, so that could have something to do with it, maybe when it gets transferred to film it'll look better...but I was really disappointed in the look of the film. He ended using "video" too much and honestly the video did not work well with a period drama. Now, could you shoot period stuff on video, sure...but I think Mann's aesthetic combined with the video just didn't work and personally, I really wish he had shot it on film.

That said, I will see it again, because I'd be curious to see what changed. But all in all, the video look disappointed me.

The Trailer footage actually looks really good though, so maybe there's hope yet.
 
The funny thing for me about this movie is that I was on location for this for a week.

Now living in Chicago, we don't get that many big time productions (I know that TDK was here but that was so hush hush) let alone one's right down the street from where I live. They did night shoots (the Biograph Theater, where Bale shoots Depp) for a week straight and it was so fun to just stand there on the sidelines and watch (dreaming that I could be working on the set). During the day the street that they were shooting on was open and I would stroll all across it and just see what I could discover. I am very excited to see how that all comes together.

From where I was standing half of the time, the camera they were using was huge and had HUGE lenses on them (I don't know if they shot only on DigiPrimes but who knows).

I see what people have been talking about with the "video" look and its soooo easy to spot from stuff that looks filmic. I do not know why, but its super easy to tell. I hope that in the end it does not look that way.

But that's just my 2 cents of course.
 
In a low light scenes you deal with noise even on F23.

Have a look at some scenes at the end of the trailer.

1080p HD trailer>>>
 
I'd love to know Michael Mann's thought process for making this camera system choice and the studio's signing off thereof. On a big budget, big actor pic like this, the camera/film -- or in this case -- camera/digital medium package is such a minuscule part of the production budget... So it's not about cost.

And again, because of the huge scale of the production, it can't really be about speed of the work. A big period film takes so much extra time tweaking sets, locations, wardrobes props, cars, guns, etc., not to mention the added money to do so.

Hopefully, there will be many interviews to read when the picture opens to shed some light. But as of now, as good as the trailer looks, I scratch my head...
Joel J. Feigenbaum
 
f5films said:
I'd love to know Michael Mann's thought process for making this camera system choice and the studio's signing off thereof. On a big budget, big actor pic like this, the camera/film -- or in this case -- camera/digital medium package is such a minuscule part of the production budget... So it's not about cost.

And again, because of the huge scale of the production, it can't really be about speed of the work. A big period film takes so much extra time tweaking sets, locations, wardrobes props, cars, guns, etc., not to mention the added money to do so.

Hopefully, there will be many interviews to read when the picture opens to shed some light. But as of now, as good as the trailer looks, I scratch my head...
Joel J. Feigenbaum
Click to expand...

Yip it seems he wanted the look, budget was not a concern.
 
I was told by someone that worked on some of the dailies he was shooting six cameras even during conversations around a table. He said cameras would sometimes see each other etc. - but Mann got A LOT of coverage for each take. If true, then maybe his desire to get a lot of cameras rolling impacted the decision somehow.
 
f5films said:
And again, because of the huge scale of the production, it can't really be about speed of the work. A big period film takes so much extra time tweaking sets, locations, wardrobes props, cars, guns, etc., not to mention the added money to do so.
Click to expand...

I visited a friend in Chicago last year while they were filming. They transformed an entire street with period decorations. Each shop had a false front. It was amazing to see.
 
story is always most important in a film. you just cant forget the video look though. it doesn't just disappear. its distracting. but if the story is strong enough then it'll keep everyone watching. "high budget re-enactment" lol. thats probably exactly what it looks like.

all or most independent filmmakers try their whole lives to get away from the video look. so it's kinda funny he decides to shoot this way. its gotta make you chuckle.
 
borrgo said:
all or most independent filmmakers try their whole lives to get away from the video look. so it's kinda funny he decides to shoot this way. its gotta make you chuckle.
Click to expand...

I think that comes from a lot of us starting out in video so we associate the look with our very low budgets.
Coming from a world of film Michael Mann would have a very different viewpoint on this.

Listening to commentaries and watching films has slowly made me very attracted to shooting a film in anamorphic panavision which is something not likely for me to get a chance to do.
 
CraigWB said:
I think that comes from a lot of us starting out in video so we associate the look with our very low budgets.
Coming from a world of film Michael Mann would have a very different viewpoint on this.

Listening to commentaries and watching films has slowly made me very attracted to shooting a film in anamorphic panavision which is something not likely for me to get a chance to do.
Click to expand...

Dude, I want to shoot anamorphic something fierce!

A lot of us would love to hear Mann's thoughts on this. However, I think many of would expect a whole discussion on the topic. Unfortunately, his answer would probably be very simple, "I like it. What else do you want from me?"
 
Robert Sanders said:
Dude, I want to shoot anamorphic something fierce!

A lot of us would love to hear Mann's thoughts on this. However, I think many of would expect a whole discussion on the topic. Unfortunately, his answer would probably be very simple, "I like it. What else do you want from me?"
Click to expand...

I don't know if he did a commentary track for Miami Vice but he talks about shooting digital now and then during the collateral commentary.

It's mostly stuff like "I could never do this shot on film" and "You wouldn't even write a scene like this with out digital"

Its still a very good commentary if you want to learn about story telling.
 
I think the most interesting thing is that visually, the look he's using can work superbly. "Collateral" looked spectacular, and although the digital heritage was obvious in much of the film, it was never once distracting. In fact I think it really complimented that film.

Here, in a period film, it just feels completely out of place.

But it's a lesson learned I suppose - i.e. style and setting should both play a large part in your decision of which medium to shoot in.
 
It was shot F23 with Ziess Digi Primes as well as the Sony EX1 for hand held. There are a few scenes shot with 35mm on an old BL.
 
I saw the trailer for this last night with Watchmen, on digital projection, and it looks awful. He's got the shutter wide open so all the motion is smeary and it really feels like someone took the behind-the-scenes camera footage and slapped it up on the screen. That maybe works for something like Collateral, but a period piece about John Dillinger? Yuck.
 
totally agree dorkman
i am a big fan of Michael Mann
this trailer popped up on apple page and i was like ooh.. whats this.
Depp, Bale, Mann, and so i watched the trailer and it was really bad, sure the story looks ok and the camera work is pro but i was immediately distracted by how bad it looked, the colors, the shutter, the look. I was like i hope this was'nt shot on Red and so i checked and it brought me here and to the f23 conclusion and i dont understand why this wasnt shot on Red, Film or Dalsa, which all look better than this.

could be worse i suppose and be david lynch's horrible inland empire
wow that was bad, simply unwatchable.
 
paintthetownred said:
the look. I was like i hope this was'nt shot on Red and so i checked and it brought me here and to the f23 conclusion and i dont understand why this wasnt shot on Red, Film or Dalsa, which all look better than this.
Click to expand...

Red is every bit as capable of looking like bad video if you shoot it wrong I don't know why this should matter to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top