Mullen Oscar buzz?

[David Mullen ASC]

If the work is visually interesting, it's just as much due to the director as the DP, for providing me with a visual script, with interesting settings to shoot, and collaborating with me in using light as a key storytelling device.

The four movies I have done with Michael Polish have allowed me to advance as an artist and as a career professional the industry, for which I am eternally grateful.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Look David, I hear ya.. I understand where you are coming from.. And that said perhaps this is an impossible discussion.

The guy is YOUR BOSS.. And his loyality to you is important to you and your business.. And .. YOU LIKE HIM.. I am very happy to see you have a strong sense of loyality to him.

Lord knows if I had something out there I would like to think my DP is talking about me the way you are talking about Michael.

So this will be the last time I bring up this subject. In short I understand now that you really cannot go into this since it's just not worth it to do so. I'm talking about a movie, you're talking about your bread and butter... Big big difference (Not only that, you have made it clear you AGREE with his choices).

I should have though this through more carefully before bringing it up.

That said I STILL think a very interesting topic surfaced that I feel comfortable bringing up here:

Gents, when shooting, how much attention are you paying to a DVD release when shooting something that may begin in the theatre. A wide shot on a full movie screen will still allow for good facial expression, while that same shot on your home set will lose all of it and be 90% less effective.

That said, do you shoot for the screen, the Television, or what?

My opinion is that your movie is as good as it's weakest link. In other words, if you are going to end up on a small screen, you have to respect that. If I could do a "director's cut" and edit some shots for a smaller screen, then that would be a possible solution.


Jay

 

[Poi Boy]

Jay, please spell it out for me...what did the director do wrong ?
Aloha
-A

 

[Emanuel A.]

From the "Twin Falls Idaho", it would be possible to guess that Michael Polish and David Mullen would be a unique and an unbeatable partnership for a promising future, confirmed each feature. And they're still both young moviemakers. Go figure!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Trying to take TV in mind when making a theatrical feature is one of the reasons that movies have gotten weaker over the decades, framing-wise.

One of the best advices I ever got regarding shooting anamorphic was from Stephem Burum, ASC -- I asked him, since he did a number of split-dioptor shots in 2.35 anamorphic for Brian DePalma, which don't really work in pan & & scan 4x3 TV, if he ever worried about that. He said "I figure the harder it is to make the composition work on 4x3 TV, the better I must have composed it for scope."

What I've always liked about the anamorphic format, as opposed to Super-35, is that it is primarily designed for cinema presentation. When you see a true scope movie like "Dances with Wolves" or "JFK", you don't feel that it was shot with any consideration for TV in mind.

You look at plenty of older movies on TV and they are mostly framed in wide and medium, with very few close-ups. A "close-up" in "My Fair Lady" (65mm Super Panavision) is generally framed waist-up or chest-up.

Directors these days SO overuse close-ups that they have to use extreme wide-shots to emotionally punctuate a scene because their close-ups have no more impact.

And there is something to be said of "holding back" and not always going in tight to catch every emotion on an actor's face. In fact, my touchstone is always this scene in John Ford's "My Darling Clementine" where the Earp brothers return to their camp and find their youngest brother dead and their cattle stolen. Ford shot it from a slightly high angle so all you see are three hat brims in the rain and can't see the brothers' expressions as they look down at their dead brother.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

You are talking about the art of "what you don't show"... Boy is that a lost art in today's films.

The close-up is overused.. No doubt, it's an easy way out of a lot of potential problems.. It usually avoids continuity problems, can be used to control pacing when the producers don't like the scene. Not very good reasons huh?

I have to say... I don't know. I'll jump in on this more later.

For me, as a director, the soul and emotion of a scene lives in the eyes of the actor.. Whatever shot I get, I need to see those eyes and what they portray. So the question is: How far back can I get and still see this?

Jay

 

[Tom Lowe]

Trying to take TV in mind when making a theatrical feature is one of the reasons that movies have gotten weaker over the decades, framing-wise.

One of the best advices I ever got regarding shooting anamorphic was from Stephem Burum, ASC -- I asked him, since he did a number of split-dioptor shots in 2.35 anamorphic for Brian DePalma, which don't really work in pan & & scan 4x3 TV, if he ever worried about that. He said "I figure the harder it is to make the composition work on 4x3 TV, the better I must have composed it for scope."

Haha, nice.

 

[krd]

For me, as a director, the soul and emotion of a scene lives in the eyes of the actor.. Whatever shot I get, I need to see those eyes and what they portray. So the question is: How far back can I get and still see this?

Pretty far. The Sopranos and Six Feet Under generally avoided TV closeups (sorry David, I haven't seen Big Love yet!), and who ever regretted the absence of those shots, even on 20" TVs?

Doesn't all this go back to the art of "not showing"? If everything else is working as it should, you may not need those eyes and tonsils.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I agree about close ups being WAY overused. Watch some old Hitchcock or recent stuff like In the Company of Men or In the Mood for Love. Some of my favorite movies have long, uncut scenes. Two shots and masters can speak volumes about what is going on, not only because they open up the film's atmosphere, but also because they can convey body language and the overall situation.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Pretty far. The Sopranos and Six Feet Under generally avoided TV closeups (sorry David, I haven't seen Big Love yet!), and who ever regretted the absence of those shots, even on 20" TVs?

Doesn't all this go back to the art of "not showing"? If everything else is working as it should, you may not need those eyes and tonsils.

To follow up from this, there have been cases when a cinematographer/director has purposely lit and framed things so that an actor's eyes are NOT visible, even in medium shots and close-ups - for example, think of how Gordon Willis shot Brando in many scenes of The Godfather. It can be incredibly effective and not soul-reducing in any way, if judiciously done. Withholding that easy emotional access to the actor might sometimes be exactly what you need to retain the soul or emotion of a scene. Not always or even often, of course, but as a director, you certainly want to keep that as an option.

Tonsils, of course, are a completely different beast.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Have you guys sent in your emails to Warners?