Pedro Costa's working methods

[Joseph Podlesnik]

I learned that filmmaker Pedro Costa made 2 of the films from his Fontainhas trilogy with a Panasonic DVX100. I didn't know this when I was watching his In Vanda's Room - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMtsdwWSjyk. When viewing it, I was impressed by the cinematography, the use of lighting, etc, how he got so much latitude/DR out of the camera and into the work. Then I came to find he used a mini-dv cam with a few cobbled together reflectors, mostly daylight, etc, very little in the way of production equipment. This shows that much can be done in cinema with surprisingly little. I learned that he shot in DV, then had the final edited piece enlarged to a 35mm print. What advantages does this offer? M. David Mullen, care to comment?

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Pedro Costa’s unique style of truthful filmmaking calls for filming hundreds of hours of footage. There are shots that linger for 5 minutes or even more, observationally, on the most mundane of matters. It is effectively a combination of documentary and narrative (cinema-verite style), with Costa often looking to “capture truth”. Colossal Youth was shot on the DVX100, and it is rumoured that he bought 500 DV tapes. Now, that kind of a shooting ratio – closing in on 200:1 – would simply be impossible shooting on film. Particularly as the film is far removed from commercial narrative cinema with a limited audience, at best. I believe this is the main reason Costa worked with DV cameras. No doubt he will move to HD or digital cinema cameras with his new films. Remember, at the time Colossal Youth started filming, DVX100 was a sensation - much like the HDSLRs are now.

As for the lighting, once again, the “filming truth” / documentary nature of some shots means using production equipment is simply impossible. The narrative sections are filmed in true cinema verite style. The low key action and movement would simply not work with dramatic lighting. It is essential that everything is as real and truthful - including lighting.

Costa is one of the most interesting contemporary filmmakers. Or should we call him a visual poet? Regardless, there's something to learn from his filmmaking style and methods even if you are involved in more plot oriented cinema.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Like Subhadip said, the real advantage is time. Costa essentially shot in and around Fontainhas for years, working for hundreds of hours upon hours with the actors (all of whom were nonprofessionals who lived in the neighborhood), and shooting any number of takes, in which he had the freedom to sculpt performances with the actors, change dialogue, etc.

The crew was essentially Costa, who operated the camera, and his sound guy. People from the neighborhood would hold reflectors and flags as need be for each shot.

That said, Costa has an eye for light and shadow that few filmmakers today have. He's a real master, regardless of the medium he shoots in. This is in evidence from his very first film 'O Sangue' which has incredible black and white cinematography reminiscent of old Jacques Tourneur film noirs among many others. The Fontainhas film (Ossos) that was shot on 35mm film also shows a really fine sense of sculpted light.

With the 35mm transfer, Costa's said that he prefers the texture that it brings out, both in the quality of the projection light as well as the image itself. A straight up DV projection looks very different from the DV master transferred to 35.

Personally, would love to see what Costa could do with a Scarlet.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Time is key for good cinema indeed.

Pedro did the same film school as myself, even though about a decade earlier. Same editing department.

It was difficult to find a geek inside those walls, as matter of fact. For your information, I was the only 'geek' there in those days. LOL

I remember when digital came (DV, not anything else), to have listened that Pedro would never shoot 'celluloid' (meant, film) again. But this is only half part of the equation. Without mention, the film transfer always adds something to it in any way whatsoever.

What does this actually mean? Does he hate film by any chance? How could he?

The same guy who shot (actually, a feature made with a crew coming from Lisbon Film School @ several departments, produced by the chairman of the film school and teacher of every students who have attended there ;-) O Sangue (trailer):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z11YVtKqd6Q

It does mean who did that school loves the cinema and everything related to, such as cinematography, lighting and to know how to explore the medium up to the limit(s). Oh no, you won't find the useless discussion about film vs. digital there. Only price-wise. And freedom. That's what Pedro likes. With digital, he can do as much the number of takes he wants. Using a small crew or even as one-man-show (so accurately pointed out by Jason) where the director may operate the medium. The number of shooting days the author needs. Yes, 'cause we're speaking about 'cinema d'auteur', nothing else. Making the movies in any way other than as self-producing if possible. No Quarto da Vanda/In Vanda's Room was the first one after a couple of features produced by Paulo Branco in 35mm.

Might he get the same outcome in another way?