Indy 4: Anamorphic, Super 35, or HD?
Posted 01 January 2007 - 11:21 PM
For consistency's sake, I'd hope for true scope. Spielberg's and Slocombe's focus pulls for the first three films often heartily acknowledge the anamophic format's optical distortions ? but the filmmaker hasn't shot a true scope film in years.
Posted 01 January 2007 - 11:30 PM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 12:50 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 01:14 AM
I don't really know what the issues are with Spielberg and anamorphic (and how much to separate that from Kaminski's camera crew's attitude toward anamorphic), but considering the extreme dolly moves that Spielberg likes to make from wide to very tight, I'm sure this was more difficult with anamorphic lenses, although he pulled it off.
I've always wondered how the anamorphic lens and focus-puller managed the shot in "Raiders" where Indy runs down an alleyway chasing Marion's basket and ends up running up into an ECU, which then pulls back, pans over, and cranes up into a wide shot as he runs into the marketplace full of similar baskets (a visual gag sort of stolen from Hitchcock's "North by Northwest" where the police run into the train terminal looking for Cary Grant with a red cap and see dozens of workers in red caps.)
Spielberg likes to work fast and he probably feels that anamorphic lenses and composing for 2.40 are both more time-consuming -- in fact, I read an interview where he said this was one reason he preferred 1.85 these days, because he felt that he had to work harder to compose a 2.40 frame well. Of course, that didn't stop him from composing "Minority Report" and "Munich" in 2.40.
Spielberg has also been on this "anti-slick" campaign, pretty much coinciding with his work with Kaminski -- this has meant embracing things like grain, for example. He probably feels that his anamorphic movies looked too slick and polished, although again, I wonder what he wants to do with the next Indy movie visually.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 01:53 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 02:02 AM
I'm gonna quote his answer: "To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950's. I find widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side. If I had to make a choice, I'd rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is (the range) from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theater is 2.35:1. I've chosen 1.85:1 for my last four pictures because they were intended to be more lifelike."
Posted 02 January 2007 - 02:40 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 04:27 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 11:22 AM
I talked to some camera crew people who worked for Spielberg and they said Spielberg hated working in anamorphic and felt that his former DP's had (somewhat) forced it upon him. Not that Super-35 was an option in the 1970's when he started...
The cinematographers guild web site features an interview with Allen Daviau (who shot "E.T.", Spielberg's first non-anamorphic theatrical film) in which he covers this subject:
Before E.T., Steven had never directed a film in anything but anamorphic format. Movies were anamorphic to him. And I'm saying, Steven, you've got so much of this film taking place in a closet, do you really want to have that anomorphic lenses? You're not going to be able to focus as close and we'll be able to work at a lower light level (with spherical lenses), which was really very important in this film.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 02:32 PM
I've always wondered how the anamorphic lens and focus-puller managed the shot in "Raiders" where Indy runs down an alleyway ................
That was a 55mm Macro C Series..... I think we only had two in London.... Robin Vidgeon was the focus puller on Raiders and Temple of Doom, on which we did a similar shot with Harrison Ford and the infamous macro..... We had a Vista Vision unit with us all the time shooting plates.
I hope they stay with Anamorphic...... If Spielberg ever saw the last Star Wars I'm sure he will.....
Posted 02 January 2007 - 04:13 PM
I can see them deciding to shoot anamorphic to keep consistency with the rest of the series, but since it's been almost 20 years since the last film, I can also see wanting to break off and approach the film with a fresh visual style. Obviously Harrison's not getting any younger, so I would assume the action would be a bit more subdued, which might lend itself to a different format.
Then again, since it's a pet project of sorts, I can see Spielberg potentially taking a conservative approach to the visual style. If Spielberg wanted to try shooting digital, I guess he might want to do it on a less personal project in case he ends up saying "I'll never do that again."
Tough to say, but an interesting question.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 06:02 PM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 08:52 PM
Obviously Harrison's not getting any younger, so I would assume the action would be a bit more subdued, which might lend itself to a different format.
All the more reason to shoot film. HD has a bad tendency to show every flaw in an actor's face and if you cut back on the action all the more reason to exploit the scenery and exotic locals to help hold the audences interest.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:05 PM
I'll bet ya they put it in the 50's at the hight of the cold war, replace the Nazis with communists and have an artifact in the some eastern block country. That's what I would do. Although putting it into the termoil of the 60's could be interesting, maybe set in Cambodia wuth those Cambodian temples and pyramids during the war but that may be to controversal.
I wonder if they'll set the story in the 1960's... that could be an interesting twist.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:29 PM
Posted 03 January 2007 - 12:11 AM
I'll bet ya they put it in the 50's at the hight of the cold war, replace the Nazis with communists and have an artifact in the some eastern block country.
Somehow this reminds me more of a Bond scenario.
I know what are they going to shoot with...
RED ONE @ 4K!
PS: I don't intend to start a new "cold" RED
and "open" film vs digital war.
Respect to Jim and his project.
Posted 03 January 2007 - 04:49 AM
Somehow this reminds me more of a Bond scenario.
Funny you should mention that, the reason Speilberg originally did the first "Indy" film was that he wanted to direct a James Bond picture and because is was an Engish only franchise, he wasn't allowed to so Lucas told him about this idea he had about making a movie like the old serials from the 30's that would have the same kind of action and adventure and that's how "Raiders of the Lost Ark" cane into being.
Edited by James Steven Beverly, 03 January 2007 - 04:53 AM.