The Tree of Life
Posted 11 May 2011 - 12:13 PM
This is an interview with Lubezski that everyone will likely be interested in. It proves my own guesses about them shooting IMAX and R65mm. Some fascinating comments in this from one of the best alive.
Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:48 PM
Posted 11 May 2011 - 07:09 PM
Posted 11 May 2011 - 09:45 PM
It's really unfortunate, I'd pay $50 for that ticket. Tree will be the end-of-the-line in cinema quality.
Posted 12 May 2011 - 09:43 AM
Posted 12 May 2011 - 10:46 AM
As for Kodak, the fact the film choose 65mm and Kodak stocks is still a reason to brag, despite the fact that some of the film was shot on RED.
It'd be like Kodak not making a big deal out of Black Swan using 16mm because they chose to shoot 7D (or 5D i forget) for shots where that system made sense.
We're making movies here, we gotta go with what works for the situation. I can drive a nail with a screwdriver, but a hammer would be much easier.
Posted 12 May 2011 - 11:12 AM
Reportedly about half the movie was shot on red and now Malick and Lubezki are using the red exclusively. Funny that kodak would publish an article about the image quality of 65mm film only to have the filmmakers in question turn around and abandon it for an inexpensive digital alternative.
Not true at all. The RED crap and the need for fans to feel better about something that doesn't quite hold up to 35mm is really out of control these days. Do your research before posting.
Posted 12 May 2011 - 11:33 AM
I wonder how much 65mm footage will make it to the final cut of "The Tree of Life" and how they will integrate it, since this is a 1.85:1 picture (Jacques Tati shot "Playtime" in 5-perf 65mm framed for 1.85:1 instead of 2.21:1).
Posted 16 May 2011 - 04:35 PM
Sounds like this one is going to be pretty overtly theological and philosophical. I appreciate the fact that Malick is unapologetic about wanting to think about the big questions, and do so on a big screen. Anything to push back on the notion that books, movies and music are supposed to be valuable or "good" only inasmuch as they are entertaining, rather than allowing some room for poetic and cerebral approaches as an option, too.
Posted 16 May 2011 - 04:44 PM
Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:23 PM
I guess it’s going to divide then conquer.
Posted 16 May 2011 - 08:39 PM
Make a film for the market and it will sort of please most people. Make a film without regard to the ignorant masses and some will absolutely love it, often because it didn't compromise.
I prefer to spend my money and time on finding/enjoying the gems.
Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:44 PM
I really don't know how red fans can say it was shot on red.
Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:37 PM
And IMDB is updated by "whomever"; an often inaccurate source to say the least.
This one is worth a read too, although it isn't as cinematography related. From Roger Ebert.
Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:52 PM
Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:13 PM
Great article wasn't it? I envy what the crew got to do on this project, and they even got paid for it! What a memory and learning experience.
Posted 18 May 2011 - 12:35 PM