Jump to content


Photo

The Tree of Life


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 03:13 PM

Since the other thread on here was about the trailer, I thought a new one was appropriate. Also since the film releases soon and Im sure there will be a lot of cinematography awards/nominations a thread might benefit from a fresh start.

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.

http://motion.kodak....sives/index.htm
  • 0

#2 Ravi Kiran

Ravi Kiran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 11 May 2011 - 06:06 PM

Will there be any IMAX screenings?
  • 0

#3 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:48 PM

I can't find any info on that yet. There is suppose to be an IMAX only sister film to this called Voyage of Time but there isnt much out there about that either. Hopefully Fox will announce something very soon. This/these film(s) will be a cinema benchmark.
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5940 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:09 PM

I don't see why it wouldn't be in IMAX, it seems that most of the bigger films these days are IMAX releases (inception comes to mind), and I'm sure it'll be in LieMAX. By the bye, anyone recall if The New World ever saw an IMAX screen? I know parts were 65mm, but I don't recall it being shown in IMAX.
  • 0

#5 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 12 May 2011 - 12:45 AM

No, The New World didn't make it to IMAX screens. Tree of Life won't either, I'd suspect. It's a huge undertaking for them to market and prep a film for IMAX screenings and this film isn't overly commercial like the (often) junk that makes it in there, which of course is made for the masses outside of the actual IMAX-made films.

It's really unfortunate, I'd pay $50 for that ticket. Tree will be the end-of-the-line in cinema quality.
  • 0

#6 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Student

Posted 12 May 2011 - 12:43 PM

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.
  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5940 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:46 PM

I have heard that it was being used, but as stated before, I'll bet it's just for EFX shots and/or for situations in the "modern" world with Penn. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions until I see an article on the film in AC or hear it from Chivo.
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.
  • 0

#8 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 12 May 2011 - 02:12 PM

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.
  • 0

#9 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 12 May 2011 - 02:16 PM

Lubezki interview. Read this from ICG: http://www.icgmagazi.../sights-unseen/
  • 0

#10 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 12 May 2011 - 02:33 PM

"The New World" only features one or two scenes shot on 65mm film stock, even on the extended cut. Sadly, there was no noticeable increase in picture quality on the big screen due to the reduction to 35mm print stock (I believe they had to use a 2K DI for these shots).

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).
  • 0

#11 Jason Reimer

Jason Reimer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • Student
  • Rochester, NY

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:35 PM

The first of the reviews are coming in, and it's pretty much as one would expect, lots of division:

http://www.huffingto...k_n_862312.html

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.
  • 0

#12 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 16 May 2011 - 07:44 PM

In 1969, "2001" got plenty of bad reviews too, one popular "critic" even saying it was "amateur filmmaking". How must they feel these days for saying that?
  • 0

#13 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 474 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 16 May 2011 - 10:23 PM

It was booed at Cannes, but the reviews look good…

http://www.rottentom...e_of_life_2011/

I guess it’s going to divide then conquer.
  • 0

#14 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 16 May 2011 - 11:39 PM

People report what sells. It was also cheered and applauded, according to several articles.

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.
  • 0

#15 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 474 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:17 AM

I hear what you’re scream’n and I certainly agree.
  • 0

#16 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:44 PM

According to IMDB - Red One Camera (some shots)


I really don't know how red fans can say it was shot on red.
  • 0

#17 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 18 May 2011 - 01:37 AM

Again, read the ICG article I posted (any DP or director should).

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.

http://blogs.suntime..._tree_of_l.html
  • 0

#18 Joseph Arch

Joseph Arch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Director

Posted 18 May 2011 - 01:52 AM

I read the article Vincent. I don't see any red in there. So why are people proclaiming it was shot on red?
  • 0

#19 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:13 AM

I think anyone professionally involved in film, or wants to be, bothers to find real answers on their own. The rest fade away soon enough.

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.
  • 0

#20 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 May 2011 - 03:35 PM

The vast, vast majority of the movie was shot on 35mm film. There are a handful of shots on RED and a handful on Phantom. Don't know if anything else made it into the mix. Based on screen time, it is likely 99% film. Based on original material captured, it is probably 99.9999999% film.
  • 0






Lemo Connectors

Robert Starling

Pro 8mm

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Zylight

Abel Cine

K5600 Lighting

The Slider

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

CineLab

Cool Lights

System Associates

Cinelicious

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Cinelicious

Glidecam

Lemo Connectors

CineTape

Zylight

Abel Cine

System Associates

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Cool Lights

The Slider

Robert Starling

Pro 8mm

K5600 Lighting

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

rebotnix Technologies