Jump to content


Photo

American Hustle


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 December 2013 - 05:12 PM

I saw American Hustle today, and I don't comprehend the hype surrounding the motion picture. I was aware from the get-go about the actors, the acting didn't feel sincere, it was acted. I was watching caricatures the whole time, in the exception of Jeremy Renner, who was truly believable. The film is listed as a crime/drama on IMDB, but it's really more of a comedy than anything else. I really loved O. Russell's 'Silver Linings Playbook', which reminded me of Wilder's 'The Apartment', but this film you can completely see so much of Martin Scorsese's form being completely ripped off! The freeze frames, the slow motion, the music,  the staging, and even the 'Mean Streets' look that they were going for in the cinematography. It's just not an original piece of work, and the ending was completely foreseeable. The film had its moments, I particularly liked watching Amy Adams for the obvious reasons, but other than that, I was aware I was watching a movie thee whole time. Has anyone else seen it?


Edited by joshua gallegos, 25 December 2013 - 05:13 PM.

  • 0

#2 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:01 PM

The Scorsese influence was evident from the first trailer I saw.  But thanks for the heads up. 


  • 0

#3 Nicolas Courdouan

Nicolas Courdouan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:02 PM

Haven't seen it yet, but could it all be intentional?

I thought the idea to make all these flamboyant, self-conscious characters rather fitting if you consider they are all con-men, pretending to be something they're not.

A totally exaggerated, over-the-top form also seems like a good choice to me based on the subject matter and outrageous retro-70s look they were going for. But it would have to be well done of course, and not just feel like a rehash of all the similar films that came before.
  • 0

#4 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:50 PM

It's certainly not a bad film, it's entertaining, I just don't see its brilliance. Usually after I watch a great film, I leave with that adrenaline you get, where you want to tell everyone how good it was, but I honestly felt nothing for it. The film was certainly over the top, and I must say Jennifer Lawrence was pretty horrible in this movie, and you never really feel any of the characters are in any real danger. Compared to Robert Redford who was shot at and chased mercilessly in 'The Sting', you really felt scared for him, but in American Hustle I never felt that kind of danger for the Christian Bale character, when he goes through the entire 'ordeal' of a certain operation.The film just didn't leave an impression like it did with Silver Linings, the film is certainly over-hyped, I was very disappointed. 


  • 0

#5 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 December 2013 - 08:07 PM

Haven't seen it yet, but could it all be intentional?

I thought the idea to make all these flamboyant, self-conscious characters rather fitting if you consider they are all con-men, pretending to be something they're not.

A totally exaggerated, over-the-top form also seems like a good choice to me based on the subject matter and outrageous retro-70s look they were going for. But it would have to be well done of course, and not just feel like a rehash of all the similar films that came before.

Something was amiss, I can't quite diagnose what it was exactly, but it's certainly a film that draws too much attention to itself, and most of the scenes with Amy Adams took me out of the story, she is too much to handle. 


  • 0

#6 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 December 2013 - 09:20 PM

It suddenly dawned on me that the whole film IS a forgery! That is why the film imitated Scorsese so much! Ha! That's very clever of David O. Russell. Maybe there's more to this film than what i thought, I should definitely see it again. 


  • 0

#7 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 26 December 2013 - 12:48 AM

It suddenly dawned on me that the whole film IS a forgery! That is why the film imitated Scorsese so much! Ha! That's very clever of David O. Russell. Maybe there's more to this film than what i thought, I should definitely see it again.


Well, it's gotten you to pay attention and talk about it. Ha! Can't be all that bad...
  • 0

#8 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:30 AM

Well, it's gotten you to pay attention and talk about it. Ha! Can't be all that bad...


I never really said it was bad, it's actually a very entertaining film, I just didn't feel it was as good as everyone said it was, but in a way it's growing on me a bit more, perhaps I missed its genius. I need to see it again.
  • 0

#9 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:42 PM

I felt the same way when I saw Boogie Nights.  I thought the filming techniques were identical to Casino.


  • 0

#10 joshua gallegos

joshua gallegos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Student

Posted 27 December 2013 - 02:10 PM

Well, every filmmaker borrows from other great filmmakers, some even do it frame by frame. When James Cameron introduces the Kate Winslet character in Titanic, if you watch Bette Davis in 'Now, Voyager', you will see just how much he "borrowed" from that moment. In the case of Boogie Nights, I felt the technique didn't get in the way of the story, it was charged with energy, because it mainly dealt with very eccentric personalities. If anything, I would say Boogie Nights is more or less like Raging Bull, it's very biographical in the sense that we get to know every little aspect and nuance of the pornography industry, just as much as we got to see the inside and out of the boxing world with Jake LaMotta. The attention to detail in both films are quite profound. Even Tarantino who borrows from his favorites, manages to integrate that into his own style. In, American Hustle it felt the whole thing was a complete ripoff, I think it was done on purpose because David O. Russell has a definite style of his own, as in Silver Lining's Playbook -- so, it was that aspect that drew too much attention, and it took me out of the story, because i just didn't believe anything I was seeing, it felt too false to take seriously. 


  • 0

#11 Kemalettin Sert

Kemalettin Sert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Istanbul

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:42 PM

Maybe its projector but it looked half of the movie out of focus to me.


  • 0

#12 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 20 January 2014 - 06:28 PM

It was pretty ludicrous  and I too don't understand the hype. I guess Hollywood needs something to rally around in a somewhat dry year for cinema. I worked on it for a few days and can say it was loads of fun, but the story, who gives a s**t.


  • 0

#13 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 21 January 2014 - 07:33 PM

Maybe its projector but it looked half of the movie out of focus to me.

 

You're right!  Much of the movie had focus issues.  The cinematographer insisted upon using old Canon K35 lenses for their 1970's look, the time period that the movie takes place. Unfortunately, the K35's have 1970's technology as well.  Since AMERICAN HUSTLE was shot entirely on steadicam, the use of Preston FIZ remote focus units were necessary.  Since the K35 lenses have a compressed focus scale and are known for "loss of motion," they could neither respond to the Preston transmitter commands nor return to a prescribed focus mark.  There wasn't much chance for success in the focus department with these lenses.  About half way through the shoot and against the cinematographer's wishes, the First AC insisted on switching the Canon K35 lenses for the Zeiss Hi Speed lenses which were made for cinematic use.  After the switch, the focus issues were eliminated and the integrity of a period look was mantained.

 

 

 

G

 


Edited by Gregory Irwin, 21 January 2014 - 07:37 PM.

  • 3

#14 Kemalettin Sert

Kemalettin Sert
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Istanbul

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:40 PM

Thanks Greg its nice to have you on here! 


  • 0

#15 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 23 January 2014 - 12:17 PM

Thanks Greg its nice to have you on here!


Thank you!
  • 0

#16 Jeremy Parsons

Jeremy Parsons
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pittsburgh

Posted 23 January 2014 - 03:32 PM

Hey Greg, I just saw it last night followed by a Q&A with Geoffrey Haley. After hearing what you had to work with, I thought you did an outstanding job. I frequently work with a company that insists on using a RED mounted with an old set of manual Nikon still lenses. They're a real pain in the arse!

 

I think doing any kind of film with ONLY one kind of camera movement has a… monokinetic feel to it.  After listening to the Q&A, its seemed like the choice of 100% steadicam was as much a choice of fast camera setups rather than a specific look. 

 

I still couldn't stop gawking at the costume and sets. The production design was AMAZING!


  • 0

#17 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 23 January 2014 - 04:16 PM

Hey Greg, I just saw it last night followed by a Q&A with Geoffrey Haley. After hearing what you had to work with, I thought you did an outstanding job. I frequently work with a company that insists on using a RED mounted with an old set of manual Nikon still lenses. They're a real pain in the arse!

 

I think doing any kind of film with ONLY one kind of camera movement has a… monokinetic feel to it.  After listening to the Q&A, its seemed like the choice of 100% steadicam was as much a choice of fast camera setups rather than a specific look. 

 

I still couldn't stop gawking at the costume and sets. The production design was AMAZING!

 

Thanks for the kind words Jeremy.  David O's choice of using steadicam only comes from his interpretation of what a steadicam is capable of. He feels that it has an ease of movement and he truly believes that it is a panacea for the amount of time that it would take to set up a studio camera along with dolly track, etc. He doesn't want to be limited in any way that track would limit his camera movement to. David simply wants the cast to do what they want and for us to conform on the fly to them.

 

It's interesting to note that Geoff ("A" camera and Steadicam operator) and I are very accustom to no rehearsals or no blocking of a shot.  In fact, we kind of enjoy that challenge.  We had a tremendous success with David's THE FIGHTER which was shot in the same fashion.  The movie is in frame and completely in focus.  The difference was that we did not use the Canon K35 lenses.  We shot with Zeiss Master Primes at a T1.3 and it looked fantastic!  Hoyte van Hoytema was the cinematographer on THE FIGHTER where as Linus Sangren was the cinematographer on AMERICAN HUSTLE.  His choice of employing the Canon K35s was fatal to our success when referring to the focus pulling challenges. Those lenses simply could not perform to the level we required.  Thankfully, after we changed lenses to the Zeiss High Speeds, our focus issues were put behind us.  I only wish we had made the change earlier in the shooting schedule.

 

I also want to mention what iron men Geoff Haley and Greg Lundsgaard were.  They both operated steadicam non-stop for long hours and weeks on end.  They really sacrificed their bodies to make AMERICAN HUSTLE.  It was both physically and mentally challenging for us all. Jorge Sanchez was my "B" camera 1st AC and he too did a wonderful job.

 

G


  • 0

#18 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 January 2014 - 05:55 PM

 

against the cinematographer's wishes, the First AC insisted on switching the Canon K35 lenses for the Zeiss Hi Speed lenses which were made for cinematic use.  

That must have led to some 'interesting' conversations. Well done for fighting your corner. There are unfortunately many DP's who are more than happy to throw the crew under a bus if it serves their artistic vision. They need to be reminded that filmmaking is a collaborative endeavor.


  • 2

#19 Mathew Rudenberg

Mathew Rudenberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 January 2014 - 10:27 PM

For what it's worth, the steadicam operating and focus work immediately stood out to me as excellent - so many extremely fast push ins to close and then nailing the landing with no float and near perfect focus.

 

I would imagine that with his love of improvisation David is the kind of director that doesn't like marks or rehearsals, which often leads to the kind of camera work shown in Silver linings playbook. You and Geoff really elevated the visuals of the film with your work.

 

I immediately looked you guys up and noticed that you had worked on The Fighter as well even though Hoyte was not on American Hustle. I was curious if David specifically asked your team back?


  • 1

#20 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 589 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:05 AM

For what it's worth, the steadicam operating and focus work immediately stood out to me as excellent - so many extremely fast push ins to close and then nailing the landing with no float and near perfect focus.
 
I would imagine that with his love of improvisation David is the kind of director that doesn't like marks or rehearsals, which often leads to the kind of camera work shown in Silver linings playbook. You and Geoff really elevated the visuals of the film with your work.
 
I immediately looked you guys up and noticed that you had worked on The Fighter as well even though Hoyte was not on American Hustle. I was curious if David specifically asked your team back?


Thank you Mathew. To answer your last question, Geoff and I were direct requests by David. He wanted us for SLP as well but we were not available. And I believe that was one of the issues our DP had. He didn't have his crew since Geoff and I were "forced" upon him. But we tried our best to look out for both his and David's interests. That got a bit tricky at times.

As far as your other observance, you're correct. David does not rehearse, there are no marks and we haven't a clue to what's going to happen during a take till after we have shot it. It must be quite a sight watching the steadicam operator, the focus puller, the boom man as well as the gaffer, who was booming a china ball on a stick, all negotiating for the same space while trying to stay out of eyelines and the key light! We all got into the habit of keeping an eye out for each other and signaling to which direction any of us needed to shift whether it was ducking either under the boom or even the lens! Even the cast got involved with the calling of audibles during a take and were extremely respectfull of our challenges as we were of theirs. The script supervisor would always ask me what the shot would be and I would smile and say " I'll let you know after we've shot it."

Finally, I accidently omitted the name of our 3rd steadicam operator who spent just a couple of weeks with us. Dave Thompson also made a huge contribution to AH. Sorry Dave!

G
  • 1


Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

CineLab

Technodolly

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC