The GigologStella Papamichael's BBC review - a reply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2007/03/19/
the_gigolos_2007_review.shtml
Dear Stella,
Sorry to read that you didn't like The Gigolos. I watch plenty of movies I don't like, and wouldn't think twice about telling a filmmaker what I thought of their work, so I'm not taking issue with any of your opinions.
As a professional film reviewer, however, you'll appreciate being corrected on a couple of technical points.
You write about "the obvious lack of a lighting budget"...
But The Gigolos was lit, using the following equipment:
2x 650W Softlights
4ft Kino flo 4 Bank at 3200K
1x 2K Fresnel Spotlight
2x 650W Fresnel Spotlight
4x 100W Dedolight
The cost of hiring these lights was relatively small, compared to the cost of other production consumables such as film stock - but you would know this, as a professional film reviewer.
The film was lit deliberately and in such a way as to make it look like a documentary, rather than a fiction film. Artificial (tungsten) lighting was used in conjunction with daylight, and then not colour-corrected, in order to give the false impression that the film was unlit.
It's much harder to create the false impression of a documentary than it is to light and grade all scenes to the same colour temperature, as you might for a tv drama.
If you point a film camera at a darkening room which has not been lit by a DoP, it's unlikely that you'll have enough light to make an exposure. With film, no light doesn't produce black, it simply produces a grey mush on the negative.
In other words, you can't just "point and shoot" a movie; every shot has to be lit in some way, even if you're creating shadows. But you would know this, as a professional film reviewer.
The Gigolos is supposed to look like a documentary, in the same way that Sacha Tarter uses his own name for his character. But the film is no more a low-budget documentary than Sacha is a real gigolo.
Keep up the good work!
Richard
the_gigolos_2007_review.shtml
Dear Stella,
Sorry to read that you didn't like The Gigolos. I watch plenty of movies I don't like, and wouldn't think twice about telling a filmmaker what I thought of their work, so I'm not taking issue with any of your opinions.
As a professional film reviewer, however, you'll appreciate being corrected on a couple of technical points.
You write about "the obvious lack of a lighting budget"...
But The Gigolos was lit, using the following equipment:
2x 650W Softlights
4ft Kino flo 4 Bank at 3200K
1x 2K Fresnel Spotlight
2x 650W Fresnel Spotlight
4x 100W Dedolight
The cost of hiring these lights was relatively small, compared to the cost of other production consumables such as film stock - but you would know this, as a professional film reviewer.
The film was lit deliberately and in such a way as to make it look like a documentary, rather than a fiction film. Artificial (tungsten) lighting was used in conjunction with daylight, and then not colour-corrected, in order to give the false impression that the film was unlit.
It's much harder to create the false impression of a documentary than it is to light and grade all scenes to the same colour temperature, as you might for a tv drama.
If you point a film camera at a darkening room which has not been lit by a DoP, it's unlikely that you'll have enough light to make an exposure. With film, no light doesn't produce black, it simply produces a grey mush on the negative.
In other words, you can't just "point and shoot" a movie; every shot has to be lit in some way, even if you're creating shadows. But you would know this, as a professional film reviewer.
The Gigolos is supposed to look like a documentary, in the same way that Sacha Tarter uses his own name for his character. But the film is no more a low-budget documentary than Sacha is a real gigolo.
Keep up the good work!
Richard
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home