Even though the romantic comedy Tadpole, which opened in limited release to mostly terrific reviews last Friday, was shot for $150,000, it could have looked a whole lot better on screen, according to director Gary Winick. In an interview with today's (Wednesday) Boston Globe, Winick complains that cinematographer Hubert Tacnazowski, whose credits include several low-budget studio films, simply could not adapt to using consumer digital cameras. "The whole idea with these little cameras is that they want to be automatic, '' Winick told the newspaper. ''So you have to override them every step of the way: focus, gain, exposure, shutter speed. Unfortunately my cinematographer did not care, and after the second day he wanted to leave. ... The picture would have looked 70 percent better, if not 80 percent better, if he had actually cared." Tacnazowski, in a separate interview with the Globe, acknowledged that he had never previously operated digital cameras but blamed the problems on the film's 13-day shooting schedule, which, he said, left him no time to light the scenes properly.

- - - -
So, there ya go.

Side note to Manny: absolutly no offense intended. It was a failed attempt at irony on my part.

By the way, on Nanook of the North, I have often heard that the eskimos themselves developed the film and repaired Flaherty's cameras for him (while he was out making them look like primitive savages). I'm sure that I once read this in what I considered a reputable source. Truth or bull?

Dancer in the Dark looked washed-out in places (yes, it's one of the Dogme movies).

The Anniversary Party had a dark theme and fittingly looked dark.

Star Wars Episode 2? I nearly fell asleep in that one.

Lovely & Amazing looked good for the most part though some of the indoor scenes were dark. In fact, Lovely & Amazing wasn't a chore for me to look at. See the thread "Where missed cues actually improved a show" in Film Handler's Forum.