Advice to Mike: Peep Upcoming Movies and Film Releases to stay current on release dates.
)------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Secondly, I think that he was willing to make the sacrifice in quality on this film in order to take advantage of the flexibility that the XL1s has to offer. Would it be appropriate for SOLARIS? No. But it's fine for FULL FRONTAL.
Fact, Soderbergh is not a genuis.
Very low budget and experimental and using the camera he did helped make it so I guess.
Happy Focusing
Bill
As for whether or not Soderbergh's a genius, three things lead me to this conclusion. OUT OF SIGHT, THE LIMEY, and TRAFFIC.
By the way, Super35 can look DAMNED good if done properly.
Maybe Soderburgh is a genius. Maybe this is his way of demonstrating how bad video looks and how good film looks by switching back and forth in comparison.
However, I am not clever, nor am I insightful. And bieng a genius gets you nowhere. Everyone hates a genius. They know everything. YOu want them to just shut up and go to hell. I hate myself. I wish I would just go to hell!
Soderbergh is insightful enough to realize his full frontal film has less than two weeks of life to it, and will only have life on video, so why bother using film? That's not genius, that's just bieng clever.
Dave
...if my memory serves, my IQ is something like 165. On more than one occasion I was told that I was 'too smart for two people, but not smart enough for one'... *shrugs*
Difference between genius & insanity? Genius has its limits! 
. That being said, I do believe that he is a genius, and the reason why I believe this is because he made OUT OF SIGHT, THE LIMEY, and TRAFFIC. Actually, forget about OUT OF SIGHT and TRAFFIC. THE LIMEY alone makes him a genius in my opinion. Anyone who could make a picture like that would have to be. But just because he's a genius doesn't mean he hasn't made bad choices. KAFKA was a bad choice. That movie was crap. Putting Julia Roberts in all of his movies is also a bad choice. Deciding to edit SOLARIS by himself will probably prove to be a REALLY bad choice. And I'm guessing that shooting FULL FRONTAL on DV is another bad choice.
DV looks like shit. This has been established. All that I'm trying to say is that Soderbergh knows this, and is willing to settle for a shitty image in order to create a certain working environment and open up other creative avenues. I'm sure that you all have seen the ads for the XL1s which have been in just about every single magazine for the past year and a half, but just in case, here's what Soderbergh himself has to say on the subject:
"To use any other camera to shoot FULL FRONTAL would have been an unthinkable compromise. The XL1s continually expanded my ideas of how to stage and shoot scenes."
On the subject of emotional impact, I don't think that Soderbergh is trying to use the DV image to create an emotional response. Instead, he's gaining emotion by getting things like better performances out of actors who don't have to deal with the intrusions normally associated with the set of a 35mm production.
As for the whole Super 35/DV thing, yes, Super 35 can look damn good. But it very seldom does. Soderbergh's last movie was shot in Super 35, and it looked like shit. I wasn't trying to compare Super 35's lack of quality with DV's greater lack of quality. I was trying to compare how filmmakers will sacrifice a quality image in order to get something else out of their movie.
Ooh! And by the way, I was informed today that our theater (which is in the Chicagoland area) will be showing FULL FRONTAL starting 8/2! That made me very happy.
quote:
Mike, I'm sure that someone out there thinks Freddy Got Fingered was a masterpiece of filmmaking. Don't laugh, I guarantee you there IS someone out there, somewhere who thinks that.
I wouldn't say a masterpiece, but on a really big screen with (LOUD) digital surround sound it actually comes off (IMHO) as a good movie. (I've seen quite a few worse.) On DVD I see it for what it really is, Tom Green using big studio money to do a feature-length episode of his TV show with a plot (sorta) on a bigger screen. So in a manner of speaking, Tom Green is somewhat of a genius because he directed a movie that only works as a movie on a really big screen. On DVD, with sound at more moderate volume levels it just comes off as a video. I imagine Monty Python's Meaning of Life is the same way although cannot offer opinion there having only seen it on VHS.
Just my $.02
Dave
I'm guessing that FULL FRONTAL will do fairly well for an art house film, and that its success or failure will have virtually no impact on SOLARIS. I also think that SOLARIS will do better than STAR TREK: NEMESIS at the box office, although Dave is right, LOTR will kick both of their asses.
"Mensa was founded in England in 1946 by Roland Berrill, a barrister, and Dr Lance Ware, a scientist and lawyer. They had the idea of forming a society for bright people, the only qualification for membership of which was a high IQ. The original aims were, as they are today, to create a society that is non-political and free from all racial or religious distinctions. The society welcomes people from every walk of life whose IQ is in the top 2% of the population, with the objective of enjoying each other's company and participating in a wide range of social and cultural activities."
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
It looks like you're right, Joe. Here are some Soderbergh quotes from the new issue of RES:
"[The movie is] playing with issues of aesthetics and why we view one type of aesthetic as more real than another aesthetic when they are both fabrications."
The article then talks about how Soderbergh wanted to make the film look like it was "processed in gasoline... starting by scanning the DV to Kodak's 5298, and pushing it 2 stops. 'Normally you would then go out to an intermediate stock, but I wanted to go out to a camera negative stock and we pushed that 2 stops. Then we made an Ektachrome dupe of that negative; Then we made an Ektachrome dupe of the Ektachrome dupe. And then we made a print on Vision Premier stock, which is very contrasty.... The level of deconstruction of the image reduced a lot of the aliasing you get when you shoot video.... What's interesting to me about it is that every time you leave the video and cut back to 35mm film, it's just so arresting that you sort of fall in love with film again.' "
From what I read on the forums Miramax is sensing bad vibes with Full Frontal and wants to dump it opposite Signs.
OTOH Miramax should have expanded Tadpole to NYC suburbs this week. Tadpole is doing well in its NYC exclusive -- it would be a natural fit for the Clairidge and Princeton Garden.
Also, Miramax has its head up its ass once again. The stack ad in this week's Village Voice lists the Manhattan and Brooklyn theaters but does not say "And at Select Additional Theaters". The stack ad in today's Newark Star-Ledger says "And at Theatres Everywhere!" That's grounds for a lawsuit. Miramax also omits the AMC Hamilton and Princeton Garden from the Star-Ledger ad.
Oh wait.... but since it's playing at theaters like Ian's and mine, it's not crap, it's ART! And yes, every movie we show is better than every movie you mainstream guys show!
Nobody I talked to has appreciated the look of the DV footage. As if blowing DV up to film wasn't bad enough, he watered it down even more in post-processing to make it look even worse! I feel like ridiculing Sodaburger for this piece of crap "movie". It is boring as all hell and I hope people refer to this in the future.... "Hey man, don't use that video camera... don't pull a Sodaburger!"
today. So many people came out and wanted refunds. One of my employees stayed after he got off work to count the people walking out, he liked it.
------------------
Adam Fraser www.pinestheatre.com
quote:
...there would be no point to its existence.
There is absolutely no point to its existence as it is. We are LOSING money just by playing this "movie". I cannot respect a movie or a "filmmaker" who hurts our business. Should have been a direct to video release. There is no point to its existence in the theaters at all.
------------------
Adam Fraser
www.pinestheatre.com
And to think that UA booked Full Frontal into Southampton instead of Lovely & Amazing or Sunshine State.
The Loews Palisades Center drops it tonight after only 1 week. The Princeton Garden Theatre moves it tomorrow to a double-up (4:30 only). OTOH the Clairidge (Montclair), AMC Hamilton and UA Southampton keep it for a 2nd week with a full round of shows.
Mike S: Miramax already has made its money back on Full Frontal thanks to foreign pre-sales. Also, Miramax expands Tadpole to NYC suburbs tomorrow but isn't putting it in any megaplexes.
I am not a Sodaburger fan, as he seems pretty run-of-the-mill to me for the most part, but he certainly has done much better than this movie. Shoulda been a straight to video release.
Unfortunately his review is not available online.Fortunately for us Film-Techers the real-life numbers tell the truth:
Loews Palisades Center -- 1 week and out.
UA Southampton -- 2 weeks and out.
Montclair NJ -- 2 weeks in the Clairidge, then 1 week in the Screening Zone (spillover theater down the street). Ends today.
Princeton Garden -- 1st week full schedule, 2nd and 3rd weeks a late matinee only. Ends today.
AMC Hamilton -- 1st 3 weeks full schedule, 4th week (from tomorrow) last show only in a double-up.
Based on these numbers Steven Soderburgh should have directed Pluto Nash.
why do people storm out of movies like this? perhaps because they have a very narrow conception of what films are and aren't often given the chance to see something that might widen their horizons. i say "given" but in fact they have to pay on the order of $10 and if they aren't grabbed within the first 5 minutes of the film they start thinking of other things they could do with that money and get resentful and closed-minded. i imagine.
look at what the impressionists were doing 100+ years ago in the world of painting. their work was far less "photographic" than much of what was done then (i think partly because of the invention of photography, but that's another barrel of monkeys), and they took a lot of flack at the time but are now revered and set the ball rolling for a lot of other movements that greatly enriched the world of art (and filmmaking is/can be an art). oh, and they fetch millions at auction.
it is, unfortunately, very important for exhibitors to think about a movie's opening weekend grosses (which are affected by many factors extrinsic to the film itself). but i think it is very sad when film people cannot appreciate a work on its own merits, as art (or entertainment if you prefer), without letting the bottom line color their judgment.
sorry if that sounds high-and-mighty.
carl
By the way, I thought Road to Perdition looked fantastic. I don't need colors to be able to appreciate good cinematography. In fact, I'm quite fond of the possibilities with black and white over color.
I will second what Brad wrote. "Beauty lies in the eys of the beholder" and I am very happy you had enjoyed "FULL FRONTAL" and felt it had lot of artistic merits. "ROAD TO PERDITION" was another artistic creation by another filmmaker and like Brad, I happen to have enjoyed that film very much because of the creative use of color in it's cinematography and for other other reasons including the performance by the leads. You seem to disagree and have negative opinion of that film but I feel that you are only contradicting yourself when you said you did not like the "drab" use of color in "THE ROAD TO PERDITION" thus making you feel that the film is a 'loser' and the erratic videography in "FULL FRONTAL" which you enjoyed makes the film a masterpiece. We all have our likes and dislikes when we see films and know what we like and do not like and that is why there is always a difference of opinion and that is very good. To say one film is bad because you did not like drab colors and another film great because of what I consider erratic camera work goes against your comments about the public failing to accept a new art form in cinema when we did did not share your favorable opinion of "FULL FRONTAL". What you are actually expressing is your own personal opinion. By the way, as far as I know, all of the artists during the Impressionism period over a hundred years ago including such reknowned painters such as Manet, Degas,Daumier and Monet were very popular in the art world and the painting methods they had established was appreciated by everyone at that time.
-Claude
This 'whatever you care to call it, just don't call it FILM' has created more problems for me than it's worth. How can I continue to play something in which at least 4 or more people a day are demanding refunds to to it being a total piece of ? I'd like to use the tactic of "Was anything wrong with the overall presentation?" ploy, but people simply do not want to hear that anymore. Like I'm personally responsible for their shitty decision(s). Anyway, I can only imagine the other locations and how they are faring with this overhyped turd. Soderburg (sp?) has lost any inkling of respect I would have had for him as a film-maker, which he can't even claim with this video.
End of rant. PLease resume your regulary scheduled programming.
to say "i don't like this movie because it does bad business because people don't like it" is to circularly avoid evaluating the film on its own merits and succumb to herd mentality.
the other, greater hangup people here have with full frontal is that much of it was shot digitally. most film-tech posters (including me) seem to prefer film as a capture medium, and rail against those who blindly embrace anything "digital" as wonderful. but in doing so, we mustn't reject everything digital a priori, lest we commit the crime we denounce. we may think of digital photography as legitimate if we think of it not as an imitation of film, but as a separate medium, complementary to film. lucas wants to supplant film, and tried and failed to imitate it in swep2. this is a scary trend, and as a film-lover i resent lucas for launching this digital crusade. soderberg and others have shot digitally to take advantage of the unique aesthetic of that medium. that i find entirely legitimate. probably most digital-shooters do so out of indifference or monetary constraints. their work should be judged on its other artistic merits, with the digital look counting against it. yes, i agree, film does look a whole lot better, all else being equal.
mike and i both gave several reasons why the use of digital in full frontal was a valid aesthetic choice. of course you are welcome to disagree.
claude said, "We all have our likes and dislikes when we see films and know what we like and do not like and that is why there is always a difference of opinion and that is very good."
yes, our differences of opinion are good. but hopefully our opinions are not just knee-jerk reactions. i may think i know what i like and don't like, but i try not to let that box me in. if we don't allow ourselves to think in new ways then we can sit back and watch our favorite art form stagnate.
and nowhere did i say that a film that is "different" is automatically brilliant. but it might be.
carl
p.s. full frontal is in its 4th week over here.