Food for thought

Posted by · 3:28 pm · July 1st, 2009

“We wanted the look of Public Enemies to have a high level of realism, not an over period feel…Among the historical aspects are a lot of action, romance and drama, and Michael [Mann] and I talked about achieving an immediate feel.  One thing you can do with a digital camera that you can’t do with film is shoot with a 360-degree, or no, shutter…We tested that with gun-muzzle flashes from the machine guns and some flares that we planned to use to light a few scenes, and the 360-degree shutter had a really great look in those situations.”

Dante Spinotti, talking to Jay Holben in this month’s issue of American Cinematographer magazine.  The article isn’t online yet but the magazine is on the rack, so pick it up, give it a look.




→ 6 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

6 responses so far

  • 1 7-01-2009 at 4:02 pm

    Chase Kahn said...

    It’s a visual powerhouse — name another big budget blockbuster that shot with handheld digital cameras. It’s like being transported into the era.

    Tremendous film — saw it again today for the first time since my screening on the weekend. Sorry to report the crowd at a 2:10 was sparse here in Dallas.

  • 2 7-01-2009 at 4:19 pm

    Jacob said...

    Anyone who shuns the cinematography of this film for all the usual simplistic reasons should just press pause, never see another digital film, and refuse to move on from their beloved “film aesthetic.” I would love to see anyone shoot anything remotely close to this with their personal camcorder as some claim they can do.

  • 3 7-01-2009 at 4:34 pm

    Robert Hamer said...

    Hey guys, just wanted to let you all know that I’m back in the States.

  • 4 7-01-2009 at 11:45 pm

    Kilner said...

    THIS MOVIE WAS AWFUL. BORING. LONG. HUMORLESS. ALL OF THE ABOVE. THE ONLY GOOD PART FOR ME WAS HOOVER PLAYED BY BILLY CRUDUP.

    THE CINEMATOGRAPHY WAS AWFUL. WHY ARE FILMMAKERS GIVING AUDIENCES THE WORST POSSIBLE PICTURE IMAGE WHEN CHRIS NOLAN HAS SHOWED THAT THEY CAN PUT THE HIGHEST QUALITY IMAGE ON SCREEN?

    THE SCORE WAS AWFUL. THERE WERE PLACES IN THE FILM WHERE THE SCORE JUST CARRIED ON EVEN WHEN IT CUT TO THE NEXT SCENE.

    THE EDITING WAS A MESS. AND IN SOME SCENES IT HELD ON FOR FAR TOO LONG. MARION COTILLARD CRYING IN THE PRISON WAS ONE OF THEM….CUT TO THE NEXT SCENE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

    THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SUBTLE HUMOR IN THIS FILM. DARK FILMS REQUIRE A LITTLE HUMOR TO ENHANCE THE DARKEST ELEMENTS. THIS HAD NONE.

    THE ENDING WAS TERRIBLE AND OFFERED NO CLOSURE TO ANYTHING SET BEFORE IT.

    AL IN ALL, AN AWFUL MOVIE THAT IS DESERVING OF ITS 60% ON ROTTEN TOMATOES.

    AWFUL.

    JUST AWFUL.

  • 5 7-02-2009 at 6:28 am

    Bryan said...

    What I loved was the immediacy of it all; it felt like it was happening right there for the first time, but without the self-conscious feeling of home digital.

    Can’t wait for more.

  • 6 7-02-2009 at 7:04 am

    Mike_M said...

    @Jacob
    I am not sure the solution for people should be to never see another digital film because there are many digital films that offer the clarity of digital yet the aesthetic of film. Off the top of my head I can look to Zoidac and Ben Button and also Che. All shot digitally yet they looked like crystal-clear film, not digital with no life which for certain scenes of PE I felt. I also noticed some blurring in some scenes, but that could have been something with the projector. Overall I love the use of the digital in film but keep going back and forth on this instance of it when I think about it. I need to see this again to really get my final thought.