Munich

S

Sean Moran

Established
Local time
4:54 AM
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
135
Location
Belfast
View My Gallery
I went to the cinema to see Spielberg's Munich last night.


Me: Two tickets for Munich please.
Ticket wallah: Where would you like to sit?
Me: A window seat, please.
Ticket wallah: Uh?


Anyway, the object of my post is not just a lame joke. As well as enjoying the film - if that's the right word - I noticed a couple of things that might interest fellow RFF-ers.

Firstly (presumably to get a gritty 70's look) everything has a slightly green tone - like we would get when shooting slide film without correcting for fluorescent lights.

Secondly, there's a 'glow' about many of the scenes (a Leica-users' traditional obsession) and I spent much of the film wondering about how this was achieved. One shot (in the cinematic, not the assassination sense) gave the game away. Did anyone else notice this?

Cheers,

Seán.
 
don't forget. The date was supposed to be 1972 in the begining, but they showed a square light BMW 2002, which wasn't released until 1973 m.y.

Thank goodness I got that off my chest. 10 minutes into the movie and it almost ruined the whole thing for me!
 
ducttape said:
don't forget. The date was supposed to be 1972 in the begining, but they showed a square light BMW 2002, which wasn't released until 1973 m.y.

Thank goodness I got that off my chest. 10 minutes into the movie and it almost ruined the whole thing for me!
Click to expand...
I thought I was the only one to be put off by the mikes in Orson Welles's Macbeth (the rrreal version with the rrreal Scots accents), the basic continuity issues in some films (basic enough for me to spot on the first screening) and the typos on the first pages of books. <sigh> Thanks ducttape, I am not alone in this world.
 
How about those movies with supposed photojournalists holding their cameras with their hands on TOP of their telephotos and ripping off shots with the motor drive and not even focusing?!! (Sharon Stone in Year of the Dragon or John Savage in Salvador) Arrgghhh!
I think Joe Pesci really did his homework for The Public Eye though.
 
I like how in John Waters' Pecker, the main character uses a Canonet 28 given to him by his mother who ran a thrift store. I feel it was a wise and authentic choice as they are the kind of camera that shows up in thrift stores (until purchased by RF loons like us).

OT, if you rent the DVD of Pecker, watch the feature about how they took the photos used in the film, it's pretty cool.
 
ducttape said:
don't forget. The date was supposed to be 1972 in the begining, but they showed a square light BMW 2002, which wasn't released until 1973 m.y.

Thank goodness I got that off my chest. 10 minutes into the movie and it almost ruined the whole thing for me!
Click to expand...

but you do know that they would have been selling 1973 models in 1972?

same as today.. wait until about sep 06', I can go and buy 07 models.
 
Well, in answer to the orig. question, I would imagine (and I have to say at the outset that _I haven't seen the film_) that Spielberg is continuing with the techniques he and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski began with Saving Private Ryan -- uncoated (!) lenses and intentional "gate weave" and "light leaks" (though I believe the last two were created digitally in post-production, but if I'm remebering the American Cinematographer article correctly, they really did use uncoated lenses) among other effects to visually place the footage in the right era. I imagine for a film set in the early 70's, they just "turned the volume down" a bit on these types of techniques. Pure spec. on my part, as I said, I haven't seen it yet (but I'm keen to when it debuts on DVD).
 
Years ago I saw a quickly forgettable movie the only saving grace of which is it starred Peter Sellers. I vaguely remember that at one point, in kind of a "movie w/in a movie" Sellers' character plays an "extra" for a shooting of a Lawrence of Arabia type scene. Thousands of actors, horses etc. are assembled for a full day of shooting battle scenes. Then at the end of the day, the director has to call "cut" and throw out the entire shoot because they realize that Sellers has been wearing a modern day wristwatch!

Anyone here remember what that movie was. It's bugged me for years!
 
Looks like the AC article on Munich is online here. However, no specific mention of filter use (and my theory about them reprising the use of uncoated lenses as they did on SPR was wrong). They did, unusually for Spielberg, use a zoom (a Cooke), but I think the "glow" you're talking about (and which is pretty evident in the HD version of the trailer on Apple's site) is probably from the bleach bypass process used for certain scenes, as well as nitrate retention, both of which can increase halation (as far as I know).
 
@Copake_ham: the film in which Peter Sellers first ruins the scene by wearing his watch and then the entire film set is Blake Edward's "The Party".
 
telenous said:
@Copake_ham: the film in which Peter Sellers first ruins the scene by wearing his watch and then the entire film set is Blake Edward's "The Party".
Click to expand...

Thanks.

BTW: after I posted that query I did a google and found it. Feel kind of dumb now for having not done that first! :bang:

I wonder if "The Party" was the "inspiration" for "A Weekend at Bernie's" ?
 
telenous said:
@Copake_ham: the film in which Peter Sellers first ruins the scene by wearing his watch and then the entire film set is Blake Edward's "The Party".
Click to expand...

And it is an incredibly funny flick (at least until the chick starts singing); particularly if one has had a puff or two.
 
No, probably not: though I've read the story (and I avoid Spielberg flicks as a matter of course); I was referring to The Party.

Steve Hoffman said:
Munich? 🙁
Click to expand...
 
Ah, yeah, sorry; I'm not at my peak this afternoon. Got to some serious partying in combination with the Tri-X last night. I'll see what the results are like tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom