I know this was shot on video but did it have to look so cheap? It looked like a student film. Do you think that maybe they would have a hard time getting exposed film out of the country, maybe for political reasons and video would be easier to get out of Columbia? Just a thought.
shareA salient point, but I always assumed the look of the video was due to Schroeder's inability to get permission to film there. I know this movie stands as a classic example of great guerrilla filmmaking, so I forgive the look. Actually, after watching now over a dozen times I hardly notice the video stock anymore. What I really wish is that the DVD had a making of featurette our interviews.
shareWhy do you think he wasn't able to get permission to film (video)? It wasn't a political movie and a lot of it was shot on the streets.
shareI read on the web site that he was not able to get permission and had to use distraction tactics to shot the film on the streets (creating a fake set with fake director and actors; paying people on the street to distract anyone who might see the actual shoot.) I think they just didn't want a film showing how violent the town is. Not sure really, but that is what I read, and the film has a lot of rumored stories of Schroeder having to use guerrilla tactics to get the thing done. The actor who played Wilmar apparently was involved in a gang shooting during the filming, etc. Interesting, if you ask me, that he managed to make such a good movie in such a difficult way.
shareThis is an old comment, but I will respond anyway.
First of all, I thought the look of the film was beautiful, and so did the director. At the festival screening where I first saw this film, Barbet Schroeder was there for a Q&A afterwards and there was no talk about having to use HD video as a compromise--he WANTED to use it for the qualities that it had. One of the major benefits was the depth of field in which the city of Medellin always remained in focus, which was perfect, as the city was one of the characters of the film. Anyone who complains of the look of the film is simply just too used to seeing one kind of movie and anything else seems odd to them. That's too bad, as they're missing out on one of the artistically communicative aspects of the medium. They're probably the same people who complained about Spielberg's "Schindler's List" being in black and white.
As to Schroeder's guerilla filmmaking, as he explained to us during the Q&A, this wasn't because of "not having permission," but because of the extremely dangerous conditions of wealthy Americans being in Medellin. As shown by the movie, criminal elements run rampant, out of work gang members, and so on, and theft of the equipment and kidnapping and holding of ransom of Schroeder and others was an ever-present real danger. We who live in the U.S. still see the world through rose-colored glasses. Many regions of the world are simply too dangerous for any but the bravest or most passionate Americans to venture into.
Both boys in the film were not actors, but actual gang members that were found in the hill regions. Schroeder feared that both of them are likely to be dead, by now--life in Medellin is that dangerous for those who are in the gangs.
The look of the film is great, it gives a "documentary" impression, we are really in the story, in the streets with the two characters.
But i understand that people can be disturbed, it's not one of this movie with beautiful images dealing with violence as if violence was something sexy
It´s Colombia, not Columbia
shareI'm watching the movie on Showtime right now and I like the look and feel of the way the video it was shot. I think it adds a sense of realism and strengthens the message of the film.
share"Columbia" is wrong
"Colombia" is right
I agree . . . I think the video adds to the immediacy of the story . . . .
shareI was surprised and disappointed at first by the use of video, but by the end of the movie I didn't even notice it.
shareI'm dying to watch it now. The book was great, and I can understand why the goverment would't want a movie reflecting this. I guess that makes you even forgive all the mistakes.
"I'm an anomaly and an anachronism, but I'm not alone" Dominic DaVinci
I couldn't stop noticing how the picture had no real visual differences from a telenovela. It just looked crummy.
Magnetic refrigerator poetry memory.
I liked the look of the film and presumed that it was intentional. The poor 'temporary' feel it gave reflected both the country and the nature of life in the city. The actors were attractive but just to a point. I think this is an aspect of movie making where Hollywood just doesn't get it. How often do we it in Hollywood films where the 'street people' a beautifully scrubbed with perfect teeth.
I thought this movie showed the 'warts and all' of the place and through jaundiced eyes.
[deleted]
This is what they call an "independent film", and in these kind of movies, the look doesn't use to be conventional. I think this look works perfectly for this movie, since the story is all the time between realism and surrealism.
I know that Barbet Schroeder chose to shoot on video instead of film for practical and artistic reasons (He wanted this movie to feel like a documentary, which it is to some extent). However I think that shooting the picture in 16 mm. would have added that "documentary feeling" as well, plus the movie would look film-like.
But then perhaps what Mr. Schroeder precisely wanted to avoid is the "film-like" look.
Is the right of the director to choose how HIS movie is going to be shot and how is going to look, unless if they have been hired to direct one of those ultra-expensive, mindless summer blockbusters.
When a director is working on a mega-budget flick, sometimes they haven't even the control over the final cut! The studio executives have it.
Of course if your last name is Spielberg or Coppola, the story is different. Albeit even Coppola had troubles with producers and studio executives when he was shooting The Godfather
Finally what really matters is how the story is told, and IMO the story is told incredibly and surprisingly well.
It looked cheap to me too, so much so i almost turned it off at the beginning.
I'm glad i didn't, as it turned out to be a pretty good movie! Grade: B/B+.