donald_ingram1 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 As I was walking past the Cinema in Rotorua, this poster caught my attention: I just had too see the film. I think it's been covered on the forum before, but I thought I would just share the poster. It was actually very good both for the story and for Leica use. The photojournalist seems to be based on Deborah Copaken Kogan who wrote Shutterbabe. The M6 with 35 Summicron is generally realistically used: RF tab focusing and thankfully none of that silly SLR viewfinder and motor drive that directors seem to insist on. There is a sequence which is shown just a bit to quickly - not with fake motor drive, but I think a second between shots must have been lost in editing. When Jennifer Connelly takes a photo of Leonardo DiCaprio at about 0.5m it caused me to instinctively lean right back in my seat to try to get the RF to focus.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tekkie Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 It's interesting to see how many pictures of a Leica can be recognized as a Leica. It would appear that in todays world only equipment worthy of icon status does not get the manufacturer name on the camera or the lens blacked out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 "The photojournalist seems to be based on Deborah Copaken Kogan who wrote Shutterbabe." If that is true what a terrible choice for a character to be modeled on. Spoiled rich girl does too many drugs and parties a lot while at Harvard, goes to Paris to be a photojournalist, finds out that men who pride themselves on their machismo are sexist pigs , ends up in Afghanistan completely unprepared, gets good pictures, gets a small degree of fame from those, does more drugs and drink, sleeps around a lot, finds out once again that maco men are sexist pigs, rides fame's coat tails, does more drugs, finds out that Romania was a horror, that macho men in war zones are sexist pigs, impunes Jim Nachtway, does more drugs, whines that macismo makes men sexist pigs (but can't stay away from them), ends up in Russia as the revolutiion starts, does more drugs, decides being stoned all the time, hanging around with sexist pigs, and sleeping around is a bad idea , becomes a yuppy in NYC, and writes a self agrandizing book romanticizing her experiences and fails to sell it to Hollywood. It's a perfect book for a long plane ride or rainy days at the beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I'm very skeptical that the photojournalist's character was based upon Kogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Everything you said was correct Ellis, but she did go for 3 days without changing her Tampon, give her a break :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_suarez1 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ellis, Take out all the sex and the drugs and ?Shutterbabe? is actually an accurate representation of a late 80?s freelance/agency photographer - especially the chapter ?Julia?? pp 105-147. I don?t know about Jim, but Kogan?s portrayal of ?the twins? is real - they sold out to Corbis, and in my opinion deserve no respect. Regards, Jose Suarez, Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r._fulton_jr. Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ellis -- nice review of the book. I wish I'd read that before wading thru it. Oddly, I could have lived thru all of THAT, if it'd just had more "inside baseball" type stuff. You know, like the dinner where the PJ twins showed up (Turnleys). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc_b Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Has this Sunday topic gotten the better of you, Ellis? You sound like a Christian fundamentalist! Yet, you seem to have read the book completely, so you must have a genuine interest in morally dubious characters (D.C.K.). Clashing, isn't it? Besides, it's James Nachtwey with an e. I asign all the other typos to your broken keyboard. Cheers, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_berkhout Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Ellis I appreciate your opinion, your writing however is atrocious. You need an editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donald_ingram1 Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 Would it fair to say: Hollywood might have 'adapted' the character to fit the required romantic support with the moral high ground. Or any suggestions then, for a late '80s Leica toting female journalist closer to the role portrayed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Thanks, Ellis, you sold me. I'll go see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Peter, if you prefer reviews of books by people who haven't read them I can supply as many as you want. For a price. As for DCK, she was an intensity-junkie. It's not all that uncommon in the rest of the population, and PJs who specialize in armed conflict almost by definition are such. Anyway, I don't see that one has to want a character as a room-mate, friend, lover, or spouse to find them interesting. Bottom line, the book is interesting to a point, her "What it all means" conclusions aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_rountree1 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 So, I would like to hear more about the Turnley brothers and their "sellout". What's the full story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gib Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Ellis, you got to get off the fence and let us know how you feel thanks for the mini-review, not all of my coffee came out my nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Isn't what Ellis describes a perfect plot for a movie? Movies are seldom about model citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirk-san1 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 All I can say is that trying to shoot through a wire fence with a rangefinder camera can be a pain . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Yes I read the book. Yes DCK is annoying. Still I would not call her a slut because I don't believe in double standards where a male would get a high five for the same sexual exploits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 yes I need to use spell check more regularly. I am working on it. "Yet, you seem to have read the book completely, so you must have a genuine interest in morally dubious characters (D.C.K.). Clashing, isn't it? " While I was on vacation I was stuck in a beach house for two drainy days. The book was on the shelf. it is written in a pretty breathless style --sdesigned to be sold to the movieseven thearc of the story is designed like one of "high concept " scripts popular in Hollywood in the 1990s -- physically attractive character starts near the peak of success, peaks, is brought low by hubris,, and after struggling and learning humility, finds redemption. In other words: Think "Jerry Maguire" but this time the hero is a woman with a camera! I na war zone! As for the Turnley's selling out: If someone offered you that much money you would too in a heartbeat. And they still get to do what they want to do. I call that splendid good sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_suarez1 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Ellis, Not only the Turnley brothers but Roger Ressmeyer too. It?s an insult to Howard Chapnick who gave them an opportunity, and to the industry in general. Will you SELL me ten of you pictures for $38.3? if that makes sense join Corbis. Jose Suarez, Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_obturateur Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 RE The Turnley twins selling out... Don't know if they did but it seems to me they are pretty stingy. I saw one of them at the MEP (Parisian equivalant of N.Y.'s ICP) on a Wednesday's evening... that is the time when admission's free! Couldn't he shell out 7 bucks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_obturateur Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 As DCK I think I remember seeing her early "works" 10 years ago in a photo mag. A horribly voyeuristic b&w reportage in a crack&poverty-plagued black neighbourhood. Obviously this girl had NO respect whatsoever for the people she photographied (Gene Richards, are you receiving?). It was more like "a day at the human zoo" or "dude, show me the worst this place can offer". Plus she used and over-used a wide-angle lans (more dramatic?) with horrific results... I remember the captions for the pix in she talked a lot about... herself, so I'd think Ellis's opinion is not ill-formed. PS : on this side of the Atlantic Nachtwey is a star and DCK is unknown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now