Something Wild: Greta Gerwig on dangerous women

Melanie Griffith stars in Jonathan Demme's 1986 comedy Something Wild.

Bear with me a moment. I am going to get a little geeky. Of course, if this site is evidence of anything, it is of my ability to be geeky when it comes to films. Last Cinema Standing was founded on the idea that seeing a movie in the theater is the best way to see a movie. Nothing matches the experience of a room full of people awed into silence when the lights go out. No matter what shines up on the screen next, that beautiful moment of darkness before the movie starts is full of possibilities. I love it.

Everything is digital now – the projection, the sound, hell, sometimes most of a movie. I am no purist. I understand how and why we have moved in this direction. That is fine, but there is just something about hearing the pop of a real soundtrack while watching celluloid projected, warts and all, on the big screen. I like the scratches. I like the dirt. It is tangible. You can feel it. You can sense it. It makes the experience more real.

Each month, the IFC Center in New York City dusts off the projector and shows a classic film the way it is meant to be seen. I wrote last year about the inaugural screening in the Celluloid Dreams series, Woody Allen’s The Purple Rose of Cairo and a tribute to cinematographer Gordon Willis. Last Tuesday, I attended the latest screening in the series, Jonathan Demme’s screwball comedy ode Something Wild (1986).

The film was followed by a question-and-answer session with actress-writer Greta Gerwig, who was there to promote her upcoming film Mistress America, of which the audience was then treated to a sneak preview. Gerwig talked at length about Something Wild and other films of its ilk and the inspiration she drew from them in writing her newest paean to Generation Y’s search for purpose. The discussion was a fascinating look into the process of a gifted young writer and performer.

Greta Gerwig speaks at the IFC Center.

“In some ways, your impression of [the movies you’re inspired by] is more useful than what the thing actually is,” she said. “I thought about that a lot when I saw Mr. Turner. It starts when he’s coming back from Amsterdam, and the shopkeeper asks him what he was doing, and I think he says, ‘I was looking at the Rembrandts.’ And it placed you so much in that time when you wouldn’t have access to those paintings. You’d have to go to the place, look at the paintings, and do your best to remember what was great about them. It’s such a different experience of art than having it be accessible to you all the time. So while we would watch things, also sometimes our memory of things would be the feeling we were looking to recreate.”

Among the many influences Gerwig named were Allen’s Broadway Danny Rose, Martin Scorsese’s After Hours, Susan Seidelman’s Desperately Seeking Susan, and of course Something Wild, as well as the films of George Cukor, Ernst Lubitsch, and Howard Hawks and novels by Saul Bellow and Phillip Roth. It is an eclectic list, to say the least, but the common thread seems to be people trying to find where they belong or figuring out how to fit in once they have found a place.

Something Wild – which I highly recommend; it is on Netflix if you cannot find a 35-millimeter screening near you – follows yuppie Charles (Jeff Daniels) on a weekend fling with wild girl Lulu (Melanie Griffith), who, for all intents and purposes, kidnaps him and coerces him into an odyssey of drinking, fighting, and law breaking. It is the most fun Charles has had in a long time, breaking free of the shackles of his mundane life and letting his hair down, albeit by force mostly.

If that basic description sounds familiar, it is because modern romantic comedies have taken the trope of the free-spirited girl who teaches the uptight guy to have fun and turned it into a formula. However, modern films of this type are almost exclusively about the man. The girl is usually perfect, if a bit peppy, and the boy realizes maybe he needs more of that in his life – both pep and perfection. Something Wild and other like-minded films concern themselves with the stories of their women. Lulu is a complex person with goals and desires of her own, a fully developed female character, which Gerwig lamented the lack of in modern cinema.

“Melanie Griffith in [Something Wild] and Patricia Arquette in After Hours and even Mia Farrow in Broadway Danny Rose – it’s a kind of female character that I feel really disappeared from movies,” said Gerwig. “They’re dangerous women. They’re not just being delightful for you. They could maybe get you into something that might get you killed, or you’re not fully sure their morality. Every third thing that comes out of their mouths is a lie. They put on lots of costumes. They’re amazing characters.”

Lola Kirke and Greta Gerwig star in Mistress America.

Gerwig’s Mistress America character, Brooke, is descended from this line of dangerous women. She is a screw-up overflowing with self-confidence and a failure who senses success is always right around the corner. She is no role model, but she fancies herself one when she takes her soon-to-be step-sister (a fabulous Lola Kirke) under her wing.

Even the dangerous woman, however, is a bit of a trope, but the beauty of Gerwig and director-co-writer Noah Baumbach’s script is that it deepens the character and subverts the cliché. Ultimately, the person to whom Brooke is most dangerous is herself. Others will recover from her actions and move on, but she has to live with herself every day.

In Something Wild, Lulu faces the same dilemma. She does not like who she is or who she was, and she has no idea who she should be. She lies. She puts on costumes. She goes by fake names. No one in the world has to know the real her – but she does. The audience may see the film through Charlie’s eyes, but he is not the protagonist. That would be Lulu, and the movie hinges on her feelings and her choices. For an ’80s throwback to the comedies of the ‘40s, it is a pretty radical idea, but if we really take a hard look at the current cinema landscape, it might be even more radical now.

New York times part II: A Trainwreck and a whirlwind

Amy Schumer, Judd Apatow, and Bill Hader (left to right) introduce Trainwreck at the Lincoln Center.

I have not written much in this space over the last couple of weeks, but it has not been for lack of material. I do not do much aside from go to work and attend films, and the last week and a half or so has seen a tremendous amount of both activities, such as they are. Here is a rough sketch of the last 11 days:

July 7 – Martin Scorsese exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art and a screening of Carol Reed’s classic The Third Man (read about that here)

July 8 – A screening of the new documentary Stray Dog and a Q and A with director Debra Granik and producer Victoria Stewart

July 9 – A preview screening of Sundance hit Tangerine with a Q and A with the director, cast, and crew

July 13 – An hour-long talk with Parker Posey about her experience in the independent film world and her work in the new Woody Allen film Irrational Man

July 14 – World premiere of Judd Apatow’s Trainwreck, as well as the bacchanal of an afterparty

July 16 – Screening of Matthew Heineman’s Mexican drug war documentary Cartel Land with a post-screening Q and A with the director

I intend to write about each and every one of these events, and I am behind on some of my newer film reviews – briefly, see Dope, which is fantastic; skip Me and Early and the Dying Girl, which is overly self-aware; see Amy, a fascinating documentary about the pitfalls of celebrity and stardom. But since I have no idea when I will even be able to transcribe all my interviews, let alone write thoughtful pieces about these experiences, I thought I would briefly touch on them here. Think of this as a teaser of things to come.

Stray Dog

Granik is known mostly for her Oscar-nominated second feature Winter’s Bone, which helped establish Jennifer Lawrence as a star even before the Hunger Games films. Though I was not a huge fan, Winter’s Bone is well worth seeing for its stark, unflinching depiction of rural drug culture and its effect on innocent bystanders, as well as for a knockout leading performance by Lawrence.

For the documentary Stray Dog, Granik returns to the Ozarks and takes as her subject Ronnie Hall, who played one of the more intimidating figures in Winter’s Bone. Hall is a biker, Vietnam veteran, and all-around sweetheart. Where I felt Winter’s Bone in places had a dehumanizing effect on the inhabitants of this southern mountainous region, Stray Dog works to correct that.

This is a compassionate portrait of a man who was tortured by anger and depression over the things he did as a soldier but who overcomes his challenges by giving and receiving love as much as he can. The film covers everything we expect from movies about veterans – family, duty, honor, loyalty, pride, etc. – but does so with such a light touch it never comes across as manipulative or insincere. It is a beautiful film and easily the best documentary I have seen so far this year.

Tangerine

Tangerine, from writer-director Sean Baker, is a curious case, presenting as it does the lives of two transgender prostitutes, their pimp, and a cab driver in their orbit all on one eventful Christmas Eve in Los Angeles. The story covers territory rarely seen in cinema and feels resolutely real; however, from a filmmaking standpoint, this is a hard movie to love.

Baker casts non-professionals as his transgender leads – Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor – and shoots the entire film on an iPhone5. As a result, there is something distinctly amateurish about the early proceedings, particularly as the iPhone camera does a poor job of capturing daylight. Once you get into the evening hours and you get on the wavelength of the performances, things start to coalesce.

The film has been hailed as a credit to independent filmmaking, and it is certainly that, but I am unsure of whether that is a positive credit. It is a fair question to ask whether this is the film that should represent independent films on the larger stage, but I appreciate the spirit and intention of Tangerine, perhaps more than the execution.

Parker Posey

Speaking of independent film, Posey was once known as the Queen of the Indies, and she spent a solid hour Monday discussing her lengthy career in a question-and-answer session at the Film Society of Lincoln Center. She was there ostensibly to talk about Allen’s Irrational Man, which opened Friday, but since no one had yet seen the film, the conversation was more about Posey’s place in the Hollywood machine – that is to say, her place standing just outside the machine.

Posey has done big budget. The films are usually bad – Superman Returns, Josie and the Pussycats, Blade: Trinity – but invariably, Posey is the best thing about them. Her home obviously is in the independent world, and her collaborations with Christopher Guest are legend. When the audience could ask questions, the first place it went was to Best in Show and what working with Guest is like, despite the fact he has not made a feature film since 2006.

Bubbly and ethereal, Posey answered questions willingly, if circuitously, and was not short on stories to illuminate a life spent making movies. She was intelligent, funny, and self-deprecating, a perfect Allen heroine, which he seems to think, too, as it was announced Friday that Posey has joined the cast of Allen’s next as-yet-untitled film. Allen is my favorite director, and the next film could be great, but I would still say there is a good chance Posey will be one of the best things about it.

Trainwreck

A little birthday present to myself, my partner in life and crime and I got all dolled up in our nicest fineries Tuesday and attended an old-fashioned movie premiere – and that will be the last time I use the phrase “old fashioned” to describe anything regarding Apatow and writer-producer-star Amy Schumer’s wonderful Trainwreck. This is the best film Apatow has yet made, successfully marrying small character moments with huge laughs and bringing Schumer’s acerbic brand of comedy to the screen in a way that stays true to both their styles.

After the screening, it was off to the famous Tavern on the Green, which you may remember from Ghostbusters, for the afterparty. It was everything you would expect from a big, Hollywood-style event. The booze flowed freely, the food never stopped coming, and famous faces drifted in and out of every room. Belly up to the bar and there is Ezra Miller. Head into the back room to find ?uestlove and Julia Stiles hanging out together. In one corner, Lebron James holds court, and in another, Apatow graciously accepts his due praise. At the center of it all is Schumer.

I spend pretty much all day every day thinking about films, watching films, analyzing films, and just generally projecting film reels in the cinema of my mind. I do not get out of my head a lot. But on this occasion, it was nice to suit up, get down, and gush like any other fan. I got stuck behind Colin Quinn by the food line. I got a picture with Tilda Swinton. I fist bumped Dave Attel. It was just cool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Cartel Land

After a day of recovery – an open bar will often necessitate such – we headed back out to the theater, this time the IFC Center, for an altogether different experience. Cartel Land is equal parts enthralling and infuriating. Whether or not you think the War on Drugs is worth fighting, we should all be able to agree we are not winning that particular battle, not on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Heineman’s film looks at two groups of vigilantes – American yahoos who fancy themselves cowboys in the Wild West and Mexican townspeople trying to take back their cities from the cartels. Heineman, who also served as one of the film’s cameramen, takes us directly inside the battle, going on raids, enduring shootouts, and witnessing horrifying crimes and tragedies. The most terrifying thing might be the web the cartels spin through daily life in Mexico as there does not seem to be any way to dismantle it, and it catches the innocent and guilty alike.

The director is knowledgeable, passionate, and dedicated to exposing the corruption of a nation seemingly overrun by drug lords. In an illuminating question-and-answer session, Heineman made his intentions clear. Change will only come when enough people get tired of the way things are and fight to fix the system. His hope is to galvanize a movement, and Cartel Land is certainly a galvanizing film.

Epilogue

Lots more to come – hopefully in a timely manner. Just look at what is out this week alone: Ant Man; Stanford Prison Experiment; The Look of Silence; Irrational Man; Mr. Holmes; and of course, Trainwreck. I guess what I am saying is: I will see you at the movies.

Results: When what you want is what you get

Left to right, actors Guy Pearce and Kevin Corrigan and writer-director Andrew Bujalski discuss Results.

Danny wants his ex-wife back. Trevor wants to expand his business and take his relationship to the next level. Kat does not know what she wants, but she knows she wants whatever it is on her terms. All the characters in writer-director Andrew Bujalski’s new romantic comedy Results are looking for something to fill the void in their lives; however, they refuse to question if what they are pining after will actually be good for them.

Bujalski and two of the film’s stars, Guy Pearce and Kevin Corrigan, were in New York City on Friday night to screen the film and stayed for a question-and-answer session after. The half-hour discussion covered topics from the decline of studio romantic comedies to American archetypes to new models of distribution, with a few odd digressions in between.

Bujalski

This is the fifth feature film from the fiercely independent Bujalski, whose previous efforts helped define the Mumblecore movement. With Pearce, Corrigan, and Cobie Smulders (How I Met Your Mother) as his leads, Results could be Bujalski’s biggest, most crowd-pleasing film yet and the first one that could perhaps be mistaken for a big-studio effort. It is fitting, then, that he chose one of Hollywood’s oldest and most maligned genres to make the jump.

“I think romantic comedy in this day and age is a pretty disgraced genre,” said Bujalski. “Honestly, I can’t remember the last time I paid to see one. They’ve gotten pretty awful, and Hollywood doesn’t make them anymore for whatever economic reasons. But, there’s something about the genre that always appealed to me. Largely, of all your classic genres, it’s the one that is rooted in human foible. What always makes them go is people not understanding themselves or thinking they want something but they really want something else. That’s fertile territory. That’s something that I can play around with.”

In Results, there is human foible to spare as the newly wealthy Danny (Corrigan) pulls Trevor (Pearce) and Kat (Smulders) into his orbit. With the death of his mother, Danny inherits a fortune. He goes to the gym Trevor owns, Power 4 Life, ostensibly to get in shape so he can win his ex-wife back, but his stated goal is that he wants to be able to take a punch. Whether literally or metaphorically, Danny is a guy who has been knocked down by life more than once. At her own insistence, Kat is the personal trainer assigned to help him.

The problem is Danny would rather eat pizza, smoke pot, and spend his money accumulating worthless junk to fill his empty, rented mansion. He knows he shouldn’t, but he does anyway. Danny is the epitome of this attitude, but all the film’s characters engage in behaviors they know are harmful. They either cannot help themselves or do not want to change, but whatever their reasons, they are not living their lives optimally.

This is not new territory for characters in a romantic comedy or any film, for that matter, but Bujalski’s twist is to set the film in the world of personal fitness and to make Trevor a true believer in his methods. Trevor genuinely thinks he can help people achieve a kind of holistic wellness through his fitness program. For a jock, he sure is a bit of a dork, spouting catch phrases and generic self-help advice at every opportunity, but because he believes it and Pearce sells it, Trevor never comes off as anything other than sincere. Corrigan had some kind, somewhat self-effacing words that summed up Pearce’s performance.

Pearce, Corrigan, and Bujalski at the IFC Center.

“I did watch some of Guy’s films before we went to work on this film,” said Corrigan. “You can take your pick, which Guy Pearce films you want to watch. There’s so many to choose from … and I just kind of spun the wheel. I wanted to see Factory Girl, and there he is as Andy Warhol, and it didn’t prepare me at all to work with Trevor. Now that we’re promoting Results, I see Trevor as a beautiful Pop Art creation, almost like one of Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup [cans].

“It’s just a perfect representation of a kind of American archetype. Trevor is just so perfectly representative of a certain kind of character. In my striving to be Danny, I wasn’t going for anything like that. I was trying to be relaxed – because to me, that’s what the goal of acting is: to just relax – but he was doing a whole picture.”

For his part, Pearce was a bit embarrassed at the praise and said as much. He deferred to Bujalski’s script in helping him create the character of Trevor. In fact, Bujalski, who may be most famous for working with unknown actors or untrained non-professionals, wrote Results with Pearce and Corrigan in mind, and while the movie has a free-wheeling, improvisational nature to it, both actors and Bujalski confirmed everything stuck pretty closely to the script as written.

“I feel like the majority of it was there on the page,” said Pearce. “Andrew and I, we had an interesting experience because we talked about this. We had talked about this a couple years ago on something else, which never quite eventuated – or at all eventuated – and then, this came up. Andrew sent it to me, and I was really honored and flattered to take it on.

Corrigan plays Danny, and Pearce is Trevor in Results.

“I like to really understand, I suppose, to quite a large degree who it is that I’m going to play. I certainly can’t turn up and expect there to be sort of major left turns. … I’ve spent a bit of time in my life in gyms, in and out of gyms, being either obsessively fit or mildly fit or ‘ugh,’ kind of completely over it. But, for 30 years, I’ve been in and out of gyms, so it was a world that I felt that I knew to a degree, and it was very easy for me to imagine this character anyway and particularly in the way that I think Andrew had expressed him on the page with all the complexities of what Trevor was hiding, even if he didn’t realize he was hiding it. So, I felt like most of it was there and ready to go.”

In addition to working with bigger-name actors and operating within a better defined genre, Bujalski’s latest is also getting one of the biggest releases for any of his films, though that is probably due in part to those previous two factors. The film is in New York and Los Angeles right now and will open in other big cities over the next few weeks. The movie is also available to watch at home on demand, a distribution strategy that likely means more people will see Results than otherwise might have but about which Bujalski expressed less enthusiasm than resignation.

“Cherish it while you got it,” said Bujalski about seeing new films in cinemas. “I’m a 20th century kind of guy. The movie is on demand today … All your friends who live in Marfa, Texas, seven hours’ drive from Austin [where Results is set], they can get it on demand right now. They’ve probably already seen it, and it’s great. I’m all for that. I am from the 20th century, and I like to do this. I like to sit in a dark room and have communion with strangers. I think that’s the way to watch a movie, but I don’t begrudge the future. They can have it, their futuristic way. That’s fine. Everybody can have what they want.”

It is an aptly on-point message from the writer-director of Results – that everybody can have what they want. Much like Danny, Trevor, and Kat, the movie’s audience will have access to what it wants – in this case, Results – but is watching a movie at home, no matter how big your screen, really the outcome any of us might desire? Sure, audiences get a new movie from a talented young filmmaker, and the movie gets a wider audience. Everybody wins, to a degree, but that might not be what is best for any of us.

Dan Harmon and the unstoppable forces of community

Dan Harmon (right) and Harmontown director Neil Berkeley participated in a moderated Q and A Saturday at the IFC Center in New York City.

Dan Harmon is called a lot of things throughout Neil Berkeley’s new documentary, Harmontown – a genius, an ass hole, an alcoholic, a brilliant writer, a control freak, etc. A lot of words are spent by people who know him and by the man himself to describe his effect on his fans and to describe the feeling of loving this man and his work. Ultimately, though, there is one word that covers it all: community.

Yes, that is the name of the NBC show Harmon created and was fired from before being rehired only to see it canceled. It will live again on Yahoo’s streaming service this winter. But it is more than a television show. It is a feeling and philosophy. Harmon’s show, his podcast, and his overall body of work function a bit like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster – something massive but misunderstood, capable of ugliness and beauty, but ultimately out of the creator’s hands.

Dan Harmon explains his process.

Harmon is undoubtedly a creative force whose mind is going a thousand miles per hour at any given moment. He is the man behind two cult television shows, one of which has just one episode, and a popular podcast that draws listeners from every corner of the country. But by breathing life into these phenomena, he has spawned a living entity he could never have foreseen. The community of people who listen to him speak and watch his shows and read what he writes exists because of Harmon but apart from him.

Harmon and Berkeley brought Harmontown the film to New York City’s IFC Center on Friday night and stuck around for a Q and A, but the sold-out show’s popularity was such that the IFC Center was compelled to add a second day, for which Harmon and Berkeley were gracious enough to return. The skies threatened more rain on an already damp Saturday afternoon, but the Harmon acolytes, myself among them, lined up an hour before the screening to guarantee the best seats possible for this show. It was worth it.

Berkeley’s film is by turns an intimate exploration of life on the road, a warts-and-all portrait of the artist as a middle-aged man, and a loving tribute to the community of devotees who are as unique as the subject of the film. The movie spends a lot of time with Harmon and his close-knit circle of collaborators, including girlfriend Erin McGathy, co-host Jeff B. Davis, and dungeon master Spencer Crittenden. While they all provide insight into Harmon, each is a story unto himself or herself.

Crittenden, in particular, draws in viewers, and even Harmon calls him the hero of the film. Crittenden was a fan – a Harmenian, as the figurative residents of Harmontown call themselves – whose goal was just to play Dungeons and Dragons with Harmon and Davis. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams and has played D&D with Harmon, Davis, and a host of famous faces (a baffled Jason Sudeikis is a highlight of the film) across the country. Rather than in leaps and bounds, Crittenden’s growth comes in baby steps, as it does for so many of us, but to witness it is to understand and empathize.

There are interviews with celebrities such as Sarah Silverman, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, most of the cast of Community, and others, and a lot of their material is gold, but the best moments are with the fans. These people are the reason Harmon does this, and his appreciation for their support is something that sets him apart from other heroes and idols, who rarely have the time of day. Most of his fans just want to meet the man, take a picture, tell him how much he means to them, and be on the receiving end of a great big bear hug, as Harmon is wont to give.

Dan Harmon, a big hug, and me.

After the Saturday Q and A, Harmon, who must have gone through the same process the night before, made himself available to everyone who chose to stay. When told the theater needed to be cleared out for the next showing, he moved into the lobby. When told the lobby must be cleared, he stood outside on the sidewalk. When asked to come inside to sign publicity posters, he said he would prefer to meet his fans first before doing anything else.

Not wanting to hold up anyone else, I spoke only briefly to Harmon. I told him he saved my life. I told him that in the darkest moments I have had, I reached for Community. Here was a show about people who need each other, and when I just needed someone – all respect to the family and friends who were also there for me – Community was where I looked.

He told me he was glad his show was there for me to reach for and thanked me for my support. I said, “No, thank you,” and that was it. I got my picture and my hug and moved along, but the experience will stay with me, and I am sure that is true for all those who were there, for all those whose lives Harmon has touched. And what that means more than anything is that if the dark days ever return to my life or any of theirs, we can always turn to our community.

In love with a feeling: A tribute to Gordon Willis and the warm embrace of the cinema

Mia Farrow goes to the movies in Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo.

It is a feeling familiar to anyone with a deep and abiding love for cinema. When a movie hits you just right, it feels as though the characters are speaking right to you, and for a couple hours, your world and theirs are one and the same. But then, the lights come up to wash out the beauty of the fiction and bring back into focus the harshness of reality. There is not a movie lover alive who has not wished at one time or another to harness the fleeting moments before the credits roll and hold on to that sensation as long as possible.

This is the premise of Woody Allen’s stellar 1985 romantic fantasy The Purple Rose of Cairo. Mia Farrow plays a woman who trades the brutal realities of her life for the soothing embrace of the cinema, and for once, the cinema chooses her back. If you have not seen it, I will not say any more than that in order to preserve the mysteries and delights of the picture. Suffice it to say, the film is a lovely blend of classic cinema and modern anxieties with a truly touching core.

I was lucky enough Wednesday night to view a 35-millimeter print of the film at the IFC Center in lower Manhattan. The screening was followed by a panel discussion on the brilliant cinematographer Gordon Willis, who died earlier this year at the age of 82. Two of Willis’ assistant cameramen, Tibor Sands and Douglas C. Hart, were joined by former Willis camera operator Craig DiBona for a funny and touching tribute to one of the true artists of film.

Such was the respect Willis garnered in his craft that when shooting in Italy, the locals referred to him as Michelangelo, according to DiBona. The moniker was well earned. In addition to The Purple Rose of Cairo, Willis lensed seven other Allen pictures, including my pick for the most beautiful movie ever filmed, Manhattan. He also gained acclaim for his work with Francis Ford Coppola on all three Godfather films. DiBona picked The Godfather Part II as his personal choice for most beautiful film of all time.

The Godfather Part II was Willis' second collaboration with Francis Ford Coppola.

The evening was filled with the kind of great old Hollywood stories that are catnip for cinephiles such as the time Willis walked out of a dailies screening with Coppola because the projectionist had loaded the film wrong, causing it to run upside-down and backward. His workman-like process and dedication to quality were matched by an unparalleled technical prowess.

Hart related a story about Willis stopping a screening and calling in the film-processing lab technicians. From the briefest look at the dailies, he could tell the lab was not changing its chemicals often enough, resulting in a look he did not intend. And if there was one thing you could say about Willis, he always got the look he wanted. Lenses, film stocks, lighting, and color – his knowledge on these subjects could fill tomes, and he used all the tools at his disposal to great effect every time he stepped behind the camera.

Willis was a cinematographer who created images so beautiful, they blur the line between our world and his cinematic one. His work expanded the idea of what could be done with film. He shot fewer than 40 movies in his career and never worked as the director of photography on a picture after 1997, but the mark he left on the cinema will be forever emblazoned on the images viewers cannot forget. And, if we cannot always hold onto the feeling the theater inspires in us, thanks to Willis and others of his ilk, we can still close our eyes and remember the beauty we were fortunate enough to behold.

Craig DiBona (far left), Douglas C. Hart (second from right), and Tibor Sands (far right) spoke about their time working with Gordon Willis during a moderated panel discussion Wednesday night at the IFC Center in Manhattan.