Blindsight R: Lucy Walker Land: GB 2006 Drehformat: HD Format: 35mm Länge: 104 Minuten mehr Informationen

Erik Weihenmayer ist Bergsteiger – und blind. Zu den Gipfeln, die er bestiegen hat, gehört unter anderem der Lhakpa Ri, 7.045 Meter hoch an der Nord seite des Mount Everest gelegen. Sabriye Tenberken ist ebenfalls blind – und Pädagogin in Lhasa. Als sie von Weihenmayers außerordentlicher Leistung erfährt, nimmt sie Kontakt zu ihm auf. Gemeinsam entwickeln sie den Plan, sechs junge blinde Schüler und Schülerinnen auf den Lhakpa Ri zu führen. Lucy Walker und ein Kamerateam haben diesen beschwerlichen Aufstieg begleitet. [aus dem Forumprogramm]

How would you describe the aesthetics of your film?
I love cinema verite, and BLINDSIGHT called for combining verite with interview, a rich mix. For verite scenes the cinematographer needs to have as much patience as I do to let things unfurl in front of the camera. Real life is like wildlife, and you have to stake it out accordingly. The interesting things happen when people aren't on best behavior for a quick posing shot, when you've rendered yourself such a natural, boring even, part of the scenery that everyone's censor switches off and something closer to reality ensues. So in many ways my visual style follows from this need to be unobtrusive, quiet, restrained, observant. The trick is to be low-key and competent and quick while being as tuned-in as possible to what's going on -- then sometimes, like the Zen archer who only has to let go of the arrow to hit the target, you automatically get those magic moments when it's completely effortless that you and the camera person are all set up and rolling just when the most amazing thing happens "unexpectedly".

Why did you choose to shoot on a digital format (was it solely for financial reasons, or did aesthetics play a role)?
We faced some unique production challenges because we were filming a mountain climb: we were ascending the north side of Everest to climb Lhakpa-Ri, a 23,000' mountain in Tibet. Everything we needed had to be carried up Everest on our backs or wrapped in plastic and lashed to the back of yaks, who aren't the most delicate of porters. Tibet is photographically stunning and we wanted the highest possible picture quality, but all the equipment had to withstand extreme temperature and altitude and be sturdy, reliable, and lightweight, and we also needed a high shooting ratio, all of which favoured HD.

Which format exactly did you choose (MiniDV, DVCAM, HDV, HD...), and why?
We chose the Panasonic AJ-HDC27 VariCam because it was full-on sumptuous High Def, while still being relatively portable and light - but that's only when you're comparing it to a cumbersome and labor- intensive 35mm film rig. It was about four times bigger than your average mini-DV-pro type camera, for example. It was brand-new at that time and so something of a shot in the dark - but all our research suggested this was the technology we needed, even if it had only just come along in time for us. And the image quality is stunning - as Petr says "I was particularly impressed with the colors, depth of film possibilities and the film-like look" - and I agree whole-heartedly. It gives me goose-bumps, actually. And I challenge all but the geekiest of techheads to spot that it wasn't shot on 35mm after our beautiful blow-up to 35mm (courtesy of St. Anne's Post in London).

What was special about shooting digital (e.g. compared to 35mm, was it your first time with dv or are you used to it ..)?
I'm very familiar with shooting both digital and film. I shot my last feature documentary, Devil's Playground, about Amish teenagers, on mini-DV, and I always said that it could never have been made before the advent of digital technology because the access and cultural issues were so sensitive that the camera equipment needed to be very unobtrusive and low-key. The blow-up of that film to 35mm looks beautiful, but to the trained eye it is possible to see that it didn't originate on film. especially for example in extreme wide shots and traveling shots. And the lenses and optics and options in the DV format are more limited, so it was fantastic to step up to the HD format, where there is so much control over the gamma curve, filtration, lenses, etc, and the blow-up looks indistinguishable from 35mm to all but a lab technician. And in general when shooting documentary (as opposed to fiction) it is especially helpful to know that the footage is safely captured, that what-you-see-is-what-you-get, so that there won't be any surprises when watching rushes with film exposures or lens problems or hairs-in-the-gate that occasionally crop up when you see film daillies - because there is usually no chance to go back and do re-shoots or pick-ups in documentary.

What was your shoot-edit ratio?
It was high. We were making a documentary, and six of our main characters were Tibetan teenagers who needed a lot of goofing and relaxation and back-and-forth to talk, so we shot long interviews with them - if I had been shooting film and worrying about keeping it brief and focussed, we would have missed all their most revealing comments. We also shot long interviews with all the guides and other characters, because we needed their thoughts in the bank in case of any eventuality, even though in the end we didn't need to dip into this much in the final cut. The shoot-edit ratio was lower for verite scenes and up on the mountain becuase the logistics of shooting on the mountain, at such extreme altitude, up in the "death zone", were such that it was humanly impossible to roll too much footage. But we shot over 200 hours for a 104 minute movie, which would have been impossible in 35mm.

One good word about DV / HDV / HD (or two):
Freedom, portability, cutting-edge technology.

One bad word about DV / HDV / HD(or two):
I'm still a film snob. I like the process of shooting film, the cans, the reels, the stock, the cameras, the labs, the grain, the whole organic analog rigamarole. I used to be a DJ and I used to use vinyl not CDs.