Soundless Wind Chime R: Kit Hung Land: Hong Kong/Schweiz 2009 Drehformat: DVCProHD Format: HDcam, Farbe Länge: 110 Minuten Sprache: Schweizerdeutsch, Englisch, Mandarin, Kantonesisch mehr Informationen  |  zur Filmseite TRAILER / QuickTime / 1:30

Die jungen Männer Pascal und Ricky sind Fremde in Hong Kong. Während der Schweizer Pascal sich mit Straßentheater und Kleinkriminalität über Wasser hält, hilft der aus Peking stammende Ricky zuverlässig in einem einfachen Restaurant aus. Schicksalhaft kreuzen sich die Wege der beiden, Hals über Kopf verlieben sie sich und wagen ein gemeinsames Leben. Doch schon bald müssen Pascal und Ricky um ihre Liebe kämpfen - der flatterhafte Pascal fordert dem zarten Ricky viel ab. Noch Jahre später macht sich Ricky auf die Suche nach seiner plötzlich verunglückten Liebe und trifft nicht weit von Luzern auf einen jungen Mann, der Pascal rein äußerlich zum Verwechseln ähnlich sieht. [aus dem Forumprogramm]


On Feb 11th, the director Kit Hung will be one of the speakers at the HAPPY RETURNS: THE FUTURE AFTER THE CAMPUS, a open forum hosted by the Berlin Talent Campus -- he attended the Campus in 2004.

How would you describe the aesthetics of your film?
Soundless Wind Chime is very cinematic piece, in terms of the images we shot; the pictures are directly connected to the inner emotion of the characters. The shift of focal point in the film aimed to represents different levels of emotion and feeling of the characters in different stage.

The color in Hong Kong was enhanced in purposes to create chaotic feeling, and with contrast to the color in Switzerland was comparatively more desaturated to create the feeling of silent and dullness. In addition, the micro-sound was designed to arouse the sensitivities of the audience.

Why did you choose to shoot on a digital format (was it solely for financial reasons, or did aesthetics play a role)?
Of course, budget is an issue, but the major consideration for me to shot Soundless Wind Chime in digital format is because shooting with the HD camera provides me a lot of flexibility in shooting which also allow more space for creativity.

Compared to 35mm film shooting, the equipments required for the digital format are relatively less complicated, sometimes more light and handy, this kind of flexibility provide me more choice with shooting location, shooting time and the convenience in setting up the scenes. It may end up that I can have more time to communicate with my actors on locations, and more time for improvisation on set.

Sometimes, even working under limited shooting time, I am still able to have various experiments with my cameraman on the camera angle, the use of different lens and the movement of the camera, it’s very important to render ideas and capture what I really wanted.

Which format exactly did you choose (MiniDV, DVCAM, HDV, HD...), and why?
The format is DVCProHD720p25 and the reason to use this format it’s because of the limitation from the P2 cards we had. We only have two 4G P2 cards at that time, and I don't want to take the risk losing any data in the hard drive, so we started with this format, which allows the maximum use of the card storage while shooting and also reduced the time of loading data to the computer, although loading data from the card to the computer still is very time consuming.

What was special about shooting digital (e.g. compared to 35mm, was it your first time with dv or are you used to it ..)?
As mentioned before, shooting with digital format provide me more time and space for creativity and the flexibility during shooting. I can spend more time with my actors, and I can even shoot the rehearsal as back up, while no one knows what will happen in the next take. The footage from rehearsal may give a total different feelings to the scene, and I did use quite a lot of rehearsal shots in my final editing, sometimes the actors perform more natural and relaxed while rehearsing.

I can shoot as much as I want when time allows, try new things and improvise with actors freely and sometimes create a different chemistry in front of the camera, and the digital format allows errors and trails.

The weight of the camera also allows us to capture as much as we want, whenever something happens, for example, raining suddenly, the magic hours during dawn and evening, traffic problems... etc. Our DOP can just run with the camera and capture anything he wants. The sensitivity of the CCDs also allows us to use as much natural light as possible, while we save time on lighting and other decision making, I can really concentrate working with my actors and storytelling.

After all, shooting on digital is much environmental friendly then shooting on 35mm.

Beside the resolution concern, the difference between DV and HD is mostly in the post-production. As I am also the editor, I remember that I had some confusion about pixel ratio, frame rate and etc, but in term of production, shooting with DV or HD is not very different to me.

I had my first DV shooting experience 9 years ago with a domestic DV camera, during that time, I learned the whole new work flows of digitizing footages, non-linear editing, and the final out put.

Apart from the above, what is more important for me is the quality of the CCD, and quality of the lens. Different CCDs have different reaction towards the light and the display of the images will be in a different way, as well as the quality of the lens also influences the amount of light being captured on the CCD.

What was your shoot-edit ratio?
The shooting rate of the whole film approximately is 80:1, the final duration of the film now is 100 mins.

One good word about DV / HDV (or two):
Highly flexible and maximizes creativeness.

One bad word about DV / HDV (or two):
- Non-comparable to film, in terms of picture resolution and the depth of images.
- Too many different formats.
- Post-production is complicated, expensive, and always changing.