I’ve always wondered how much the look and feel of a film is due to a director and how much is due to a cinematographer. Sometimes I have read a film’s imagery being credited to the director’s “vision” and “style”, but other times I’d read it being attributed to the cinematographer! For example, people would say that “Andrei Tarkovsky (a director) is noted for using long takes”, but other times they would say "in the film “Fight Club”, cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth makes good use of a long shot, dim-lit, close-up filming style". It always confuses me — why in one case the director is credited with the style and in another the cinematographer? It’s not like the reviewer visited the stage and actually saw them at work discussing shots!
In any case, what is the usual creative relationship between the two? Is the director the ultimate originator of the vision, the framing, the blocking, etc., and the cinematographer is simply a skilled technician who translates his vision by choosing the right equipment, lens, and other technical details? Or do cinematographers sometimes call the shots themselves and compose the scene?
Count me as another person who thinks that you don’t necessarily need a personal “style” to be an auteur. I’d consider Stanley Kubrick to be the quintessential auteur even though his subject matter is DIVERSE. Yes, his films all seem to have an underlying bleak philosophy to them, but even then that’s not an absolute — for example, many people are quite surprised to hear that the sentimental scenes in AI: Artificial Intelligence (the ending, for example) actually originates from Kubrick and not Spielberg.
I think the qualifying characteristic of a true auteur is personal engagement. That’s what sets them apart from workmanlike directors — they bring something personal to the film, aggressively modeling it based on their vision. An auteur may well be very chameleon-like if the diverse styles of his body of films is due to HIS creative vision — somebody like Kubrick, for example.
I love Spielberg. His films appear much shallower at first sight than they really are, IMO. Especially Saving Private Ryan — it seems like a stock-standard all-American patriotic film, but watching it again I began seeing all the places where he was actually subtly SUBVERTING the glorification of war.
I think it’s one of the most common critical response I hear from people who have watched Bresson, that his actors are somehow made to act in a flat and deliberately emotionless way.
I have watched three film of his: Pickpocket, Diary of a Country Priest and Mouchette, and the only thing I can think of is — are they even watching the same films as I am? Yes, his method of working with actors is documented to be very different from most directors in that he doesn’t want them pretending to have emotions or acting as if they really had a second personality as a fictional character; that does not equal to flat acting or expressionlessness in any way. In fact, my opinion is that if we define “acting” widely to mean any sort of human behavior in front of a camera, one could say that Bresson’s actors give some of the best acting performances in history because they are so real and believable. I can’t see them make faces, force tears, pretend to grimace; everything they do is absolutely real, and the emotions (they ARE there — just look at Mouchette’s smile in the bumper car scene and her tears with the baby!) are completely natural and uncontrolled.
I wonder where the misconception about Bresson’s actors come from? Is it due to only looking at the surface of his acting methods?
That is very interesting. I just can’t seem to see from that viewpoint. The acting to me seems more naturalistic than supposed “method” acting. They really seem like real emotions — not broad stroke, like trying to write emotion all over your face, but very subtle, tiny, silent emotions. But I can genuinely feel it, and I genuinely feel like these characters are real flesh and blood people right in front of me.
PT Anderson made two great movies, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, but I can’t rank him into my list of favorites until I’ve seen more of his output.
There was an article recently in a psychology digest, I think “This is your brain on Kafka”, which shows the effect of art on how we perceive things. It was a very encouraging read.
Personally, I know I have been affected by art in a life changing way for a few times in my life. A year ago, I directed “Zoo Story” by playwright Edward Albee for the stage. Reading and staging the play changed my views on homosexuals (I was brought up in a religious household) by revealing to me the inner life of a gay person who is pressured by society to repress a vital part of his identity. For the first time, I truly realized how horribly unjust social discrimination is. Albee DIDN’T sermonize — but that is the point of art. Art does not sermonize — art changes you by showing the deepest wishes and desires of people and their realities. Good art, like good philosophy, makes you question preconceived notions, and that spills over into other realms.
YES! Economy is such a wonderful word to describe Bresson. After I watch Bresson’s films, most other films’ attempts at portraying emotion and bringing out the sentiments of the audience seem quaint and absurd — kinda like watching somebody annihilate a cockroach with a rocket-launcher.
Commercial success is a consensus. So is critical acclaim. So, in fact, is the inclusion of certain works but not others into the “canon” of classics and all time greats.
These are all consensus — the test of time is not some objective measure that stands apart from consensus. The only difference between the forms of consensus are its parameters and its demographics.
“My understanding of cinematography is that it involves the use of light in movies. At the same time, the use of the word suggests that is something more—something closer to photography, involving composition, as well as the use of light. I’m not sure if this is correct or not, but this is the impression I get. So is cinematography also synonymous with composition and framing? Where does mise-en-scene factor in, if at all?”
I think cinematography also involves composition and framing. After all, those two elements are tightly interwoven with lighting to create a unified effect — it’s hard to take any of them in isolation.
The Director, together with the Production Designer, are responsible for WHAT is shot: that is, how the actors, props and sets are arranged. The Cinematographer usually does not get involved in those decisions. However, the different departments must talk to each other all the time in order for it to work as a whole. On a production where I worked as a translator for a production designer (Hollywood shoot in China), he talked with the director and cinematographer often and made reference to the storyboards to decide how to design his sets in a film-able way.
“Now, I assume that the title director of photography (DP) is synonymous with cinematographer.”
Yes, it’s generally a regional thing. I might be wrong, but it seems DP is more British/European and Cinematographer is the term more used in the States.
“If that’s true, then does that mean the the DP basically deals with the way a film is lit?”
Yes, usually the electricians and gaffers answer directly to the DP, who plans the lighting.
“My sense is that the role of the DP is more complex and depends on the director. The levels of responsibility a director may give to a DP may vary, including allowing them to frame and compose a shot.”
Some directors are basically their own cinematographer — Stanley Kubrick, who made so many decisions for his cinematographer on 2001 that he/she complained — comes to mind. They have a good grasp of the technical side of things and basically plan everything themselves, down to the exact film stock and lens settings. Other directors are much more hands-off. Sam Mendes comes to mind — he comes from a theatre background, so technical knowledge of filmmaking is not his strong suit. In American Beauty, he would work with the actors to decide what they’re going to do, then describe the overall mood of the film to the cinematographer Conrad Hall, but the specific framings and even the choice of shots is left to be decided by Hall.
More often than not, a director would be in the middle of those extremes — he would have a good idea of how he’s going to tell his story visually and would choose the shots himself, but the cinematographer would decide on how to translate that shot into reality. In this case, the cinematographer would also act as a sort of “advisor”.
“Finally, when one is impressed with the visuals in film, what is the appropriate terms to use? For example, sometimes a film has the quality of a good photograph—the lighting, contrasts, the composition, etc. What’s the right term to use to describe that?”
Many adjectives can be used — picturesque, photogenic, balanced, evocative, well-lit, etc. Depends on your specific meaning.
I adored Hugo by the way, and I found the “kiddie stuff” that the poster so derisively named to be heartfelt and truthful — he captured the idealism of childhood perfectly, as well as feelings of uncertainty and displacement when you’re an orphan.
I haven’t watched much modern day contemplative cinema. My favorites are still the old masters — Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc.
And yes, I do think what distinguishes good “contemplative cinema” from bad ones is that the bad ones have no thought behind them — just leaving the camera there and hope you strike some golden moment on film. Both Tarkovsky and Bresson are superb craftsmen who were VERY CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL about what they put on screen.
“that final chase scene is one of the laziest climaxes in movie history.”
Funny, because the chase scene was NOT the climax to me. It was when the guard finally catches him, and asks him if he has a family, and he can’t answer if he does because he is so confused about how he fits with the new family that he’s found.
Is it a common theme of children’s stories? Yes. But the execution was well done for me.
But I can hear what you’re saying — to each his own, I guess.
Okay, maybe not the all time worst, but it was really annoying because the movie was otherwise good. And Maurice Jarre! I loved his work for Lawrence of Arabia. How did he descend to this?!?
And I’m not even going into the “big-time directors never write their own material” category judgement because I’m not even sure there is any basis in reality for that categorization.
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was 12. A good friend of mine (a couple years older) knew that I was crazy about space exploration so he decided to show that movie to me. I was like, “cool, space movie!”
…cue ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz an hour later.
I watched it again when I was 16, and loved it immediately.
Really? I thought that Marlon Brando outacted Vivien Leigh. Not that she isn’t usually great — but compared to Brando she seemed like she was from a totally different era. 40s style emoting vs the new naturalistic method — she suddenly looked fake next to the incredible Brando.
Interesting. I can see where your aesthetic judgement comes from — in fact, despite my praise for Brando, my aesthetic sense is flexible enough that I can suddenly prefer the opposite side of the dichotomy depending on my mood on any given day. I enjoy the 40s style of acting very much, especially in comedies, where the actors seem to touch on a different shade of truthfulness — maybe not realism, but a playful freedom and complete belief in their fictional situations.
The Godfather was a great performance, as was On The Waterfront and The Fugitive Kind. Thing is, Brando’s mousy enunciation doesn’t bother me because I only demand the minimum from actors in terms of enunciation — let me hear the words clearly enough to discern them — if the other aspects of their acting is superb. Also, these characters have very little in common besides naturalism and “mundanity”: the actual “content” of the personalities are dramatically different. Brando was truly a great transformational actor.
Visual Style: Director vs Cinematographer over 2 years ago
I’ve always wondered how much the look and feel of a film is due to a director and how much is due to a cinematographer. Sometimes I have read a film’s imagery being credited to the director’s “vision” and “style”, but other times I’d read it being attributed to the cinematographer! For example, people would say that “Andrei Tarkovsky (a director) is noted for using long takes”, but other times they would say "in the film “Fight Club”, cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth makes good use of a long shot, dim-lit, close-up filming style". It always confuses me — why in one case the director is credited with the style and in another the cinematographer? It’s not like the reviewer visited the stage and actually saw them at work discussing shots!
In any case, what is the usual creative relationship between the two? Is the director the ultimate originator of the vision, the framing, the blocking, etc., and the cinematographer is simply a skilled technician who translates his vision by choosing the right equipment, lens, and other technical details? Or do cinematographers sometimes call the shots themselves and compose the scene?
Go to Comment
Great Films Made by Non-Auteurs over 2 years ago
Count me as another person who thinks that you don’t necessarily need a personal “style” to be an auteur. I’d consider Stanley Kubrick to be the quintessential auteur even though his subject matter is DIVERSE. Yes, his films all seem to have an underlying bleak philosophy to them, but even then that’s not an absolute — for example, many people are quite surprised to hear that the sentimental scenes in AI: Artificial Intelligence (the ending, for example) actually originates from Kubrick and not Spielberg.
I think the qualifying characteristic of a true auteur is personal engagement. That’s what sets them apart from workmanlike directors — they bring something personal to the film, aggressively modeling it based on their vision. An auteur may well be very chameleon-like if the diverse styles of his body of films is due to HIS creative vision — somebody like Kubrick, for example.
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 2 years ago
I love Spielberg. His films appear much shallower at first sight than they really are, IMO. Especially Saving Private Ryan — it seems like a stock-standard all-American patriotic film, but watching it again I began seeing all the places where he was actually subtly SUBVERTING the glorification of war.
Go to Comment
For the love of everything that is holy... over 1 year ago
…please let “The Tree of Life” get a release in cinemas in China!
(China enforces a quota system for imported films)
Go to Comment
Bresson's actor-models: wooden, flat, expressionless? 3 months ago
I think it’s one of the most common critical response I hear from people who have watched Bresson, that his actors are somehow made to act in a flat and deliberately emotionless way.
I have watched three film of his: Pickpocket, Diary of a Country Priest and Mouchette, and the only thing I can think of is — are they even watching the same films as I am? Yes, his method of working with actors is documented to be very different from most directors in that he doesn’t want them pretending to have emotions or acting as if they really had a second personality as a fictional character; that does not equal to flat acting or expressionlessness in any way. In fact, my opinion is that if we define “acting” widely to mean any sort of human behavior in front of a camera, one could say that Bresson’s actors give some of the best acting performances in history because they are so real and believable. I can’t see them make faces, force tears, pretend to grimace; everything they do is absolutely real, and the emotions (they ARE there — just look at Mouchette’s smile in the bumper car scene and her tears with the baby!) are completely natural and uncontrolled.
I wonder where the misconception about Bresson’s actors come from? Is it due to only looking at the surface of his acting methods?
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it 3 months ago
Mouchette, by Robert Bresson — 100/100
Go to Comment
Bresson's actor-models: wooden, flat, expressionless? 3 months ago
That is very interesting. I just can’t seem to see from that viewpoint. The acting to me seems more naturalistic than supposed “method” acting. They really seem like real emotions — not broad stroke, like trying to write emotion all over your face, but very subtle, tiny, silent emotions. But I can genuinely feel it, and I genuinely feel like these characters are real flesh and blood people right in front of me.
Go to Comment
People crying in movies. 3 months ago
Mouchette crying while she holds her baby brother. It made me cry too.
Go to Comment
Your 5 Favourite Directors 3 months ago
In my very limited and capricious way:
1. Robert Bresson
2. Andrei Tarkovsky
3. Ingmar Bergman
on the other side of the art/entertainment continuum:
4. Martin Scorcese
5. Steven Spielberg
(and honorary mention goes to 6. Christopher Nolan)
Go to Comment
Your 5 Favourite Directors 3 months ago
PT Anderson made two great movies, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, but I can’t rank him into my list of favorites until I’ve seen more of his output.
Go to Comment
Cinema as a Force for Social Good 3 months ago
There was an article recently in a psychology digest, I think “This is your brain on Kafka”, which shows the effect of art on how we perceive things. It was a very encouraging read.
Personally, I know I have been affected by art in a life changing way for a few times in my life. A year ago, I directed “Zoo Story” by playwright Edward Albee for the stage. Reading and staging the play changed my views on homosexuals (I was brought up in a religious household) by revealing to me the inner life of a gay person who is pressured by society to repress a vital part of his identity. For the first time, I truly realized how horribly unjust social discrimination is. Albee DIDN’T sermonize — but that is the point of art. Art does not sermonize — art changes you by showing the deepest wishes and desires of people and their realities. Good art, like good philosophy, makes you question preconceived notions, and that spills over into other realms.
The best art is not polemical but illuminating.
Go to Comment
Bresson's actor-models: wooden, flat, expressionless? 3 months ago
YES! Economy is such a wonderful word to describe Bresson. After I watch Bresson’s films, most other films’ attempts at portraying emotion and bringing out the sentiments of the audience seem quaint and absurd — kinda like watching somebody annihilate a cockroach with a rocket-launcher.
Go to Comment
YOUR FAVOURITE "ROAD MOVIE" ? 3 months ago
Wild Strawberries would count, I suppose.
I think one can facetiously sum up the dramatic premise of every road movie like this: “we need to get someplace, and it’s REALLY REALLY FAR!”
Go to Comment
Cinema as a Force for Social Good 3 months ago
Commercial success is a consensus. So is critical acclaim. So, in fact, is the inclusion of certain works but not others into the “canon” of classics and all time greats.
These are all consensus — the test of time is not some objective measure that stands apart from consensus. The only difference between the forms of consensus are its parameters and its demographics.
Go to Comment
What is Cinematography and the Role of the Director of Photography? 3 months ago
“My understanding of cinematography is that it involves the use of light in movies. At the same time, the use of the word suggests that is something more—something closer to photography, involving composition, as well as the use of light. I’m not sure if this is correct or not, but this is the impression I get. So is cinematography also synonymous with composition and framing? Where does mise-en-scene factor in, if at all?”
I think cinematography also involves composition and framing. After all, those two elements are tightly interwoven with lighting to create a unified effect — it’s hard to take any of them in isolation.
The Director, together with the Production Designer, are responsible for WHAT is shot: that is, how the actors, props and sets are arranged. The Cinematographer usually does not get involved in those decisions. However, the different departments must talk to each other all the time in order for it to work as a whole. On a production where I worked as a translator for a production designer (Hollywood shoot in China), he talked with the director and cinematographer often and made reference to the storyboards to decide how to design his sets in a film-able way.
“Now, I assume that the title director of photography (DP) is synonymous with cinematographer.”
Yes, it’s generally a regional thing. I might be wrong, but it seems DP is more British/European and Cinematographer is the term more used in the States.
“If that’s true, then does that mean the the DP basically deals with the way a film is lit?”
Yes, usually the electricians and gaffers answer directly to the DP, who plans the lighting.
“My sense is that the role of the DP is more complex and depends on the director. The levels of responsibility a director may give to a DP may vary, including allowing them to frame and compose a shot.”
Some directors are basically their own cinematographer — Stanley Kubrick, who made so many decisions for his cinematographer on 2001 that he/she complained — comes to mind. They have a good grasp of the technical side of things and basically plan everything themselves, down to the exact film stock and lens settings. Other directors are much more hands-off. Sam Mendes comes to mind — he comes from a theatre background, so technical knowledge of filmmaking is not his strong suit. In American Beauty, he would work with the actors to decide what they’re going to do, then describe the overall mood of the film to the cinematographer Conrad Hall, but the specific framings and even the choice of shots is left to be decided by Hall.
More often than not, a director would be in the middle of those extremes — he would have a good idea of how he’s going to tell his story visually and would choose the shots himself, but the cinematographer would decide on how to translate that shot into reality. In this case, the cinematographer would also act as a sort of “advisor”.
“Finally, when one is impressed with the visuals in film, what is the appropriate terms to use? For example, sometimes a film has the quality of a good photograph—the lighting, contrasts, the composition, etc. What’s the right term to use to describe that?”
Many adjectives can be used — picturesque, photogenic, balanced, evocative, well-lit, etc. Depends on your specific meaning.
Go to Comment
Greatest director that only made a few films? 3 months ago
Lodge Kerrigan.
His film “Clean, Shaven” made a huge impact on me, and it saddened me that the film never really got much critical notice, neither then nor now. :-(
Go to Comment
directors that jump between genres 3 months ago
Kurosawa. His non-Samurai films are often just as good as his more popular Samurai fare.
Go to Comment
Scorsese: A Decade of Decline 3 months ago
“your comment tells me how grown up you are.”
WIN!
I adored Hugo by the way, and I found the “kiddie stuff” that the poster so derisively named to be heartfelt and truthful — he captured the idealism of childhood perfectly, as well as feelings of uncertainty and displacement when you’re an orphan.
Go to Comment
Contemporary Contemplative Cinema - The Default Style for Lazy Hacks 3 months ago
I haven’t watched much modern day contemplative cinema. My favorites are still the old masters — Tarkovsky, Bresson, etc.
And yes, I do think what distinguishes good “contemplative cinema” from bad ones is that the bad ones have no thought behind them — just leaving the camera there and hope you strike some golden moment on film. Both Tarkovsky and Bresson are superb craftsmen who were VERY CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL about what they put on screen.
Go to Comment
Scorsese: A Decade of Decline 3 months ago
“that final chase scene is one of the laziest climaxes in movie history.”
Funny, because the chase scene was NOT the climax to me. It was when the guard finally catches him, and asks him if he has a family, and he can’t answer if he does because he is so confused about how he fits with the new family that he’s found.
Is it a common theme of children’s stories? Yes. But the execution was well done for me.
But I can hear what you’re saying — to each his own, I guess.
Go to Comment
Scorsese: A Decade of Decline 3 months ago
^To be fair, does not invalidate his criticism though, as much as I disagree with his verdict.
Go to Comment
Script Exchange 3 months ago
I’m down for a script exchange too. I have one that’s drafted, just needs some revision before I’m happy to share it for critique.
What genre do you normally write? The one i wrote was a feature script that is family-themed.
Go to Comment
What's the most annoying film music you've had to endure? 3 months ago
“Witness” by Maurice Jarre.
Okay, maybe not the all time worst, but it was really annoying because the movie was otherwise good. And Maurice Jarre! I loved his work for Lawrence of Arabia. How did he descend to this?!?
Go to Comment
What is the greatest film title ever? 3 months ago
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Go to Comment
Dumbing Down To Make A Masterpiece 2 months ago
“I have to ask: why do you assume that a “big-time” director like PTA actually writes his own dialogue?”
Uh, because he writes his own screenplays?
Seriously dude, when guys like Spielberg hire writers to write their screenplays, it SHOWS in the credits.
Go to Comment
Dumbing Down To Make A Masterpiece 2 months ago
And I’m not even going into the “big-time directors never write their own material” category judgement because I’m not even sure there is any basis in reality for that categorization.
Go to Comment
Have you ever radically changed your opinion of a film that you disliked at first viewing? And, which film? 2 months ago
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey when I was 12. A good friend of mine (a couple years older) knew that I was crazy about space exploration so he decided to show that movie to me. I was like, “cool, space movie!”
…cue ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz an hour later.
I watched it again when I was 16, and loved it immediately.
Go to Comment
Has Godard Aged Well? 2 months ago
^^ Yup. His early films stand the test of time. His later films age almost immediately.
Go to Comment
Can someone explain to me why Brando is considered the GOAT actor? 2 months ago
Really? I thought that Marlon Brando outacted Vivien Leigh. Not that she isn’t usually great — but compared to Brando she seemed like she was from a totally different era. 40s style emoting vs the new naturalistic method — she suddenly looked fake next to the incredible Brando.
Go to Comment
Can someone explain to me why Brando is considered the GOAT actor? 2 months ago
Interesting. I can see where your aesthetic judgement comes from — in fact, despite my praise for Brando, my aesthetic sense is flexible enough that I can suddenly prefer the opposite side of the dichotomy depending on my mood on any given day. I enjoy the 40s style of acting very much, especially in comedies, where the actors seem to touch on a different shade of truthfulness — maybe not realism, but a playful freedom and complete belief in their fictional situations.
The Godfather was a great performance, as was On The Waterfront and The Fugitive Kind. Thing is, Brando’s mousy enunciation doesn’t bother me because I only demand the minimum from actors in terms of enunciation — let me hear the words clearly enough to discern them — if the other aspects of their acting is superb. Also, these characters have very little in common besides naturalism and “mundanity”: the actual “content” of the personalities are dramatically different. Brando was truly a great transformational actor.
Go to Comment