For those of you who pay attention to cinematography, how many of you have noticed the transition from film processing to digital?
You can see it with the overabundance of films that have an oversaturated look with exagerrated colors (really deep blues, reddish oranges, faded blacks) in almost any mainstream film. These films have been finished by a computer and in most cases, touched up considerably from their film source formats.
Is anyone else disgusted not just by the lax attitude to how films look nowadays but by the ubiquity of this cinematographic process? Movies are all starting to look the same. And not for the better, in my opinion.
Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.
Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.
I have also seen “The Steamroller and the Violin.” Its a very delightful little short and a great study in complex cinematography (very tricky rack focus shots).
What I find great about Tarkovsky is that there is no objective critical list for his films. Someone can love one and hate another. Or love all of them but for different reasons. He is so malleable as an artist, that the viewer ends up projecting so much of themselves onto one of his films. So a person’s preference for one depends on how much one feels personally invested or connected to it.
I am not against digital technology. Hell, I use a measley $400 DV camera when I shoot something. My concern is with the final finishing process being done through a computer for movies shot on film. To me, when manipulated in post like this, the films lose the depth of field and naturalistc color patterns established in camera. So what you have are a slew of movies that no longer resemble cinematographically how the human eye captures light. Obviously film can never capture images exactly how we see them. But there is an objective visual template when shooting on film that is betrayed when done through computers. To me, today’s movies can no longer capture a psuedo realistic look. They all look hyper realistic. This is hard for me to explain. I may post some screencaps to elaborate on what I’m getting at.
Actually Kubrick’s AI script ends like the actual film. People’s reactions to this ending often reveals their bias for Kubrick and against Speilberg (mind you that Speilberg for me is only a good blockbuster filmmaker). I’m surprised that the ending is always percieved as happy and tacked on when its incredibly melancholic: a robot boy spends one final day with the mother who he will lose all over again.
No one’s mentioned Mulholland Dr. yet. The love scene in the middle still makes me squirm with anticipation in my chair. And I’ve been revisiting The Double Life of Veronique. I must say that Irene Jacob smoulders in perhaps the most sensual performance I’ve seen. It helps that Kieslowski’s camera adores her. In the Mood for Love is also erotic without having any sex in it at all. For me, the definition of erotic usually applies to two characters you can’t bear to see not have sex.
I have been writing my own film reviews for quite a few years, so I am constantly probing my own critical biases, methods of analysis and the spectrum of my personal taste. Personally, I believe there are objective critical avenues a reviewer can take. Here are some of my approaches to basic critical issues.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BORING FILM. A film can be slow and long, but that mere fact does not mean it is boring. Many critics often cite boring as a criticism inherit to longer movies. I believe this is wrong. Boring is an sujective opinion of personal taste, but not an objective criticism. I find many good films boring, (even Tarkovsky) but that does not make them lesser films.
-LONG IS NOT BAD. This is increasingly becoming a popular critique. The recent Australia and Curious Case of Benjamin Button are being bashed for having lengthy running times. My opinion is, how does a reviewer’s inability to endure the film diminish its quality. Granted, a director’s choices in maintaining such a length can contribute to its quality. But your butt hurting does not lower a movie.
-____ IS PRETENTIOUS. Please, let’s retire the word if we cannot use it correctly. Somehow, this word entered the critical lexicon to signify any film that is outside the conventional schema of mainstream cinema. It uses voiceover pretentious. It uses jump cuts- pretentious. I say, since when is a pretentious film (to use the word correctly as an adjective) automatically mean it is bad.
-ESTABLISH DIRECTORIAL INTENT BEFORE AN ASSESSMENT. This is my main rubric for films that are difficult to understand. I try to establish the motivation of a director in his artistic choices before I denounce a film. Don’t just say, he used a jump cut here, I didn’t like that. Think, he used a jump cut here, I understand why, I don’ t think it was sufficient for the film.
These are some of my thoughts. I know a lot of reviewers stick strictly to emotional or personal reactions when critiquing film. I like to do that after I reach some kind of objective analysis.
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
I know there is a lot of love on here for 2007 movies. But for me, the year I am constantly going back to is 2005.
The New World- Terrence Malick. Enough said.
Batman Begins- I’ve been a Batman fan since I was a kid, so I loved it.
Munich- Spielberg for the most part stays out of the way to make a solid thriller.
Syriana- interwoven stories that intersect only when necessary, better made than the material could have warranted.
Brokeback Mountain- i saw it again last year, the pacing is really what draws me in.
Downfall- released in 05, very impressive and intimate look at Hitler.
Keane- director Lodge Kerrigan really pushes the emotional edge of his character, how digital photography should be used.
King Kong- okay, so its an excessive CGI fest, but I found Jackson’s work part homage, part spectacle and part kid playing around with his toys
Turtles Can Fly- Iranian film about Kurdistan youths right before the Iraq war, very rough.
The Squid and the Whale- hilarious every time I see it and one all intellectuals should watch.
40 Year-Old Virgin- funny and true.
Oldboy- a modern Greek tragedy.
Capote- the cold pace really worked for me aesthetically.
Good Night, and Good Luck- a simple telling of a compelling story.
The Constant Gardener- I was skeptical of this, but I revisited it two years later and really found its strength in Fiennes’ character.
Grizzly Man- crazy Herzog documenting a crazy man with bears.
Murderball- straightforward documentaries are how I like it, very little embellishment and the subjects tell their story.
Cronicas- Mexican film about journalistic integrity with a brazen ending.
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit Starring Wallace & Gromit- claymation can be more endearing sometimes than CG
Kontroll- Hungarian movie that looks cool, acts cool and plays it off so well that it never feels phony
Anyone else agree? What years are others sentimentally attached to?
Thin Red Line- John Toll
The Prestige, Batman Begins, Dark Knight- Wally Pfister
There Will be Blood- Robert Elswitt
Andrei Rublev- Vadim Yusov
Traffic- Peter Andrews (Soderbergh himself)
Double Life of Veronique, Three Colors trilogy, Gattaca- Slawomir Idziak
Hud- James Wong Howe
Heat, The Insider- Dante Spinotti
The Sacrifice- Sven Nykvist
Chinatown- John A. Alonzo
Come and See- Aleksei Rodionov
Amelie- Bruno Delbonnel
Battle of Algiers- Marcello Gatti
George Washington- Tim Orr
Paris, Texas- Robby Muller
The Piano- Stuart Dryburgh
The Third Man- Robert Krasker
Stalker- Aleksandr Knyazhinsky
Irreversible is very violent. I would say though, that while that fire extinguisher scene was, in theory, horrible, the fact that I could tell that visual effects were used lessened the impact for me. Still, very effective.
Also, more specifically, the stabbing in Zodiac. That was terrible to watch. The viewer feels as helpless as the victims.
Personally, I like to always differentiate between violence and gore. Gore is standard viscera and blood. But to me, violence can be more cerebral and psychological, it can be a state of mind or a tone of a film. Irreversible is mostly violent because it descends into the realm of real human suffering and pain, even the pain that humans choose to participate in (the S&M club for example). Come and See feels extremely violent to me and there is very little blood. It is the human cruelty on display that makes it feel so.
As for gory movies, I always found Alien: Resurrection to be very vicious.
I’m starting to move away from the snobbish notion that I have to feel guilty about liking something but here goes.
Mortal Kombat- That’s right, based on the videogame. I ate this movie up when I was a kid. It actually has a decent action picture structure and a nice confrontation/fight between the good guy and bad guy at the end. You know, back when action movies weren’t afraid to have the characters duke it out.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles- the live action movie. I watched this again a couple years back after seeing it as a kid. It has a lot of atmosphere and is way darker than anything they would make today. I like that the themes are broad enough for the kids (brotherhood, family) but still appealing to adults. And the score is good too.
Alien: Resurrection- again, saw it when I was a kid and was fascinated by its use of gore and set pieces. Yeah, its the worst of the four, but damn if it doesn’t have some genuinely macabre images.
Movies that others consider guilty pleasures but I don’t.
Point Break
Speed
Moulin Rouge
Hulk
Beloved
The Cell
Pitch Black
The Rock
I would have to say Wes Anderson. To his credit, he knows exactly what he wants which is commendable, but too often his films seem like an excuse to show off his record collection. Never mind that fact that I can’t stand his odd fetisizations of smoking and ethnic people. I guess he just doesn’t resonate with me. One of his films might be amusing but I’ll finish it thinking “nice try, now let the grown ups play.”
Tim Burton is another one. I’m firmly convinced that he can’t make a great film. Ed Wood comes close to being better than good and I really enjoyed Sweeney Todd, but damn does he disappoint me.
Danny Boyle just doesn’t have it in my opinion. Sure he can cross genres. But good God he doesn’t know how to finish a film. The Beach, 28 Days Later and Sunshine all end with the characters being chased by something. Its pathetic. That’s probably why I have reservations about Slumdog Millionaire.
Seriously, Ang Lee’s Hulk. People talk about it like watching it will give them cancer. It’s basically a $200 million dollar psychodelic art film with a giant green monster. The CGI absolutely does work because Lee doesn’t fully commit to realism (hence his extreme shade of green coloring). That and I had no idea where it was going towards the end, so I was genuinely surprised with it. Compare it with “The Incredible Hulk” with Edward Norton which is like a low rent sequel. I hated it. I’ll take Lee’s over that cartoon garbage.
I think the complaints with the cinematography stem from the fact that the film was finished using a Digital Intermediate 2K format. The film was shot using 16mm so its source format is super 16. However, its master format is the DI which, when a director desires to fiddle with his project digitally, can amp up the pallette of the picture.
To me, shooting in 16mm and then finishing with a DI (especially manipulating it through a computer) negates the grainy realism that 16mm cameras can bring. I have yet to see the film, but from what I have seen of clips and trailers, yeah, the DI looks like garbage and the natural grunginess of the super 16 would probably be more aesthetically suitable for the picture.
Maybe ‘garbage’ was a strong word. I’m so used to preferring traditional film formats over the DI that sometimes its hard to find it aesthetically pleasing. Aronofsky seems like a smart guy who is cognizant of how his films looks so I’m sure he got exactly what he wanted.
I say what is hurting cinematography today is the desire to cross technologies. You have DPs shooting on film but finishing digitally. The best examples of the DI I have seen are from films that shot on digital and finished with digital (Miami Vice, Collateral). There are only a handful of cinematographers who can manipulate with a DI and make it work- really only Roger Deakins and Emmanuel Lubezki and even with them I would prefer that they stick with film.
I’m wondering if one reason why 90% of current films are using the DI is because of the studios. I guess this is what is considered cinematic today. A curious example is The Dark Knight. It was released to theaters using a DI master format (even the trailers had really strong colors) but on DVD and Blu-Ray, it is obvious they went with the panavision anamorphic source. It looks great and it gives me hope that some mainstream DPs and directors will demand their way with the formats.
After years of hearing about this film, I finally saw it last night. I’m finding it difficult how to reach a critical opinion on it. The subject matter is largely considered derisive, representing (or exagerrating) a cross section of American society that is widely unseen. Korine has an obvious knack for an avante garde structure which appealled greatly to my artistic sensibiliites. I like the randomness of the images and vignettes presented, but find that the movie asks so much of a personal reaction from the audience. Personally, there are some detestable things in the movie that sometimes appear to be for the sake of being sickening. But Korine’s fusion of documentary and fiction is fascinating if at times vindictive towards the characters or the audience he wants to shock.
An article in ASC magazine with cinematographer John Bailey (http://ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/FilmmakersForum/page1.php) highlights what I have been fearing about the emergence of the digital intermediate process- that studios are usurping films to “finish” them in post production. Bailey talks of the diminishing control cinematographers are having with the final visual look of films where the negative is handed over to a “colorist” that ""corrects” all the mistakes and flaws of the original photography." It seems the primary reason studios are embracing the process is because they can do digital plastic surgery to the actors faces. That’s why recent movies have actors with “cinnamon faces:” bright orange tones to adjust any on set lighting mistakes. A recent egregious example I can name is “Angels and Demons” with Tom Hanks running around with a red face.
Bailey also did an interview about a movie he shot, “He’s Just Not That Into You” (I know, not the best example of cinematographic prowess but still). In it, he speaks of how he and the director were told by New Line that they could finish photochemically but at the last minute, were forced to do a DI. He comments “every time I’ve done a DI, no matter how good the colorist is, I feel an increasing disconnect. When I shoot, answer-print and release on film, I feel a more immediate connection with my work, and for me, that’s very important.”
In another interview for the magazine, Paul Thomas Anderson defends his decision to finish “There Will be Blood” on film, saying “I don’t really like DIs, and I’m not sure what the advantage to the process is if you’re shooting anamorphic. I have a hard enough time making up my mind about things without going into a DI suite; I don’t think I’d ever get out of there. The process creates too many options, and at any rate, I don’t like the way it looks.”
I guess he is a film purist like me. But could you imagine “There Will be Blood” with over saturated, non naturalistic colors? It would undermine that entire intent of the film. I, like Bailey, thought the DI would be just another option for filmmakers once it came on the scene, but now it is becoming the only option, even for independent movies.
My point is that digital technology is a great tool in facilitating how films are shot, distributed and exhibited, etc., yet what we have here with studio interference is the complete homogenization of cinematography. When films are manipulated that much is post, it ceases to be photography and the cinematographer becomes irrelevant. Cinematographers and directors either aren’t having a say in how their films look or they are so blinded by the functionality of the process that they don’t care. There is a noticeable difference in crossing two technologies, one that creates aesthetic contradictions. That studios and many filmmakers can not see that gives me little hope for the future of cinematography.
I contemplated going to film school or enrolling in a film school program at UT in Austin, but decided against it due to money and location issues. I’m actually very glad that I did. I decided to go to Texas State and major in a standard English literature degree which I believe is a very solid foundation for film. It has inspired me when writing and directing my own projects. I have menial equipment ($300 DV camera and Final Cut Pro) but have really been forced to think critically when making a project. I’ve been making films with my brother and friend for five years now and hope to use college as a venue to show some of my work. My brother and I are part of the film club which now only has 4 members (including us) but is official.
Right now I am very content with finishing my education, but I realize that soon I would really like to use some greater equipment. I’m still holding out hope that through the graduate program, I can get a grant and maybe produce a film as a thesis.
I doubt film school would have drastically changed any skill level I have with a camera now or critical thinking on film. I still watch about 3 films a week and constantly shoot and edit footage. I took a Directing for film class last year and I had the most knowledge and experience of anyone in the class. So for right now, I think I am on the right path.
American History X: a terribly obvious, preachy film that I actually found to be pro racism. Norton’s transition from neo Nazi to reformed racist is about as believable as the flashback showing his character’s transition from naive boy to neo Nazi.
The Fall: very pretty but shallow. The visuals are astounding but Tarsem feels so obligated to frame his images as some fantastical bedtime story, making it feel too sentimental and attached to Hollywood classicism to seem unique.
Jules and Jim: Count me in as not a fan.
Pierrot le Fou: I really loathed this film about two idiots lost in their own romance. Anna Karina is very fetching but loses my interest with her personality shifts- she loves him, she loves him not. The ending is just laughable.
Brick: I saw it a second time this year to give it another chance. Nope, I still can’t stand it. The dialogue is too stilted, awkward and self conscious in conflict with the somber tone to fluidly capture film noir in a high school setting. It feels amateurish and dishonest to me.
In a Glass Cage- when Angelo injects the little boy with gas. Dear lord that was difficult to watch. I saw an interview where the director explained how he coached the actor into pretending he was dying, but it still registers onscreen in an eerily realistic way. I suppose the rest of the film after that could also be considered.
Mulholland Dr.- the Man behind Winkies. Still one of the only scenes that makes me cover my eyes. Sometimes I can handle the reveal, sometimes I can’t.
Come and See- when Florya is running away from his village with the girl and she looks back and sees piles of dead bodies hidden behind a house. That and the aural overload as Florya struggles through the mud made me very uncomfortable.
Funny Games- the entire film just brought up too many “what if’s” in my mind.
I thought many of you would be interested in a project I have been working on all summer. This is a teaser trailer for my new amateur directorial effort BY HIS OWN LIGHT. I am very proud of my cinematography and direction with my measly DV camera and makeshift steadycam. My brother (who is acting in it) and I are editing it from footage we shot this summer. Hopefully we will be able to put the whole thing online in the coming weeks (or months).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_sxEggJwg
Feedback would be appreciated. The music in the trailer is not original but everything else is. So comment if you would like to. Thanks.
Is digital processing ruining cinematography? over 3 years ago
For those of you who pay attention to cinematography, how many of you have noticed the transition from film processing to digital?
You can see it with the overabundance of films that have an oversaturated look with exagerrated colors (really deep blues, reddish oranges, faded blacks) in almost any mainstream film. These films have been finished by a computer and in most cases, touched up considerably from their film source formats.
Is anyone else disgusted not just by the lax attitude to how films look nowadays but by the ubiquity of this cinematographic process? Movies are all starting to look the same. And not for the better, in my opinion.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky over 3 years ago
For those of you who have seen all of his work, how do you feel about his entire ovuere?
I just finally finished seeing all of his films this past weekend with Nostalghia. He is, to me, the greatest director.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky over 3 years ago
Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky over 3 years ago
Yes, I have read Scultping in Time. I read it last year over my x-mas vacation from college and just before I did another personal film project over the summer. Needless to say, it is a brilliant examination of how filmmaking should be percieved. Tarkovsky’s very opinionated and you can tell that he put a great deal of himself into his films. Some of the motivatoins and techniques he described are exactly how I have been approaching my film projects. So reading it felt like listening to a kindred spirit.
Go to Comment
Tarkovsky over 3 years ago
I have also seen “The Steamroller and the Violin.” Its a very delightful little short and a great study in complex cinematography (very tricky rack focus shots).
What I find great about Tarkovsky is that there is no objective critical list for his films. Someone can love one and hate another. Or love all of them but for different reasons. He is so malleable as an artist, that the viewer ends up projecting so much of themselves onto one of his films. So a person’s preference for one depends on how much one feels personally invested or connected to it.
Go to Comment
Is digital processing ruining cinematography? over 3 years ago
I’m glad you feel as I do, Tom.
I am not against digital technology. Hell, I use a measley $400 DV camera when I shoot something. My concern is with the final finishing process being done through a computer for movies shot on film. To me, when manipulated in post like this, the films lose the depth of field and naturalistc color patterns established in camera. So what you have are a slew of movies that no longer resemble cinematographically how the human eye captures light. Obviously film can never capture images exactly how we see them. But there is an objective visual template when shooting on film that is betrayed when done through computers. To me, today’s movies can no longer capture a psuedo realistic look. They all look hyper realistic. This is hard for me to explain. I may post some screencaps to elaborate on what I’m getting at.
Go to Comment
Greatest Films You'll Never See over 3 years ago
Actually Kubrick’s AI script ends like the actual film. People’s reactions to this ending often reveals their bias for Kubrick and against Speilberg (mind you that Speilberg for me is only a good blockbuster filmmaker). I’m surprised that the ending is always percieved as happy and tacked on when its incredibly melancholic: a robot boy spends one final day with the mother who he will lose all over again.
Go to Comment
Most erotic films you've seen. over 3 years ago
No one’s mentioned Mulholland Dr. yet. The love scene in the middle still makes me squirm with anticipation in my chair. And I’ve been revisiting The Double Life of Veronique. I must say that Irene Jacob smoulders in perhaps the most sensual performance I’ve seen. It helps that Kieslowski’s camera adores her. In the Mood for Love is also erotic without having any sex in it at all. For me, the definition of erotic usually applies to two characters you can’t bear to see not have sex.
Go to Comment
Can Objective Criticism Exist? over 3 years ago
I have been writing my own film reviews for quite a few years, so I am constantly probing my own critical biases, methods of analysis and the spectrum of my personal taste. Personally, I believe there are objective critical avenues a reviewer can take. Here are some of my approaches to basic critical issues.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BORING FILM. A film can be slow and long, but that mere fact does not mean it is boring. Many critics often cite boring as a criticism inherit to longer movies. I believe this is wrong. Boring is an sujective opinion of personal taste, but not an objective criticism. I find many good films boring, (even Tarkovsky) but that does not make them lesser films.pretentious. It uses jump cuts- pretentious. I say, since when is a pretentious film (to use the word correctly as an adjective) automatically mean it is bad.-LONG IS NOT BAD. This is increasingly becoming a popular critique. The recent Australia and Curious Case of Benjamin Button are being bashed for having lengthy running times. My opinion is, how does a reviewer’s inability to endure the film diminish its quality. Granted, a director’s choices in maintaining such a length can contribute to its quality. But your butt hurting does not lower a movie.
-____ IS PRETENTIOUS. Please, let’s retire the word if we cannot use it correctly. Somehow, this word entered the critical lexicon to signify any film that is outside the conventional schema of mainstream cinema. It uses voiceover
-ESTABLISH DIRECTORIAL INTENT BEFORE AN ASSESSMENT. This is my main rubric for films that are difficult to understand. I try to establish the motivation of a director in his artistic choices before I denounce a film. Don’t just say, he used a jump cut here, I didn’t like that. Think, he used a jump cut here, I understand why, I don’ t think it was sufficient for the film.
These are some of my thoughts. I know a lot of reviewers stick strictly to emotional or personal reactions when critiquing film. I like to do that after I reach some kind of objective analysis.
Go to Comment
Can Objective Criticism Exist? over 3 years ago
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Go to Comment
Can Objective Criticism Exist? over 3 years ago
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Go to Comment
Can Objective Criticism Exist? over 3 years ago
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Go to Comment
Can Objective Criticism Exist? over 3 years ago
Oh, your right. What I think I meant to say is that I can be personally bored by a picture, but that does not objectively make the film boring. ‘Boring’ is a relative concept to the viewer, not an inherit flaw of a film.
It’s really hard to explain it. I guess what I should have said is “being bored by a film does not necessarily make it bad.”
And yes, my subjective opinion involves my own objective analysis…if that makes sense.
Go to Comment
2005. Better than 2007? over 3 years ago
I know there is a lot of love on here for 2007 movies. But for me, the year I am constantly going back to is 2005.
The New World- Terrence Malick. Enough said.
Batman Begins- I’ve been a Batman fan since I was a kid, so I loved it.
Munich- Spielberg for the most part stays out of the way to make a solid thriller.
Syriana- interwoven stories that intersect only when necessary, better made than the material could have warranted.
Brokeback Mountain- i saw it again last year, the pacing is really what draws me in.
Downfall- released in 05, very impressive and intimate look at Hitler.
Keane- director Lodge Kerrigan really pushes the emotional edge of his character, how digital photography should be used.
King Kong- okay, so its an excessive CGI fest, but I found Jackson’s work part homage, part spectacle and part kid playing around with his toys
Turtles Can Fly- Iranian film about Kurdistan youths right before the Iraq war, very rough.
The Squid and the Whale- hilarious every time I see it and one all intellectuals should watch.
40 Year-Old Virgin- funny and true.
Oldboy- a modern Greek tragedy.
Capote- the cold pace really worked for me aesthetically.
Good Night, and Good Luck- a simple telling of a compelling story.
The Constant Gardener- I was skeptical of this, but I revisited it two years later and really found its strength in Fiennes’ character.
Grizzly Man- crazy Herzog documenting a crazy man with bears.
Murderball- straightforward documentaries are how I like it, very little embellishment and the subjects tell their story.
Cronicas- Mexican film about journalistic integrity with a brazen ending.
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit Starring Wallace & Gromit- claymation can be more endearing sometimes than CG
Kontroll- Hungarian movie that looks cool, acts cool and plays it off so well that it never feels phony
Anyone else agree? What years are others sentimentally attached to?
Go to Comment
Best shot movie(s) and its cinematographer over 3 years ago
Thin Red Line- John Toll
The Prestige, Batman Begins, Dark Knight- Wally Pfister
There Will be Blood- Robert Elswitt
Andrei Rublev- Vadim Yusov
Traffic- Peter Andrews (Soderbergh himself)
Double Life of Veronique, Three Colors trilogy, Gattaca- Slawomir Idziak
Hud- James Wong Howe
Heat, The Insider- Dante Spinotti
The Sacrifice- Sven Nykvist
Chinatown- John A. Alonzo
Come and See- Aleksei Rodionov
Amelie- Bruno Delbonnel
Battle of Algiers- Marcello Gatti
George Washington- Tim Orr
Paris, Texas- Robby Muller
The Piano- Stuart Dryburgh
The Third Man- Robert Krasker
Stalker- Aleksandr Knyazhinsky
Go to Comment
Most violent films you've seen over 3 years ago
Irreversible is very violent. I would say though, that while that fire extinguisher scene was, in theory, horrible, the fact that I could tell that visual effects were used lessened the impact for me. Still, very effective.
Also, more specifically, the stabbing in Zodiac. That was terrible to watch. The viewer feels as helpless as the victims.
Personally, I like to always differentiate between violence and gore. Gore is standard viscera and blood. But to me, violence can be more cerebral and psychological, it can be a state of mind or a tone of a film. Irreversible is mostly violent because it descends into the realm of real human suffering and pain, even the pain that humans choose to participate in (the S&M club for example). Come and See feels extremely violent to me and there is very little blood. It is the human cruelty on display that makes it feel so.
As for gory movies, I always found Alien: Resurrection to be very vicious.
Go to Comment
Guilty Pleasures over 3 years ago
I’m starting to move away from the snobbish notion that I have to feel guilty about liking something but here goes.
Mortal Kombat- That’s right, based on the videogame. I ate this movie up when I was a kid. It actually has a decent action picture structure and a nice confrontation/fight between the good guy and bad guy at the end. You know, back when action movies weren’t afraid to have the characters duke it out.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles- the live action movie. I watched this again a couple years back after seeing it as a kid. It has a lot of atmosphere and is way darker than anything they would make today. I like that the themes are broad enough for the kids (brotherhood, family) but still appealing to adults. And the score is good too.
Alien: Resurrection- again, saw it when I was a kid and was fascinated by its use of gore and set pieces. Yeah, its the worst of the four, but damn if it doesn’t have some genuinely macabre images.
Movies that others consider guilty pleasures but I don’t.
Point Break
Speed
Moulin Rouge
Hulk
Beloved
The Cell
Pitch Black
The Rock
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? over 3 years ago
I would have to say Wes Anderson. To his credit, he knows exactly what he wants which is commendable, but too often his films seem like an excuse to show off his record collection. Never mind that fact that I can’t stand his odd fetisizations of smoking and ethnic people. I guess he just doesn’t resonate with me. One of his films might be amusing but I’ll finish it thinking “nice try, now let the grown ups play.”
Tim Burton is another one. I’m firmly convinced that he can’t make a great film. Ed Wood comes close to being better than good and I really enjoyed Sweeney Todd, but damn does he disappoint me.
Danny Boyle just doesn’t have it in my opinion. Sure he can cross genres. But good God he doesn’t know how to finish a film. The Beach, 28 Days Later and Sunshine all end with the characters being chased by something. Its pathetic. That’s probably why I have reservations about Slumdog Millionaire.
Go to Comment
Movies you love, but everyone else hates. over 3 years ago
Well apparently The Dark Knight. LOL.
Seriously, Ang Lee’s Hulk. People talk about it like watching it will give them cancer. It’s basically a $200 million dollar psychodelic art film with a giant green monster. The CGI absolutely does work because Lee doesn’t fully commit to realism (hence his extreme shade of green coloring). That and I had no idea where it was going towards the end, so I was genuinely surprised with it. Compare it with “The Incredible Hulk” with Edward Norton which is like a low rent sequel. I hated it. I’ll take Lee’s over that cartoon garbage.
Go to Comment
The Wrestler over 3 years ago
I think the complaints with the cinematography stem from the fact that the film was finished using a Digital Intermediate 2K format. The film was shot using 16mm so its source format is super 16. However, its master format is the DI which, when a director desires to fiddle with his project digitally, can amp up the pallette of the picture.
To me, shooting in 16mm and then finishing with a DI (especially manipulating it through a computer) negates the grainy realism that 16mm cameras can bring. I have yet to see the film, but from what I have seen of clips and trailers, yeah, the DI looks like garbage and the natural grunginess of the super 16 would probably be more aesthetically suitable for the picture.
Go to Comment
The Wrestler over 3 years ago
Maybe ‘garbage’ was a strong word. I’m so used to preferring traditional film formats over the DI that sometimes its hard to find it aesthetically pleasing. Aronofsky seems like a smart guy who is cognizant of how his films looks so I’m sure he got exactly what he wanted.
I say what is hurting cinematography today is the desire to cross technologies. You have DPs shooting on film but finishing digitally. The best examples of the DI I have seen are from films that shot on digital and finished with digital (Miami Vice, Collateral). There are only a handful of cinematographers who can manipulate with a DI and make it work- really only Roger Deakins and Emmanuel Lubezki and even with them I would prefer that they stick with film.
I’m wondering if one reason why 90% of current films are using the DI is because of the studios. I guess this is what is considered cinematic today. A curious example is The Dark Knight. It was released to theaters using a DI master format (even the trailers had really strong colors) but on DVD and Blu-Ray, it is obvious they went with the panavision anamorphic source. It looks great and it gives me hope that some mainstream DPs and directors will demand their way with the formats.
Go to Comment
Thoughts on "Gummo" over 3 years ago
After years of hearing about this film, I finally saw it last night. I’m finding it difficult how to reach a critical opinion on it. The subject matter is largely considered derisive, representing (or exagerrating) a cross section of American society that is widely unseen. Korine has an obvious knack for an avante garde structure which appealled greatly to my artistic sensibiliites. I like the randomness of the images and vignettes presented, but find that the movie asks so much of a personal reaction from the audience. Personally, there are some detestable things in the movie that sometimes appear to be for the sake of being sickening. But Korine’s fusion of documentary and fiction is fascinating if at times vindictive towards the characters or the audience he wants to shock.
Go to Comment
Slow MOTION in films. over 3 years ago
Foma’s death in “Andrei Rublev.” Probably the best death scene I have ever seen.
Go to Comment
Well...Cinematography is Dying. about 3 years ago
An article in ASC magazine with cinematographer John Bailey (http://ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/FilmmakersForum/page1.php) highlights what I have been fearing about the emergence of the digital intermediate process- that studios are usurping films to “finish” them in post production. Bailey talks of the diminishing control cinematographers are having with the final visual look of films where the negative is handed over to a “colorist” that ""corrects” all the mistakes and flaws of the original photography." It seems the primary reason studios are embracing the process is because they can do digital plastic surgery to the actors faces. That’s why recent movies have actors with “cinnamon faces:” bright orange tones to adjust any on set lighting mistakes. A recent egregious example I can name is “Angels and Demons” with Tom Hanks running around with a red face.
Bailey also did an interview about a movie he shot, “He’s Just Not That Into You” (I know, not the best example of cinematographic prowess but still). In it, he speaks of how he and the director were told by New Line that they could finish photochemically but at the last minute, were forced to do a DI. He comments “every time I’ve done a DI, no matter how good the colorist is, I feel an increasing disconnect. When I shoot, answer-print and release on film, I feel a more immediate connection with my work, and for me, that’s very important.”
In another interview for the magazine, Paul Thomas Anderson defends his decision to finish “There Will be Blood” on film, saying “I don’t really like DIs, and I’m not sure what the advantage to the process is if you’re shooting anamorphic. I have a hard enough time making up my mind about things without going into a DI suite; I don’t think I’d ever get out of there. The process creates too many options, and at any rate, I don’t like the way it looks.”
I guess he is a film purist like me. But could you imagine “There Will be Blood” with over saturated, non naturalistic colors? It would undermine that entire intent of the film. I, like Bailey, thought the DI would be just another option for filmmakers once it came on the scene, but now it is becoming the only option, even for independent movies.
My point is that digital technology is a great tool in facilitating how films are shot, distributed and exhibited, etc., yet what we have here with studio interference is the complete homogenization of cinematography. When films are manipulated that much is post, it ceases to be photography and the cinematographer becomes irrelevant. Cinematographers and directors either aren’t having a say in how their films look or they are so blinded by the functionality of the process that they don’t care. There is a noticeable difference in crossing two technologies, one that creates aesthetic contradictions. That studios and many filmmakers can not see that gives me little hope for the future of cinematography.
Go to Comment
Film School - Effect on you as a filmmaker about 3 years ago
I contemplated going to film school or enrolling in a film school program at UT in Austin, but decided against it due to money and location issues. I’m actually very glad that I did. I decided to go to Texas State and major in a standard English literature degree which I believe is a very solid foundation for film. It has inspired me when writing and directing my own projects. I have menial equipment ($300 DV camera and Final Cut Pro) but have really been forced to think critically when making a project. I’ve been making films with my brother and friend for five years now and hope to use college as a venue to show some of my work. My brother and I are part of the film club which now only has 4 members (including us) but is official.
Right now I am very content with finishing my education, but I realize that soon I would really like to use some greater equipment. I’m still holding out hope that through the graduate program, I can get a grant and maybe produce a film as a thesis.
I doubt film school would have drastically changed any skill level I have with a camera now or critical thinking on film. I still watch about 3 films a week and constantly shoot and edit footage. I took a Directing for film class last year and I had the most knowledge and experience of anyone in the class. So for right now, I think I am on the right path.
Go to Comment
Your Photography/Filmography about 3 years ago
Here is a short film I made three years ago based on an Ambrose Bierce short story. http://www.myspace.com/oneoftwins
I’ve gotten a lot better with the camera, acting and everything. But my most recent projects are too large to stream online.
Go to Comment
5 Films you saw that are considered masterpieces that you thought were overated,horrible or you just "didnt like" about 3 years ago
American History X: a terribly obvious, preachy film that I actually found to be pro racism. Norton’s transition from neo Nazi to reformed racist is about as believable as the flashback showing his character’s transition from naive boy to neo Nazi.
The Fall: very pretty but shallow. The visuals are astounding but Tarsem feels so obligated to frame his images as some fantastical bedtime story, making it feel too sentimental and attached to Hollywood classicism to seem unique.
Jules and Jim: Count me in as not a fan.
Pierrot le Fou: I really loathed this film about two idiots lost in their own romance. Anna Karina is very fetching but loses my interest with her personality shifts- she loves him, she loves him not. The ending is just laughable.
Brick: I saw it a second time this year to give it another chance. Nope, I still can’t stand it. The dialogue is too stilted, awkward and self conscious in conflict with the somber tone to fluidly capture film noir in a high school setting. It feels amateurish and dishonest to me.
Go to Comment
Most traumatizing scene in a film....... almost 3 years ago
I can’t pick just one-
In a Glass Cage- when Angelo injects the little boy with gas. Dear lord that was difficult to watch. I saw an interview where the director explained how he coached the actor into pretending he was dying, but it still registers onscreen in an eerily realistic way. I suppose the rest of the film after that could also be considered.
Mulholland Dr.- the Man behind Winkies. Still one of the only scenes that makes me cover my eyes. Sometimes I can handle the reveal, sometimes I can’t.
Come and See- when Florya is running away from his village with the girl and she looks back and sees piles of dead bodies hidden behind a house. That and the aural overload as Florya struggles through the mud made me very uncomfortable.
Funny Games- the entire film just brought up too many “what if’s” in my mind.
Go to Comment
AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies - #1- Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy almost 3 years ago
This made me laugh hysterically. It also highlights the pomposity of the American Film Institute and why I hate their annual lists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nF_L8iwqBs
Go to Comment
Trailer for my project BY HIS OWN LIGHT. almost 3 years ago
I thought many of you would be interested in a project I have been working on all summer. This is a teaser trailer for my new amateur directorial effort BY HIS OWN LIGHT. I am very proud of my cinematography and direction with my measly DV camera and makeshift steadycam. My brother (who is acting in it) and I are editing it from footage we shot this summer. Hopefully we will be able to put the whole thing online in the coming weeks (or months).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN_sxEggJwg
Feedback would be appreciated. The music in the trailer is not original but everything else is. So comment if you would like to. Thanks.
Go to Comment