F Bulgarelli Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 What a great film. Some of the lighting choices were so perfect, very subtle, the photography never screams at you, it fits perfectly. I think they were using 2 cameras for a lot of the coverage, for instance, the scene in the alley when clooney sees wilkinson's character for the last time. It cuts great. Francisco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Althaus Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 (edited) One thing I noticed about the cinematography is that the bokeh was rendered in oval shapes. Is this a bi-product of the scope (anamorphic) lens? I saw the film yesterday and also noticed the oval shaped bokeh. Searching the web to find out about the oval bokeh I found this thread :-) Can anybody explain the reason for the "strange" shape? I am pretty sure it has something to do with the anamorphic lens but I do not understand the underlying reason for this effect... Edited January 30, 2008 by Michael Althaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I saw the film yesterday and also noticed the oval shaped bokeh. Searching the web to find out about the oval bokeh I found this thread :-) Can anybody explain the reason for the "strange" shape? I am pretty sure it has something to do with the anamorphic lens but I do not understand the underlying reason for this effect... An anamorphic lens has two focal lengths. The horizontal focal length is shorter than the vertical one. Thus the horizontal depth of field is greater than the vertical depth of field. An out of focus image in the horizontal plane is not as out of focus as it is in the vertical plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 1, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 1, 2008 It's partly also the result of fixing the "CinemaScope mumps" problem that earlier anamorphic lenses had. As you focused close to the lens, the amount of squeezing got decreased slightly, thus when the image got the standard 2X unsqueezing during projection, those shots looked "fat" (faces shot close to the lens.) Panavision solved the problem and kept the point of focus at a constant 2X squeeze, but a side effect was now the out of focus areas got more than a 2X squeeze and thus look "skinny" when projected with a constant 2X unsqueeze. John Hora explains this better in an article on the history of anamorphic in the ASC Manual. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Althaus Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 thanx for the replies. Just found out that I read the article some time ago, I have to re-read it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Panavision solved the problem and kept the point of focus at a constant 2X squeeze, but a side effect was now the out of focus areas got more than a 2X squeeze and thus look "skinny" when projected with a constant 2X unsqueeze. But one still sees those ovals in lenses which use the CinemaScope type focusing. The Soviet square fronts in <<Andrei Rublev>> and in Technirama. The squeeze is from cylinder mirrors on the prisms. The allow for a "more compact" system than one using just cylinder lenses. & they are focused by changing the distance between the mirrors, just as the CinemaScope type systems move the cylinder lenses focusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I saw a 1080p Bluray copy of this yesterday and absolutely loved it. Aside from a tiny number of soft-focus shots I thought the photography was basically perfect. Almost every shot was perfect, IMO. I also liked the story and the acting a lot. Only one word can sum up the ending: OWNED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Arata Posted September 14, 2008 Share Posted September 14, 2008 Aside from a tiny number of soft-focus shots I thought the photography was basically perfect. Almost every shot was perfect, IMO. I also liked the story and the acting a lot. Only one word can sum up the ending: OWNED! I have to agree with this. I just finished watching this movie again for my 5th or 6th time and it is great. It is about as perfect as it gets in my book. Robert Elswit did an amazing job here. His Cinematography serves the story perfectly!! Great Movie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) I can't believe this thread was resurrected, but since it's been showing on HBO non-stop, makes sense. I haven't read all of the posts here, but I just watched it again last night: It's amazing how the very final scene where he's in the cab, that lasts forever, is so damn RIVETING, and he doesn't say a freaking word. Is that a testament to him as an actor? (This scene alone, mind you.) Or just that filming technique? Like, could any competent actor doing 50 takes of that same scene, ESPECIALLY with the miracles of editing nowadays where you wouldn't even know there was an edit, accomplish the same thing? The entire film was spectacular to me, not even understanding the nuances you guys are talking about, but that last innocuous scene in the cab: Wow. Edited October 4, 2008 by Ira Ratner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keneu Luca Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Excellent directors commentary on this film too. Director Gilroy and his brother, the editor, maintain a casual sense of humor in their talks. Not one moment of the commentary is boring or arrogant or pretentious. And one thing that I like - Tony Gilroy does in fact have some regrets about choices made in the film. There are only a few, like maybe 3 - but it is refreshing. Many directors bullshit their commentary, saying they regret nothing. I am always suspicious of such claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Phipps Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I also liked the story and the acting a lot. The screenplay is excellent, and I actually liked it better than the film. Highly recommended if you like reading screenplays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now