Top Five Favorite Cinematography of 2004

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

The Terminal

Yeh I agree this film was quite amazing, mainly the lighting. Even aside from the technical qualities I think it was a great film.

[Tim Tyler]

I consider that comment extremely ignorant, and indicative of so many things wrong with this country, but I better not go there.

 

David,

 

I think age and exposure may play a part in Landon's list of favorites. I recall in my younger days most of my favorites were Speilberg, Dante, and Lucas movies, althought here was a bit of Lean in there too.

 

This site maintains a catalog of recommended films at http://cinematography.com/shop/videos.asp

 

Please feel free to email recommendations to me and I'll probably add them to the list.

[DavidSloan]

You got it, Tim. Thanks for your post. :)

[DavidSloan]

As for Man on Fire - yes it looked good in that classic Tony Scott way. But honestly - the look doesn't stand a chance compared to Scott and Kimballs 15 year old film Revenge, so I can't really see it as much progress.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Revenge looks great, but the story was awful. At least Man on Fire has a decent story.

 

I think it's the extreme look of Man on Fire that makes so many people go nuts...remember that shot towards the beginning of the film where the cars are driving past a mountainous landscape and the top of the frame is just black!? I don't know if that was done in post or just a bunch of ND grads but it looked crazy.

[David Mullen ASC]

Actually, I don't think "Revenge" and "Man on Fire" are all that similar other than the guiding eye of Tony Scott -- "Revenge" isn't so visually abstracted and fragmented compared to "Man on Fire" and its hand-cranked double-exposures, cross-processed reversal, etc. Not that "Revenge" isn't strikingly photographed. In some ways, they reflect the height of commercial styles in both their eras.

 

As for Landon's list, I have to remind myself when I was a teenager in the late 1970's, I saw "Star Wars" twenty times in its original theatrical release (1977-78). "Close Encounters" almost as many, as well as "E.T." Now I can barely get myself to see a film I actually liked twice in one theatrical run; maybe I remember them too well now to need the repeat visits. But I used to be able to describe every single cut in the truck chase in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the matching music beats in the soundtrack (not helped by the fact that the truck chase music was heavily re-edited after scoring...)

 

It wasn't until I got to college that I expanded my interests into classic studio-era Hollywood movies (1930's thru 1950's and into the mid 1960's), silent era movies, foreign movies...

 

I also have to remind myself that 1980's cinema, which I consider contemporary really, is nearly 20 years old now!

[Adam Frisch FSF]

No, Man on Fire and Revenge are not similar, I agree.

 

Maybe I'm turning into an old conservative Willis-style crank (all other comparisons aside), but for me movies are often fashion. Fashion in the sense that they reflect the time they're made in, but more importantly (and just like fashion) try to either be completely new or at least reintroduce an old style. Problem with many films today is that I feel the progress into that moves to slow. To many films are stuck in a style invented by someone years earlier, outstaying their welcome.

 

I get bored with looks and gimmicks when I've seen it to many times and I'm always amazed when filmmakers tend not to be. Man on Fire was a good film that was shot nicely, but the fast paced editing, the use of flash frames and "weird" processes, the bleach bypass, all that just doesn't feel particularly timeless. And why should stuff that does not renew be rewarded?

 

I know David you often say that an effort well made but not necessarily groundbreaking is still worth commending. Well, I guess that's my point here - I'm not entirely sure I agree with that.

Exactly what is the point of re-doing something? I can understand the re-introduction of musicals because at least that hasn't been done for the last 30 years. But re-making Three Kings visually?

 

For Man on Fire to have been more timeless Tony should have ditched the nervous MTV-style editing (Spy Game was no different) and all the "cool" processes and trusted the story and actors and good lighting to do the job. I'm not saying these things need go away forever, just for now. And I feel it's my duty as a DP to call looks or gimmicks that I feel are not in sync with their times. After all, I get hired for my taste, nothing else.

 

I'm not zeroing in on Man on Fire at all - I thought that was one of the better movies this year. I'm just running with it since it came up for a discussion here, that's all. It's just an example and not a very good one at that.

 

In an effort to be more positive - this is what I'd like to see more of in 2005:

 

4K DI's

Digital projection.

Simple visuals.

Slower paced editing in action sequences.

No "multiple cameras, let's figure it out in editing".

More wide shots of dialogue.

Hard lighting.

Gene Hackman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D :D

[Guest fstop]

I haven't been to the cinema for what must be nearly a year. I hate the lousy lack of lumens 2/3s projection, crummy release prints, morons on mobile phones, postage stamp sized screen image projections, scallies, overpriced tickets and (for UKers only) those extreme pain inducing Orange mobile phone ads.

 

I can't stand it. As for cinematography, I've seen much more exciting stuff on British TV this Christmas originated on beta/DV/HD, such as Little Britain and The Vicar of Dibley- much more exciting to see the envelope of video being pushed with warmer colours, ambitious lighting and lens diffusion experimentation. the guys shooting all this stuff I have no doubt will go on to lead the evolution of video surpassing film on features.

 

HERE HERE on the hardlight this year, Adam! :D

Edited January 2, 2005 by fstop

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Y'know, it's odd to think about it, but I agree that the most interesting work in the UK at the moment is being done on video for TV. Top Gear keeps on looking more and more stylish (if gimmicky, but what the hell, it's a car magazine for those fricken' chavs we hate to share a cinema with.) Yes, Dibley was OK, less than usually cold and flat. The comedy "My Family" is actually lit as opposed to just being exposed and I saw a (fairly vapid, but very pretty) as-live show on TMC a few weeks back which looked very sharp and pop-video contrasty. I liked. It's as if the film guys rest on their laurels - oh, we're shooting film, we don't have to care - while the video guys have something to prove.

 

The general standard of photography on 16mm drama in the UK has been abysmally poor for ages - flat, lit for exposure, 2Ks into the ceiling drivel for which people are revered as gods and offered BSC membership. I'll go out on a limb and say that as an almost completely inexperienced DP, I have sometimes made video look better than a lot of British 16mm drama, and that should not be the case - I'm a complete nobody. Once again, success here seems not to be based on ability, and obviously, in a climate like that, ever-better video cameras and greater pressure on video camera people to compete with higher budgeted material will result in what we've both noticed.

 

Phil

[Guest fstop]

Phil Rhodes, BSC. :D

 

I agree with you entirely Phil- like what I was saying in the Michael Seresin Harry Potter thread where in that movie they are intentionally making film look like video but that's somehow OK, moreso than video looking like film.

 

To be honest I have absolutely no desire to shoot any film with the way video is going- I am so excited about the infinite possiblities and the different ways of recording images and we really need something fresh and new to look at, to call our own. I love film and it's what started this whole thing and I respect it to death, but the whole "better people shoot film" thing is total crap. Beautiful lighting and exposure is just that, period.

 

It's like the early 80s when all the music producers had to crash learn and adapt to the synthesiser! :) As with that era and that medium, it's going to be those with the classical taste, respect and grounding who'll produce the most exciting work.

[Mark Allen]

The shot at the end where he's flying the Spruce Goose and it goes from a wide shot of the whole plane and moves all the way in to an ECU of his eyes was particularly distracting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I totally agree. When VFX shots are so over conceptualized and lose track of telling the story - it takes you out of the story. But no one ever cuts them out because they cost a lot to produce.

[Brad Grimmett]

I hate the lousy lack of lumens 2/3s projection, crummy release prints, morons on mobile phones, postage stamp sized screen image projections, scallies, overpriced tickets and (for UKers only) those extreme pain inducing Orange mobile phone ads.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm an American, but what the heck is a "scallie"? :huh: Don't think I've ever heard that one before.

Edited January 2, 2005 by grimmett

[Max Jacoby]

#1: I dont watch movies I can't understand

 

By 'don't understand', do you mean not understand because they are too complicated/complex or because they are not in English? Because looking at your list it could be both.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm an American, but what the heck is a "scallie"? :huh:  Don't think I've ever heard that one before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps he's relating to the chav's in England. For anyone that lives in England you will probably have noticed those daft prats walking around streets drinking asda smart price beer, smoking the weakest possible tobacco, wearing burberry caps and sport gear, and generally making a lot of noise and trying to intimidate people.

 

And these chav's are particularly annoying in cinemas. I once went to a showing and it was full of chavs and bloody hell... do they ever shutup?!

 

If you wish to learn more: ChavScum.co.uk

Edited January 2, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jonathan Spear]

"""Perhaps he's relating to the chav's in England. For anyone that lives in England you will probably have noticed those daft prats walking around streets drinking asda smart price beer, smoking the weakest possible tobacco, wearing burberry caps and sport gear, and generally making a lot of noise and trying to intimidate people.

 

And these chav's are particularly annoying in cinemas. I once went to a showing and it was full of chavs and bloody hell... do they ever shutup?!

 

If you wish to learn more: ChavScum.co.uk"""

 

------------

 

ROTFLMAO!!!

 

Awesome website!

 

:lol:

[DavidSloan]

Behold, a Chav-

 

Chavster aka U.K wiggers

[Brad Grimmett]

Got it. Fake bling-bling and a fake-tough face. I assume most of them work the fryer at some fast food joint and sell oregano laced weed on the side?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Got it.  Fake bling-bling and a fake-tough face.  I assume most of them work the fryer at some fast food joint and sell oregano laced weed on the side?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well most can't be bothered with jobs, instead they get their money either from their parents or they steal it. You would be confronted by some 3 foot tall, thing, wrapped up in burberry, and then hear this tiny mouse voice saying "Oi, you got 10p beh??" (Beh = Boy, it's just the way they say it). But quite right, a lot do work in fast food restaurants and other crappy jobs.

 

I hate to admit it but I still get intimidated by them, I don't know why. Going to "Kemnal Technology College" and spending 6 years with them kinda busts your confidence.

 

I just hope it's a phase England?s going through.. Otherwise we truly are doomed.

[Matthew McDermott]

My personal favorites:

 

Birth -- despite the grain and weak blacks that Audris brought up, I thought the cinematography was as daring as it was beautiful and very well matched to the story.

 

The Bourne Supremacy -- Despite focus problems and overly shaky hand-held work, the beginning parts in India were particularly good.

 

Collateral -- maybe I'm a sucker for cities at night, but it was just great.

 

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind -- inventive production design and in-camera effects work, creative practical lighting and a perfect story for when your relationship goes sour.

 

Unfortunately I haven't yet seen some of the late season releases (The Aviator, A Very Long Engagement, et al.)

Edited January 3, 2005 by Matthew McDermott

[batman_dan]

What About the "Lady Killers". Was this also a well shot film or is that just my inexperience showing through. Oh well I enjoyed it anyway.

 

:ph34r:

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I just got back from the cinema from watching ?Jiminy Cricket's A Series of Unfortunate Events?. (Or was it Lemony Snicket?s... I don't know..)

 

Well, the cinematography was nice, although considering a lot of the film was CGI I found it hard judging what was real and what wasn't. (Obviously with CGI you can do pretty much anything)

 

It didn't exactly, float my boat, at all, really.. (I found it kind of boring.. although the one thing that did intrigue me was that I look somewhat familiar to that Klaus kid)

 

I'm looking forward to that film "The Aviator" though. Looks pretty good.

 

BLOODY ORANGE ADVERTS. Yes, there was one.

[Max Jacoby]

What is everyone's problem with the Orange adverts? I happen to like them. They are better than most other adverts. Especially the one with the hobbit is funny.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The reason I like them is that it means I get to feel slightly better about pulling teenagers' mobile phones out of their hands and throwing them across the room.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

What is everyone's problem with the Orange adverts? I happen to like them. They are better than most other adverts. Especially the one with the hobbit is funny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't mind them I suppose, it's just that someone mentioned them earlier on and I thought it would be quite funny just to just prove his point.

 

Personally I can't stand mobiles full stop. You ever see people leaning up against bus stops and all you can hear is "tap tap, tap tap" as they press the tiny buttons? Drives me nuts.

 

Actually one thing I do find really annoying is when people bring food into the cinemas. A snack ok, but you ever get the feeling that most people bring a full blown picnic in there? Reason I bring it up was because there was a family in front of me and bloody hell.. did they ever run out of food?

Edited January 4, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Lise Camp]

Hi,

 

The reason I like them is that it means I get to feel slightly better about pulling teenagers' mobile phones out of their hands and throwing them across the room.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"teenagers'"?? Or just people in general?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

"teenagers'"?? Or just people in general?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Teenagers are usually a complete pain in the ass in cinemas. They are either talking or on their mobile phones.