The Decade in Cinematography

[David Mullen ASC]

I guess it will soon be time to discuss the best of 2009, but also to recap the decade starting with 2000. I just looked through my lists of what I saw in each year (a handy guide, I suggest everyone keep such a list...)

 

First of all, I wanted to discuss the issue of getting older and feeling nostalgic. I graduated high school in 1980, so the 70's were my childhood movies, the 80's were my college years discovering art cinema, and the 90's were the start of my professional years shooting. So I've always been partial to the cinematography of my youth, the 1970's-80's. This was the era in which discovered my heros, mentors, and role models -- and many of the famous DP's of the 1980's are still top DP's today.

 

So given my particular history... when I looked at my lists, I jotted down any movie I thought stood out that year, particularly ones that I watched multiple times just to understand how they were shot. Of course, to some degree as you get older and more experienced, you don't have to watch the same movie 20 times as I did in my youth (literally... I saw movies like "Raiders", "Star Wars", "Close Encounters", "E.T.", etc. over ten-times in movie theaters in the year of their release. Of course, hit movies hung around in theaters for several months back then.)

 

I also tried to decipher any stylistic patterns to emerge in the past ten years versus the 90's era.

 

The first thing I noticed was that 1999, the year BEFORE the period I am discussing (2000-2009), was a banner year for cinematography, movies that I've studied many times since they were released: "Snow Falling on Cedar", "Sleepy Hollow", "The Insider", "Fight Club", "Bringing Out the Dead", "American Beauty", "The Matrix", "Eyes Wide Shut" -- what a great year for cinematography! In some ways, it was also, for me personally, the last great year of inspirational work, movies that looked the way I wished my movies looked.

 

After that, here's some notes from 2000 to 2008, at least, movies I saw that I liked the cinematography in:

 

2000: Highlights of the year were "Gladiator", "The Patriot", "Girl on the Bridge", "O Brother Where Art Thou?", "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"

 

2001: "Pearl Harbor", "A.I.", "The Others", "Moulin Rouge!", "The Man Who Wasn't There", "Amelie", "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings", "Donnie Darko"

 

2002: "Minority Report", "The Road to Perdition", "Four Feathers", "Solaris", "The Quiet American", "Frida", "Lord of the Rings: Two Towers", "Catch Me If You Can"

 

2003: "City of God", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Seabiscuit", "Master and Commander", "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King", "Kill Bill Part 1", "The Last Samurai"

 

2004: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", "The Passion", "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkeban", "The Terminal", "The Village", "A Very Long Engagement", "House of Flying Daggers", "The Aviator", "Lemony Snicket"

 

2005: "Sin City", "Batman Begins", "War of the Worlds", "2046", "Good Night and Good Luck", "Capote", "Memoirs of a Geisha", "The New World"

 

2006: "The Prestige", "The Fountain", "Pan's Labyrinth", "The Good Shepherd", "Letters from Iwo Jima"

 

2007: "Sunshine", "Across the Universe", "Assassination of Jesse James", "Caravaggio", "Lust Caution", "Elizabeth: The Golden Age", "Michael Clayton", "American Gangster", No Country for Old Men", "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", "There Will Be Blood"

 

2008: "The Dark Knight", "Slumdog Millionaire", "Benjamin Button", "Revolutionary Road", Doubt"

 

I'm not going to get into 2009 yet, the year isn't over...

 

Looking back on the decade, a lot of it leaves me a bit cold - the really gorgeous movies like "Memoirs of a Geisha" are not interesting enough as overall movies to be worth rewatching just to study the cinematography.

 

I will admit though that 2007 was something of a bumper crop, a banner year for great cinematography.

 

The most obvious trends of the decade have been the use of D.I.'s and the rise of Super-35, and the rise of digitally-shot movies. Actually, digital seems to have had two rises, once in the early 2000's with the intro of the F900 and 24P HD, and the whole DV-Dogma indie film trend, both of which died down by the middle of the decade, only to rise again with the intro of the RED, Genesis, F35, Arri D21, SI2K, etc.

 

I'd also say that the real overall star cinematographer of the decade has been Roger Deakins, who seems to be working in top form.

 

But what has changed stylistically since the 1990's decade? Obviously digital color-correction has had some affect on the look of movies, and the decline of photochemical post. One impression I have is that we have more variety now than ever before. Just flipping between the HDTV movie channels I now have, I see SO much stylistic variation -- most romantic comedies have gotten softer-lit and flatter than ever, yet action movies have gone hi-con and desaturated, some movies use hardly any artificial lighting yet a lot of movies are more overlit than ever. The only real lighting trend has been that there's no lighting trends, just several genre styles being repeated over and over again, but they don't look like each other. Lighting-wise, it seems like we are in the best of times and the worst of times: some TV shows today are as well-lit as some of the best-looking movies of the 1990's, while some big-budget movies look worse than your average TV show.

 

We also seem to be in a decade where directorial style alternates between really unimaginative and dull -- master, overs, singles, like generic TV coverage -- or really over the top, where the camera never stops flying around and yet the scene is then chopped up in editing by cutting to B and C camera footage, often overly tight. So lots of moves, lots of cuts, and lots of loud noises... like a video game I guess. Actually, that style too starts to seem just as unimaginative and dull after awhile, because it's become so copied.

 

We have such a visual hodgepodge today that I can't say that saturated or desaturated or wide-angle or telephoto shots are hip and trendy -- the same movie might have all of these looks happening.

 

Overall, I'd say that the biggest trend for studio movies to become as loud and busy-looking as possible, to make the movie an "event" and a rollarcoaster ride of CGI-enhanced action scenes that show-off how much money they spent (in post). But it's like going to an expensive restaurant and instead of getting a well-cooked meal, they hand you a bowl of sugar and a bowl of melted butter and tell you to consume that and cut to the chase, calorie-wise. So the movie experience is like the sugar rush from eating Fruit Loops or something for breakfast, and it leaves no lasting impression, just a mild headache.

[Tim O'Connor]

Wow David what a great list and short essay. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I'm without a list right now to offer

but I'm going to think about it and I see some movies on your list that I'm going to get on DVD.

 

I especially like this comment "some TV shows today are as well-lit as some of the best-looking movies of the 1990's, while some big-budget movies look worse than your average TV show."

 

A part of my early teenage years that helped me a lot with movies was the summers when my friends and I would go to the old movie house one

town over four or five nights in a row. It had a huge screen and we would watch the same double feature night after night. Now partly, well

mostly, we went to meet girls (the girls were different every night and there was a big old Art Deco lobby where everybody hung out) but

my cinematic education was fed then by seeing lots of great movies on consecutive nights on a real big screen.

[Saul Rodgar]

But what has changed stylistically since the 1990's decade? Obviously digital color-correction has had some affect on the look of movies, and the decline of photochemical post. One impression I have is that we have more variety now than ever before. Just flipping between the HDTV movie channels I now have, I see SO much stylistic variation -- most romantic comedies have gotten softer-lit and flatter than ever, yet action movies have gone hi-con and desaturated, some movies use hardly any artificial lighting yet a lot of movies are more overlit than ever. The only real lighting trend has been that there's no lighting trends, just several genre styles being repeated over and over again, but they don't look like each other. Lighting-wise, it seems like we are in the best of times and the worst of times: some TV shows today are as well-lit as some of the best-looking movies of the 1990's, while some big-budget movies look worse than your average TV show.

 

We also seem to be in a decade where directorial style alternates between really unimaginative and dull -- master, overs, singles, like generic TV coverage -- or really over the top, where the camera never stops flying around and yet the scene is then chopped up in editing by cutting to B and C camera footage, often overly tight. So lots of moves, lots of cuts, and lots of loud noises... like a video game I guess. Actually, that style too starts to seem just as unimaginative and dull after awhile, because it's become so copied.

 

We have such a visual hodgepodge today that I can't say that saturated or desaturated or wide-angle or telephoto shots are hip and trendy -- the same movie might have all of these looks happening.

 

Overall, I'd say that the biggest trend for studio movies to become as loud and busy-looking as possible, to make the movie an "event" and a rollarcoaster ride of CGI-enhanced action scenes that show-off how much money they spent (in post). But it's like going to an expensive restaurant and instead of getting a well-cooked meal, they hand you a bowl of sugar and a bowl of melted butter and tell you to consume that and cut to the chase, calorie-wise. So the movie experience is like the sugar rush from eating Fruit Loops or something for breakfast, and it leaves no lasting impression, just a mild headache.

 

In terms of visual styles, yes, there is truly a sense of post-modernism, where everything goes and one movie or television show will have several different looks going on at the same time, going from one to another back and forth. I'm thinking movies like Traffic . . .

 

In terms of sound, most American movies and TV shows all sound the same, loud, compressed and every visual special effect (from a punch to an explosion) is accompanied by a larger-than-life sound effect.

 

I personally think that the C/U (close up) in modern TV and movies has become overused to the point of banality. Most scenes invariably use at least one C/U. It seems directors have lost the ability to tell a story within a scene using a master shot only, or is it being used as a crutch?

 

Maybe this decade could be summed up as the Decade of CGI and over sized Sound Effects?

[David Cronin]

2007: "Sunshine", "Across the Universe", "Assassination of Jesse James", "Caravaggio", "Lust Caution", "Elizabeth: The Golden Age", "Michael Clayton", "American Gangster", No Country for Old Men", "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", "There Will Be Blood"

 

I will admit though that 2007 was something of a bumper crop, a banner year for great cinematography.

 

A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE INTERESTED, and perhaps this is just me showing my immature movie history, but is there a better year in cinema visually?

 

I personally would classify "better" in 2007 as being a year in which no huge technological advancements were made but the refined quality and diversity of the work makes it a great year.

 

As far as decades go I still think the 40's was and still is one of the strongest decades and also a time when black and white was really being pressured by new technological advances in color. 46' was a solid year with (wonderful life, great expectations, the best years of our lives) Or maybe its just the fact that all those movies sound so great.

 

I know there are a lot of people that hate digital on this site but its important to think about what technological advancements do for current working habits. So here is another question to ask that I would love to see responses to.

 

Do you think the digital world (not DI but shooting digitally) has challenged us to express ourselves with more character and artistry as a whole shooting film? Do you think this decade of films would be as diverse visually if we hadn't challenged or questioned film with the advancement of digital photography? ( think about this long and hard, for example why would a film as big as Elswit's There Will Be Blood, have no DI?)

 

I look forward to reading responses? And thanks Dave for the relapse of the decade, good stuff.

[K Borowski]

I personally don't want to see this thread just yet. We still have a good month left of 2009 and the first decade of the 2000s.

 

It ain't over 'til it's over!

 

 

On the subject of decades, I know that officially, the 21st Century started in 2001, not 2000. Does the same thing occur with decades? I remember them saying with the show "Mad Men" that they wanted to set it at the height of the '50s, so they chose 1960; that could just be because human beings don't neatly fit their trends and ways into decades, though, and that 1960 was the height of the '50s era.

 

Anyway, I'd like to know. . .

[Serge Teulon]

Its great to see a list laid out in front of you like that.

So many great films!

 

What I found interesting is that the majority of the films on that list are CGI'less.

I'm not a fan of the whole (ab)use of CGI that is going on at the moment(Avatar, etc).....I hope that the big studios look at lists like this one and see that the future does not lie in a computer. Imo that technology is there as an additional tool to film making.

 

great post, thanks David.

[Chris Durham]

We also seem to be in a decade where directorial style alternates between really unimaginative and dull -- master, overs, singles, like generic TV coverage -- or really over the top, where the camera never stops flying around and yet the scene is then chopped up in editing by cutting to B and C camera footage, often overly tight. So lots of moves, lots of cuts, and lots of loud noises... like a video game I guess. Actually, that style too starts to seem just as unimaginative and dull after awhile, because it's become so copied.

 

If there were one word I'd use to describe the visual style of the last decade it would be "undisciplined."

 

I'm not entirely comfortable being too critical of professionals - I'm still very new to cinematography and I certainly don't want to be perceived as an internet troll - but the more I discover this craft and the heights of artistry of which some of the great cinematographers are capable, the more it pains me to see schlock, and the more I find myself at odds with the frenetic and often careless contemporary visual style. Everything's fast cuts, shallow DoF, overwhelming closeups, and a palette consisting of blue and amber/orange/warm flesh. It makes me want to shoot 5 minute deep focus wide shots with no blue in them. Another trend of the last decade is the witness-cam. Handheld camera with quick zooms and staged focus shifts intended to make the viewer feel like they're in the action, with their own video camera which everyone has now.

 

When I watch films from the late 60's and early-mid70's I'm just stunned by how thoughtful the camera use is, how much can be done without having to be busy with the frame. The opening shot of the Graduate is beautiful and it's just Dustin Hoffman against a white wall. There are few filmmakers these days brave enough to use as much stark white as there is in that movie.

 

It's not all bad today though. Take the handheld work and relatively rapid jump cuts in Antichrist. It doesn't feel sloppy at all, it feel very deliberate. Children of Men was "witness cam" done right.

 

Overall, I think that the introduction of these new styles - influenced by video games and reality TV and made possible by smaller, cheaper cameras - require more discipline to do right. Most of what gets done just looks like cinematic spaghetti thrown at a wall.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

All I'll say for the moment, is that on a recent feature I was asked to do a "TMZ Zoom...." If you don't know what that means.. it's ok, neither did I.

 

I think we are moving towards a society where everyone has ADD because we're assumed to have ADD...

I wonder, though, should we also be including the "cinematography" in totally digital films? Wall-E might deserve a place in there, if only for the opening on earth bits which I found very interesting visually.

[K Borowski]

Another thing that bothers me about grouping things into ten year intervals: Styles are not neatly confined into ten-year increments.

 

To use music as an analogy, doo-wop persisted into the '60s. Disco didn't come into being until the mid- to late '70s; it persisted into the '80s.

 

 

So when did the current trend start? Surely it was later than 2000. I think 2000, 2001, 2002, and maybe even a lot of 2003 movies look more "'90s" than "'00s." When did the bleach bypass trend end and the DI trend take over, circa 2003? To me that is the end of one "movement" and the beginning of the next.

 

 

I personally hope we are at the end of a dedade though. . .

 

With the exception of 2007 and the aforementioned early 2000s, this decade was lackluster for me, cinematically. I hate the DI (unless it is 4K). I hope image quality becomes a concern again this next decade. What about 3D? This is the beginning of a new trend too, maybe just the continuation of a '50s & '80s fad to sell bad popcorn movies, but James Cameron definitely put a lot into "Avatar," even if I personally find his approach just as poor as George Lucas's.

 

 

Filmmaking and cinematography are bad enough, for me at least personally being shot chronologically out-of-order. Taking the foreground and the background out of the equation, the real location as it were, and then, on top of that, turning cinematography into an "acquisition phase" turns cinematography into a boring chore, IMHO.

 

Then again, we're talking about a flashback to the 1990s here, right ;-)

 

 

Anyway, I really think if we want to try to make something of this artificial human construct, the decade, we ought give the Decemeber movies a chance first, but not weight them any more heavily than any other month in the last 120.

[Rob Vogt]

Great list Mr. Mullen.

 

Ones I would add would be, just off the top of my head-

 

2001- "In the Mood for Love"

2002- "A Beautiful Mind," "Gangs of New York"

2003- "Lost in Translation"

2007- "The Invisible"

 

I'm sure there are more, but these stood out to me especially.

[Keith Walters]

I know there are a lot of people that hate digital on this site...

Too true. How else do you explain the absence from this list of such cinematic gems as Revenge of the Sith and Superman Returns :D

 

But seriously, the words 'hate" and "hater" are far too freely used on Internet forums these days.

Nobody "hates digital"; that's just another Fanboy fabrication like "Scam".

 

There is an intense dislike of a certain poster mentality that appears unshakably convinced that tirelessly barracking for "team digital" is somehow going to allow them to leapfrog over the years of experience of established industry professionals. As far as the equipment goes, it is what it is, and it does what it does. It does some things better, and some things not as well. People may hate working within the limitations of Digital cameras, but not the cameras themselves. Personally, I've never met anybody who actually said they hate working with film. Oh sure, you get lots of posts on here to that effect, but the phrase "A chance would be a fine thing" (the UK equivalent of "yeah ... right") tends to spring to mind.

 

In the vast majority of cases, Digital Video (and usually cheap Digital Video) is the only option available to the wannabes, and they tend to resent people who have more options, particularly when they choose one (typically film, but also better quality video cameras) that is not available to them.

 

People who mainly shoot film tend to be top-dollar seasoned professionals who tend to work on top-dollar productions that can afford to shoot on film. It might well be true that some of them don't have as much experience with electronic cameras, but that will be more because they have never needed to.

 

The most annoying notion is this "come the revolution" nonsense that all these either totally inexperienced amateurs or lowest-rung industry sh!t-kickers are suddenly going to be summoned to Hollywood to replace all the "old farts" who were either too frightened, too senile, too hate-filled, too bone-headed, too Luddite or just plain couldn't be bothered to learn how to use a DVX camera or the like.

 

"Come the revolution" (whenever that is), you're going to find pretty much the same people working at the same levels, but with different equipment.

[Saul Rodgar]

I know there are a lot of people that hate digital on this site . . .

 

Uh, oh. I don't think there is hate for digital here on these boards so much as push-back disdain for the (kinda also ran) medium that is near universally hailed as the "film killer." Particularly when it is clear to some of us not only is not quite there yet in terms of picture quality and overall image rendering but also in terms of archival longevity, etc.

 

There is not doubt that digital technology is getting better and bigger all the time. Who knows, great engineers may soon come up with technology that offers better all around image performance than film (analog) technologies?

 

Pictures such as Elswith's There Will Be Blood are testaments of how all-path analog film processes are still very much relevant. And yet, this year's Cinematography Oscar was given to a feature that was shot on film and HD. So, clearly, digital technology is here to stay -- yet I think it really needs to mature before it really overpowers film as the film making standard

 

Hence, I would be tempted to call this the "Decade of the Contained Digital Cinema Onslaught." Question is, how long until film is completely phased out. Boy, that will be a sad day . . .

 

My preference is that they both could co-exist in the future and be treated and perceived as merely another tool in the film makers' tool bag.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

[Keith Walters]

And yet, this year's Cinematography Oscar was given to a feature that was shot on film and HD. So, clearly, digital technology is here to stay -- yet I think it really needs to mature before it really overpowers film as the film making standard

The producers of Slumdog Millionaire were quite upfront about the fact that they only used the video cameras because they were small and unobtrusive, crowd control apparently being non-existent in India. It's fine that they were able to use them for a cinematic release, but far too many people are holding this up as an example of video finally triumphing over film. In reality, in this and many other cases, digital cameras were used in spite of their image quality, not because of it.

 

My preference is that they both could co-exist in the future and be treated and perceived as merely another tool in the film makers' tool bag.

They've gotten along just fine in the TV world for at least the last 30 years, I don't know why people expect the movie world should be any different.

[John Holland]

Most of Slumdog was shot on 35mm Fuji Eterna stocks !!!!!

[Chris Durham]

In my opinion Anthony Dod Mantle has shaped up to be the model 21st Century cinematographer because here's a guy who's neither afraid to embrace the media best suited to the production, nor to mix media when it is called for. If you look at his body of work you see it over and over. 28 Days Later was shot on DV in a way that kept the film print in mind because at the time there wasn't a whole lot of digital projection. Last King of Scotland uses S16 film techniques to simulate the feel of the era the movie takes place in. Slumdog uses a combination of cameras, even video from a stills camera if I remember the article, along with high end digital and film. Antichrist uses digital cameras in a number of ways, even raw and unfinished in the last act to such jarring effect that it could only be deliberate.

 

We need to stop this argument about whether the arrival of digital heralds the demise of film and simply acknowledge that it stands as a competitor for film. Competition is healthy because it breeds innovation. I love seeing the emergence of digital capture spurring advances in traditional products. I'm thrilled that digimags are coming that will expand the role of rock-solid offerings from Arri, Aaton, and Panavision. How cool to be able to dual-purpose a film camera. How innovative is it that manufacuters like Aaton can interface with Cooke lenses and send the metadata down the pipe? You get the advantages of a digital workflow with a film image. How sensible is it that Ikonoskop is making a camera that captures a virgin image sequence, applying a film sensibility to digital acquisition.

 

I've stated that in terms of cinematic imagery I think there's been a lot of schlock; but in terms of capability we are in an era of innovation. I think the filmmakers who have embraced the full landscape of cinematic capability without any prejudice are doing amazing things. It's a very interesting time to be a DP.

[Saul Rodgar]

The producers of Slumdog Millionaire were quite upfront about the fact that they only used the video cameras because they were small and unobtrusive, crowd control apparently being non-existent in India. It's fine that they were able to use them for a cinematic release, but far too many people are holding this up as an example of video finally triumphing over film. In reality, in this and many other cases, digital cameras were used in spite of their image quality, not because of it.

 

I agree, digital isn't quite there yet. However I remember reading somewhere or by watching one of the "making of's" that they were quite pleased with the performance of the SI 2Ks. And they did win the top cinematography award with the digital and film combo, so it clearly, digital delivered. Just trying to be fair here and give due credit where is needed.

 

They've gotten along just fine in the TV world for at least the last 30 years, I don't know why people expect the movie world should be any different.

 

That is what I hope happens, not that I get that feeling by reading Red User or similar forums, or by talking to 99% of younger film makers. And now, here in the US, at least most TV shows have gone digital after the strike wars of the earlier part of this year. So will see.

[Saul Rodgar]

Most of Slumdog was shot on 35mm Fuji Eterna stocks !!!!!

 

Actually, I read somewhere that there was more digital footage used on the final version than film. Mainly because of all the TV segments, but also because it was easier for them to run around with the smaller cameras than the 35 mm ones.

[Chris Durham]

Actually, I read somewhere that there was more digital footage used on the final version than film. Mainly because of all the TV segments, but also because it was easier for them to run around with the smaller cameras than the 35 mm ones.

 

IIRC, in AC they said they'd intended for about 25% digital but it ended up being about 60%.

[Saul Rodgar]

In my opinion Anthony Dod Mantle has shaped up to be the model 21st Century cinematographer because here's a guy who's neither afraid to embrace the media best suited to the production, nor to mix media when it is called for. If you look at his body of work you see it over and over. 28 Days Later was shot on DV in a way that kept the film print in mind because at the time there wasn't a whole lot of digital projection. Last King of Scotland uses S16 film techniques to simulate the feel of the era the movie takes place in. Slumdog uses a combination of cameras, even video from a stills camera if I remember the article, along with high end digital and film. Antichrist uses digital cameras in a number of ways, even raw and unfinished in the last act to such jarring effect that it could only be deliberate.

 

We need to stop this argument about whether the arrival of digital heralds the demise of film and simply acknowledge that it stands as a competitor for film. Competition is healthy because it breeds innovation. I love seeing the emergence of digital capture spurring advances in traditional products. I'm thrilled that digimags are coming that will expand the role of rock-solid offerings from Arri, Aaton, and Panavision. How cool to be able to dual-purpose a film camera. How innovative is it that manufacuters like Aaton can interface with Cooke lenses and send the metadata down the pipe? You get the advantages of a digital workflow with a film image. How sensible is it that Ikonoskop is making a camera that captures a virgin image sequence, applying a film sensibility to digital acquisition.

 

I've stated that in terms of cinematic imagery I think there's been a lot of schlock; but in terms of capability we are in an era of innovation. I think the filmmakers who have embraced the full landscape of cinematic capability without any prejudice are doing amazing things. It's a very interesting time to be a DP.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. However, it very often feels that film vs video is a battle for Hegemony or Survival (to use Chomsky's title). And that is a real shame. I, for one, am not getting rid of any of my film cameras in the hopes that I can convince producers that it is a viable format. That said, for us bottom feeders, production is always looking at the proverbial "bottom line," and that is where film falters . . .

 

And yes, would I love a digimag for my Aaton!!!

[Saul Rodgar]

IIRC, in AC they said they'd intended for about 25% digital but it ended up being about 60%.

 

That is where I saw it. Looked for it online, but couldn't find it in the AC archived articles . . .

Edited November 25, 2009 by Saul Rodgar

[Alex Lindblom]

Yes 1999 was a great year for cinematography but it was also the year that started the era of the CGI blockbusters, with The Mummy.

 

The Mummy is not often mention and easily forgotten in the year of bullet time.

 

But I think this movie was responsible the start of the CGI Blockbuster era, and the beginning of a new dawn.

 

The Mummy is the exact opposite of The Matrix.

 

In The Matrix the effects still supports the story, in The Mummy the effects (so called since they are obvious effects ) are the story, and if you look at the staggering world wide gross for this movie $416 millions, it was apparently just what the doctor ordered.

 

And people have just kept on ordering, and there seems to be no end in sight.

 

For me this has been the biggest change of the decade, the move from special/visual effects to what’s essentially animation. And for me at least a lot of the magic has gone, I hope that these eleven years just have been a stopgap and that we can go back to making films magic again, good the way they used to.

 

The talent and technology is certainly out there and I see no conflict between commerce and art. So why not go back to making good blockbusters, that way the people who pays $416 millions to see The Mummy will be happy, and so will I.

 

So in the future I see more box office and better films, now if that’s not magic I don’t know what is.

 

By the way great post David.

[Thomas James]

I think one of the advantages to using digital in terms of quality is that it allows you to overcrank without breaking the bank. However that does not mean that we have nailed the coffin of film just yet. NFL Films overcranks at 120 frames per second and they do an excellent job of capturing football action however they save money by using 16mm film instead of 35mm film. Red can overcrank at 120 frames per second however the resolution is limited to 2K and since it is a single chip camera the resolution is more comparable to 720p.

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Very nice list, David.

 

I would add K-Pax to 2001 and Children of Men to 2006.

[Chris CS]

2007: "Sunshine", "Across the Universe", "Assassination of Jesse James", "Caravaggio", "Lust Caution", "Elizabeth: The Golden Age", "Michael Clayton", "American Gangster", No Country for Old Men", "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", "There Will Be Blood"

 

I will admit though that 2007 was something of a bumper crop, a banner year for great cinematography.

 

A CHALLENGE TO ANYONE INTERESTED, and perhaps this is just me showing my immature movie history, but is there a better year in cinema visually?......

 

1954: Seven Samurai, Sansho The Ballif, La Strada, Rear Window, On the Waterfront

 

1957: Throne of Blood, Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, The Bridge on The River Kwai, Paths of Glory, Nights of Cabiria

 

1974: Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Amarcord, Chinatown, The Godfather, Pt. II, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, F for Fake, Blazing Saddles, Alices In The Cities

 

1975: Barry Lyndon, Dersu Uzala, Jaws, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Nashville, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

 

1984: Paris, Texas, This is Spinal Tap, The Terminator, Stranger Than Paradise, Brazil, A Passage to India

 

 

That's a start :D

[Ram Shani]

it's strange that he talk only about American cinema.

i think i the world cinema there are same great great things

like Asia cinema - park Chan woke-takashi miike-tsai ming liang and many more

and the master from europe like bella tar-lars von terir

and young director from Mexico- Carlos Reygadas

and the master from Turkey- Nuri Bilge Ceylan