Million Dollar Baby

[Frank DiBugnara]

I wanted to start a discussion about Million Dollar Baby. I saw it last night and was very moved by it on a number of levels.

 

Some issues on my mind in regards to cinematography:

 

Tom Stern in not in the ASC... It looks like he is coming out of the shadows of Conrad Hall, having worked by his side for years. Will this film do it?

 

I found a lot of the lighting very inventive. It seems like Stern decided that he would almost never use a traditonal key light. The characters seemed to rarely have an unobstructed key. Faces were constantly dancing in and out of shadows, obstructions, and various types of light.

 

There were a few scenes that were so dark, that you could not see large parts of the actors faces at all--especially the eyes. While those shots were interesting, I was under the impression that studios freaked out about things like that. Does Eastwood have a lot of pull?

[Lindsay Mann]

Truthfully, the lack of eye light bothered me throughout the film. I saw it yesterday too and there were quite a few sobsters in the theater, so Clint must have been doing something right, but I felt like the whole ending seemed so abrupt and uncalculated. And I realize now it's because of the eye light. There's a scene where Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman are in the locker room right near the end and you can't see their eyes at all. Their faces are in sillhoutte, and how is the audience supposed to know what either man is going through if we can't see their eyes? That's what ruined it for me. Yes, he was inventive and I liked the look of the gym at night most of the time, but we need that window into the souls of the characters. It's interesting because without that, I feel like I can't buy what he does at the end.

 

I thought much of it was surprisingly unrealistic for a film nominated for best picture. What's with the fight scenes? Why are the boxing arenas so cheesy? My biggest arguments aren't against the cinematography, but more the story line. I guess it's a pretty hard story to tell. The one shot I thought was spectacular was as the Champ hits her when she isn't looking and she falls. It's a slow motion shot and then they cut to the fallen stool on the canvas and the audience knows exactly what's going to happen, but when it does, everyone in the theater cringes. There were literally shouts of pain when I saw it. That's a damn good shot.

 

The boxing arenas remind me of D. Mullen's feature about the spelling bee. How does one make large crowd situations believeable? Christopher Guest does it well, I guess.

[Kevin Zanit]

I really liked the film.

 

For me, I thought it looked fantastic. I can really see Conrad in it's look.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Greg Gross]

Yes Mr. Eastwood has a lot of pull! You can bet the look the mood is what

he wanted. Did you notice the rich blacks in this film and how they added

to the look,mood,story. Mr. Eastwood likes rich blacks, I thought Bruce Sur-

gees was the DP(I didn't really know,I just assumed he was) I see he didn't

do it though. Mr. Eastwood understands the camera well,they say he can pick

up what you are doing,while he's acting and you are operating the camera.

Once when I was a kid,Ed Begley took me to the set of "Rawhide" and I saw

the young Rowdy Yates(baby face!). Ed Begley was my grandmother's cousin.

He got me interested in the art of filmmaking. I'm going to see "Million Dollar

Baby" this weekend.

 

Greg Gross

[Jayson Crothers]

Mr. Stern will be conducting a lighting seminar for a few of us next week at AFI - does anyone have any specific questions they'd like answers to? I'm more than happy to ask.

[Andy O'Neil]

What do you think Clint Eastwood's character had done to make his daughter so angry? The offscreen hatred of his daughter was very real, very permanent. I think his character may have sexually abused her.

 

In fact, Jayson, you could ask Mr. Stern next week if you don't mind.

Edited February 4, 2005 by Andy O'Neil

[John Pytlak RIP]

I saw it in NYC last week at the AMC Empire 25 on 42nd street. The deep blacks and the interplay of light and shadows really fit the story. I really liked the scene where Eastwood and Swank were driving back from her hometown at night, and the streetlights and deep shadows played across their faces, deliberately hiding some of the emotions the characters wanted to hide as they talked to each other. The Eastwood character had a hidden side to his character, and the lighting portrays that.

[Riku Naskali]

Really good film and no complains about the lighting from me. For me, it wasn't even that dark, I saw at least one eye on talent at all times.

[Matt Serrins]

I don't have any criticisms of the cinematography, and overall, I liked the movie, but the boxing scenes with the 'blue bear' were completely implausible and really took me out of the narrative. Given all her punches during tie ups, low blows, and shots after the bell, the blue bear would have been disqualified in any 'real' boxing match way before the 'punch'. While there's gamesmanship in boxing, cheating never goes that far, and I don't even see how it was necessary in terms of the narrative.

 

Boxers have occasionally, though rarely, been beaten into comas/paralysis/death, but I've never heard of nor seen a cheap shot resulting in a fall into a stool. Maggie is just as heroic, and the outcome no less unfair if she loses a 12 round battle b/c of crooked judges or even wins and then slips into a coma/paralysis after a brutal fight. To me, the stool part was just schmaltz and took away from what was otherwise a pretty solid movie.

 

Another consideration. What if Morgan Freeman played the Frankie Dunn character and Eastwood the washed up fighter? Would the movie not have done the same box office with a black lead? Obviously, this wasn't any sort of conspiracy, and it was clint eastwood's movie to cast (no surprise he took the lead role), but sometimes I wonder why black and white roles aren't switched, and how much of a difference it would make either way, especially when the characters are without a lot of racial specificity like in Million Dollar Baby. I'm sure it's happened, and I don't know if it really affected this film, but it's something I thought about.

 

 

Interested to hear what other people think.

 

Matt

Edited March 27, 2005 by MStone

[Mark Allen]

I'm coming to this thread late - but I just saw the movie in the theater tonight.

 

I really enjoyed the cinematography. I'm a fan of movies that seem unlit yet stylish and I think this fit the bill. The kind of beauty that naturally occurs in life, but doesn't distract you from the story.

 

I did notice a few times, however, in a few different shots that it seemed like the key light was a little over exposed and with a hard cut off and for some reason it struck me as odd. If it had been shot on video I would have expected to see a luminance band at the midpoint. The church scenes in particular had this, but I noticed it in a few other places as well.

 

Did anyone else notice this and have any idea why it might have been done this way? For me, it felt a little out of the movie.

[Greg Gross]

I think one of my favorite scenes is where Hilliary jumps up into Clint's arms

and wraps her legs around him (her arms around his neck). I can't remember

Clint's line verbatim,something like this- "Hey damn-it...I'm too old...get down!"

The scene made me feel awkward like it would in real life. Anyway I like the line

for its simplicity and ablitiy to stir awkward feelings. I like the scene where the gym

is mostly dark and in a small portion of the frame Morgan sees Hilliary punching the

bag(practicing late). I would like to hear David Mullen's take on how he would light

that scene. I really like David's lighting style and I'm sure he would have a good

idea on how to light the scene. Sorry did not catch key light in church scenes but I'm

going to see film again this weekend and will look for key effect. I took my camera

crew to see it two weeks ago on location. Mr. Douglas if you get a chance see the

new American Cinematographer magazine, still photo of Naomi Watts on location

and she's being lit solely by a ring light mounted directly on the lens of the production

camera. I saw Mr. Eastwood interviewed on camera while I was away on location he

stated that- "Its a film about love and not a film about boxing."

 

Greg Gross

[Mark Allen]

if you get a chance see the

new American Cinematographer magazine, still photo of Naomi Watts on location

and she's being lit solely by a ring light mounted directly on the lens of the production

camera.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ha! You remember our discussion. In this case, I think it might actually be to the side of the lense unless I saw it wrong. I glanced at it in the store.

[Jason Maeda]

""Its a film about love and not a film about boxing.""

 

it isn't about either of those things. never listen to directors talk about their own work! :blink:

 

i really liked this film. clint doesn't chase desperately after oscars he just gets them. this film succeeds with two important groups: the mindless, hollywood movie-mill "i cried so hard when he called her his 'blood'" types and the more artistically aware "it was fascinating how he called her his 'blood'" set, to which most believe they belong but few actually do.

 

jk :ph34r:

 

not to say i wasn't crying, but then i never claimed to be artistically aware!

[Greg Gross]

Thanks for advice about directors. I must admit I had a few tears sliding down

the cheeks during the film.

 

 

Greg Gross

[Greg Gross]

Mr. Douglas,

I viewed your film "The Least Likely" at www.leastlikely. I like it a lot,keep going

back to view it again. I love those girls,skin tones,costumes. The special effects

are great!

 

 

Greg Gross

[Mark Allen]

I viewed your film "The Least Likely" at www.leastlikely. I like it a lot,keep going

back to view it again. I love those girls,skin tones,costumes. The special effects

are great!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you! Cinematographer on that was John Ealer and he occasionally browses the boards here as well. (He also just won a Telly award for the cinematography on that. We also won PSA category, Art Direction, and Special Effects.)

 

It would be fun to do a movie set in that world some day. I sketched out a few ideas - but it looks like were going into production on a different project first. Not quite so enormous, but will still be thick on the mise en scene.

[Christian Appelt]

I saw it yesterday, and I think it's a damn good film.

Fine acting and a very relaxed but tight style of directing/editing.

 

Only complaint:

NOT ENOUGH DEPTH OF FIELD!

 

I saw the movie on an 80 feet wide screen, and almost every shot would benefit greatly from more DOF.

There is absolutely no creative reason why in a static shot of two men sitting on a bench (Eastwood & Freeman in the locker room) one person has to be badly out of focus. As long as I can see the guy's eyes, i want to have him in focus, because he is reacting while the other guy talks.

If he is not important, keep him out of the shot!

 

The framing and composition is fantastic all through the film, but this constant feeling of being shortsighted and having lost my glasses feels most unpleasant to me. I don't need from-here-to-eternity-DOF, but shallow focus in anamorphic wide screen is not the way I see, it just disturbs me.

 

But as I said, all in all it's a really good movie.

[Brad Grimmett]

Only complaint:

NOT ENOUGH DEPTH OF FIELD!

 

I saw the movie on an 80 feet wide screen, and almost every shot would benefit greatly from more DOF.

There is absolutely no creative reason why in a static shot of two men sitting on a bench (Eastwood & Freeman in the locker room)  one person has to be badly out of focus. As long as I can see the guy's eyes, i want to have him in focus, because he is reacting while the other guy talks.

If he is not important, keep him out of the shot!

 

The framing and composition is fantastic all through the film, but this constant feeling of being shortsighted and having lost my glasses feels most unpleasant to me. I don't need from-here-to-eternity-DOF, but shallow focus in anamorphic wide screen is not the way I see, it just disturbs me.

 

But as I said, all in all it's a really good movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DOF is an artistic decision. You may not like a very shallow depth of field, but obviously Stern and Eastwood did for this movie. You say, "There is absolutely no creative reason why in a static shot of two men sitting on a bench (Eastwood & Freeman in the locker room) one person has to be badly out of focus". Obviously there is or they wouldn't have made the decision to shoot it that way. Maybe the "unpleasant" feeling you had was intended by the filmmakers. Maybe their intention is to make the viewer uncomfortable, in which case they were successful in your case. Or maybe the shallow DOF was used as a way to seperate the characters at certain times, even though they were right next to each other.

Personally, I liked the shallow depth of field. I thought it worked for the story and for the film overall. I understand that you didn't like it, but you should consider the reasons the filmmakers may have had for making that decision before you say there's no reason for it.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Obviously there is or they wouldn't have made the decision to shoot it that way.

 

Or they just ran out of the stock they'd have preferred, or they were losing the light at the end of the day, or the schedule was screwed up by the weather and they didn't have the equipment they'd ideally have liked....

 

Just because they're big names doesn't make them infalliable!

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

> Obviously there is or they wouldn't have made the decision to shoot it that way.

 

Or they just ran out of the stock they'd have preferred, or they were losing the light at the end of the day, or the schedule was screwed up by the weather and they didn't have the equipment they'd ideally have liked....

 

Just because they're big names doesn't make them infalliable!

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points Phil. It could be one of those things as well, but I doubt the whole movie would have a very shallow DOF because of circumstances.

[Christian Appelt]

grimmett wrote:

DOF is an artistic decision. You may not like a very shallow depth of field, but obviously Stern and Eastwood did for this movie. You say, "There is absolutely no creative reason why in a static shot of two men sitting on a bench (Eastwood & Freeman in the locker room) one person has to be badly out of focus". Obviously there is or they wouldn't have made the decision to shoot it that way.

 

 

Is there ANY kind of image degradation, artifact or technical compromise that cannot be justified by calling it a "creative choice/decision"?

 

But I don't believe they intentionally created the shallow DOF like saying: "Hey, let's keep the secondary character out of focus", they just made sure that the shot's most important content was in focus and were content with it.

 

Certainly it's the DOPs and director's choice, but to me it's a fault in an otherwise really good movie.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Christian Appelt

[Greg Gross]

Did the lighting used in this scene and the dominant color of the scene

fit the mood? What do you think the conveyed mood of the scene should

be? I wonder if shallow DOF was combination of camera,color,light. I am

only experienced with dv features(have done two) although I am profess-

ional photographer of some 20 years. It would take me a couple of months

with a motion picture camera to get used to lenses and DOF. I sort of feel

that they were aware of this and went with it. Everything I have read about

Mr. Eastwood would make me believe that he was very much aware of this

scene and its look. I have always been told that with him,if you can't per-

form you are out the door. I meant him once when I was a boy,he was pl-

aying Rawdy Yates and Ed Begley took me on the set. I've seen every film

that Mr. Eastwood has made,always see his new ones. To me he will always

be Mr. Eastwood as I highly respect him. I've seen the film 3 times now and

will see it again this weekend. I'll look for the scene you're talking about. I

have enjoyed viewing the film very much. I wonder was the scene a close-

up or medium close-up? I would of thought that they would measure from

the camera to the actors with the tape. Quote-American Cinematographers

Manual- "Rather than dissect all posible compositions of a scene, a good rule

of thumb is to allow for half the DOF when comparing anamorphic to spherical

lenses of equal vertical or horizontal fields of view and aperture. Page 171 in

the 8th edition. Of course you know with dv format I have no problem with

DOF at all. I'll have to look for this scene when I see the film again, saturday.

Enjoyed your post.

 

Greg Gross

[Brad Grimmett]

Is there ANY kind of image degradation, artifact or technical compromise that cannot be justified by calling it a "creative choice/decision"?

 

But I don't believe they intentionally created the shallow DOF like saying: "Hey, let's keep the secondary character out of focus", they just made sure that the shot's most important content was in focus and were content with it.

 

Certainly it's the DOPs and director's choice, but to me it's a fault in an otherwise really good movie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're calling the shallow DOF "degradation, artifact or technical compromise"? These aren't film students we're talking about. They know what depth of field is and how to control it. If they wanted more DOF they would have had it.

Do you think they were just winging it and figured, "Eh, whatever we get in focus is fine"?

I understand that you didn't like it, but to say that they decided to just be "content" with certain aspects of the film isn't fair. Having your opinion is fine, but you're basically calling them lazy, which isn't cool. Unless you were there yourself, how can you say what you "believe" or don't believe happened on set?

[Brad Grimmett]

I wonder if shallow DOF was combination of camera,color,light. I would of thought that they would measure from the camera to the actors with the tape.

                                              Greg Gross

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DOF has nothing to do with the camera or color. Yes, the 1st AC taped off a measurement (as they always do), but taping off a measurement has nothing to do with DOF either, it just confirms the exact measurement from the film plane to the subject so the AC can set the lens to the corresponding measurement. Greg, you say you're a professional photographer, but how can you not know what DOF is, or how it is controlled? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but this is something you should know about if you've been shooting for 20 years.

[Greg Gross]

Yes,grimmet thank you for your post,point well taken and I do not have

a problem with DOF in still photography. I am not familiar enough with

movie camera lenses,cameras to be sure about DOF in different shooting

conditions. I thought that intensity(amount of light could efect DOF in cer-

tain situations) maybe I'm using incorrect termniology here.What I'm try-

to say is a lot of light versus a little light with subject framed,focused. Its

a very common problem to have two people framed,focused and have one

slightly out of focus. Something you have to be aware of in the frame. I was

wondering if Morgan is not really out of focus,rather amount of light,color is

making him appear that way. I've seen the film 3 times but I cannot remember

that scene. I'm going to see it again tomorrow and I'll pay attention to that

scene. I do portraits in a camera room,weddings, corporate and architectual

work and often use view camera(4X5). DOF at this point of the game is a nat-

ural state of affairs. I know very little about primes used in filmmaking and their

relation to the camera and the film plane. I'm thinking now about what filter

they were using also. Is it a softer look but not out of focus? Well anyway grimmet

if you can en-lighten me please do. Actually I thought that this was the look they

wanted,you know, creatively chose it. DOF is a creative choice,can we agree to

that? Maybe Christian prefers sharper images vs. shallow images. Not a crime!

Anyway grimmet your post is well taken. I'm in awe of your profession!

 

Greg Gross