bad cinematography

[Louis]

This may not be the most popular subjct ever brought up in this forum, but I think it's important, when learning a specific craft, to be able to differentiate good from bad work, so here's a question: Can anyone remember seeing a movie where they thought the cinematography was bad? Not just average, but noticeably bad? This my be tough for the working DPs here, because they may know a lot of other working DPs personally and that might make it hard to mention, but I was just curious. I bring this up because I just saw a certain movie shot by someone (a BSC member no less), and I thought it was pretty terribly shot. The lighting was really strange and unmotivated (even in locations where there was plenty of motivational light) and the color was really bizarre. There were scenes that took place outdoors that didn't look like they were balanced at all, like they shot with tungsten film without a filter. It might just be me and my relatively untrained eye, but I thought it was pretty bad.

[Mark Allen]

The tough part of this question is when it comes to cinema verite or a kevin smith sort of "we don't care about the photography - listen to the dialogue" style of filmmaking.

 

You could almost say something is bad only when it didn't hit it's objective - so without knowing the objectives that's a hard call.

 

I'm not saying you can't say "I didn't enjoy the cinematography in this movie" - but it's just hard to know if it was because "the DP blew it" or if the director's intention was different. Some people would argue (adamately) that anything that looks too pretty is bad because it's fake.

[Rik Andino]

You rarely see bad cinematography in most movies theatrically released

Because for one thing EVERY studio ensures that if they get one thing...

It's a DP that is an experienced professional & knows his poop.

 

I doubt the movie you saw was shot the way it was by accident or a mistake

It most likely was a stylistic choice of the Dir. and DP to make it that way.

You don't get a BSC for nothing...the DP knew what he was doing

& he made a decision (or maybe someone else) to do it that way.

 

Most movies you see in the theater are bad because of the acting or storyline

And some times it can be attributed to the director...

But rarely ever it is because of the cinematography or editing or music...

or any other technical stuff that can damage a movie...

 

You can't be a bad DP and continue to get work...

(I'm sure someone will come along and prove me wrong though ;) )

Most of the people in those fields are the top of their trade...

Studios won't greenlight huge productions if they have inexperience crew people.

 

However you'll most likely see cinematography you didn't like

Or editing you didn't appreciate but it doesn't mean it was bad...

& they didn't know what they were doing...you just didn't like it.

 

If you really wanna see bad cinematography go to film school

And look at the first year students you'll spot some bad beginner mistakes...

But don't expect a Hollywood Production to make the same ones.

[Dominik Muench]

well if you shot something considered bad cinematography... you can always sell it as video art hihihi :D

[David Mullen ASC]

Technically "incorrect" images doesn't necessarily equate "bad" cinematography -- there are many times when you do something unrealistic, unnatural, or downright "sloppy" for an effect, to create the right mood. Good photography isn't necessarily naturalistic and technically polished.

[Louis]

I guess there really isn't such a thing as bad cinematography, but this cinematography in this certain movie didn't work for me at all. Can anyone think of a movie that they have seen where they thought the cinemtaography didn't work for them? (Maybe that should've been my question from the beginning).

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I find a lot of film-for-TV stuff (and video for TV, for that matter, although the expectations are lower) that's done in the UK to be very ordinary. Just lit for exposure or shot under whatever natural light there is, which is invariably ovecast. Very flat and dull. Quite a lot of BSC members got where they are by churning out this kind of work.

 

Phil

[Morgan Peline]

I'd be very interested in finding out what the film was as I am personally in the process of deciding what I like and don't like when it comes to cinema and cinematography.

 

Though we don't want to be rude or overly critical about this film, I feel it would advance this discussion a lot if you did actually mention what the film was. Obviously with the proviso that everyone is diplomatic about their critiques if we do discuss it.

[Guest fstop]

Superman IV? Die Another Day?

Edited April 12, 2005 by fstop

[Guest fstop]

I don't see the taboo in being critical of someone's work that is viewed to the public - it's just like any other art. Each piece should be judged by it's own merits and if you personally don't appreciate the work or find technical fault with it, it's a free country! Art is all about interpretation and opinion, whether or not the work you are judging is something you are capable of doing yourself.

 

I am no songwriter and I couldn't write a tune if Beethoven taught me sheet music- I'll still argue till the end however that Michael Jackson's Dangerous is a lousy LOUSY album. NEVER be ashamed of your opinion- you have one and it's all that matters.

 

The only thing to remember- If your opinion isn't informed, everyone who is informed will know and they'll squash you like a bug! ;) Live and learn- prentending everything is wonderful and repressing your opinions will only mean creative people everywhere will be left to sit bored, twiddling thumbs on their laurels, and what a horrid existence that is for an artist! Keep the standard high, and be as critical of your own work as you are of others!

[Jon Rosenbloom]

"Four Weddings & A Funeral" struck me as overlit, as did "Clueless," (same DP I think.) Not that there was anything technically wrong, but the beauty lighting made these movies look like makeup ads, rather than stories about characters. Also "Jerry Maguire" is bizarrely commercial in its look. The recent "Merchant of Venice" was pretty gloomy for a comedy. (So, I'm contradicting myself; the 1st two comedies were overlit, the 3rd is underlit!) I can't fault the technical quality of these films; it's the artistic choices the DP's made that "take me out of the film."

[Rik Andino]

well if you shot something considered bad cinematography... you can always sell it as video art hihihi  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You just made me realize something...

 

If you really want to see BAD cinematography (bad capatilize!)

Go get any of the straight to video DVD's...

Aim for stuff distributed by maverick entertainment

You know...the "teenage horror movies" and "urban gangster films"

Man they're pretty out there in bad...all over the place...

 

Usually it's a student cinematographer

Or a decent cinematographer who just doesn't care...

 

Bad directors (and trust me they're bad, I've worked on a few of these...)

Who have no eye whatsoever...they also don't know how to talk to actors...

 

And very important--BAD PRODUCTION VALUE...

 

Everything else can look like a stylistic choice

but you can't fake Bad Production Value.

[Dan Salzmann]

I agree with David Mullen. Slick and glossy is not always good. The world is not a giant laterally placed Kinoflo.

For me the cinematography in "Cold Mountain" was not "good" but technically proficient because IMHO it made the civil war look like a 2 hour Maxwell House commercial.

I think it is much better to think about what good cinematography is and why and how to achieve it.

As far as "natural" goes - sometimes that is not that interesting or important either.

There are Rembrandt paintings where the lighting is not that natural but they are incredibly powerful and believable.because of their balance.

[Keith Mottram]

"I bring this up because I just saw a certain movie shot by someone (a BSC member no less), and I thought it was pretty terribly shot. "

 

Yeah, so which film was it? You cant ask for people to contribute to a thread, asking to name names and then not even give an example. I'd say that anyfilm which is shot in scope or scope aspect but frames as if its a TV movie is guilty. This isn't an artistic choice it is a lack of artistic/ visual skill. Who to blame? That's harder sometimes it might be the directors fault. An example I'd give would be 'XXX'. That film was complete poop anyway but it didn't help that you could have cropped the whole film to 4:3 and it would have had the same visual impact. Anyone who throws the rule books out the window is fine by me, its those who are playing for the big commercial money and frame like they couldn't care less that piss me off. Scope framing takes more thought, in terms of art department etc. as well as cinematography. Some people forget that. Tim's examples are also guilty of this.

 

Keith

[Dominik Muench]

Usually it's a student cinematographer

Or a decent cinematographer who just doesn't care...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

hey im a student cinematographer :angry:

[Max Jacoby]

The recent "Merchant of Venice" was pretty gloomy for a comedy.

 

Although there were some comedy bits in there, it wasn't really a comedy in my opinion. It wasn't a drama either, which is the problem with this film.

[Guest fstop]

  Scope framing takes more thought, in terms of art department etc. as well as cinematography.  Some people forget that. Tim's examples are also guilty of this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

 

 

 

[Riku Naskali]

Bad cinematography... Everything I've shot :D

[Shaun Joye]

I agree that most proffessionals know what they're doing and the things we criticize aren't mistakes so much as conscious decisions. With that said not all decisions are equal and its quite possible for DP's to make decisions that are just BAD.

 

The movie I'm thinking about right now is Daughters of the Dust. The lighting in this film isn't bad but the camera work seems to just ignore eye lines and is all over the place. I think this shows a lack of respect for the actors and just gives me the impression that the DP was drunk.

 

Another film I had problems with was Matrix Revolutions (It might have been reloaded actually I'm not sure or maybe both). There was a definate lack of headroom in medium close ups. Alot of times the shot was cut of just above the eyebrows. I want to see people's hairlines, dammit! Now I've been told there was supposed to be some significance in the story that caused this but it fell through after the woman who played the oracle died. I also noticed a lot of strobing in the car scenes which was irritating and contrary to the earlier matrix's style of smooth action scenes that didn't make your eyes hurt.

[Mike Williamson]

As I mentioned in a recent post, I was disappointed in the look of "Be Cool". I've been watching some of the great films that Jeffrey Kimball shot for Tony Scott lately, so I went to the theater hoping to see something maybe along those lines, big soft sources through windows and so forth. Instead I saw a very flat, dull lighting, it felt uninspired to me. Obviously we're talking about a different type of story from the Scott films, and you've got a large cast with lots of names (and no doubt egos) to keep happy, so perhaps that dictates a less stylized approach to the photography. Nonetheless, I left a little let down after seeing it, in part because I thought Kimball's talents were being wasted on dull approach to a dull story.

[Louis]

Ok, the movie that I saw was called The Upside of Anger with Joan Allen, shot by Richard Greatrex, BSC. I looked up some of his past credits, and he has done some great work in the past, even including an Oscar nomination for Shakespeare in Love. The lighting in this movie however just seemed bizarre. There were scenes shot outdoors in the snow and it looked like all he did was shoot uncorrected Tungsten film, because the whole frame was overwhelmingly blue. It was obviously an artistic choice, and I can almost see why he would try that, but it didn't work for me at all. He also didn't correct any windows, and so every scene that had a window in the background (and there were a lot, including scenes with a big glass balcony door in the background) was really blue and sometimes overexposed, to the point where it was kind of distracting. Again, it seems like it was an artistic choice, but it didn't work for me. There are other examples where I felt that the lighting was strange and unmotivated, but it's been a while since I saw it and I can't remember any specific examples. Basically, this was a really small movie, and I felt that the cinematography should have been less intrusive, because the movie was really a character study and the cinematography hurt the movie more than helped it I felt.

[Matt Pacini]

For me, I tend to dislike "trendy" things that come & go, probably because as such, they tend to be overused, which results in inappropriate applications.

Like the current fad of shaky hand-holding all the time, to supposedly make the footage "exciting".

Or that annoying over-lighting the person from about mid-chest down look that's so popular in these crime drama TV shows the last few years, but especially the "camera op is having a seizure" look of NYPD blue and a couple other shows, where it looks like someone is actually bumping into the freakin' camera.

Bugs the crap out of me.

 

Matt Pacini

[Jayson Crothers]

Those straight to video slasher flicks are almost always lacking in quality all-around because they're done with no money and no time and since they essentially sell themselves, the motivation to go above and beyond is low for many folks involved (ie, directors and producers).

 

I've shot one of these and for young cinematographers (or maybe just me) I think they're great for cutting your teeth and learning - I know that after shooting one I learned a great deal about politics (investors and distributors were ALWAYS around), speed (all night exteriors during the shortest nights of the year and not wanting to brutalize an already underpaid, overworked crew), and ust refining my own aesthetics (any time you light something, you learn).

 

Do I enjoy watching those movies? Not at all. Did I enjoy the process of making one? Absolutely.

 

But you're quite right - they're only one step up from a student production.

[Jeff Brown]

hey im a student cinematographer  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

.... and?

 

chances are you'd be in over your head on a feaure production as well. no one is born with the skill to complete large scale projects with ease.. you may have skills as a student, but you dont have all teh skills of a professional.

 

the statement was not targetting you. its just a astatement of reality.

[Robert Hughes]

How about all those skin flicks that look like they were shot in a warehouse? Lighting - scale - shadow? Who need 'em, when you've got inflatable boobs.