bad cinematography

[Christian Appelt]

Bad cinematography usually overlaps with bad direction.

Any "style" that does not serve the story or enhances a film's mood is bad cinematography.

Any self-conscious "arty" touches that detract the viewer and remind him that he's watching a movie (with the makers showing off) is bad cinematography.

 

Unfortunately, these are rubber band definitions because even the grade-Z porn "filmmaker" will assure you that shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle was an important asset to the artistic vision he had for D-CUP INFERNO PART XXV. :rolleyes:

[Bill Totolo]

I think it's the intention that should be considered first and the technical execution should attempt to support that. It's important to have something to say, then find a way to visually express that.

 

Of course there are ways to improve you're craft so you can support these subjective ideas as fully as possible and that's what distinguishes artists from each other.

 

I never walk away from a film complaining about the cinematography. If a film isn't fully realized visually I usually attach that to a lack of creativity or experience on the director's part.

[Louis]

I never walk away from a film complaining about the cinematography. If a film isn't fully realized visually I usually attach that to a lack of creativity or experience on the director's part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But that's what struck me as so strange when I saw The Upside of Anger. I enjoyed the film in spite of the cinematography, and usually when I watch films it's the other way around.

[Josh Bass]

Ok, let me run this one by you people:

 

I rented "Saw" last night (or should I say, I "saw Saw", mwahahahahahha!) So, anyway, I'm not saying the movie in its entirety looked bad, BUT, there were several scenes where it was supposed to be "dark", dark to the point where a normal person couldn't see, as you could tell by the characters fumbling around and acting like they couldn't see, and yet, it was not dark, it just looked underexposed. I didn't buy the fake darkness. I didn't buy that the charcter in this fake darkness wouldn't be able to see. Anyone seen the movie and know what I mean? Am I wrong? It just didn't look "dark". It looked like I'd turned the brightness and contrast way down on my little TV. Is this not bad cinematography?

[David Mullen ASC]

I was just timing a movie where I had these arguments with the director. One was a scene in a car driving down a moonlit road in the middle of nowhere at night. I had soft light coming through the windows that I timed down to something that felt dim... but the director had me brighten it up to look well-lit. Now you wonder where all the light is coming from.

 

Then I had a dimly-lit room where a character, asleep, wakes up from a bad dream and turns on the lamp next to the bed. The director wanted me to lighten the shots before the lamp turns on. I was arguing "why would someone bother turning on the lamp if there is so much light in the room already?"

 

"But it looks dark before the lamp comes on!"

 

"It's SUPPOSED to be dark before the lamp comes on..."

 

I barely won that argument but I suspect the director will still ask me to brighten it later.

 

It's the classic problem of low-contrast "dim" ambience versus high-contrast "shadowy" moon lighting. Both have their uses. But the problem of dim, soft lighting is that you are basically lighting flatly but with a lot of underexposure to create the impression of very dimly-seen detail (rather than big, black shadows and small areas of brightness) -- so if the image is printed or transferred too brightly, it looks overlit.

[Josh Bass]

Ah. Well there you are. Maybe I can find some stills and put 'em to see if anyone agress. Until then, I have only fellow Saw seers (tee hee) to support me.

[Louis]

Ah. Well there you are. Maybe I can find some stills and put 'em to see if anyone agress. Until then, I have only fellow Saw seers (tee hee) to support me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I saw Saw (it's not my fault it has a terrible title), and I didn't really catch anything weird about the lighting, but thinking about how it looked, I can completely see where you're coming from.

[Jayson Crothers]

Two tid-bits come to mind here:

 

I spoke with David Armstrong (the Cinematographer for "Saw") a couple of months ago and he was mentioning that he'd been hired less than a week before they began shooting and they shot in only 18 days. When I first saw the film, I too wasn't overly impressed by what I was seeing, but after speaking with David and learning the circumstances of the production and the resources he had, it's shocking what he and his crew were able to pull off.

 

The second bit is that Phedon Papamichael, ASC, came to AFI last Friday and spoke with the cinematography fellows. Someone asked about the look of "Sideways" and he explained how he had completed timing for the film, left for a vacation out of the country, and then got a call from the director saying he was concerned the movie was too dim and was printing the ENTIRE film up by 4 points, which is what created the mushy, washed out look. Papamichael was saying the director had seen a print in a theatre with an old bulb, and because of that and his being out of the country, he lost some control of the film's look. He was quick to mention, though, that he still loved working with the director and would do so again in a heartbeat.

 

All of this brings to mind one thing that keeps echoing in my mind: when I interned for Tom Priestly, ASC, he told me right at the start of the film: "I try to never judge another cinematographer's work too much because I don't know any of the circumstances they had to work in."

[andyh]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I HAVE TO SAY I AGREE. I'M A DP IN THE UK AND FIND IT INCREDIBLE THAT SO MUCH S**T ENDS UP ON OUR TV'S MOST EVENINGS. HAVING SAID THAT, IT,S ALSO A CASE OF TIME, BUDGET AND HOW MUCH THE PRODUCER CARES ABOUT WHAT HE / SHE PUTS THEIR NAME TO.

[Tim J Durham]

"Ashes of Time" shot by Christopher Doyle. What a mess. Halfway through the filming, Wong Kar Wai had a breakdown of some sort and he and Doyle went off and made "Chungking Express" which I really liked, then returned to "Ashes of Time" some time later. Doyle also shot "Hero" for Zhang Yimou so he's obviously got great talent.

 

Alot of the continuity problems in "Ashes of Time" are not the DP's fault but he sure wasn't helping. The exposure and color in the scenics were all over the place almost to the point that I started thinking that the lab had screwed the pooch on them. Maybe that's why they had to quit halfway through?

 

A couple of random interior shots clearly had something (like a shirt or drape) blowing in front of the camera but there were no establishing shots to tell you what, so it looked like a f***up.

 

I really think the lab had to have screwed them because there are scenes (and single shots) that are just missing. See for yourself. Critics have hailed it as some sort of masterpiece. It isn't.

 

Tim

[TJ Williams]

David,

 

That really catches the center of the problem of criticism of Dps for lighting choices.

 

Ultimately, it seems to me, the look of the film is often, decided by others, often very untechnical others.

 

I suppose Rembrant didn't have someone over one shoulder saying make the dark areas brighter and over the other shoulder saying get more paintings out today.

[Norbert Shieh]

"Ashes of Time" shot by Christopher Doyle. What a mess. Halfway through the filming, Wong Kar Wai had a breakdown of some sort and he and Doyle went off and made "Chungking Express" which I really liked, then returned to "Ashes of Time" some time later. Doyle also shot "Hero" for Zhang Yimou so he's obviously got great talent.

 

Alot of the continuity problems in "Ashes of Time" are not the DP's fault but he sure wasn't helping. The exposure and color in the scenics were all over the place almost to the point that I started thinking that the lab had screwed the pooch on them. Maybe that's why they had to quit halfway through?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

did you see a print of "ashes in time?" as far as i know, all the dvd transfers of it are crap.

[Tim J Durham]

did you see a print of "ashes in time?"  as far as i know, all the dvd transfers of it are crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I saw a "restored" print at the AFI. They were doing a Wong Kar Wai mini-fest. It was very disappointing.

 

Tim

 

PS: You can't have a discussion about bad cinematography without mentioning "Sleeping with the Enemy". Shot by John Lindley who also shot "The Serpent and the Rainbow" which was great. This is another example of the DP having to serve the bad choices of the director, but the result was embarrasing. It looked like an instructional for film students. "Here's how you can set the mood with angles and lighting, students". It was chock-a-block with visual cliches.

 

http://imdb.com/title/tt0102945/fullcredits