Spectre

[David Mullen ASC]

Comparisons between the Bond movies certainly are justifiable -- I think anyone who loves these movies probably has some of their own ideas of the elements that they like.

 

Since the whole Bond concept comes out of cold war spy movies, which in turn have some connection to b&w WW2 spy movies and film noir crime movies, I've always liked the ones where there is some homage played to that genre -- "Skyfall" did it only now and then, being more naturalistic, but the opening shot where Craig steps into that slash of light in his eyes is a good example of this sort of homage. "Goldeneye", I think, is one of the best Bond movies in terms of a lighting style that blends old-fashioned film noir / spy movie visual elements with more modern naturalism. I also liked some of the harder lighting in "Quantum of Solace" for that reason. It's a tricky style because it isn't all one thing or the other, it's more a matter of the taste of the cinematographer and when they decide it is right to employ some old-fashioned b&w lighting touches for a memorable moment.

 

Bond movies are particularly complex visually because they also have that "National Geographic" color travelogue element, a holdover from the 1960's when audiences wanted to see the world from the comfort of their cinema seat. And they have that "fashion show" glamour element also. So you've got two genres that tend to emphasize color and beauty blended into a genre that is about suspense and action with a noir twist.

[Tyler Purcell]

Bond movies are particularly complex visually because they also have that "National Geographic" color travelogue element, a holdover from the 1960's when audiences wanted to see the world from the comfort of their cinema seat. And they have that "fashion show" glamour element also. So you've got two genres that tend to emphasize color and beauty blended into a genre that is about suspense and action with a noir twist.

Yep, that's a great definition of what makes Bond different from the other "spy" franchises.

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, so I saw "Spectre" today in Digital IMAX 2D at the AMC Century City.

 

I thought it looked pretty good, so I'm not sure what the big objections are regarding the cinematography.

 

SPOILER ALERT -- DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Occasionally I felt that there was too much haze being used in sets that didn't really need it (particularly Blofeld's white lab), but I'm as guilty as anyone of using a lot of haze in my movies so I don't feel I can take the moral high ground here... The haze worked best in the big nighttime conference room scene where Blofeld arrives in silhouette. In the white lab, it mainly just washed out Blofeld's close-up a bit too much. Sometimes that's an interesting effect but generally it works better with darker backgrounds, a white shaft of light in a white room gets a bit lost.

 

I didn't mind the mixing of formats, it didn't mismatch any more than the mixing of slow and high speed stocks did. I thought the night shots of London done on the Alexa 65 looked great.

 

The rougher, hazier, grittier look of this movie didn't quite have a precedent in earlier Bond movies but the Bond movies have varied in look over the decades, so this just seemed like one more look.

 

I had more issues with the story... I get that most Bond movies follow this same pattern of Bond picking up little clues as he moves from one exotic location to another, punctuated by action scenes and a few love scenes, but this movie seemed particularly episodic. There are so many clunky things. Why establish a security camera with a red record light on in the Austrian house that Mr. White was hiding in, that the hitman sees but for some reason Bond and Mr. White never notice, just so that you can explain why there is a video recording later that Blofeld shows Bond and Madeleine? Couldn't the camera have been hidden, so why bother establishing it? Why does Mr. White have a hidden room in Tangier that can only be accessed by breaking down the wall? Why was he in Tangier looking for Blofeld's hide-out when Blofeld's hide-out was just down the road in the desert? Yet this was also a place he took his family every year on vacation? Why did shooting one fuel tank cause an entire complex to suddenly blow-up?

 

And shouldn't have anyone been suspicious that Moriarty from the BBC Sherlock was now running British Intelligence? ;-)

 

And while I always appreciate the great sets in Bond movies, I wonder about the logic of this all-glass psych clinic on a mountaintop, requiring a massive set with a 360 translite wrapped around it, just for a 2-person dialogue scene at a desk, followed by another 2-person dialogue scene at a lobby bar?

 

Anyway, not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, I did.

[Gregory Irwin]

I just got home from watching Spectre as well. I loved the cinematography. It was very much in the visual, artistic style of the Dutch Golden Age during the 17th century. It had almost a gauze like texture to the image. I thought the low light close ups were gorgeous with the eye light that Hoyte employed.

 

*********SPOILER ALERT - AGAIN*********

 

 

 

Having said all this, I was really bored with the story and yes, the action sequences. I thought it played very flat based on the "Bond" standard. The story made no sense to me and eventually, I checked out. But great music! The Bond theme is the best in cinema.

 

G

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Poor effort from a storytelling/script standpoint. Nothing made sense, no suspense, sequences that went nowhere, badly edited action etc. Sam Mendes is good at inter human scenes, he's not as good at action. I kept wishing the directors who did John Wick could have done the action in this. That was textbook choreography.

[Gregory Irwin]

I totally agree Adam. Alexander Witt was the action unit director and he's outstanding at that. Surprisingly those sequences came out very flat and unimpressive. Too bad.

 

G

[Jeff L'Heureux]

I enjoyed the film from a visual standpoint. Very different look from Skyfall, and I can appreciate the new DP's take on the material after taking over from Deakins. For all the hubbub about shooting on the Alexa 65 for the night river sequence instead of film though, after actually seeing it I don't see why they couldn't have just shot it on 35mm anamorphic. Logistically, it looks like they only used a very short stretch of the river, and most of the angles were hero shots of Bond onboard the boat anyway that could have been lit to any stop they wanted. I mean, they shot the entire night car chase over a much larger total area on film, why not just keep the format consistent? I'm not liking this new idea that's starting to go around that "if we shoot digital we don't have to light our night scenes as much because the cameras are more sensitive". If you are spending $200+ million dollars, you can afford to light a night scene for 500 ASA, even if that set is a small stretch of the Thames. Like I said, they did it for the car chase earlier in the film.

 

Cinematography aside, the story fell really flat. It turns out that the studio was well aware of this problem during production. Apparently, the Sony email hacks revealed that most of what people are criticizing now about the story were the same complaints the studio executives had, but they were under the gun to get the movie into production. Here's one article from last year I found on it: http://defamer.gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885

[Miguel Angel]

OK, so I saw "Spectre" today in Digital IMAX 2D at the AMC Century City.

 

I thought it looked pretty good, so I'm not sure what the big objections are regarding the cinematography.

 

SPOILER ALERT -- DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Occasionally I felt that there was too much haze being used in sets that didn't really need it (particularly Blofeld's white lab), but I'm as guilty as anyone of using a lot of haze in my movies so I don't feel I can take the moral high ground here... The haze worked best in the big nighttime conference room scene where Blofeld arrives in silhouette. In the white lab, it mainly just washed out Blofeld's close-up a bit too much. Sometimes that's an interesting effect but generally it works better with darker backgrounds, a white shaft of light in a white room gets a bit lost.

 

I didn't mind the mixing of formats, it didn't mismatch any more than the mixing of slow and high speed stocks did. I thought the night shots of London done on the Alexa 65 looked great.

 

The rougher, hazier, grittier look of this movie didn't quite have a precedent in earlier Bond movies but the Bond movies have varied in look over the decades, so this just seemed like one more look.

 

I had more issues with the story... I get that most Bond movies follow this same pattern of Bond picking up little clues as he moves from one exotic location to another, punctuated by action scenes and a few love scenes, but this movie seemed particularly episodic. There are so many clunky things. Why establish a security camera with a red record light on in the Austrian house that Mr. White was hiding in, that the hitman sees but for some reason Bond and Mr. White never notice, just so that you can explain why there is a video recording later that Blofeld shows Bond and Madeleine? Couldn't the camera have been hidden, so why bother establishing it? Why does Mr. White have a hidden room in Tangier that can only be accessed by breaking down the wall? Why was he in Tangier looking for Blofeld's hide-out when Blofeld's hide-out was just down the road in the desert? Yet this was also a place he took his family every year on vacation? Why did shooting one fuel tank cause an entire complex to suddenly blow-up?

 

And shouldn't have anyone been suspicious that Moriarty from the BBC Sherlock was now running British Intelligence? ;-)

 

And while I always appreciate the great sets in Bond movies, I wonder about the logic of this all-glass psych clinic on a mountaintop, requiring a massive set with a 360 translite wrapped around it, just for a 2-person dialogue scene at a desk, followed by another 2-person dialogue scene at a lobby bar?

 

Anyway, not to say I didn't enjoy the movie, I did.

 

I wanted to ask John (as he is Penny's showrunner) about a couple of "Spectra" things that you mentioned in your post when I first saw the movie (he is on set most of the times) but I don't know if it is a good idea ha!

 

Regarding the video camera, does not James Bond take a look at the security camera when we see the camera? I think he does and we see a close up of he turning his head to look at it but it could have been my imagination trying to think that he does.

 

 

Comparisons between the Bond movies certainly are justifiable -- I think anyone who loves these movies probably has some of their own ideas of the elements that they like.

 

Since the whole Bond concept comes out of cold war spy movies, which in turn have some connection to b&w WW2 spy movies and film noir crime movies, I've always liked the ones where there is some homage played to that genre -- "Skyfall" did it only now and then, being more naturalistic, but the opening shot where Craig steps into that slash of light in his eyes is a good example of this sort of homage. "Goldeneye", I think, is one of the best Bond movies in terms of a lighting style that blends old-fashioned film noir / spy movie visual elements with more modern naturalism. I also liked some of the harder lighting in "Quantum of Solace" for that reason. It's a tricky style because it isn't all one thing or the other, it's more a matter of the taste of the cinematographer and when they decide it is right to employ some old-fashioned b&w lighting touches for a memorable moment.

 

Bond movies are particularly complex visually because they also have that "National Geographic" color travelogue element, a holdover from the 1960's when audiences wanted to see the world from the comfort of their cinema seat. And they have that "fashion show" glamour element also. So you've got two genres that tend to emphasize color and beauty blended into a genre that is about suspense and action with a noir twist.

 

 

Point taken!

 

 

Totally different movies. The movie I saw was boring, there was no point to any of it, no drama, no conflict, nothing to captivate the audience as it rolled along at a leisurely strolling pace. The action scenes were predictable, slow and without the intensity "Bond" is known for. The actors performances were flat, just like the cinematography, very little dynamics. The green screen keying was god awful, both helicopter scenes interiors were horribly composited and pulled me right out of the film. The score was piss-poor, sub-standard for any movie of this caliber. The sound mix was equally as sub-standard, amazing for such a high-end film. Honestly, I don't know where they found the post production crew, but they offered little help to the poor screenplay.

 

 

It is a pity that you did not enjoy it! I did though :)

I agree with you on the action scene in Rome as I mentioned before.

 

It feels very slow when it should have been kind of super fast as the ones in Casino or any other chasing sequence that Alexander Witt has directed! Maybe he shot it in a different way but it was edited like it is?

 

Have a good day!

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember going to a screening of "Star Trek 3" at the DGA Theater with a Q&A with director Leonard Nimoy afterwards and he said something to the effect that "Star Trek" meant different things to different people, so it was hard to please everyone with new versions. I think the same is true with Bond movies -- I think a lot of people want something very modern but at some point, when does it stop being a Bond movie and just become another Bourne movie?

 

I think the Rome scenes in general was where the smoked sets worked the best, the older settings leant themselves that that painterly effect.

 

As far as needing to use the Alexa to shoot the night boat chase, I think for the super wide helicopter angles, using lower light levels and digital capture allowed more ambience and thus depth to the images, but otherwise, it seemed like there were plenty of night scenes shot on film, even the climax starts out in 35mm anamorphic as they get chased in their cars up through M's car getting sideswiped.

[Manu Delpech]

Just saw it, I'm going to echo everyone else's thoughts, it was meh. Casino Royale remains king in every way.

 

What surprised me was how bland (dare I say poor?) the movie looked?! Seeing some of the other comments here, it seems it's not a crazy thought to say out loud. I can't understand it, Hoyte did an amazing job on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Her & Interstellar (I'm a big fan of the last two), absolutely amazing work.

 

Here? It looks flat, the only sequence with any flair to it for me was the meeting at Rome with you know who, and the car chase following. It seems like anyone could have shot this, and it pains me to say that because I love Hoyte. Maybe it's what Mendes wanted? Hoyte speaks in the AC article of wanting to go back to a retro feel, maybe that's the reason for it? The grain was very minimal, might have to do with the 4K DI, and I like to feel the grain when I'm watching a movie shot on film, even though, obviously, you feel it much more when standing up close to a big monitor then you do on the big screen in my opinion, I was very close to the screen as well.

 

The color schemes felt really uninspired, with a murky, brownish tone for a good chunk of it (Tinker had a lot of brown in it, but it was something else), I kept thinking during the movie how bland, flat, boring it looked, like so many of those scenes should POP, the colors more intense, don't get me wrong, I do like subdued stuff when used right, but this feels like a waste to me.

 

I didn't want to see the movie that much, Casino Royale is the best, QOS was dreadful, Skyfall is good (Deakins' cinematography is really the best thing in it), and this is barely above QOS for me.

 

I thought that the set pieces though were good, but it's very "been there, done that".

 

I don't think Mendes is the right guy for the franchise, but he's not gonna be doing another, so there's that.

[Tyler Purcell]

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next. It's almost "Die Another Day" all over again, where they'll spend another 2 years finding a new Bond actor and trying to re-boot the franchise in 4 years. The sad part is, most of what is wrong with Spectre is the script, I could live with the "meh" cinematography if the script had any redeeming value, but it didn't. I also don't think Hoyte is the right guy for Bond anyway. He's more of a hand-held shaky cam guy and Bond is more of a dolly, crane, smooth shot kinda franchise. The post production coloring was MOST of the problem with the look, it was certainly not a camera problem. They could go back and re-color it to make it look good, which I bet they will for the video release.

 

I just loved Craig's worthless dialog and facial expressions. All I saw was "I'm tired of this franchise so I'm gonna **(obscenity removed)** it up" which is too bad cuz I like him, but I do believe he kinda screwed the pooch.

[Manu Delpech]

It was clearly the intent though, I assume Hoyte was here for the DI (doesn't say so in the AC article), so he got the look he wanted, it's just not going to work for everyone. I did like the handheld stuff actually, you don't see that usually in a Bond film. On another subject, it seems to me like they not only used the Alexa 65 for the river boat scene but also on the following scene on the bridge, it looked good here although digital, it intercuts just fine though and it wasn't really long enough to make any kind of big judgement. The Revenant's second trailer on the big screen was absolutely gorgeous though.

[Tyler Purcell]

I spotted the Alexa 65 stuff right away, it stuck out like a sore thumb on the 4k cinema projector. The highlights look like NTSC video and there is a lot more motion blur. I didn't notice those things as much on Skyfall, probably due to camera settings.

 

The Revenant trailer looks great on the big screen. Though I will admit, I'm not in love with the super wide distorted hand-held shots. I'm anxious to see the film.

[Manu Delpech]

Ah yes the trademark extra wide Chivo look, you love it or hate it I think, I love it because it is so distinct and vivid and visceral.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, it's for sure an acquired taste. I've seen it used a lot in classic cinema, especially european and Japanese. For one or two quick shots, it's cool, but for the amount of it seen in the trailer of Revenant, it gets me kind of scared.

[Lance Soltys]

I know this would probably never happen, but if they re-boot the franchise, I've always wished they'd set it back in the 1950's. Everything about the character seems to make more sense back then, and it would differentiate it from other franchises, like Bourne.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the fear is that a period setting would be less exciting to modern audiences; most period action films don't do that well in the box office other than the Indiana Jones movies. Plus would there be less suspense if the world in the plot was threatened with disaster if the story took place in the 1960's and we knew the answer already?

[Lance Soltys]

Those are all good points, plus I suspect budget would be an issue. (though maybe at this large of scale, the period cost may not be so significant, I don't know)

 

However, Mad Men really caught on (admittedly not a theatrical release), and I think the audience did really respond to the aesthetic. The suspense thing is tricky, but I'm of the mind that the details of his early exploits would have been kept secret. The public would never learn about Dr. No's laser or about what happened in Fort Knox. Of course we would know that the Mercury Project did work, and that Fort Knox didn't go nuclear, but we kind of always know that Bond will win (and likely end up alone with a woman), it's the getting there that's the fun part.

 

But I think your right about the audience, I think most main stream audiences want to see his modern technology and perhaps deal with contemporary issues (and a $300mn movie needs a lot of people in seats). Probably do way worse over seas, too. However, I was just thinking about what I would like to see, not necessarily what's actually practical.

 

Actually (again, just dreaming) I think it would be great to have two franchises, keep the modern one going and introduce Bond Classic.

[Dom Jaeger]

I know this would probably never happen, but if they re-boot the franchise, I've always wished they'd set it back in the 1950's. Everything about the character seems to make more sense back then, and it would differentiate it from other franchises, like Bourne.

 

Have you seen the recent Man from U.N.C.L.E. movie? Pretty much a retro Bond adventure, complete with a suave, womanising agent and lots of great early 60s settings. Could've been better, but still lots of fun I thought. Didn't do great at the box office though.

[Giray Izcan]

I just watched the movie, and really enjoyed it. There were a few cheesy moments but was overall pretty good actually. Cinematography wise, I found it marvelous. There is definitely a Hoytema touch to it, which I really appreciate. Much like his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, he really pushed the boundaries with underexposure and working at stocks' toe, which is always interesting. I guess I don't see why some people had issues with the cinematography of the film. The Alexa footage sticks out for sure but it was so minimal that it did not bother me. Overall, I'm glad that I saw the movie, because the cinematography was pretty inspirational actually. Lots of silhouettes, and half keyed characters and minimal fill light... stunning. Many hats to Mr. Hoytema.

[Miguel Angel]

Benjamin B interviews Hoyte and David Smith (Spectre's gaffer)

 

Fantastic reading, as always.

 

http://www.theasc.com/site/blog/thefilmbook/lighting-spectre/

 

Have a good day.

[Tyler Purcell]

Radiohead just released their Spectre theme song, the one that was suppose to be in the film.

 

Pretty cool not to mention:

[David Mullen ASC]

This is pretty funny:

[John Holland]

It is funny but a touch unfair I feel .

[Phil Rhodes]

The one they did for The Martian was unforgivably cruel, I thought.

 

It's an engineering movie. There's already been a lot of idiotic sci fi bullshit. Let the nerds have their day.