Pavlos Sifakis

Saw the movie earlier-

 

Most interesting and unexpected, it was a digital projection (though I'm pretty sure I was the only audience member who cared to notice). As soon as the real world opening sequence commenced, I wasn't convinced. Unneccessary TV "verite" operating and an overgraded image- I actually thought it was suppose to be a joke within the film, as though Harry was watching a TV show recreation of his life or something. It literally looked like the David Tennant DR WHO show, shot on Digibeta. I have seen stuff shot on the 750 (that I've worked on) that looked way more textured than this. It did all also reflect the tone of the direction and storytelling, which often felt like a primetime BBC drama.

 

Swalomir Idziak's lighting is competent but a completely uninspired, workman job. Don't expect any Three Colours style visuals on this (even his Bruckheimer work had a bit of style). Lovelessly exposed dense negative, artistes eye-light close ups always kinos wrapped in 216 (the clarity of this digital projection made this VERY evident in eyeball reflections)! Often the masters don't match the close ups, although it's probably never intrusive. There is one sequence near the end where some white haired villain is waving his wand, and in the master he is side and backlit, a really dramatic portrait. Cut to the close up and it's frontal lit, astop over, obviously to "flatter" the performer and not upset anyone.

 

I am assuming David Yate's regular DP Chris Seager was either busy or the studio wanted a big name cameraman to hold the hand of the TV guy - I'm guessing it was the former if they were content letting new composer Nicholas Hooper score the movie. Had Seager (or anyone else) shot the movie with Yates, I'm sure it would have looked the same.

 

My big beef is still the use of super35. Compositions are just inherently goofy and jarring. Not using all of the negative area and then having to compose within what is magnified just creates this annoying claustrophobia. The problem has been on all the Potters from the start. Unfortunately on this film, it is made worse by the TV-style direction, where a two shot seems to be as wide as we go (unless it's a brief master or CG shot). There is a courtroom scene towards the beginning of the movie, a birds eye angle of the set, and it's dollying, only lasting a few seconds. Made all of the beautiful set design worthless- why can't we just hold shots like they use to?

 

The operating combined also left me disappointed. Too much unmotivated, "relevant" TV verite stuff, or close up tracking shots seemingly done exclusively with medium focal length lenses on steadicam (which with the super35 was way too claustrophic). You would think it refreshing when the camerawork becomes conservative with level tripod shots, but as mentioned before though, the "two shot and close up" directorial style cancels it out.

 

A fairly entertaining film (Imelda Staunton is fantastic) and the general tone is fairly straight (unlike the annoying hip makeover Alfonso Cauron gave part three). Stylistically however, the conservative yet elegant camerawork of Roger Pratt for Columbus/Newell seems to be the most cinematically satisfying for a film of this genre. Just my opinion.

I disagree. I saw the movie again on DVD and I'm totally convinced this a first rate direction. The close-ups are not the problem. They're the big advantage. Having seen LOTR and Golden Compas' great self-admiring wide masters that just show us the hard work of production designers, the Order of the Phoenix stays close to the characters, while keeping the composition always interesting. I've also seen Sex Traffic and although it's a TV miniseries the directional style is perfectly cinematical. Suddenly handheld camera and Steadycam moves are Tv'stylish? Why?

And the framing is claustrophobic, but that's part of the feeling of the film. It's how the main character is feeling.

Try look again some of the scenes: 1) Harry yelling LOOK AT ME! at Dumbledore. Excellent movement. Nice close ups.

2) Harry alone in Hogwarts bedroom. The camera Dollies back, revealling HArry and his reflection in the mirror.

3) Harry trying to reach Dumbledore after Trelawny's sucking. He's left alone in an empty space in the center of the frame and we dolly close to him from a high angle.

4) And the scene after the 3rd!

I could go on for hours, but my point is Yates did a very good job, away from Cuaron's melacholic lyrisism but close to Newell's intensive and wild style. Close to the characters but also good at the action scenes (mostly handhelded) he kept my attention to the screen all the time.

And a final notion. I am usually not a big fan of handheld camera (it's a bit cliche nowadays) but i here it worked preety well. When you use wild movement in a perfectly lit-blockbuster-beautifull world, it makes quite a contradiction. It creates a sense that something is wrong. And I think that was Yate's goal.

I found the lighting very good with intense colors, a great use of green and a very atmospheric and dark(yet preety colorful) look. Seresin did a better job, but this one is nice as well.

P.S.And just to avoid misunderstadings talking about self-admiring wide shots (did you ever count how many of them were when we first saw that Mina Tirith city at LOTR) I don't include the excellent job by Alfonso Cuaron in Azkaban. His wide slowly-moving long shots flow with the action, (they are not just a waste of time that interfers in the action) and they create great atmosphere keeping again the characters in focus and not the settings or th CGs.

Sorry for the spelling mistekes!

Whatever happened to silvery winter days?

Well, I live in Greece and clouds is a luxury I don't really have.

Of course I intend shooting on cloudy-moody-wintery days (if that's what you mean), but most of

the times even when it's really cold it's still sunny. Propably Novedmber is the best month for the job, but I cannot really rely on the weather, it might be

a long waiting!

Hi there.

I'm going to shot a movie with HDV or miniDV and I want a realistic

approach with cold wintery atmosphere and cool desaturated colors (green-gray-blue)

which will make contrast with vibrant reds (clothing)

I am just a student and I have always trouble controlling the color while shooting and not in the post.

If you have any suggestions on how to achieve this look on a digital camera and not on a PC

please help...