Chuck Bowdoin

Chuck, I like a lot of the ideas you presented and I agree with a lot of it. I really like the example you gave for "Home Alone". I also agree with the example you gave for sound. I heard, and I agree with, that a audience will put up with bad photography(focus, exposure,low resolution) before they put up with bad sound(unclear dialogue,lack of sound effects and foley).

Thanks for the nice response, Emmanuel. Actually, I often fear a lot of audiences will put up with both. ("Put up" in that they won't realize something is wrong, or if they do, they won't complain). I've been to quite a number of movies where the theater's sound system really muffled the sound (as I gnashed my teeth). It was plenty loud, just not clear. And then we'd catch the movie months later as a rental and say, "Oh, so that's what they were saying!"

No, not at all. Just pushing your buttons. It's worked though, see how much more precise your arguments have suddenly become :)

Bah! Not only that, but now I have a gosh darn novel to my name, suitable for submission to Lulu.com.

This is making the assumption that people who watch movies have no idea whatsoever why they like or dislike them. I don't think even Joe Sixpack is that dumb. They may not know what lens a shot used, but they know a pretty picture when they see one. People tend to know why they like things, even if they don't know how they were done.

 

It would help if you could provide examples. Any examples...

I'm getting the vibe that I've offended you somehow. If so, then I apologize for that.

I think very few of us are totally aware why we like certain albums or why movies "work" for us. We might try to put into words why something touches us, or why we love a particular album, but most likely our words would only be skirting the truth. It's not an issue of being "dumb," it's about being self-aware enough to know why you're being affected the way you are. And I think a lot of people (including movie critics and filmmakers) don't always have a complete bead on what makes a movie work or not. If they did, then every movie ever made would be fantastic.

As far as examples of when a movie isn't "working" for an audience member because of the execution in cinematography, well, that's the thing. Such an effect would most likely be subconsious on the viewer, so it would be hard to point to a Google page where a person stated, "I think I would've responded better to the movie on a basic level if the cinematography had served the material more."

I don't want to sound elitist, but I really do believe that much of the time, most movie-goers aren't consciously aware of why a movie does or doesn't work for them. They would recognize if they found a comedy funny, but if it wasn't funny, they might have trouble pinpointing exactly why it wasn't working. I believe that if the execution (including cinematography) is greatly undermining the material, many people will automatically latch onto other things as the culprit, such as the actors, or even the basic premise of the story.

I'll try to give you an example of an audience not being aware of how the "background" elements of a movie (anything besides acting and dialogue, etc) were severly affecting their perception of the movie. (And you might not be satisfied with this example.) Bowfinger:

http://inkwellbookstore.blogspot.com/2007/...eve-martin.html

Search for the word "Dolby" on that page. I'll bet that most people in that screening simply felt the movie wasn't funny, the acting wasn't funny, the script, etc. When in fact a big reason for their non-response was that the sound wasn't good.

Now, I know that may not be exactly what you wanted, since it doesn't have to do with cinematography, but I think it's in the ballpark. It's an example of where one of the aesthetic elements of a movie was so off that it affected the comedy, even though the audience wasn't consciously aware that the sound was the culprit.

I could give you some personal-opinion examples of where I feel the "look" of a movie makes weak stories good (because in a movie, the look of things is a good chunk of the story), or where execution undermines the material:

HOME ALONE: I know, not the best of movies, but it still seems like a "real movie." It still comes off as professional. And Culkin's performance is serviceable. But look again. His performance is actually kind of wooden and stilted. But no one notices because the combination of cinematography and editing is so professional looking. If he were to try that same level of acting in a cheaper-looking movie, I don't think he'd "get away with it." A lot of people love this movie and think it's a fun holiday romp. But don't you think that if the movie had been shot with lower production values that a lot of these same people wouldn't find nearly the same appeal from it? And that also possibly the script/story would be exposed as being pretty shallow? But because the slick professional value look was applied to a shallow story, the story actually "became" good. (I probably didn't word that the best.)

SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE: I know this is a popular movie, so this is obviously just my personal opinion. There's nothing really wrong with the acting performances. The story sounds like it could work. Sounds like it could be romantic. The climax should be quite moving and poignant. But it all falls flat (for me). Why? Is there something wrong with the script or the premise? I don't think so. I honestly really do feel that the reason this movie has no affect on me is because the look of Nora Ephron directed movies is so--I don't know what you'd call it--sitcom-y. I mean, I remember there's a scene where Tom Hanks is screaming at his son about getting laid, or something like that. And I actually remembered thinking to myself, "Man, those are great words. Hanks is acting his butt off. So why is the scene not working for me? Why is this movie so mediocre?"

[The above also applies to my response of the movie "Michael."]

TRUMAN SHOW: I know Jim Carrey was nominated for awards for his acting, but I personally thought he was wasn't very good--so affected. I also thought that while the premise was very provacative, the way the script played it out was very ham-fisted and bordering on insulting at times. (Constantly cutting back to people in bars watching Truman, etc. Constantly showing POV shots from the hidden cameras.)

True, the premise was provocative, and that helped "carry" the movie, and the premise could rightfully be considered part of the whole "story package." But my point is that the professional look of the movie and the music is also part of that story package. As I said before, I thought Carrey's performance was absolutely hideous. But apparently this was not a case where "all you need is good acting" because a lot of people thought he was good anyway. I personally believe people felt that way because enough of the "background" elements around Carrey were persuasive enough. (side note: The music in Truman Show was also very haunting and beautiful, which also helped to "cover up" for so much of the movie's shortcomings, including what I felt were weaknesses in the script.)

A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS: To mention another Carrey movie... I thought this movie was beautiful. (I know a lot of people think this movie is weak, but I like it.) And I also have no doubt that that response from me is probably more due to the cinematography and music rather than the basic story and script. If it had been executed any other way (and certainly any other way that looked aesthetically bad), I probably wouldn't like this movie.

PINNOCHIO: What about Pinnochio. It's considered a classic, and I think a lot of that has to do with the lush animation. (I know this may seem unrelated to the topic of cinematography, but I don't feel that it is, because it still has to do with the overall look of a movie.) What if Pinnochio had used really cheap computer graphics on the level of "Hoodwinked?" I think the story suddenly wouldn't seem as good anymore. Perhaps good enough to get an, "it was okay," but not enough to make it an enduring classic.

While we're on the subject of animation, what about nearly every Computer Animated Family Movie: Again, I think this is relevant to the argument of cinematography, because it still has to do with the look of a movie. And how that look can basically "override" a weak script and story. I personally feel that so many of the stories in these movies are boring and uninspired. (I'm even getting sick of Pixar's movies.) But audiences love them. In my opinion, they don't love them for the acting or story. I think it's because of the way the movies look that make it seem like the stories are better than they really are.

MIAMI VICE: No the movie probably wasn't good. And the script wasn't deep. But I honestly believe that it could've been a good movie if it had looked slicker. I think the movie would've worked then. I remember reading a thread about this movie on this site in which a lot of people seemed to think it came off as amateurish, with terrible acting, etc. It is my personal opinion that while this movie never would've been great, it could've been pretty good, slick entertainment. But because the cinematography (my opinion) did such a disservice to everything, then the acting seemed terrible, the story seemed trite and uninvolving, etc. (Obviously this example is only applicable if you didn't like the movie.)

THE FIFTH ELEMENT: The story of this movie is ludicrous. It barely even makes any sense. But I personally love this movie. (At least parts of it.) And I think the cinematography, visuals and music are the main reason. I've never read the script for this movie, but I can't imagine that the Leeloo escape sequence would be that exhilerating on the page--yet I feel that that 15 minute portion of the movie is darn near magical in the final product.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN: Many people consider this movie a masterpiece, or close to it. I can't really argue. However, I really do feel that the main premise of the story isn't anything special. The dialogue isn't exactly quote-worthy. I also think the acting is pretty "by the books." But what elevates this movie into genius territory at times? I think it's the look of the movie and Spielberg's direction of the battle scenes. I think if it were a parallel universe and another, less technically gifted director had that same script, the movie might be considered totally negligible. I feel that this is a case where execution clearly gave "legitimacy" to a movie that wasn't there in the premise.

MASH:

An example of script vs execution, is this article I remember reading a long time ago.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...S/40812002/1023

It's Ebert's review of Altman's MASH. Ebert felt that the script on its own was really nothing special. For the sake of this argument, let's take that opinion as fact. Of course the final movie turned out fine. But can we really say that that movie had a good story if the script was so uninvolving? Or was it ultimately the execution (of which cinematography is certainly a part of) that made the story what it was?

What about Prairie Home Companion? I liked that movie just fine. But can I really say there was a great story there? (Or any story at all?)

An example of where a reviewer consciously noted how a movie's look was negatively effecting the material (to the point where it wasn't "working" for them) is, well, there are probably a number of reviews of "Tadpole" that convey this.

I'd love to know how to run a scientific analysis on a movie script for depth. Is it measured in gsm? Does it matter what paper it's printed on?

Wise guy. :P That's the reason I put that term in quotes, because it was obviously something I was making up. My point was that people in this thread seem to be very easily separating a movie's story and its other aesthetic values, and I personally don't think they're as easily separated as that in such a medium. Does Fantasia have a good "story?" That movie basically just exists to present the relationship between visuals and music, and it is still considered a darn good movie.

I'll bet there has never been a review in history that said that. Prove me wrong. This kind of research is easy. You have an internet connection too.

I wasn't citing a movie review. The idea that a movie is far more handicapped (from working) with the combo of good acting/bad cinematography, as opposed to mediocre acting/flattering and appropriate cinematography... that was my own personal statement. (And hopefully some of the movie examples above illustrate where I'm coming from with that.)

Course they are both, but without a good story, visuals are MEANINGLESS.

 

Thats what makes imaes great - is what they mean in the context of the story they are telling.

I don't entirely agree with this. (Although there is obviously some truth in it.) Otherwise, there would be no beauty to be found in a painting or a sculpture or a still photograph.

To address the phrase, "without a good story, visuals are meaningless." I have to go back to my earlier statement and say, in a medium such as movies, how can one separate story from visuals? I think the documentary Winged Migration is a fantastic movie. But is there really any story there? Well, there is, but it's in the form of pictures. The beautiful cinematography works on the viewer, and the viewer soaks up the images and makes his or her own story. On the other hand, if we'd gotten a whole movie full of terrible looking shots of birds, shot on someone cell-phone cam, I think it would be a bad movie. (Not to say that all cheap-looking cinematography undermines the material. As has been eluded to earlier, very often horror movies benefit from such a look. I'm talking about when cinematography undermines the specific subject matter it's assigned to portray.)

To my knowledge there has not been a single movie critic in history that ever knew anything about how to make a movie. (excluding the several who went on to actually put their money where their mouth is and actually make movies) But of the ones that stayed film critics till the bitter end, you would often hear, for example, pronouncements of how poor a script was, on a film for which the finished product bears almost no relation to the script as written. I.E. it was ruined in the making. See Roger Eberts review of "Little monsters" for example. Same goes with cinematography. Superficially pretty shots (landscapes in golden hour) are often noticed as conspicuously "good cinematography" but are hardly the toughest thing to shoot. You point the camera and hope not to fu** up the exposure. And Blade Runner was not even nominated for the cinematography Oscar. Sheesh.

I wasn't saying that a film critic would know how to make a movie. I was saying that a film critic would only be more likely (as opposed to the average filmgoer) to be consciously aware of how a movie's aesthetics were affecting the overall success of the movie. Admittedly, this was total supposition on my part--based on the fact that critics are forced to watch gazillions of movies. However, regardless of whether or not anyone (critic or not) makes a conscious correlation between cinematography/execution and whether a movie works, I believe it still affects those veiwers too.

Didn't happen with 28 days later, did it?

 

In fact, all that proved to me, was that audience's dont give a poop what a movie looks like, if it entertains them.

I don't think the cinematography for 28 Days Later significantly negatively affected that movie because of the material of the movie. In fact, it was entirely appropriate to the material. I doubt that had that cinematography been applied to a Jane Austen adaptation, it woudl've enhanced the movie going experience for the Austen demographic. And darn it, I DO think that the average movie goer "gives a poop" about what a movie looks like. They just aren't consciously aware that they give a poop, if you catch my meaning. But instead of saying out loud, "I don't feel the cinematography served the material well enough to give legitimacy to the story," they merely get bored with the movie and occupy themselves with something else.

And there are cases where sometimes a very poorly shot film is a key factor in it's success such as Evil Dead. If it wasn't for the poor cinematogrphy of the film, it might not have been as scarey as it was. Blair Witch could get that honor too come ot think of it although I hated that film.

 

Anyway you slice it, in order of importantce I see it as story way on top then an ensamble of acting, cinematography, music, wardrobe, etc. But it's all subjectiove and no one here is correct, only correct for what they like or dislike about films as it relates to their own taste. My top film of this year is Cashback and that had little to do with the cinematogrphy which was ok but uneven. But the story trumps anything else that was a detractor for me.

But I'm not sure if one could call "Evil Dead 2" poorly shot, since it was totally appropriate to the material. In fact, one could argue that that was the ONLY way that film would work as well as it did--to have that look--so it actually had very good cinematography.

I guess what I'm saying is, I have no idea how one can differentiate between what is just the story element in a movie and what is the cinematography portion. They're so intertwined. It's kind of like trying to determine what's more important to a person's survival, their brain or their heart? They're sort of part of the same package.

I mean, on paper would you really say that Evil Dead 2 had a good "story?" I bet it might look very negligible. But becuase of the way it was ultimately executed (a combination of cinematography and camera move choices) it "became" a good story.

Anyway, not trying to be argumentative. Just my two cents.

I'd tend to disagree where you say "or even good cinematography for that matter;" I think the raw optical and aural style have just as much to do with the film itself as the narrative does, because the story only exists in relation to those elements. I mean, that's like saying a novel is enjoyable mostly because of the story, and the author's voice and style doesn't matter. I don't understand the separation.

I totally agree with this statement. Subsequent posters have listed instances in which people felt movies still were weak, despite having beautiful cinematography. That's fine. However, the look (and by extension, the entire topic of "execution") still greatly influences how the audience "accepts" (or not) the story and the character performances. I'll bet there are tons of movies which otherwise would be considered only middling, but the beautiful look and style were enough to push the movie "over the edge." Of course, we can't point to instances of those; most likely a movie review of such movies would simply state, "Boy, this was a pretty good movie."

While there are probably many instances of movies that look great but are criticized for still being weak, I bet there are just as many (if not more) instances where people like or love movies simply because the visuals on screen are so beautiful (and the people wouldn't have to be consciously aware that that's the reason they're reacting that way), despite the fact that if one were to "scientifically analyze" the script of such movies, you might find it lacking in depth. (And frankly, I think if one were to enjoy a movie just based solely on the beauty of the cinematography... I actually think that's a "valid" reason for liking a movie. This is an audio visual medium after all. For movies, I don't feel that style and "substance" are seperate. Visuals and style ARE substance in a movie. [or at least half the equation].)

I'll bet there exists just as many instances where a reviewer says something like, "Well, the performances have potential, and the story premise isn't bad, but the execution is sloppy and ugly." If an actor gives a great performance, yet it is captured on a cheap ugly home-camcorder, I am CONVINCED that that is far greater a handicap for the movie to overcome than if the movie is technically and aesthetically beautiful, but the actors are simply average.

A previous poster said something to the effect that movies are about stories and character and not visuals. Well, in my opinion they're about both. I really do feel that if the look of a film is wrong (or ugly) it negatively effects everyone's experience in the audience, even the fabled "joe sixpack." However, it's only some people (such as film reviewers) that might be consciously aware of how the cinematography affected (or took away from) the potential of the movie, and can articulate such thoughts in words. The "joe sixpack" person might not be aware of why they're not liking the movie; they might say something like, "The story was really stupid" (when it really wasn't, in theory); but the shoddy visuals affected his perception just the same.

[PS: Hi. I'm a new poster here. I should add the caveat that all of the above opinions come from someone with absolutely no knowledge of cinematography or movie-making. I really shouldn't be here, actually.]