Jump to content

Peter Bitic

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter Bitic

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  1. This is not really a good summary of everything that I tried to communicate in this thread, but I would agree with most of your quote (with the biggest exception being "basically could just be a wide shot in every scene", because various editing styles create a huge difference, and some of the things you just can't accomplish with all wide shots. That is not to say that you can't have a great movie with all wide shots, but such a movie would be meaningfully different (meaningful in terms of content) from movies with different editing). And again, so that I am not misunderstood: saying that
  2. Sraiyanti, I didn't say that The Office would be equally funny without the interviews and looking into the camera, I said that if it wasn't made in such mockumentary fashion, the realistic cinematographic style would still work equally well. So the style doesn't need this mockumentary rationale to work. As for the dark room example - I agree, there are cinematographic approaches that are not right. Extremelly unrealistic lighting that puzzles the viewers or some extra-stylized stuff that distracts them are obviously not the right thing to do. But I think that goes without saying. When I am
  3. For me story, when it comes to movies, means general description of what happens. This general description includes what the character do, what they say (not literally, just a description), what they think, where they are, how they look and key things that they hear. It does not include the camera with which the movie was shot, creative lighting style (I am not talking about basic lighting that is required by the script, eg. "character has a torchlight in hand", "it's dark outside"), coloring, composition, camera movement, description of every little detail in the scene, description of
  4. Well, I guess I really shouldn't force my definition of the story, given that so much of the film-making community shares their view of what the story and story-telling is and they seemingly agree with each other on that. I don't exactly know what that definition means, despite seeing it used constantly, that is why I resort to my understanding of the word. But yeah, fair point.
  5. I know that in filmmaking stories are conveyed visually. That doesn't mean that what the cinematographer is doing is telling the stories, though.
  6. Yeah, I definitely don't define "story" in this overarching sense where "story" has basically became a synonym for the whole movie ("everything needs to support the story"). I don't remember telling anyone that what they are doing is unimportant. I don't think elements that don't contribute to the narrative are unimportant. Majority of my posts here are obsessing about cinematographic and visual elements that even many of you don't recognize as really important (film vs digital, movie titles, etc.). And that is just a small subset of the field. Maybe you think that I don't value ci
  7. But nowadays this obsession with "story" and "story-telling" in our language (everything seems to be story-telling) could mean that we simply mean different things by it.
  8. Also, of course you realize that I am not talking about visual elements in general? (unless by those you mean just what is cinematographer's job). And I am sure there have been great filmmakers in the history of cinema who didn't view lighting, color grading, etc. as something that influence narrative in any meaningful way.
  9. Visual elements that are of any narrative importance are specified by the screenwriter or worked out by a director and set designer. Lighting, lens choice and even specific compositions (as long as you don't point the camera to the ground) have practically zero effect on the story. That doesn't mean that I don't value cinematography - quite contrary - it's just that I think it doesn't have a narrative function.
  10. I don't know how you "tell a story" by virtue of pointing a camera at the scene or by lighting it. The resulting movie (which, of course is visual) contains a story, but the act of recording or lighting is not story-telling. Let's take an extreme example, to see if we understand each other: there is a movie set with great actors, great director, great scenography, great sound engineers etc. Screenplay is also very good. Even if you just watch the rehearsal on the set you can see it's great stuff. Now the director gives his 10-year old son a film camera and tells him approximatelly wher
  11. If we want the audience to notice the purple light, we can have two intentions: 1.) the audience would notice the effect, but wouldn't think it has any narrative relevance - it would be seen simply as a stylistic visual choice. It can indeed be a cinematographer's job to suggest such interesting stylistic choices and to execute them if the director agrees. 2.) the audience would notice the effect and would think it has narrative relevance - they could for example wonder why the flame is purple and would wait for the movie to answer that question or they could attribute the color to something
  12. Everyone lighting bonfires in the streets is a screenwriting decision and not a cinematographic decision. Cinematographic decision would be how to photograph bonfires, whether to use an additional lighting etc., and those decisions would be stylistic and technical.
  13. Not at all. What I am trying to say is that lighting and coloring decisions are stylistic decisions, and not "story-telling" decisions. And style is very important to people, so there is no fear of cinematographers losing jobs. Besides, the job of a cinematographer is not just to achieve a style, but more importantly, to assure general technical quality and consistency. There is no single "appropriate look" for any given type of movie. It's a preference-based stylistic decision largely driven by popular cliches that are in currently in vogue. Yet some cinematographers speak like they are s
  14. I think mood based on lightning is overrated. It's only a superficial thing that can also come across as a tired cliche that we have seen countless of times. So many films and videos seem to rely on lightning, coloring, music, slow motion etc. to evoke some kind of feeling, but they are mostly without any substance. Atmosphere of the movie - if it is of any substance - comes from screenplay, acting, scenography and directing. Whether a cinematographer uses this or that lighting shouldn't matter (imagine any *really good* scene from any movie, whether it is funny, romantic, suspensful etc.
  15. Public domain music does not require attribution of any kind. Attribution 3.0 licence =/= public domain. Also, it is clear this is advertising for the site. I know saying this comes across as rather rude, since there is a FREE MUSIC involved, but it had to be pointed out for what it is. If everybody who offered sample free stuff on their website advertised in this forum, it would be buried under the spam.
×
×
  • Create New...