Jump to content

The best Cinematography in the past year.


Recommended Posts

If we are talking for the year 2005, then I loved the cinematography in these movies:

 

1. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE -- I think Peter Suschitzky is amazing.

 

2. WALLACE AND GROMIT -- Loved the lighting in particular.

 

3. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS -- Fantastic Super 16 photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are talking for the year 2005, then I loved the cinematography in these movies:

 

1. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE -- I think Peter Suschitzky is amazing.

 

Can I ask you to elaborate why you liked the look of that film? I ask because I've never seen a Cronenberg film that I liked, and I really don't like the clean, sparse look he gets, but I have to respect his success. Obviously some people love it. To me his films always look bland and weak, amateurish, even. He's a postmodernist, so perhaps he's trying to make some doubly ironic point with that. But if that's the case, I still don't dig it.

 

I'm willing to hear-out someone who will enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask you to elaborate why you liked the look of that film? I ask because I've never seen a Cronenberg film that I liked, and I really don't like the clean, sparse look he gets, but I have to respect his success. Obviously some people love it. To me his films always look bland and weak, amateurish, even. He's a postmodernist, so perhaps he's trying to make some doubly ironic point with that. But if that's the case, I still don't dig it.

 

I'm willing to hear-out someone who will enlighten me.

 

 

Film, like any form of art, is a very subjective thing. I could sit hear and write a diatribe regarding Cronenberg's work and why I feel that it rises above many other director's works, but I doubt that I could say anything that would "enlighten" you and make you feel the same. That said, however, I like Cronenberg, for better or worse, because he does strive to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack. His work is unique in a way that he can't be easily categorized or lumped with any other filmmaker or group of filmmakers. In my opinion, that's what makes his work fascinating, exciting, and even paradoxical, in the sense that you never know what to expect from him and yet it's the same every time. I do think it's grossly unfair to describe his work as amateurish, as he's certainly proved his viability and enduring worth as a filmmaker in a way that most filmmakers will never know. But he certainly has a way of polarizing his audiences; he's one of those filmmakers that you either love, hate, or perhaps, love to hate. He's simply not one of those filmmakers that concern themselves about appealing to the masses and I'm pretty sure that he wants it that way. It takes a lot of balls to make the films that he does and expect to be taken seriously, and yet he does and is. I admire that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes a lot of balls to make the films that he does and expect to be taken seriously, and yet he does and is. I admire that.

 

I admire it as well. Perhaps I wasn't making my point clearly enough. I DO admire his success, just happen not to like his approach to cinematography (or storytelling, but let's leave the scripts out of it). When I watched History of Violence I was stunned at how bare and "fake" the sets and setups looked. It looked like it was made for cable or something. Then I remembered this is Cronenberg and most of his films have an odd "fake" look to them, something unfinished and definitely unpolished. But this is just my eye. Do you feel the same, and simply happen to like this approach, feel that he's making an ironic point here, or do you feel the opposite, that his films in fact do look finished and polished and therefore there's no irony at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim Vickers wrote:

 

"Do you feel the same, and simply happen to like this approach, feel that he's making an ironic point here, or do you feel the opposite, that his films in fact do look finished and polished and therefore there's no irony at all?"

 

I suppose that of the two choices I would go with the latter; although Cronenberg certainly understands the nature of irony. I do not think Cronenberg's movies look "fake," "amateur," or "unpolished." In fact, I think Cronenberg is one of the most polished filmmakers in the commercial moviemaking world and certainly one of the most intellectual. I also happen to think that Peter Suschitzky's cinematography compliments Cronenberg's directorial style perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, I think Cronenberg is one of the most polished filmmakers in the commercial moviemaking world and certainly one of the most intellectual. I also happen to think that Peter Suschitzky's cinematography compliments Cronenberg's directorial style perfectly.

 

I agree he's one of the most intellectual. Totally disagree that he's one of the most polished. Also, Suschitzky shot Empire Strikes Back. If you can watch ESB and tell me you see one iota of his talent on display in a Cronenberg movie, I'll....well, I'm sorry, we're not watching the same the thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a complete waste of time arguing about things that are purely subjective. For my part, I wouldn't walk across the street to watch THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK for free, but have seen most of Cronenberg's stuff several times. From my view, films like VIDEODROME (Mark Irwin, DP), CRASH, and NAKED LUNCH are rich with visual metaphor, subtext, and intellectual and philosophical themes, whereas a movie like ESB is nothing but brainless mind candy. So please, quit berating me for my opinions on what constitutes good cinematography and filmmaking as if your opinion is of more value. You don't like Cronenberg's movies; that's great! But who cares? I don't particularly like Spielberg or Lucas, but I'm not going to try and sit here and convince you that your opinion about MUNICH is wrong. Let's just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest shnitzel3

History of Violence was made as a parody of violent movies, and thats why the look and feel of the movie are the way they are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

my faves were definitely The New World, Last Days, Memoirs of a Geisha, and 2046 , but it seems like these were pretty universal favorites so nothing too controversial. although I did love Hostage, and am fine with taking tons of flack for it haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Memoirs of a Gisha, Crash, Munich

 

 

He stole my answer! ;)

 

Also The New World is stunning, especially since electric lights were used on only a handful of scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Goodnight and Goodluck (Great B/W photography and use of swish pans)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Brick

The New World (though its aldready been mentioned a million times)

Crash (though i didn't really think much of the film, the photography rocked!)

The Constant Gardner

Edited by Andy_Alderslade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...