"The Proposition" DP'd by Benoit Delhomme

Jonathan Bowerbank · November 7, 2006

Has anyone seen the Aussie Western "The Proposition"?

It's a beautiful film, and a gritty one at that. It's definitely up there with the likes of "Unforgiven" and Sergio Leone westerns.

But I found Benoit Delhomme's work to be fantastic. He has some great frames where you'd swear the shot was a classic painting. I was especially impressed with the first exchange between Guy Pearce & John Hurt.

Go rent it if you haven't had the pleasure and tell me what you think.

Max Jacoby · November 7, 2006

Unfortunately I missed it in the theatres. If you like Benoit's work, check out 'Cyclo'.

Christophe Collette · November 10, 2006

Gorgeous photography on that movie, I am very much amazed by the night shots, I would like to know how he did this, I figure it is day for night, but if someone knows how he did it, I'd be great to share this. I also wondered if the film was transfered in DI. The color palette is amazing. Some day shots look ENR processed too.

Francesco Bonomo · November 10, 2006

the movie wasn't distributed here in Italy, I had to buy the dvd from the UK in order to see it and I'm glad I did: it's a little gem.

I would like to know how he did this, I figure it is day for night

Christophe, check this out:

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/May...siton/page1.php

Christophe Collette · November 16, 2006

Thanks a lot Francesco! It answered all my questions!

Adrian Correia · November 16, 2006

Jonathan,

Max is right, you should check Cyclo - stunning work. I loved The Proposition also...wonderful widescreen compositions and the interiors are fantastic as well - the bar scene with Hurt in particular. The entire photographic asthetic of that movie is perfect.

Sam Wells · November 19, 2006

I second - or third "Cyclo"

His work on "The Scent Of Green Papaya" (Tran Anh Hung's first feature) is also very interesting.

Vietnam totally created on a French sound stage; when I first saw it I thought it was - well a bit too studio lit.

After I'd been to Vietnam I rented it again, and - actually he captured the "cranked up to 11" aspect of the light quite well for work done on a stage....

-Sam

Luke Allein · November 21, 2006

I saw it just the other day. Yeah, the cinematography is ridiculous. Really brought out the oranges and the desert colors.

I liked it a lot, but honestly I expected a little more after hearing so much hype about it. Maybe I have to see it again, it's been in my head for two days already which is usually a good sign that I'm gonna really like a movie. I recommend as well.

Ray Winstone is so good in just about everything.

Pablo Herrera · December 1, 2006

I usually kick myself when I miss such beautifully shot movie on the big screen. So I was happy to actually catch this in theaters. What wasnt good was that I was the only one there. No joke, seriously the only one.

This movie was great and I wish I wasnt so broke so that I could buy it now.

K Borowski · December 5, 2006

I saw the film in theatres with my buddy over the summer. We were two out of maybe a dozen, granted it was a matinee. I'm pretty sure the film tanked here in the U.S. As far as story and cinematography went, I thought both were excellent. My buddy thought it sucked. I loved the story, the "Australian Western" genre, and the awesome compositions, which were probably unnoticed by everyone in the theatre save myself. A lot of people that had gone to see it objected to the courseness, and graphic violence, which I agree were overdone. The F-word game that has probalby been going on since "Scarface" really has to end. It's great to use it for emphasis, but I can guarantee that the F-word was not that imbued in the vocabularies of anyone, be they Australian botany-bay derived or otherwise, until well into the 1940s (this movie was set in the 1890s I believe), probably around the time of WWII. The shots of the flies were great, the opening titles, which incorporated a lot of period photography, were superb and really set an excellent tone for the story as it opened. The disclaimer that some of the images contained might be offensive to Australian Aborigines was lame and I think that this disclaimer has really cemented my belief that all lawyers, everywhere, need to die ;-) The flies, which I learned from one of the above links weren't planned for but just happened to be going haywire during the shoot, were also excellent. The lashing sequence was powerful especially

SPOILER

when they were lashing the main character's little brother and they do a time disolve and you're expecting them to have finished whipping him when the man wipes the blood of the whip and it's actually only a cut going to lash 34 out of 100. I also really connected with the Police chief's wife and her little "piece of England". I totally got that, and I think the way they depicted that in the film was superbly done. My usual complaint about DIs and the DI process. I think, with the minimal CG they had here that it was completely unnecessary and it detracted from the pop of the colors. In such a beautfully lit and photographed film, anything digital is really cutting into the film look and the broad color gamut of negative film. It is a total shame that a movie such as this would go through something so unnecessary.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

joel Peterson · December 23, 2006

I saw the film in theatres with my buddy over the summer. We were two out of maybe a dozen, granted it was a matinee. I'm pretty sure the film tanked here in the U.S. As far as story and cinematography went, I thought both were excellent. My buddy thought it sucked. I loved the story, the "Australian Western" genre, and the awesome compositions, which were probably unnoticed by everyone in the theatre save myself. A lot of people that had gone to see it objected to the courseness, and graphic violence, which I agree were overdone. The F-word game that has probalby been going on since "Scarface" really has to end. It's great to use it for emphasis, but I can guarantee that the F-word was not that imbued in the vocabularies of anyone, be they Australian botany-bay derived or otherwise, until well into the 1940s (this movie was set in the 1890s I believe), probably around the time of WWII. The shots of the flies were great, the opening titles, which incorporated a lot of period photography, were superb and really set an excellent tone for the story as it opened. The disclaimer that some of the images contained might be offensive to Australian Aborigines was lame and I think that this disclaimer has really cemented my belief that all lawyers, everywhere, need to die ;-) The flies, which I learned from one of the above links weren't planned for but just happened to be going haywire during the shoot, were also excellent. The lashing sequence was powerful especially

SPOILER

when they were lashing the main character's little brother and they do a time disolve and you're expecting them to have finished whipping him when the man wipes the blood of the whip and it's actually only a cut going to lash 34 out of 100. I also really connected with the Police chief's wife and her little "piece of England". I totally got that, and I think the way they depicted that in the film was superbly done. My usual complaint about DIs and the DI process. I think, with the minimal CG they had here that it was completely unnecessary and it detracted from the pop of the colors. In such a beautfully lit and photographed film, anything digital is really cutting into the film look and the broad color gamut of negative film. It is a total shame that a movie such as this would go through something so unnecessary.

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

hi there

Just thought I would enlighten you re your reference to the Aboriginal disclaimer ...this is infact something that is in reference to tribal belief and practices and is not necessarily a legal thing in our western sense

and yes it was a very good film and Benoit did a sterling job :)

cheers

Joel

K Borowski · January 20, 2007

hi there
Just thought I would enlighten you re your reference to the Aboriginal disclaimer ...this is infact something that is in reference to tribal belief and practices and is not necessarily a legal thing in our western sense

and yes it was a very good film and Benoit did a sterling job :)

cheers

Joel

Sorry for the late reply to this thread, but what tribal belief? I know that it wasn't a true disclaimer, but it still seemed like an awkward thing to throw in there. I think the white people in the film were portrayed far worse than the downtrodden, all-but-enslaved aborigines. If I were an aborigine, I wouldn't feel that my people were portrayed unrealistically from how any downtrodden group would have behaved.

~Karl