Jump to content
Guest Stephen Murphy

Janusz Kaminski and the ASC

Recommended Posts

I know i keep on about this [ Indiana Jones 4] but perhaps he thought he would be asked to hand in his ASC badge after the mess he made on it ?

 

:lol:

 

Oh my goodness gracious me, John, what went into you? Since a few weeks, he really are hard-core posting here, with typos even more inventive than mine, and opinions putting my opinionated scribble to shame ;) . You are flaming napalm like hell! Everything alright in your part of the UK? ;)

 

Best wishes, and certainly not disagreeing with your above point at all,

 

-Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael i feel very angry about this cinematagraphic mess . My post was almost a month ago , i am sure everyone has had enough of my rants about it !! But stll angry !! Take care John .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggest you look at the On Screen section on this site !!

 

 

Just had a read and I am amazed at the reactions. I don't think I've ever read so many bad comments about a fellow cinematographer's work, who is at the top of the food chain.

I did ask 'er indoors, as she took the kids to see it, what her views are on it. Bear in mind that she doesn't work in our environment but is a fine artist.

She said that she enjoyed it and that she couldn't or didn't notice anything out of line. I asked her how it rendered itself aesthetically and she said that on the whole is wasn't an amazing piece of work but just an entertaining film that worked for what it is and for.

Are we being too critical? I don't know....I'll make my own mind up when I see it on dvd :rolleyes:

 

It does seem that from a consumers' pov it does the job.

 

I don't usually believe that sequels work but then the "bournes" had to come along and show us all that it can!!

 

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serge i am sure on DVD it will look ok apart from the awful lighting .

 

 

I was being sarcastic...I actually feel like paying the fee at the cinema just because of this post!

 

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we're segeuing into another topic here, but Im a HUGE Kaminski fan and I have to concur that the photography on Indy 4 was a disaster. I could not believe it was my man Janusz behind the camera on it.

 

As if that movie wasnt a disaster enough and one of the most dissapointing cinema experiences of my life, they had to tarnish Janusz too. (Obv only just a little; usually his work is beyond compare. Oh how I love adore that little polish man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know we're segeuing into another topic here, but Im a HUGE Kaminski fan and I have to concur that the photography on Indy 4 was a disaster. I could not believe it was my man Janusz behind the camera on it.

 

As if that movie wasnt a disaster enough and one of the most dissapointing cinema experiences of my life, they had to tarnish Janusz too. (Obv only just a little; usually his work is beyond compare. Oh how I love adore that little polish man.)

 

Am I blind, out of my mind or both. I was really impressed by the photography. And liked the movie a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it was bad because he was trying to emulate the style and look set by Slocombe on the other three films. Kaminski, to my eye is a completely different kind of shooter.

 

C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I actually thought that he did a pretty good job of making it look like the old Indy's. The only scene that I didn't like was the wedding scene, when he used the pro mist filter(correct me if I was wrong) it just made it look kinda cheesy. Also, there were green screen shots that he had to light for that weren't the greatest, but overall I liked it and I don't think we should criticize it, just because it wasn't one of his "best" films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't the biggest fan of Indy 4, that stupid monkey scene just killed it from then on. but I think Kaminski did a fine job.. maybe not the best hes done, but it wasn't horrible. How can anyone who is not shooting projects of that scale able to comment on it? If it turned out that way with him there on set everyday, how would it have turned out if you were there in his shoes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tim Partridge
Perhaps it was bad because he was trying to emulate the style and look set by Slocombe on the other three films. Kaminski, to my eye is a completely different kind of shooter.

 

C

 

I think the problem was more that Kaminski didn't just treat the film as a second unit extension of the Slocombe shot originals. I don't mind a little personal flavour in there because that's a human reaction (in my opinion you can tell Daviau's higher contrast contributions to TEMPLE OF DOOM a mile off, yet they still blend into the film's overall look). However, there are many elements (sets, costumes, locations, make up) that have to be shot in certain way, especially given the compositions that Spielberg goes for on these films, and not respecting what's gone before makes everyone look stupid. Apart from shooting anamorphic and lighting up to big stops, the rest of INDY 4 was shot through varying, random degrees of lens diffusion (not the charming and obvious "close ups only" classical glamour approach of Slocombe) and the kind of "out there" hard lighting Robert Richardson goes with on his zaniest Oliver Stone efforts, as opposed to Slocombe's classic three point style (a period factor on what is a period set movie). The DI was also about as experimentally over the top as you could get compared to the original movies too. There's a scene in a tent where one of the characters is backlit head on, with a silouhette on the other side, that screams attention to the technique of hardlighting. There's also a rather amateurish use of hard fill throughout that, along with the random lens diffusion takes away from the contrast in the masters (Slocombe used obvious nets, yes, but only for glamour close ups ala the era Indy is set in), not only mushing up the high key natural light exteriors and losing the period crispness but also making sequences incomprehensible and killing set detail. Many of the temple and "exterior" shots actually confuse the geography/intended time of day of the shots because of all the multiple shadows from the crosslighting dripping across the stage, and the sets are also frequently revealed to look like sets. I usually have a soft spot for charming artifice (especially in INDY JONES movies) but this almost deliberately trying to look unreal, as oppose to obiding by the reality-aspiring aesthetic of the previous movies. In other scenes, like the Area 51 bunker, we have spikey, turquoisey, practical soft toplighting from some florescents that bare no resemblance to anything else in the movie, let alone the previous movies. Again, it's just "out there" and not an inspired development of what went before.

 

There were numerous reasons why INDY 4 was a flat out disaster, IMO, and the cinematography was certainly a visual factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't the biggest fan of Indy 4, that stupid monkey scene just killed it from then on. but I think Kaminski did a fine job.. maybe not the best hes done, but it wasn't horrible. How can anyone who is not shooting projects of that scale able to comment on it? If it turned out that way with him there on set everyday, how would it have turned out if you were there in his shoes?

 

Exactly! We shouldn't be criticizing someones cinematography so much that it makes us sound as if we're better than him. Criticizing is a lot of times a good thing. It keeps this art moving forward, but when we're talking about someone who maybe didn't do his greatest job in his career, but it wasn't that bad either. Then we shouldn't just tear it apart. That shows a great deal of ignorance on our part, thinking that we are all such great cinematographers that we can tear apart a multiple oscar winning dp's work.

 

But if you really think it was sooooo bad that you need to say that it sucks and it's the worst job of lighting, PLEASE let us know WHY you think its bad. Don't just ramble on that you hate it and stuff, that's pointless. The only way we move ahead from criticizem is when we know why its being criticized. Then we will learn from that person's mistake, and move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps, from the original discussion, I heard that Kaminski left for the reasons mentioned: the awards. Specifically, though, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was having Memoirs of a Geisha selected for an ASC award over Munich, although I'm not sure which award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Murphy
Specifically, though, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was having Memoirs of a Geisha selected for an ASC award over Munich, although I'm not sure which award.

 

Thats dissapointing to hear - Although Munich was some of Kaminski's best work i thought Memoirs was a stunning piece of work deserving of all the acclaim and awards it got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with everyone that we shouldn't criticize Kaminski's work like we're the next big DP that Spielberg would get if he couldn't for some reason get him. I've heard the rumor that Kaminski is on a $250,000 retainer to be on call for Spielberg and when he does make the call there is a separate contract drawn up for the actual picture. So if this is true I think anyone who is talking poop on Kaminski should be quiet because I don't think there is any DP who can say they have that deal!

 

Plus I'm a firm believer that great DP's don't always shoot stellar movies everytime. It's like everyone who shoots stills, everyone has had terrible shots and the next time they load a roll of film up they make sure they don't make the same mistake again.

 

Plus I want to honestly hear if anyone thinks they could pull War of the Worlds and Munich off in the same year to both contend in the Oscars(Deakins is the only other person I can think of that had 2 movies appear in the Oscar nominations). I know a lot of people on here have read the AC articles on both those movies and that is amazing they can shoot a movie of that calibur that quick. Not just the photography, think of everything that is going on in Spielberg's frames, so many departments have to be point on or a lot of money has been wasted. I respect people who can deliver under that kind of pressure.

 

On the ASC topic, I think it would be awesome to receive that badge. The ASC is comprised of the most respected cinematographers in the world and it is them that decide if someone else should. So I don't see how people think it's silly, who better than the best in the business to judge your work and see if you deserve it. To me the ASC, BSC, AMC, etc. is like the olympics for cinematographers. It's an honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOOh how unfair are you all, who critisized Kaminski's work on Indiana's last sequel in a negative manner and without credible arguments!

 

Poor guy, when I have to defend him....

:)

 

 

Indiana Jones last movie is probably not the best work he ever did, but it wasn't anything shorter that his boss's acomplishment!

 

If Kaminski's work on this movie is so bad, what should we say about Spielberg's?!

 

Starting with the fact that they decided to shoot another movie in Indiana Jones series...

:)

 

(What is that thing with Spielberg and Lucas anyway...they seem like they can't wait to shoot down their own heroes?!)

 

IMveryHO, I believe that with this movie, Spielberg is further away, more than ever to be considered as a director for some future James Bond movie, his long time wish according to rumors...unless he produces and finance sit that is...

:)

 

After so many wonderfuly shot moveis, Kaminski should have more than enough credits for one so called failure!

 

How fast some of you forget how wonderful jobs he did on so many others movies...

 

But I guess, that just shows in what game the DP's are...

How stiff competition is and how unfair their colleagues can be...

 

Lesson for all of you/us:

 

When the money is the name of the game, and only motive to work, the results of such work will reflect it quite easily!

 

P.S.

I didn't heard anybody saying that Spielberg is through with his carreer after some of his bad movies?! Maybe because people become tolerant since less than half of all the movies Spielberg did should be rather forgotten than remembered?!

:)

Is it really that people envy DP more than a Dorector?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Murphy

I watched this again on DVD yesterday and i think the first hour of the movie is beautifully photographed and a pretty good movie. As soon as Karen Allen's character enters the movie it takes a serious nose dive both photographically and in its content and story. Interestingly that's when most of the heavy visual effects sequences start to kick in too. I still like the heavily diffused look and some of the over-lit foregrounds:) And i think the first hour is a valid attempt to provide an updated version of Slocombe's work on the same characters. There's a wonderful book that i picked up by the unit still photographer that presents a photo journal of the movie with lots of interesting BTS shots of Kaminski's lighting and rigging, worth looking at if there are any other fans of the photography out there:-) :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it a couple of days ago and was quite disappointed with the calibre of the story.

The worst bit has to be the scene where they fall down the 3 water falls. Even with artistic licence given, that was rubbish!!

 

I don't think that Kaminskis work rocked and I actually believe that this is the only major mess up he has shot(pls correct me if I'm wrong). But if this is his 'flopper' then he got away with it unscathed.

 

 

Sing - The saying goes that you are as good as your last job. This does not fall short on anyone, even ASC, BSC, ACS...etc

If you read every post you'll notice that most ppl are quite shocked and gutted that Kaminski didn't pull this one off. I don't think there is anyone in this forum that doesn't respect and rate Kaminski's work.

So, I think its a bit harsh on your part to gest that because we don't have a "$250,000 retainer from Spielberg" we are not qualified to criticise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kaminski did a terrific job on Indiana 4. I can't understand why so many people have found fault with it. Sure, it wasn't as deep an involving as Slocombe's work, and he did use a little too much filtration, but Janusz Kaminski and Douglas Slocombe are two completely different cinematographers. I think it's really nice that Janusz put his own spin on the Indiana Jones style, while still maintaining respect and reverence for his predecessor's work, and not destroying it for his own benefit. That I feel is a mark of a truly brilliant cinematographer.

 

Are the OSCAR nominations for cinematography out yet? I really do feel this should be among them.

Edited by Matthew Buick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Are the OSCAR nominations for cinematography out yet? I really do feel this should be among them."

 

You need to lay off the left over grog, son. Kissing arse for shitty cine won't win you any favors. And no, the Oscars are months away and besides, it is still 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief! I geniunely loved that film for it's cinematography, I don't know why you would assume that I was 'kissing arse for shitty cine'. Also, I didn't touch a drop of the alcohol this christmas, incidentally there's none left. If anyone's been drinking too much it's you.

 

Sod off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy guys....

 

Slow down a little...

 

I didn't liked at all, the way your are addressing each other. You're just making sure that this board is losing its quality and purpose.

 

Your opinion without a valid explanation and strong argument is pretty much wortless and on the forum like this could be considered as a pure scam.

 

So please, retrieve your senses, and let's discuss like a grown ups.

 

OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    G-Force Grips



    Serious Gear



    The Original Slider



    Visual Products



    Paralinx LLC



    Abel Cine



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Tai Audio



    Ritter Battery



    Metropolis Post



    CineLab



    Glidecam



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Just Cinema Gear


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...