Jump to content

Mamma Mia


Recommended Posts

I saw Mamma mia last friday. Projected digitally in a theatre filled with women. I've been reading reviews about the movie and to my never ending astonishment of critics - the film was receiving a lot of heat for poor cinematography.

 

I've been a fan of Haris Zambarloukos for a while now and didn't quite see what was supposed to be so wrong with the photography. I like the monochrome moonlight and thought the indoor sunlight was quite believable. It didn't ruin my cinema going experience and I was quite impressed by it actually.

 

I suspect that the film out of the DI might have been bad. But the digital projection was top notch.

 

I can't imagine how he could have shot the movie any better and I can't imagine anyone topping him.

 

What do you guys think?

Edited by Arni Heimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the trailers (both theatrical and TV spots), it certainly was not a good looking film. Amanda Seyfried looked especially bad, shiny and blemished. It would appear David Mullen has the knack for lighting her best :)

 

I wouldn't give the DP all the blame though, make up plays a huge factor.

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Harris Zambarloukos, BSC is a talented DP. He consistently pushes and tries new stuff, which should be applauded. Not always to my taste, as in Sleuth. This one (which I haven't seen), looks like he's gone for lots of colours (often avoided by todays DP's) and very strong backlight.

Looks interesting and quite hightened reality, which could be interesting. Lubezki doesn't use backlight much, but when he does he sure burns them up - and this has somewhat of the same look as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent seen this yet , Adam i know your dislike of backlight !! But if you were shooting this film in the summer on a Greek Island would you not use the best back light [the sun] or shoot it with the sun over your and camera left shoulder and end up with a nice flat boring image ,just like Kodak always advised ? Edit . This was shot Panavision anamorphic but looks like its been crapped on by the dreaded 2K DI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh now I'm curious who will admit to being a mamma Mia fan!

 

Actually, I dragged my significant other to go see it.

 

I am secure enough with my masculinity to enjoy a chick flick. I found it fun and had a good time. I couldn't imagine being bored out of my mind watching Russian Social realism on a Friday night.

Edited by Arni Heimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harris Zambarloukos, BSC is a talented DP. He consistently pushes and tries new stuff, which should be applauded. Not always to my taste, as in Sleuth. This one (which I haven't seen), looks like he's gone for lots of colours (often avoided by todays DP's) and very strong backlight.

Looks interesting and quite hightened reality, which could be interesting. Lubezki doesn't use backlight much, but when he does he sure burns them up - and this has somewhat of the same look as that.

 

I saw Sleuth and thought it was brilliant. The use of coloured lighting was really inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I havent seen this yet , Adam i know your dislike of backlight !! But if you were shooting this film in the summer on a Greek Island would you not use the best back light [the sun] or shoot it with the sun over your and camera left shoulder and end up with a nice flat boring image ,just like Kodak always advised ? Edit . This was shot Panavision anamorphic but looks like its been crapped on by the dreaded 2K DI.

Many people, especially with light-colored eye pigmentation, find the "boring Kodak image" to be far easier on the eyes than staring into a bright, glaring back-lit image, regardless of whether they're outdoors or in a movie theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case ? then over the last 40/50 years there choice of movie watching must have been very limited . I am wasnt talking about glaring images exteriors do need a help that that means shooting against the sun [if there is any] and filling anyway you like .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people, especially with light-colored eye pigmentation, find the "boring Kodak image" to be far easier on the eyes than staring into a bright, glaring back-lit image, regardless of whether they're outdoors or in a movie theater.

 

I can't stare into " a bright, glaring back-lit image" in actual sunlight without NDs and squinting,

but in a movie theatre or on a TV screen?

Come on, the light intensitity of a screen is nowhere near that of actual sunlight full of deadly UV radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you had a cast of middle aged women and were shooting in the Greek sun, you'd stage in backlight too...

 

I suspect that the softness of the image (from what I've seen in clips) is probably a way of handling the older cast members, whether it was done in camera or in the D.I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I couldn't imagine being bored out of my mind watching Russian Social realism on a Friday night.

Ah any films in particular that you have in mind there, because I don't think I've ever seen a Russian Social Realism film in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Sure you have, Max ;) !

 

I guess "Russian Social Realism" a.k.a.s to "Russian Socialist Realism" which means in a mainstream way: "Tarkovski films": Andrej Rublev, Nostalgia, Stalker. As these films are almost never shown on television, let alone in theatres (even London), I would take up every opportunity to see them, in any projection or print quality, at any day, even in back-to-back screening while being force-fed with Russian borch soup.

 

On the other hand, I recently saw a "Russian Capitalist Realism" movie about an elusive slasher killing innocent commuters in Moscow's underground metro system, and how a messed-up agoraphobic ticket controller tries to catch "it" during his off-shifts, i.e. when he is not having psychedelic visions of flying owls and poetic angels and rave parties. That film bored me to death, despite a valiant effort in cinematography, so much so that I even forgot the title of it and the names of the director/writer and DoP.

 

Now, reading this thread inspired me to go watch Mamma Mia tonight at the Everyman in Hampstead (with, yeah, you guessed it, more female than male friends... :rolleyes: ). The ideal venue for it: they even throw in strawberries & cream and a bottle of sparkling for every ticket. That's like Wimbledon all over again, just in the dark.

 

Looking forward to seeing the contentious cinematography myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I very much agree with you on precisely the reasons you mention, particularly Tarkovski (what irony to be labeled like that!).

That's why I in-quoted "...mainstream..." above. That mainstream/newspaper-critic/google-feedback referal is quite erroneous ;) .

 

For too many people, "RSR" (as I shorten it) equals to any "arty-poetic non-narrative film with rugged sets and B&W inserts" made by a human whose name ends on -vitch, -ej, -ov or -stein.

 

For my parents who fled from communist rule in the 1960s, "RSR" invokes memories of unbearably badly-written propaganda flicks about happy farmers force-shown every Friday afternoon after school that had a message so obvious ("love mother Russia, the great communist provider, creator of a socialist reality on Earth") it's odd someone even thought it needed any form of promotional emphasis or label.

 

What you have to leave to these films is, that when they needed 20,000 extras for a re-enactment of Waterloo or Crimea, or some peasant uprising against a local aristocrat, the director/producer called in the Red Army via the Politburo and they got them immediately, in historically correct props and all.

 

I personally think, however, that Eastern European and Russian film adapations of fairy tales or the Bros Grimm tales are beautiful and highly underrated, and allowed the only uncensored output of somewhat regime-critical film messages. For many cinematographers, working at Barandov's fantasy department was political liberation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
What you have to leave to these films is, that when they needed 20,000 extras for a re-enactment of Waterloo or Crimea, or some peasant uprising against a local aristocrat, the director/producer called in the Red Army via the Politburo and they got them immediately, in historically correct props and all.

Yep that's one of the amazing things about Andrei Rublev, it is basically a big-budget art film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Well, I watched the movie and had no idea what to expect.

 

I actually came here to check the threads if there's one for the bad cinematography of Mamma Mia. I've never done that, so...

 

I think I've never seen a feature that has been shot this bad. Overall, it was pretty soft, had a lot of soft shots, many lighting mismatches, really weird compositions and shot sizes for the subjects, was very grainy etc. It was pretty interesting in a way, but at least for me the cinematography was mainly distraction from the story.

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...