Innovation in cinematography

[Tom Jensen]

No, quite the opposite. Was that an attempt at some kind of insult?

 

Yes.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are many types of art that are not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to dismiss generations of artists in a particular field as worthless scam artists, that's just plain disrespectful and rude. I'm not a fan of hip-hop, but it would be ridiculous for me to say that it wasn't a legitimate form of musical expression. Besides, without experimental filmmakers like Jordan Belson, we probably wouldn't have gotten something like the Stargate sequence in "2001". And to say that the only art that matters is narrative in nature is completely arbitrary! It's like saying "Why isn't cinema more experimental? And I don't count experimental cinema because that's not cinema." It would be like a discussion on a music group and someone asking "Why isn't symphonic music more innovative? And I don't count any music without a melody because it isn't music if it doesn't have a melody."

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Hi

I'd like to know your thoughts: what is innovation nowadays in film making and cinematography? Now that everything has been done, more or less, in our era of CGI and so on, what might you call groundbreaking, avant-garde etc?

 

 

Hi David,

 

This question is a difficult one to offer an answer that cannot be argued against. To me, real innovation comes from a strong point of view and a focussed intent on the part of the cinematographer. In the past, I doubt if any credible painter asked;

 

"What color palette is Picasso using now?"

 

or;

 

"What kind of brush strokes is David Hockney showing these days?"

 

Like any art... collaborative or singular... it's an idea used in context that evokes a response from the viewer. Your inspiration can come from all areas of art (painting, photography, sculpture and more) as well as your sensitivities to how you see the world and look at your own life.

 

It's not so much "what" you do... buy "why" you do it... and how you can connect your unique point of view with an audience. I would never think that almost everything has been done in cinematography. Good God... almost nothing has been done in the grand scheme of things. Every story and combination of people who come together to create a film offers a new way to look at the art form.

 

If I may say, I believe the phrasing of your question is limiting your answers. The question should more be posed to yourself; "How can I bring myself to the place where I am fearless with my ideas? How can I work outside of my safety zone and surprise myself with results that I'm not sure of? How can I create an expression from a truly vulnerable place?"

 

Really, those questions can only be answered by the man in the mirror... and no matter what new trend or old trend you use to get to the finished product, that's the only guy who will give you any answers that are worthwhile.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Good luck.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I think, David V. you need to expand your definition of "narrative." Narrative tells a story. Now a story can be many things, and music can certainly tell a story; even without words. Just as experimental film can (mothlight included). Now, whether it's a good story is, well, another story. But, for me at least, stories "narration," are just forms of communication between a speaker and a listener. This can come in myriad forms. You just need to listen.

[Brian Drysdale]

In my opinion, no. All art forms are narrative to a certain extent. Lascaux, the Sistine chapel, a painting by Monet, a Shakespeare play, a John Ford film, all tell a story, be it in one frame or several. To me, "experimental" cinema is a recent scam, as is most of what is done in modern art. Do you think Mothlight tells a story? I'd prefer to be staring at a rug instead.

 

Some early films were extremely experimental, and were open to personal interpretation.

 

Experimental non "narrative" films have crossed over into mainstream films, the best known example being 2001 during the star gate sequences.

 

I'm not sure what "Last Year in Marienbad" is actually about, but it's still a fascinating watch.

 

You're now into personal taste, which all art is, it's highly subjective.

[K Borowski]

Were it not for non-narrative "experimental films" and their makers, the medium wouldn't exist. The desire to capture motion is responsible for the beginnings of cinematography, not the desire to capture art.

[David Vinelli]

Well, I seem to be irritating some people here so I'll try to be as short as possible, and then go.

 

David-

I think 'artist' is a word bestowed far too often, and especially today where many, many businessmen, because that's what they are, come off as artists of some kind to sell their crap. I'm of those who think we're living in a cultural disaster, and while I understand the way you think, and respect it, I'm afraid that kind of political correctness is part of the problem. Hip-hop is crap - how arrogant it is to say that, but it's a fact, and people with some education, however little, shouldn't be afraid to say it. Ashamed, maybe, but not afraid. But then how do we define 'legitimate'? That's a question I can't answer, but then, if anything is just a matter of personal opinion, why not say Hitler was a profound humanist who worked in the interest of his nation, his people, and so on? You would say, he's killed people, and then make up a rule, when you harm other people, you can't be right. You see, there are rules. Same thing in art, but they're just so hard to define sometimes that people tend to say there aren't any, and others take advantage of that to pretend they're artists and exhibit plastified bodies of executed Chinese dissidents, phalluses representing Justin Bieber or I don't know what.

What I'm saying is, art is based on communication, it has to, and narrative is one of its most obvious forms. There's nothing arbitrary in that. One other form could be documentary, but there the emphasis is on information. Could a phone book be art? It can certainly done with art, though.

 

Brian and Mr. Borowski-

Some of them were experimental. They had to be because the whole thing was new. But I'm not talking about experimenting, which is vital, but about the films we know under the label "experimental films". It's been said Kubrick was inspired by some Belson piece of film for that famous sequence. Good for him. He could as well have been inspired by a kaleidoscope, a rainbow, flowers, particular lens flare…or a rug. That's his business, he thought it looked cool and did his thing, but that doesn't mean the object of the inspiration was vital, indispensable or has any value at all, let alone artistic. Aside from the book, 2001 had more to do with the then ongoing spatial program, which owed a lot to the Nazi development of V1 and V2 rockets. That doesn't give any sort of justification or value to these weapons and this kind of research. And by the way, the sequence may be visually impressive, doesn’t it interesting or important.

 

Shelly-

Now that's something I like to read and I'm sure it does make sense, but I don't know enough, about the craft etc, so I'm not sure I can answer intelligently.

In the past, not only did great painters ask such things but they went to the great masters of the time to learn a certain brush stroke, that technique to mix colors, how to compose, etc. You seem to be saying that, after all, it's all subjective. But there are good movies, and bad ones; good cinematography, and bad cinematography. You can't always justify everything by saying 'I meant this', 'I want to express that', 'I felt so'. Otherwise American Pie 2 is a masterpiece and Citizen Kane, pretentious hogwash. Don't you think?

 

Now I'm beginning to bore myself so I won't write anything more on the subject, but I'm looking forward to your answers. Thanks and good luck.

[Tom Jensen]

Now I'm beginning to bore myself.

 

And here I thought you just liked hearing yourself talk. I guess even you have your breaking point. You're way too young to be this cynical and jaded. There's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said other than, go back and read what the others have said. This time, try to hear what they are saying and pretend it has some credibility. You might learn something. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion and you obviously like to express it but it doesn't invalidate others opinions especially those that might have been around longer than you and have more experience in life, art and film. You ask for opinions and then immediately disagree. Why are you asking? You already know everything.

[David Vinelli]

There's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said other than, go back and read what the others have said. This time, try to hear what they are saying and pretend it has some credibility. You might learn something. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion and you obviously like to express it but it doesn't invalidate others opinions especially those that might have been around longer than you and have more experience in life, art and film. You ask for opinions and then immediately disagree. Why are you asking? You already know everything.

I don't ask you what you think, don't care about it, certainly won't pretend it has any credibility, and thank you for your concern.

[Chris Millar]

David,

 

deep breaths

 

count to 10

 

 

it's the internet

As Tom says a better battle to choose would be to challenge yourself and try to accept what some have said here, even if you end up disagreeing you might learn something along the way...

 

(and please don't suggest that your method of ignoring Tom couldn't in some way be read as provocative)

Edited August 27, 2011 by Chris Millar

[Tom Jensen]

I don't ask you what you think, don't care about it, certainly won't pretend it has any credibility, and thank you for your concern.

 

Hey, you're welcome. Glad I could help.

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

You seem to be saying that, after all, it's all subjective. But there are good movies, and bad ones; good cinematography, and bad cinematography. You can't always justify everything by saying 'I meant this', 'I want to express that', 'I felt so'. Otherwise American Pie 2 is a masterpiece and Citizen Kane, pretentious hogwash.

 

Hi David,

 

Well... I think you would be taking the long route around that quote in order to bend what I said to mean that. It's true that artists seek out and need their mentors, but then they also need to truly own their ideas, craft and technique in order to establish their own artistic identity. You're getting some pretty good advice here from allot of people. Maybe simplify your thinking a bit and start experimenting on your own. Talking is one thing, but you learn the most by creating your own work. Be great to see what you come up with!

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

there are good movies, and bad ones; good cinematography, and bad cinematography. You can't always justify everything by saying 'I meant this', 'I want to express that', 'I felt so'. Otherwise American Pie 2 is a masterpiece and Citizen Kane, pretentious hogwash.

 

Hi David,

 

I forgot to add one thing...

 

You should be careful when you bash movies... even indirectly such as you did with American Pie. Those films are shot by respected individuals in the industry who are the mentors you would be seeking. My advice would be to keep things on a positive note. It's what cinematographers are noted for anyway, as a group.

 

Good luck!

[Brian Drysdale]

Some of them were experimental. They had to be because the whole thing was new. But I'm not talking about experimenting, which is vital, but about the films we know under the label "experimental films". It's been said Kubrick was inspired by some Belson piece of film for that famous sequence. Good for him. He could as well have been inspired by a kaleidoscope, a rainbow, flowers, particular lens flare…or a rug. That's his business, he thought it looked cool and did his thing, but that doesn't mean the object of the inspiration was vital, indispensable or has any value at all, let alone artistic. Aside from the book, 2001 had more to do with the then ongoing spatial program, which owed a lot to the Nazi development of V1 and V2 rockets. That doesn't give any sort of justification or value to these weapons and this kind of research. And by the way, the sequence may be visually impressive, doesn’t it interesting or important.

 

Again, art is subjective and those are your views.

 

Mainstream films are commercial enterprises intended to maximize the number of bums on seats. In order to be commercial successful with an "experimental" film the audience has to be open to the experience. During the time 2001 was made the audience were open to it (if perhaps for having a trip in the front row), but it could also have the what the hell is that about effect as well. The studios may have funded it on the basis of the race to the moon and cold war overtones, but Kubrick seems to sneaked something else in and the result seems to have lasted better than many conventional science fiction films of that period. The most interesting parts aren't the star gate effect itself, but other aspects of the story.

 

I rather suspect that RKO would rather have the American Pie 2 box office than that from Citizen Kane, however, films are of their time. Also what may be good cinematography in one film may be poor in another because it's inappropriate to that particular film. Cinematographers have to match their style to the story and they may be restricted by the producers and studio in how far they can go. Gordon Willis had complains from the studio about his lighting on "The Godfather", he stood firm, but there was also a chance that he could've been fired.

[Dom Jaeger]

The 'recent scam' of experimental, non-narrative cinema (labelled as such) probably starts with films by the Dadaists, Surrealists and other revolutionaries of the 20's, the best known examples being Un Chien Andalou and Man with a Movie Camera, both from 1929. Dali, Bunuel, Vertov - all poseur hacks I guess... :blink: Malevich painted his Black Square back in 1915, so the total abstraction scam has been going nearly a century now. Just personally, I could stare at a Rothko for hours, but I'm a bit of a wierdo.

 

As far as today's mainstream cinema goes, I thought Children of Men really pushed the envelope stylistically, in a way that enhanced the film's narrative. I came out of that one blown away, even though I don't generally like too much hand-held.

[David Vinelli]

I agree entirely with what you said, Bryan.

 

The 'recent scam' of experimental, non-narrative cinema (labelled as such) probably starts with films by the Dadaists, Surrealists and other revolutionaries of the 20's, the best known examples being Un Chien Andalou and Man with a Movie Camera, both from 1929. Dali, Bunuel, Vertov - all poseur hacks I guess... :blink: Malevich painted his Black Square back in 1915, so the total abstraction scam has been going nearly a century now. Just personally, I could stare at a Rothko for hours, but I'm a bit of a wierdo.

 

As far as today's mainstream cinema goes, I thought Children of Men really pushed the envelope stylistically, in a way that enhanced the film's narrative. I came out of that one blown away, even though I don't generally like too much hand-held.

Dom, it is recent. Doesn't mean it didn't start earlier, but anyhow early 20th century is recent as well considering history of art. While Dali was a "poseur hack", albeit a very, very talented draftsman, Bunuel wasn't and never took himself seriously. The Chien Andalou, I don't have any sympathy for that kind of film, but I can't say it is what you accuse me of saying because it was meant to look so, and Bunuel had a great laugh reading what highbrows and cinephiles saw in it. Vertov, I can't speak of him; Malevich neither. Duchamp's Fontaine was also meant as derision against the all too serious establishment. What you call the total abstraction movement is a scam, followed by minor people posing as artists who didn't understand what people like Duchamp or others 'initiators' had in mind. You might be a weirdo if you can stare at one painting for hours, that depends on you. But Rothko was a great artist.

I haven't seen Children of Men. But since you say it's so good, I'll check it out asap.

Thanks

[Jenna Whitney]

I can't say I totally agree that everything has been done. ;)

I like Conrad Hall's quote, "Billions of people have seen and been influenced by movies in the short history of this industry."