Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Miguel Angel

Far From The Madding Crowd by Charlotte Bruus Christensen

Recommended Posts

Far From The Madding Crowd, directed by Thomas Vinterberg and photographed by Charlotte Bruus Christensen.

 

far-from-the-madding-crowd-film-2015-hab

 

IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2935476/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

 

Trailer

 

Synopsis

In Victorian England, the independent and headstrong Bathsheba Everdene attracts three very different suitors: Gabriel Oak, a sheep farmer; Frank Troy, a reckless Sergeant; and William Boldwood, a prosperous and mature bachelor.

 

I am going to let this post open because I need to be able to articulate a critic in a reasonable language rather than a critic full of WOWs and AMAZING.

What I am going to say though is, if you like cinematography and photography, go and see it.

Phil probably won't like it because of the "British hand - held indie camera work style" :P but it is very well done in this one and with a bit of analysis on the sequences.

 

For me it has been one of those movies that open your mind and bring it to another level.

 

More soon!

 

Have a good day!

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another remake?

 

I recently (re)watched the 1967 film.

 

After having that beautiful and pleasurable experience of a classic,

with the super-annoying Bathsheba portrayed by Julie Christie,

and the kindness, principles and patience of Gabriel played by Alan Bates,

i don't know i am ready for another go... :)

 

I like Vinterberg's "Festen" and "The Hunt".

Will check this one out too someday.

 

Best

 

Igor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after watching it again in the cinemas I can only say that it is the most poetic, visually orientated and splendid movie that I have seen this year so far.

 

I really like all the previous versions, especially the one from Nicolas Roegs.

However, the one that Thomas Vinterberg just directed feels (obviously) more contemporary. organic and creates feelings in me that the other ones didn't do, and that's a big thing.

 

Charlotte's cinematography is just astonishing, very creative and sometimes very risky! Very deep blacks (which I like), contrast and a richness in the colours that digital cannot achieve nowadays plus the camera work which amazed me a lot.

 

Sure it has the "hand - held independent British" camera work but it is very exquisite and the mix between hand - held and dollies is quite beautiful and impeccable.

 

The camera is where it has to be all the times, showing what it has to show and creating a fabulous world where the light and the locations were perfectly chosen.

 

Mr. Vinterberg's direction is, as always, flawless, the actors and actresses are superb and Gabriel's character feels a little bit more iconic than in the previous movies, Bathsheba on the other hand is still as annoying as in the other versions :D (I like her though!)

 

I forgot to mention that the soundtrack is marvelous too, Craig Armstrong creating an ethereal tempo which complements the movie fantastically.

 

Again, a really really beautiful movie that is worth the trip to the cinema!

Have a good day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know there is an article on Far From The Madding Crowd in the June American Cinematographer issue which is very revealing.

 

Have a good day! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just seen it in Bridport, Dorset. A stones throw from the locations, so it was a packed cinema (Electric Palace). I'm still not sure whether I saw a digital or film print, but whatever the Vision photography was beautiful. Yes I thoroughly recommend everyone to see it just for the lighting and landscapes. The forest scene was particularly well done. Re the handheld footage, I wasn't too struck on some of it later on in the film, it looked good earlier on though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a fine line I think in any film between being aware of what the camera is doing and immersion in the film and its characters. This film passed that test. The cinematography was good but full marks also to the editing. However, I thought the tarpaulin haystack scene wasn't particularly convincing, not enough wind and rain following. And that shot of the corn field gleaning had far too many digital workers ;) and appeared too spacious for the period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resurrecting this rather than making a new post.

 

I LOVE this film. I'm not a cinematographer. I'm primarily a performer, writer, and director.The cinematography, to my mind anyway, is gorgeous. I would go so far as to say it rivals "Barry Lyndon" for it's use of natural light.

 

All the performers are committed and enjoying themselves. I particularly enjoyed the sheep bath sequence. It was not only shot beautifully, but it was conceived most artfully. Being a rural man myself, I believed that scene could happen in "real life." The romance was palpable, in the classic 19th century dramatic fashion—few words, all action. From a director's perspective, it's the key to Bathsheba and Gabriel's relationship. He dares her to be more throughout the film, but it's here we see her literally wade in to take up his challenge.

 

I would've sworn it was a digital film, until I saw some BTS docs. The wide landscape shots absorbed with their clarity and depth. The chaff, wool, and dust floating in the air was tack sharp as well. When I heard it was 35mm, I was shocked. I can now see where I was confused. The photography is incredibly sharp, but it's quite warm as well. I hesitate to say soft. That seems to be a pejorative descriptor. I would say soft in terms of texture. There are no cold, hard edges. The closest we get to the cool side is in Boldwood's brand-new home. It is all rough stone and polished marble, but inviting all the same. I felt like I could smell the soap from the servants' scrubbing. I could also feel the jolly heat of the Christmas party.

 

I believe the true star of this film is Charlotte Bruus Christensen and her team. It's not lost on me that Carey Mulligan's closeups are not seductive. She's beautiful, of course, but perhaps because a woman is shooting her, we see much more than we might if a man were behind the camera. I believe I would have trouble not focusing solely on Mulligan's beauty if I were the cameraman. The sex of the DP also allows us to see Hardy's world more fully through Bathsheba's eyes. It's not any less or more romantic than if a man were DP, but the subtlety of the "woman in man's world" theme is more accurately realized, in my opinion.

 

Wow, I didn't mean this to be an essay. I clearly love this movie. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do. Watch it on the largest screen you can find. If you're not into 19th century drama, you will be after this film.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of English literature's great works, about a fascinating time, the 19th Century, and set in a rural location. I've read the book many times and seen the 1967 and 1998 film versions, both of which are great. We were given the book to read in school and I was very fond of the story from the beginning. Of the movies, in some ways I prefer the 1998 film, which I think might have been made for tv. There's something about this story, and the time and place it is set, and the way it's described/presented, that is quietly magical. However, inevitably, some people find it boring. I remember a woman complaining that Hardy's writing about wind sighing through trees and grassy hills, and so on, as being so incredibly dull to read. I couldn't believe how strongly my opinion differed to hers. I will watch this newer version. It's an excellent subject for a movie, and especially for film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit, even with an English degree, 19th century novels are tough going. I've had to supplement my reading with film and tv adaptations. So I don't begrudge anyone who has trouble with them. I don't think they were meant to be read in a weekend anyway. Often they were published in literary quarterlies, so you'd only read a chapter at a time. Dickens novels were all like this.

 

If you love this novel, you must see this film. I believe it's on Netflix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we could make pictures like this, here, in Australia. As in, shot on film. It would do so much for the industry here in my opinion. I know there are plenty of people who disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This being a classic English novel, it made sense for the BBC to put up the money. I understand Vinterberg and Christensen had to do some serious lobbying to get to shoot on film. I think most

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we could make pictures like this, here, in Australia. As in, shot on film. It would do so much for the industry here in my opinion. I know there are plenty of people who disagree.

 

 

You need alot more cloud cover and mist.. :)... or shoot it in a studio..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, would definitely miss the sun over here, if I moved to England. Aussies are addicted to sun I think. We soak it up like sponges.

 

 

One of the few benefits is the soft light you get.. excellent for moody historical dramas ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.

Edited by Jon O'Brien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

 

 

I think its because alot of DP,s now operate too and they dont know, or are not 100% up to speed with geared heads..if they didnt come thorough the feature film ladder .. and also younger operators haven't used them either..and some cameras are alot lighter now too.. dont think there is really that much difference between them with a skilled operator on either.. I guess maybe a more solid end to a quick move on a geared head ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

 

From my side I have always preferred geared heads but haven't been able to use them because they are twice or three times more expensive to rent than a normal fluid head over here, which is nothing in a big budget production but it definitely adds on the type of productions I work on.

 

So if I have to choose between an extra 6K or an Arrihead.. I'd choose the 6K all the time.

 

Also, the weight and cumbersomeness of the geared heads is something to take into consideration nowadays where everything is getting smaller and less bulky.

 

The difference between either is practically minimal as Robin said, the starts and the ends could be a bit smoother, also diagonals, but nothing that you can't do with a fluid head anyways.

 

Have a lovely day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.

I'm so glad you also liked it! I also thought it had to be digital, no it was shot entirely on Vision3 35mm stock in varying speeds. The scene where Bathesheba sings "Let No Man Steal Your Thyme" is amazing. This is why I say it's as good as "Barry Lyndon." The scenes lit by lantern are equally masterful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

 

Granted I've only had a single opportunity to use a geared head on a shoot thus far. And it's possible that it's the control freak in me that's waxing lyrical here. But I think there's a pretty clearly quantifiable difference between the motion of a geared head and a fluid one. For precise pans and tilts, smooth starts and stops, and silky diagonal movements, I think the geared heads have a pretty definite advantage.

 

The size and weight can be a nuisance (unless you're living on a dolly), and your tilt angles are more limited. But given the choice, I'd personally opt for a geared head in more situations than not.

 

I love the precision of them. But I'm a little higher-up on the control freak spectrum than most, so that might have something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe the true star of this film is Charlotte Bruus Christensen and her team. It's not lost on me that Carey Mulligan's closeups are not seductive ...

 

 

Yes, I noticed this too in several of the shots, and it was refreshing. So often in movies the beautiful female lead is always shown in a very flattering way. This movie is different. Carey Mulligan is shown a few times in sort of very 'average' close-ups that sometimes weren't flattering. That helps make it so healthy and real in look and that's so important these days when there's so much fake and overdone stuff around. It's so boring when all you get in movies is an artificial, ever-present beauty that is usually pretty plastic. The scene of her talking with Gabriel early on, in the field, just after he went to visit her, she is without make-up and even looks a bit tired, but her face lights up when she's talking. Now that's truly something to look at and remember! It's great that the cinematographer could bring this out. Very tastefully photographed scene of Bathsheba and Troy in the woods. Outdid all other versions in my opinion.

 

Oak was the best portrayal of this character in film I think. When the disaster occurs on the cliff his grief is believable. He's just instantly become a pauper. It shows.

 

The timing of day is often priceless in so many scenes, when they chose the exact moment of the day to run camera. The sunlight is golden in many important scenes. I can't believe how well the filmmakers did. I watched it all again last night. Just a brilliant movie.

 

Thanks everyone for all the views on fluid vs geared. Very interesting to read the opinions.

Edited by Jon O'Brien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful music too. Solo violin, harp, great writing. Evocative impressions created by music that exactly matches the mood, such as the ferns scene, the nighttime walk with lamp, and so on. The folk singing was a magical touch, and was Boldwood's one chance to shine in all the versions I've seen when he sings bass in church, and stands up and sings harmony at the harvest supper. Ah dear, this film is just so good as art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one of my favourites. It really is. I mean, you have to love this kind of story. It's not exactly box-office gold.

 

I actually feel Mulligan looked amazing throughout the film. We really see a person, rather than an object. That sounds trite, but it isn't in the film. We, the audience, really get to see what Oak sees. Her strength, her independence, and her desire to be her own person. That might be the Scandinavian aesthetic at work—clean, clear, and fresh.

 

Isn't it interesting how she says she wishes a man to "tame" her, but the story proves to her how wrong a notion that is? She doesn't need taming. She's fine as she is. They dispensed with the 19th century domesticity in the film. The impression we're left with is that Oak and Everdene's roles will change very little. They will just be much more open with one another. That's truly beautiful.

 

Boldwood is a great character. I guess there is a bookend between the Oak shooting the dog and Boldwood shooting Troy. I'm not sure what that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Timothy about Mulligan. The character of Everdene reminds me of someone I knew years ago and I'm enchanted. I agree also that Boldwood is an interesting character. The earlier films and this one all depicted him brilliantly, but this production stands out as Boldwood seems to be shown as being slightly less of a tragic figure. He's in the running for her more than in earlier films I feel. Actually the director seem to have cunningly worked out the story in a subtle way that shows towards the end what really is in the way of Boldwood's success is that there's something 'there' with Oak and her, but maybe she doesn't realise it yet. But Oak won't ask - which works up to a fine ending. Yes, that bit's in the book but it is made more obvious, but only just, in this production. Truly excellent directing and screenplay. Troy was brilliant in this film too - in fact all the depictions of the soldiers had an amazing 'feel' of the 19th Century to them (not that I would know what it was like to live then, of course, but it seemed to have a great authenticity to it). Plus this production is chock full of small visual touches in the cinematography that have real power. I can't list them all, but just small directorial/DP choices that greatly add to the whole - just like in music when you have a performer who in tiny ways makes a great performance with nuance.

 

Two brief examples: the soldier doing the talking (seeking recruits) in the marketplace slowly walks his horse forward towards camera at his opening shot. That is a tiny nuance of directing or may have been serendipitous (the horse decided to move) but adds to the visual power because it gives a slight gravitas and authenticity to the scene, rather than static. Movement is interest, a lot of the time. Another example : photographing Everdene's sad face in the mirror, towards the end. So nice instead of photographing her directly. Too many subtleties can bog a movie down but just enough small gems can enhance it. Now - a lot of people don't have time for this sort of thing at all these days and would rather watch the 'footy' (football) or a Marvel comics CGI movie whereas I would be quietly dying if I wasn't sustained by entertainment that also attained something of 'art'. Too much art is boring, too, but just the right balance is perfect in film. That's how I see it.

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.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Tai Audio



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Visual Products



    Ritter Battery



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Metropolis Post



    Wooden Camera



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Paralinx LLC



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


×
×
  • Create New...