Jump to content

Recommended Posts

He was wonderful at the press conference (the video is included in the article I posted above). :) Too bad he didn’t speak a bit more or about some other aspects of this project, which weren’t mentioned elsewhere before.

 

Any thoughts about the trailer in terms of cinematography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts about the trailer in terms of cinematography?

 

I'm not really a fan of Woody Allen. Thankfully I don't like most of his movies.

I did like Match Point (one of his later unfunny ones).

 

I've not seen the trailer and have no plans to watch it in the near future either.

 

Freya

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Storaro generally has a bold, higher-contrast style than many Woody Allen films employ -- for me, he's like the reincarnation of Gregg Toland sometimes. It seems to work for this story, set in Hollywood, the strong lighting combined with the wide-angle lenses gives it a larger-than-life style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really wary of saying this, but I just have to write it down. Perhaps I’ll come to my senses.

 

The first thing that I don’t like about the look is what Mark Kenfield said above. I knew there was something bothering me, but I just couldn’t figure out what it was, and then – bam! – Mark says it: the depth of field is really distracting, coupled with all that sharpness. It really gives the picture an unfilmic look. And here by unfilmic I primarily mean “not like a movie”, though it can also refer to film as “celluloid”. And I like digital.

 

Then comes that harsh lighting, such as the one pouring onto Jesse Eisenberg in Steve Carell’s character’s office or the one in the New Year’s Eve party scene where that man is quoting Socrates, and it creates a weird triad with the depth of field and the sharpness. I really find that whole scene too bright and not really glamorously lit. It’s the same one where Jesse Eisenberg’s character is asking Blake Lively’s character does she like jazz music, I think. The one preceding it in the trailer, in the night club with the two of them, has a weird mix of lights on. I really hate the table lamps at the New Year’s party.

 

I guess a sensitive digital sensor and a harsh light don’t go well together. But who am I to say anything to Storaro?!

 

Another thing that I find puzzling is that soft frame in which Vonnie first appears. I get it that it is probably meant to transmit to us the idea of Jesse’s character being struck by her beauty, but it’s just not working for me.

 

I was going to mention the light hitting Steve Carell at the pool party, but then I realized it can be motivated by the lights around the pool.

 

Then there’s the framing. I hate it. Everything seems askew, at a weird angle. And it’s as if there was not enough space so everything seems tight and squeezed: the pool party shot, the terrace shot at that other daytime pool party, the shoot of Kristen and Jesse at the gates of that villa. It’s as if the cameraman is about to stumble onto the actor’s or something like that.

 

But I’m sure I’m totally wrong, and the film will look great. I’d like to see them work again, especially since, as David says, this seems to be a bit of a departure from Woody’s usual style. And I hope it won’t be a film set in too many ordinary interiors. If he is to shoot another film this summer, as it is, as usual, expected, I don’t think Darius Khondji will be available. Won’t he be shooting Okja?

 

I just wonder how Storaro came to Woody’s mind. Of all people. But I’m glad he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I guess a sensitive digital sensor and a harsh light don’t go well together. But who am I to say anything to Storaro?!

No human is beyond critique. The man isn't a god despite what some may believe. I didn't much care for the look of the trailer either, tbh. But my tastes are weird and outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he was going for a style similar to movies of that period.. big hard lights,alot of DOF.. obviously they had the time and money to light it just about any way they wanted..and could have shot the whole thing through huge diffusion screens and kept the framing to the "normal" way.. there would have been a reason to shoot this way.. obviously it wont be to all tastes .. rather than playing it safer.. and maybe it doesn't work at all.. I haven't seen the film..

Personally I think some of his films.. the lighting has sort of over powered the film itself .. The sheltering sky..The Last Emperor.. total tour de force visually but over powering the film itself.. in my opinion .. rather than serving the story.. apart from that I think he seems to know what he,s doing and will go far :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’re probably right. Haven’t thought of that.

 

Another tiny little thing about the framing I didn’t like are things awkwardly cut, such as that guy to whom Steve Carell’s character is talking to at the pool party. The frame just cut about a quarter of the half of his figure. Then the height of the camera…

 

Anyway... They had so much money that they went overbudget. :) The most expensive Woody Allen film ever, at $30 million.

 

http://www.indiewire.com/article/woody-allen-cafe-society-cannes-lunch-kristen-stewart-blake-lively-opening-night-controversy-20160512

 

The overpowering cinematographic style might be an Italian thing. You know, you have Dior or Ann Demeulemeester, and then you have Versace or Cavalli. They love showy. :)

 

Vanity Fair called Storaro’s photography in the film “oddly lush and intricate and garish for an Allen picture”:

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/cafe-society-review-kristen-stewart-woody-allen-cannes-1201771214/

 

The only instance I found of cinematography being described in ambiguous terms. Everyone else seems to love it.

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally saw it.

 

Looks flat out gorgeous, I'm a heavy heavy celluloid fan, and I have to say wow. I knew the F65 could look great on stuff like Oblivion, or Ex Machina (although a bit too much diffusion in that one), but it looks so different here. The look is completely different from the Red Dragon or the Alexa, it's really unique. Really really sharp and clean, very elegant, the lighting is beautiful (I think especially of one scene in Bobby's apartment with Vonnie), rich and lustrous, it was cool also to see the lighting subtly change within a scene, and that happens a few times, like sometimes the color will get warmer, or something like that. The deep focus look could throw some people off, but that's also what makes the look.

 

I also really like the camerawork, the camera moves a lot, very introspective and interactive I'd say, it's a nice change from the usual thing we get in Woody's films which is usually very boring imo. So yeah, the F65 impressed me, it works perfectly here, I also really like the look of it in the Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk trailer (Ang Lee's 4K 120 fps film, shot by John Toll (the framerate varies depending on the scenes), I don't understand why it's not used more, I guess the workflow can be a hassle and the Alexa is just more loved and has a more "filmic" look.

 

The film itself is quite good, charming, seductive, Jesse is great, so are Carell, Stewart, Lively.

Edited by Manu Delpech
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally saw it.

 

I knew the F65 could look great on stuff like Oblivion, or Ex Machina (although a bit too much diffusion in that one)

I don't believe Rob Hardy uses diffusion. He does, however, like to use Xtal Express anamorphics, which naturally have a softer look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

While my initial thoughts on the trailer still stand, I actually think that the longer clips that have been posted online seem rather less jarring than the images from the initial trailer did. I'm a big fan both of Woody and Storaro, so I'll be checking this out regardless, but I'm very interested to see how the aesthetic plays out in the film as a whole.

 

I'll reserve any real judgements until then.

Edited by Mark Kenfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was skeptical watching the trailer, thought it looked too clinical and the movie just won me over. I'd even say that to me, it added to the enjoyment of the film because this is the first time Allen is shooting digitally (not that he seems to care if you see his comments about it "it looks fine" is what he said :D ), because it's Storaro, and the F65. I still love and choose film any time of the day, but the F65 is a great fit for this movie, very seductive.

Edited by Manu Delpech
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s very encouraging, because I thought all that sharpness ruined the whole period illusion thing. You can just see something is a costume, and it is kind of baffling, jarring, distracting. I actually thought quite the opposite after I saw the trailer, that this way of shooting was inappropriate for this kind of movie. When it was announced how they would shoot this, I thought “Great! Yes! Bring it on!”

 

Woody Allen is already preparing for his next film, it seems. It will be a drama set in New York, he told L’Obs.

 

By the way, just so I understand this correctly, when you say “it added to the enjoyment of the film”, what do you mean by “it”? What added to the enjoyment?

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The look of the film, the F65 look added to the enjoyment of the film for me because it's different, and spectacular between Storaro's hands. I'd say by principle that period stuff should be shot on film, but it can work sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I don't mind the look of Cafe Society, though they say super high-res digital sensors and ultra sharp modern lenses aren't good companions if so called "cinematic look" is desirable. I've tried both and I lean towards creamier, vintage-looking or just older glass (was lucky to borrow a few oldies in perfect condition to test). F65 on Ex Machina looked great, at least outdoors. I do miss a bit of fine grain though, since "Cafe" is a period piece. I noticed some diffusion when KStew was on screen (not so much on Blake though, huh). Should've kept that one for the whole project. Hell, even on "After Earth" (also F65 job) they used Black Pro-Mist for the whole movie. Say what you want about the story, but that film never looked overly sharp or clinical.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The day has come – out in New York and Los Angeles. :)

 

If you see it, let us know. :) :)

 

P. S. I forgot to let you know the DVD and Blu-ray can be pre-ordered from French Amazon:

 

https://www.amazon.fr/Caf%C3%A9-Society-Jesse-Eisenberg/dp/B01H47IGSY/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1468559842&sr=1-2&keywords=Caf%C3%A9+Society

 

https://www.amazon.fr/Caf%C3%A9-Society-Blu-ray-Jesse-Eisenberg/dp/B01H47IIIM/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1468559842&sr=1-1&keywords=Caf%C3%A9+Society

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it last night. Storaro's expressionistic and moody lighting is superb, particularly his use of the red/yellow spectrum to create separation. Some very daringly lit scenes.

 

The color was very pretty and well done, but I couldn't help but be a bit shocked by how extremely sharp it all looked.

  • Upvote 1
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...