The Revenant is an amazing experience

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes sure I agree in principle .. but were there no shots in Reverant that could have benefited by some lighting ..

[Robin R Probyn]

Anyone doing camera work as a living can do a lovely shot given the location and natural lighting.. take anyone to a beach in Hawaii at sunset.. some palm tree,s to silhouette,a beautiful house on the point..and a high end camera.. its going to look great.. there are tens of thousands of camera people who can make that shot .. but then to recreate a room interior with the same lighting..and actors moving about.. in a studio in Pinewood on a rainy cold day months later.. then the list goes way down.. then you have a DOP.. love the way guys shooting reality tv with EX3 call themselves DOP.. thats another rant though :)

Edited December 20, 2015 by Robin R Probyn

[Guest]

Ohh gas? Yea artificial light source.

 

Right, a gas ring goes under the firewood, so the fire burns at the same brightness throughout the scene. Trying shooting coverage of people by a camp fire with just wood burning, you'll go mental.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler...you never answered my question, so I'll re-phrase: Why do you have an issue with the light source - whatever it may be - being in the shot?

Ohh I have zero issues with anything. I merely thought it was cool that they attempted to use all natural, non-man made lighting sources. I was simply separating man made (gas/incandescent/LED/florescent) with the sun and burning wood. I understand that using gas to keep the wood burning at a certain color temp AND brightness is more practical. However, you don't need that much light in all honestly. I've shot a lot of stuff with candle light and 500ASA film stock without a problem. It's dark, but what do you expect! Modern filmmakers spend so much time worrying if the actors look good and not caring of their lighting is at all realistic. That's why I love guys like Roger Deakins. He tries his hardest to generate realism and when it's dark, man it's dark!

[JD Hartman]

 

Right, a gas ring goes under the firewood, so the fire burns at the same brightness throughout the scene. Trying shooting coverage of people by a camp fire with just wood burning, you'll go mental.

 

R,

 

Burning firewood or some type of ceramic log replica?

[David Mullen ASC]

Modern filmmakers spend so much time worrying if the actors look good and not caring of their lighting is at all realistic.

 

First of all, not all of us cinematographers are allowed that sort of freedom to ignore how actors look or whether the scene action is visible enough -- we answer to directors who answer to producers who answer to whoever is funding the movie.

 

Second, "realism" is not the only sort of style to make a movie in. It's a very limiting view of cinema that the more realistic it is, the better it is. I don't think "Singin' in the Rain" would have been a better movie if it had been shot in available light.

[Guest]

 

First of all, not all of us cinematographers are allowed that sort of freedom to ignore how actors look or whether the scene action is visible enough -- we answer to directors who answer to producers who answer to whoever is funding the movie.

 

Second, "realism" is not the only sort of style to make a movie in. It's a very limiting view of cinema that the more realistic it is, the better it is. I don't think "Singin' in the Rain" would have been a better movie if it had been shot in available light.

 

On your first point you're one of the few people on here that understand this concept. As you have often stated regarding the director/DOP relationship, it's not a relationship of equals. It will take a while for many of the members here to understand this concept as too many have the belief....well I'm the DOP I light the movie the way I want.

 

On your second point, exactly....if you want to see realistic lighting watch TV news. Movies are fantasy, not realism. If I shot my wilderness movies to look, "realistic", they'd look terrible.

 

R,

[Guest]

 

Burning firewood or some type of ceramic log replica?

 

Gas is the only way to go, you can control the intensity perfectly. :)

 

R,

[Bill DiPietra]

It will take a while for many of the members here to understand this concept as too many have the belief....well I'm the DOP I light the movie the way I want.

 

I agree with you, but I think the reason for that mindset is that many of us on here DP the projects we are directing.

[Guest]

 

I agree with you, but I think the reason for that mindset is that many of us on here DP the projects we are directing.

 

And I agree with that, it's part of the process of moving up the ladder. In David's case, he's a "working DOP," which is a very difficult position to attain.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

It's a very limiting view of cinema that the more realistic it is, the better it is.

Nobody said "better"... and I understand the reason why things are done a certain way. Lighting is a necessity of all visual mediums, but clever lighting, that looks "realistic" is far better in my eyes, then over the top unrealistic lighting, which is something you see a lot in movies of all generations.

[Bill DiPietra]

Lighting is a necessity of all visual mediums, but clever lighting, that looks "realistic" is far better in my eyes, then over the top unrealistic lighting, which is something you see a lot in movies of all generations.

 

That all depends on the given project. What you call "unmotivated lighting," I may call "surrealistic lighting" if it fits, thematically. A good example of this is Robert Richardson's work on Bringing Out the Dead (1999.) It was on TV the other night and, having not seen it in a while, I paid closer attention to the lighting. One could definitely classify it as "over-the-top" but that was kind of the point. You are dealing with a protagonist who, on a good day, has a job where he may encounter every extreme of human behavior in an 8-hour shift (trust me...I know.) In this case, the protagonist is on-the-edge and completely burnt out to the point that he is haunted by the ghost of one of his patients, hence the surrealism.

 

Then you have Snow Falling On Cedars (1999,) shot during the same year by the same cinematographer. To say that it is a gorgeous film is an understatement, in my opinion. Both are period pieces, but this one went much further back to a post-World War II murder mystery. I thought this was the film where Richardson really showed his talent, giving the film a very soft & elegant look which contrasted the inner turmoil most of the characters were dealing with. It may not have been as flamboyant as it was in Bringing Out the Dead, but there was definitely some surrealistic imagery in Snow Falling On Cedars - most of which took the form of the dreamlike flashbacks.

 

But the point is that the looks for both films are completely dissimilar because the stories called for different styles of lighting.

[David Mullen ASC]

Or look at the temple scene in "Apocalypse Now" -- it's lit to look like a mix of firelight and sunlight sneaking into a dark room, yet it also is surreal at times, not completely realistic. Lighting can represent a state of mind of the characters at times, it can become more expressionistic rather than naturalistic -- it just has to be motivated by the story. Look at "Seven" -- that movie started the whole cliche of police investigating a creepy crime scene with flashlights rather than turning on the overheads. The mood is part of the story and the look is not strictly realistic. And there are more surreal movies than that, with more surreal lighting.

[Tyler Purcell]

Ohh I know... I was just saying, it's the type of lighting I like and wish to see more in movies.

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes I guess is alot down to taste .. which is usually also matched to the type of films you like too.. theres no realistic lighting on a another planet set 10,000 years in the future with 10 suns.. well unless you see 11 shadows I guess :).. equally you will probably never see massive sweeping wide angle crane shots with 20 Dino,s back lighting in a Ken Loach film..

 

I guess there will always be such a thing as "bad lighting" .. but otherwise one mans meat is another mans poison ..

[David Mullen ASC]

You don't even have to go as far as 10,000 years in the future -- look at "Blade Runner" with its sweeping xenons through smoked sets, which made for a stylized image that could also be justified somewhat by the passing dirigibles, but clearly Ridley Scott was going for strong graphic imagery with film noir elements rather than a documentary of what life in the future would look like.

[Robin R Probyn]

Yeah good example.. must be fun for a DP on a decent budget Sci fi film to not have to follow any rules.. pretty sure i read Cronenweth did the Xenon sweep for one shot.. thought it looked good and then decided to use it as an on going theme.. thats what makes the greats I guess.. the balls to go with something that just grabs you..

[joshua gallegos]

Let's not pretend this film hasn't been made before, because Apocalypto was actually a far more superior film than The Revenant, and not to mention Jeremiah Johnson. The opening of the film reminded me so much of Saving Private Ryan, and I don't particularly care for the extreme long takes, I thought it was an absolutely pretentious film that was saved by Dicaprio's performance, and the connection between Dicaprio and his son wasn't even set up very well compared to the relationship Steve Jobs has with Lisa. When it comes to choosing style over substance, I'll always choose substance, and the characterization in Steve Jobs or The Hateful Eight for that matter is what makes great cinema,

[Manu Delpech]

I'm very excited to see it, but mostly for the visuals, I think it's going to lack some depth but it's a revenge/survival story and the source material (having really happened in real life) is just that, Inarritu actually added the bit with his son to make it more emotional. Very excited to see it (won't be until late february here, sigh.... and yes I know about the hum hum, but I'd rather see it the way it's meant to be seen on the big screen) but it definitely seems like Joshua says to be style over substance, and I definitely agree on substance over style, well, you didn't really phrase it that way. If you can get the two, then you have something special. I get it about long takes, i get the point, and Chivo talked about it in the AC article, but it tends to get very showy.

 

Steve Jobs is phenomenal, additionally, it looks fuc*** great as well. And yes, Apocalypto is awesome.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Manu Delpech

[Kemalettin Sert]

biggest disappointment of the year so far.Leo is 10/10 but the movie is barely below 5/10.

[JD Hartman]

 

Gas is the only way to go, you can control the intensity perfectly. :)

 

R,

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. On top of the propane fueled gas ring, real logs or some type of replica logs (ceramic, etc)?

[David Mullen ASC]

Just saw "The Revenant" at the Landmark on Pico, on a big screen...

 

Visually amazing, quite a number of "how the f-- did they do that?" in terms of camera movements over rough terrain. The color, clarity, and depth of the twilight work was incredible.

 

With all of the swirling and circling camera moves, I can imagine moments where the whole crew is having to move to stay behind the lens, and/or were hidden with the gear, the DIT, etc. far off behind hills, snow mounds, and foliage, etc.

 

A few times I felt it was a bit too repetitive maybe, the slow circling motion -- the classic static wide shots were sort of a breath of fresh air after all of that. I liked the opening battle scene, it was very intense by staying so close to the action with minimal or hidden cuts.

[Manu Delpech]

Yeah, weird, Chivo says in the AC article that 13 % was shot on Alexa 65 (which is a ridiculously accurate number to give) but Inarritu just said in a DGA session with Michael Mann that they shot 40 % of the film on this, he also said he wanted to shoot on 65 mm film but says with the conditions, it wasn't the way to go (that + the problems they've had according to the AC article).

[Jay Young]

I just saw this last night. And between the lady who insisted on smoking through the whole film, and the teenager who kept checking his phone (I guess he was bored?) I thought it was an interesting film.

 

As David pointed out, there are a lot of... swirly camera movement.. After about 10 minutes of that, I can say I don't care for that type of camera operation at all.

Now I agree I would love to know how they achieved some of those 'handheld to gimble on truck to handheld' shots, and at this point I'll assume it was a master steadycam operater who literally jumped on the back of a speeding vehicle while wearing a technocrane. Furthermore this digital stitching together of long takes I do not like at all.

 

There are some very beautiful shots in this film. The filmmaking side of this picture for me is just in your face the whole time, which makes me think that the story is not important, its the technical achievement. I always understood the technical achievements should never translate to the screen, leave people wondering - it takes away from the magic.

 

As for the film, personally I enjoyed the story and feel as if it could have better been served by a more traditional approach to visual storytelling, but the unlimited technical abilities simply got in the way. It really wants to be a Gaspar Noe film.

[Robin R Probyn]

Smoking in a cinema..!!! a little bit of a fire hazard no..? .. hope it was out doors..