Looking for bad examples of Cinematography in mainstream cinema

[Stuart Brereton]

"Yeah, but first you have to define 'good'" -It's like porn: You know it when you see it.

 

That's kind of a non answer, but if we're going to accept it as an analogy, we'd have to agree that just as definitions of porn have changed over the years, so must definitions of 'good'.

 

I'd argue that 'Bad cinematography' is any work which doesn't serve the story and which deliberately calls attention to itself, but that is also a matter of opinion.

 

In the end, there is no Good or Bad, just what we like and dislike.

[Satsuki Murashige]

No there are no hard, fast rules to what looks good, what looks bad. It's like porn: You know it when you see it.

 

>So, it's all just down to personal taste then?

 

 

To put it another way, if I work on a show as director of photography and the director insists that I underexpose all the film two stops and try to correct it back to normal for a "look," he can shoot it himself, I am walking away.

 

>Don't you think this is a rather close-minded approach? Harris Savides, Chris Doyle, and Gordon Willis have made an art of underexposure, after all. I would be quite happy if I shot something that looked as good as 'The Yards' or 'Happy Together' or 'Godfather II.' I also think it would be an interesting challenge to pin-point the look that the director wants and come to a compromise on the technical requirements.

 

 

There are good ideas, there are bad ideas. There are movies that win awards, and movies that don't. There are deserving genres and fields that push the envelope and further the craft, and there are people who don't know what they are talking about that produce garbage, and they always seem to be the best at explaining their "motivations" and purity. They're into the wrong "art."

 

>I really don't understand your point of view. So 'good' art is relative, yet it can also be absolutely 'wrong'? Which is it?

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Yes, definitions of porn have changed over the years, but there is some stuff that is borderline, and some stuff that clearly is. There is some stuff that clearly isn't.

[Rakesh Malik]

I'd argue that 'Bad cinematography' is any work which doesn't serve the story and which deliberately calls attention to itself, but that is also a matter of opinion.

 

 

I'd agree with that definition. If the cinematography draws attention to itself, then it's drawing the viewer's attention away from the story, which is certainly not good.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Alright, you want to play the "serve the story" cliché game? How does deliberately under- and over-exposed garbage on BSG, wildly blown highlights, terrible looking imagery "serve the story" in any way.

Gritty, sure.


Desaturation, sure.


Bleach bypass, sure.


Shakey cameras, snap zooms, hand racked focus, manual iris pulls, sure.


But that? And I bet I am arguing people who haven't even seen the garbage they are defending.

[Stuart Brereton]

Alright, you want to play the "serve the story" cliché game?

 

Ok, you've clearly made up your mind, and obviously your opinion is more valid than anyone else's.

 

It's amazing how many students, and others with no verifiable film experience have appeared around here recently, making sweeping statements and generally belittling the work of others

[Carl Looper]

Yes, there's no objective measure of what is good and bad. It can only ever be an opinion. And as Satsuki rightly suggested, one's opinion on various different films and TV shows only counts if one is in a position where one's opinion counts. More often than not the opinion that counts has already been established, and one is working within that framework.

 

When making one's own work, of course, the problem of opinion completely disappears. One gets to implement exactly one's idea of how it should be done and look. Or working on someone else's project where one has been given the same license or trust.

 

Arguing what is good or bad is really quite pointless because it's not as if anyone is going to change their opinion on the basis of someone else's opinion. The exception is where one is directing a way forward or otherwise negotiating a team decision to be made. One discusses these things in order to find agreement, or otherwise enforce agreement.

 

Disagreement is easy. That's where one begins. It's not where one ends - not if a work is to be made.

 

C

Edited March 17, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Freya Black]

But the point is deeper than that. Each of the shows that you mentioned has a distinct franchise look that is a riff on the genre conventions that we expect from them. So given the wide variety of established looks out there, what makes one 'bad' and 'not like a movie' over another? Is it merely personal taste? Or are there certain rules and expectations of genre or cinematography in general that simply cannot be violated without alienating a large portion of the audience? These are interesting questions, at least to me.

 

 

Well the point I was making was that Ghostbusters 3 looks like a cheap TV sitcom which is an acceptable look now for movies which would have once been avoided for looking too TV. So it's not a movie because it looks like a brightly lit TV show and ironically Ghostbusters 3 is the only one in that list that actually IS a movie I think?

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Have you seen BSG Stuart? Is it about asserting dominance or actually having an intelligent discussion with you?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Well, it sure seems like each of us is talking to ourselves in this thread. Not sure anyone is getting anything out of this 'discussion' so maybe we should call it a day...

[Ari Michael Leeds]

I just don't get how making a show look horrible and, at least for someone who is sighted, difficult to watch it diverges from professional norms so far, "serves the story."

[Stuart Brereton]

Have you seen BSG Stuart? Is it about asserting dominance or actually having an intelligent discussion with you?

 

I have seen all four seasons of BSG. I enjoyed the show, and while I didn't always like the look of it, I could see what they were trying to do.

 

I generally find that people who refer to imagery as 'Ugly' 'Terribly lit' and 'Garbage', and who accuse those who disagree of resorting to cliche and even having not seen the show in question, are probably not interested in an intelligent discussion. They just like the sound of their own voice.

[Phil Rhodes]

Cliche beats ugly.

 

No apologies. Most of the time I'm happy to achieve cliche, because at least it's what everyone else is doing, as opposed to being worse than what everyone else is doing.

 

P

[JD Hartman]

Battlestar Galactica. UGLY. Why someone would intentionally shoot that way (assuming you buy that story) is beyond me. Were I in that position, I'd tell them to find another DP. Or just hire someone off the street to get that "style."

 

Battlestar Galatica, old or new series?

[David Mullen ASC]

Strong visual choices that deviate from current conventions always produce bad reactions from some people.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Strong visual choices that deviate from current conventions always produce bad reactions from some people.

:) Welcome back David. We've missed you around here.

[Stuart Brereton]

I just don't get how making a show look horrible and, at least for someone who is sighted, difficult to watch it diverges from professional norms so far, "serves the story."

 

'Horrible' is, again, a matter of opinion. But, let's talk about 'professional norms'. Stephen McNutt, ASC, is a talented and accomplished DP. Whatever look BSG had is the direct result of his and the producer's discussions. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't the result of incompetence. It was deliberate. You might not like it, but describing it as 'garbage' is doing a grave disservice to the talented people that created that show.

 

Opinions abound here. Informed opinions are harder to find, and thus more valuable.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm a bit cautious about that point of view. I try (and commonly fail) to avoid using overly provocative language, but I don't subscribe to the view that we must respect the taste of people simply because they've a lot of experience. We might, more specifically, respect their expertise, inasmuch as they're capable of achieving what they say out to achieve, but we're entirely within our rights not to like what it was that they set out to achieve.

 

The canonical example of this is probably Barry Lyndon, which was made by people who knew exactly what they wanted, and how to achieve it, and which is universally adored by everyone, but which I cautiously reserve the right not to, well, like.

 

I mean, you know, there's exquisite skill in making, say, nuclear weapons, but I don't particularly like them or approve of their manufacture.

 

P

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'm a bit cautious about that point of view. I try (and commonly fail) to avoid using overly provocative language, but I don't subscribe to the view that we must respect the taste of people simply because they've a lot of experience. We might, more specifically, respect their expertise, inasmuch as they're capable of achieving what they say out to achieve, but we're entirely within our rights not to like what it was that they set out to achieve.

 

The canonical example of this is probably Barry Lyndon, which was made by people who knew exactly what they wanted, and how to achieve it, and which is universally adored by everyone, but which I cautiously reserve the right not to, well, like.

 

That's fine, but would you refer to 'Barry Lyndon' as 'garbage'?

 

When we refer to something as 'garbage' we usually mean that the object no longer holds objective value and can be potentially dangerous to our health. That the only recourse is to throw it away and hide it forever so no one else can be harmed by it.

 

I mean, you might not like brussels sprouts, but there is clearly a difference between simply not liking the taste of properly prepared food and refusing something that will make you sick.

[Robin R Probyn]

Brussel Sprouts,Nuclear war heads, and Barry Lyndon.. now we are talking ! .. More Gin Vicar..?

[David Mullen ASC]

Some people feel the need to pass judgement on everything, it would be like an amateur music critic saying that the Rolling Stones were great and the Sex Pistols were garbage, etc. based on some personal rating system that makes sense to that person. Other people don't feel that need to label things that probably fall outside their personal tastes.

 

There are a lot of gray areas here; we all obviously form opinions, it's often just a question of how passionately we want to attack what we don't like as well as promote what we do like.

 

For me, when people of experience, with a track record, make obvious choices (as opposed to making technical mistakes) that go against traditional standards for technical quality, I have to respect that just as I would hope that they extend me some professional courtesy to not attack any bold choices that I might make, because nothing kills an art form like the enforcement of stylistic conservatism. We need to be occasionally confronted and challenged by things that go against the norm, even if such extreme experimentation might not yield long-lasting results, might be a stylistic dead-end.

 

So I'm all for the professional who is willing to look foolish now and then by doing something that everyone else says is the wrong thing to do. Doesn't mean I have to like the results, but it does mean that I'd rather not kill the artistic impulse through hostile criticism.

 

BSG was an early HD video show back when cinematographers were experimenting with finding looks that were beyond or the opposite of the traditional film look -- the Dogma 95 movies did some similar things and many people criticized how they looked too. I'm just glad things get released now and then that can upset and horrify some people aesthetically!

[Max Field]

I feel like it'd be fairly difficult to find objectively "bad" cinematography from a DP who got to the point of working on a title considered "mainstream" (unless nepotism's afoot).

 

Movies that comes to mind with, not bad, but not extremely creative shots would be Good Will Hunting or Back to the Future. Both of these movies are incredible works of mainstream media and didn't need a top-10-active DP.

Where it gets tricky is taking a widely loved title and saying it did X and Y wrong, that may lose the audience you're attempting to educate.

 

Now if you just need ANYTHING under the sun that doesn't come off as very inspired, you're bound to find a 5-6/10 80's title on IMDB that'll match what you're looking for to some capacity. Again, leaning towards "uninspired" rather than "bad".

[Stuart Brereton]

but we're entirely within our rights not to like what it was that they set out to achieve.

 

 

Absolutely, Phil, but when someone refers to a show as 'garbage' I feel the need to question their expertise. The stronger the opinion, the more weight it needs to carry. When the poster's knowledge and experience is unknown, the more likely it is to be challenged.

[David Mullen ASC]

The level of experience of the opinion maker matters less to me than the tone of the opinion, which is so emphatic as to sound like objective truth rather than opinion. I mean, it's one thing to suggest that the photographic approach taken didn't work and give an argument as to why, or to say that it wasn't one's own cup of tea, but the label of "garbage" is so strong as to suggest that it should be accepted by everyone as an undeniable truth rather than a personal opinion. I mean if you called some food dish "garbage" you are suggesting that it is inedible and anyone who eats it is crazy. So it goes beyond a taste issue.

 

And it's such a dismissive term that it becomes an insult hurled at the cinematographer, which is why it makes me uncomfortable. If you can't imagine stepping up to the cinematographer and telling them to their face that their work is garbage, then why post it publicly on the internet? And if you would tell a fellow cinematographer something like that to their face, well, it says something...

 

I know that part of learning to be an artist is learning to be discerning and developing one's tastes, hence the tendency to pass judgements, but over time, you'll find that that doesn't necessarily mean narrowing one's tastes.

[Max Field]

 

the label of "garbage" is so strong as to suggest that it should be accepted by everyone as an undeniable truth rather than a personal opinion.

Absolutely. I see tons of Youtube movie critics that write entire pieces of work off as "s**t". To me, if someone labels something with a negative absolute with the connotation of fact rather than opinion, they should also be implying that they are capable of better.

 

Putting said fatalists to that test is generally humorous to see.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Macks Fiiod