Looking for bad examples of Cinematography in mainstream cinema

[Brian Drysdale]

You should bear in mind that the early "A Touch of Frost" series were framed to allow for the 4 x 3 TV sets that were around at the time. They may have been using the compromise aspect ratio of 14:9.

 

However, you do tend to get more adventurous framing in the UK documentaries, than in TV drama series.

[Freya Black]

You should bear in mind that the early "A Touch of Frost" series were framed to allow for the 4 x 3 TV sets that were around at the time. They may have been using the compromise aspect ratio of 14:9.

 

However, you do tend to get more adventurous framing in the UK documentaries, than in TV drama series

 

 

I watched a bit of the "Touch of Frost" series and thought the framing was okay, especially for something in 4:3 which has a bit of a different tradition anyway. It's also a bit centre heavy of course but what the hey, it's done well. I don't thiink Phil was talking so much about the framing on that one but more that the lighting in that wasn't very adventurous, or much of anything at all for that matter, which is true but I think it's understandable for a cheap TV drama from the UK and I liked the opening titles where it seemed like someone was trying to make an effort to make it look a bit exciting and interesting. It seems like quite a serviceable job, (so to speak) to me.

 

Freya

Edited March 15, 2016 by Freya Black

[Michael LaVoie]

Regarding the flat lighting and lensing in a lot of modern comedies, Max Landis had some interesting things to say about the new 'Ghostbusters' trailer, genre conventions, and how cinematography contributes to the recognizable tone of a franchise:

 

http://youtu.be/vfhXxdHv-qE#t=5m24s

I felt bad even making that criticism of comedy lighting that they're mentioning. It's just a style like any other. But it's totally possible to go too far in the other direction as well.

 

I just watched all seven seasons of Nurse Jackie and noticed a pretty dramatic change in the look after season 4. Right when the new showrunner Clyde Philips took over. Not sure if that had anything to do with it but I noticed that it went from a very bright, Greys Anatomy style to a more lowkey Jessica Jones look. Except a lot muddier than that show. IMO way too far.

 

The change may have suited the more depressing content and the characters downward spiral but it also made it more difficult to watch. At times it was really dark. I loved how the first four seasons looked and wasn't crazy about it's new tone. I never noticed the lighting in Lost, Alias, Fringe, Dexter, Californication, . They just looked great from the pilot to the conclusion.

 

Six Feet Under had consistently great photography but season 3 was exceptionally beautiful. Lighting was absolutely gorgeous and I wondered why that wasn't carried through on the rest of it. It doesn't mean any of it was bad. But when you see something change and it screams out that it's better or worse, you wonder. I don't like it to be too pretty or too ugly. I don't want to notice it. To me that's great cinematography.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'm fascinated by Max's comment that broadly-lit parody comedies like 'Ghostbusters 3' don't look like 'real movies' by which I think he means that they don't follow the conventions of the dramatic genre that they are making fun of. It's an interesting point about genre expectation or in this case 'franchise expectation' and not paying that off.

 

To your point, high-key comedy is done well all the time and can develop as the franchise style, especially on a series. I think 'Californication' is a great example where the light always feels motivated and yet it's never too moody (hehe) or distractingly pretty. I love the hot direct sun in Hank's bedroom set. They sort of dropped the ball in the last season or two on the look, don't know if it was a camera change but the look suddenly got a lot flatter and less gritty.

[Freya Black]

I'm fascinated by Max's comment that broadly-lit parody comedies like 'Ghostbusters 3' don't look like 'real movies' by which I think he means that they don't follow the conventions of the dramatic genre that they are making fun of. It's an interesting point about genre expectation or in this case 'franchise expectation' and not paying that off.

 

I think what he means is like a movie rather than like a cheap TV sitcom.

These days there is no longer a clear distinction between cinema and TV.

 

Both can shoot on video or film.

Both can have cinema style lighting.

Both can have TV style lighting.

Both can have video projection.

Both can show live events.

 

You only have to look at this thread where we are talking about both interchangeably.

Lost, Alias, Fringe, Dexter, Californication alongside Ghostbusters 3.

We aren't talking about them as different worlds anymore because they aren't.

 

Freya

Edited March 16, 2016 by Freya Black

[Rakesh Malik]

While I agree that the two worlds have to a large extent merged, that isn't what he was talking about at all, as demonstrated by his examples. He pointed out that Men in Black was lit and shot like a science fiction thriller, and that Kingsman was lit like a spy thriller. Both films are parodies of the genres whose style they are emulating, while Ghostbusters is lit flatly, like a comedy, rather than like a horror film, even though it's parodying horror.

[Bill DiPietra]

Regarding the flat lighting and lensing in a lot of modern comedies, Max Landis had some interesting things to say about the new 'Ghostbusters' trailer, genre conventions, and how cinematography contributes to the recognizable tone of a franchise:

 

http://youtu.be/vfhXxdHv-qE#t=5m24s

 

You were actually able to make it through that entire video?...

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

Let’s get this straightened out first: Phil and Freya, do you at least like Midsomer Murders? :)

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

 

I've watched the entire set of seasons for "Poirot" recently, and one can see the camera work change over the years... early on, a 'night' scene looked like daylight... but the actors were saying it was night... by the end of the series, like season 13... lighting was much better... I think the series started in 1989 or so, and ended in 2013 so one can see almost a 'generation' worth of lighting change...

 

Yes, one can see it. However, I think it got worse over time. Later episodes have this hideous lens-diffusion effect, or whatever it is. Horrendous.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

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."

[John E Clark]

 

Yes, one can see it. However, I think it got worse over time. Later episodes have this hideous lens-diffusion effect, or whatever it is. Horrendous.

Ok... to me better lighting... but yeah... too much diffusion...

[John E Clark]

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."

 

Because some of us may not keep up on the various incarnations of shows... like I never kept up on the various reboots of 'Star Trek' on TV... which 'Battlestar Galactica' are you referring to... one with Lorne Green... 70s vintage... or some thing more recent... (I never watched the show in the era, just occasionally caught an episode or two when visiting friends who watched...).

 

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by John E Clark

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Yeah, the 21st Century version. The original was nothing to write home about (unless we are talking about the SFX team), but competent, decent, safe TV lighting for the '70s.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I think there's a general misunderstanding here that a DP is somewhat a stylistic or artistic constant. A good DP serves the story and the style of the film. A very good example is Phedom Papamichael, ASC, who is a brilliant cinematographer with extremely stylistic work under his belt like Mousehunt, Million Dollar Hotel, The Weather Man, 3:10 To Yuma, Identity etc, but he's also shot Sideways and The Descendants - both very simple, plain looking films. Not pretty in any way. Because that's what was right for that story or what the director wanted. Phedon himself has told me at an ASC clubhouse breakfast that he deliberately avoids having a style and getting type cast. Type casting for DP's is as real as it is for actors. And it can be a trap.

 

Masanobu's work in Spotlight is very simple, almost all just enchanted reality. Bland to some perhaps, but it reinforced that film and that story very well. Made it feel real. He did great and more stylized work in Out of the Furnace, Warrior, The Grey, so there's no doubt in his capabilities.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Listen, I get "serving the story," I really do. But when you're asked to blow highlights as the GENERAL LOOK OF THE SHOW, that's not a show I'd wanna lens.

I absolutely get plain photography and nothing showy. Comedies abound that are like this. "The Shield" made film look ugly at times, and there are plenty examples of ugly film photography. But that series wasn't consistently so, and did it for a purpose.

You could be emulating the look of "COPS," fine, I get that. But what's the be gained in seeking out the visual "aesthetic" of a reality show for a series' entire run?


They can serve the story all they want, and I can get tired of that "service" gouging my eyes out and tune out. After a few dozen episodes that is just what I did.

People go for skinny jeans too, but that's not my fad. Just like I don't need JJ Abrams lens flares in every shot. I think for me it's anything that gets overdone, so that it becomes tasteless and unmotivated. How is unmotivated cinematography a service?

For the mid '70s it was dioptres.

[Satsuki Murashige]

You were actually able to make it through that entire video?...

Hey, I time-stamped to the relevant portion, didn't I? Nobody forced you to watch the whole thing.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Listen, I get "serving the story," I really do. But when you're asked to blow highlights as the GENERAL LOOK OF THE SHOW, that's not a show I'd wanna lens.

 

I absolutely get plain photography and nothing showy. Comedies abound that are like this. "The Shield" made film look ugly at times, and there are plenty examples of ugly film photography. But that series wasn't consistently so, and did it for a purpose.

 

You could be emulating the look of "COPS," fine, I get that. But what's the be gained in seeking out the visual "aesthetic" of a reality show for a series' entire run?

 

 

They can serve the story all they want, and I can get tired of that "service" gouging my eyes out and tune out. After a few dozen episodes that is just what I did.

 

People go for skinny jeans too, but that's not my fad. Just like I don't need JJ Abrams lens flares in every shot. I think for me it's anything that gets overdone, so that it becomes tasteless and unmotivated. How is unmotivated cinematography a service?

 

For the mid '70s it was dioptres.

You are serving the show, not yourself. You can't just walk onto the set of 'Mad Men' and shoot it like a Paul Greengrass film because that's 'your style.' It's not about you, or me, or any one individual cinematographer's taste. You work within the constraints that are given for any project.

 

We were talking about established franchise styles - 'Mad Men' has a look, 'Star Wars' has a look, even 'Cops' has a look. You have to respect and understand those conventions if you want to shoot those projects. Or just don't take the job. Not that most of us are even in the position of being asked to do so...

[Satsuki Murashige]

I think what he means is like a movie rather than like a cheap TV sitcom.

These days there is no longer a clear distinction between cinema and TV.

 

Both can shoot on video or film.

Both can have cinema style lighting.

Both can have TV style lighting.

Both can have video projection.

Both can show live events.

 

You only have to look at this thread where we are talking about both interchangeably.

Lost, Alias, Fringe, Dexter, Californication alongside Ghostbusters 3.

We aren't talking about them as different worlds anymore because they aren't.

 

Freya

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.

[Bill DiPietra]

Hey, I time-stamped to the relevant portion, didn't I? Nobody forced you to watch the whole thing.

 

Trust me - I didn't, Sat! B)

[Ari Michael Leeds]

I have no problem with established looks for consistency.


No I am not serving myself. I am saying that Battlestar Galactica 2005 was ugly and served no one. 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.


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.



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."

[Stuart Brereton]

I am saying that Battlestar Galactica 2005 was ugly and served no one.

 

 

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

 

 

I think the look of BSG was a very conscious decision to go for a gritty, imperfect look. You may not like it, but I don't think anyone could say that it was wrong.

 

Not every show you do is going to be asking for images that mesh 100% with your aesthetic. You can walk away, sure, but I find it's much more productive to regard that as a challenge, and as an opportunity to do something you haven't done before, and find ways of making it creatively fulfilling.

 

We can't all be shooting Days of Heaven.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

All I know is deliberately ugly shows don't win awards. Then again, neither do safely-lit rom coms, but I just do not get an ugly aesthetic. Gritty, imperfect, sure.

I like the look of "Collateral" an early digital movie because it did things that were impossible with film. Push the envelope, deliberately underexpose some, but not to the point where it is distractingly bad, unless we're talking about a 2nd unit shot that's supposed to represent a home movie or something.


We're paid to make things look GOOD, right? Why hire someone then tell them to go against their own training except for the limited exceptions for point-of-view or simulated stuff.

[KH Martin]

New BATTLESTAR is a show I mostly really like (have seen the entire run twice in spite of some dubious stuff in the last season), but it is completely in spite of the cinematography, which is hard on the eye and the mind. I think they reach the nadir in season 3, when they have scenes about the cylon base ship that look like something out of SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN 70s BigFoot-is-an-alien-tool-played-by-Lurch-&-controlled-by-Stefanie-Powers episodes, all diffused to the point of visual illegibility and yet also ... painfully harsh.

 

I'd own the series on blu-ray in a heartbeat if it didn't have this look, which to me seems like a deliberate attempt to make sure everything is either 2 stops over or under, or both, but with the real 'wins' happening when NOTHING in frame is actually exposed properly. Funny, because the CG exteriors actually look good by comparison (which may have been part of the point too, to make them seem less objectionably CG, or perhaps that was the issue for the CG set extensions on the interiors, which look relatively good ... considering how the rest of the frame looks, that is.

 

It is probably old-fashioned to think this way, but I keep wondering why there aren't blue skies in most movies anymore. Unless you've got a very good reason to do so, I don't see why making the world look like Kodachrome isn't generally a good thing (unless you're on the PITCH BLACK planet or something like that.)

 

It kind of slays me that half of the diehard film-shooters seem intent on wrecking the image as bad as anything done digitally (not a fan of Kaminski, MINORITY REPORT makes me ill to watch, and based on the 5 minutes I saw of Mindel's DOMINO, I'm never going to get close to that again.) Kind of makes me extra-appreciate the Nolan/Pfister stuff, perhaps even beyond the level I should, just because they don't seem intent on tearing the image down for the sake of change.

 

Just cuz you can change something in post doesn't mean you should feel compelled to.

[Stuart Brereton]

We're paid to make things look GOOD, right?

 

Yeah, but first you have to define 'Good'

[Ari Michael Leeds]

"ut it is completely in spite of the cinematography, which is hard on the eye and mind" -This.

 

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



I actually liked "Minority Report." Bleach bypass and a heavy cold filtration. That could be considered "bad" cinematography. Same with "Saving Private Ryan." Ditto "The Shield."

Technically wrong, but not ugly.


I like the outdoor pool scenes in "Minority Report" before his son is abducted. The rest of the movie "wrong" and blue, bleach bypass scope.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Ari Michael Leeds