Looking for bad examples of Cinematography in mainstream cinema

[Carl Looper]

I don't know that a poster's opinion should necessarily count for less if their knowledge and experience is unknown. But of course, if it's only their opinion, then perhaps it is their particular position in the pecking order that will provide any weight (or lack thereof) in support of their opinion.

 

An alternative, for those not so situated high up in the pecking order, is to elaborate their opinion - to make it more than just an opinion. To make a case for why this or that cinematography is to be treated as not so great, or otherwise. To write a clarification that is more than just "IMHO". Or not so humble as the case may often be.

 

Even when one is high up in the pecking order, it's useful to others if they are able to elaborate their opinion. To provide more of a context for why that opinion might be held. Just trusting the opinion of the powers that be, on nothing but their reputation, is just as much a recipe for disaster as trusting anyone else's opinion. An elaborated argument gives one more to go on.

 

In my humble opinion.

 

C

Edited March 19, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Satsuki Murashige]

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.

 

Actually, I think Dean Cundey's work on 'Back to the Future' is incredible and timeless. Especially when you consider what an effects-heavy movie it was for the time, the different time periods, the fact that it is a comedy yet is still dramatically lit and doesn't attention to itself. The movie is thirty years old and I don't think it has dated at all.

 

Mr. Cundey is definitely a top 10 DP, there are only a handful of his peers who might have a more impressive body of work: 'Halloween', 'The Thing', 'Escape From New York', 'Big Trouble in Little China', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit', 'Jurassic Park'?! I mean, seriously...

[Max Field]

 

Actually, I think Dean Cundey's work on 'Back to the Future' is incredible and timeless. Especially when you consider what an effects-heavy movie it was for the time, the different time periods, the fact that it is a comedy yet is still dramatically lit and doesn't attention to itself. The movie is thirty years old and I don't think it has dated at all.

Mr. Cundey is definitely a top 10 DP, there are only a handful of his peers who might have a more impressive body of work: 'Halloween', 'The Thing', 'Escape From New York', 'Big Trouble in Little China', the 'Back to the Future' trilogy, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit', 'Jurassic Park'?! I mean, seriously...

 

His body of work is plentiful, but from what I've seen of the BttF trilogy (I guess all of it since I've seen all 3) it doesn't hold the impact that a (quick example) Robert Richardson brings to the table for me. It's probably just the era and genres Cundey has dealt in which is why I don't view him as top-10 from a single performance basis.

Like I mentioned before, the people who did those 2 examples weren't doing anything incorrect, but at the same time it didn't scream "style" to me like a Spike Lee or Scorsese film would.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

I don't recall saying "Battlestar Galactica is garbage." I did say it was ugly, and I got annoyed after three or four "serve the story" refrains.


This isn't a digital thing, either. I wouldn't recommend underexposing negative fiml two stops either. If that's an aesthetic choice, great, but I still do not understand deliberately making an entire episode or season or series look bad.

Maybe for a dream sequence or a home movie sequence. And I don't see how saying I would not do that or work in that fashion is "putting myself above the story," or any such nonsense. Insulting the viewer's optic nerves so much that they do not want to watch anymore is serving the show how, exactly?


Not sure how what I wrote above can be interpreted as me being arrogant and putting my work or my reel above the story or the series, not wanting it to make blood come out of the eyes of its viewers. That's something different than having an arrogant chip on my shoulders and insisting upon contrasty, stylized, attention-seeking cinematography in a show that has an otherwise-established style already B)

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Comparing Barry Lindon to Battlestar Galactica 2003 is incredibly insulting to the innovative, original work on Barry Lindon. BSG was NOT the first show to underexpose things two stops, or overexpose them three.

[Stuart Brereton]

I don't recall saying "Battlestar Galactica is garbage."

 

 

 

Let me refresh your memory.

 

 

How does deliberately under- and over-exposed garbage on BSG

 

 

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

[Justin Hayward]

I think it's also common for some of us to judge others work more harshly than we judge our own. If we were as hard on ourselves as we are on others, chances are we'd be too depressed to ever shoot anything again. I know I'm guilty of blasting something I just saw in theaters while patting myself on the back for some simple blocking I came up with for a tiny pharmaceutical commercial. I'll bet many of the people that blast the Transformers franchise (including me) have a hard time admitting they will never be capable of creating anything as rich as a single frame from any one of those movies.

 

There have been jobs in the past where I feel like even though I gave it my best, my best was a failure and it shattered my confidence for months. It's a crummy feeling. I think we need a healthy level of self delusion or we need to get into another business.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Nice picking and choosing.



That was after three or four "serve the story" refrains, which completely mischaracterizes me as some sort of prima dona who only cares about creating loud, attention-grabbing images, regardless of the needs of the production.

And that's still not the same as saying "Battlestar Galactica's cinematography is garbage."

[Stuart Brereton]

And that's still not the same as saying "Battlestar Galactica's cinematography is garbage."

 

Please explain how it's different. Because I'm struggling to see how repeatedly using the term garbage when talking about BSG's lighting is not the same as saying that BSG's cinematography is garbage. You used that term on numerous occasions, not just the ones I quoted. We haven't been talking about its writing, production design, editing, only its lighting.

 

If you're going to make disparaging comments about other people's work on a public forum, you should at least have the courage to stand by your words.

[Rakesh Malik]

Even when one is high up in the pecking order, it's useful to others if they are able to elaborate their opinion. To provide more of a context for why that opinion might be held. Just trusting the opinion of the powers that be, on nothing but their reputation, is just as much a recipe for disaster as trusting anyone else's opinion. An elaborated argument gives one more to go on.

 

In my humble opinion.

 

C

 

An unsubstantiated opinion backed by authority isn't useful, IMO. "I hate it!" doesn't tell you anything about WHY the person hates it, and if the only explanation they offer is authority, then it's probably just a waste of space.

 

I've run into this in software development, also; I suggested a way of doing things that the supposedly more experienced folks didn't think of, and they claimed it was wrong based on their "experience" rather than for any valid reason. When working with quality management, their opinions ended up being dismissed because they had nothing to back them up, since authority means nothing in practical terms. I got the distinct impression that they were just jealous because I came up with a better idea than they did, and they were too insecure to admit it.

 

I learned early on to tune out the people who judge and throw around of the weight of their "experience" because it's not helpful. People who tell me that they hate something I've shot and explain why they hate it however, I appreciate... because I can learn a lot from the why part. I personally find that people hating my work opens my mind about new things more than people loving it; when people love it, it encourages you do the same thing again, rather than to experiment and branch out and grow.

 

Of course, if someone loves something I've shot and explains why, I appreciate that also... then I get to enjoy having my worked liked AND get some input about worked with it.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

 

Please explain how it's different. Because I'm struggling to see how repeatedly using the term garbage when talking about BSG's lighting is not the same as saying that BSG's cinematography is garbage. You used that term on numerous occasions, not just the ones I quoted. We haven't been talking about its writing, production design, editing, only its lighting.

 

If you're going to make disparaging comments about other people's work on a public forum, you should at least have the courage to stand by your words.

Not only am I an arrogant prima dona whose photography is self-serving and attention-calling, now I am a coward too. Incredible how you've made all these deductions through blocks of text on the internet.

 

Speaking of two different things being substantially the same, how are your frequent refrains to vaulted "serving of the story" substantially different than trolling me and belittling my well-founded opinions?

 

 

 

Let's get back to BSG 2003, though: I've done a little digging, and they shot the pilot on 35mm fiml that was pushed to be gritty. So were they "serving the story" or serving the suits who gave a directive, as if stone tablets delivered by God from down off a mountain to save money by converting to inadequate HD cameras of the time? Since we are praising and holding as unfaultable, the cinematographers behind the looks of television shows.

 

I am still waiting for a reason why what we see in this show, unpleasant imagery, "serves the story." At least you have actually seen it. Coupled with other deficiencies, the look of BSG is one of the reasons why I didn't make it past the first couple seasons.

[Stuart Brereton]

Not only am I an arrogant prima dona whose photography is self-serving and attention-calling, now I am a coward too. Incredible how you've made all these deductions through blocks of text on the internet.

 

Speaking of two different things being substantially the same, how are your frequent refrains to vaulted "serving of the story" substantially different than trolling me and belittling my well-founded opinions?

 

 

 

Let's get back to BSG 2003, though: I've done a little digging, and they shot the pilot on 35mm fiml that was pushed to be gritty. So were they "serving the story" or serving the suits who gave a directive, as if stone tablets delivered by God from down off a mountain to save money by converting to inadequate HD cameras of the time? Since we are praising and holding as unfaultable, the cinematographers behind the looks of television shows.

 

I am still waiting for a reason why what we see in this show, unpleasant imagery, "serves the story." At least you have actually seen it. Coupled with other deficiencies, the look of BSG is one of the reasons why I didn't make it past the first couple seasons.

 

I never called you a prima donna. You introduced that term. Never called you arrogant either, although you certainly seem like you are. I have also never commented on your photography, which I have yet to have the pleasure of experiencing.

 

If saying 'serves the story' on one occasion qualifies as a 'frequent refrain' then I guess I'm guilty.

 

You still haven't explained how you weren't calling BSG's cinematography garbage.

 

I'm sorry if being asked to explain yourself makes you feel 'trolled'.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Exactly, you know me from blocks of text on the internet after one or two discussions. What does that say about you? That you can draw conclusions from sparse information and supposition?

Poor form.


If you are like this on the internet, I wonder what you are like on a film set in a high-stress situation.

[Stuart Brereton]

What you are consistently missing here, is that no-one is arguing with your opinions. You have a perfect right to dislike the look of BSG if you choose. The issue was with the way you chose to express those opinions, which you did in a very strong and forthright way, which seemed to brook no disagreement, let alone discussion. You also chose to describe the show in terms which were frankly, insulting to the show's DP.

 

Any time a DP shoots a movie, tv show, short film or whatever, they are opening themselves up to criticism. You just have to hope that it's constructive criticism, and usually it is, because other DPs are all in the same boat. Our work is out there for all to see, so we extend professional courtesy to each other, and refrain from disparaging comments. It's very easy to be rude about another's work, when your own is not available for criticism.

 

As for what I'm like on set in high stress situations, I really don't know, I don't get stressed. I find it's counter-productive.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

The constructiveness you could take away would be not to underexpose negative film more than one and a half stops or overexposed digital enough to blow the highlights. You are still defending this as some sort of artistic contribution to the field of cinematography, which I find to be right up there with insisting that 3D Digital Animation is "Cinematography" and films like Avatar therefore are somehow deserving of cinematography awards. It just doesn't compute.

I suppose I have the "advantage" in that my own work is so obscure that it is not available for criticism, sure. I do not even know the name of BSG's DP, let alone my calling him up and criticising him about it. My tone became more and more harsh the more and more what was done was defended, along with the rationalization that that style of cinematography was somehow necessary to "serve the story." I read the ASC article, think it was ASC, way back when the show first came out.

And it still sticks in my mind as masterful explanation of work that didn't match with that work.



I have been taught by many photographers and cinematographers, to know and respect the limitations of an emulsion or a digital camera. To deliberately ignore those limitations, and allow the work to fall outside of them produces compromised results for which I can see no legitimate motivation as to their serving anything. If their aim was to simulate being sloppy photography, they accomplished that very well. How does one tell the difference between really bad photography and photography that emulates bad photography? Something of a puzzle.

[John Holland]

Not getting involved but Stuart you are spot on .

[Stuart Brereton]

You are still defending this as some sort of artistic contribution to the field of cinematography

 

 

If you actually read my comments on BSG, you'll note that I said I didn't always like the look, but I could see what they were trying to do. The producers, show runners and DP decided to create a set of visual rules for themselves which they felt would best 'serve the story' they were trying to tell. So they went handheld, they gained up the cameras, they let highlights blow and shadows get crushed. It was a deliberate philosophy, and an attempt to take a new technology in a direction that had not been attempted before on network television. If it had been a simple mistake, or incompetence, perhaps you could label it as bad, or wrong, but it wasn't.

 

Cinematography is not always beautiful. Sometimes it's ugly, sometimes it's bland, sometimes it's invisible. Personally, I have no problem with any of these, as long as they are part of a considered, thoughtful approach.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I don't recall saying "Battlestar Galactica is garbage." I did say it was ugly, and I got annoyed after three or four "serve the story" refrains.

 

Well, you did. Twice. Which is what bothers me. State your opinion, fine. And let others have theirs. The critical point is this: they are all just opinions. Not worth getting upset over and saying some poop you can't take back. You've made your point.

[Satsuki Murashige]

 

His body of work is plentiful, but from what I've seen of the BttF trilogy (I guess all of it since I've seen all 3) it doesn't hold the impact that a (quick example) Robert Richardson brings to the table for me. It's probably just the era and genres Cundey has dealt in which is why I don't view him as top-10 from a single performance basis.

Like I mentioned before, the people who did those 2 examples weren't doing anything incorrect, but at the same time it didn't scream "style" to me like a Spike Lee or Scorsese film would.

Sure, Dean Cundey's work isn't nearly as stylized as the work of Robert Richardson, Janusz Kaminski, Ellen Kuras or Malik Said. I didn't really pay too much attention to it until I had been shooting for awhile. Flashy work always draws more attention, which is probably why Roger Deakins has not yet won an Oscar. But subtle work that stands out is actually harder to accomplish, doubly so when it seamlessly incorporates visual effects. That's what I most admire about Dean Cundey's work - that his images are so memorable without being flashy or overly stylized.

[Ari Michael Leeds]

What is this a Donald Trump debate? I don't have a team of handlers and speech writers doing four or five revisions over what I'm pecking out on an old smart phone, sheesh!

You want to pick apart inconsistencies, fine, but those were generalizations after all the implications started that I was a prima dona who wouldn't know how to work to light a show in a matter that served its story.



That's a personal attack without merit. Again, don't know how you can draw those conclusions from text blocks in one or two exchanges.

I did not once say "Battlestar Galactica's cinematography is garbage," which both you and Stewart have repeatedly tried to put in my mouth. But what I DID say, I have no regrets for "not being able to take back" because I stand by that.

I think it was ugly and I do not think that ugly served that story, or, as an overall look, serves ANY story.



How deliberately showing the WEAKNESSES, the inadequacies of a format serves a story is right up there with saying 3D animation is cinematography.

[Stuart Brereton]

How deliberately showing the WEAKNESSES, the inadequacies of a format serves a story is right up there with saying 3D animation is cinematography.

 

So why do you think they did it then?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Doubling down, eh? Why am I not surprised...

[Phil Rhodes]

So why do you think they did it then?

 

To respond directly, bear in mind, it is actually possible for someone who is incompetent to be hired to shoot a big project. We've all seen it. It happened a lot around the film-to-video transition where people with endless experience on film transitioned directly to F900s and kept doing everything the same way. Experienced, brilliant people with a demo reel full of art and beauty, of course, but lacking the ability to do the job at hand.

 

These days, it would be rare, I would have thought, in the US system where producers (well, showrunners) seem to have some sort of taste, but possible. I would presume such was not the case here as one of the hardest things to achieve is consistency, and if something looks consistently the same it is unlikely to be happenstance, but possible, at least.

 

I have not seen Battlestar Galactica and this is not a comment on its cinematography. From the clips and trailers I've seen it looks like fairly run-of-the-mill American TV series work.

 

P

[Stuart Brereton]

 

To respond directly, bear in mind, it is actually possible for someone who is incompetent to be hired to shoot a big project.

 

I have not seen Battlestar Galactica and this is not a comment on its cinematography. From the clips and trailers I've seen it looks like fairly run-of-the-mill American TV series work.

 

P

 

DP Stephen McNutt, ASC, CSC is definitely not incompetent. Check his resume on iMDB for further info.

 

BSG was one of the first TV shows to switch from 35mm film to HD-CAM. Its look was characterized by 'edgy' handheld work, high gain settings (+18db) clipped highlights, crushed blacks, and some unusual choices in color-timing. When the show was re-imagined back in 2003, this kind of gritty, noisy, un-pretty look actually fit very well with the tone of the show, which was deliberately lo-fi and claustrophobic. Later seasons lost some of this feel and evolved into space opera, and so the look became less appropriate.

[Max Field]

 

How deliberately showing the WEAKNESSES, the inadequacies of a format serves a story is right up there with saying 3D animation is cinematography.

 

Is that implying there's no, or very little, cinematography knowledge involved with creating the shots of a 3D film? Or am I reading this wrong?