Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Prisoners
Prisoners is the last work by Quebecois director Denis Villeneuve (Incendies, Polytechinque, Maelström), a suspenseful as well as disturbing thriller with a great script.
The Plot. On thanksgiving day, two six year old girls disappear. Despite the police investigation, which seems to lead nowhere, the father of one of the girls decides to take matters into his own hands, using desperate and unorthodox methods.
Camera: Arri Alexa Plus and Studio
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Format: ARRIRAW
Film Stock: -
Prisoners is the first collaboration between director D. Villeneuve and one of the finest living cinematographers, Roger Deakins (Skyfall, No Country for Old Men, A Beautiful Mind, The Hurricane...) and the result is outstanding.
Once again, the British cinematographer chooses the Arri Alexa and Master Prime Zeiss lenses to shoot Prisoners:
this choice is not only dictated by Deakin's preferences and own style,
but also for the way of shooting the film and the results he was
expecting. The resolution, the latitude and the details offered by
camera and lenses were necessary to shoot often in very low light
conditions without jeopardizing the image quality and neatness.
Light has a natural feel
throughout the film. Most of the time characters are lit with a single
light placed outside windows when it imitates the daylight or on one
side in the indoor shots imitating on set lights. Sometimes the only
lights used on scene are headlamps, flash-lights, neons or candles, and
it's in these scenes where we can see Deakins' great work: contrast is high, light is low and shadows are really deep and yet the image is clean and beautiful.
Prisoners
is a dark film and Deakins shows it by the way of lighting. There's no
sign of the sun throughout the film: all the exteriors are shot on dull
days, sometimes in rainy or even snowy ones. That results in an overall grey tone with desaturated colours,
an aesthetic that goes very well with the story. In the indoor shots,
characters are almost always backlit or side lit, creating silhouettes
and a strong contrast. By this way of lighting, characters are often shadows that move in the scene: this suits perfectly the characters who have somehow something to hide.
As a good thriller as it is, Prisoners
releases pieces to complete the puzzle one by one; to enhance this
concept Deakins offers us some of the most artistic images of the film. The frame is like a black canvas where the British master draws few brush-stroke of light,
lighting half a face of a character or some details of the scene. The
shadows gain great importance for the story: they are what is not seen
or known, the secrets and the unconscious, they are where the truth
lays.
Camera movements are dosed and imperceptible
helping the audience to stay in the story, a purpose also achieved by
the focal lengths used, never too wide nor too telephoto, always
staying within the normal range of the 50mm, avoiding perspective distortions and offering a more natural look.
Prisoners
is a very well made film brilliantly directed by D. Villeneuve who
managed to build tension since the first frame. With his stunning work R. Deakins
teaches us that cinematography isn't necessarily about where placing
the camera to get the best possible angle, but it's about enhancing the
story and finding the way to make a moment or an emotion more beautiful,
more intense, more powerful.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of La Vie d'Adèle
La vie d'Adèle (also known as Blue is the Warmest Colour) is a film directed by Abdellatif Kechiche (Venus Noire, The Secret of the Grain, La Faute à Voltaire) that won The Palm d'Or at this year Cannes Film Festival.
The plot.
Adèle is a young girl whose life and sexuality change when she meets
Emma. Love and happiness will rise making Adèle grow into a woman, but
when their relationship falls apart she has to find back herself.
Camera: Canon Eos C300
Lenses: Angenieux Optimo 28-76mm T2.6
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: MPEG-2
Film Stock: -
After working in his previous works, Sofian El Fani (The secret of the Grain, Le Fil, Paris la Métisse) repeats as Kechiche's cinematographer for La Vie d'Adèle.
The film, rather than being a story between two homosexuals like
everyone expects, is a look at what happen when you fall in love,
independently of you gender or sexual orientation. In this sense, La Vie d'Adèle
is a kind of documentary about Adèle's emotions, from love and
happiness to fear and suffer. The cinematography reflects and enhances
this point perfectly.
The choice of the Eos C300 along
with just one lens used (a zoom lens but still one lens) is justified
for the way of shooting: camera is hand held and follows the characters
almost as in a documentary. So the Canon camera and the Angenieux Zoom
offered lightness and practicability for this purpose. Actually, the
C-log of the Eos worked really well, given the pleasant image offered,
not hard at all as digital cinema normally is.
The Angenieux Lens is generally used at its longest focal length
and at a quite wide aperture: the depth of field is very shallow, the
characters are isolated from the background and are often out of focus
when they move, giving the focus puller a hard job (which he did great,
by the way).
There's a clear preference for close up shots:
the reason is not only getting the audience closer to the characters;
the main reason is that the film is about emotions and emotions are
better expressed by face, and the great work of the two actresses made
it easy to fill the frame with their face and looks.
Light has a natural feeling,
of course, according to the story and way of filming. Windows, doors
and on set lights are used as light sources, reinforced and softened.
There's a preference, especially in the first half of the film, for back
lighting: the key light is placed behind the character who never falls
into silhouette anyway because the exposure is balanced with frontal
fill lights.
La Vie d'Adèle is translated in English as Blue is the Warmest Colour for a reason: the use of this colour throughout the film,
an use which is, in a cinematographic point of view, very interesting.
Normally blue is associated with coldness and distance not with warmth,
while the colour representing love is red. The director and the
cinematographer changed this relationship because they wanted to go
further: in fact, blue is also the colour of freedom and the future. It is freedom what Adèle looks for when she first sees Emma, freedom for expressing her true feelings. This is what Emma's hair colour represents.
She is the future for Adèle. That is why, in the gay bar, the first
thing we see of Emma is the blue hair popping out from the darkness,
that is why the first time Adèle and Emma makes love the linen of the
bed are blue.
And it is also interesting to see how blue starts to fade along with the falling apart of their relationship:
as soon as problems and doubts arise, Emma has blonde hair for example,
or the colour of the sea where Adèle is swimming has a washed blue
colour. This happens for small but important details too: at the
beginning of the film we can see a picture of New york taken in the blue
hour, which means that it has a blue cast; at the Adèle and Emma's
rendez-vous, towards the end of the film, we can see some pictures of
New York in the bar where they meet: they are in black and white.
Also
in one of the final scene Adèle wears a blue dress (loaded with
symbolism) when attending Emma's exhibition, perhaps in her last attempt
to reconquer her; when she leaves her blue dress will be the only
coloured object in a grey and desaturated surrounding.
La Vie d'Adèle is a marvellous film in which Kechiche
managed to portrait like no one before what we go trough when we love
someone; its cinematography is simple but powerful, enhancing the story
through tiny important details.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Captain Phillips
Captain Phillips is a film based on a true story directed by Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum, The Bourne Supremacy, United 93) with Tom Hanks playing the role of the captain.
The plot.
Failing to hijack an US flagged ship, 4 Somali pirates kidnap her
captain, Rich Phillips, asking for ransom. Us Navy intervenes in
rescuing him.
Camera: Arriflex 435 and 235, Aaton Penelope and XTR Prod, Arri Alexa, Canon Eos C300
Lenses: Angenieux Optimo
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm, 16mm, ARRIRAW
Film Stock: Fuji Eterna 8663 250D, Fuji Eterna 8673 500T, Fuji Eterna 8563 250D, Fuji Eterna 8573 500T
The cinematography of Captain Phillips is signed by Greengrass' usual DP, Danny Akroyd
(Green Zone, United 93, The Hurt Locker, Looking for Eric); his choice
for the film stock is justified for the texture and the reality he was
after, characteristics that, according to him, digital doesn't offer as
much as film does.
The sense of reality is the first thing we notice
from the very beginning of the film. Audience is thrown into the story
thanks to the way of shooting which has all the characteristics of
documentaries: the hand-held camera is constantly looking for action or
motions, panning and shifting rapidly, shaking, re-framing, following
the characters... Even long zoom is used in this sense: as in a docufilm or a tv reality, the focal length is changed quickly closing up to characters.
Multiple camera shooting and improvisation
were necessary to ensure a better sense of realism (apparently Tom
Hanks and the actors who played the roles of the pirates didn't meet
till the day of shooting to create a certain tension in the scene...).
But the realism is also achieved thanks to camera shots used: there's a
clear preference for close ups which, along with the way the story is
told, makes us feel close to characters and feel respect for them; for example, we never consider most of the pirates as bad.
Close
up and extreme close up shots are also used at the beginning of the
film to introduce the character Tom Hanks plays and empathise with him.
The way of lighting is as natural as possible, along with the general feel of realism of the film. Artificial lights are reinforced and softened but there's not a specific regard for exposure: characters, when moving, easily fall into sub-exposure or overexposure which, obviously helps with the purpose of the film.
There's a clear difference in texture, grain and colours depending on which characters camera is following. Tom Hanks and his crew are shot on 35mm, with perfectly balanced and vivid colours and a nice colour palette; the image is neat and organic.The pirates are shot on 16mm:
the image is very grainy, the look is "dirty" with lots of flares
easily visible and tones are are quite warm. The US Navy is shot on digital:
the image is very neat and no grain is present, a blue tone and
desaturated colours make everything cold and formal. Regardless if this
is an easy and far too obvious solution, it works.
Captain Phillips
is a very suspenseful film in which a story unfolds to the audience
with great realism thanks to the good work director Paul Greengrass and
cinematographer Barry Ackroyd did together.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of The Butler
Director Lee Daniels' (Precious, The Paperboy, Shadowboxer) last feature is The Butler, a film, inspired by a true story, very promising due to the cast and the theme it deals with.
The plot.
Cecil Gaines manages to make his way from a domestic servant up to a
butler in the White House, serving 8 different presidents and witnessing
important momentums in History which reflect the stability of his
familiar life.
Camera: Arriflex 435, Panavision Panaflex Platinum
Lenses: Panavision Primo, Angenieux Optimo
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5203 50D, Vision 5207 250D, Fuji Eterna Vivid 8543 160T, Eterna 8563 250D, Eterna 8573 500T
After the Oscar winning Precious, Lee Daniels repeats with Andrew Dunn (Hitch, Crazy Stupid Love, Gosford Park) as cinematographer to shoot The Butler. He is very fond of film stock as, according to his own words, film is the real HD, so he obviously chose this format for The Butler, using different stocks for better suiting different situations and periods of the story.
The
film doesn't have a straight light approach: its lighting differs from
scene to scene and changes with a story that unfolds during 80 years. It has an overall natural feel but suddenly the light changes to theatrical
when drama needs to be transmitted, with strong back lights or side
lights as Key lights which sometimes has a blue cast, like the scene of
the hanged people or the butler's son first kiss.
Forest
Whitaker´s character is a butler that has to serve in a room in a
silent way, be discrete and avoid letting feel his presence; I like the
way Andrew Dunn showed this concept visually: by composition, by
placing the actor always aside, almost as en extra passing by, as he'd
been forgotten, and by lighting, lit with the fall off of the main light
of the scene lighting the president and his men or leaving him 1/2 stop
or a stop underexposed than the other characters.
During the scenes in the White House lighting and way of shooting are academic, neat and precise,
while outside Dunn allows himself to be more artistic, for example by
combining archive footage with own footage shot on Kodak 5207 250D
manipulated in post production to match the original one. But the way of
shooting stays formal throughout the film.
Different diffusion filters were used
on the lens to make the film less perfect and getting the audience into
the story, but also to define the different periods of the story: as
we can see different gradations were used, the strong diffusion for the flashbacks gradually gets softer as the story draws on in the years till the present days, where no diffusion filter is used.
It sounds to me a too much obvious solution as it is the strong yellow cast, psychologically associated to family, used in the scenes of the butler's home.
Camera barely moves limiting itself to witness the story
developing in front of the lens: we always know were we are and what we
have to look at. Once again an academic way of shooting. Focal lens
choice is pretty correct, though I missed the use of tilt shift lenses
in a couple of shots where I found converging lines too disturbing.
The Butler
is a film which stands only for the theme it deals with and it is
interesting for whom is not aware of the social fight held in USA in the
last decades but it is a bit too cold and distant and limits itself to
witness all the happenings and changes of those years because we barely
empathize with characters. Its cinematography reflect this distance:
apart from few scenes, it shows us the story rather than making us feel
something.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Gravity
Gravity is the latest feature by Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Y tu Mamá También), a sci-fi film that takes us into the space with Sandra bullock and George Clooney.
The plot.
While outside the shuttle, on a spacewalk repairing a satellite,
disaster hits the medical engineer Sandra Bullock and the veteran
astronaut George Clooney; the shuttle is destroyed and they have to find
a way to get back to earth.
Camera: Arri Alexa
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: ARRIRAW
Film Stock: -
Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, The Tree of Life, To the Wonder, Ali) proves himself, once again, to be one of the finest working cinematographer,
and this time choosing digital (instead of the usual film stock) and
showing us that he can master digital light too. Even if there's lots of
CGI (almost everything you see on screen is fake), the cinematography of Gravity is absolutely stunning.
The
approach to lighting Lubezki makes is, as he always uses to do, very
natural: being in space, he uses the sun as main light source and very
often as Key Light, both for the spacewalks scenes and the scenes shot
inside the shuttle; but he also uses stars and the earth as light
sources, the latter one as a big bouncer of the sunlight. Lubezki is not afraid of showing the sun light as it is,
very harsh, so there are deep shadows, contrast is quite high and,
sometimes, the image has blown highlight: that results not only in some
visually beautiful images but also in a very natural feel which is one of the elements that make us be there in the space with Bullock and Clooney.
The
difficulty Lubezki found was that he had to match all the CGI work: the
only things "real" on screen are faces, everything else (including
hands and legs) is computer generated; characters don't stand still,
they float gently or move and change direction in space so the light had
to match perfectly with the background: different speeds in movement,
different contrast or wrong density would have broken the natural feel
and the film would have not worked as it does. To make things easier,
Lubezki created a box with LED screen and they shoot the actors
inside of it: the LEDS were projecting the backgrounds of the scenes,
lighting the actors and offering them visual references for acting
(which a green screen would not offer).The other element in Gravity's cinematography that helps to bring us into space is camera movement. Camara doesn't stop moving and it actually floats gently around characters up and down and sideways giving us the impression of the lack of gravity. That was achieved thanks to Bot&Dolly, a robotic camera rig with 10 axis of freedom, which moved, along with the background on the LED panels, to trick the eye and make us think the actors are moving (while they are actually standing still).
The exclusive use of wide angle lenses also helps to this purpose: we are into the action close to the actors and sometimes we take their place like in some subjective shots as we see the action trough the visor of the helmet. Remarkable is the second sequence of the film where the camera approaches slowly to Sandra Bullock and ends up entering her helmet as the shot turns into a subjective one.
The shots are, as Cuarón got us used to, very long ones. The first sequence, for example, lasts almost 20 minutes and introduces the audience into the emptiness of the space and its absence of gravity, and this feeling will be kept throughout the film: it is very interesting how the tension and the anguish is maintained trough these long shots (when normally the same effect is achieved by fragmenting the action in several shots).
Even if with plenty of CGI (I'm not really fond of it at all), Gravity is a film with an excellent aesthetic, its cinematography is a feast for the eye and, given last years trend, I'm pretty sure it will win this year Oscar. It's a pity that the film is just pure entertainment and offers little room to think; also I think it would have worked much more better if the audience could connect and emphasize with characters, thing which doesn't happen.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography Barry Lyndon
Barry Lyndon didn't receive a big commercial success when it was released back in 1975. But now it is considered one of Kubrick's finest film. It is a film on a grand scale which abounds in meticulous technical craftsmanship and it owes its success to Kubrick, of course, but also to cinematographer John Alcott and electronic engineer Ed DiGiulio.
The Plot.
Barry Lyndon is a slightly thick, hungrily ambitious young Irishman who
longs tu pull himself up by his low-born origin into the superficial
and illusory world of the nobility, and he almost succeeds in doing it.
Camera: Arriflex 35BL, Mitchell BNC
Lenses: Canon K35, Zeiss ƒ 0.7, Angenieux 25-250
Aspect ratio: 1.66:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Eastman 5254 100T
John
Alcott already worked with Kubrick as cinematographer in his previous
works (2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange), he was actually
promoted by Kubrick during the shooting of 2001; but saying that Barry
Lyndon's cinematography is Alcott's job would not be right. It is instead a close collaboration between Alcott and Kubrick, who was a fine photographer himself. The result is a delicious feast for the eye, where each composition is like a painting by one of the old Master.
They
actually studied and searched for lots of references in the paintings
of the Dutch Masters but they seemed to them to be a bit flat so they
decided to light the scenes a bit more from the side. Anyway, they went after a pictorial style with a soft and subtle rendition of light and shadows.
John
Alcott used to define himself as a natural light cameraman: he managed
to master light to naturally light the scene in all of the features he
DP'd and, of course, Barry Lyndon is no exception; in fact it was the
first historical film to be lit in a natural way: lighting in a more
theatrical way was the trend at that time for that kind of features.
Throughout Barry Lyndon, there's a constant feeling of natural light coming through the windows
of the locations simulated by Mini-Bruts always placed outside the
houses where they shot. Anyway, there are some scenes, like the one with
Barry and Captain Potzodof, lit with light placed on top of their head
which is no really justified nor natural.
They had to gel windows and use different ND to stop down the light and, despite the "rules", they never used a 85 filter to colour correct the light
to give an overall consistent balance throughout the film and because
of the low light conditions of exterior light they had to deal with
sometimes: in this way they managed to keep the extra 2/3 of a stop the
filter would have taken down.
Shooting exteriors was a problem because the brightness of the day changed a lot so they had to change the aperture constantly to match the brilliance
(not always achieving it thou), finding themselves to shoot with full
aperture: the Canon K35 T1.2 come quite helpful in several shots.
Instead
of using diffusion filters, quite trendy at that time, Alcott and
Kubrick decided to use Low Contrast Filter which is not really
consistent throughout the entire picture but doesn't affect the overall
cinematography. In the wedding sequence we notice the use of the filter
combined with a brown net which gave Alcott a more control over the
highlights. Another filter Alcott used unconventionally is the Graduated Neutral Density filters, making use of them for interior shots (Was he probably the first one to do so?).
Another interesting technique used by Alcott is the use of mixed coloured light
during the film. In the scene of Barry's room after he has had his leg
amputated, for example, a warm effect is achieved by placing 1/2 sepia
gel over the light coming through the window. While, when Barry's boy is
dying, the natural blue day-light comes trough the window without
colour correction.
Camera
movements are used in certain sequences but without making an excessive
use of them, like travellings and handheld camera for the scenes of the
battle. But the use of the Angenieux zoom is always preferred,
zooming in to close ups from very wide shots in a voyeuristic manner,
and the other way round, opening from a close up to reveal the whole
scene. The zoom was used along with travelling too, like the scene of
the battle, where a very long travelling is used and the zoom starts at
250mm with a close up.
But, the most interesting and probably most technically difficult scenes to shoot were definitely the candle lights scenes.
The naturalism in the way of lighting reaches its extreme because no
natural light was used whatsoever: the scenes are lit exclusively by
candles, which was something technically impossible given the available
means of those years. But Kubrick's stubbornness and Ed DiGiulio's
expertise made history. Kubrick discovered some Zeiss lenses which were
designed for the Hasselblad NASA took to the expedition to the Moon and
which had a maximum aperture of ƒ 0.7. DiGiulio made the necessary
adjustments to fit the Mitchell camera.
They
placed candles all around the scene and used a 70 candles chandelier
with metal reflectors attached to the ceiling bouncing light down. The
had lots of trouble with focus because of the very shallow depth of
field and the impossibility of checking on a viewfinder due to loss of
luminance, but the result is superb.
Barry Lyndon is a marvellous film, the composition of every scene is perfect and precise,
one of the great and emblematic Kubrick's characteristic, and its
cinematography is beautiful and innovative, and, even if more than 35
years have passed, today it keeps on being a reference for every
photographer or cinematographer.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Kon-Tiki
Kon-Tiki is a co-direction between Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg who already directed together theirs previous features (Max Manus, Bandidas). It is the Norwegian film with the highest budget ever produced and it is the official submission of Norway to the best Foreign language Film of the Oscar 2013.
The plot.
It's a true story about explorer Thor Heyerdal who, in 1947, decided to
cross the Pacific Ocean from Lima to Polynesia in a balsa wood raft to
prove that Polynesia was first settled by south Americans and not from
Asians.
Camera:Arri Alexa Plus,Red One MX, Sony NEX-FS100
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime, Fujinon Alura
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: ARRIRAW, Redcode RAW
Film Stock: -
As he already did for the previous two directors' features, Max Manus, Gair Hartly Andreassen is in charge for the cinematography of Kon-Tiki. I don't know his previous works so I am not able to say if the way he lit for Kon-Tiki is his own style or not. But, to be honest, I found that the cinematography did not have a structure throughout the film apart from few characteristics.
Since the beginning of the film, Andreassen makes use of wide angle lenses
offering us some beautiful landscape shots, like the opening one, in
the snowed Norwegian countryside, and, particularly, the shots of the
raft while in the ocean.
Light, at the beginning, has a natural feel:
every light source is justified; day light, windows and artificial
lights are used as sources, always softened by diffusers or, sometimes,
smoke. Anyway, there are some shots where the light looses its
naturalism and becomes a bit more theatrical, without really a reason.
In the second half of the film, all the scenes are shot in the
balsa-wood raft and light looses completely its natural feel. In the
daytime scenes, contrast is never as high as it is under the sun in open
ocean neither as harsh; in the cabin, I like the way Andreassen plays with the reflection of the sun passing trough the wooden roof,
but I really miss some more contrast: light is very soft and the worry
of filling up shadows caused problems of double shadow in some shots. At night time, light imitates the moon light or lightning but not always with good results:
there's always a Back Light cutting the characters out from the
background that sometimes is too strong and sometimes unnatural, like in
the storm scene, where moon light and lightnings coexist.
The
strong Back Light is not a negative point though. This is another
characteristic we find throughout the film and I quite like it actually,
especially I find very interesting the use of on set lights as light sources placed as Back Lights:
lampposts, shop signs and neon lamps are used for this purpose,
creating some very pleasant images. Even on the raft, characters are
placed between the camera and the sun, producing beautiful flared or
washed images. But it's true that sometimes the Back Light is far too strong,
which can be disturbing and the problem is that we don't know if it is
for a chosen aesthetic inspired by the original documentary Thor shot or
the necessity of getting chroma right.
As it has become usual shooting with digital cameras, a soft filter has been used,
probably a Pro Mist, to soften the image. Also we can notice some grain
which add an organic look, though there are some shots, particularly
the ones in low light conditions, where the presence of grain is too strong and not really pleasant: working at high ISO or shots taken with the NEX?
Kon-Tiki
is a film with a lot of CGI which offers us some really spectacular
images. It is entertaining even without the tension and the twists you
normally expect from a film of this kind. Its cinematography, though, is
quite fair to be honest, with very good approaches but with unhappy
solutions too.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Rush, by Ron Howard
Rush is the last feature by Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, The Da Vinci Code, Cinderella Man...) which tries (succeedingly) to recreate an evocation of the years of glory of Formula 1 competition. Not sure if people who don't follow F1 might like it, though.
The plot.
Based on a true story, the film follows the rivalry between two
1970's F1 drivers, Niki Lauda and James Hunt, from their beginning till
the famous and exciting 1976 season.
Camera:Arri Alexa Plus, Arri Studio, Canon Eos C300, IndiCam GS2K
Lenses: Bausch & Lomb Super Baltar
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: ARRIRAW
Film Stock: -
Anthony Dod Mentle (Slumdog Millionaire, Antichrist, Trance)
was the man in charge of the cinematography of Rush. It was its first
collaboration with Ron Howard thus he managed to convince the director
to shoot his first feature in digital. The British cinematographer made a great job in achieving to enhance the story visually by the camera angles used, sizes of shots, camera movements and lens used along with the constant presence of flares.
The 70's look of the film is the first characteristic of Rush cinematography
the audience notice since the very first sequence. But it's a kind of
false one because there's no downgraded, saturated and predictable look
typical of the seventies. The colour palette used is brilliant;
colours are really vivid and sometimes they pop up in the shot like
during the scenes of rainy Grand Prix or the one of the rendez-vous
between Hunt and Suzy, where the rest of colours is desaturated or fall
into grey due to light. He achieved this look also thanks to the heavy
presence of a really organic grain (which is something I really love to
see).
Apart
from a brilliant job in post production, this was the result of
combining one of the best digital camera on the market, the Arri Alexa Plus, with its latitude and resolution, with very old lenses like the 60's Bausch & Lomb
lenses, which added aberrations and beautiful flares to the image. Dod
Mentle also used a Soft Grad filter to further soften the image,
producing a very soft and kind of dirty look which remind us of a 70's
film stock. The soft filter anyway, produced blurred out of focus
highlights (typical with this kind of filters) which sometimes I found a
bit distracting.
The use of camera is amazing. It get us into the action
with close ups or extreme close ups of the two rivals and the cars,
where the camera is placed practically everywhere to show us every
single detail important to the story: the cockpit, the silencer, the
motor itself...
Dod Montle
himself wore a burn suit and stepped into Niki Lauda burning car (whose
accident was recreated in all details following the only footage
available of the crash) to shoot subjective point of view trough the
flames, sitting the audience with Lauda.
Another remarkable shot is delivered with the use of the IndiCam,
a mini HD camera, that is placed inside the helmet Lauda try to wear
while he is recovering in the hospital after the crash. Once again we
adopt Lauda's point of view and we really pull the helmet despite the
bounds and suffer with him.
Every now and then Dutch tilt is used:
the camera angle is deliberately slanted on one side which adds a
dramatic effect and suits well the unease, desperation and even the
inner agitation hidden behind the apparent calm of the two characters.
Light has a natural feel throughout the whole film; light sources are always justified but a bit exaggerated
to create more contrast and lots of flares that better suit the story,
with lots of situations on the edge, and the characters, always on the
spotlight and pushing to the limit. The result is visually pleasant.
To
shoot the Grand Prix scenes, 7 to 10 Arri cameras were used plus lots
of IndiCams mounted everywhere on the car to cover every angle even
subjective shots at 300Kmph; lots of CGI was employed though, for
crashes, flips and recreation of circuits. Despite of that (no, I'm not
very fond of today digital tricks) Rush is a very entertaining film, very well directed by Ron Howard, in which the director and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mentle, along with the rest of the crew, managed to transmit the 1970`s Formula 1 atmosphere and the adrenalin characters feel.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of A Thin Red Line, by Terrence Malick
The Thin Red Line is the third feature by Terrence Malick (The New World, The Tree of Life, To the Wonder); it received 7 nominees to the Oscar and won none, though it won The 1999 Golden Bear in Berlin Film Festival and it is considered one of the best war film ever shot.The plot. Life, fears and emotions of a group of soldiers who fought in the conflict of Guadalcanal (Solomon Island) during the second World War.
Camera: Arriflex 35 II, Panavision Panaflex Gold and Platinum, Panavision Panastar
Lenses: Panavision Primo and C-Series
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5279 500T, Eastman EXR 5248 100T
Terrence Malick chose John Toll (Braveheart, Iron Man 3, Tropic Thunder, The Last Samurai) as cinematographer to shoot The Thin Red Line. Good choice it was, because Toll's job is nothing but superb.
Since most of what the characters go through by an emotional point of
view is unspoken it was necessary to take the viewer into the action, be
with the soldiers and feel what they feel, fear and suffer with them.
Toll achieved that by making the camera move and by the choice of the
focal length of the lenses.
Camera barely stands still on a tripod:
most of the time steadycam is used moving along the characters and
following them in their journey. Sometimes it moves softly and in an
unnatural way, especially when no actor is framed: typical Malick's
signature we can find in all of his features. Dolly is used too, but it
is used with the same logic, not just for effectiveness: like during the
long scene of the hill, for example:camera moves towards the top of the hill running with the soldiers and attacking the Japanese bunker along with them.
But
camera movements are not enough if you want it to tell the story and
yet be part of the story. Tolls borrows a concept from the documentary
photography of early 20th century: the wider the angle of the lens, the closer you have to get to the subject and the more you are into the action.
So he used normal to wide angle lenses, generally from 50mm to 35mm and
practically avoiding telephoto lenses. Also the size of the shot helps a
lot to achieve the effect Toll was after: he mostly used close ups and
medium close ups, while wide shots are never very wide.
But Toll's outstanding job can be seen in the way he lit and exposed the negative.
He used the light in a natural way both for exterior and interior
shots. He used a lot available daylight to light the scene, bouncing and
reflecting the light with reflectors, keeping the subtleties of the
colours and the nuances of the light of the locations. I like the way
faces are kept slightly underexposed, giving a sense of darkness and
doom to the story and characters themselves.
The Thin Red Line has very rich and strong colours and a quite low contrast,
and Toll managed to keep everything natural. Which wouldn't be a big
deal if lots of the scenes had not been shot at full sunlight. The
chosen locations are in the Tropic of Capricorn area which means that
the sun gets minimal attenuation from the atmosphere, resulting in a
harsh light with consequent very high contrast. But every scene of The Thin Red Line has details both in shadows and in highlights.
Of
course the wide exposure latitude offered by the now discontinued
Vision 5279 helped a lot but definitely it wasn't enough for those light
conditions. Toll's skills and knowledge made the difference.
He
probably rated the negative at 100 ISO (while Kodak recommended to rate
it at 500) gaining an overexposure of 2 1/2 stops, then in the lab, he
made under-develop it, placing the contrast in a normal range.
The
Thin Red Line is a very well made film, probably one of the best by
Malick; John Toll not only offers a great lesson of cinematography but
also shows that it is possible to achieve a stunning photography using
the tools you have (good lenses, adequate film stock...) in a competent
way without turning to the help of digital tricks.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Once Upon A Time in Anatolia, by Nuri Bilge Ceylan
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia by Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan ( Three Monkeys, Climates) was the winner of the Grand Prix at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival were it was premièred. I didn't know the director nor the cinematographer by then, when I first saw the film: it was a really pretty discovery.The plot. In a rural area of Anatolia, group of policeman spend the night searching for the victim of a murder whose body has been buried somewhere in the area. During the journeys from one location to another, they chat to each other about trivia and deepest concerns.
Camera: Sony F35 CineAlta
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: HDCAM
Film Stock: -
The Director of Photography of Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is Gökhan Tiryaki who already worked with director Nuri Bilge Caylan in all of his previous works. To shoot the film, he chose the F35 CineAlta,
launched on the market about 1 and a half year before the shooting
started and now discontinued by Sony, for budget reasons rather than
aesthetic ones: all of Ceylan`s projects are low budget productions; Once Upon a Time in Anatolia is probably the one who costed more because of the technical difficulties of shooting at night and in a car moving. However, Tiryaki managed to do a brilliant job, making the most of the Sony F35, of its latitude, its dynamic range and the low noise in low light condition.
The
film doesn't have really a storyline: we follow a group of people
searching for a corpse, then, once it is found, they take it to the
morgue for autopsy. It is a quite methodical reconstruction of the
search in long shots as it was a docu film without having the technical
characteristics of it. It tries to be poetry, not literature. Tiryaki
did the same with the light: he didn't lit the characters to point out
their inner conditions because they are slightly depicted; he instead creates a decadent and beautiful atmosphere which reflects characters' mood. This job becomes even more remarkable if we consider that he used no more than three lights to achieve that.
The film begins with some of the most beautifully lit and composed images I've seen in a long time:
urban and natural landscapes filmed in wide angle lenses in which the
natural light of the blue hour is mixed with artificial light (lamppost
and headlamps), create a nice contrast in light and colour resulting in
poetic images that remind me some winner photographs of recent years
IPA. The use of on set lights it is a constant throughout the film,
just out of the frame or well visible and playing as Key light like the
powerful headlamps of one car during the night shots. In these scenes,
which fill almost the first half of the film, moon light is used to
light the faces of the actors (sometimes more than 10 in the frame in
Very or Extreme Wide Shots): this effect was achieved using probably a
100Kw balloon lighting positioned up in a crane, which definitely
raised the cost of the film.
Tiryaki
mostly relied on these two lights (balloon lighting and headlamps) to
lit the film, filling sometimes with side lights, especially for
interior shots: just awesome.
Another brilliant job is the choice of the focal of the lenses:
he alternates wide angles lenses, by which he shows us the wilderness
and broadness of the steppe making the search of the corpse more
dramatic, with telephoto lenses to make close ups of the characters,
from tired or troubled policemen to the worn face of the suspect.
Light
is always soft and diffused, apart from some back-lights, even with
daylight shots, where the light was diluted by clouds, and a nice yellow
cast is present throughout the film, to achieve a film look but also to
help the audience to get closer to the characters and to the strange
story (yellow is the colour of the family, of what we know, of
closeness); the yellow tone only lessen during the closing scene where
they execute the autopsy of the corpse: a cold, methodical and technical
description of how they find the vital organs of the victim to
establish the cause of his death, which, without the slight yellow cast
would have been too cold and distant.
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
is an unique masterpiece, perhaps a bit slow and long but very
enjoyable, with a great cinematography that, even if it is not a film
for everyone, it is a film every photographer and cinematographer must watch.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of À Perdre la Raison, directed by Joachim Lafosse
À Perdre la Raison (Our Children is the title in English) is a film by Belgian director Joachim Lafosse (Élève Libre, Nue Propriétè) whose story was freely inspired by a tragedy happened 5 years ago that shocked Belgium.
The plot.
Mounir (Moroccan immigrant) and Murielle fall in love, get married and
have 4 children, but they share their hous and life with André a doctor
who has been taking care of Mounir since he arrive to Belgium. The
situation generates tensions, especially inside the fragile Murielle.
Camera:Aaton Penelope, Arricam LT, Moviecam Compact MK2
Lenses: Cooke S4
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5219 500T, Kodak Vision 5205 250D
Jean-François Hensgens
(Darktide, District 13: Ultimtum) is a young cinematographer from
Belgium who already worked with director Joachim Lafosse years ago for a
short-film. The approach they made to tell the story visually is very natural.
The choice of film and the Cooke S4 lenses was made in this sense.
Cooke lenses produce a neat and soft image, low contrast and a soft
transition from focused to out-of-focus areas. But, I think that the
main reason why Cooke lenses were chosen is because of their colour
reproduction: they are generally warmer than other lenses; in fact, the beginning of the film is warm, with golden colours: this helps the audience to connect with the family and the story and be closer to them; later, this sense of warmth tends to disappear till the final moments of the film:
when Maurielle is driving and crying alone, she is lit by the sun-light
but it is not yellowish as normally it is represented: it is white and
harsh, it hurts.
The way of lighting is naturalistic:
windows and lamps on set are used as source lights and Hesgens' job
here is so good that you can hardly say he lit the scene. He reinforced
the light coming through windows but softening it with Chimeras or
Softubes, achieving a light which is natural but always diffused.
Light is always bright and colourful, apart from some scenes where the
landscape or the sky are in the background and for compensating the
exposure he tends to under-expose the actors, which doesn't really work
for the approach of not making a dark look film.
The use of camera contributes to the naturalistic look too.
It's always hand-held with an easyrig following the actors all around,
and often they are framed with the back facing the camera, reminding a
docu-film style. The shaky camera not only allows the audience to be
there with the actors and experience what they do, but also reflects the
instability of the three characters, particularly Maurielle's. The focal length used barely goes under the 50mm:
telephoto lenses are preferred producing shallower depth of field and
constraining the camera to move back. This results in the negative space
being always filled with blurred objects which most of the time is a
door frame due to location space availability, a quite pretty aesthetic
that also transmits the impossibility of the characters of crossing and
leaving their boundaries.
À Perdre la Raison
is a nice movie that tells us an horrible tragedy in a simple and
elegant way with a fine cinematography that serves well to the story.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film Review. An analysis of the cinematography of The Master by Paul Thomas Anderson.
Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights...) directed The Master, the first film to be shot entirely on 65mm using Panavision's System 65 camera, in more than 16 years, which at a time where digital rules is quite challenging.
The plot.
Freddy Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) returns from navy service in World War
II with mental disturbs. After struggling to reinsert himself in the
society, he ends up in a cult getting involved with them and starting a
peculiar relationship with his leader.
Camera: Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2, Panavision Panaflex System 65
Lenses: Panavision Ultra Speed Z-series MKII, Hasselblad, Kowa, Zeiss Jena
Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
Format: 65mm, 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak 5203 50D, Kodak 5207 250D, Kodak 5213 200T, Kodak 5219 500T
Light
is natural and minimalist, always justified and soft, mostly bounced
and coming from the ceilings. Sometimes the light sources are in the
frame creating a nice great contrast, like the scene of the boat
approaching the bridge at sunset. I like the way Malaimare played with
colour temperature in some scenes: he created a contrast between the
ambient light with bluish tones and the characters bathed in a soft
orange light.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Surprisingly,
Paul Thomas Anderson doesn't rely on his habitual cinematographer for
The Master; instead he offered Mihai Malaimare the job, who DP'd last
three Coppola's features, all of them shot in digital. Anyway, Malaimare
wasn't totally new to film: as he said in an interview, in Romania (his
country) they still learn shooting on film. Initially, the
cinematographer chose to shoot on 35mm and using 65mm for some
portraits; but, after reviewing the first dailies, Anderson and
Malaimare were just excited with the look of 65mm and decided to shoot
the entire film with large format. The choice suits perfectly the story
which develops in the years after WWII, recreating the same feeling of
photographies of that time, most of them taken on Medium Format. He
decided though, to shoot on 35mm some scenes, the more intimates ones,
like the conversation between the two main actors on the boat. To
minimize the change from one format to the other, Malaimare used Zeiss
Jena lenses which smoothed a lot the transition although a difference in
grain structure can be noticed. To get a crispier look he used
Hasselblad lenses which were modified to fit the Panavision camera.
Depth of field, organic feel, details, clarity... All the
characteristics of a 65mm film are present, but what I miss is the
potential it can offer: using a 65mm film for a movie full of medium and
close shots is fair but reductive.
All
of Anderson´s film are full of camera movements; well, everyone of them
except The Master. The camera barely moves and the shots are quite long
offering the actors all the time they need to do their job. The few
camera movements are remarkable tough.
Light
is natural and minimalist, always justified and soft, mostly bounced
and coming from the ceilings. Sometimes the light sources are in the
frame creating a nice great contrast, like the scene of the boat
approaching the bridge at sunset. I like the way Malaimare played with
colour temperature in some scenes: he created a contrast between the
ambient light with bluish tones and the characters bathed in a soft
orange light.
The Master
is a film that remains too distant and cold, actors do a good job but
they really never connect with the audience; it looks like Anderson
didn't have anything to say and the story never hooks. Unfortunately the
cinematography reflects these lacks: The Master is wonderfully lit but
the light rarely transmits something.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Oblivion, by Joseph Kosinski
Oblivion is the second feature by Joseph Kosinski (his first one was Tron: Legacy) who, beside his small experience in directing, managed to take benefit from the opportunity to direct he received in Hollywood. Generally speaking, I don't like sci-fi movies, I am not a Tom Cruise's fan neither I like the DP who worked in Oblivion, but it was a lazy Sunday afternoon and I wanted to watch something easy-going.
The plot. Tom
Cruise is a commander whose memory has been erased and assigned to
protection and reparation of drones on a post war earth. He start to
question his mission and the truth he is been told.
Camera: Sony CineAlta F65, Red Epic
Lenses: Zeiss Master Primes, Fujinon Premier
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: F65 RAW, Redcode RAW
Film Stock: -
The man behind Oblivion`s cinematography is Claudio Miranda (Life of Pi, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) with whom director Joseph Kosinski already worked in Tron: Legacy. He chose the brand new Sony CineAlta F65, a marvellous camera which is probably the best digital camera on the market at the moment, and the Red Epic for the aerial shots, probably for weight matters. Miranda is very good with light: Oblivion is full of beautiful images but his work in this film cannot really be considered cinematography if for cinematography we intend not only the art and technique of making a movie by the choice of camera, lenses, exposure, formats, lights, etc., but also as a way of communicating something trough light, shadows and colours.
As he did with Life of Pi (by the way, I'll repeat it one more time: his Oscar for best cinematography was disrespectful towards the brilliant job of his fellow cinematographers), he used lot of Chroma and created the light mood in post production; and he is very good at that, probably the best but there's not a single image in Oblivion lighted to visually tell the story, to enhance or contrast the emotions and psychology of characters, apart perhaps from the cold and neutral atmosphere of the scenes in the floating station. Everything is lit in a very sensationalist way, to make the audience wow for the stunning images but they are never lit with a concept behind them.
The extensive use of wide angle lenses has no other intention that showing the spectacular landscapes created in post production, while telephoto lenses are used for some scenes where the relationship between Tom Cruise and Olga Kurylenko emerges, and also for close shots of Andrea Risenborough which are also made with a large aperture resulting in a very small depth of field, something not quite coherent given the place where she works: a glass office in a floating station up in the sky and above the clouds... That means huge luminance: how´s the depth of field of your eyes on a very sunny day in a beach without sunglasses?
The scenes which didn't go trough an heavy post production process are really contrasty, again with no actual meaning, while the scenes of Tom Cruise's reminiscences are in black and white which is a simple, too easy and obsolete mean of lighting and treating remembrances in a film.
Claudio Miranda is a good cinematographer: he is second to none in digital cinema and I admire him for his audacity of shooting with the last camera on the market (He did it with the F65 for Oblivion and he did it with other cameras in his others features); Oblivion has stunning and beautiful images that make the general audience amaze, but specialized audience need a lot more.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Io e Te (Me and You)by Bernardo Bertolucci
Io e Te (Me and You) was one of the film I was been waiting for to watch this year because it represents Bertolucci's (Last Tango in Paris, The Last Emperor, Stealing Beauty...) come back to directing after Dreamers, the movie he shot before the illness that kept him away from set for almost 10 years.
The plot.
A problematic 14 year old boy hides himself in a basement instead of
going on a school trip. His solitude is broken by the arrival of her
drug-addicted-sister in law: they'll live together for a week during
which they'll try to help each other.
Camera: Arricam LT, Arricam ST
Lenses: Cooke S4
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Fuji Eterna Vivid 500 8547
Fabio
Cianchetti (The Tiger and the Snow, Terraferma, Dreamers) is an
experienced Italian cinematographer who already worked with Bertolucci
in his last films. As he did it with Dreamers, Cianchetti seems
to have understood deeply the meaning and the atmosphere Bertolucci
wanted for his last work. The story the Italian director tells in Io e Te is quite simple but the characters are like an abyss that makes you shiver every time you look into it. Cianchetti made a good job to transmit this concept visually.
The choice of film combined with Cooke lenses goes in this direction:
the old S4 series has less sharpness but far more organic look than
every other lens, creating a natural feeling.
The
focal length used throughout the film helps to achieve this feeling
too; almost the entire story develops inside a narrow basement (rebuild
in a studio of course): to enhance the solitude of the characters focal lengths above the 50mm are used
while wide angle lenses are used for exterior shots as for expressing
the distorted reality the characters live in. The way of lighting is
natural too. Light is always justified and comes from visible light sources in the scene, like the window of the basement or light bulbs in the ceiling, and scenes are lit so brilliantly well that you could hardly say that they were lit with artificial light.
But,
in my opinion, the best part of Cianchetti's work is the way he let the
light and shadows fall into the scenes and the use of colours. Te
characters of Io e Te are full of fears, doubts, sorrows, loss, darkness... The Italian cinematographer managed to project this mishmash of feeling visually trough shadows.
Shadows become more than important: shadows are the unconscious, by not
lighting something you deliberately want to hide it; characters have
many things their unconscious wants to keep hidden till a spill of
light finally uncovers it. And the spill of light that illuminates the
scene, or a part of it, often comes from the right side of the screen:
most of the problems the two young characters have have their origin in
their absent and unconcerned father (who is really the third character
of the film because his presence is heavily felt); a light coming from the right side of the scene symbolizes the paternal figure.
Another quite interesting way to highlight the character's emotional disturbances is the way Cianchetti combined in the same scene lights of different colour temperatures.
This creates a nice visual contrast, basically between blue and orange:
sometimes lighting different parts of the scene with different colours
and sometimes using an orangish rim light with a bluish key
light. As a colour, orange is associated to family, to the preparation
for life, to teenage years; while blue is the colour of freedom, of
leaving the familiar nest, it is a colour close to stability... Again,
nice way of expressing the contrast of feelings, definitely inspired by
Storaro's use of colours but without his mastery (I'm thinking about the
scene in the restaurant where the daylight film stock is used in
interiors with tungsten lights without the 80A colour conversion
filters, resulting in a scene with a strong orange cast - probably to
visually contrast the dialogue mother and son are having?-).
Cianchetti`s cinematography is brilliant and interesting:
he managed to express visually a story which is at the same time simple
and profound, connecting perfectly with Bertolucci's ideas and the
result is a film in the more pure Bertolucci's style, throughout which
the director's vision and poetry can be seen and enjoyed. Welcome back maestro, the Cinema industry missed you!
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Now You See Me by Louis Leterrier
It's summertime. Theatres are full of Hollywood commercial films which entertain and leave very little space to make the audience think. Now You See Me, directed by Louis Leterrier ( Clash of Titans, Hulk, Transporter 2), is one of them.
The plot.
4 magicians join forces to create the biggest show in the world
mesmerizing the audience with a series of original and incredible heists
which will make FBI and Interpol investigating them and scrambling to
anticipate their next move.
Camera: Panavision Panaflex Gold II, Millenium XL2, Lightweight and Platinum
Lenses: Panavision G Series, C series,
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5219 500T, Kodak Vision 5207 250D, Kodak Vision 5213 200T
The French US-based director made a singular choice for his last film: he chose two cinematographers. He called again Mitchell Amundsen (G.I. Joe, Wanted, Transformers) with whom he already worked in his first feature, Transporter 2, and who rather has an extensive filmography as second unit DP (The Bourne Legacy, Mission Impossible III and Ghost Protocol, The Island, National Treasure, The Bourne Supremacy...). But Leterrier also called Larry Fong (Super 8, Watchmen, 300, Lost) whose quality as cinematographer, especially for action-movies, is probably second to none. According to Leterrier himself, Fong was in charge to shoot the magic scenes and Amundsen to shoot all the action scenes. Lots of questions arise from this choice, but what it really matters is that the two cinematographers worked really well together, achieving an homogeneous good quality result. Both Fong and Amundsen shot their previous work on film, and the director is fond of the film format, so this choice was unanimous, as it was the choice of Panavision cameras, a preference easily visible in both cinematographer's filmography. The grain is subtle but present and the big work in post production managed to keep the organic look of the Kodak film stock.
Light is slightly expressionist and theatrical which works really well with the story. When on stage the magicians are generally lit from above and light beams keeps moving around all over the magicians and the audience (during the final show light beams are bigger and work as blue-contrasty-back lights for characters), while all kind of lights on the stage keep turning on and off continuously, creating a very appropriate show effect. When not on stage, the magicians are still lit with a light that has a kind of magic and an atmosphere which reminds the one of a show: natural light sources are used (like windows for example) but they are exaggerated or diffused with smoke, achieving an unnatural effect; moreover, anamorphic lenses are used producing, when a back light is framed, the typical lineal flare crossing the frame from side to side; these constant and bluish flares remind the light beams used in shows: very good and clever way to highlight the fact that the four magicians are not making tricks just on stage...
The way Fong and Amundsen lit the film remarkably suits the story and the camera movements definitely enhances it. Camera doesn't stop moving,
on dolly, on steady, on crane, hand-held... Not only during chase and
action shots but also during the show scenes and the ones with dialogue
between characters: camera hardly stays still on a tripod. Camera
movements are framed in short shots put together with a dynamic editing
full of rhythm; this creates a sense of confusion which helps not to
make the audience understand not just the tricks but even what will
happen next, just like a magician who leads the audience eyes and
attention away to perform his trick.
Now You See Me is a film that doesn't offer much more than fair entertainment and it will keep your attention during almost 2 hours even if the characters aren't developed at all and we never empathize with them and the final is too simple for the way the story is told. Anyway, Fong and Amundsen do their job and, even if its cinematography is not among the top ones of the year, it makes the film more entertaining and captivating.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The French US-based director made a singular choice for his last film: he chose two cinematographers. He called again Mitchell Amundsen (G.I. Joe, Wanted, Transformers) with whom he already worked in his first feature, Transporter 2, and who rather has an extensive filmography as second unit DP (The Bourne Legacy, Mission Impossible III and Ghost Protocol, The Island, National Treasure, The Bourne Supremacy...). But Leterrier also called Larry Fong (Super 8, Watchmen, 300, Lost) whose quality as cinematographer, especially for action-movies, is probably second to none. According to Leterrier himself, Fong was in charge to shoot the magic scenes and Amundsen to shoot all the action scenes. Lots of questions arise from this choice, but what it really matters is that the two cinematographers worked really well together, achieving an homogeneous good quality result. Both Fong and Amundsen shot their previous work on film, and the director is fond of the film format, so this choice was unanimous, as it was the choice of Panavision cameras, a preference easily visible in both cinematographer's filmography. The grain is subtle but present and the big work in post production managed to keep the organic look of the Kodak film stock.
Light is slightly expressionist and theatrical which works really well with the story. When on stage the magicians are generally lit from above and light beams keeps moving around all over the magicians and the audience (during the final show light beams are bigger and work as blue-contrasty-back lights for characters), while all kind of lights on the stage keep turning on and off continuously, creating a very appropriate show effect. When not on stage, the magicians are still lit with a light that has a kind of magic and an atmosphere which reminds the one of a show: natural light sources are used (like windows for example) but they are exaggerated or diffused with smoke, achieving an unnatural effect; moreover, anamorphic lenses are used producing, when a back light is framed, the typical lineal flare crossing the frame from side to side; these constant and bluish flares remind the light beams used in shows: very good and clever way to highlight the fact that the four magicians are not making tricks just on stage...
The way Fong and Amundsen lit the film remarkably suits the story and the camera movements definitely enhances it. Camera doesn't stop moving,
on dolly, on steady, on crane, hand-held... Not only during chase and
action shots but also during the show scenes and the ones with dialogue
between characters: camera hardly stays still on a tripod. Camera
movements are framed in short shots put together with a dynamic editing
full of rhythm; this creates a sense of confusion which helps not to
make the audience understand not just the tricks but even what will
happen next, just like a magician who leads the audience eyes and
attention away to perform his trick.Now You See Me is a film that doesn't offer much more than fair entertainment and it will keep your attention during almost 2 hours even if the characters aren't developed at all and we never empathize with them and the final is too simple for the way the story is told. Anyway, Fong and Amundsen do their job and, even if its cinematography is not among the top ones of the year, it makes the film more entertaining and captivating.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Wadjda by Haifaa Al-Mansour
Wadjda, released as "The green bicycle" in some countries, was presented in last Venice Film Festival; it is the first film entirely shot in Saudi Arabia and the first to be directed by a Saudi woman, something extraordinary in a country were women can't vote, drive, show their face to men or even ride a bicycle.
The plot.
A 10 years old Saudi girl, Wadjda, is determined to buy a green bicycle
that captured her interest. In order to raise money to fulfil her
dream, she signs off for her school's Koran recitation competition
trying to win the cash price for the first place.
Camera: Arri Alexa
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime
Aspect ratio:1.85:1
Format: Arriraw
Film Stock: -
Wadjda
is the first film by Haifaa Al-Mansour, who started to be recognized as
a film-maker in Germany and Holland after winning some competitions
with a short-film and screening a documentary about Arabic women in
several festivals. This is one of the reason why the production is
German and so it is the cinematography crew. Lutz Reitemeier is chosen
as cinematographer: he has a modest filmography, basically German
documentaries and Asian films, so Wadjda may be considered as his first film internationally recognized.
Being
a German, there's no surprise he chose to shoot with an Alexa and Zeiss
Master primes, whose sharp image he diffused with filters. Since the
beginning of the film, Reitemeier uses a very natural look, rooted in his background as documentary cinematographer: the camera is like a voyeur
who leads us in the street of Riyadh, into places where no man is
allowed to enter, into the ordinary life of the characters. The story is told in a simple way, without pretension nor looking for effectiveness:
camera barely moves,when it does it is on steadycam following the
characters, and it is always placed in positions which are as objective
as possible, unless for the very wide shots, in which Wadjda walks
alone, and stands out, trough desolated and ruined Arabic urban
landscapes, symbolizing her solitude fight for her dreams as a person
and rights as a woman against the deep rooted Arabic traditions.
In some of these shots, thou, the focal plane is not parallel to the subject plane, creating disturbing converging lines, probably produced by the hurry they had to shoot in a country where shooting is not common at all, and the presence of women in the street (the main characters and the director are women) is allowed under certain conditions and never with men who are not family.
The
use of light is natural too used as they normally do for a documentary;
while the interior shots are illuminated with artificial light which is
always soft, the exteriors are lit with natural daylight, sometimes
harsh and sometimes soft light is used not for storytelling reasons but
rather according to climate conditions. In either cases, both in
interior and exterior shots, Reitemeier's concern was to get the correct exposure,
meaning for correct the average one, the sufficient exposure to record
the image with enough brightness rather than to enhance the story
visually. So, his cinematography limits itself to accompany the story in the most natural way without really supporting it.
However, it has to be reminded that the shooting conditions weren't the
optimal: apart from the problems earlier mentioned (Al-Mansour had to
direct hidden in a van, for example) in Saudi Arabia theatres are
prohibited, so I guess there are no cinematographic material renting
company, which implies that they had to shoot with almost no means; this
may explain the use of photographic lens instead of cinema ones in some
shots where lens breathing is evident.
In some of these shots, thou, the focal plane is not parallel to the subject plane, creating disturbing converging lines, probably produced by the hurry they had to shoot in a country where shooting is not common at all, and the presence of women in the street (the main characters and the director are women) is allowed under certain conditions and never with men who are not family.
The
use of light is natural too used as they normally do for a documentary;
while the interior shots are illuminated with artificial light which is
always soft, the exteriors are lit with natural daylight, sometimes
harsh and sometimes soft light is used not for storytelling reasons but
rather according to climate conditions. In either cases, both in
interior and exterior shots, Reitemeier's concern was to get the correct exposure,
meaning for correct the average one, the sufficient exposure to record
the image with enough brightness rather than to enhance the story
visually. So, his cinematography limits itself to accompany the story in the most natural way without really supporting it.
However, it has to be reminded that the shooting conditions weren't the
optimal: apart from the problems earlier mentioned (Al-Mansour had to
direct hidden in a van, for example) in Saudi Arabia theatres are
prohibited, so I guess there are no cinematographic material renting
company, which implies that they had to shoot with almost no means; this
may explain the use of photographic lens instead of cinema ones in some
shots where lens breathing is evident.
I reckon Wadjda should be seen without caring too much about the technical stuff
and just follow the story of this little girl chasing her dream, a
green bicycle. By the the way green is the colour of freedom, the
freedom achieved trough knowledge: a great metaphor of women condition
in Saudi Arabia (a reference to The Last Emperor?).
Wadjda is a fine film
capable to take us into a secret and unknown world (at least for the
most of us) definitely worth seeing, where we realize that the problems
people have in countries so far away and different from the places we
live in, don't differ that much from our owns.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Light is always soft and diffused, even outdoor, as well as natural,
so, when windows are not used as light sources (very balanced contrast,
by the way, when they are in shot, with details both in highlights and
shadows) light comes from above. Side lighting set-up is preferred
thou, which is a very good election for the story: throughout the film
the audience doubt about the real intentions of the characters who have a
lot to hide so, leaving them half in shadow and half in light enhances
this concept (the same Storaro taught that light is the conscious and
shadow the unconscious). But contrast is never strong and shadows are
soft as there were an intention of showing everything in the scene; to
remain with Storaro's teching, by this way only the conscious is
visually represented, not the unconscious.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of La Migliore Offerta by Giuseppe Tornatore
La Migliore Offerta (The best Offer) by acclaimed Italian director Giuseppe Tornatore
(Baaria, Malena, Cinema Paradiso) was one of the three Italian movies
whose screening I was waiting for since they have been released in Italy
earlier this year.
The plot.
Geoffrey Rush is an eccentric art auctioneer who rejects every kind of
relationship with people, especially with women. But he starts to be
obsessed with an heiress who wants to sell her family's works of art and
whose agoraphobia makes her even more eccentric than he is.
Camera: Arri Alexa Studio
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: Arriraw
Film Stock: -
G. Tornatore doesn't have a trusted cinematographer he usually works with; he changes quite a lot. He already worked with Fabio Zamarion in The Unknown woman and the documentary L'ultimo Gattopardo but he didn't call him for the magnificent Baaria, his last movie before La Migliore Offerta. Zamarion is known for Respiro by E. Crialese and Evilenko but his filmography is best known for his work as a camera: Goya en Burdeos and Tango by Saura, Little Buddha and The Last Emperor by Bertolucci among others. So he had one of the best teacher possible: Vittorio Storaro. Unfortunately, in La Migliore Offerta, very little of the master's legacy can be seen.
I don`t mean at all that Zamarion badly lit the film, but its cinematography is impersonal and undefined.
This way of lighting was probably chosen to make the audience pay
attention to the plot but a cinematographer's job is not only to
illuminate a scene with sufficient light to record it on a sensor or a
film. Placing a light on the right has a meaning, placing it on the left
or above has another one: that is what I missed in Zamarion's
cinematography.
Light is always soft and diffused, even outdoor, as well as natural,
so, when windows are not used as light sources (very balanced contrast,
by the way, when they are in shot, with details both in highlights and
shadows) light comes from above. Side lighting set-up is preferred
thou, which is a very good election for the story: throughout the film
the audience doubt about the real intentions of the characters who have a
lot to hide so, leaving them half in shadow and half in light enhances
this concept (the same Storaro taught that light is the conscious and
shadow the unconscious). But contrast is never strong and shadows are
soft as there were an intention of showing everything in the scene; to
remain with Storaro's teching, by this way only the conscious is
visually represented, not the unconscious.
However, Zamarion's choice of lighting works well in the scenes held in Oldman`s house:
it emphasizes the eccentric art auctioneer's pulchritude and clinical
order (even his wardrobe and collections of gloves and ties are held and
placed as they were pieces of art in a museum); moreover the camera
follows him in a slight low angle giving the character the importance
and the authority he really possesses in his life, but, the camera
maintains the low angle even at the end, where the character is lost and
defeated, which is contradictory.
The Zeiss Master Prime lenses' hardness is softened with a diffusion filter, probably a Pro-Mist, and the camera is sometimes placed in interesting angles;
but when we see Claire's house for the first time, in a wide shot, the
barrel distortion is not corrected, resulting in converging lines that
make the image not quite pleasant.
Zamarion's cinematography of La Migliore Offerta is quite fair then, even though we can enjoy some beautifully composed and lit images that are spread all over a film that, in my opinion, deserved more from a visually point of view. La Migliore Offerta,
anyway, is well directed but its script is predictable and sometimes
improbable; I understand Tornatore's need and desire to film stories
different and far from the ones told in his Sicily but, being such a
great director as he is, I expect him to deliver us a work whose quality
is at the same level his previous works are: La Migliore offerta failed to satisfy this expectation of mine.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Man of Steel by Zack Snyder
Watching Man of Steel wasn't in my to-watch list: I kind of felt that the reboot of Superman by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) would not be comparable to the remembrances I have of the original saga which I saw when child; anyway I couldn't find any interesting première this week, so I gave it a go. I definitely should have followed my instinct.
The plot. The life and battles of Superman since the destruction of Krypton till he saved the earth from the first time fighting against General Zod (a mix of Superman I and Superman II).
Camera: Arriflex 235, Arriflex 435 ES, Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2, Red Epic
Lenses: Panavision C Series, E-series
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm
Film Stock: Kodak Vision
Even if Man of Steel is a film with plenty of special effects (the normal choice would have been to shoot on digital format), the cinematographer Amir Mokri (Fast and Furious, Transformer: Dark of the Moon, Vantage Point, National Treasure) decided to shoot it in film. I am not sure if the choice was his or it was a director or production´s demand, the fact is that after all the post-production the negative has gone trough, there is nothing left of the film feel and look. Instead, Man of Steel has a modern, contemporary look, far away from the original saga. The image is clean and sharp, the contrast is quite high and the shadows are deep; there´s a cold and bluish tone throughout the film, apart from the flash-backs of Superman childhood, and everything is just darker: even his traditional blue custom and red cape turn swarthy. It looks like Superman has started to become the Dark Knight... Christopher Nolan, the man behind Batman´s reboot is Man of Steel's writer and producer: is this change his call?
Camera never stays still or, I should say, camera moves too much. Camera is often hand-held, and shaking is evident: it is used this way to express how Clark Kent/Superman feels, lost, out of place, unwanted and looked as different by his school mates. But the shakings are exaggerated, the shots are short and close, and the editing quite quick, creating a sense of giddiness that, if it's ok for the fight scenes, it doesn't work at all for the rest of the movie.
Man of Steel doesn't really have a cinematography:
everything is just there for being spectacularly visual rather than
having a meaning, like for example, the abuse of the typical flares
anamorphic lenses produce and the repetitiveness of the fast zooms in
the first part of the film. I suppose Amir Mokri just tried to light in
the best way possible in order to achieve an image that would have made
easy the post-production work.
Finally, Man of steel is a film which is audio and visually loud, made to impress, full of too long fights, with an empty story and flat characters. I might be a conservative or a nostalgic but I prefer more content and less special effects, like the original Superman.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Even if Man of Steel is a film with plenty of special effects (the normal choice would have been to shoot on digital format), the cinematographer Amir Mokri (Fast and Furious, Transformer: Dark of the Moon, Vantage Point, National Treasure) decided to shoot it in film. I am not sure if the choice was his or it was a director or production´s demand, the fact is that after all the post-production the negative has gone trough, there is nothing left of the film feel and look. Instead, Man of Steel has a modern, contemporary look, far away from the original saga. The image is clean and sharp, the contrast is quite high and the shadows are deep; there´s a cold and bluish tone throughout the film, apart from the flash-backs of Superman childhood, and everything is just darker: even his traditional blue custom and red cape turn swarthy. It looks like Superman has started to become the Dark Knight... Christopher Nolan, the man behind Batman´s reboot is Man of Steel's writer and producer: is this change his call?
Camera never stays still or, I should say, camera moves too much. Camera is often hand-held, and shaking is evident: it is used this way to express how Clark Kent/Superman feels, lost, out of place, unwanted and looked as different by his school mates. But the shakings are exaggerated, the shots are short and close, and the editing quite quick, creating a sense of giddiness that, if it's ok for the fight scenes, it doesn't work at all for the rest of the movie.
Man of Steel doesn't really have a cinematography:
everything is just there for being spectacularly visual rather than
having a meaning, like for example, the abuse of the typical flares
anamorphic lenses produce and the repetitiveness of the fast zooms in
the first part of the film. I suppose Amir Mokri just tried to light in
the best way possible in order to achieve an image that would have made
easy the post-production work.Finally, Man of steel is a film which is audio and visually loud, made to impress, full of too long fights, with an empty story and flat characters. I might be a conservative or a nostalgic but I prefer more content and less special effects, like the original Superman.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Trance by Danny Boyle
Trance is the last work by very well known director Danny Boyle
(Trainspotting, Shining, Slumdog millionaire, 147 Hours...) shot during
a break among the two tears preparation for the London Olympic show.
The plot.
An art auctioneer who joined a group of criminals for an inside job,
has to seek the help of hypnosis to find a lost painting. But the line
between reality, suggestion and desire becomes more and more undefined.
Camera: Arri Alexa, Phantom Gold, Canon Eos 1D MarkIV, Canon Eos C500, Indiecam IndiePov
Lenses: Zeiss Ultra Prime, Fujinon Alura, Hawk V-Lite, Canon, Indiecam lenses
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: ARRIRAW, Canon cinema Raw, H264, CinemaDNG
Film Stock: -
Danny Boyle confirmed again his usual collaborator Anthony Dod Mentle as cinematographer
for Trance. In the first image of the film the light is quite
theatrical and expressionist, then the following scene the light becomes
natural. I could not understand the meaning of it till the plot
develops: the whole movie is a game between reality, hypnotic
suggestions and lies, creating confusion among characters and audience. Mentle played with this confusion by using light in different ways, alternating naturalism and expressionism
with a tendency for the last one, never, or almost never, justifying
the light source and always positioning the light source on the side of
the character creating a strong contrast (1:3 or even greater sometimes)
on the face of the actors leaving it half in shadow, with a stronger
split for Vincent Cassel and James McAvoy and a softer one for Rosario
Dawson. This lighting set-up creates a chiaroscuro throughout the film that highlights the fact that no one of the characters say entirely the truth and everyone seems to be hiding something.
The use of the rim light
helps this concept too: it is quite strong, often used as key light,
sometimes exaggerated (and blowing some areas of the image) and always
helping to create a sense of mystery, strength and menace. Memories play
an important part in the film: Mentle gives them different texture and aesthetic using different cameras
and a huge selection of lenses: of course he used the Phantom for the
high frame rates shot and the indiPov , the world smallest HD camera
shooting RAW, for placing the camera in unconventional places; when
shooting with the Eos camera, he added a soft diffusion filter on the
lens to soften the hard line Canon cameras produce. The choice of the focal length is never extreme, apart from few shots were an extreme wide angle lens is used and where the camera is placed at a very low angle.
There's
no camera movement worth to point out because Mentle used instead
peculiar locations to help telling the story visually: they are full of
shimmering surfaces, creating multiple reflections of the characters, in
great consonance with the plot. When he could not manipulate the
surface, he used flares. Another interesting decision is the use of
colour in some scenes: a single colour pops out vivid from the rest
which are quite dull, like the scene of the Selfridges bag.
Anthony Dod Memtle made a very good job with the cinematography of Trance,
a film well crafted and entertaining, but, honestly not as good as
other Danny Boyle's works: he has proved that he can make far better
films.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Camera: Red MX
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: RedCode RAW
Film Stock: -
- See more at: http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/p/film-review.html#sthash.LrYRPyVT.dpufFilm review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben Wheatley
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben
Wheatley - See more at:
http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/film-review-analysis-of-cinematography_12.html#sthash.IkTFylc4.dpuf
Sightseers is a British black comedy by Brighton based director Ben Wheatley (Kill List, Down Terrace); it was screened in the Director's Fortnight section of Cannes Film Festival last year.
The plot.
Chris takes her girlfriend Tina, who never left her house and her
mother, to a trip around Yorkshire with a caravan. But soon unfortunate
events make them become condescending psycho killers.
Camera: Red MX
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: RedCode RAW
Film Stock: -
Ben
Wheatly knew Laurie Rose when shooting Down Terrace, which was the
first film both of them ever shot; since then Rose has DP'd all
Wheatley`s work, including Sightseers. In an interview after the film
première, Rose insisted that he was not comfortable with being called cinematographer or DP: he was just a simple cameraman. After watching Sightseers I realized that he was not trying to be just modest: Sightseers lacks in cinematography.
Light
crew was reduced to a minimum and so were lights used and that can be
noticed since the very first scenes, where the image is quite flat and
the contrast poor. Light is natural and quite soft, almost
shadows free, even in the exteriors, where the typical British overcast
days helped to diffuse light. When the sun came out though, we can
appreciate some harsh light and strong shadows creating an atmosphere
that doesn't really serve the story.
The camera Rose chose was a Red One with MX sensor,
a great camera, but he didn't manage to get the best of it. Throughout
the film there are scenes (indoor or outdoor shots) with very bright
spots with blown out highlights, which is quite unusual for a
camera with 13 stops of dynamic range. Also Roses didn't used many
lenses, sticking basically to the 50mm Arri Zeiss and switching to wide
angle lenses for landscapes, to keep the natural look of the film,
almost shot as it were a documentary. Camera movements are very little
used; often camera is hand-held and sometimes placed in very low angles (and perhaps missing a wider angle lens), different and unexpected decisions that never contribute visually to the story.
It looks like Rose limited himself to expose correctly the scenes, but, as we have seen in past posts, cinematography is much more than this and a correct exposure is not always the right one. Some scenes of Sightseers though are beautifully shot:
some foggy landscapes and scenes filmed outdoor at sunrise or sunset,
some back-lit, others with wanted gorgeous flares, but all of them with
nice contrast and tones and shot with wide angle lenses.
Sightseers is a (literally) bloody good fun but also a bit obvious and predictable, and probably less mysterious and interesting than Wheatley's last work, Kill List.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben Wheatley
Sightseers is a British black comedy by Brighton based director Ben Wheatley (Kill List, Down Terrace); it was screened in the Director's Fortnight section of Cannes Film Festival last year.
The plot. Chris takes her girlfriend Tina, who never left her
house and her mother, to a trip around Yorkshire with a caravan. But
soon unfortunate events make them become condescending psycho killers.
Camera: Red MX
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: RedCode RAW
Film Stock: -
Ben
Wheatly knew Laurie Rose when shooting Down Terrace, which was the
first film both of them ever shot; since then Rose has DP'd all
Wheatley`s work, including Sightseers. In an interview after the film
première, Rose insisted that he was not comfortable with being called cinematographer or DP: he was just a simple cameraman. After watching Sightseers I realized that he was not trying to be just modest: Sightseers lacks in cinematography.
Light crew was reduced to a minimum and so were lights used and that can
be noticed since the very first scenes, where the image is quite flat
and the contrast poor. Light is natural and quite soft, almost
shadows free, even in the exteriors, where the typical British overcast
days helped to diffuse light. When the sun came out though, we can
appreciate some harsh light and strong shadows creating an atmosphere
that doesn't really serve the story.
The camera Rose chose was a Red One with MX sensor,
a great camera, but he didn't manage to get the best of it. Throughout
the film there are scenes (indoor or outdoor shots) with very bright
spots with blown out highlights, which is quite unusual for a
camera with 13 stops of dynamic range. Also Roses didn't used many
lenses, sticking basically to the 50mm Arri Zeiss and switching to wide
angle lenses for landscapes, to keep the natural look of the film,
almost shot as it were a documentary. Camera movements are very little
used; often camera is hand-held and sometimes placed in very low angles (and perhaps missing a wider angle lens), different and unexpected decisions that never contribute visually to the story.
It looks like Rose limited himself to expose correctly the scenes, but, as we have seen in past posts, cinematography is much more than this and a correct exposure is not always the right one. Some scenes of Sightseers though are beautifully shot:
some foggy landscapes and scenes filmed outdoor at sunrise or sunset,
some back-lit, others with wanted gorgeous flares, but all of them with
nice contrast and tones and shot with wide angle lenses.
Sightseers is a (literally) bloody good fun but also a bit obvious and predictable, and probably less mysterious and interesting than Wheatley's last work, Kill List.
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Sightseers by Ben Wheatley
Sightseers is a British black comedy by Brighton based director Ben Wheatley (Kill List, Down Terrace); it was screened in the Director's Fortnight section of Cannes Film Festival last year.
The plot. Chris takes her girlfriend Tina, who never left her
house and her mother, to a trip around Yorkshire with a caravan. But
soon unfortunate events make them become condescending psycho killers.
Camera: Red MX
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: RedCode RAW
Film Stock: -
Ben
Wheatly knew Laurie Rose when shooting Down Terrace, which was the
first film both of them ever shot; since then Rose has DP'd all
Wheatley`s work, including Sightseers. In an interview after the film
première, Rose insisted that he was not comfortable with being called cinematographer or DP: he was just a simple cameraman. After watching Sightseers I realized that he was not trying to be just modest: Sightseers lacks in cinematography.
Light crew was reduced to a minimum and so were lights used and that can
be noticed since the very first scenes, where the image is quite flat
and the contrast poor. Light is natural and quite soft, almost
shadows free, even in the exteriors, where the typical British overcast
days helped to diffuse light. When the sun came out though, we can
appreciate some harsh light and strong shadows creating an atmosphere
that doesn't really serve the story.
The camera Rose chose was a Red One with MX sensor,
a great camera, but he didn't manage to get the best of it. Throughout
the film there are scenes (indoor or outdoor shots) with very bright
spots with blown out highlights, which is quite unusual for a
camera with 13 stops of dynamic range. Also Roses didn't used many
lenses, sticking basically to the 50mm Arri Zeiss and switching to wide
angle lenses for landscapes, to keep the natural look of the film,
almost shot as it were a documentary. Camera movements are very little
used; often camera is hand-held and sometimes placed in very low angles (and perhaps missing a wider angle lens), different and unexpected decisions that never contribute visually to the story.
It looks like Rose limited himself to expose correctly the scenes, but, as we have seen in past posts, cinematography is much more than this and a correct exposure is not always the right one. Some scenes of Sightseers though are beautifully shot:
some foggy landscapes and scenes filmed outdoor at sunrise or sunset,
some back-lit, others with wanted gorgeous flares, but all of them with
nice contrast and tones and shot with wide angle lenses.
Sightseers is a (literally) bloody good fun but also a bit obvious and predictable, and probably less mysterious and interesting than Wheatley's last work, Kill List.
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of To the Wonder by Terrence Malick
Few days ago I had the opportunity to watch again To the Wonder, a film by Terrence Malick who needs no presentations: The tree of Life, The thin red Line, The new World, Badlands are some titles of his filmography. It was a great delight to enjoy once again the work of one of the best cinematographer of the present time: Emmanuel Lubezki.
The plot.
An American falls in love with a divorced girl living in Paris. She
follows him and settles in Oklahoma but problems arise in their
relationship. Meanwhile, a priest struggles against his faith.
Camera: Arricam LT, Arriflex 235, Panavision, Red MX,
Lenses: Arri Zeiss Master Prime
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: 35mm, 65mm, Redcode RAW
Film Stock: Kodak 5218 500T, Kodak 5217 200T, Kodak 5219 500T
Terrence
Malick relies once again on the cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki
whose filmography is quite extensive ( Ali, The New World, Sleepy
Hollow, Meet Joe Black, Y tu mamá también...). As he already did it in
The Tree of Life, the mexican cinematographer only makes use of natural light for filming To the Wonder, using just bouncers and blockers. According to him, "natural light is more complex than artificial light and once you master it, it is hard to go back and illuminate a scene artificially".
He not only did an excellent job with that but also taught (or
reminded) everyone that everything has to serve cinematography to
visually tell a story in the best way possible: not only trough light,
costumes design and colours, lenses and camera movements, but even
trough the film stock, the camera itself and the format used.
Throughout the film, Lubezky always seeks back-light;
in the exterior shots the sun is always low in the horizon and quite
often in frame, he plays with it, positioning the actors between it and
the camera, avoiding the silhouette and shooting them shadow free, and
looking for light spills and flares every time they move, overexposing
some areas of the frame. In the shots taken indoors the back light is more extreme:
he uses doors and windows as light sources and the actors are dense
black silhouettes. Shooting indoor must have been complicated: with
light changing constantly Lubezki only had few useful hours in every
location. They shot fast and they shot a lot, because they didn't have
to "waste" time moving lights, and probably shot some hours in a house
and some hours in an identical one but architecturally different to take
advantage of the entire shooting day.
In
the few night time shots, available light of lamps is used: they are
always in frame and overexposed, creating great contrast in the scene.
Five different cameras were used to shoot To the Wonder.
The film starts with some images of the couple in a train taken with a
digital camera full of digital artifacts but it does remind a super-8
camera and the feeling of holiday and happy memories, like the beginning
of a relationship. When Marina (Olga Kurylenko) goes back to Paris,
Lubezki follows her alone in the street at night using a Red MX, giving a sense of modern and urban life
(in contrast with the Oklahoma surroundings) as well as a sense of cold
solitude. All the rest of the film is shot in 35mm apart from the
scenes where Ben Affleck starts a relationship with an old friend,
Rachel McAdams: here the 65mm negative is used. This relationship is
less romantic but more stable than the one with Marina: for Lubezki the
65mm reflects this more realistic stability.
Camera is rarely static: always flowing with the characters,
mostly following them, on a steady-cam or hand-held, and always going
forth, suggesting the idea that life always goes on. Lubezki chose, as
in The Tree of Life, Master prime lenses which offer a very clean and
sharp image, mostly using wide angle lenses, achieving a very great depth of field
which suits perfectly Malick's way of directing especially because the
director rarely leads the eye of the spectators toward the actor, and
offers them the whole frame instead.
Terrence Malick is a peculiar director with a peculiar style
pretending to make poetry with images. You can like his style or hate
it. And To the Wonder is no exception. The movie was shot without a
script, almost has no dialogue and no plot nor action: it is absolutely
visual, showing moments of the life of a couple and it's up to the
spectator to shape a story. Whatever you like his style or not, To the Wonder is a cinematographic piece of art which confirms Lubezki as one of the best living cinematographer capable of creating stunning beautiful images and a visual storytelling second to none. To the Wonder is an exquisite visual experience, completed with great music and editing, that will undoubtedly be in this year top five best cinematographies.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of The Great Gatsby by Baz Luhrmann
This week I've seen The Great Gatsby, a film by Baz Luhrmann, the director of Mouline Rouge!, Australia and Romeo + Juliet. It was the opening of last Cannes Film Festival, screening that divided critics and audience.
The Plot.
An(other) adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel where a wannabe
writer is attracted from the life of his mysterious rich neighbour, Jay
Gatsby, finding himself helping him out with his obsessions and
discovering the reasons of his eccentricity.
Camera: Red Epic
Lenses: Zeiss Ultra Prime
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: Redcode RAW
Film Stock: -
Simon Duggan is a New Zealander cinematographer known for Knowing, I Robot, Live Free or Die Hard and Underworld: Evolution,
so I wasn't expecting at all a realistic light work. Along with the Red
Epic, he chose Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses to shoot the film, not because
of their wide aperture (ƒ1.9, which he didn't quite use apart for a pair
of shots) but because of the excellent quality image they can record
having thus a very low weight, characteristics very suitable for 3D
rigs.
Definitely, Baz Luhrmann had Mouline Rouge! in mind while shooting The Great Gatsby: it is visually a "circus"
as the first one was and the two films have in commons lots of shot
types. Duggan's cinematography goes along with it helping the director's
vision. Camera never stands still in the first half of the
movie: dollys, pans, cranes... the camera is moved in every direction
with all the possible means, employed for creating a vertiginous sense
of rhythm rather than highlighting the agitation of the characters in
frame.
Duggan uses a quite theatrical light,
especially during the first half: it is never justified, most of the
time coming from above and with a very strong rim light even in
interiors with a sunlit window in frame. But this may be a bit excessive
and only is understandable when we are introduced into Gatsby's castle,
the heart of the circus.
Another
trick Duggan employed to achieve the wanted theatrical effect is how he
illuminated the characters compared to the background: the main actors just pop out from the scene as they had a spot light following them everywhere,
even outdoor and in night shots (in which we always feel the presence
of strong artificial HMI light), so that characters are bright while
everything else of the scene falls into darkness. This is sometimes
emphasized by the dress style: main actors in colourful dresses among a
multitude wearing greyish and dark clothes. Colours play an important part in the theatrical vision
as well as in cinematography itself (Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses are the
perfect choice for their colour reproduction): we experiment a
kaleidoscopic carnival of colours throughout the film, right till its
denouement, where they disappear along with Gatsby's dreams.
Another interesting use of light Duggan made is how he illuminated the character of Daisy.
‹‹Doesn't she seem to illuminate it all?›› says Gatsby and so is the
impression the spectator has, since her very first appearance. She is
lit with a soft light like everybody else, but she is far luminous.
There's no shadow in her face nor the 1:2 contrast normally employed for
other actors and she is always at least a stop brighter then everyone else, in the way Hollywood industry used to light its stars, like Greta Garbo, to make them stand out.
All
of the above aspects, though, are softened in the last quarter of the
film, accordingly to to the development of events and characters, who
leave the theatrical-style-of-life for more intimate situations.
Some
continuity errors, the use of diffusion filters when Gatsby remembers
his past (diffusion filters were the only way to shoot remembrances till
some years ago, I guess Duggan employed them because the story is set
in the 20ies, but the whole movie has a little to do with those years)
and some close up shots that are too hard (because of the extreme
sharpness of the Zeiss lenses) are the negative aspects of his cinematography that serves really well a film that doesn't offer much more than 2:30 hours of fair entertainment.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the Cinematography of Tomboy by Céline Sciamma
This week I've seen Tomboy, a film written and directed by Céline Sciamma, which finally arrives to cinemas two years after the première in France. It's a little gem of the independent film industry shot in only 20 days with a crew of 14 people (!!!).
The plot. A 10 year old girl moves with her family to a new neighbourhood. Because of her look she is mistaken for a boy and she goes along with it. But the lie can't last forever. The film focus on the transgender identity problem following the main character experiences and difficulties in the relationship with her new friends.
Camera: Canon Eos 7D
Lenses: Zeiss
Aspect ratio:1.85:1
Format: mov
Film Stock: -
Crystel Fournier chose a Canon Eos 7D to shoot Tomboy.
I'm not sure if that choice was made for aesthetic reasons rather than
for budget ones. We have to remember that the movie was shot in a very
short period of time and with a super reduced crew, the one you normally
employ for the making of a music video. Furthermore the 7D was
announced less than one year before the shooting and Black Swan had just
been partly shot with this camera. Anyway, Fournier tried to make the
best use of it.
The first thing we notice is that the image is not that hard as a DSLR camera normally records it: he added some kind of diffusion, probably using the old trick of the stockings in front of the lenses. The look Fournier created works well with the story:
a warm tone creates a sense of proximity between the character and the
viewer, the style he moves the camera with reminds the one of a docu
film, the camera is always placed at the children height, helping with
the connections with the characters, lights always illuminate from the
top, a set-up that adds realism to the film, even if in some scenes the
rim lighting (which endows volume to subjects separating them from the
background) is not as subtle as it should be, breaking the atmosphere of
reality.
The low budget is strongly noticed with the light employed. The luminance of indoor scenes, where fluorescent light banks have been used, is very low, forcing Fournier to shoot with very big apertures which create a deep of field too much shallow, an aesthetic that became very fashionable after the first video recording DSLRs were launched, but it definitely does not always help cinematography. In Tomboy it ruins the sense of realism declared by the chosen style. It is more evident in the external locations where Fournier keeps the aperture wide open and rarely closes it even with harsh light. The shallow depth of field also caused some focus problems to the focus puller.
The low budget is strongly noticed with the light employed. The luminance of indoor scenes, where fluorescent light banks have been used, is very low, forcing Fournier to shoot with very big apertures which create a deep of field too much shallow, an aesthetic that became very fashionable after the first video recording DSLRs were launched, but it definitely does not always help cinematography. In Tomboy it ruins the sense of realism declared by the chosen style. It is more evident in the external locations where Fournier keeps the aperture wide open and rarely closes it even with harsh light. The shallow depth of field also caused some focus problems to the focus puller.
The lack of latitude of the 7D is well compensated
by Fournier who always diffused the sun light to reduce the contrast
and taking the most from the Eos sensor ( in these scenes we find the
best looking images of the film) even though when he had to shoot in
full sunlight the sensor shows its limitations and some areas of the frame are blown, which not always goes with the mood of the scene.
Fournier
doesn't give up side dolly movements in his cinematography, causing
rolling shutter problem, typical of a DSLR CMOS sensor; but, for once,
the wide open aperture helped him: the blurred backgrounds made the rolling shutter less noticeable.
Tomboy is a well directed and impressive film,
its cinematography could have been better but surely low budget
problems didn't help. Considered this and the fact it was shot in solely
20 days and with children (which is not easy), it is a film worth
watching and enjoying.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Stoker by Chan-wook Park
This week I've seen Stoker, a movie by Chan-wook Park, the director of Old Boy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance and Thirst. I was intrigued to see if Hollywood changed the creative vision of the awarded south Korean director.
The plot.
When her father dies, India, a 18 year old introspective and apparently
passive girl finds herself to deal with the presence of her uncle whose
existence she was not aware. The relationship of hate and infatuation
with this mysterious charming man will help her to discover who she
really is.
Cinematography: Chung-hoon Chung
Camera: Arricam ST, Arriflex 435
Lenses: Zeiss Master Prime, Angenioux Optimo
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
Format: Super 35mm (3-perf)
Film Stock: Kodak 5207 250D; Kodak 5219 500T
Once
again, as he did for the vengeance trilogy and Thirst, Chan-wook Park
relies on Chung-hoon Chung who chooses the combination of Kodak stock
film and Zeiss Master Prime to shoot this mysterious thriller. This
decision results in a very clean, precise and very high quality image
(very typical of the Zeiss lenses) with a superb colour reproduction.
Chung pays attention to every detail, liking better extreme close ups,
cut-ins and longer lenses than wide angles and very wide shots and
always with a great use of the depth of field achieving a neat and powerful aesthetic in every frame.
Since
the beginning of the movie we notice that the image is brighter than it
used to be in the last movies (the price to pay for shooting with
Hollywood?), however Chung's work is outstanding. Light is always natural and justified:
windows, doors and set lights are used as source in such a good way
that you don't even think the scene it's been lighted. Almost throughout
the movie, light is soft and diffused and shadows are rare but well employed, creating an elegant and calm atmosphere, in contrast with the characters of the story.
The
camera is always steady, apart for two situations: when, during the
first scenes, India is whirling inside the camera becomes quite shaking
not only when it assumes her point of view but also when she is in front
but close to the camera, which is rather interesting; and when her
mother loses for the first time her state of calmness and composure. Camera movements are also well employed to serve the fresh and creative vision of the director, especially in the piano duet scene.
If
a I have to mention a negative point of Chung's cinematography it would
be the shot of the conversation between India and her uncle where they
are framed with their head in the middle of the screen, with half frame
empty above them: different and rule-breaking but in my opinion a bit
forced and without much sense.
Chung-hoon
Chung proved again to be a finest cinematographer yet without the
recognition he should deserve, capable of creating a great aesthetic to a
film which is not among Chan-wook Park's best works.
WaO, what a nice video, Full HD video. arri alexas
ReplyDelete