Film review. An analysis of the cinematography of Captain Phillips, by Paul Greengrass

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.

Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd

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, by Lee Daniels.

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.

Cinematography: Andrew Dunn

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 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).

Cinematography: Amir Mokri

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.