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.

Stills from Films. A possible light diagram of a scene from Snow White and The Huntsman

Cinematography: Greig Fraser

Camera: Arriflex 235, Arriflex 435 Advanced and ES, Panavision 65 HR and Milennium XL2, Red Epic
Lens: Panavision Primo, E and G Series, ATZ, System 65

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1

Format: 35mm, 65mm, Redcode RAW

Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5201 50D, 5207 250D, 5230 500T

Greig Fraser did a great job with the cinematography of Snow White and the Huntsman, a film that neither critics nor audience liked very much, combining 35mm and 65mm, along with some shots with the Epic. This is one of the very few scenes exclusively lit by natural light and it is a beautiful example of back lighting. This shot would not have been the same if Panavision E Series anamorphic lenses hadn't been used with the lovely and gorgeous typical flares they produce.

Film Review. An analysis of the cinematography of Anna Karenina by Joe Wright

When summer comes outdoor cinemas open and they offer, apart the few premiers we usually have in this period, some of the best films of the season.  Anna Karenina by Joe Wright (Atonement, Pride and Prejudice, The Soloist) is definitely one of them.

The plot. Based on the novel by Lev Tolstoj set in the Russia of the 19th century. Anna Karenina escapes the cold relationship with her husband and enters a love affair full of love and passion which will change her life.

Cinematography: Seamus McGarvey

Camera: Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2

Lenses: Panavision G Series, E-series, ATZ and AWZ2 

Aspect ratio: 2.40:1

Format: 36mm

Film Stock: Kodak Vision 5219 500T

Due to health problems, the former cinematographer of this project, Philippe Rousselot, abandoned three weeks before the shooting: he was replaced by Seamus McGarvey (The Hours, Avengers, High Fidelity) who already worked with director Joe Wright in Atonement and The Soloist. McGarvey didn't doubt a second at the moment of choosing the format: film was for him the right choice for the story and the period the story is set. And it really is: it works very well with the low light shots of the movie, making the shadows powerful and vibrant. The high speed film stock chosen delivers a beautiful grain structure while the high resolution of the Panasonic lenses is softened with a diffusion given by a stocking put in front of the lens, as we can see from the halo of the blurred lights in the scene (the good old Fogal Noblesse?), that gives a beautiful look to the image.

Wright is a director who uses lots of exquisite camera movements, and Anna Karenina is full of them: the camera dances with the characters, following them or going from a scene to another, revealing the set at a 360º angle; along with the camera the sets move as well (with some lights going on and others going off), creating different spaces and locations in the same area (Anna Karenina was almost entirely shot in a theatre).

With this theatrical mise-en-scène we can see the magnificent work McGarvey did. He not only had to light for the character but also for their movements and the ones of the sets, dealing with a camera moving around all the time.  So in order to hide lights he illuminated from above, like they do in theatres, achieving a light which go perfectly well with the characters and the way the story is told. When lights are placed on a side of the characters, the Irish cinematographer always tends to a an expressionist use of it. The only character to be lit in a more natural way is Levin, who is the only one who has a relationship with the outdoor world, the only one to exit the "theatre".  The 2.40 aspect ratio works really well with the story too, especially with the relationship between Anna Karenina and her husband with shots where the negative space and the distance between the two characters is emphasized by the chosen format.

Anna Karenina is a movie not everyone might like for the theatrical way it is made or for the story, too flat and shallow compared with the book. However the Seamus McGarvey's work is quite stunning, an absolute masterpiece of cinematography which well deserved much more than the nominee at this year Oscar.

Cinematography: Anthony Dod Mentle

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: -

- See more at: http://donatelloromanazzi.blogspot.com.es/p/film-review.html#sthash.wi3nvanw.dpuf

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.

Cinematography: Mihai Malaimare Jr.

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

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 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.

Cinematography: Larry Fong, Mitchell Amundsen

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.

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.