F65: Lucy - feature film

I saw this today in the cinema. I have to say overall it looked fairly good - better than I expected. The trailer definitely picked one of the worst looking scenes - with dodgy highlights and open shutter.

Only the night scenes looked "digital" - as they were clearly lit with mostly practicals. Not so much a digital "look" ,as a look that is only achievable on digital, if that makes sense?
 
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more with the opinions in this thread.

There are many times when one wants to crush blacks or blow out highlights to eliminate needless distracting detail or make images pop. To me the trailer looked punchy and saturated which matched well with the editing and the story line. The shots were well composted and in most cases beautiful.

I think it would be mistaken to assume that that DP didn't nail the exposure - especially with the flexibility of shooting in raw.

If anything - and I am a huge fan of "Fight Club" - it made that movie trailer seemed dated by comparison.

Of course YMMV
 
Steve

You're of course more than entitled to your own opinion. When talking about looks of films, it is completely subjective and there is no real wrong or right. If they got the look their director wanted, and i am certain they did, then they did what they aimed for.

I thought the film overall looked fine, it is mostly the scene in the trailer of her walking in the hallway with two guns I took issue with. To me, it looks very "digital" and not in a great way. I understand the need for blowing highlights etc... but there are ways to do it and I'm just never a fan of turning the shutter off - it is always a last resort for me.

That said, I have sat through the Hobbit in 48fps with people who "couldn't tell" the difference between it and any other film - I guess we are very picky about some things.
 
No, James. It's great that you have such a developed eye. Great that a 360 degree shutter pops out at you.

I watched the trailer again and have to admit the scene with her walking through the hallway wasn't glaring or horrible to me. Very interesting though that it struck you as too digital.

Was wondering what kind of blown highlights are acceptable to your eye.

I'm asking these questions because though I DP for the most part I am a director. Though my recent short film just got a glowing in process review from NPR it is interesting how people have their own unique takes. Some love it and some not so much.. For some a slight lapse in continuity is glaring while others never notice. Some take offense at the nudity. Others think there is no story while others yet understand the message.

As an artist one wishes to be understood but this is almost never a trivial affair.
 
Always the way Steve, always the way.

For me, personally, and this is very much a personal thing, if I am going to go for an extreme highlight I like to have a soft edge on it. I like a little bloom.

The Lucy trailer seemed to me like it had some artificial sharpening applied, it didn't look very flattering. You will get differing opinions as to what people like, but I enjoy putting a gentle filter on to knock the edges back.

I should point out that the trailer I saw was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnKVv8Lp_xU

It opens with a very long shot of the open shutter stuff, which I think will have irked me from the off!

Like I said, 99% of the film I thought looked great and not very "digital" at all.
 
Completely agree with you on the digital sharpening. I'd be okay with it if the background was sharp while the characters were soft. That would add to the theme of human frailty in the face of this machine woman who's now using 100% of her brain. Perhaps as she changed and used more and more of her brain so would how sharp she appears in the film. That would make sense. And would subconsciously (to most) effect how they see the character.

To me good film making all adds up to a film's underlying theme and central message. That takes precedence over good picture making standards and practices.
 
Jeff Cronenberg is a good example of a DP as well as Darius Khondji who are the modern DPs whose work on 35mm film made me want to become a DP. Fight Club and Seven are some of the most beautiful visual films made in the past 30 years. They working with Fincher. Then you watch Hitchcock shot on Red and Amour shot on Alexa by these DPs and it has a different feel - they are working with different directors but it does feel different and its a direction not completely alligned with my aesthetic. Is it the transition from film to digital is quite different? When I shot on film, I feel the same as they may feel when they shoot digitally. That's why I love DPs who will not switch over - they will go down with the ship. They choose film because they know it. It's like switching from water colors to acrylics? Digital is in the domain still of a new set of rules - that flat log digital image - if you don't know what you are doing - the colorist and maybe the "committee" of the post world can trample on it in a way that these Dps can't control. And I try so hard myself to control the image and my work has been hurt a lot - on commercial work and narrative - in the past 4 years I have only been consulted on the coloring session maybe twice. People have laughed at my coloring work and I'm not a colorist but I have a gut feeling about what it should be. Why don't they involve the DP more in the coloriing these days? Its interesting how its changed. I'm sure the more established DPs talk about this behind closed doors at the clubhouse. And its always been a struggle of controlling the image. I heard an amazing and hilarious story of one of my favorite DPs who has worked with Scarlett on that film you have Hunter that we all love and his struggle to control the color on one of his commercials and made me respect him even more.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree Ed. The aesthetics of film is what got a lot of us into the game. It's also crazy the amount of testing and experimenting that went into the features you listed... Are DP's afforded similar situations when working digitally when at that level? Knowing a camera system is so important with digital... It's strengths and weaknesses. How much testing did Savides do for Zodiac? Like stocks each digital system has advantages. It's super difficult to truly know a camera when when the technology is changing so fast. Dare I say that many DP's don't know enough about the system they are using before they shoot... Maybe it's an assumption that the digital way is easier or provides more of a safe hold because you see the image. I'm certainly guilty of not testing enough and also assuming something is good because of industry perceptions (Alexa/red). Anyway this not to bring up a film vs. digital more so the ideology behind shooting/prepping for each.

Here is a great series of talks between Kaminski, Pfister, and Papamichael on Vimeo VOD that sort of ties in. Collaboration, Post Production, and Personal life are good... Some really great points here - http://vimeo.com/advancedfilmmaking/vod_pages

Looking forward to seeing Lucy... Only F65 feature I've really seen was Oblivion.
 
I think these DoPs do a vast amount of testing on digital, just as with anything. They'd be foolish not to.

Someone like Fincher in particular is EXTREMELY controlling of his image and his look. I believe he makes many of the decisions traditionally made by the DoP.

That said, I have shot projects myself that were beautifully exposed to begin with and then an inexperienced grader works on them, crushes the life out of everything and makes it look like I don't know how to expose. Can happen to all of us.
 
I've watched it today too. I have to agree, it was really distracting. Most of the shots inside were looking good but those shots outside were looking very ugly, video'y. To the point when they where taking me completely out of the story. Also some of the vfx were not on the level that Hollywood got us spoiled with.

Anyway, the whole film was strange but original that's for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top