How would YOU order these aspects of filmmaking from most important to least?

tipota said:
I have never ever read a review of a film in which it was stated that lousy cinematography...killed a movie.
Click to expand...

Then you obviously missed the reviews of the second in the Borne franchise. I LOVE the story (however much it departs from the book), and still watch the movie a couple times a year, but Oliver Wood's "shaky-cam" cinematography (as well as Pearson and Rouses' ADD style of editing) really takes this picture down several notches. It was a damn mess that nauseated the viewer and actually gets in the way of enjoying the story.

Put another way, I enjoy the movie despite the cinematography, not because of it.
 
TimurCivan said:
Audio is important, but audio isn't a part of cinematography.
Click to expand...
Technically, no. Audio is not a part of cinematography.

But audio is a significant part of what audiences "see" on screen.

The visuals provide information, but the audio is where the emotion and impact come from.
 
agcohn said:
Technically, no. Audio is not a part of cinematography.

But audio is a significant part of what audiences "see" on screen.

The visuals provide information, but the audio is where the emotion and impact come from.
Click to expand...
That's stretching it a bit. Emotion and impact comes from the whole, including the scenes and acting that lead up to the moment of impact.
 
Yes, but an awful lot of what you hear in a fictional film is done in post. A tremendous amount (sometimes most) of dialogue is looped. Most of the sound effects you hear are foleyed. The mix is created, the score is added, and on and on.

Good sound can not only be fixed, but CREATED in post; you can't say that nearly as strongly for aspects of picture. That's why it's more important to put effort into, worry about, and prioritize the visuals.

"70% of what you seem in a film is what you hear" is one those "sayings that SOUNDS good" and impressive when you say it - but it's not necessarily true in a practical sense when prioritizing efforts on-set, selecting equipment etc.
 
agcohn said:
Yeah, and most modern acting comes from dialogue, which is audio.
Click to expand...
lol. you must be a musician or a sound guy to have such an audio centric view of film:) Personally I think the magic, beauty and potential of film is the convergence of the varying art forms - writing, music/sound, pictures, performance, etc.. Claiming that sound is a picture, or acting is sound, just does not do this form justice.
 
TimurCivan said:
Art direction is definitly over cinematography. 70% of cinematography is art direction.
Click to expand...

The sets and costumes exist solely for one reason: to be shot by the camera. Good art direction helps cinematography because the cinematographer doesn't have to compromise framing and lighting to hide imperfections in the elements of the set, but it does not take precedence.
 
Finnegan said:
The sets and costumes exist solely for one reason: to be shot by the camera. Good art direction helps cinematography because the cinematographer doesn't have to compromise framing and lighting to hide imperfections in the elements of the set, but it does not take precedence.
Click to expand...

yes, but ask anyone whether they would rather have an empty set shot in IMAX or a rich designed set shot on a DVX, and you can't tell me you think that they would rather have the former
 
most modern acting comes from dialogue, which is audio.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But two of the finest performances ever put on celluloid are devoid of dialog.

In the first, we look to Sir Anthony Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day". In this scene, Emma Thompson backs Anthony up against a wall as she tries to discover the title of a book he's reading. She struggles to get the book out of his hands. He 'reluctantly' gives it up, and she discovers it's a romance novel. The look on his face speaks a Libray of Congress' worth about his character and emotional turmoil, all the while he says not one word.

In the second, we look to the venerable comedian Robin Williams, who is also an astonishing dramatic actor. The film is "Mrs. Doubtfire", the scene is Robin's kitchen. Dressed in full regalia, Robin sits and listens as his wife/employer, Sally Field, describes from her viewpoint the downfall of their marriage. As Robin listens, the camera slowly pushes in on his face. In full makeup, seeing nothing of the real actor but his eyes, and without saying a single word, we feel his pain as the character realizes for the first time his own role in the marital separation.
 
Story/Script
Pre-Production/Storyboarding/planning
Acting/Performance
Set Design
Post-Production/editing/grading
Audio/Spoken Dialog/Foley
Wardrobe
Lighting Design
Rigging/Jib/Dolly
Camera/acquisition equipment
Soundtrack
A comfy director's chair with your name on it

Very cafefully arranged and thought over from experience.
 
Jim Simon said:
Perhaps. But two of the finest performances ever put on celluloid are devoid of dialog.

In the second, we look to the venerable comedian Robin Williams, who is also an astonishing dramatic actor. The film is "Mrs. Doubtfire", the scene is Robin's kitchen. Dressed in full regalia, Robin sits and listens as his wife/employer, Sally Field, describes from her viewpoint the downfall of their marriage. As Robin listens, the camera slowly pushes in on his face. In full makeup, seeing nothing of the real actor but his eyes, and without saying a single word, we feel his pain as the character realizes for the first time his own role in the marital separation.
Click to expand...

I actually know EXACTLY the moment youre talking about. That was impressive.
 
imdjay said:
yes, but ask anyone whether they would rather have an empty set shot in IMAX or a rich designed set shot on a DVX, and you can't tell me you think that they would rather have the former
Click to expand...

Cinematography is far more than the type of camera.
 
Still "Bourne two" was successful (and I did like what they did, all though it was indeed overdone).

Jim Simon said:
Put another way, I enjoy the movie despite the cinematography, not because of it.
Click to expand...

That's more or less what I mean: If people leave a theater and talk about the cinematography, the wardrobe, the set design and not about the story or the emotional or intellectual impact of the story, I know this movie has a major problem.

And then we forget one point: Music. For me film music has the same importance for a movie as the main cast has.
 
1. Script
2. Money (Everything else will fall where they will based on money.)

3.Actors (with or without money you need the best actors you can get to get a believable presentation of your awesome script.
 
Trying to rank-order things that are not singly sufficient but necessary is folly. Your tripod has three legs; which is the most important?

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Finnegan said:
Cinematography is far more than the type of camera.
Click to expand...

that wasn't referring to cinematography, that was referring to capture equipment/camera. you can do the same cinematography in either case, you're telling me you'd still prefer cinematography in IMAX of an empty set?
 
Ticheli said:
Trying to rank-order things that are not singly sufficient but necessary is folly. Your tripod has three legs; which is the most important?

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...
You're not seeing the point of this thread. This is a camera forum, and yet camera equipment is scoring quite low on the importance level, i started this thread to help remind newcomers of the bigger 'picture' ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top