Hurt Locker!?!?
- Thread starter jimpatro
- Start date
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Really? Cause I thought Spinal Tap did a pretty good job at the documentary style...As did the more recent Paper Heart but I guess they didn`t make that choice for those films.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Oh God! amrrahmy, are you really believing in what you are saying or you are just pulling my finger here?
My friend used to do call-to-action videos back in the 80s (or was it 70s). They were beautifully lit and shot on film, but somehow people were not biting the bullet. Then one day he pulled out a video camera that was normally used on TV news and shot with that camera. Did it look as good as the video shot on film? Hell no, but all the sudden the phones were ringing off the hook because people could relate to the immediacy of the "TV news" style. Get it?
My friend used to do call-to-action videos back in the 80s (or was it 70s). They were beautifully lit and shot on film, but somehow people were not biting the bullet. Then one day he pulled out a video camera that was normally used on TV news and shot with that camera. Did it look as good as the video shot on film? Hell no, but all the sudden the phones were ringing off the hook because people could relate to the immediacy of the "TV news" style. Get it?
djkarn105
Well-known member
if you choose not to use cinematography, it's ur choice , it's only one tool. but don't talk about the cinematography in the movie if it has none.
I think you're missing Patryk's point. If decisions were made about the image that was captured then there's Cinematography. Choosing whether or not to use lights shape the image is a choice the cinematographer made.
wow, you don't think that's a bit off, generalizing and vague something to make it acceptable.
what's next, you wouldn't say for example, the cinematographer made a decision to use auto focus and available lighting and didn't frame the shots or a writer chose to write a bad script on purpose(las if your tell me he had the choice to make something look good and chose to do something that didn't look as good).
any "cinematographer" that did "reality/documentary" did it because he could not pull off something better, and it's cheap.
RyanT
Veteran
Man...you need to work on some movies or something.
Why do documentaries even have cinematographers listed?
Just watch a doc, then try and think of it if it were all lit perfectly. Think of how much different it would be. It wouldn't feel quite so raw, like it was really real life...people would begin to question if it were staged or not and you'd probably be ultimately driven out of the story asking yourself these questions. For a genre of films that is supposed to just be documenting real life, why should it be lit like it's not?
Why do documentaries even have cinematographers listed?
Just watch a doc, then try and think of it if it were all lit perfectly. Think of how much different it would be. It wouldn't feel quite so raw, like it was really real life...people would begin to question if it were staged or not and you'd probably be ultimately driven out of the story asking yourself these questions. For a genre of films that is supposed to just be documenting real life, why should it be lit like it's not?
dougspice
Veteran
Here's a simple question: did you like the movie? Let's get out of all this ridiculous talk about whether or not the cinematography was good and focus on: was the MOVIE good? If the movie was good, if it was effective, then guess what: the cinematography worked!
Whether or not the crew subscribed to your own personal views of what is beautiful and what is appropriate, they did something effective. Sometimes beautiful, well-lit images are not appropriate. It's honestly hard to think of a better example.
Whether or not the crew subscribed to your own personal views of what is beautiful and what is appropriate, they did something effective. Sometimes beautiful, well-lit images are not appropriate. It's honestly hard to think of a better example.
documenting real life..., it was a film dude, not a documentary(that's the whole point, it was a scripted film), it looked like a reality tv show, but it was supposed to be a "real" film.
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Can you post your demo reel? I would like to see how a master such as yourself does things.
Also, I don't know if you know who Ellen Kuras (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0475578/) is...but she directed and shot a documentary called The Betrayal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQmx_qvKKqU), and it is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen on screen. And for the record, Ellen is considered by many to be one of the masters of cinematography.
Last edited:
rsbush
Well-known member
If you are of the opinion that cinematography is an art, consider these excerpts from one of Leo Tolstoy's essay's on art.
"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.
Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man's emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity."
"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.
Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious idea of beauty or God; it is not, as the aesthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man's emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity."
RyanT
Veteran
I'm just talking about documentaries now. If you're arguing that this movie has no cinematography, then jeez. I give up.
Rape is never beautiful. It should not be portrayed that way. If it is then it sadly dismisses the brutality.
Hurt Locker is not a documentary and I don't think anyone really believes it is.
The shaky cam is pointless. It could have been shot all steadicam and the story would still be the same. Again, watch Man on Fire to see how tension can be acheived editorially without shakycam.
If it had been a mockumentary then the "reality" feel would have been appropriate. And for decades Oscars have been handed out amid controversy.
This reminds me of an old boss once discussing some footage I had just shot with me. The lighting was admittedly a little off. But she wanted to know if had meant to shoot it that way or if I was just not being thorough. Because if I meant to light the shots that way, well then that was okay. Otherwise I was in trouble. WTF????
I've seen amateur stuff that looks like Hurt Locker. Shitty. But when a seasoned DP shoots it, oh well, it's brilliant!
Hurt Locker is not a documentary and I don't think anyone really believes it is.
The shaky cam is pointless. It could have been shot all steadicam and the story would still be the same. Again, watch Man on Fire to see how tension can be acheived editorially without shakycam.
If it had been a mockumentary then the "reality" feel would have been appropriate. And for decades Oscars have been handed out amid controversy.
This reminds me of an old boss once discussing some footage I had just shot with me. The lighting was admittedly a little off. But she wanted to know if had meant to shoot it that way or if I was just not being thorough. Because if I meant to light the shots that way, well then that was okay. Otherwise I was in trouble. WTF????
I've seen amateur stuff that looks like Hurt Locker. Shitty. But when a seasoned DP shoots it, oh well, it's brilliant!
djkarn105
Well-known member
I think the problem with your argument here is that bad and good are subjective judgements. Take for example the films of Jim Jarmusch. He directs his actors in a very Un-Realistic way. Under normal circumstances, you might consider this bad acting but in Jarmusch's movies, he's going for sort of absurdist experience and so it ends up working for the script. His films may or may not appeal to your personal taste but I think you can't argue that doesn't get his point across.
I think you're being really offensive to A LOT of cinemetographers that have worked / work on non-fiction projects. Yes it's true that in non-fiction there are many things out of your control that force compromises, but I think it's important to point out that you are forced to make compromises in narrative as well. Anyone who's ever worked on a film set will tell you, sometimes, even if you aren't able to totally nail the take, sometimes good enough is good enough.
The difference is you have to be prepared for more eventualities in non-fiction.