importance of directing in cinematography

Patryk_Rebisz

Patryk_Rebisz

Veteran
As a research for a project i was recently forced to watch "Eat, Pray, Love" and was blown away how badly it was directed AND shot. Quick search revealed that it was shot by extremely experienced DP who shot "Kill Bill" and all recent Scorsese films... clearly not a beginner. And yet the film still looked just one step above well done TV with conventional framing, conventional coverage, conventional lighting, some filtration in front of the lens here and there but that's juts about it. Of course i knew that no matter how great of a DP the guy might be he'll still ultimately suffer from bad direction and here it was more then obvious that the director simply wasn't up to par to handle the material (one woman's spiritual journey in search for self).

Yet another reminder that before our images get to shin the film needs to be directed well first. Great looking films do not win awards, it's the great films that also look good that do.
 
" conventional framing, conventional coverage, conventional lighting" and is "pretty good" really something to inspire to?
 
Ultimately the DP is telling the story the Director wants. None of us can say exactly what it was like on set, but if she said that this would work better for the story, that's it. It could also be that the DP did exactly what he wanted to do, and he thought that particular style was correct for what he was shooting; not everything has to be unique framing and all that. I'm guessing this one didn't need it. You disagree, which is fine, but sometimes conventional lighting is what crews are asked to do. That's why it's called conventional; unconventional for the sake of being unconventional is worse.
 
for its budget i thought it looked pretty mediocre....
especialy the sitdown pizza scene, it was flat the walls were white, everyone was wearing black.
to me, it just didn't capture the essence of Italy....the sparkle or whatever you want to call it!
 
The DP can only work with what they're given. If the set's been designed without their input and the director insists on a certain framing and wants the shot finished right now, then that's what happens.
 
clang said:
The DP can only work with what they're given. If the set's been designed without their input and the director insists on a certain framing and wants the shot finished right now, then that's what happens.
Click to expand...

you're right, you have to follow what the director envisions....
 
WE really don't know what happened. So assuming all best intentions on part of the DP i can invisions a following dialog:
"we should shoot almost documentary style..." OK!
"we should shoot with relatively unsophisticated lighting" Yes!
"we should not search for unorthodox framing as it will take away from simplicity of the story" Absolutely!
"we should shoot all hand held" Well, i still want some polish and sophistication, so no, no hand-held.

...and thus the inexperienced director killed the vibe of his own film, while a good director such as Miachel Mann in "The Insider" didn't. That said though maybe the DP is partially to blame because "The Insider" trying to be "unsophisticated" has exquisite lighting and framing.
 
Hmmm, you're talking about Robert Richardson, one of the greatest dps working at the moment, curently shooting Scorcese's HUGO CABERET on the Alexa.

I find it ironic that you are criticising EAT PRAY LOVE (IMDB rating of 5.3) when you yourself shot LAST DAYS OF SUMMER (IMDB rating of 4.9). At least EPL got a pass.

I haven't seen EPL and don't intend to, but I'm sure Mr Richardson did everything that was asked of him. A director like Fincher will tell the DP EXACTLY how he wants to shoot it down to the precise focal length of the lens, wheras other directors give much more leeway (like the Cohen's with Deakins).

Obviously with Fincher he has a great eye so the end result is great, but if a director is that controlling over the DP and doesn't have the same talent, of course the end result will be bad.

All the director of EPL had done was NIP/TUCK and GLEE. He obviously has a lot to learn.
 
Futchibon said:
I find it ironic that you are criticising EAT PRAY LOVE (IMDB rating of 5.3) when you yourself shot LAST DAYS OF SUMMER (IMDB rating of 4.9). At least EPL got a pass.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa Futchibon! Easy buddy. :)

Just because Patryk is a talented and working professional doesn't mean he can't question another (unarguably) great cinematographer's work. By comparing his work to Robert Richardson's, you are kind of making the point that opinions are reserved for armchair cinematographers only. Nobody on this forum has a body of work as impressive as Bob Richardson, and possibly Patryk... so I don't think comparing credits is a very worthwhile effort, nor a basis of who deserves an opinion and who does not.

With that said, all great filmmakers and cinematographers can make a booger or something that just isn't as special or acclaimed as past works. This is definitely not the best Richardson film out there. Then again, the director is no Oliver Stone, Quintin Tarantino, or Scorsese. I think this is getting to the point. We are all very aware of who Bob Richardson is, and he's not questioning Bob's talents... on the contrary, he's saying or suggesting that the direction (overall vision) given to Bob was perhaps retarding of Bob's talents and the result of a less than optimally photographed picture... which is subjective, of course.

We all wish we were cinematographers shooting films as big as EPL... and when we see a product that does not satisfy our level of expectation, it is frustrating and I suppose that is the point.

I still can't believe the cinematography in Mama Mia!!... what the heck happened there?! I can tell you what... the cinematographer got an insane vision from the first time film director-previously stage director. It shows. It feels like a stage director making a first film. It's all over the place.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Whoa whoa whoa Futchibon! Easy buddy. :)

...
so I don't think comparing credits is a very worthwhile effort, nor a basis of who deserves an opinion and who does not.
Click to expand...

Even more ironic... using an IMDB stat which is anyone's guess as to what the 'rating' really means... especially on such specifics as 'cinematography'...

But on 'why'... since I'm not a pro... here's the question I'd ask... how much time (that is money for time) was given the cinematographer to analyze the script, and the production time... I could see for X mega bux, and 6-8 months prep time... coming up with 'average shots' would be a major disappointment... but if someone is given less than mega bux, a few weeks, perhaps just what the director came up with for shots and staging... when push comes to shove... go with the quickest, easiest, and thereby almost necessarily 'average' looking shots.

One of the reasons why I anticipate being the photographer on film (short film...) I make is I absolutely have no ability to sell someone into working harder for less or no money... I can do that for myself... but I've not been able to seduce others into
giving their time away for free to do more than 'the pay'... if there is pay at all... the projects I'm thinking of are not film projects... but I think the concepts transfer to my film projects...

So, any bad photography in my films will be my own damn fault...
 
It's always easier to judge from a safe hold. But, no circumstance is known from any of the mentioned pieces. Unfortunately, sometimes, it doesn't matter for critics; I am also guilty.

It's hard to make a bad movie, even more challenging a good one.

jClark - Good script and vision are tools to seduce anyone into becoming a part of your team! haha
 
Patryk, what exactly do you mean? The trailer looks really nice:

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2996176409/

Cmon, you may say "one woman's spiritual journey in search for self" but the sudios will say "Julia Roberts, rom com, high key lighting". Richardson has done a lot of dramatic stuff (JFK, CASINO, KILL BILL), but this is a big budget romantic comedy aimed at women.

Can you give us some examples of cutting edge high-key rom-com cinematography so we have more of an idea where you're coming from?

...and thus the inexperienced director killed the vibe of his own film, while a good director such as Miachel Mann in "The Insider" didn't. That said though maybe the DP is partially to blame because "The Insider" trying to be "unsophisticated" has exquisite lighting and framing.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're comparing these 2 films, a rom-com with a lousy script and a drma-thriller with a great script. It's like comparing SEVEN with AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
 
Last edited:
Well, I just watched the trailer (haven't seen the movie, don't intend to) and it looks like standard rom-com lighting/framing to me. Nor sure what you were expecting for this genre...

Rom-coms are pretty much on auto-pilot for the DP; they all look more or less the same.
 
I think what happened is all great visual potential got lost on inexperienced director or (and judging from DP's past experience i didn't think it was the case) he simply went on autopilot making assumptions about quality of the script/director and delivered just passable images.

Every film has potential to transcend apparent silliness of it's plot and become something bigger (as long as it's in hands of right people in right time).

This film just proves that no-matter how great of a DP you might be your work will be mediocre at best if you are dealing with mediocre talent (In this case mediocre director).
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I still can't believe the cinematography in Mama Mia!!... what the heck happened there?! I can tell you what... the cinematographer got an insane vision from the first time film director-previously stage director. It shows. It feels like a stage director making a first film. It's all over the place.
Click to expand...

You watched Mama Mia???
 
Michael B. McGee said:
You watched Mama Mia???
Click to expand...

Hahaha, yes.

It was a roller coaster ride for a fellow cinematographer to watch. You never knew when a ProMist3 would randomly come into a sequence or when a glimmerglass3 would be thrown in. The camera movement, placement, filtration and motivation was so random and ever-changing, it was really just a cluster-#$%& of cinematography. I found it quite exciting and I loved just bursting out into laughter when things went from crazy to insane.

The more I think of it, the more I like it because of how experimental and wild it truly was. I didn't think it was good, but it was refreshing to see the rule book thrown to the dogs and a filmmaker just do whatever the hell they want with zero feeling of consequence. :)
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Hahaha, yes.

It was a roller coaster ride for a fellow cinematographer to watch. You never knew when a ProMist3 would randomly come into a sequence or when a glimmerglass3 would be thrown in. The camera movement, placement, filtration and motivation was so random and ever-changing, it was really just a cluster-#$%& of cinematography. I found it quite exciting and I loved just bursting out into laughter when things went from crazy to insane.

The more I think of it, the more I like it because of how experimental and wild it truly was. I didn't think it was good, but it was refreshing to see the rule book thrown to the dogs and a filmmaker just do whatever the hell they want with zero feeling of consequence. :)
Click to expand...

SH*T! now, i might actually watch it......thanks???
 
Sometimes editing can have a dramatic effect on how the direction and cinematography feels to the audience. I'd say that you can't discount the ability of proper editing to make or break an otherwise perfectly OK movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top