in the end

HerzogisGod

HerzogisGod

Well-known member
no average, intelligent movie goer will give two bleeps about all the technical perfection we strive for. you got a great story? a really great story? can you tell it with at least some level of technical proficiency?

enough already with big hype end of the world, explosive babble. People want characters, personalities and predicaments they'll remember. Who gives a bleep about your latest, nifty adapter. Or how well you pull focus in a shot. who cares!

tell your story with the best equipment you can afford in the best way you know how. If your story is thoughtful, meaningful, and populated with memorable characters, then viewers and awards will come. Believe me, they will come.

if you could only have one: fame amongst your peers in the industry who do not put food on the table, or fame with a select public who understands you and pays to see your films, which would you prefer?
 
Last edited:
Some people don't need to master and practice English in order to write a good novel--but how many writers are truly that brand of genius? There are only a few born masters in the world--the rest of us have to hone our craft every day to master our story telling techniques. Many people on this forum (a camera forum), see stories visually--this camera movement means this, this rack focus means this...if you misplace one note on Mozart the whole piece is ruined...same goes with camera work, you mess up one shot, the whole piece can go to ****. Sure, the populace may not notice, but I'd rather win the minds of people down the road who notice and appreciate camera perfection rather than appease the crowd who easily forgets ones accomplishments. Money will always come--the satisfaction from a perfect rack focus or camera move is something that has no price, at least for me.
 
HerzogisGod said:
no average, intelligent movie goer will give two bleeps about all the technical perfection we strive for. you got a great story? a really great story? can you tell it with at least some level of technical proficiency?

enough already with big hype end of the world, explosive babble. People want characters, personalities and predicaments they'll remember. Who gives a bleep about your latest, nifty adapter. Or how well you pull focus in a shot. who cares!

tell your story with the best equipment you can afford in the best way you know how. If your story is thoughtful, meaningful, and populated with memorable characters, then viewers and awards will come. Believe me, they will come.

if you could only have one: fame amongst your peers in the industry who do not put food on the table, or fame with a select public who understands you and pays to see your films, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Well said. I concur.
 
Its just that i notice a lot of cold, sterile filmmaking; technically competent, but no real humanity or depth.

But it's the same in music. I never cared for Rush or Malmsteen or any other of those technically perfect bands. It's all flash and little substance

I always preferred Neil Young or Joy Division or Sonic Youth; sloppy, yet emotionally direct
 
Most people look at a Rembrandt and see a pretty picture, they may stare at it for a little while and move on to the next one. Even thought they may not appreciate the details of it, everyone who stares at a Rembrandt sees something special, there is something beautiful about it, the same sort of beauty we hear when we listen to Bach or Mozart.

Any art expert or composer will be able to pick out all the details and appreciate the way the harmony plays together in a piece, or the symbolism in a painting. But the fact of the matter is Mozart didn't write to impress some critic and Rembrandt didn't paint so a bunch of students in a classroom could circle jerk to him. Mozart probably knew that 90% of the people who listened to his music could care less about the details, they wanted something that sounded beautiful and meaningful and that is what he created. Stare into the eyes of a Rembrandt self portrait and tell me you don't see beauty, something more than just two dots of oil paint on a canvas. That is art and that is what we strive to create.

Yet this art is technically near perfect and the execution of it was enough to make any aspiring artist reconsider his career choice. I mean these men were masters of their craft and in my opinion I believe technical mastery goes hand in hand with artistic value. Art by nature is an attempt to achieve mastery of human imperfections. We create things that have value. Greek sculptures didn't just attack a piece of marble with their emotions, they created something that was more than just human, something that could stand the test of time.

Decades have passed since the dawn of cinema and look at the movies that we still watch today. Films like Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, and Bridge of the River Kwai aren't just watched because they had good stories and were good commercial successes. We watch them because they are special, because they are beautiful. Look at a list of the Academy Award winners in Best Picture and you'll find that almost all of them were shot by cinematographers who have gone on to win multiple Academy Awards. They are works of art. I don't give a damn that movie goers won't give two shi*s about my lens choice but I know god damn it that they will notice it and they will know if it was missing. These movies are as close to technically flawless as they get, and yet they could stand to be hung next to the Mona Lisa at the Louvre.

The reality is that I don't know any cinematographer who puts technical value over aesthetic value. Most of the time the two go hand in hand. Even the most sterile looking films are some of the most visually impacting. Hell look at a movie like Pineapple Express, Tim Orr did a beautiful job of creating a visual experience that no one would notice, but if you had put some television cameraman with a fancy high definition camcorder I'm sure everyone would have picked the Tim Orr version instead even though nobody knows who Tim Orr is. Look at any master cinematographer like Sven Nykvist, Conrad Hall, Nestor Almendros, and Gregg Toland, I don't think they would be caught dead making a movie that was out of focus or had sloppy lens choice.

This in my opinion is my definition of "technical perfection" (I've never been very good with words)
f_fanny_alexander.png

Fanny and Alexander
Dir. Ingmar Bergman
Photo Sven Nykvist
 
Last edited:
Beautiful shot Qzar !

Remember this a somewhat technical forum. Cinematography. Cinematographers should know their tools. What's available, how it's used. What's on the horizon. Backwards and forwards.

It's their job to technically make a director's vision happen. It's a job that very much requires aesthetic as well as technical prowess. Artistry and mechanics.
Eliminate the technical aspect and whose gonna get the director what he/she needs?

Are you speaking of someone maybe who is a producer/director/DP indie guerilla filmmaker? Then I could see what you're getting at. But some of us work with full crews where each contributor is expert in their specialization.

This might have been more appropriate for the Directing forum.
Or maybe not. Once and for all, yes story rules supreme.
 
Every detail, perhaps unnoticed adds to the mood and story. It is subconciously present and invokes emotion not otherwise equal had these cinematography aspects had been absent.

Your rant is completely valid for those who are simply spec geeks looking for more pixels and better cams... not focusing on story, mood, and craft. If you are in anyway referring to cinematography as an art, I would personally like to invite you to the flag pole after school.

Best,
-Ryan
 
Bergman's, "Passion of Anna" and "Cries and Whispers", two of my favorite Sven Nykvist works. This is the realm of genius.

I probably put this topic in the wrong category. "Directing" maybe, or "User Films"
 
Many of the technical things (like those nifty adapters) are also extra story-telling devices.

I would say that without a great story and script to begin with, there's not much point in the technicalities, but a great script can be destroyed, or at least prevented from achieving its full potential, if the technical side is not there to support the story/ mood/ script .

Being a super-geek like many on this site, I see how easy it is to get caught up in gear-whore mode and forget the big picture though, so I constantly have to bring myself down to earth and focus on the story being told, and how every aspect of this highly technical art we call filmmaking can support it.
 
A good story needs to be told well. How many true gangster films have been released yet Goodfellas remains consistently one of the highest rated? The camera work, music, and editing all definitely helped bring an audience into low-rank gangster life like no other film in history. Does it matter that I could probably write a 10 page paper explaining the awesomeness that is Goodfellas yet the average audience member couldn't? No, it only matters if they enjoyed the movie and maybe even took something from it.

Roger Deakins once said "The job of any Cinematographer is to help tell the story. Whatever the 'style' of the work, if the audience becomes 'aware of the images', or the techniques used in the making of the film, then the cinematography has failed."
 
I think it might depend on the type of story you are telling. But I am sure that Matrix would never have been such a huge hit had it been technically sloppy or shot on MiniDV.
Movies profit a lot from awesome pictures - of course the story and characters must not be bad or the whole thing is worthless. But add awesome cinematography/editing/post production to a good story with strong characters and there you have something that really grips the viewers - even most of them won't be able to say why they liked the pictures, they just do unconsciously!

As an example I noticed that my mother for instance can see (or feel) the difference between a well produced travel show (something she likes to watch the most) and a cheaply produced travel show. She can't say the camerawork was bad, or the editing was sloppy. But she does notice there's something not right with the cheaply produced show.
 
all true -

but technique and aesthetic vision improve "watchability" even when the content is not there - particularly in the new world of web. Style over substance sure - but don't knock what works:

http://vimeo.com/1737450

or am I wrong?
 
HerzogisGod said:
Its just that i notice a lot of cold, sterile filmmaking; technically competent, but no real humanity or depth.
Click to expand...
HerzogisGod said:

But it's the same in music. I never cared for Rush or Malmsteen or any other of those technically perfect bands. It's all flash and little substance

I always preferred Neil Young or Joy Division or Sonic Youth; sloppy, yet emotionally direct
Click to expand...


To have both qualities, technical and emotional is the ultimate goal. But is really in the eye of the beholder. To me Rush is the embodiment Emotions/Story telling with technical prowess and sonic youth is like listening to a badly tuned accordion accompanied by a herd of angry cats. Who is to say I'm correct? Listeners? Record sales? Music Critics? Other Bands?

I go with the principle that a good story is the start, but my abilities and knowledge as a cinematographer only empower me to do a better job of telling that story.

If "usual suspects" was shot on dvx100 with available lighting would I see that movie? Absolutely...

if the same movie was shot by the latest and the greatest technologies by someone who didnot know how to block, angle or move a camera? I wouldn’t waste my money.


 
Tabula Rasa Productions said:
Some people don't need to master and practice English in order to write a good novel--but how many writers are truly that brand of genius? There are only a few born masters in the world--the rest of us have to hone our craft every day to master our story telling techniques.
Click to expand...

What kind of "born master" are you referring to by the way? I can't think of anyone that was born with a grasp of every story telling technique and technical wizardry that doesn't have at least "some" learning to do.

Having great natural instincts is one thing, but gaining the technical knowledge and experience to execute those instincts is another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top