Les Misérables: Wide Open Lenses and Lost Horizons

G

Gary Huff

Carbonite Member
I just got back from seeing this movie, and while I appreciated the technical development of capturing the vocals live on set, it seemed that the visuals took a step backward throughout the entire film.

First, the film was shot completely on a Steadicam. Tough for anyone to go for long takes, but even so, there was a lot of bad composition and breaking of the 180 degree rule. If you have three actors, cutting between three shots, it's unnerving to see them all scrunched up against the left side of the screen. There was also a lot of shots where the actors eyes were positioned near the top of the screen, cutting off about mid-forehead or even slightly lower.

On top of that, either Tom Hooper or Danny Cohen made the decision to shoot with wide-open lenses (and fast ones at that). Shot in 35mm, it had the shallow DOF I've seen from Full Frame cameras, and it was way too distracting. Anne Hathaway's big moment was ruined for me because you'd have her nose in focus, and the rest of her face dropping out of focus, and every time she would adjust her position a bit, she'd go completely out of focus, necessitating a focus pull. This happened far too often in her single shot moment at the beginning. Why the hell did someone okay the idea to shoot with fast primes wide open on a Steadicam rig for single take moments while the actors are also probably ad-libbing what they are doing? This led to a lot of focus hunting within shots, and there were entire shot lengths where the actor never came into focus. The constant need to adjust focus and focus hunting took me out of the moment, even during the great moments of the film. Setting the primes to f/3.5 or 4 isn't going to kill anyone, and gives your focus pullers a frickin' chance to get it right in that situation.

Then there were the dutch angles, completely unmotivated from what I could tell, and issues with the Steadicam operation where the horizon would constantly go off level (there was even a shot where the horizon starts to tilt and apparently the operator caught it and corrected suddenly, a very odd moment).

Frankly, it made me angry that it the cinematography was so poorly planned, as I found it consistently distracting. Normally I don't notice the technical issues unless the film isn't captivating, but this time it was like the technical issues were so in my face (probably exacerbated by the Sony 4K projection at the Alamo) that I couldn't help but notice, and it consistently took me out of the story.

A shame because the opening shot is so amazing.
 
Gary Huff said:
On top of that, either Tom Hooper or Danny Cohen made the decision to shoot with wide-open lenses (and fast ones at that). Shot in 35mm, it had the shallow DOF I've seen from Full Frame cameras, and it was way too distracting. Anne Hathaway's big moment was ruined for me because you'd have her nose in focus, and the rest of her face dropping out of focus, and every time she would adjust her position a bit, she'd go completely out of focus, necessitating a focus pull. This happened far too often in her single shot moment at the beginning. Why the hell did someone okay the idea to shoot with fast primes wide open on a Steadicam rig for single take moments while the actors are also probably ad-libbing what they are doing? This led to a lot of focus hunting within shots, and there were entire shot lengths where the actor never came into focus. The constant need to adjust focus and focus hunting took me out of the moment, even during the great moments of the film. Setting the primes to f/3.5 or 4 isn't going to kill anyone, and gives your focus pullers a frickin' chance to get it right in that situation.
Click to expand...

I saw a non-iMax presentation, and while I noticed the extensive use of steady/shallow cam... I was almost going to expect a replay of my response to "Beasts of the Southern Wild"(2012), and get motion sick 20 minutes in... the steady cam seemed to even out more after the initial setting sail... as it were...

On the shallow DoF... I noticed that a lot, but from where I was sitting, back wall of the theater, where I usually sit, reasonably 'normal' sized screen, a lot of the shots had Anne Hathaway's 'front' eye sharp (albeit a bit grainy.) but the DoF falloff was quite quick and the further eye out of focus. As for noses, I noticed a lot of soft noses, but sharp on the eye/eyes depending on the angle.

Could be if you saw an iMax presentation, the expected circle of confusion, which relates to DoF could have been different...

As for adlibbing... Don't know if that was done much, since the singing was 'live recorded', which in my mind would necessitate non-adlibbed lines, and marks, since the mics would have to be 'close' to get the quality of recording.

The other thought is that due to the 'live recording', if a vocalization was 'good' but the 'visual' had some 'minor flaw', the choice may have been to go with the good audio, rather than try to sync up the audio with a shot that was visually better.

I probably won't see it again until just before the Oscars and at one of the Oscar marathons, such as the AMC chain's 'Best Picture Showcase' programs.
 
I really enjoyed the cinematography. It felt more visceral and authentic to me, not the tack-sharp sterile presentation you so often see. The camera felt more connected to the characters, and less like they were performing in front of it. I realize some didn't appreciate the style.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Could be if you saw an iMax presentation, the expected circle of confusion, which relates to DoF could have been different...
Click to expand...

Actually, I take back mentioning Sony 4k, because the tag wasn't in front of the presentation, so probably just a 35mm print at the Alamo.

As for adlibbing... Don't know if that was done much, since the singing was 'live recorded', which in my mind would necessitate non-adlibbed lines, and marks, since the mics would have to be 'close' to get the quality of recording.
Click to expand...

Boom mic operators would follow them, just like the Steadicam operators would. I cannot imagine that the actors were properly hitting their marks, because if they were then the fault lies solely with the focus pullers. I give the focus pullers credit that they weren't ready for certain actions and thus the "hunting focus" problem.

The other thought is that due to the 'live recording', if a vocalization was 'good' but the 'visual' had some 'minor flaw', the choice may have been to go with the good audio, rather than try to sync up the audio with a shot that was visually better.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you that, but still, if I had been asked, I would have said to pull back some (there were wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many close ups for the big screen, which also resulting in some "hunting action" kind of moments) and close up a bit to give the focus pullers a chance to nail it correctly on more takes.
 
Chris Adler said:
I really enjoyed the cinematography. It felt more visceral and authentic to me, not the tack-sharp sterile presentation you so often see.
Click to expand...

I see this explanation from filmmakers a lot ("we wanted it to feel 'rough' and like you're really there", ect.) and it always strikes me as a euphemism for "we ****ed up, but won't admit it."
 
It's certainly not the shallowest DOF I've ever seen, and the sensor is not 'full frame' in the true sense anyway - it's super 35.

If the movie had been lit and shot like 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' or 'The Dark Knight Rises' then I would have not had as much issue with the focus hunting and the pulling in general. But it wasn't. It was an epic period piece. I didn't necessarily mind the constant steadicam, but I did mind some of the average composition. The lack of any head room, or at times too much head room, with an actor's eyes anywhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of the way down the screen. In a gritty movie, sure. Not in Les Miserables.

I thought it was an otherwise great movie, but the camera department let me down. I was pulled out of Anne Hathaway's powerhouse 'I Dreamed a Dream' because her nose was in focus, not her eyes. Eddie Redmayne's soft, emotional 'Empty Chairs at Empty Tables' was let down by the fact that he was soft, his ear becoming the center of attention. And then we cut out of that shot, and he's still soft. Shots were Russel Crowe's ears, and the back half of his head were in focus, but his eyes and the front of his head soft. There were shots were everything was completely soft. Did they use soft takes because of the performance..? Or was there not one sharp take of some shots? Surely there were sharp takes..

It baffled me, and I can't understand it. I can even accept some of the compositional issues (although, the scene towards the end with Hugh and Eddie in a bland, ugly, grey room with completely grey walls and then we cut to Hugh and 3/4 of the screen is filled by this ugly grey wall behind him was ridiculous..), but the Focus Pulling was ridiculous. I can accept a few shots, but I went to see it again, because I like the movie and I figured I was probably exaggerating the focus issues, and on the second viewing I picked up more out of focus moments. I don't think 5 minutes of movie went by without an out of focus shot.

I'm not sure whether to blame the 14 Focus Pullers (I counted in the credits ;)), a possible lack of rehearsal coupled with actor's freedom of movement and steadicam, or something else..

I understand whacking on a 100mm and opening up to T1.3, I do. I've done it myself. But not at the expense of a soft image.
 
Last edited:
I hate shallow depth of field. I hate hand held or odd angled shots. I hate focus throws.

I loved the movie. I loved the look. I loved everything above that I usually hate.

Why? Simple! It was done very well, it had style and it matched exactly the feel of the story, and the period.

It's not mechanics, it's art!

When the art is poor, the mechanics show - and this is what so many of us hate.

The story grips, the images are stunning, and after a few minutes, the hand-held wobbly stuff just draws you in. No doubt a gamble, but I think it worked!
 
Liam Hall said:
That is simply not true. Not even close to true. In fact, it is so far away from true, I can't take any of your other points seriously.
Click to expand...

Oh, please, spare me your melodrama. Not worded well I will admit, but to say it's not even close to true is seriously wrong. And besides, so what? The movie focus hunts and is poorly composed visually. Whether it was heavily shot on Steadicam or dolly crane (did you even see the movie? It's pretty evident that a lot of it was Steadicam) it doesn't change that.
 
Chris Adler said:
Gary, your view of the role of cinematography must be very narrow then.
Click to expand...

It is very narrow. Film is a visual storytelling medium, thus cinematography's primary purpose is to help tell the story visually. If you're composing shots and crafting the look of the film just to look cool or because of some b.s. explanation that has nothing to do with helping tell the story, then it's a failure in my opinion.

The visual choices in this film did nothing to enhance the story, and instead presented technically poor images which I personally found distracting from the good choices that had been made otherwise. The shallow DOF look did nothing to help me focus on the performances. There was nothing to direct my eye away from.
 
Liam Hall said:
If you make a statement like that it undermines all of your other points - that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you are unclear on how this works, so allow me to enlighten you: it only undermines my points if my points hinge on my poorly-worded statement. That's like saying if I made a mistake in some post somewhere on here (of which I'm sure you could find many), that it undermines ever post of mine thereforth. I would hope you don't think in that manner, because that would be really ignorant to do so.

So, if you could be specific, is your opinion that the movie was in focus and the shots properly composed? That there was no focus hunting going on? Because that was the meat of my original post, and if you agree with the basic problem I had with the visuals, regardless of how much was Steadicam, then you are simply trolling me because I rub you the wrong way, which isn't very mature.
 
Gary, I'm not a troll and I'm perfectly clear on how this all works.

Not every artistic, stylistic or technical choice is going to meet with universal approval, I don't have a problem with you not liking the direction or cinematography of the film. I do have a problem with you making statements that are patently untrue to support your argument. I also have a problem with your notion that somehow the director, DoP or camera crew screwed-up. Every choice of composition, depth of field, focus, camera movement, equipment and everything else that happened on set was exactly that, a choice. Those choices were made by professionals at the top of their game. You may not like their choices, but to say that the cinematography was "poorly planned" then suggest that they "poo pooed up, but won't admit it," is way out of line.
 
I don't see it that way. They watch the dailies, they see the problems, and yet they stuck with their choice. That is a poo poo-up in my opinion. A poor choice at the very least. All they had to do was pull out a bit and stop down. It only gets better visually from that, and the movie is not dependent on out-of-focus and super shallow DOF to assist the story.

And there is absolutely no need for Dutch angles in this kind of film. This is not "Hunter S. Thompson's Les Mis".
 
Liam Hall said:
Gary, I'm not a troll and I'm perfectly clear on how this all works.

Not every artistic, stylistic or technical choice is going to meet with universal approval, I don't have a problem with you not liking the direction or cinematography of the film. I do have a problem with you making statements that are patently untrue to support your argument. I also have a problem with your notion that somehow the director, DoP or camera crew screwed-up. Every choice of composition, depth of field, focus, camera movement, equipment and everything else that happened on set was exactly that, a choice. Those choices were made by professionals at the top of their game. You may not like their choices, but to say that the cinematography was "poorly planned" then suggest that they "poo pooed up, but won't admit it," is way out of line.
Click to expand...

This is an online community. The posts reflects opinions, not facts (That's what Wikipedia is for right ;-) ) - So even if not every post begins with "My opinion on this matter is..", one do best assuming that is the case - As 99% of the time it is. Don't we all pull Reids all the time and state our opinions as facts - Even though our intention is only to express what we believe is true? I don't feel the need to pull quotes to demonstrate but looking at your own posts you will find both the one and the other belief or assumption presented as a direct statement.

I don't like to be pulling this mini-lecture but try to come at everyone's posts from a different angle and you'll find that most of the time they are not as 'Way out of line' as you may think.
 
Gary Huff said:
I don't see it that way. They watch the dailies, they see the problems, and yet they stuck with their choice. That is a poo poo-up in my opinion. A poor choice at the very least. All they had to do was pull out a bit and stop down. It only gets better visually from that, and the movie is not dependent on out-of-focus and super shallow DOF to assist the story.

And there is absolutely no need for Dutch angles in this kind of film. This is not "Hunter S. Thompson's Les Mis".
Click to expand...

As I said, it's fine that you don't like their choices. But that is what they are, choices. They are not "problems". They are not mistakes. It's not happenstance that the focus is off here, shallow there. It's like that because they wanted it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top