Tangentially, I was reminded of an interview with Polanski, it was extra material on the Repulsion or Knife in the Water DVD, can't remember which, where he said that he always has an idea of what he wants to shoot, but keeps a very keen eye on where the actor or situation takes him. So for example, he may have had one idea of how to frame something, but then the actor does something or the situation suddenly prompts Polanski to change up what he was going to do, because it's more organic with the developing scene. This is in contrast with a director like Kubrick, who has a carefully planned and predetermined idea about framing/blocking and then simply tries - even if it lasts 50 takes - until he gets his pre-planned vision on film. Come to think of it, I wonder if James has that feeling of "a bit bored when every shot is the best shot and every scene is the best scene" in a Kubrick film, like Clockwork Orange where it's a very deliberate approach. At the other extreme, there are those directors who believe in the free-flow organic spontaneous so much that they barely plan any shots at all, and just improvise everything on the spot - sometimes the results are great, but often miss. I like the Polanski in-between approach, where you plan and know what you want but are always open to change up if the situation dictates it. I also think it might - perhaps - have something to do with how the director sees actors. Polanski started out as a child actor, and continued to act both in his own films and others, and also on stage, so he was pretty attuned to what an actor is doing. Altman was famously actor-centric, and he'd allow the actors pretty big improv range, and would accommodate that in shooting. By contrast, Hitchcock had a very utilitarian view of actors, to him they were almost props to be placed and he was far more interested in how the camera and editing shaped the viewer experience. It all works, as long as you got a great artist working, so any style can be successful.
Sicario
- Thread starter OldCorpse
- Start date
combatentropy
Veteran
Polanski is quite a character. On the one hand he is very simple. He often uses just a couple of focal lengths for his entire films. And in his own words about choosing an angle: "I put the camera where I stand. I stand and watch the action. I will stand and look at what happens. And then I'm just trying to film it the way I saw it. It's simple."
But according to the director of photography for Rosemary's Baby, Polanski could also choose a specific, stylized camera angle at times.
But according to the director of photography for Rosemary's Baby, Polanski could also choose a specific, stylized camera angle at times.
Last edited:
Bang on! That is exactly what I'm talking about, when I criticised the "on the nose" framing and setups - framing is an artistic choice, and you can exert enormous control over the material with appropriate framing and blocking, and it speaks to a poor imagination when you see this entirely neglected and resort to boring by the numbers on the nose choices.
combatentropy
Veteran
Oh. Wasn't that the film that won the Award for Best Bokeh?
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Bahaha! Probably! It was a pretty straight forward film, except for that one scene.
G
Guest
Guest
I have been meaning to come back to this post, but got busy with work and life.
Let's delve in, though i am sure i have no true revalations, just a point of view.
i have been on the kodak max8 film and Hateful eight 70mm film threads mostly these past few days, and the same is true of the medium and many orher things. A strange phenomena, don't you think? If we acheive perfection, we become boring or worse... Irrelevant. At my college in China, teachers would teach students how to impart a sense of character and imperfection into art work. This idea of imperfection being more enjoyable or attractive spans so many things. Difficult to say when good starts and ends. But i find it interesting that in art forms as old as those like Chinese painting, that a dose of imperfection is preferred.
yes, i think most viewers have seen enough films to know when something is trying too hard. When "Traffic" came out, it was very good style, but i feel like if you did it now, it would potentially come off as trying too hard, or worse, sattire. Just like James Bond films have to be careful not to be Austin Powers films, so stylistic films can't use too much style.
ok, i think we are on the same page here. I see what you mean. But so many films give me the same vibe, i have learned to just "block" it out. Pun intended! Haha
A quick side bar, i believe it is very difficult to be imperfect these days. The kinds of glitches and bad edits that make 70's and 30's films hypnotic, have no place in our current style, since there is no excuse. They work well in short web films by amatures, but imperfection is very difficult to do in this current era. So, even professionals blocking normally, is safe or bad, even. I perhaps enjoyed the boring blocking because it shed light that all of the conetent of the film, was infact stuff that happens everyday, and is very normal, no hype, just things that we are not used to, so the lack of hype or excentuation, the mundane and boring blocking, was infact something i enjoyed in the context. Not saying that was intentional, just saying i liked it. Not all of it, but there were moments of "genius", intentional or not, and they weren't the parts that everyone loved. But, i also agree with you, because there were moments i wondered if they were just tired and getting through the day.
in general, i know what you mean! 100% behind you on this! The entire bar to attempted assasination of Emily's character was like that for me.
hell yeah!
again, 100%! I believe we are in an era of refining the film making process. Most people are more concerned with refining and perfecting then they are with shifting the paradigm. So, on the one hand we have very astute viewers, but may also have formulaic film makers. You can't do Hitchcock exactly like hitchcock, because it is formulaic these days. "Birds" was very difficult to watch objectively for me, because it was just so predictable. My mother alwayds told me how scary that film was.
You are starting to sound like my teachers telling students how to perfect imperfection and thereby be perfect. I chide. That is hopefully taken lightly, as i am aware i am taking you out of context here.
i will keep the rest of your words together, as to keep context and not cherry pick logic from here on out. I am afterall, enjoying hearing your perspective and feel i am learning from it.Firstly, don't see meet Joe Black, haha, pretty boring film except for one long scene, which was a mini film in itself, but i meant that as in, i occasionally enjoy things like that, to give context as to why i could enjoy something else like that. Ugh, i sound dumb. Haha.the opposite of subtle. But yes, I can fully see the kind of film you are criticizing - the way calculated, slick, every frame perfect film... especially when the DP goes crazy and every set up is like a perfect postcard, where style overwhelms content, and there is no room to breathe and no room for anything spontaneous and subtle. However, these are not the only choices - on the one extreme the overworked film, and on the other extreme the slop-fest... so you say: blend. But I don't think blend is the answer, rather it's ART at the highest level, which is why I said it sets the bar very high: the film that achieves that free and spontaneous, breathing and subtle effect, but through artistry and not through actual mistakes-we-don't-give-a-rip-we're-so-free. The answer to overly calculated is not amateurish blunders, but effects achieved through artistry. Part of that is achieved through pacing, and story, but technique is of course in service of that - a scene may call for a lingering camera, or off center framing or whatnot. Very interesting thoughts, James, and now I want to see Meet Joe Black
Knowing how the audience will react is tough, because the audience evolves. Redoing hitchcock would be boring, and even formulaic, not perfection. So, these days there is so much reverse reverse revers psychology needed to make a film that surprises viewers, it gets very confusing. I think the decisions become more difficult if you are teying to reach mass audiences, because you want to be edgy without losing the less astute to film tricks. I shot with Chris Angel once, and it was alkost insulting, haha, wished there were more to his tricks, made me almost prefer the magicians i saw in sunday school with fake thumbs and hats with false bottoms, because you could just enjoy the show, you knew it was fake, there was know pretention. With Scicario, i can see it as being a bit of Chris Angel, where it is trying to be so serious it becomes a spoof. Here is expert film making that is pretty much formula by now... Not so fun. But just like a good pop song by Taylor Swift, i don't always hate formula. If you are trying to be edgy, you are going to gravitate to experimental bands like Portland based duo "Golden Retriever", if you just want to listen to something not offensive... Taylor Swift ftw. She not Cool enough, how about some Drake? Up to the listener really. Perhaps it is easier in our culture to except boring and crafted to idiocy music becausenit is something we can put on in the background, whereas in our culture a film is an experience that is suppose to thrill. Especially in USA culture it is very base on Nickelodian and industrial like extraveganzas... Come on, get your ticket to the greatest show on earth! Come be wowed and experience a thrilling ride! Step up, by your ticket!
Will end the tangent there. And continue another one...
But there is this idea, that if we weren't transported, that the film was bad. I hope that i am intelligent enough to know that if i see a train on a screen coming for me, i do not need to leave my seat, yet when a film maker causes me to leave the world of the film, i get upset. Why? How did the film maker know i was too smart for that old trick? C'mon Chris Angel, you aren't levetating! So, the question has to be asked, in this intellegent age, what is a good film? Are we too smart? Are films too formulaic? Or not perfect enough? Hard to say with mass media. Too many people to placate or serve.
There was a film that killed off Steven Segal very early on, was that good film making? I don't know, i always hated the fact that Segal wasn't in it but a few minutes. Sucked. Didn't see it coming, still sucked. And when Ford died in JJ's star wars? We didn't exactly see it coming, but it still sucked. Was interesting how they shot that, such a chilling moment, very gross, but they just kept it real nonchalant. Yeah, he dead, let's fight. Good film making? Or not meeting my expectations? We are all so educated and have so many options, it is very easy to nit pick, so i may have mot like emily blunt being cast for the role, though i think she did well, despite being cast, and i pretty much hated the entire part of her attempted assasination, but the tone and vibe of the film was good to me. The music slept under my bed that night. The dryness/also formulaic-ness of the blocking and cinematography belied the sick violence of the world it was trying to portray. So, i forgave the one part i hated, and i always enjoy watching mizz blunt's persona on screen, as well as the other stars.
fortunately for me, i have not watched tv for almost two years, so i never saw the film advertised, and knew nothing aboutnit until i bought the tocket to... Sss sc are? Reee? Oh? Much to the bemusement of the 20something year old at the Arclight. So, i had zero expectations. I didn't even kmow who was in it till the film started, because i read the text at the ticket counter and never looked closely at the poster. I really enjoy seeing films without the context of the advertsing. Something i was more able to do in China than in the US. Luckily i do not watch TV these days, so many films i see are now at face value.
G
Guest
Guest
I feel like i get what you said, but its meaning escapes me. Both the English and Latin? The whole things sounds very interesting, i just can't quite get the meaning.
What I mean is that you can argue about facts regarding an artwork and have someone be absolutely right or wrong - for example, how many set ups there are in a given film, where the camera is, the lighting scheme, colors employed etc. - these are objective facts, which can be ascertained, therefore there is objective "truth" to them. But when it comes to evaluate the aesthetic impact of something, things go murky very quickly; there is some research indicating that human beings across cultures have some inherent concepts of beauty... for example, humans everywhere, regardless of culture find symmetrical features in a face more pleasing than asymmetrical, and even barely born infants look at what are generally regarded as attractive faces longer than those which are regarded as less attractive (and infants have as yet no culture); there is speculation as to why that is (f.ex. symmetrical features may indicate good development in the womb indicating greater fitness through better genes, which evolution selects for in our biological response to "attractive mate"). So there is some indication that certain biases may exists for humans to find some things more beautiful than others. However, there is also no doubt that culture, society and individual personality have a tremendous impact too. Therefore once you leave arguments about objective facts aside, and start talking about the aesthetic merits of a work of art, you leave the world of objectivity and you are left with purely subjective impact, where there is no objective right and wrong, so you cannot argue about it. "There are 1000 set ups in this film" "No, only 959" - objectively True or False - we can therefore argue about it and one of us is going to be right. But "I like the color red" vs "I like blue" cannot be argued about, because there is no right or wrong. In latin "de gustibus non est disputandum" simply means that taste cannot be argued over. I found the film "Carol" very poor - didn't like it at all. Bob loved it. Nothing to argue about - matter of taste. What I can do is give reasons why I think Carol was a bad movie: interesting subject matter, lovely sets and costumes, good actors - but lousy script, I found the dialogue tremendously banal and superficial and basically a lost opportunity, and the director's languidly paced camera movements merely made the tedium more annoying and languorous, rather than imparting any depth or melancholy as he was trying to do. Well, Bob liked the camera movements and found that they support the mood - nothing to argue over. I gave my reasons, he gave his, but we reached a point of "red" vs "blue", and nothing to argue over. What we can argue over is if I said "here and here are mistakes in costumes and props because that's not how these details were in the 50's" and I'd either be objectively right or wrong.
It's a way of saying: I gave my opinion of Sicario, and gave reasons for my opinions. Insofar as there is a matter of taste, I can't and have no interest in trying to argue for people to like or not like the film. Tastes change, and the reputation of a work of art can change with the passage of time - I think Sicario is held in pretty high regard today, even some claim Oscar material - it is my contention that it will not stand the test of time, as ultimately it's merely an OK film, nothing special, and its reputation will decline in time... and I'll either be right or wrong on that too
It's a way of saying: I gave my opinion of Sicario, and gave reasons for my opinions. Insofar as there is a matter of taste, I can't and have no interest in trying to argue for people to like or not like the film. Tastes change, and the reputation of a work of art can change with the passage of time - I think Sicario is held in pretty high regard today, even some claim Oscar material - it is my contention that it will not stand the test of time, as ultimately it's merely an OK film, nothing special, and its reputation will decline in time... and I'll either be right or wrong on that too
G
Guest
Guest
Fantastic! Well said, and a very good read! Will probably read it again. Thank you for such a thoughtful response, i am with you now.What I mean is that you can argue about facts regarding an artwork and have someone be absolutely right or wrong - for example, how many set ups there are in a given film, where the camera is, the lighting scheme, colors employed etc. - these are objective facts, which can be ascertained, therefore there is objective "truth" to them. But when it comes to evaluate the aesthetic impact of something, things go murky very quickly; there is some research indicating that human beings across cultures have some inherent concepts of beauty... for example, humans everywhere, regardless of culture find symmetrical features in a face more pleasing than asymmetrical, and even barely born infants look at what are generally regarded as attractive faces longer than those which are regarded as less attractive (and infants have as yet no culture); there is speculation as to why that is (f.ex. symmetrical features may indicate good development in the womb indicating greater fitness through better genes, which evolution selects for in our biological response to "attractive mate"). So there is some indication that certain biases may exists for humans to find some things more beautiful than others. However, there is also no doubt that culture, society and individual personality have a tremendous impact too. Therefore once you leave arguments about objective facts aside, and start talking about the aesthetic merits of a work of art, you leave the world of objectivity and you are left with purely subjective impact, where there is no objective right and wrong, so you cannot argue about it. "There are 1000 set ups in this film" "No, only 959" - objectively True or False - we can therefore argue about it and one of us is going to be right. But "I like the color red" vs "I like blue" cannot be argued about, because there is no right or wrong. In latin "de gustibus non est disputandum" simply means that taste cannot be argued over. I found the film "Carol" very poor - didn't like it at all. Bob loved it. Nothing to argue about - matter of taste. What I can do is give reasons why I think Carol was a bad movie: interesting subject matter, lovely sets and costumes, good actors - but lousy script, I found the dialogue tremendously banal and superficial and basically a lost opportunity, and the director's languidly paced camera movements merely made the tedium more annoying and languorous, rather than imparting any depth or melancholy as he was trying to do. Well, Bob liked the camera movements and found that they support the mood - nothing to argue over. I gave my reasons, he gave his, but we reached a point of "red" vs "blue", and nothing to argue over. What we can argue over is if I said "here and here are mistakes in costumes and props because that's not how these details were in the 50's" and I'd either be objectively right or wrong.
It's a way of saying: I gave my opinion of Sicario, and gave reasons for my opinions. Insofar as there is a matter of taste, I can't and have no interest in trying to argue for people to like or not like the film. Tastes change, and the reputation of a work of art can change with the passage of time - I think Sicario is held in pretty high regard today, even some claim Oscar material - it is my contention that it will not stand the test of time, as ultimately it's merely an OK film, nothing special, and its reputation will decline in time... and I'll either be right or wrong on that too
combatentropy
Veteran
Oscar nominations anounced. Sicario is nominated for Best Cinematography, Music, and Sound Editing --- but not Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor, or Actress.
I've seen all the films nominated for Oscar in cinematography. Of those, The Revenant is far and away the best cinematography - by leagues, no contest. UNFORTUNATELY, it would mean a THIRD Oscar in a row for Emmanuel Lubezki - somehow I suspect politics would prevent that, even though by merit and rights this is his clearly and obviously, given the other nominations. We'll see. Maybe Sicario can get the Oscar in Music as the whole category this year doesn't seem to have any strong standouts for original score, but to me, Sicario is merely adequate musically (actually that's a huge compliment, because it's so rare to hear good music in films nowadays, so "adequate" is high praise).
combatentropy
Veteran
Hey, Emmanuel Lubezki did Meet Joe Black, mentioned earlier.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I called it.
You might be right, I'm seeing it at the weekend. Really like what I've seen so far.
You called it for "camera work" - which is not one and the same thing as cinematography. The director plans the camera movement, the DP lights it. A DP might (and often does) do the blocking and camera placement, but that's something that only a totally hands off (or non technical) director does - it would be inconceivable for say, Hitchcock or Polanski, or Kubrick or whoever to defer to the DP for that... so on a case by case basis - I have no idea whether in the case of Sicario it was the DP or the director - either way, it was abysmal. The lighting itself as is traditionally understood for cinematography would be the focus for the Academy and maybe there Sicario could snag an Oscar for Deakins, since if you are not going to give it yet again to Lubezki, well, everybody likes Deakins and that's a safe choice. Oh, and btw. speaking of camera work, The Revenant is heads and shoulders (and feet) above Sicario.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Oh come on... ...what did you think I meant? Have you ever seen an oscar for 'camera work'?
Of course, it's always a collaboration of varying degrees. But, yes, a hands-on director like Kubrick would have a vast input into the cinematography. I disagree with you that the shot-making was abysmal on Sicario, but we won't go over that again except to say that Deakins would have had a huge input on much of the camera choreography.
Bottom line is, awards for this type of thing are kind of silly. Many people will have picked up an award that was really someone else's work. And many have had their work ruined by an over-zealous talentless director...
I'd say everybody likes Lubezki since he's won twice on the spin and Deakins has been nominated and lost countless times.
You might be right, I'll see at the weekend.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
Generally I ascribe camerawork to the director and lighting to the cinematographer.
Fine, if you meant cinematography by "camera work", then you called it. That said, I would never conflate the two - you make it sound like only a very "hands on" director would bother blocking and placing the camera, which is really not so. Geez, even a quick spin on ye olde google gives us this as the first result for "camera blocking":
"Blocking a motion picture involves the precise synchrony and movement of the actors in relation to camera and lights. The director is the one responsible for blocking. He must guide the cast to accommodate his vision for the arrangement or composition of the frame." [my bold]
Any director that bothers with the visual side of film will insist on structuring the shot insofar as camera placement, movement, and so on, and then the DP lights it. In fact the opposite is true - only a truly hands off director will relegate everything to do with the camera to the DP. As to Kubrick it's again going even further - because Kubrick would actually have heavy input into the strictly lighting side of the DP work, never mind the camera placement. Now, often there is as you put it "collaboration" between the director and the DP on f.ex. picking lenses for any given shot, though again, directors like Polanski, Kubrick, Hitchcock etc. would have total control here too. In any case, I think most people understand the distinction between lighting which is the purview of the DP and the camera movement which is the purview of the director (although role swapping is common) - which is why people point out Brian de Palma's spinning camera in Body Double and not the DP's spinning camera, while when they talk about lighting they do mention it as the work of the DP.
Regardless, my criticism of Sicario was focused on the camera placement, framing and movement. I made a very clear point about that aspect, lighting being a separate issue. I thought the camera aspect of Sicario sucked hard. And I'd say the same thing whether it was the director or Deakins who was responsible in this case.
Edit: Oh, and speaking of Oscars - the documentary I HIGHLY AND STRONGLY recommended in this thread "Cartel Land" was nominated for Documentary Feature - I say, you'll do yourself a favor by seeing this, particularly if you are a fan of Sicario - it is everything Sicario should have been but was not - it explores the drug war with penetrating insight, it is as real as real gets - no lamo Hollywood pretensions, fantastic real-life footage of actual raids and shootouts, real-life interrogations of suspects, intimate portraits of people on all sides, amazing real-life night footage including night-vision and so on. It represents a slap in the face to lightweight and sloppy fare like Sicario. Highly, highly recommended. I hope they win.
"Blocking a motion picture involves the precise synchrony and movement of the actors in relation to camera and lights. The director is the one responsible for blocking. He must guide the cast to accommodate his vision for the arrangement or composition of the frame." [my bold]
Any director that bothers with the visual side of film will insist on structuring the shot insofar as camera placement, movement, and so on, and then the DP lights it. In fact the opposite is true - only a truly hands off director will relegate everything to do with the camera to the DP. As to Kubrick it's again going even further - because Kubrick would actually have heavy input into the strictly lighting side of the DP work, never mind the camera placement. Now, often there is as you put it "collaboration" between the director and the DP on f.ex. picking lenses for any given shot, though again, directors like Polanski, Kubrick, Hitchcock etc. would have total control here too. In any case, I think most people understand the distinction between lighting which is the purview of the DP and the camera movement which is the purview of the director (although role swapping is common) - which is why people point out Brian de Palma's spinning camera in Body Double and not the DP's spinning camera, while when they talk about lighting they do mention it as the work of the DP.
Regardless, my criticism of Sicario was focused on the camera placement, framing and movement. I made a very clear point about that aspect, lighting being a separate issue. I thought the camera aspect of Sicario sucked hard. And I'd say the same thing whether it was the director or Deakins who was responsible in this case.
Edit: Oh, and speaking of Oscars - the documentary I HIGHLY AND STRONGLY recommended in this thread "Cartel Land" was nominated for Documentary Feature - I say, you'll do yourself a favor by seeing this, particularly if you are a fan of Sicario - it is everything Sicario should have been but was not - it explores the drug war with penetrating insight, it is as real as real gets - no lamo Hollywood pretensions, fantastic real-life footage of actual raids and shootouts, real-life interrogations of suspects, intimate portraits of people on all sides, amazing real-life night footage including night-vision and so on. It represents a slap in the face to lightweight and sloppy fare like Sicario. Highly, highly recommended. I hope they win.
Last edited:
Batutta
Major Contributor
I actually felt the complete opposite from Old Corpse. I thought the directing and cinematography elevated a script that wasn't all that great. This subject matter is inherently compelling, but this story was not, at least the way they chose to tell it. This director has a very sparse, stripped down style. Some people might call it boring. Compared to how overly busy most movies are these days, I find it refreshing. But for some reason they chose to tell the story from the point of view of the least interesting character. I don't think the problem is Emily Blunt. She was fine. Her character just never once was in command of the story. I kept waiting for her to get on top of it, but she was a useless pawn, which was the whole point, but then why make her the lead? Her character had no real impact on anything that happened. A protagonist should move the story forward. I've made this point often, in other reviews, but it's such a basic storytelling lesson I see too many films ignore.
Last edited: