Wally Pfister calls The Avengers "...an appalling film". Thoughts?

refocusedmedia

refocusedmedia

Veteran
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...s-directorial-debut-is-a-sci-fi-film-20121017

Context:

Sitting down the Sarasota Herald Tribune, he was asked about what the most important element was when shooting a movie. "What’s really important is storytelling. None of it matters if it doesn’t support the story," he said. "I thought 'The Avengers' was an appalling film. They’d shoot from some odd angle and I’d think, why is the camera there? Oh, I see, because they spent half a million on the set and they have to show it off. It took me completely out of the movie. I was driven bonkers by that illogical form of storytelling."

An unpopular opinion, I'm sure, but he's not wrong. Is he?
 
refocusedmedia said:
An unpopular opinion, I'm sure, but he's not wrong. Is he?
Click to expand...

Wally Pfister's opinion is not the final say on anything, no matter his level of talent. Are you going to stop enjoying a film because some A-lister DP or director says they hated it? So what?

Nothing about the way The Avengers was shot distracted me (unlike, say, The Hunger Games, which was terribly shot from the get-go.). Perhaps on a second viewing, where I'm not in the popcorn flick enjoying mood I'd criticise more, but the film held my attention throughout. That's good enough for me.
 
It's one of those movies which rises above its shortcomings (I don't disagree that it had a number of them) to be a great, fun ride. In the end, that's probably all that matters.
 
As of late I have watched a number of bad movies. Hunger Games, Avengers, Underworld Awakening, Wrath of the Titans, Amazing Spiderman, John Carter, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, The Bourne Legacy, Prometheus, Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, I'm sure I'm forgetting some. The point is, no matter how many stars act in the film, or how beautifully the DP shot it, or how much money was thrown at it for production & post, it can still suck big time.
 
David nailed it.

David Jimerson said:
It's one of those movies which rises above its shortcomings
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who admires Joss Whedon for his composition or shot selection, but that doesn't mean his work has nothing to offer. Every filmmaker has shortcomings. Wally Pfister is one of the greatest cinematographers working today, and because of that he views every film in the way a cinematographer would. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought that Soderbergh's films were also 'appalling.' And they may be, visually, by some people's standards.

It will be curious to see how he makes the transition into directing.
 
It served it's purpose... To make money... Hollywood doesn't care about the artform its about profit. Why do you think we get so many superhero rehases a year anyway?
 
Luis Caffesse said:
David nailed it.

...he (Wally Pfister) views every film in the way a cinematographer would.
Click to expand...

And Luis nails the other big point.

Even *if* Pfister's observations are 100% correct, the vast majority of the audience does not have the specific skills requried to see what he's talking about.
 
dtjohns1 said:
It served it's purpose... To make money... Hollywood doesn't care about the artform its about profit. Why do you think we get so many superhero rehases a year anyway?
Click to expand...

Well that depends on whose purpose. I'd argue that its purpose was to entertain people, and I sure as hell was entertained. "Hollywood" doesn't make movies, they finance them. People make movies.
 
Last edited:
ya knoww....Ive seen two things over the past few months that have kind of resparked my passion for cinema and reminded me of whats possible:

the opening credits to "Do The Right Thing: PURE CINEMA, nothing like it since.

the elegant restraint, humanist touch, and multi-level dream reality of Takeshi Miikes Audition.

I dug the avengers, but I see where the guy is coming from.
 
It's an odd comment coming from a man who just lensed an as incompetently told story as The Dark Knight Rises. The Avengers had a far clearer (and more-importantly, engaging) narrative, better pacing, FAR superior action sequences (by a factor of x100), and generally provided a worthwhile tale.
 
Gary Huff said:
Wally Pfister's opinion is not the final say on anything
Click to expand...

That pretty much goes for anyone. We're all going to have an opinion and they will be varied. In this case Im siding with Wally, though I wouldnt say appalling.
 
I dont think anyone would call the Avengers artistic though, pretty sure he's talking about it purely from a film making level.
 
I kind of thought that the Hunger Games was inadequately shot too. Why the over use of hand held ECUs? Why not pull back once in a while and let the darn thing breath a little. Or better, do as Sidney Lumet suggests and wait to use the closeup until it will pay off by building to it. It was just odd given the scope of the production. Sometimes I think that this style of shooting is dictated by producers who want to make sure a feature film plays on an iPhone. It's sort of a shame really. Sorry if off topic, but I agree with Gary.. and I didn't see Avengers ;)
 
The over-the-top shaky cam at the beginning of The Hunger Games drove me nuts, but then things toned down and I got into the story.
 
The Hunger Games (or The Avengers, for the sake of sticking with the OP) were certainly not shot to my taste, either. With The Hunger Games I got the distinct impression while watching that it had been purposefully shot for a teenage audience, and I can only assume that was a conscious decision on the part of the director. I certainly wouldn't say that it was "terribly shot," though. That, to my mind, implies poor execution. I'm curious to learn what it was about the cinematography in The Hunger Games, or any other movie for that matter, that made it terrible.
 
I thought that parts of The Hunger Games were poorly shot, in that the execution was poor. The needless, non-action shaky cam sequences did nothing to support the story or enhance the experience. The thought that this style was an intentional choice is baffling.
 
So you think it was just laziness on the part of the director/dp? That I find hard to believe. They have reputations to uphold too.
 
I too found the Hunger Games poorly shot. In the beginning of the book, Katniss displays both a sense of being the pillar that holds her family together, and a very troubled individual. I think the camera work was meant to represent that sense of shakiness within herself, but it came up rather short. Even non film junkies were commenting at the screening I attended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top