War Horse=Bad Cinematography

I haven't seen the film yet, but if you look at the lighting is nearly all of Spielberg's films that are aimed at a younger crowd, you'll notice a lot of it. Hook, AI, and the newest Indiana Jones certainly come to mind. There are a lot of scenes that are overlit and obviously don't use "universal" lighting (one basic setup for a scene that just requires tweaks between shots), along with having unrealistic sets. You can notice it to a lesser extent in Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds, especially in the night scenes. It doesn't really bother me most of the time, and his harder-hitting stories are completely devoid of this. I just call it "Spielberg lighting".
 
Personally, I don't find anything Spielberg does as realistic, that doesn't mean he makes bad movies it means that his movies yield mega bucks because entertainment sells. People say SPR is realistic.... but have they seen combat.... is the story actually true... no it is not! If the movie does well at the box office that is all that really maters. I want to see it because I personally know of a like story that I was planning on writing a script about.... I probably won't like WH but as with much of his work it is entertaining.
 
Saw the film Christmas Day. I'm not the most knowledgable on lighting in cinematography but there was definitely a 50s/60s feel to the first half of the film. There were hints of "The Quiet Man" and "Darby O'Gill and the Little People". The end had a similar "Gone with the Wind" artificial studio look, as the OP stated. It felt like 80s Spielberg reflecting on the innocence and adventurous grand scale of those type of films.
 
Just saw it and I didn't really see anything that struck me as bad lighting. Surprisingly.... I liked the film.
 
Janusz Kaminski said:
“The Devon scenes are meant to suggest innocence, the beginning of Albert and Joey’s friendship, so the lighting is more idealized,” says Kaminski. “I wanted deep blue skies with white clouds, so I used a daylight stock and frontlit the actors so they’d stand out and look glorious against the landscape.”
Click to expand...

Janusz Kaminski said:
...at its conclusion, when various characters are shown silhouetted against a pink-orange sky in Devon. “It looks glorious — and totally fake!” says Kaminski. “We wanted to go that way because it’s such a heroic and mythical moment. I’m very proud of the look because it’s right for the story, and it was done in-camera.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen the film yet, but according to the recent asc mag, it seems like it was all intentional (including the fake look), and done on location in camera.
 
qazwsx said:
Haven't seen the film yet, but according to the recent asc mag, it seems like it was all intentional (including the fake look), and done on location in camera.
Click to expand...

It seems largely exaggerated and artistically narrow the OP's view on this film's light design. I haven't seen the film, as it hasn't premiered in my country yet, but I know that there's no one doing what they do as well as these two do it!

None of Spielberg's films are realistic looking, they don't follow a 'motivational' or realistic lighting approach, look at E.T for God's sake... and when Kaminsky came on board, ever since Schindler's List, Spielberg's films turned even more expressionistic.

Granted, Spielberg is not for everyone, but to call him boring after all he has done for the movies, and saying that Amistad is a bad film, it just makes you people sound daft and just plain ignorant. You should be laying bricks, not talking about films...

Why do we have to read such nonsense comments round here sometimes...?
 
Nuno Dias said:
It seems largely exaggerated and artistically narrow the OP's view on this film's light design.

None of Spielberg's films are realistic looking, they don't follow a 'motivational' or realistic lighting approach, look at E.T for God's sake... and when Kaminsky came on board, ever since Schindler's List, Spielberg's films turned even more expressionistic.

Granted, Spielberg is not for everyone, but to call him boring after all he has done for the movies, and saying that Amistad is a bad film, it just makes you people sound daft and just plain ignorant. You should be laying bricks, not talking about films...

Why do we have to read such nonsense comments round here sometimes...?
Click to expand...

To be clear, the claim that Spielberg is boring is from another poster. I did not say that. I stand by my opinion about the lighting in "War Horse", however. It doesn't make me daft or ignorant to have an opinion. It could be quite the opposite. It could be that I'm very knowledgeable and perceptive about cinematography, and can spot a poor creative choice.
In any case, you are correct in that Spielberg's films tend to be more expressionistic (or maybe impressionistic?) in their lighting. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't follow a "motivational" approach. Surely they do! There are almost always practical lights, or windows, or sunlight that serve as the motivated light source in any given scene of a Spielberg film.
And sorry, "Amistad" is a bad film. Brevity prevents me from providing a list of why that movie is awful. Though again, it is just my opinion.
Interestingly, the critics and viewers who have reacted negatively to "War Horse" all have the same reaction to Kaminski's photography that I have. I am not alone in my view. Those who like the movie tend to call Kaminski's work "brilliant and beautiful". Those who dislike the movie are not so kind in their words about the photography.

To me, the cinematography is all about it organically coming from the story, or feeling earned. It should not feel random, unrelated or tacked on. And even though I've read rationalizations by Spielberg and Kaminski about their choices in lighting "War Horse", I still disagree with their approach. Most of the fault lies with the actual screenplay itself, and with Spielberg's overly sentimental shaping of it. Everything from the script, acting, music and lighting all have the schmaltz turned up to eleven.
 
Last edited:
Nuno Dias, you probably have to explore life a bit more so that your won't get excited over Spielberg's banalities as if you were a 14 year old boy running through the high school's courtyard. I, too, at some point was excited about his work before experiencing life and realizing that his version of life is ridden with such trivial cliches that they literally, if not work the work of his brilliant DP, would put me to sleep. If you enjoy his work then who am i to prevent you from seeing it but then don't impose your, and i might add relatively narrow, perspective onto others.
 
Hey, I have an idea!!!!... let's keep this dialogue about the movie and its cinematography and not about insulting each other! Who's with me? :)
 
dvbrother said:
To be clear, the claim that Spielberg is boring is from another poster. I did not say that. I stand by my opinion about the lighting in "War Horse", however. It doesn't make me daft or ignorant to have an opinion. It could be quite the opposite. It could be that I'm very knowledgeable and perceptive about cinematography, and can spot a poor creative choice.
In any case, you are correct in that Spielberg's films tend to be more expressionistic (or maybe impressionistic?) in their lighting. But I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't follow a "motivational" approach. Surely they do! There are almost always practical lights, or windows, or sunlight that serve as the motivated light source in any given scene of a Spielberg film.
And sorry, "Amistad" is a bad film. Brevity prevents me from providing a list of why that movie is awful. Though again, it is just my opinion.
Interestingly, the critics and viewers who have reacted negatively to "War Horse" all have the same reaction to Kaminski's photography that I have. I am not alone in my view. Those who like the movie tend to call Kaminski's work "brilliant and beautiful". Those who dislike the movie are not so kind in their words about the photography.

To me, the cinematography is all about it organically coming from the story, or feeling earned. It should not feel random, unrelated or tacked on. And even though I've read rationalizations by Spielberg and Kaminski about their choices in lighting "War Horse", I still disagree with their approach. Most of the fault lies with the actual screenplay itself, and with Spielberg's overly sentimental shaping of it. Everything from the script, acting, music and lighting all have the schmaltz turned up to eleven.
Click to expand...

I certainly respect your opinion. As far as your statement about the lighting are you referring to the entire film or a few scenes?

Ah.... I re-read you OP. Yes... I do understand and agree with you.... very good observation. There is one scene while the house is in the families barn were the key light is on the horses face which seemed very unnatural. I guess I'm not the lighting guru I thought I was because I didn't pick up as much as you did. I seem to drift at movies if I don't focus on the story. Thanks for your comments they are interesting.
 
Last edited:
Zak Forsman said:
Hey, I have an idea!!!!... let's keep this dialogue about the movie and its cinematography and not about insulting each other! Who's with me? :)
Click to expand...
Sounds like a good idea to me.

Also, I want to add that I'm not your classic Spielberg-basher. That was not the point of this thread when I started it. In fact, "Jaws", "Close Encounters" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" are in my Top 5 films of all time. I'm not as enamored by his more recent films, but I'm far from a hater. What made me start the thread is that "War Horse" was the first film that I've ever consciously reacted negatively to lighting while I was watching the movie. Usually, I may have a short, dim notion that I don't like certain cinematography, but then I get sucked into the story, and I forget about such thoughts until after I leave the theater and sort out what I liked and didn't like about a movie (the post-film analysis). But "War Horse" had such in-your-face artificial lighting right from the start that you can't help but notice it. I actually gave it a chance for about 10 minutes, as I tried to plug into the old-fashioned vibe of the movie. But as it became apparent that the characters were flat and one-dimensional, that the old-fashioned stylistic approach was not helping me engage with the story, I started to get irritated. In the second act of the film, the lighting became less showy, more appropriate, but the film started to put me to sleep...literally. And I'm not the kind of guy who falls asleep in movies. The dramatic failings of the movie (for me at least, many seem to love the film) are the subject of another thread. But the artificial, overstated lighting is in line with the approach of the whole film. If the intention was to make the story mythic, I think it failed. Instead, it made the movie look like a 1950's Disney film, or a commercial for Country Time Lemonade.
 
Just going to step in here. This thread had been a good debate, and we can still make one.

I agree with Zak.

We are all entitled to our opinions, so let's say those opinions without necessarily attacking anyone personally. We can certainly quote an individual and say why we agree or disagree with his/her points, but let's not get personal. Everyone has a right to an opinion here, age, occupation, gender and other considerations not needed.
 
dvbrother said:
Instead, it made the movie look like a 1950's Disney film, or a commercial for Country Time Lemonade.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. Although I still have doubts that those two missed the mark by that much. Whatever they did with the film, its look, and its direction, it was all done absolutely as intended. And I'm sure that neither Spielberg nor Kaminsky intended to shoot a cheap commercial. But hey, if that's what you saw, then that's what you saw, and that's all there is to it.

Mr. Patryk, do you realize how easy it is to say Spielberg is boring? Its just too easy, he's an easy target. You talk like he stopped making movies in the 80s... And if, when you were 21 you made a film as good as Duel, then you'll have my respect...

Perhaps, you like films that teach you about life, right? True life. Of course we all go to the movies to learn about life, don't we? Or maybe its people like Abbas Kiarosmati, Yasujiro Ozu, Michael Heneke or even Ingmar Bergman that teach you about real life, right?

Well, guess what, they're not far off from any of the Indy adventures... And at least, Mr. Spielberg lets you enjoy your popcorn, unlike any of the other aforementioned ones that make you want to beat yourself up...
 
I'm going to nudge the conversation in a slightly different direction based on some of the responses in this thread, including my own. There's a tendency to give Spielberg and Kaminski an instant pass for any creative decision they make based on their past accomplishments and the perceived notion that they are masters. I totally understand this. I give their argument more credibility than mine in many ways because they've been making A-list movies together for nearly 20 years. But the truth is that they are not gods. No filmmaker is. People can make mistakes. The really good filmmakers risk failure and often do. Maybe I should give them credit for so blatantly bucking convention and going exceedingly old-school with their storytelling and lighting. But it's also true that many creative artists run out of ideas or lose their edge as they get older. Maybe Spielberg's best work is behind him. Way behind. Like 1982. Look at John Carpenter, Brian DePalma, Walter Hill, William Friedkin and other great directors of the 70's and 80's. They peaked early. We go see their movies hoping for a return to form that rarely happens. So it's also possible that Spielberg and Kaminski are getting old and less relevant. That they've done all the cool stuff already and are now just coasting, artistically speaking. Just a thought.
 
Just two films ago, Spielberg directed the best film of his career as well as the best film of the past decade, Munich. Before that he did what he does best, good, fun, blockbusters; Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can and War of the Worlds, all of these were extremely successful financially and were in my humble opinion, great films. Appart from a couple of stinkers, The Terminal and Indy IV, he seems to be in very good shape.

You might not like his films, a lot of people don't, but that's different than suggesting he's a bad film maker or artistically in decline. Munich is a tour de force of cinema in every sense, and comparing the man to those directors you've mentioned, is a little silly since none of them has had a hit or a good film for more than a decade, some even two decades...

Notice how in his (rare) interviews, how passionate he still is about film making, how much more he seems to have inside of him. Compare any of his recent interviews to any of those fallen directors, the difference in attitude, enthusiasm and passion is blatant. One is like a little kid, the others are like dead scruffy dogs.

Now, I not saying War Horse is good, because I haven't seen it, it might not be. But what I respect about the man, its that he's not trying to prove himself to anyone, he's just doing what he loves to do, entertainment. He wasn't afraid to go old fashioned, and that in itself shows tremendous confidence, because everyone else, is acting moronic in a crazy race to try to be cool and cutting edge, only to show shallow and predictable work.

Anyway, people seem to like the film, its doing extremely well at the box office, considering its a film about a horse with no film stars, and told in a very old fashioned way...
 
Last edited:
Nuno Dias, when Spielberg's “Saving Private Ryan” came out another film about war made its way to the cinemas, Malick’s “Thin Red Line.”

In SPR we get to experience what it’s like to fire machine gun at the troops storming the beaches, what it’s like to see the guts of your fellow men blown to pieces, the screams, horrors of the battle, we are put in the middle of an explosion with dust engulfing the screen, we get to see war from a very vivid new angle - an angle no one has ever seen before short of actually being in a battle. In comparison TRL looks like a student film. Yes, there are explosions, some fire, some action sequences but by comparison the film looks weak - clearly if it was about the best action film about war SPR would prevail! Spielberg is brilliant! But withing all the action one asks himself what SPR is really about, is there any depth to all that gory action? And yes, there is more, it’s about how good guys will remain good guys (the group of soldiers chooses not to shoot some Germans after storming their hill) and bad guys will remain bad (one of the freed Germans comes back to keep on fighting). The lesson is so naive and trivial that even an unsophisticated viewer can’t help but laugh at this “life’s lesson.” Now in comparison TRL doesn’t offer easy solutions. The “good” guys storm the hill then fire point blank at the defenseless Japanese, in the horror of battle some are firing at each other, etc. Lessons are not easy to draw. In the lessons department SPR fails but with its ambiguity TRL isn’t more successful either. But TRL’s lack of easy lessons also tells us that the director has a bit more advanced perception of life. If it ended only there then maybe still despite of its kitsch SPR would come out as stronger film. But one keeps on thinking about all those seemingly irrelevant cut aways in TRL of lovers at home, of intimate moments, of happy children, childhood, the voice over, lack of lighting continuity strange choices to cut to seemingly irrelevant images and through that awkwardness one starts thinking more. And by re-watching both films one discovers that Spielberg’s film is an empty vessel, on second viewing it still manages to startle with its violence but it definitely doesn’t have the same visceral effects as when seeing it for the first time and as it lacks any kind of credible message on second viewing one is disappointed. Meanwhile TRL only starts to unfold, by 3rd, 4rth etc viewing you discover more and more. You start making connections. One of main characters talks about immortality he’s never seen after his mother passed and he’s playing with a tiny bird then when he gets shot later in the film the director cuts to an image of two birds in “paradise.” On yet another viewing you realise that the tiny bird might be the soul of his mother and his words of the “immortality he’s never seen” make no sense because the proofs of that immortality are all around him and he’s simply not capable to notice it. And this is only a tiny fragment of the film’s greatness. For instance at some point the soldiers are charging up the hill and it’s awfully quiet so the sergeant sends two guys up the hill to scout, the soldiers get cut down by the Japanese machine gun fire. The sergeant gets freaked out as he’s just sent two men to their deaths but the director doesn’t dwell on this emotion. He cuts to a field of grass where the grass still spotted with their blood waves in the breeze, calm as if nothing happened. The spirit of the world is either oblivious, or doesn’t care that two people have lost their lives. Is there God, does he care? If, as one of the narrators says, we live within Him is death as crucial as we tend to see it? After all it’s just transformation of one’s energy into another... And many, many other deep philosophical questions...

After you realise that a film is capable of all those great questions it’s very hard to go back and watch Spielberg's pulp.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Nuno Dias, when Spielberg's “Saving Private Ryan” came out another film about war made its way to the cinemas, Malick’s “Thin Red Line.”

In SPR we get to experience what it’s like to fire machine gun at the troops storming the beaches, what it’s like to see the guts of your fellow men blown to pieces, the screams, horrors of the battle, we are put in the middle of an explosion with dust engulfing the screen, we get to see war from a very vivid new angle - an angle no one has ever seen before short of actually being in a battle. In comparison TRL looks like a student film. Yes, there are explosions, some fire, some action sequences but by comparison the film looks weak - clearly if it was about the best action film about war SPR would prevail! Spielberg is brilliant! But withing all the action one asks himself what SPR is really about, is there any depth to all that gory action? And yes, there is more, it’s about how good guys will remain good guys (the group of soldiers chooses not to shoot some Germans after storming their hill) and bad guys will remain bad (one of the freed Germans comes back to keep on fighting). The lesson is so naive and trivial that even an unsophisticated viewer can’t help but laugh at this “life’s lesson.” Now in comparison TRL doesn’t offer easy solutions. The “good” guys storm the hill then fire point blank at the defenseless Japanese, in the horror of battle some are firing at each other, etc. Lessons are not easy to draw. In the lessons department SPR fails but with its ambiguity TRL isn’t more successful either. But TRL’s lack of easy lessons also tells us that the director has a bit more advanced perception of life. If it ended only there then maybe still despite of its kitsch SPR would come out as stronger film. But one keeps on thinking about all those seemingly irrelevant cut aways in TRL of lovers at home, of intimate moments, of happy children, childhood, the voice over, lack of lighting continuity strange choices to cut to seemingly irrelevant images and through that awkwardness one starts thinking more. And by re-watching both films one discovers that Spielberg’s film is an empty vessel, on second viewing it still manages to startle with its violence but it definitely doesn’t have the same visceral effects as when seeing it for the first time and as it lacks any kind of credible message on second viewing one is disappointed. Meanwhile TRL only starts to unfold, by 3rd, 4rth etc viewing you discover more and more. You start making connections. One of main characters talks about immortality he’s never seen after his mother passed and he’s playing with a tiny bird then when he gets shot later in the film the director cuts to an image of two birds in “paradise.” On yet another viewing you realise that the tiny bird might be the soul of his mother and his words of the “immortality he’s never seen” make no sense because the proofs of that immortality are all around him and he’s simply not capable to notice it. And this is only a tiny fragment of the film’s greatness. For instance at some point the soldiers are charging up the hill and it’s awfully quiet so the sergeant sends two guys up the hill to scout, the soldiers get cut down by the Japanese machine gun fire. The sergeant gets freaked out as he’s just sent two men to their deaths but the director doesn’t dwell on this emotion. He cuts to a field of grass where the grass still spotted with their blood waves in the breeze, calm as if nothing happened. The spirit of the world is either oblivious, or doesn’t care that two people have lost their lives. Is there God, does he care? If, as one of the narrators says, we live within Him is death as crucial as we tend to see it? After all it’s just transformation of one’s energy into another... And many, many other deep philosophical questions...

After you realise that a film is capable of all those great questions it’s very hard to go back and watch Spielberg's pulp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, The Thin Red Line was overly pretentious. Lay on some more cheese Malick, you missed a bit here...

But who goes to the cinema to learn a lesson anyway? Besides, if it takes more than 4 viewings to understand a film then chances are the director failed in getting his story across (most people watch a movie in the cinema once and then might catch it a second time elsewhere), or the viewer might just be reading too much into it.
 
Last edited:
simonpwood said:
Yeah, The Thin Red Line was overly pretentious. Lay on some more cheese Malick, you missed a bit here...

But who goes to the cinema to learn a lesson anyway? Besides, if it takes more than 4 viewings to understand a film then chances are the director failed in getting his story across (most people watch a movie in the cinema once and then might catch it a second time elsewhere), or the viewer might just be reading too much into it.
Click to expand...

You are missing my point here.
First viewing experience: bunch of guys climbing a hill, some action, some people get killed. All cool. Some strange inter-cuts. (probably if you viewed the film once that's all you would get)
Second viewing: hold on let me watch that again... ok, i guess it's more than just a bunch of guys trying to conquer a hill, some birds her and there, is there a meaning to all of it?
Third viewing: i can't believe i'm watching this boring war movie again, still something keeps on drawing me to it. Wait! Can it be that each time we see birds the character deals with soul in some form?
4th viewing... etc.

For you to deny that a film grows and changes with each viewing is limiting the possibilities of cinema. Granted that most films don't deserve to be watched more than once (many shouldn't even be watched once...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top