War Horse=Bad Cinematography

Patryk_Rebisz said:
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...).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

In truth I've watched 2001: A Space Odyssey waaay too many times , and that flick bores the hell out of just about everyone I know...:)
 
Going back to the thread title - "bad cinematography", IMO theres no such thing. Let me qualify that by saying - Im talking from the perspective of viewing a proven cinematographers work such as Kaminski et al.

Cinematography like any art is made up of well... making choices and just about every cinematographer will approach those in a different way. Of course unlike many artists, those choices are superseded by the direction of the .... director and in some cases budget and the executive producer.

Again, I just wanted to make the point ( and I havent seen this film), that I dont think bad cinematography exists - only choices that I might or might not believe in creating an opinion are the best choices to serve a story.

Cinematography as an art has never existed in a world based firmly on creating what you would expect to see in the real world, but cinematography has always been based on making choices that serve the story. Story and the real world are two entirely different places one based in imagination and the other based in reality. And IMO if cinematographers world wide all decided that they would base all their future decisions in reality, well that would be one sad day. And Ill finish with - BUT, if a cinematographer decided to try and perfectly reproduce the reality of the world we live in because that serves the story then go back to A.
 
If that's all you take from SPR, then there's little else to discuss. I saw Private Ryan as a metaphor for the ideology of war. Is it worth putting a group of men through hell, and even killing them, to save another fellow countryman? Is it? Why? Because you'll save one, but you kill four, five, six... But you also get to bring him back home to his family, where he's still the only son alive. The American government thought it was a better choice to keep a family 'alive' by bringing back Private Ryan, rather than completely destroying another family to the war.

But what about the families from the other guys? Surely they have families, loved ones, son's, daughters, etc... Where do you find in yourself the morals to risk your own life to bring back another guy you never even met?

If this is pulp, its very good pulp... and if you didn't see any of this in the film, what did you see? Gunshots and wounds? Really?

I also saw the Thin Red Line when it came out. I fell asleep. But I knew there had to be more to it than just lush jungle and voice overs... well, years later and countless viewings (and actually reading the script) there isn't really. That's really all there is, lush jungle and voice overs. What is TRL telling you? That war is hell? Come on, tell me something I don't already know, please. SPR was about finding morality in a war zone. Those soldiers could have backed off any time, to save their asses, but they kept on trying to find Ryan, and when they did, he didn't want to be rescued... What would you do?

What is the big question in TRL? That's right, there really isn't one. Just stimulus to make you want to philosophize about it. And that's fine, it really is. But it's in no way better than any other war film. It's actually probably one of the worst war films to date.

Badlands, absolutely, probably one of my top five films. But anything else its food for filmschool...

Now, if all you can do is see pulp in Spielberg's films, I must assume you are still in film school and have a lot of learning to do ahead. Because this discussion is so old and boring, exactly the kind of discussion I used to have in film school with other 'serious' and philosophical wannabe's... Just because one guy shows you back lit pictures of trees with poetic and hushed voice overs, (and you can't understand what the hell it is that you are watching), if that's what makes you happy, then by all means, you can watch The Tree of Life everyday for all I care.

By the way, here's an interesting first hand look at War Horse, by the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKld9pcOowc
 
Noel Evans said:
Going back to the thread title - "bad cinematography", IMO theres no such thing. Let me qualify that by saying - Im talking from the perspective of viewing a proven cinematographers work such as Kaminski et al.
Click to expand...

But if it pulls me out of the story, to me, it's a poor choice. Regardless of whether the effect was intended or not. Calling it art doesn't give it a pass when it comes to judgement.
 
'There are three types of photography: good photography, bad photography, and the right photography. The right photography is what tells the story best.'"

-Freddie Francis, BSC
 
Nuno, you can’t pick up some random sentences from my paragraph and based on those random sentences create an argument that then you try to disprove. That way you are wasting both your and mine time. So please re-read my paragraph and try not to discard when i tell you all the layers what TRL is actually all about. For once it’s not a war film. You really can’t take things at face value (i mean you can but then life looses all the potential for magic and with that you reject a significant portion of arts as many disciplines deal with metaphors). Just because there is a war in the film doesn’t make it a war film (and yes, if that was just a war film then it would be weak one). You have to have strength to admit that just because, and here i’ll use an old cliche, you can’t see the forest through the trees doesn’t mean there is no forest.

(and my apologies for everyone, including the OP, for straying from the original topic)
 
As I'm the OP, I don't mind that this thread has taken some detours. I caused a few. Lots of valid points from everyone. I think the assessment that Spielberg is still enthusiastic compared to the "washed-up" directors I lumped him with is valid. He HAS managed to stay relevant and successful, perhaps because he still has the passion. What's interesting is that we all clearly love movies and cinematography here, but we all have different opinions on what makes a good movie. And that's good. If everybody thought and felt exactly the same, we'd be the pod-people from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
My friend and I have the same "Saving Private Ryan" vs. "Thin Red Line" argument. I favor "Thin Red Line", but I totally understand those who think it's slow and pretentious. I'd really love SPR if it didn't have the sappy, ridiculous bookends with the senior-citizen Ryan visiting the D-Day Memorial. That ruined the movie for me. Spielberg's neurotic need for a happy ending even when it doesn't serve the story has marred many otherwise great films. Some love that. I used to love that back in the day. But then I grew up and gained wisdom and discovered other directors who made films that seemed more complex and who saw the world closer to how I saw it. I guess I outgrew Spielberg. And I'm sorry, but "Munich" just bored me, even though it had some great moments. There's just something about Spielberg fiddling with screenplays that turns me off. His mastery of the camera and how to design a memorable setpiece is unparalleled. But I never feel wholly satisfied by his movies. "Minority Report" is the only one of his recent films that I like enough to own and watch more than once.
 
StMad said:
But if it pulls me out of the story, to me, it's a poor choice. Regardless of whether the effect was intended or not. Calling it art doesn't give it a pass when it comes to judgement.
Click to expand...

But thats not what I said. I said theres no bad cinematography, cinematography is choices - those choices do have the potential to do as you said, then I would call it an inappropriate choice.

And Ill restate the first point I made -
Im talking from the perspective of viewing a proven cinematographers work such as Kaminski et al.
Click to expand...

Outside the perspective I stated - theres a whole bunch of TERRIBLE cinematography.

FWIW - Ive been reading some friends comments on Warhouse on FB. People outside the world we live in. Not one person has mentioned the cinematography. There was one person however who commented that the story was so emotional at one point they thought they may have to leave theatre because they couldnt deal with it.

From what Ive heard of the score so far - beautiful.
 
Noel Evans said:
FWIW - Ive been reading some friends comments on Warhouse on FB. People outside the world we live in. Not one person has mentioned the cinematography.
Click to expand...

I agree, most of the movie-going public wouldn't be aware of it at all. I know I didn't use to notice these things way back before I got into filmmaking.

I do a bit of amateur photography and roam the photography forums, I see a lot of unecessary and excruciating pixel-peeping going on in those forums. This is coming from people who overly criticise any given camera down to its individual pixels that, when viewed in the bigger picture (no pun intended), really doesn't impact at all in the photos. Especially not for the general public who wouldn't have a clue whether any given photo has been taken with a Canon or a Panasonic or a Lecia or a Hasselblad. If it's a nice photo, they'll enjoy it nonetheless and what constitutes a nice photo adds up to more than just its individual pixels.

It's edging slightly on to the side of madness when these people buy these cameras and then much of what they do with it is take test photo, after test photo, after test photo, just to pixel-peep to their heart's content. And when the next camera comes out, they do it all over again. When it comes down ot it, many of them are mediocre photographers at best (if only I get to see some actual photography from them other than test shots!).

I'm not saying that the discussion about cinematography does not have its merits, in fact from reading threads like these I learn a bit more each time about how to critically analyse technical aspects of cinematography. But whether you love or hate any given technical aspect of a film, you must take a step back and view the film as a whole too, otherwise you'll just ruin the whole film for yourself when it really doesn't have to.
 
Noel Evans said:
But thats not what I said. I said theres no bad cinematography, cinematography is choices - those choices do have the potential to do as you said, then I would call it an inappropriate choice.
Click to expand...

I would argue that having 2 suns is a poor choice and poor cinematography, when it pulls me out of the story. Why bother differentiating? Cinematography is both the technical and the artistic.

A masterful writer puts his character in an implausable situation...the words may sing...but he's pulled me out of the story. I call this poor writing. The writer explains why he did it...ok, so now it's merely an inappropriate decision. The writer is now less accountable, and now someone's telling me that I'm wrong to call it poor writing?
 
I think there might be a little confusion.

If I understand what Noel is saying correctly, than I'm in agreement.

If I may say something.... What I am saying, is that there is no such thing as bad cinematography. Bad cinematography, outside of any specific story context, would likely be defined as ugly lighting, unsteady and distracting camera movement, bad framing (such as putting a character on the very edge of screen), etc. When anyone learning cinematography see's those things, they likely assume the DP is an asinine idiot who needs to learn about two thirds framing, three point lighting, and how to keep a steady hand or learn to use a dolly.

However, those things that we think is 'bad' cinematography, listed above, might be the perfect aesthetic to help portray a feeling or mood to the audience for a particular story... a story in the right context.

So if a gorgeous day-exterior filled with vibrant colors and a golden-backlit lead actress is good for one film, say a scene where two lovers fall in love... it might not be good for the next film, say where one lover is burying the other during a funeral. The point is, both moods/cinematic atmosphere are artistic choices that take skill and talent to create... what made one bad and one good, quickly reversed when the visuals suddenly were not appropriate anymore. 'Good' wasn't how pretty an image is, but rather how appropriate it is.


I don't think anyone here was guilty of completely mis-using any terms. I think we just ought to remember that any disagreement with Kaminski's work is based off if we agreed with the choices he and Spielberg decided upon. It's quite delicate for me to try and describe as it's full of semantics that many of you will read and think "uhhh, ok. So inappropriate = bad. We're back to where we were."

Well I think what we need to walk away with, is that the visuals weren't bad because they (Steven and Janusz) failed to be able to technically achieve the look they wanted, but rather they thought the visuals they deliberately created on screen would be the ones which best made you feel how they wanted you to feel at that moment in the film. If they did the visuals differently, the film would have had a different feel in terms of visual subtext.

So what you are really debating, is if their choices of cinematography was wrong because it didn't make you feel how they wanted you to feel.... or if you feel that they should have done something else to make you feel another way.


Did that make sense?
 
Perhaps just different points of view - I see where you both are coming from. I'm comfortable saying that a poor choice can lead to poor cinematography, and that cinematography can still be considered poor once we move out of the technical realm. I'd say the same thing about any of the disciplines involved in storytelling (as with my writing example), though I respect that you might have a differing view.
 
StMad said:
Perhaps just different points of view - I see where you both are coming from. I'm comfortable saying that a poor choice can lead to poor cinematography, and that cinematography can still be considered poor once we move out of the technical realm. I'd say the same thing about any of the disciplines involved in storytelling (as with my writing example), though I respect that you might have a differing view.
Click to expand...

That's a key distinction. Technical vs. artistic. Technical assessments can be objectively verified. Exposure, focus, consistency, even framing to some degree. But once artistic evaluations are made, it becomes completely subjective, which is why art and film critics have a job. What makes it even more difficult is that nobody can agree exactly what "beautiful" or "good" cinematography is. Does it merely mean "pretty" or attractive without context? Or must it be appropriate to the story, or at least connected to some other aspect of the film, for instance, does the shot and lighting evoke the proper mood for the scene? Does the lighting evolve over the course of the movie? Etc.

As I look back, my choice of naming this thread "War Horse=Bad Cinematography" was probably not the best idea. It was fueled by my dislike of the movie and my surprise that the lighting seemed so "in your face". Now that the movie has been released and I've read interviews with Kaminski and Spielberg, I understand better what they were trying to do. But I think the underlying screenplay of "War Horse" is not strong enough to support the fakey, old-fashioned approach to the lighting. If, on the other hand, "War Horse" featured a crackling script with dimensional characters that was emotionally riveting and enthralling from scene to scene, I'd likely call the film's lighting genius. But I personally feel the script has some fatal flaws, including one-dimensional stereotyped characters. It didn't dramatically engage me, and my concentration wandered and settled on the overt lighting. It goes to show that the greatest lighting in the world can't save a bad script.
 
Last edited:
I think that the choices that Spielberg and Kaminski made for this film are deeply rooted in Spielberg's aesthetic going way back. I deeply disagree with a previous post that said that the cinematography and lighting of Spielberg's films have ALWAYS been unrealistic. One really needs to go back and look at his first two theatrical features. The work of Vilmos Zsigmond on "The Sugarland Express" and of Bill Butler on "Jaws" are, IMHO, landmarks of cinematography and very realistic. However, I think that the cinematography in these films do not necessarily represent the true aesthetic sensibilities of Spielberg, but are a reflection of his sense of cinema, and the aesthetic of the day. As he has become more and more successful, I think that his aesthetic sensibilities have become more and more dominate in the look of the films. I think that his aesthetic sensibilities are deeply rooted in the classic films of the studio era ("Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Munich" are, IMHO, outliers and represent his best to be an "Adult" filmmaker, with a different aesthetic sense). It might be that the choices made on "War Horse" were made based on his default sensibilities, and at this time in cinema history, those sensibilities can be construed to be old fashioned, or inappropriate. I found an interviews with Spielberg, taped in front an AFI class in 1977 that may support this point of view.


Here is another clip from AFI.. Spielberg on classic films. I happen to agree with him on this one.

 
Hahaha, I deleted my post... but you got to it first.

I just watched more from that interview and it appears Close Encounters was already made at this point because he talks alot about Francois Truffaut.

Must have been 1941... which sort of makes sense, in an underdog/misfit sorta sense.

 
Last edited:
Wow, you're right... Boy, oh boy, "1941" was a mess. I like it... but it was a mess. It is often cited, along with Friedkin's "Sorcerer", Scorsese's "New York, New York", Bogdanovich's "Nickelodeon", Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" and, of course, Michael Cimino's "Heaven's Gate", all flops (Except for "Apocalypse Now", which, none the less, could not shake the stigma of excess) as an example of the "New Hollywood" of the seventies overreach and over reliance on "Auteur" directors, causing a contraction of the freedom of control that filmmakers had in in the actual filmmaking process. I personally feel that these films were scapegoated by the bean counters, who took over, and are, IMHO, still in charge in Hollywood.
 
David G. Smith said:
I think that his aesthetic sensibilities are deeply rooted in the classic films of the studio era ("Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan" and "Munich" are, IMHO, outliers and represent his best to be an "Adult" filmmaker, with a different aesthetic sense). It might be that the choices made on "War Horse" were made based on his default sensibilities, and at this time in cinema history, those sensibilities can be construed to be old fashioned, or inappropriate.
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point. And wow it was cool to see that old AFI clip.
"1941". What a mess, but I love that movie! The jitterbug dance/fight scene is sheer cinematic brilliance. And Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale's script has so many great one-liners.
And remember when you could see sex and nudity in a PG? :-)
 
dvbrother said:
You bring up a good point. And wow it was cool to see that old AFI clip.
"1941". What a mess, but I love that movie! The jitterbug dance/fight scene is sheer cinematic brilliance. And Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale's script has so many great one-liners.
And remember when you could see sex and nudity in a PG? :-)
Click to expand...

You can also thank Spielberg for that. PG-13 was invented after the release of Temple of Doom. Films used to be PG or R.
 
I totally agree with dvbrother on this one. I've never felt so detracted by inappropriate and illogical lighting as I was in this film. I was ready to love it as I'm a big fan of war movies, a sucker for animal movies and generally like most Spielberg films but this one OMG! It was as if there was a truck parked outside every indoor shot with it's headlights blaring through to either blast or backlight every character. Two suns in most outdoor shots and key lighting that jumped from one side to the other. I found it manipulative and insulting to the general public. I would have liked to have seen this movie made for a tenth of the cost and a larger percentage of the budget put into the screenplay character development and acting. It felt that the whole thing was shot in front of a green screen and badly composited using cardboard cutouts with glowing edges! Very strange I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top