War Horse=Bad Cinematography
- Thread starter dvbrother
- Start date
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
How stupid thread..
Kaminski is nominated (!) to academy award for best cinematography in (BAD CINEMATOGRAPHY) War Horserogar-Happy(DBG):
And so did "Bridesmaids" in best screenplay... which means that Oscar nomination ain't what it used to be. In other words, don't assume that the nomination means quality.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
i thought i was the only one who hated bridesmaids.
In addition, and this is something that everyone has to learn IMO. Because you don't like something, doesnt mean it isnt good. It simply means you dont like it. Fair enough, you dont like it. Plenty of things Ive watched and havent liked - whilst many others enjoy it. We just need to accept that.
Factual inaccuraccies
Factual inaccuraccies
Ireland is not the setting for any part of this film. Ireland did not fight in the First World War: Not against Germany or any other nation. Devon is the location you have inexplicably mistaken for Ireland. Devon (and England) are referred to numerous times in the film. Clear factual inaccuracies will undermine your review.
Factual inaccuraccies
Ireland is not the setting for any part of this film. Ireland did not fight in the First World War: Not against Germany or any other nation. Devon is the location you have inexplicably mistaken for Ireland. Devon (and England) are referred to numerous times in the film. Clear factual inaccuracies will undermine your review.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
You're thinking of WW2...
legrevedotcom
Veteran
I had the "misfortune" of reading this thread before seeing the movie 
But I have to say I rather liked the fairly obviously lit scenes... even though it was really obvious at some points. I don't consider myself purist so that of course helps my tolerance a bit hehe, but it's just nice to see something like this instead of the recent years naturalistic approach to lighting ( heck even I still do that every day in my lit still photography).
I bet, like said, that it not so many years we'll start seeing more people light like this.
But I have to say I rather liked the fairly obviously lit scenes... even though it was really obvious at some points. I don't consider myself purist so that of course helps my tolerance a bit hehe, but it's just nice to see something like this instead of the recent years naturalistic approach to lighting ( heck even I still do that every day in my lit still photography).I bet, like said, that it not so many years we'll start seeing more people light like this.
KurtF
Well-known member
Saw the film after reading this thread - and I concur, I didn't like the lighting. It reminded me of old television shows like Bonanza and The Waltons where the shadow killing arc light is throwing it's own shadows onto the porch wall.
I know they could have done this differently, after all, it is a choice of style, but I didn't like it.
I know they could have done this differently, after all, it is a choice of style, but I didn't like it.
It was very interesting reading this thread as I had exactly the same negative reaction as the OP and some of the other posters. I don't ever recall being put off a film by the poor lighting before and I certainly was in this. The lighting in the Devon scenes seemed not only overbright but came from directions that had nothing to do with the natural lighting that you could see. I was beginning to wonder if the film was a sequel to 'Another Earth' but this time with a second Sun.
Script was pretty awful too with some appalling expositionary dialogue, even worse in places than the execrable 'DaVinci Code' which takes some doing.
All of which was really surprising going by the pedigrees and track records of the film makers and the film seemed very amateurish on the whole. Mind you the recent Indian Jones film should have been a warning about Spielberg's current poor judgement.
Script was pretty awful too with some appalling expositionary dialogue, even worse in places than the execrable 'DaVinci Code' which takes some doing.
All of which was really surprising going by the pedigrees and track records of the film makers and the film seemed very amateurish on the whole. Mind you the recent Indian Jones film should have been a warning about Spielberg's current poor judgement.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
Well hey, I absolutely HATED the cinematography in the girl with the dragon tattoo, and that got a nod too. So there ya go. (Though I suspect it had a little more to do with the 4k digital achievement than the actual lighting)
" No matter how great the DP the film is a work of the director - and here it's a very boring director we are dealing with...." and "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"
This observer has explored quite a bit about life - places, things and even cinema. Seen enough to affirm myself what is thought to be common knowledge; Spielberg is an obvious genius. Maybe the storyteller of our time. By referring to his work as 'boring' I suspect you're trying to be purposely provacative but if you're not that's obviously OK too. This is after all why they make chocolate and vanilla. And in your case Blue Stilton Cheese Icecream. Or Whatever.
JJM
This observer has explored quite a bit about life - places, things and even cinema. Seen enough to affirm myself what is thought to be common knowledge; Spielberg is an obvious genius. Maybe the storyteller of our time. By referring to his work as 'boring' I suspect you're trying to be purposely provacative but if you're not that's obviously OK too. This is after all why they make chocolate and vanilla. And in your case Blue Stilton Cheese Icecream. Or Whatever.
JJM
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
This is NOT an argument. You are making an observation that is so personal it's hard to phantom why you would even think that your seemingly rich experience matters.
Once again this is NOT an argument. You can't try to prove that sky is blue by saying it's a common knowledge that it IS blue. If the knowledge was so common we wouldn't be arguing about in the first place.
For the third time: personal bias is NOT an argument. The very same way how i can't comprehend that there are any other icecream made other then Blue Stilton Cheese - which is common knowledge to be the best icecream ever.
My brother, I'm not arguing with you. Your defensive responses are obviously a result you needing to defend an extreme minority opinion. I have no 'rich' experience - only enough to recognize Spielberg's brilliance (as I would any number of other legendary filmmakers). There are artists that through their body of work, are universally acknowledged to having risen to the top of their field.
BTW, the sky IS blue. Some things just are what they are. What kind of person would argue otherwise? The kind that feels they can elevate his or herself by criticizing a known giant. I know that this is not you - you genuinly feel that Spielberg is a boring director and would no doubt say so to his face!
JJM
BTW, the sky IS blue. Some things just are what they are. What kind of person would argue otherwise? The kind that feels they can elevate his or herself by criticizing a known giant. I know that this is not you - you genuinly feel that Spielberg is a boring director and would no doubt say so to his face!
JJM
Last edited:
At the risk of stating the obvious -- the style of the cinematography was a choice, a conscious decision. The style sends a signal, it frames the intent of the narrative. That is not to say you are obliged to like it, or agree with the filmmaker ... but it seems an odd leap to assume this was done by a lack of skill, or a failure of knowledge -- au contraire, I think it a very carefully considered decision.
Much is made in this thread of the 'unnaturalness' of the lighting -- and of course that is true. It is rather the point -- the lighting signals a cinematic choice that refers to films now fifty years gone, in visual style it recalls 'How Green Was My Valley?' or maybe even 'Sound of Music' ... but that doesn't make it bad. As another example let's consider Woody Allen's 'Manhattan'. A film presented in black and white, and widely acknowledged as a cinematic masterpiece, at least as considers the visuals. Gordon Willis was nominated repeatedly over his career for his cinematic achievements, in a variety of different styles in a variety of distinctly different films. And yet, black and white is clearly 'unnatural', and the decision to make the film b&w was a purely artistic one, not driven by budget or available technology. From the narrowly defined perspective of 'naturalness' the film fails -- but I think it unlikely anyone would call the cinematography 'bad'. In this case the film benefited from the choice, and the narrative was advanced by the lighting choice.
To put this in different terms, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was designed in a throwback style, referencing designs of decades ago. It was, in so much as it intended, successful. Personally, I was unmoved -- but I accept that it did appeal to those that liked that style, and even for those that didn't, it signalled clearly its intention. Fashion is always thus -- nothing is new under the sun, we just rewrap and represent as technology allows. The recent enthusiasm for shallow depth of field is a case in point -- there was a time when achieving the reverse was avant garde, and the addition of deep depth of field dominated the cinema for years after it was introduced. Even this reference to 'natural' is itself an aesthetic choice -- there is nothing inherently natural about a movie -- if the auteur wants to make the film look natural, and that's appropriate to the movie, terrific -- but there are as many films that would benefit from an 'unnatural' look. 'Moulin Rouge' looked entirely unnatural, but worked because it did. The decision to make a film look a certain way is an important one, and the ability to respond to different requests is a career advancement. A cinematographer unable to respond to the director's call for a certain look would clearly be the wrong guy for the job.
Which is to say you may or may not like the lighting choices of 'Warhorse', but to suggest they were bad, or done out of ignorance or lack of ability ... seems an unlikely proposition. 'Warhorse' is an old fashioned story, telling a tale that seems almost out-of-date in the modern world. The filmmaker chose to signal that old-fashioned aesthetic in the lighting choices -- complaints here prove at a minimum they were noticed.
Cheers,
GB
Much is made in this thread of the 'unnaturalness' of the lighting -- and of course that is true. It is rather the point -- the lighting signals a cinematic choice that refers to films now fifty years gone, in visual style it recalls 'How Green Was My Valley?' or maybe even 'Sound of Music' ... but that doesn't make it bad. As another example let's consider Woody Allen's 'Manhattan'. A film presented in black and white, and widely acknowledged as a cinematic masterpiece, at least as considers the visuals. Gordon Willis was nominated repeatedly over his career for his cinematic achievements, in a variety of different styles in a variety of distinctly different films. And yet, black and white is clearly 'unnatural', and the decision to make the film b&w was a purely artistic one, not driven by budget or available technology. From the narrowly defined perspective of 'naturalness' the film fails -- but I think it unlikely anyone would call the cinematography 'bad'. In this case the film benefited from the choice, and the narrative was advanced by the lighting choice.
To put this in different terms, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was designed in a throwback style, referencing designs of decades ago. It was, in so much as it intended, successful. Personally, I was unmoved -- but I accept that it did appeal to those that liked that style, and even for those that didn't, it signalled clearly its intention. Fashion is always thus -- nothing is new under the sun, we just rewrap and represent as technology allows. The recent enthusiasm for shallow depth of field is a case in point -- there was a time when achieving the reverse was avant garde, and the addition of deep depth of field dominated the cinema for years after it was introduced. Even this reference to 'natural' is itself an aesthetic choice -- there is nothing inherently natural about a movie -- if the auteur wants to make the film look natural, and that's appropriate to the movie, terrific -- but there are as many films that would benefit from an 'unnatural' look. 'Moulin Rouge' looked entirely unnatural, but worked because it did. The decision to make a film look a certain way is an important one, and the ability to respond to different requests is a career advancement. A cinematographer unable to respond to the director's call for a certain look would clearly be the wrong guy for the job.
Which is to say you may or may not like the lighting choices of 'Warhorse', but to suggest they were bad, or done out of ignorance or lack of ability ... seems an unlikely proposition. 'Warhorse' is an old fashioned story, telling a tale that seems almost out-of-date in the modern world. The filmmaker chose to signal that old-fashioned aesthetic in the lighting choices -- complaints here prove at a minimum they were noticed.
Cheers,
GB
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
wait, are you coming into an artistic discussion demanding people prove their opinions? It's art, man. You should just assume there's a heavy disclaimer after everything that reads "In my opinion."
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Google 'sky' then look at the images. Despite the predominance of blue in majority of the images you will also see a whole spectrum of other colors. By making some generalizing statements you are closing yourself off from the world's nuances.
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
If you are curious read my original stamens, it's the others who demanded explanation - and i was happy to provide it.
That's rather a different point -- it's more like saying you like red wine, therefore white wine is bad ...
'Warhorse' doesn't look the way it does because they ran short of money, or because the cinematographer forgot how to light his shots -- it looks that way because the director and his team -- cinematographer included -- wanted it to look that way. They chose that look. Really, to suggest otherwise is to pretend ignorance as to how a multimillion dollar movie directed by a well-established director gets made.
You may prefer red wine, but if your host pours you a glass of white wine is not 'bad' just because you don't like it. You may entirely dispute his decision to chose white with veal, but it would be presumptuous to argue that white wine was bad ...
Cheers,
GB