What is Great Cinematography... Really.

Bonedog

Bonedog

Active member
I've been asking this question for quite some time. I expect to continue to ask it for the rest of my life. I thought I'd bring it here.

Everyone- critics, videographers, middle aged women at the movie theater- they all throw around the term "cinematography." "Wow, that movie had great cinematography!" But what is "great cinematography?" I answer that question all the time, whenever I am trying to make a good impression, when I'm trying convey my passion for the art to someone else. I say that cinematography is the art of story telling through moving images. Great cinematography is that which best conveys the story. But what the crap does that even mean? The past few months I've been watching classics that are renowned for their photography in an attempt to understand great cinematography. Vertigo. Butch Cassidy. Those are a couple. I just finished watching Days of Heaven a few moments ago. Each of these films are of a different genre. A thriller, a comedy, and a period drama. Each is essentially a tragedy as well. The photography, especially in Vertigo and Days of Heaven, draws attention to itself. We see long takes. Malick seems to be particularly drawn to turkeys. This makes each film incredibly evocative. It causes a bitter sweet feeling. Sets a richly dark mood. But is that what makes it great cinematography? I couldn't describe how I felt after watching Vertigo. Is that what good cinematography is? Some say that its the lengths that a DP goes through to achieve a shot. The redwood scene in Vertigo- Hitchcock went to town with arc lights to light the dark forest. The beautiful macro shots of the locust in Days of Heaven- hours had to be spent with a wheat field and locust. But how does the process of getting a shot at all factor into the quality of the final image? I've heard that some photography is considered great because of revolutionary technique. The vertical zoom in/dolly out in Vertigo. But if that is what makes great photography, than mustn't special effects make film great as well?

These are my thoughts. I know there is no one answer to my question. But it is often said here that it is not the rig, the glass, or the number of pixels that make a great image, but the cinematographer. So I brought my question here. I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Regards,
~Bonedog
 
A cinematographers job is to create the style and look of the image in conjunction with the art departments as directed by the director.
 
I watched the Blu-ray of Jacque Tati's "Playtime" last night. First time I have ever seen one of his films though I was aware of his name and reputation. It is a visual comedy in which dialogue and sound play no role except to add texture. The film is choreographed with the precision of a ballet, every image, every move. This is a pure example of cinematography as fine art. It is fascinating, compelling, beautiful in a stark ultra-modern way, and hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Noel Evans said:
A cinematographers job is to create the style and look of the image in conjunction with the art departments as directed by the director.
Click to expand...

That is his "job" yes. But that is such a relative thing.. its all based on what the director wants to achieve. Your say a DP's work is judged on how close he hits the mark of the directors vision?
 
In the broadest sense a cinematographer focuses attention to tell a story. DOF, lighting, framing (what to shoot, how much to include), are tools that direct attention. "Look at this. Its important. Now look at that"
 
memento515 said:
In the broadest sense a cinematographer focuses attention to tell a story. DOF, lighting, framing (what to shoot, how much to include), are tools that direct attention. "Look at this. Its important. Now look at that"
Click to expand...

In the very broad sense yes. But you can see almost any flick in the theater, accomplishes this to some degree. You can look at most big budget films and see pretty and complex shots. I don't think its hard to do with experience and money. Have you ever honestly seen a film the the theater and thought that it had bad cinematography?
 
I would classify most feature film cinematography as utilitarian craftsmanship, it gets the job done without calling undue attention to itself. Occasionally one will see flashes of exceptional beauty or artistic expression, but other than that it is just one element among many that make up the finished work. Very few films are visually compelling works of art. Film like theater is a collaborative art form where many elements contribute to the whole.
One recent feature that garnered a lot of criticism for its cinematography was "Public Enemy" but the look was a deliberate aesthetic choice, not carelessness or incompetence. Wnen multi-million dollar budgets are on the line, incompetence and carelessness are not tolerated.
 
I personally like cinematography that both makes you realize you're in a dream world that only a film could create, and makes you forget that a camera has recorded all of it - I like to feel entirely absorbed in the image, to feel like I'm right there clinging to the same things the character is. Two absolutely outstanding examples of amazingly well done cinematography are in two of my favorite films; Rob Zombie's House Of 1,000 Corpses and Harmony Korine's Mister Lonely. Two fantasy films that you walk away from simply being astounded at the personal feel of the things the camera captures, the emotions you feel with right along with the characters, the absolutely huge work put into filming these elaborate sets in locations (For ex - House Of 1,000 Corpses features a dilabitated on-location farm house, a circus-show decorated stage in a outback shed, an old-fashioned underground lair built with skeletons and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 cheese, and with Mister Lonely, you see skydiving nuns, celebrity impersonators building and performing on their own stage, an on-location Scotland castle, beautiful Paris streets, ect ect - two very relative films in terms of locations and design.) And all of this gets recorded by amazing cinematographers who know the exact film stock to use, the exact way to capture light, the exact way to make you feel right there in there in the action and drama, and make you feel immersed in another world. I sometimes like films with lens character, like wide-angle based films with a documentary look, but these two films simply make you forget you aren't in the film yourself. And I just love that, good cinematography should provide escapism in my opinion, just as much as the plot and the scenery the cameraman has to capture in his own way. It has to all be a package, nothing should distract from something else.

For instance with me and my films, I find myself thinking strange things like "I want my audience to see enough detail on these floors to smell how old and dusty they are." - I feel like my biggest weakness may be that I would rely a bit on my audience having been to a similair place before, to know the smells, and the feel, but I want to translate that however possible into digital recording. That's why I love Red One footage so much, every time I see the detail from that camera, like on tree bark or in distant leaves, my eyes melt and I feel like I'm looking at real life, like I can smell it or taste it. DSLR's just don't do that for me, not at the same way. I'm hoping that with more experience that I'll discover a focal length that helps DSLR footage look like this too, because with many focal lengths, I'm sure it's just a matter of how compressed things look when distortion from a wide angle lens takes over, or something.

One example of horrible cinematography is the beginning of Open Water, I started watching that film last night expecting to see something that looked like the poster (say, something that looked like Twister or even Ghost Ship), and the opening must have been the worst, Youtube-grade cinematography I'd ever seen in my life. I couldn't watch more than a minute of it, I turned if off. It was that horrible, possibly the worst of any film I'd seen in my life, I don't see how in the world Lionsgate bought that thing - then again, I didn't watch it to know.
 
Last edited:
If you can take a snap of frames throughout the film, hang them on the wall, and they 'look good', that's sort of a criteria for 'great photography'. Since film is 'moving' pictures, the second attribute
is how movement is presented in a shot. Since film is a group activity, how the various cuts are edited together and 'look' consistent, for some value of consistent...
 
Honestly I'm not sure folks aren't taking the definition a little too far.

Being both very simple, yet very hard at the same time, great cinematography is just taking the director's ideas and making them appealing to see/watch.
 
Svart said:
Honestly I'm not sure folks aren't taking the definition a little too far.

Being both very simple, yet very hard at the same time, great cinematography is just taking the director's ideas and making them appealing to see/watch.
Click to expand...

I think great cinematography goes beyond this utilitarian definition and rises to the level of great art. As with all great art, it is a relatively rare thing. No less effective as a contributing element of the film but going well beyond the ordinary.
 
Bonedog said:
That is his "job" yes. But that is such a relative thing..
Click to expand...

But cinematography is subjective, every element is left to choice. Theres no book that says 1+1=2. There are many things that can be different from shoot to shoot that can vary what the cinematographer needs to do.

How about this - to capture the directors vision as the eyes of the audience? :P
 
There have been plenty of films in the theatre with horrible cinematography...(some throw away action stuff with like 2 seconds a shot where you can't actually tell what's going on) and also some bad films with incredibly beautiful work by the DP... I think great cinematography has to move the viewer, often without a word of dialogue being uttered. I loved the work in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and MILLERS CROSSING...lots of shots that just spoke for themselves. In a different style, I liked the stuff in THE ROYAL TANNENBAUMS as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top