What is Great Cinematography... Really.

I don't think anyone really knows what is good cinematography (aside from us here on the forums). People in theatres watch a mainstream movie and probably don't even realize there was cinematography in it. In the indie filmmaking scene, cinematography is you own the camera, lights, and even a microphone as someone had said it in another post here somewhere.

How can someone really know what "good cinematography" is when ultimately it was something the director of the film asked for, and the cinematographer delivered?

Even as cinematographers, how do we recognize good cinematography when we see it? I think cinematography is something you notice more when its not there. So I'm not sure you can say, "oh the cinematography in that movie was soooo amazing". At least I never do.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
I don't think anyone really knows what is good cinematography (aside from us here on the forums). People in theatres watch a mainstream movie and probably don't even realize there was cinematography in it. In the indie filmmaking scene, cinematography is you own the camera, lights, and even a microphone as someone had said it in another post here somewhere.

How can someone really know what "good cinematography" is when ultimately it was something the director of the film asked for, and the cinematographer delivered?

Even as cinematographers, how do we recognize good cinematography when I see it? I think cinematography is something you notice more when its not there. So I'm not sure you can say, "oh the cinematography in that movie was soooo amazing". At least I never do.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my thought! But there are so many "authorities," (Roger Ebert for one) who are constantly talking about films with "great" cinematography. There so many films that have been acclaimed. How could I possibly disagree with someone who says for instance, that Citizen Kane had incredible cinematography?
 
Bonedog said:
This is exactly my thought! But there are so many "authorities," (Roger Ebert for one) who are constantly talking about films with "great" cinematography. There so many films that have been acclaimed. How could I possibly disagree with someone who says for instance, that Citizen Kane had incredible cinematography?
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying...but when I watch a movie I do see it, not all the time but on certain shots, I do just think WOW that's beautiful. Like a great photo...only it's a sequence of them. Like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS...when the girl is running, or RAGING BULL...the fight sequences are just stunning. There is no dialogue and the pictures move the story.
 
Some famous cinematographer whose name escapes me once said that there's good lighting, bad lighting, and the right lighting. To be honest, I don't think it's all that difficult to create beautiful or stylistic imagery in film. The difficult part is finding what type of lighting, camera movement, and shot selection best suits the story. Sometimes that story requires what people might consider "bad" lighting from a technical standpoint. Movies are about the story, not about the cinematography. Cinematography is a tool that we use to enhance the storytelling in a subtle and unobtrusive manner. As a cinematographer, I generally strive to not have the audience think "oh wow that's a great shot" because even in the moment that they're thinking that, they're pulled out of the story and not paying attention to the character or the dialogue, and they have to be re-absorbed so to say. The "right" lighting (and by extension cinematography) in my opinion only occurs when it helps the story indirectly. Lighting for effect should be suggestive and subtle, not overt and intrusive.
 
Finnegan said:
As a cinematographer, I generally strive to not have the audience think "oh wow that's a great shot" because even in the moment that they're thinking that, they're pulled out of the story and not paying attention to the character or the dialogue, and they have to be re-absorbed so to say.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I remember watching MOON and really getting absorbed into it, then there is that scene where Sam Rockwell plays ping pong with himself, the cinematography and VFX were amazing - a little too amazing, as I was thinking "How did they do that?" for the next few minutes and it really took me out of the zone I was in.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Roger Deakins is certainly one of the best contemporary cinematographers. He is responsible for the Coen brothers films. Want to compare great with merely good? Watch the original True Grit, then see the new one.

This discussion reminds me of the lady who asked Louis Armstrong "How do you define jazz?" He replied, " Lady if you have to ask, you will never know." True art moves us emotionally in ways that go beyond mere technique. So it is with great cinematography.
 
starcentral said:
I don't think anyone really knows what is good cinematography (aside from us here on the forums). People in theatres watch a mainstream movie and probably don't even realize there was cinematography in it. In the indie filmmaking scene, cinematography is you own the camera, lights, and even a microphone as someone had said it in another post here somewhere.

How can someone really know what "good cinematography" is when ultimately it was something the director of the film asked for, and the cinematographer delivered?

Even as cinematographers, how do we recognize good cinematography when I see it? I think cinematography is something you notice more when its not there. So I'm not sure you can say, "oh the cinematography in that movie was soooo amazing". At least I never do.
Click to expand...

The best work comes from close collaboration between director and cinematographer with each contributing creative input. It is not a one way street.
 
If you guys haven't already.

Check out the documentary, "Cinematography Style"

I watched it recently and it interviews 20+ ASC Cinematographers about what "Style" is.

Pretty amazing and inspiring.
 
Brandon J. Garcia said:
If you guys haven't already.

Check out the documentary, "Cinematography Style"

I watched it recently and it interviews 20+ ASC Cinematographers about what "Style" is.

Pretty amazing and inspiring.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, a very inspiring documentary, i watch it when i need a pick-me-up. Just to be clear there are 110 interviews and each of the 110 cinematographers appears atleast once, albeit very briefly. You should read the books, they're even better.
 
starcentral said:
I don't think anyone really knows what is good cinematography (aside from us here on the forums). People in theatres watch a mainstream movie and probably don't even realize there was cinematography in it
Click to expand...

But if they dont understand the plot they know it was a bad film

Some shots (slo mo explosion in hurtlocker, sinenna miller in underwear, layer cake) certainly capture an audience and will even pull them into the film from the trailer

Uses of reveals to shock in horror etc

Cinematography matterseven when it is not noticed

graphic design
photography
fuel line in your car, the brake pads
the motor in your spin dryer
the elasticity of your swimming trunks

all of these things, created by proffessional serious people great at their craft, and not noticed by the user until they are done wrong or dont work

just because they are un notticed and not thought about by the user doesnt mean they are not important to the user

especially the fuel line and brake pads

S
 
Matthew B said:
Completely agree, a very inspiring documentary, i watch it when i need a pick-me-up. Just to be clear there are 110 interviews and each of the 110 cinematographers appears atleast once, albeit very briefly. You should read the books, they're even better.
Click to expand...

Same title for book(s) as documentary?
 
I think good cinematography is simply put designing the shot. Not letting it just happen, but understanding what tools you have and how to use them to design each shot so it serves the film. It's best explained in this simple video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZA9r0iWbdw

Just like the video says, its NEVER the equipment. The budget should never dictate if you have good cinematography.

T
 
Steve Laramie said:
Great cinematography should technically go un noticed to the un trained eye.
Click to expand...

But you need to add the reason.

Because you're making a film to express the points of the story, not the points of any department. Dramatic motivation is king and the beauty is that dramatic motivation can be portrayed in infinite ways. Therefore no two cinematographers will light the same scene, from the same script, the same way.

There was a brazilian documentary about DPs named 'Enlightened', they asked severals (more than 5) DPs to light a romantic scene of a couple dancing, every light was different than another.

Of course there are rules and guidelines, but it's experience and criterion that will add the touch of greatness to the work.

Not disagreeing with you, I just used your comment to express my point of view!

:)
 
A lot plays into "great cinematography" - it's composition, blocking, lighting, knowing when to move the camera and when not to. It is, to a great extent, the cummulative result of the various departments working in perfect synchronicity. There are very few of these, but perfect films tend to draw very little attention to the technical, but it is all there, invisibly supporting the telling of the story.
 
great cinematography also touches the viewer on a subconscious level. An example of this would be scale. How a person in power will fill more of the screen than someone weak and powerless. To the viewer, who have never studied film, do not always realize the reason why it was shot in that manner, but they can 'feel' the discomfort or helplessness, it is able to effect them on a deeper level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top