Wesley Dumont

What's the saying? A horse made by a committee is a camel. This is that camel's shit that landed on the sandwich in front of someone at that meeting's plate which was then cannibalized by another, more troubled sandwich who came up with a movie just before he was eaten alive.

Unfortunately, someone heard his dying words. So, 'Hannibal Rising' is a so-called movie with people acting like there's danger, someone trying to stop or kill the dangerous, someone falling in love with the much younger danger. etc.

Is it sad that this "Movie" sucks all the life out of going to a movie? Yes.

But, that's not why we're here. We complain about the DP, the lighting, framing and movement choices that either make sense or don't. Here, Ben Davis is operating as if he was also made by a sandwich at that fateful meeting.

He pulls out all the 'shots' in his minimal, stolen, unimaginative arsenal. And he does it for no reason.  Ben shot
'The Girl With the Pearl Earring' - so, maybe he knows what he's doing or perhaps he's trying to cover up the shit of the story by putting up shit in the frame. Well, my friends, we all know that only makes a shit sandwich.
And a shit sandwich by committee is 'Hannibal Rising'.

He starts with a bleach bypass look for the better part of the first act. Followed by serious color treatment in post to crush the blacks, and make the dimmer scenes look more contrasty.  And the result is so passe. No one should be doing bleach bypass unless there's a very good reason. If it's almost a comment on bleach bypass. Otherwise, you're just eating the same sandwich.

He throws in a couple of early handheld shots in the opening sequence in the midst of being indecisive about the look of the scene. Well, Ben, it doesn't work.  It's distracting with a medium lens close-up. It's too jittery. If you need to do the Private Ryan thing for some reason, find a better one than the escape sequence.  it's been done, it's not reflective. come up with something else.

That's the real problem of the movie as a whole. It's a "Movie."  It has Nazi's as bad guys, then Russian emigres as bad guys, and there's a French detective serving justice and all that's good - he knows the smell of clove oil, he lost loved ones in the war... There's a Japanese aunt who escorts dear Hannibal through his "movie" kung fu  training sequence. 

The whole genre of war movies is taken as the back drop and the cover-up for every plot hole. There are too many to list. One of my favorite is when Hannibal shows up at the restaurant of one of the bad guys and , to prove that he hasn't killed his daughter, (thereby saving the cat) He dials the man's number and has him talk to his wife....

My Lord, what a terrible waste of time. At least every one got paid..

         

This one is being remade as we speak. Well, it's in post. And, we're not really speaking.  What I find most interesting about the remake, and there's not too many things that are interesting about remakes, is that while I was watching this, I kept thinking that it was indicative of the times in which it was made.

Two young psychos come to borrow some eggs from a couple in a gated resort community and exact torture on the family over the next 12 hours.

It  gets pretty gruesome.

The cinematography is good early HD - low lighting with few highlights to blow out, but with some long takes that take advantage of the medium. What's interesting is how bad this good example looks now, as HD has begun to come into it's own as a viable medium. You can see this on television in shows like 'Nip/Tuck'. 

The lack of breathing room in wide shots is sorely missing. So much so that, when we finally get a wide shot of a house during a brief escape attempt, it's refreshing.

But, I would say that the composition is spot-on, with no noticeable mistakes to speak of.

I'm surprised that it's being remade by Haneke himself, and, more surprisingly, for an American audience. I'm not sure that there's any point to it, and it seems rather shallow by this rather thoughful filmmaker. Although, he does like thumbing his nose at his own kind- namely middle class suburbanites, and one can easily make the assumption that he would relish the opportunity to do the same to some quote-unquote Americans.

If he shoots again on HD, it will be interesting to see if he uses more contrast, maintains the longer takes, or goes more 'American.'

The DP also shot 'The Time of the Wolf' which I thought was masterfully done.

I don't think I'm going to say anything that hasn't been said about how good this movie is. It gets a little more graphic than I expected, but it doesn't take away from anything.

The camera work was very good, there's one shot that's soft to the point of noticeable - but fortunately it's during a good deal of cutting.

However, there is one thing that bothers me, and I see it enough to comment on it- the Sun is always one source.  Meaning, light through a window is one source. Which means that the shafts of light through multiple windows should all align if they're on the same wall or facing the same direction.

In this case, it's a scene in a bathroom, and it's important. There's no reason why we should be distracted by overtly odd lighting. Shafts of light coming through three small windows behind the girl are going in all different directions. There's no reason for it. Don't do it. Especially in the 'reality' part of a fantasy/reality movie.

There was one bad start on a crane move, the aforementioned softness - it's a close-up of the girl as she steps out of her mother's bedroom late in the third act, and the stupid three-Sun bullshit in the bathroom.

Other than that, it's good, crushed-black film look. It's a little too dark at times, but it fits here. The special effects all work as they should.

This is probably the best movie not to miss this season on the big screen.

Beato knows his shit. This is what we need more of. Not a bunch of nonsense, straight shooting, especially when dealing with subjects such as royalty, where it's enough that we're sitting there looking up at them already. No need to doll it up any more.

He's a bit heavy on the dolly moves, but I think that's just a product of having the money. Dolly grip does a fine job.
The crane shots are a different story, especially the final shot over the fountain at Balmor. It starts off shaking and ends up canted in the frame. What?

The story is serviceable, in a year like this, that might mean that it gets best picture. It's about an old lady who thinks you have to behave the old way, then her peeps want her dead, and she realizes she has to act differently. Fortunately, there's Tony Blair to guide her.

It's a great lighting and camera style. The editing is spot on as well. There's a scene where the Queen falls in love with an elk, their eyes meet across the glen, blah, blah, blah. But, the two were never in the same frame. You think the deer looked like it was caught in the headlights? Helen, looking in love, in awe, she hears voices and then it's fear! Oscars galore.

It's big sources from the outside, and then lots of small units bouned in the corners to give big warm wraps around the faces.

One thing I appreciated was the simple television lighting gag. So often, someone is looking at the tv and it's all flash off, flash on, blue, red, green. No, that's not how it is. It's fucking simple. Two lights, maybe three, flood two, spot on, dim one of the three all the time, shoot it throw a frame of opal diffusion.
Or 2 foot four bank kino and flip the select ballast.

Oh, apparently theres a guy in the window of the Range Rover when Helen gets stuck in the river- a gaff. I didn't see it in the small screen here at home.

There's little to say on the shooting of this documentary other than my usual stuff about the 90's glut of docs that shouldn't have been made because they look so terrible. Here, they're using reasonable definition cameras, pd-150 or, more likely, the DVX100. The footage is good, even in low, natural light.

What's important is just how good this story is. It's the story of the former bass player of the pre-punk superstars 'The New York Dolls'. His downfall, his saving moments and an answered prayer. It's good story telling of a good story. Can't say that enough about docs unfortunately.

And, as a bonus, if you're a Christian, it's doubly poignant, I think.

enjoy.

Wow. What a piece of shit. Regurgita non grata. Anyway.

More to the point, it looks like shit too. Dick Pope knows what he's doing. Much of his period work, like 'Topsy Turvy', was more than fine. Nothing remarkable, but as you may know, that's about as good as it gets in my book.  The less you notice, the better, because if you notice it, they're trying to hide something.

And, here, they have a lot to hide.

They start by, weirdly, suggesting that the early life of this farm boy hero, was captured on film. They have a flashback sequence that introduces the main characters and it's 'posted' (effect added after the shooting) to look like an old film, with pulsing back lights, sepia tones, etc. Wha? So, fifteen or so years before this story, in which they 'introduce' the magic of a filmed device as part of a magic trick, there was a documentary crew shooting his life story...
Well, at least it 'matches' all the horrifically bad accents in the story.  I'll never understand why American actors, speaking English in a period piece set in Austria speak with vaguely British accents. If they're speaking English, why do they have accents at all? Fuck. What a piece of shit this movie is.

There's some good, capable dolly shots. So, Kudos to that grip. Nice work.

But, the post work is so phoney it's nearly unwatchable. Why do you have dark edges around the frame during the whole movie? Why? Say it with me, You can't paint a piece of shit and call it art.

And the color correction is an overdone, complicated mess.  Why would you discolor people's faces? From the chin to the forhead in close-up after close-up, it goes from sepia brown, to grayish, ashen white, to muddy orange to pitch black - on the obviously fake beard.

I've had enough.

Fuck Dick Pope, Fuck Neil Burger, Fuck Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti, may you rot in b-movie hell for your lack of thoughtful role choices after your success in that wine movie.

Criterion put this out and as always did a bang-up job. The transfer looks clean, titles are well-designed and the sound is crisp. 

It's a strange movie - some say it parallels the two stories - that of a poor girl of a proud father who falls in with a group of ruffians and loses her way, (if not more) and that of a donkey that goes from owner to owner suffering varying forms and degrees of abuse.

The girl picked the donkey out of a flock when young with a boy who said he would always lover her at her side.

Now, this happens some times, but I liked this movie and I can't tell you why. I sat there watching it, wondering what would happen next, my full attention on the plight of these two rather pedestrian characters. It was nice. It hasn't happened in a while.

Bresson is still framing low and tight with big contrasty sources. It's beautiful black-and-white cinematography. One huge mistake however, occurs right at the end. I can't tell you of the image,beyond that it is wonderful, but during this final exterior moving shot, someone steps in and gets their shadow on the bottom right hand side of the screen. Totally blows it. Makes you think someone is going to come  to the rescue.

Bresson loves framing out faces and then putting them dead center in the next shot. He focuses on wheels, feet, legs, any thing but a face; and then he squares up a face in the next frame. He rarely offers a wide shot, but he does so more often in this film than in most of his previous work.

And, I recommend watching it knowing that he has a sense of humor. Sometimes I watch a French film, particularly one in black and white, and I think it's all seriousness. Bresson lets us know right off the bat that he can kid around - the braying of a mule interrupts and becomes a response to a Schubert sonata during the opening sequence.

Unbelievable.
Excellent movie. But, I couldn't tell you why. It's the same things - I don't know why I want to know what's going to happen next to these characters, but it's riveting.

When I watch something like 'Notes on a Scandal', it can sometimes take me a minute to really enjoy the experience.  My problem is I'm just worn out by everyone trying to do the same thing, shoot with the same lights, frame the same way, make the same moves. And, normally, this is done by people who are just mimicking Oscar-winners of the past.

It's rare to see someone do it and do it right and for all the right reasons. Chris Menges may not be a genius. Cinematography has too many practitioners who've come to believe in their own genius.  But, Chris Menges knows what he's doing. That's the highest compliment I can give. The big-source natural look really works here. He chooses his moves. Saves the big crane shots to let us know that something is coming your way - it's important but simple. Like the approach of evil - God is watching, and if He could, he'd let you know too. But, all we have is this move. Up, slow drop, across the walk, up the stairs, around the pillar, and she knocks on the door. Done. Simple. It's really great. And, thank the Lord! He keeps them to a minimum.

The night scenes work as well. Even one scene being outside the pub works diagetically - as they women want to keep a lid on the situation - giving Menges the opportunity to use his big sources.

Any problems? One, but he gets away with it. When visiting friends in the country, Judi Dench's female friend comes into the doorway one night to talk with Judi about and old friend. She stands in the doorway with a tungsten unit blasting into her robe from mere inches away. It's an interesting choice, especially considering the lack of source. But, it works and he gets away with it. The fill it gives from the door helps to shape her face. The strongest part of the light is at the edge of frame. It's a convention used often, though usually a bit more softly. I can't remember, but it might have been used to frame Dench's head as well. I wish I would have noted that.

One thing that was interesting was the lack of kickers and/or edge lights on Judi Dench. It could have been for the sake of her thinning hair. Come to think of it, I think I only noticed them on Cate Blanchett at all.

I need to be more watchful.
It's a decent movie, too. They try to make it into more than it is with the idea that Judi Dench is somehow causing all the problems in Cate's life. I liked that the second act actually begins within a flashback. Which in fact may not have been as they've been toying with time in the movie. Tell me what you think.