5 posts tagged “cinematography school”

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.

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.