Overeducated sports writers log
- Thread starter Corpsey
- Start date
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
Satchm0
7 years ago
Breathtaking cinematography. Terrence does it again!
luka
Well-known member
The voiceover is massively cringe too. So badly written and acted.
have you seen days of heaven? that's quite good at the beginning and very end, but has this really portentious boring bit in the middle. fampusly very good cinematography, nestor almendros i think. he shot at golden hour only, so it's very lush and bright. but richard gere is such a bag of shit actor.
IdleRich
IdleRich
But it is quite funny that there was so much anticipation for it (The Thin Red Line I mean) and... it was ok I guess. But still everyone talked about Malick as this auteur whose films were so rare and had to be treasured for their mere existence... and then he did another one only five years later which kinda spoiled that narrative a little but it was just about tenable. And then eventually he just started spraying them out like Fassbinder on a speed binge with a corresponding fall in quality.
luka
Well-known member
What's your definition of cinematography?
is this a trick question?
it just means the look and shooting style of the film. so not to do with the actors, or the editing, or the script, more the shot selection (wides, close ups, tracking, hand held vs tripod setups etc) and also the use of light/shadows, things like that. can get very technical.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I think he (Patty) nailed it though.
How it looks I guess. Strange that one guy on the film is normally called the cinematographer (though how that differs from director of photography) I dunno so you'd kinda think he should get the credit for the cinematography Like Bergman always used the same cinematographer and when Tarkovsky shot the sacrifice (in Sweden) as almost a homage to Bergman he used the same guy to get the same look.
Wong Kar Wai always uses that guy Christopher Doyle who gets that very distinctive look to his films.
But I guess it could be the colours, the way the camera moves, the depth or flatness of the picture and so on. But also can be used in quite a vague way to justify shit films without really having to give a good reason.
How it looks I guess. Strange that one guy on the film is normally called the cinematographer (though how that differs from director of photography) I dunno so you'd kinda think he should get the credit for the cinematography Like Bergman always used the same cinematographer and when Tarkovsky shot the sacrifice (in Sweden) as almost a homage to Bergman he used the same guy to get the same look.
Wong Kar Wai always uses that guy Christopher Doyle who gets that very distinctive look to his films.
But I guess it could be the colours, the way the camera moves, the depth or flatness of the picture and so on. But also can be used in quite a vague way to justify shit films without really having to give a good reason.
cos it does the job of engrossing you in the film in a way that means you are not bothered about how it looks, you suspend all your disbelief and get carried away