The Cinematography Discussion #1 (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

Here's a stupid question: "cinametogropher" is the same thing as "director of photography," right?

John,

Going only by your posts, I certainly see the validity of your observations. And yes, that last pic definitely has a life/death dualism going on for it: cemetery in dark, people in light.

People may be reluctant to comment because we haven't seen the film. Heck, I'm never even heard of it. While your posts are very well written and intelligently presented, it's difficult to judge individual moments without having seen the context in which they were presented, which can only be done in one way: watching the movie.

I may rent it just so I can participate in this discussion more productively ([sarcasm]no, the internet isn't controlling my life...[/sarcasm]).

However, I'll make two comments:

1. Re: John's last pic (garveyard, life/death)

It seems that by putting the graveyard in the front and the people (with what may be considered that fill light thing John was describing earlier) in the back, it conveys a sense of hope. One must make an effort to look through the darkness and despair to reach the positive, life-affirming state of mind. Like life.

Hypothetically, if you imagine putting the girls in the foreground and the graveyard in the back, it would have the opposite effect. The death-image would be hovering around them, emanating a sense of doom.

Well, at least that's how my brain works. Isn't it odd, though, that it's the image in the back that makes the final impact?

2. This may sound silly, but it seems like one element used in the running theme of light is Rese Witherspoon's blonde hair. It's color coordinated with the fill light and the brilliant outside shots. I don't know if the blonde thing was intentional or not, but it could have that effect, even if it was by accident.

Stupid question #2: Reading this post, one gets a sense of painstaking detail, where images are used to make symbolic points and have poignant meanings. Is this just how all movies are made? That is, if I analyze a movie like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, will I get the same kind of symbolism?

 

[JohnRice]

if I analyze a movie like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, will I get the same kind of symbolism?

Maybe, maybe not. Of course, some do it better than others, but it will generally be there to some degree.
Excellent comments, Mike. The post will be going for a while, so see the film and come back with more.

 

[Evan Case]

That is, if I analyze a movie like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, will I get the same kind of symbolism?

The mall, Freud, the corndog he's eating, and its movement when he's rejected by the two young ladies. (Actually, this is almost certainly a parody of psychoanalysis rather than an actual occurence of it.)
As for this thread, I've had very little to say precisly because I haven't seen the film yet. If I do, I'll be sure to chime in with more substansive comments.
Evan

 

[Jay E]

Great review and analysis John.

I have never seen this film (in fact I got it mixed up with "Man on the Moon" in the Cinematography Tournament). I have just ordered the DVD from Deep Discount thanks to this thread. I've always admired the work of Robert Mulligan and Freddie Francis and from the screen shots you showed, it really looks like they were at the peak of their forms with this film. I look forward to watching this DVD.

 

[Seth Paxton]

As memory serves, aren't they reversed from each other as well. Moving forward through the gates at the beginning and backing out the gates at the end?

This is correct, but similar to the shots you showed here the point is to compare/contrast.
And IIRC he pans up over the gate then dissolves in closer rather than truly move in. Then at the end it pans down past the same "No Trespassing" sign.
BTW, John, I have not seen this film either.

 

[Seth Paxton]

How many people have taken a picture of a beautiful scene only to have the photo turn out like the dog's lunch? It isn't just because "you had to be there." It is because you need to know what you are doing

Finding this out the hard way in my very non-professional photography has spurred me to improve the camera I use and try to learn something in this area.

Failure to capture the true essence of a live scene is frustrating, and the ability to do so in many ways seems to be more rewarding than performing some "artistic" photographic alteration to a scene (filtering, blurring intentionally, etc).

 

[JohnRice]

Failure to capture the true essence of a live scene is frustrating, and the ability to do so in many ways seems to be more rewarding than performing some "artistic" photographic alteration to a scene (filtering, blurring intentionally, etc).

It is also infinitely more difficult, which is why so many times the latter is done and called "art."

 

[JohnRice]

This is correct, but similar to the shots you showed here the point is to compare/contrast.

My point is that this makes the two scenes mirror images of each other, which makes the "bookends" analogy fit all that much better.

 

[Josh_Hill]

So, when will we discuss a different film? Just wondering

 

[Seth Paxton]

My point is that this makes the two scenes mirror images of each other, which makes the "bookends" analogy fit all that much better.

Oh, sure, I agree with that point. Based on your description it sounds like Man in the Moon follows the same inward/outward pattern by placing the moon before and then after that shot of the porch.
I now dread my Out of Sight posting because everyone will be a critic for that. You're lucky, nobody has seen your film to disagree with you or call you on mistakes. Mine'll end up being a celebrity roast.

 

[JohnRice]

Based on your description it sounds like Man in the Moon follows the same inward/outward pattern by placing the moon before and then after that shot of the porch.

Quite true.

Hold your horses, Josh. There were quite a few hours put into this and I hope you can appreciate the need to let it run for more than just one weekday. We're just getting started.

 

[Josh_Hill]

Well, I was just wondering when we were going to move onto a different film. One that Ive seen.

 

[Tim RH]

I'm wondering about the quality of the Man in the Moon DVD, as I haven't seen any reviews of it online. I'm aware that it has virtually no extras, but how is it in the audio/visual department? It looks like a good film, and the price is cheap enough, but I'm still curious. Thanks.

 

[JohnRice]

The DVD has a very good anamorphic transfer. I don't have HDTV, so I can't really tell to the full degree, though it looks about as good as any DVD I have seen. The audio is two channel and sounds great. This film really doesn't have any need for a 5.1 channel track.

 

[Tim RH]

JohnRice,

Whoops! I just now noticed that you already mentioned the quality of the DVD on your first post about the film. My apologies.

 

[JohnRice]

You're lucky, nobody has seen your film to disagree with you or call you on mistakes.

You caught on to my tactics.
Tim.
No problem. Nothing wrong with repeating it.

 

[george kaplan]

Well, I was just wondering when we were going to move onto a different film. One that Ive seen.

We shouldn't be rushing here. Part of the plan is to give those who want to, a chance to watch the movie and then participate. It would suck if someone rented the film, and came here to add to the discussion, only to find that we've quickly moved on to the next film.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Isn't it odd, though, that it's the image in the back that makes the final impact?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you mean that it is the subject in the background that has the most impact, rather than the foreground?

Don't worry, most of the time I don't even understand what the heck I'm saying. But I think that you got it: though the foreground image is the first one noticed and is most prominent, the back is what defines the scene, eg, it is a scene of hope because of the light and lively characters.

Btw, last night I rented it. I went to a new video rental place in my neighborhood. They don't even have everything in alphabetical order, so the clerk and I both were running around the store looking for the damn thing. "It's in the computer, so it has to be here," and "Man in the Moon- with Jim Carrey?" were part of the dialogue necessary to locate the film. Fortunately, he was very helpful and patient and I got the DVD. I plan on watching it tonight.

It looks like a total chick flick, the kind of movie I wouldn't watch, so I'll be able to pay more attention to the cinemetography. Then, hopefully, my posts will make more sense.

I for one am glad this thread is focusing intently on one film at a time. The only one of the five movies I've seen is Vertigo, so I do want to watch them all for this discussion. If I have to get it from netflix, then the extra time will come in real handy.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I have stayed away from this thread long enough. This thread is a great idea and there are lots to be learned from it. Hopefully, I can contribute, as well.
Cinematogaphy is one of the more technical aspects of filmmaking. Wait a minute, what am I talking about? The entire process is almost technical in itself.
From my perspective, I'm almost compelled to revisit some of these films again before commenting as some of them is a blur to me at the moment (no pun intended ). The Man In The Moon is currently sitting on my shelf waiting to be seen. I will watch it in the next few days and offer my thoughts but by the looks of it, a lot of ground already been covered.
Should the thread move to another film by this weekend, that's fine. I'll just post what I have to add, if any.
Again, a very good thread to all those involved.
~Edwin

 

[Gabe D]

It is also infinitely more difficult, which is why so many times the latter is done and called "art."

As a professional artist (and sometimes photographer), I have to disagree (just a little) with some of this. I want to point out that using tricks of photography (filtering, blurring, etc.) is often the best way to bring across the real feeling you want from a scene. Sure, cheap effects are often overdone. (I'm certainly sick of seeing photographs with blurry backgrounds and foregrounds, but that's just because it's the popular commercial style right now.) But when used well, the tricks of the trade can certainly enhance a subject. In terms of cinematography, I don't think an active camera and dramatic lighting are any less valid than panoramic "realistic" imagery. I can see where you might find it more rewarding to take a realistic picture, but I think that's mainly because you're trying to meet the specific and rigid guidelines you have in your head. It is difficult to make something look exactly the way you want it to, whether you're attempting plain realism or a more abtract presentation. To say that realism is more difficult than "artistic" expression is, to me, like saying calculus is more difficult than dancing. Sure, one may be easier when you're just getting started, but that doesn't make it easier to master.
I also want to add that I think there is merit to "snapshot realism," allowing us to see not only the simplicity of a photographs subject, but of the photograph itself. It's hard to fake an unposed photograph.
On the topic of realism in cinematography, I think back to the television show "Murder One." If you remember, this was a drama that was supposed to follow one (fictional) murder trial over a year of the series. I remember reading about it before it came on. Steven Bochco talked about being inspired by the television coverage of the O. J. Simpson trial. I thought it sounded like a great idea, mostly because of my preconceived notion about the cinematography. I imagined that the show would be set in a courtroom with an unmoving camera, and no music. I thought it was a brilliant idea, a great way to remove the artificiality of the typical prime-time soap opera. If the drama was compelling, this could really break new ground. However, I was all wrong. The series was instead a victim of my most hated television photography technique: zoom way in so it looks like a pan-and-scan action movie. Huge faces filling the screen. It was awful. Anyway, I still think it could be effective to shoot a courtroom drama with a still camera and harsh overhead lighting, in the same vein as the faux-shaky cam in movies like Series 7: The Contenders.
In the previous paragraph I strayed from the point I wanted to make, which was that complete abandonment of photographic technique would result not in a traditional "beautiful" image (the kind we look for in a movie like Man In the Moon), but a grittier (but, to my way of thinking, more realistic) imagery. Both styles being equally valid. The latter being admittedly easier to achieve.