Cinematographers (Directors of Photography)

[mclay18]

Personally, I don't think directors themselves really do much. When you think about the entire crew of people including the:

- Music Composer (Score)
- Director of Photography / Cinematographer
- Sound Design / Sound Effects
- Visual Effects / CGI
- Actors and Actresses
- Costume Department
- Make-Up
- Screenplay Writer

You forget the most crucial ingredient to any good film: the editor(s). He/she is responsible for going through all the daillies with the director, picking the right takes to use, as well as maintaining a consistent pace and rhythm. I would say the editor is one of the five most important factors of moviemaking, and arguably more important than a good DP/cinematographer.

Some movies would either be scattershot or incomprehensible without a good editor to hold the story together. Something as conceptually challenging like Inception, Blade Runner or even Rashomon wouldn't be well-regarded as they are if they weren't so well put together.

 

[moviedoors]

You forget the most crucial ingredient to any good film: the editor(s). He/she is responsible for going through all the daillies with the director, picking the right takes to use, as well as maintaining a consistent pace and rhythm. I would say the editor is one of the five most important factors of moviemaking, and arguably more important than a good DP/cinematographer.

Some movies would either be scattershot or incomprehensible without a good editor to hold the story together. Something as conceptually challenging like Inception, Blade Runner or even Rashomon wouldn't be well-regarded as they are if they weren't so well put together.

Let's not forget the movie commonly referred to as the greatest film ever made, Citizen Kane. For all it's sound innovations, beautiful deep focus cinematography and mise-en-scene, it's the way it's all assembled and arranged in editing that makes it truly innovative.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Let's not forget the movie commonly referred to as the greatest film ever made, Citizen Kane. For all it's sound innovations, beautiful deep focus cinematography and mise-en-scene, it's the way it's all assembled and arranged in editing that makes it truly innovative.

Man, I have not seen it in donkey's years, maybe not even since I saw it at the cinema in actual fact(aye, i waited to see it on the big screen, to see what the big deal was properly), but there is a famous long tracking shot that takes you through a window, that had never been done before. I can't recall it exactly, but the buffys will know what I'm talking about.

 

[Rocketman]

I would say it's the complete opposite. With the names you have mentioned, all their work sticks out for a reason (and that's because they're some of the best).

You sort of give off the impression that a cinematographer does more work than the actual director of the film does. Film is an entirely collaborative process, which you have noted, but there's much more to a director's job then getting other people to do the work for him/her. A film follows the vision of what a director wants and he needs to orchestrate and tell everybody what they need to do to go along with said vision. When it comes to angles, this is usually decided by the director. Lenses are chosen based upon what the director wants in a shot.

When it comes to an important job at being subtle, the credit for that should go to an editor. You know you have a good editor when you don't even notice the cuts.

Personally, my favorite cinematographer is John Alcott

I respectfully disagree. Cinematography is not supposed to be noticeable. Even Wally Pfister has mentioned this, and his work is subtle. He uses natural light as opposed to artificial light, because a scene with fancy, staged lighting would feel unnatural, and would be noticeable.

I personally love Pfister because he's (usually) not in your face with his approach. Unless it's a scene called for by the story to be visually arresting. Story always comes first, and cinematography helps tell the story, and if you as a viewer are focusing more on the lighting and angles instead of what's actually happening, something is wrong.

The Prestige:

The Dark Knight:

This is my favorite scene in The Dark Knight because it's so brilliantly executed. When the Joker is holding Rachel with the knife, the camera is going around them at a medium pace.

1. It follows the Joker by slowly creeping to our right.
2. Then the camera moves left. "You look nervous."
3. Then it moves to the right and stops. "One day they carve her face."
It gives the viewer the unsettling feeling that the Joker is all around you. You can't escape him. The trick is that he's all around us when it's actually us that's moving around him. It's an amazing piece of work.

That technique is used several times in TDK, but it's never used in Batman Begins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFBB8Yo7yu0
[YT]bFBB8Yo7yu0[/YT]
It's used again near the beginning when Alfred and Bruce are in the Bat-Bunker right before they're on the boat with the Russian ballet.

Now, in MY opinion, I could very well be wrong, and if I'm in fact wrong, I'll totally apologize and admit defeat... but this stuff is NOT the work of Christopher Nolan - it's the work of Wally Pfister. And that's no disrespect to Nolan (I love the guy immensely), but he should thank his lucky stars that he has Wally, because it's stuff like this that made that movie so incredible.

NOTE: There seems to be a subtle theme of "circles" in TDK. Things going around and back again. There are several "returns" to previous dialogue (the scene after Rachel dies and Alfred brings food to Bruce has almost the exact dialogue as in Batman Begins when he sees Young Bruce, and it's the exact same music.) Something "full circle" is apparent several times throughout both movies.

 

[Rocketman]

The New World (Terrence Malick) is another example of natural light, and it looks absolutely beautiful in its simplicity.

 

[PWN3R]

One of my favorite Director/DP collaborations is Paul Thomas Anderson and Robert Elswit. They're like Simon & Garfunkel, except they're both Paul Simon.

Punch Drunk Love - This is my favorite PTA film; a beautiful, quirky story that's relatable, and it's filled with absolutely sensational images.

Elswit does amazing things with lens-flares and overexposure. Some scenes are so blown out, yet it just works. In the hands of lesser filmmakers, it would probably fall apart. Best lens flares, ever. The closing shot, swooooonn.

I could watch this on mute, and it'd still be captivating. Some of my favorite moments:

(this is in my avy if you look fast enough, ahhh )

 

[Mandalore464]

A lot of people don't realize just how involved most directors are with the look of their films, and think the DP is the only person responsible for it. That's just plain wrong.

Cinematography is what cinema is mostly about (that and editing are the only things that make it different from any other form of art). Directors have to be in love with cinematography to do this job.

I for one, and I would bet most directors around, are the ones crafting the look of their films. The DP is there to ensure all his or her expectations are matched, or better, improved upon. People will say that films shot by such DP look the same even though they were directed by different people, I will say that the reason these directors chose this DP in the first place is because they wanted to give their film this particular look.

But in most cases, a director's visual touch is very apparent in their work, even if they have worked with several different DPs. Make no mistake, a good film director is the one deciding what camera angles, what camera moves, what lighting and lens should be used... The DP is the guy guaranteeing that everything will be done to match the director's requirements, period. No DP should decide what the film should look like.

Another detail :

Personally, I don't think directors themselves really do much. When you think about the entire crew of people including the:

- Music Composer (Score)
- Director of Photography / Cinematographer
- Sound Design / Sound Effects
- Visual Effects / CGI
- Actors and Actresses
- Costume Department
- Make-Up
- Screenplay Writer

I still don't get the Hollywood system on that one. How can a director be praised for his work if he/she didn't ALSO write the script???

In the French system, and independent filmmaking around the world, if you don't write a film, you're only somewhat responsible of its success/failure.

A director should write his/her movies, or at the very least supervise the screenwriting from A to Z. I will never understand how you can just show up in Hollywood and grab a script that's just been laying there for some time and make a film out of it, and then take the praise/blame for what the movie ends up being.

Screenwriting is an essential part of filmmaking, and none other than the film director should do it.

 

[mclay18]

Screenwriting is an essential part of filmmaking, and none other than the film director should do it.

That's a good idea in theory, but not all writer/directors are good writing-wise. Directors like M. Night Shyamalan and Zack Snyder are piss-poor writers for the most part.

 

[moviedoors]

What about someone like Scorsese or Hitchcock? They didn't write plenty of their films, but there aren't any filmmakers that more perfectly embody the auteur theory than those two. You can watch 20 seconds of one of their movies and know who was at the helm, screenplay or not. A good screenplay is useless without a talented director, and I just can't agree with the idea that the director must be the writer too.

Cronenberg's a guy who used to subscribe to the idea that the director should write their own screenplays, always, and completely original too, no adaptations. Then he grew up a little and realized that that was a pedantic and closed-minded way to approach filmmaking, and he's right.

 

[Mandalore464]

No.

Good directors can turn the worst screenplay into a good film (Eastwood's Bridges of Madison Country comes to mind), but it won't be their film completely unless they wrote it.

They have to share the credit with the guy who imagined the story, the characters and, ultimately, created what most people will see as the core of the film, because let's face it, the GA only watches films for the stories they tell, and not for the technical aspects or even the visual storytelling, because the GA doesn't know sh... and doesn't give a damn about them.

A film is, first and foremost, a STORY told through visuals and sounds. If you didn't write the story, then it's not YOUR film more than it is the writer's. I'd say it's a good 50/50.

Directors getting credit for a story they didn't write is unfair, there's nothing pedantic in this argument.

Now, like I said, a director should at least supervise the screenwriting from A to Z. If they're unable to write, they should hire someone who can do it for them, but it has to be their story. Ridley Scott often does, and is a great director in my book.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

That's a good idea in theory, but not all writer/directors are good writing-wise. Directors like M. Night Shyamalan and Zack Snyder are piss-poor writers for the most part.

Shymalan's screenplays are actually very good for the most part...Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs..are his best...

Lady in the Water and the Village are not as good, but they still have interesting ideas in there, and good characterisation, still pretty good.

Even the Happening is not that bad as a screenplay, although it still has some right clunky stuff in there, the screenplay is better than the directing, which is what really let that movie down, as a concept it was not bad at all, and still had some good execution writing wise, the direction was what made it feel utterly ridiculous.

 

[hugekent]

Great thread idea. Needs more pictures though.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Now, in MY opinion, I could very well be wrong, and if I'm in fact wrong, I'll totally apologize and admit defeat... but this stuff is NOT the work of Christopher Nolan - it's the work of Wally Pfister. And that's no disrespect to Nolan (I love the guy immensely), but he should thank his lucky stars that he has Wally, because it's stuff like this that made that movie so incredible.

Flip side is look at Pfister's work without Nolan. Slow Burn has pretty average cinematography, whereas the cinematography is very good in all of Nolan's films including the one he shot himself (Following). Pfister is luckier to be working with Nolan than the other way around IMHO. And Pfister would tell you this himself. Hell, he gave all the credit for his Inception Oscar to Nolan.

 

[moviedoors]

A film is, first and foremost, a STORY told through visuals and sounds. If you didn't write the story, then it's not YOUR film more than it is the writer's.

I suppose I also don't see why the hell this matters. I just want to watch good movies. Everyone involved with the making of one, at least ideally, should want to make a good one. In the grand scheme of filmmaking, does "owning" a movie in a French way make any difference at all to whether or not it's any good? I don't think so.

 

[moviedoors]

As far as directors dictating shots, yeah, most of the great ones are both very specific and very knowledgeable. Then you've got your Kevin Smiths who don't know the difference between a 25mm and 50mm lens (but at least Smith himself, on his better days, has a keen feel for characters and performance). When I spoke earlier of DP's more or less directing the movie, the directors being usurped are of the 2nd variety. And then there's a million shades of director types in between. I've worked with a few now, and the strengths and weaknesses are all over the map. Some are great with composition, but horrible with actors. Some are great with actors, but completely ignorant of cameras, sound, editing (the most obnoxious kind to work for if you're on the tech crew), and some are good with just about everything (the kind that are a joy to work with, no matter how demanding. They don't have the fancy director's chair because they're as busy doing **** as any tech crew member. I suppose I can't speak for all tech guys, but I love that. It inspires me to work harder and it keeps me on my A-game because I can't BS someone who knows how to do my job).

 

[nimrodson]

*Subscribes* I like the idea of this being a "database" for DPs. for this thread.

 

[nimrodson]

And for Wally Pfister, Robert Elswit, Eric Steelberg and Robert Yeoman. Some of my favorites. Hell, most of these DPs listed are all tremendous talents!

 

[Mandalore464]

I suppose I also don't see why the hell this matters. I just want to watch good movies. Everyone involved with the making of one, at least ideally, should want to make a good one. In the grand scheme of filmmaking, does "owning" a movie in a French way make any difference at all to whether or not it's any good? I don't think so.

"Owning" a film does not exist. A film is a collaborative effort.

Yet, it is an art form, and all artists long for recognition. Otherwise, Scorsese would just sell hot dogs and shoot films on Super 8 every odd sunday.

I'm sorry, but a guy using somebody else's story (who could potentially make a great film out of it, again, that's not the argument) and a guy who actually came up with a story to convey a certain message and then made a film out of it...

I'm not saying the first should be stoned and boo-ed, that's not my point. All I'm saying is, the latter is a more complete artist, and should be considered as such. The former is at best a hired help with a vision. That's different.

 

[moviedoors]

So you don't think a director can bring their own vision to a story? I flatly reject that. If we're throwing out the obviously absurd "owning" of a movie, why isn't there then room for some to take a story and so throughly filter it through their own sensibilities that they can have a real measure of artistic ownership? The 3 guys I already mentioned are proof enough of that.

I feel like you're trying to draw a black-or-white line in the sand. I think there are many levels to this give and take in moviemaking.

 

[PWN3R]

More sexy images, from Sam Mendes/Conrad Hall - Road to Perdition

Now, in MY opinion, I could very well be wrong, and if I'm in fact wrong, I'll totally apologize and admit defeat... but this stuff is NOT the work of Christopher Nolan - it's the work of Wally Pfister. And that's no disrespect to Nolan (I love the guy immensely), but he should thank his lucky stars that he has Wally, because it's stuff like this that made that movie so incredible.

As for Nolan's involvement, check out this great interview with Wally on TDK, you should see it listed. It's over an hour, you might climax:
http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/conversations-on-cinematography/id279756528?i=36768473

Nolan is involved every second, like a good director should be. They break down the script by page. Nolan is Han Solo and Wally is the Millennium Falcon.

 

[darkseid26]

good stuff.

 

[Fanticon]

Rocketman,
You can't mention John Toll without mentioning Legends of the Fall

 

[Mandalore464]

So you don't think a director can bring their own vision to a story? I flatly reject that.

So do I. Hence the last sentence from my last message : "a director can also be hired help with a vision".

If we're throwing out the obviously absurd "owning" of a movie, why isn't there then room for some to take a story and so throughly filter it through their own sensibilities that they can have a real measure of artistic ownership? The 3 guys I already mentioned are proof enough of that.

Well, I agree with that, and yes, the examples you gave were spot-on. I'm not saying a director who makes a film they didn't write shouldn't have a "real measure of artistic ownership" over it, because really, they should. After all, give a script to three different directors, and you'll get three really different films. The director's artistic personality shows up in those differences.

My point rather is that the story told through the film is essential to a film's success or failure. I will take pleasure in watching a film with impeccable cinematography but at the end of the day if the story is ****, I will not like the film, and will only consider it worthwhile from a technical standpoint.

Going from there, I think it's highly unfair to see a lot of directors praised for successful films they've directed and not written, because the writer should get equally praised.

Of course the director will take the script and make minor changes here and there (there can be major changes as well, but let's not fool ourselves, that doesn't happen every week), but the story does not come from them. The project wasn't born out of a compulsive, genuine desire from the director to put this story out there.

I'll be exaggerating if I called those directors opportunists because I truly do think that to accept a project they have to actually feel somewhat attached to it emotionally.

But I still think they're not doing the whole job, and I'm sorry if that sounds pedantic to you, but that's just the way I feel.

Then again, I know that the French system which I am the most familiar with defined my vision, and to me, the fact that a director could just be there for the shoot and then hand the film over to an editor without any right over the final cut is an aberration, while it's still pretty common in the Hollywood system where, let's face it, producers are the most important people involved in the filmmaking process, while directors -except for a few big names who have a lot of creative freedom and the liberty to greenlight a project- are just hired by them to do whatever the hell they're told to.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

Alright I'll admit I don't know many names of cinematographers,but I have to admit I find myself paying closer attention to the look of the film more than the actual story most of the time.It seems like I judge films on the visuals more than the story,or if the visuals enhance the film.

 

[Gabe99]

The Martian Cinematography by Dariusz Wolski and Production Design by Arthur Max.

Ridley Scott’s Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski On Exodus
Also talks his Keith Richards documentary.

Brendon: So your role, or part of your role, is to suggest notionsf
Dariusz: I’m always asked by journalists and film students, “What is yours and what is his?” It’s so hard to define. It’s a great collaborative experience, to which I bring my set of skills and he is, of course, the driving force of the movie. I can’t tell you where the line is.

Brendon: It’s the whole Lennon & McCartney thing.
Dariusz: All I can say is that I’m always creatively fulfilled.

Brendon: So when it comes to designing the look, the film’s palette, the way the world will be framed, do you spend a lot of time talking to Arthur Max and Janty Yates?
Dariusz: It’s a big brainstorming session from the beginning. Ridley, Arthur, Janty and I always talk, and the ideas are constantly evolving and developing. There’s constant dialogue.