If a film doesn't have good cinematography, then it's just straight up bad. You can have amazing actors, perfect writing, but with shit cinematography there's just no way it could be considered a decent film. Hell, good cinematography can save BAD movies like the Fassbender Macbeth.
Without a doubt cinematography is the most important when constructing a film.
prove me wrong
The Tree of Life and Birdman.
EXCELLENT cinematography in both films... and yet, they are bad films. The story and the presentation suffered immensely; the writing was bland at best, ridiculous at worst. The performances were less than stellar. But they looked outstanding.
Alas, all we were left with was a multi-million dollar, 120 minute screensaver.
i cringed
birdman was fun
>Hell, good cinematography can save BAD movies like the Fassbender Macbeth
You have it backwards, OP. That was a good movie despite it's amateurish, uneven cinematography.
>they are bad films.
nope
What point are you trying to make by posting that pic, OP?
Delete this post and stop replying to threads for a few days.
I get what you're saying.
You see great cinematography in a film and you think "what I'm watching must be great! Look at it! Movies that look like this always have great meaning"
But really it's just shit, shot from a good angle, with right lighting, and the right sound or lack thereof
>film is a visual medium le reddit post
Writing is king.
Will someone lynch me if I say I feel the exact same way about Kurosawa? If it weren't for the cinematography, half his samurai movies would be trash.
Although, I love To Live and Drunken Angel.
nah man it's cool :3
>Writing is king.
In books.
These are movies. Visuals are the priority. Nobody wants to watch the best writing ever when the cinematography is shit.
I wasn't making a point with the picture, just showing good cinematography.
In no way was I implying anything wrong with There Will Be Blood.
>You can have amazing actors, perfect writing, but with shit cinematography
these 3 just never come together though
It's decent but not really notable, imo.
This. BAKA
I don't think you really understand what is meant by "cinematography". Cinematography just means "motion picture photography".
Cinematography is one of the lesser important aspects of a film in the sense that a poorly shot film that delivers on its story/characters will still be a rewarding experience. Example: Primer. Primer is quite terribly shot: lots of shaky camerawork, back/front focus, poor exposure, poor grade etc. but it's a great film.
Conversely you've got many films in Hollywood with passable or "good cinematography" that are just terrible. Example: Jack and Jill. Competently shot by all means, but a garbage film.
Somewhat related, this is reminds me of a common film school exercise that teaches students that visuals are only half the picture. Students are shown between an example that looks good but sounds terrible, and one that looks bad but sounds good. 99% of cases the former is chosen as the preferred one.
Having said that, a film's visual elements are important in a different way, when they are used to communicate information to the audience. But that has little or nothing to do with the technical aspects of how the film is shot.
Anyway, I think people have a very limited understanding of how films are actually made mistake "cinematography" for pretty pictures, clever shot composition and/or blocking.
I'm not the biggest fan, but people love John Cassavettes films. Which have terrible cinematography.
What about Von Trier, who has in the past deliberately employed poor cinematography? What's the judgement on that?
Also some cheaper nastier films, something like The Man From Earth, which are well acted, well written, perfunctorily directed but very mediocre on the photography front?
The user said good cinematography COULD save a bad film, potentially.
His point was you can't have a GOOD film with BAD cinematography.
The cinematography isn't even that good in Kurosawa films. I mean, it's not bad, but in the early stuff it's not amazing.
People are mixing up mise-en-scene/direction and cinematography again - Or broadening the term too much.
If you look at what 99.9% of cinematographers do it's just the photographic process. Lighting, development etc.
Hell, in the modern age a huge chunk of their job is taken over by the digital colorists.
I wouldn't lump framing, movement etc into the same bandwagon, since that's often (usually) the choice of the director.
>People are mixing up mise-en-scene/direction and cinematography again - Or broadening the term too much.
Probably the latter for me, yet my point still stands about his films.
Is there a book or online resource you could mention to look further into this? Not OP and Nice double dubs bub
The Tree of Life is the most important and impressive religious work of art of the 21st century. This isn't me being hyperbolic; i'm genuinely serious.
Thinking a movie is objectively good is retarded.
Oh look, another "I didn't understand the Tree of Life therefore it's bad" post
nice post, redditor.
Why was Macbeth's fief so poverty
But cinematography is literally what he is known for.
Just like all great filmmakers.
hell or high water had great cinematography but was kinds bad
In painting form matters more than subject matter. Why isn't it the same when it comes to film?
Yeah man, i'm sure you're well-versed in the arts you complete fucking dilettante.
Haha so as movie cinematography improve why do they keep sucking more and more? I'm sure it has nothing to the degradation of writing. Again
>le film is a visual medium maymay
What movies are you watching?
It is, just not in hollywood.
Holy FUCK Sup Forums is bad
Do you curate LACHMA? Who the fuck are you to say who is and isn't knowledgeable when it comes to contemporary art?
Just basing it on your outrageously embarrassing posts, family
You're baiting so ppl reply to your shit thread. Fuck off.
It depends on what your going for. I don't think comedies should be worried too much about cinematography.
No, i'm not that guy.
But generally speaking, people with good cinematography know what they're doing, so they'll always have at least decent writing.
Maybe the stories aren't for you, if what you're looking for is Inception.
Don't say that, good cinematography can elevate comedy a lot.
How come he doesn't have any credits as a cinematographer then?
How come most people know him as a Director and not a Cinematographer?
Excuse you?
>implying you can have good shots without a good writing in a conventional movie
lmao
Thinking that dismissing someone as a prole is a good way to engage what you perceive to be their bad opinions is pretty outrageous and embarrassing itself
>Cinematography
>Improving
Interesting perspective.
If Kurosawa is known for his cinematography, why does he have no credits as a cinematographer. Why are there multiple other cinematographers credited with the cinematography on his movies?
Why do most reviews and articles and other directors cite him as a director and not a cinematographer?
I assumed you were talking about Akira Kurosawa. Are you speaking about someone else?
Dishonest Filmmaking: (Damien Chazzele, Tarantino, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, Alex Garland, Paul Thomas Anderson, Nicholas Refn, Tom Hooper, Tyler Perry, Rian Johnson, Alfonso Cuaron, Noah Baumbach, Andrea Arnold, David Yates, Denis Vilenueve, James Franco, Steve McQueen) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonising.
THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking.
They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say.
They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.
These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time.
Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:
>Mike Leigh
>The Coen Brothers
>Werner Herzog
>James Cameron
>Mel Gibson
>Terrence Malick
>Gaspar Noe
>Clint Eastwood
Nah it's not.
I'm not looking for a discussion. I just wanted you to know that i got embarrassed for you before i went to bed.
Who made this?
Some of these names don't mix.
Inarritu, Cuaron, Franco, McQueen...I can see. Wes Anderson and Tyler Perry?
Not right.
Sleep tight boychick. Weird that you think about me before going to bed though
I'll give you Birdman but Tree Of Life is pure unadultered k i n o my guy
Back to Sup Forums, kiddo. Film is a visual medium.
~