Find a flaw

find a flaw

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/chivexp/?hl=en
youtube.com/watch?v=RhYuu5HyA4Q
youtube.com/watch?v=aRd-S1Yj9U8
youtube.com/watch?v=agX7ffZTGRo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Makes Deakins look like a bum

Follow his Instagram and you will see one. Still isn't a deal breaker though.

What is it? Is he a hardcore lefty or something?

None, he is a master

A dude is holding a statue in side way ... A men are supposed to get the thing upward when they get excited. I bet Deakins does exactly what the men should do !!!! (笑´・艸・)

...

Has he ever made a non-reddit film?

Literally every movie he made with Malick. The Tree of Life is the most Sup Forums film there is

user that's Chivo, not Roger Deakins.

8head

Lubezki turned Mallick, a non-reddit director, into reddit incarnated.
Deakins is reddit too.

To the Wonder is his most beautiful work

He pioneered the meme-take.

Dunno, is this his instagram?
instagram.com/chivexp/?hl=en

>Lubezki turned Mallick, a non-reddit director, into reddit incarnated.
What the fuck are you talking about? Malick influenced Lubezki's style, not the other way around. Malick is the one who came up the rules Lubezki still abides by on his other films. The New World looks more like a Malick film than it does a Lubezki film. And what's reddit about his recent stuff? They're not into Malick.

yes

...

Every time I see something by Lubezki I can't help but wonder if he has ever studied aesthetics, painting or art at all. All those pictures look like screensavers. Only an American could think they are beautiful.

Have you seen the work in motion? Lubezki's talent comes from how he's able to make something beautiful without all of the self-conscious and mannered compositions you typically see in other works praised for the their cinematography. There's nothing screensavery about this: youtube.com/watch?v=RhYuu5HyA4Q

>Only an American could think they are beautiful.
List some well-shot European films made in the past decade.

Lubezki shoots his Malick movies spontaneously. They're not composed like paintings because that's not how Malick shoots movies. He basically just puts a camera on the operator's shoulders and runs him around the set telling him to shoot random shit.

I don't see what's so impressive about that. The use of color and contrast is bland. The textures all look plastic. And the constant movement of the camera and its excessive smoothness makes it feels like a videogame.
And the worst is that it doesn't achieve what it's trying to do. Nothing looks natural and the way in which he moves the camera, with so much deliberation, not only doesn't let you focus on the actors but it is a constant reminder that you that you're watching a movie, which is not something bad in itself but it goes against what they're trying to do.
Europeans:
A torinói ló. Not necessarily beautiful but striking to the eye.
La Grande Bellezza
Ida
Some Asian films:
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
The Assassin
And not from the past decade, but I think the work of Chris Doyle with Wong Kar-Wai is a good example of how you can have a dynamic camera without it looking artificial.

...

Ida and The Great Beauty are exactly what I despise about European formalism. You say that Lubezki's movements feel like you're watching a movie; Pawlikowski practically yells "film" at you whenever he possibly can. There's a real lack of authenticity and spontaneity to shots that feel like they were deliberately composed according to rules of thirds and the golden ratio. They feel self-
conscious and stuffy.

>Nothing looks natural and the way in which he moves the camera, with so much deliberation
What the fuck are you on about? The "deliberation" to shots filmed on a goPro held by the actor underwater? The "smoothness" of a $20 digital camera being held by Ben Affleck? As opposed to a black and white film where the camera is obsessed with every tone and shadow? "Deliberation" is the last term you'd use to describe Lubezki in comparison to his European counterparts.

>makes it feels like a videogame.
Stop with the Sup Forums memespeak. Not everything you don't like looks like a videogame.

>The use of color and contrast is bland.
i.e it's not destroyed in color grading
>Nothing looks natural and the way in which he moves the camera
None of the films you listed look natural. None of them in particular look as natural as this: youtube.com/watch?v=aRd-S1Yj9U8

I mean deliberated in how the camera seems to have a consciousness of its own, how he keep choosing to lose the focus on the character to focus in something else. It maybe doesn't bother you, but I'm taken away of his films every time he does it.
But the films I listed, with the exception of The Assassin, don't try to look natural and are consistent in their unnatural aesthetics. They feel like coherent worlds in themselves without external forces interacting with them at will like Lubezki does with his selective, spontaneous focus.
> youtube.com/watch?v=aRd-S1Yj9U8
About this. I can't help it but feel there's something about it that looks fake and amateurish, like a video from Vimeo.
And while no film ever looks completely like real life, The Assassin does come really close.
youtube.com/watch?v=agX7ffZTGRo
And my bigger problem with Lubezki is that his images are just bland. He may have a distinctive style but his style has no character. All his Mallick's films look like they could be easily edited into life Insurance commercials. His work always look harmless.

The camera's lack of attention span is a style particular to Malick. He's trying to achieve something akin to how memory works; he's not telling a deliberate story with a steadfast narrative through-line. That's not Lubezki, that's how Malick directs Lubezki.

>without external forces interacting with them at will like Lubezki does with his selective, spontaneous focus.
Again, a style developed by Malick specifically. He includes footage of real people in his recent work, and often shoots in real locations without hiring extras for the background parts. This is all obviously subjective, but I feel like the real world butting in at the seams of every frame gives his work a feeling of spontaneity that you don't get from most other directors. There's also a collage element to it, that some feel is too much like a perfume commercial, but it 100% works for me.

>About this. I can't help it but feel there's something about it that looks fake and amateurish, like a video from Vimeo.
That's retarded, sorry. Show me a vimeo video shot with that sort of depth of field and ISO in completely natural light and I'll believe you. That's expert, from a technical standpoint, if not an artistic one.

>His work always look harmless.
Really? He shoots on like 5 different cameras, wide lenses, up close, flips the camera upside down, has the actors hold it, points at a bird in the middle of a scene. He's not a standard, quotidian, "harmless" DP by any means. His work with Malick elicits boos at film festivals; it's offensive. Bland is the last word anyone would ever use to describe it.