Hey guys, I got another project involving movies yet again. I need some help here. Can you name any movies with bad cinematography. I can spot almost everything else with what's wrong with a movie besides cinematography. Can you name some movies so I can check them out?
Any Larry Buchanan film. No imagination. No set ups. No angles No lighting. Just plain dull. BAD!
Example....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsCX4wprXHw
On the opposite end...watch the EVIL DEAD...or Karl Freunds great work at the beginning of DRACULA or the MUMMY....
To me...scenes in a movie should be shot like you would draw panels in a comic strip...don't make every panel the same-use different angles,lighting,shadows....
A good example,I think-
1932's the OLD DARK HOUSE...old Eva is talking to Gloria Stuart in her bedroom...but watch at about in the middle of the clip how the candles frame old Eva's face...and then distorts it...and this is just a tame scene of a conversation! Great work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5BTFqnQLi4
It's all about being artistic! Imagination! The great thing about film is you can distort it....make the unreal real. Larry Buchanan does talking heads.
Well, MANOS is an obvious example...shooting night scenes at night rather than the more common daytime shoot with reduced apertures (and creative lighting) is very risky.
It's probably easier to list examples of extremely GOOD cinematography. My entry here would be the sailing movie WIND (Jon Toll cinematographer) or anything with Dean Cundy controlling the cameras/lighting.
I would say that bad cinematography is harder to spot than bad direction; the photog guys probably tend toward being more technically "correct" given what they are instructed to do.
Quote from: RCMerchant on November 30, 2010, 11:53:56 PM
Any Larry Buchanan film. No imagination. No set ups. No angles No lighting. Just plain dull. BAD!
...On the opposite end...watch the EVIL DEAD...or Karl Freunds great work at the beginning of DRACULA or the MUMMY....
To me...scenes in a movie should be shot like you would draw panels in a comic strip...don't make every panel the same-use different angles,lighting,shadows....
A good example,I think-
1932's the OLD DARK HOUSE...old Eva is talking to Gloria Stuart in her bedroom...but watch at about in the middle of the clip how the candles frame old Eva's face...and then distorts it...and this is just a tame scene of a conversation! Great work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5BTFqnQLi4
One of my very favorite movies,
THE OLD DARK HOUSE. I own it on VHS and DVD.
Quote from: InformationGeek on November 30, 2010, 10:42:28 PM
Hey guys, I got another project involving movies yet again. I need some help here. Can you name any movies with bad cinematography. I can spot almost everything else with what's wrong with a movie besides cinematography. Can you name some movies so I can check them out?
Do you care what budget range you're looking at? If not, look at at the tiniest micro budgeted films you can get - the ones where the director himself does all the shooting and setups. You'll often find some really awful stuff out there.
Stuff like Brain Damage films.
Quote from: Jim H on December 01, 2010, 02:29:05 AM
Quote from: InformationGeek on November 30, 2010, 10:42:28 PM
Hey guys, I got another project involving movies yet again. I need some help here. Can you name any movies with bad cinematography. I can spot almost everything else with what's wrong with a movie besides cinematography. Can you name some movies so I can check them out?
Do you care what budget range you're looking at? If not, look at at the tiniest micro budgeted films you can get - the ones where the director himself does all the shooting and setups. You'll often find some really awful stuff out there.
Stuff like Brain Damage films.
Budget range does not matter as long as the movie has been in theaters. Don't care how many theaters, which is why I'm using After Last Season in my project.
Good luck with that one InfoGeek. Identifying bad cinematography is difficult to do, mostly because defining it is the problem. Going online and looking it up, I saw forum after forum with people going on about bad setups, poorly composed shots, etc. I don't know if that's strictly cinematography, because to me it has more to do with film exposure, proper lighting, things like that. Someone brought up shooting night scenes at night as risky. That is true. Often it turns out horribly. Budget often matches cinematography, so low-budget often means poor cinematography, often because there simply is no cinematographer and you have a director who may be brilliant at setting up shots, but horrible at photography.
To me, you have to look at films that were intended to look good but looked bad due to bad cinematography. Blair Witch Project was supposed to look bad, and it did. I absolutely detest that "shaky camera" s**t. Gives me a headache and looks horrible. Scorcese and Coen Brothers understand that you need good steadycam and good tracking to make a great film. But the shaky camera thing, I don't know if that qualifies as bad cinematography perse.
Wow, this is a puzzler. I can think of plenty of things I don't like, but I don't know if they fit the bill of bad cinematography exactly, as bad editing and poorly composed shots are probably a big factor as well.
I'm stumped.
QuoteI don't know if that's strictly cinematography, because to me it has more to do with film exposure, proper lighting, things like that.
Cinematography is all of it - exposure, lighting, camera position, camera movement, framing, focusing and so forth. Everything that has to do with what the camera sees and how it sees it, basically. Bad lighting and exposure are just the most obvious - Blood Freak has some pretty damn poorly exposed and framed scenes, BTW, just thought of that one.
Quote from: Jim H on December 01, 2010, 05:50:48 PM
QuoteI don't know if that's strictly cinematography, because to me it has more to do with film exposure, proper lighting, things like that.
Cinematography is all of it - exposure, lighting, camera position, camera movement, framing, focusing and so forth. Everything that has to do with what the camera sees and how it sees it, basically. Bad lighting and exposure are just the most obvious - Blood Freak has some pretty damn poorly exposed and framed scenes, BTW, just thought of that one.
Well then, there you go. thanks Jim H. Shows you what I know.
So there, any film that uses the "shaky camera" bit drives me nuts, and in my opinion is very bad form. Steady-cam and smooth camera movements are far classier shooting in my opinion, and Coen Brothers are particularly good at it.
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.
I don't know if its directing or editing, but there is something amiss with the way that film is put together.
Pluto Nash, Battle Field Earth Saga: 3000, etc
I noticed that the final films of Peter Hyams - those would be "The Relic" and "The End of Days" - have very poor lightning. Some scenes are so dark you can't see a damn thing. It does surprise me because they are relatively expensive films, and you'd think they wouldn't make this kind of mistakes, and also because Peter Hyams always does his own cinematography, and therefore he's supposed to be an accomplished cinematographer.
The film with the worst cinematography for me is The X Files Fight The Future where it is obvious that Ward Russell doesn't know how on earth to frame a shot.
My vote for worst would also go to "Manos" though there are a few others. The real "Kiss of Death" is to look at how they handle dimly lit scenes. We (humans) tend to assume that since we've been in a dark room for a while and our eyes have adjusted any camera we have on hand will do the same, but this is not so. Camera's don't work as well as human eyes and once you get to post production and have all this badly lighted and barely visible film your options are extremely limited.
On the other end, bad cinematography is a feature of some films: "Blair Witch", "Paranormal Activity"; and "Cloverfield" are a couple where amateurish filming is used as part of the storyline. I don't know if these would count for your project though because the bad cinematography is not a mistake, it was made purposefully that way.
Quote from: Trevor on December 02, 2010, 11:14:50 AM
The film with the worst cinematography for me is The X Files Fight The Future where it is obvious that Ward Russell doesn't know how on earth to frame a shot.
Okay, I have some experience as a free lance photographer, and I get that framing can be pinned on the cinematographer.
But, I hear a lot of directors on the commentaries of films (and in interviews) talking about framing/composition, and I just have to wonder...how much framing and composition errors (or successes, for that matter) are the fault/credit of the director vs. the cinematographer.
Carpenter/Cundey were a GREAT pair...they worked well together. Indeed, one could argue that Carpenter (and others) let Cundey compose/frame/light his shots - to great effect. But, well, how often does the director insist on a composition that's not the best in the world, and the cinematographer bear the brunt of the criticism for the failure?
It just seems that in recent years, the director takes credit for composition if it works (in his mind at least). If I were given green light to direct my own masterpiece and also given the great honor of Dean Cundey as my cinematographer, I'd welcome his input and wisdom on composition.
I'm just curious, just where the line is drawn...if it works, credit goes to the director but if is does not...blame goes to the cinematographer? That seems to be the modern trend (not that I agree)?
That's a tough question. From what I know, Director and cinematographer decide beforehand the look of the film and work together in framing / composition. The extent of the joint effort depends on the background of the director and his work method. It is known that Kubrick, a former photographer, clashed with DOP Lucien Ballard in "The killing". Kubrick would tell Ballard exactly what to do, to the extent of choosing the lenses and the lenght of focus himself, which alienated Ballard. But on the other hand, a director preferring to focus on the actors may leave all those decisions to the cinematographer.
As for Cundey & Carpenter, they certainly made a great team, but it's hard to tell whose merit it was. Carpenter has always had this peculiar way of framing and editing, it's so personal you can tell his movies apart from the rest within minutes, no matter who his colaborators are. Still, the color palette in his colaborations with Cundey is also very peculiar, it's more muted than in Carpenter's later work.