“Elysium” (2013)

Director: Neill Blomkamp

Cinematographer: Trent Opaloch

As you may or may not know, I try following movie news as closely as possible. So that anytime there is news or rumor of films being made I’m already on the ball and informed. So, once I heard that the team that did “District 9” was getting together again for another sci-fi film I couldn’t have been more stoked. As filmmakers, I love how the director is able to talk about real world issues, but through the medium of film, and through characters and events that are out of this world. Also for Trent the cinematographer, I respect him because of his background in music videos and short films. To go from that to shooting a full-fledged, Hollywood film is impressive. In the same vein, I really enjoyed the way that “District 9” was shot (documentary style, handheld, lots of visual fx) and wanted to see more from him.

One of the big stylistic choice that the cinematographer made was to distinguish the Elysium from Earth. Because they shot the film digitally, they were able to shoot the scenes taking place in Elysium very clean and pristine. The world is so clear that you can almost taste the air. However, back down on earth and every thing is gritty and less ideal. The colors are dirty greens and browns; alongside the rest of the desolation down through the production design, the colors and tone of Earth is distinguishable from Elysium. Another way that Trent did this was through the camera movement. On Earth the camera was handheld, rigidly walking alongside the protagonist and acting almost as another character in the scene. Another way that Earth was portrayed as gritty and real. On Elysium all of the movement was done through dolly and crane. This made everything fluid and smooth, an elegance to everything. Through these choices, the director and cinematographer set up two different worlds whose looks contrasted each others, just as the lives of each planet contrasted each other in the story.

One of the things that impressed me about this film was how the D.P. used color in interesting ways. Because it’s a science fiction film, he had liberties to mess with colors and light. In one particular scene, two antagonists stop to discuss their plan of action. A pressurized door closes and everything goes from it’s stark clean white, to purple. Immediately a mood shift has been indicated and just as you could imagine, important story information is spilled. The color brings the audience to attention because of how drastic a change it is.

This film also has it’s fair amount of slo-motion, but isn’t overused like many action films do these days. It’s used to emphasize the action and honestly, just to give us something cool to look at. In one of the shots our protagonist pulls out of cover to shoot at a robot, the scenes ramps down from regular speed to slow motion, and we watch as he pulls the trigger and the rounds release. We then cut to the robot as the rounds hit him and explode, causing him to break apart into hundreds of pieces. Yes, I believe this could have been shot at a standard speed, but the slow motion allows us to watch a spectacle of visual effects and cinematography in action. And let’s be honest, EVERYTHING looks cooler in slow motion.

By the end of the film I felt as though the filmmakers did a great job of portraying your everyday man who rose to occasion to become a hero. From be early sequences on earth down and dirty with him at his job to on Elysium as he’s fighting off robots and crazed ex-militants. Their goal to make a film with a message was accomplished.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” (2013)

Director: Francis Lawrence

Cinematographer: Jo Willems

As a sequel to “The Hunger Games” released in 2012, Catching Fire does everything that you would want a sequel to do. Keep the heart and soul of the original, but do it better! I’m a huge fan of the series and I can speak as one of the many who read the books and dressed up for the midnight release of the first, I couldn’t wait for Catching Fire to be released. I was somewhat letdown by the first as it didn’t quite hold up like I would have liked it to, on the biggest of the disappointments was due to the cinematography. A lot of handheld work was done in the first, but it was intentional “shaky cam” as we call it (seen in movies such as “The Bourne Ultimatum” and “Saving Private Ryan”. The director wanted to express the chaos of the games and thought that disorientating the audience was the best way. I’m not saying that it can’t be a useful tool, but the first used it far too much.

Catching Fire immediately redeemed the cinematography for me. The director and cinematographer chose were to use the handheld properly and to what extent “shaky cam” could better tell the story. The opening sequence of our protagonist hunting in the woods is simply beautiful. The natural light beaming through the woods, the camera operation working in a way where we can actually take in the beauty of the environment, and the sun rising in the distance. I feel as though more thought was put into each set-up and not just, throw a long lens on the camera and have Katniss run around.

One of my favorite sequences in the film is when our protagonist is being dragged into a mansion where a party is being held. The bright colors illuminating from the party, purple, blue, pink, and all the like shine past her face as we are being pulled further and further into the party. The shot switches back and forth between a close up of her and her POV as the camera gazes around. Through the POVs we get to take in the fullness of the party while at the same time being thrown inside Katniss’ shoes. I though this was a nice nod to the book as it’s told entirely through the first person account of Katniss. Another beautiful sequence is when Katniss is dancing inside the party with the another character. The camera rotates around them as they dance and we are in a continual movement until they separate. The movement again makes us feel as though we too are dancing.

The filmmakers decided to shoot the entire “arena sequence” in IMAX. The 65mm format separated the rest of the film which was shot on 35mm. It added a psychological element to the games that told our brains that we were seeing something different. The transition from the two formats happens at a high point in the movie. Right as our brains and emotions are in high gear we are thrown into the richness of the IMAX format, everything is richer, colors deeper, the screen larger, and our protagonist’s life is about to be in danger. All of the tension is high and the IMAX pushes that even further. I still don’t know how they used Steadicam and handheld with the cameras as they are huge!

What impressed me most about the film is the filmmaker’s choice to go with a new vision for the series. They could have just as easily copied and pasted the same style of the first and still have made a successful film. Instead, they decided to keep the heart of the series, but change the style for the better. As a reader of the series, I can say honestly that they better portrayed the images that I created in my head while reading the books. Its a feat to be able to take someone else’s vision and paint it on the screen. As a team however, the crew did a wonderful job. The colors of the capitol, the intensity of the arena, the hopelessness of the Districts. It’s all there.

p.s. Sorry for the lack of images! As this is a new film, it’s harder to find screen captures. Check out the trailer and hopefully it will give you a good guide!

“Shanghai Triad” (1995)

Director: Yimou Zang

Cinematographer: Yue Lu

This year in my World Cinema class I’ve been privileged to watch some simply amazing foreign films. Films that I would never have gone out of my way to see, but thanks to the class I’ve been exposed to many great movies. Shanghai Triad is yet another film that we’ve screened over the semester that blew my expectations out of the water. As the film chugs along I realized that I started picking apart the pieces that stood out to me. The opening titles play over our protagonist who is standing in the middle of a busy part of town. The contrast of the standing boy amid the chaos of the street draws our eyes directly to him. And we see clearly the nervousness in his eyes. As pedestrians walk by, obscuring our view of him, we half expect him to completely disappear. We’re not quite sure what’s about to happen, but we immediately know whose story we’re about to follow.

As we dive further in the film I noticed the extensive use of “Point-Of-View” shots in the film help that bring the audience into the world that our young protagonist “Shui” is also being introduced to. Shui is picked up from his uncle to go work for The Boss in at his mansion. One shot has the camera traveling through the mansion, walking upstairs, through corridors, down hallways, all accompanied by the audible footsteps and breathing of Shui. We are literally put into the character’s shoes. The extremes in the lighting also gives the film a sense of heightened realism, everything looks as it should look, but we feel as though we’re transported to a different dimension.

To talk more about the lighting, I noticed that everything was lit very “soft”. Soft meaning that shadows are diffused and less apparent. As well, the light on peoples faces wrapped further around, creating “glamour” shots of the characters, making them look more pleasing to the eye. In addition, the cinematographer loved using color to extremes. It wasn’t littered throughout the film, but was used in beat with the film. One particular scene follows up after a murder is committed. As the car drives away in the rain, the entire frame has a blue hue to it. While this isn’t how we actually see, we accept it because of the mood that is created with the color. The blue is very cold and eerie, as are the events that had previously unfolded.

The most memorable shot for me was the closing of the film. As the opening shot of movie told us whose story we were about to see, the closing shot told us the story that we’ll never see. Everything that the cinematographer had set up, with the heightened realism, color, and POVs, all accumulated to this scene. It opens with the frame upside-down with an island fading away into the horizon. We know something is up, but can’t confirm until we pan over to the right and see the mast of a ship and the tippy top of a little girl’s head. Everything is clear when the shot changes to reveal Shui, tied up, hanging from a rope by his feet. We know his fate, feel his hopelessness, and on top of all that, watch as the coins from his pocket drop into the water. A nail in the coffin that seals his future. The impact of these images can’t be forgotten.

 

 

“Collateral” (2004)

Director: Michael Mann

Cinematographer: Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron

The story of a cabbie and one wild customer. Nearly 50% of this film is filmed from the interior of a taxi cab and at the same time, the majority of it takes place during the night. Because of the obvious limitations of filming at night, i.e. no light, the cinematographer had to be creative in how he light the car. The interior of the car became a room in which the cinematographer had to light in several ways. Whether it was them driving on the freeway, stopped at a light, or coasting through the city. The light coming from the inside of the vehicle stayed consistent. What we see is a very natural, greenish tinted ambient light emitting from the roof of the vehicle and the dashboard, but who knows the kind of rigging that went into those cabs.

Another interesting aesthetic about this film was it was a pioneer for digital filmmaking. Again, due to the extensive amount of night exteriors throughout Los Angeles, the cinematographer utilized the tools he had to shoot a film that before may not have been possible. The digital camera’s sensitivity to light allowed them to shoot entire sequences without lighting a thing. Instead they used the available light of the city to tell a story. The light emitting from the street reflecting into the windows. As well, the compositional choice to always shoot facing the city. The cinematographer always tried to have the skyline in the background, because of how important the city was to the story and the protagonist. The style gives the film a higher attention to what’s happening in the film rather than attention to the cinematography itself.

The final sequence of the film would never have possible with shooting on 35mm film. Or rather, it may have been possible, but no in the way they shot it. Again in trying to keep the integrity of the city and it’s natural light, they shot the chase sequence with just lights that were already in the hotel. To have shot that sequence on film, you would have had to light the scene. The film stock just wasn’t sensitive enough to capture that otherwise. In addition, the framing. Again we see the endless lights in the background that tell a story about the city. It goes on what seems like forever and the lights twinkle and tell us it’s alive.

“The 400 Blows” (1959)

Director: Fracios Truffaut

Cinematographer: Henri Decae

Long fluid shots?

Black and White?

French New Wave?

This film has it all!

The composition in this film is so wonderful it’s sickening sometimes. Henri Decae just knew how to make a beautiful frame. He used the space that he was shooting in to his advantage. In this shot we have of Antoine and his father holding a banner several elements of composition are in play. Firstly are the lines that created from the banner. Our eyes naturally follow lines and this case we start with the father’s end and move our way to Antoine and then back again. Another element is the lighting. The father is lit brighter than Antoine, yet as our eyes move to Antoine we see his face lit well. It enables to see his expression clearly, because all that matters is the moment that this father and son are sharing, no matter how simple it is.

One of my favorite shots are of Antoine and his friend walking around the streets of paris. You can see all of the emotion in this screen grab alone. You don’t have to see the pictures in motion to understand what’s going on. The sync of their steps along with their hand gestures is beautiful. The cinematographer and director had to have collaborated to have the timing of this frame. The balance of the kids weighed against the car, it’s just another example of beautiful framing.

The composition isn’t used to just to make an appealing frame, but to also tell a story within itself. In this shot of Antoine’s mother through the door frame, we can tell that she’s hiding something. The pedant even points to her, as if a signal to the audience to keep an eye on her. Even with seeing her entire body through the frame within the frame (that is the camera), there’s still an unsettling feeling knowing that we can’t see entirely into that room. And we want to. Badly.

“Breaking Bad (Season One, Episode One)” (2008)

Director: Vince Gilligan

Cinematographer: John Toll

I guess you could say it’s a feat in itself to have gone this far without having seen at least one episode of Breaking Bad. All of my friends are always talking about it especially with the recent airing of the series finale. People are still on a Breaking Bad high. With busy schedules and everything it’s tough to sit down and watch a TV show. Knowing well that if you like it you’re going to binge watch it on Netflix. So with that in mind I watched the pilot episode to see if it lived to it’s hype.

As a cinematographer, shooting a pilot has a lot of weight to it. You’re setting a visual style that could live on for seasons to come. The foundation that set has to be replicated for episodes to come, yes different cinematographer are attached to the project, but once a style is set, if it wavers to far from that style the audience notices it. Especially for the case of Breaking Bad and it’s following. With this being said, John Toll set a wonderful standard for the series to launch from. His use of wide angle lenses gives the world a distorted feel, such as with the case of Walter White. As thing are rapidly shifted around in his life, the use of the wide lenses gives the audience a disorientating feeling.

Along with his lens choice is his camera movement choices. Some of the scenes are shot extremely static and without cuts, with like we saw in 432 can be extremely unsettling. One shot in particular is of Walter getting into bed with his wife who’s on her laptop. The camera is at the foot of the bed and just watches an awkward moment between this married couple. The longevity of the shot complements the scene’s dialogue as it just feels unnatural. In contrast to the static shots, Toll also used movement creatively, especially in the montage sequence where White and Pinkman are “cooking”. The use of dutch angles and closeups makes the audience feel the fumes and chemicals that are filling the air. Again, disorientating the viewer.

One of the last things that I’ll point out is the cinematographers use of POVs throughout. My favorite is a POV of a dryer as a buttload of money is being tumbled around. It’s just a nice almost comedic element that adds to the overall tension of everything else that’s happening in the episode. The shot is also a story cue to something that is explained later. Why is he drying the money? It may not have been a powerful if the cinematographer hadn’t chose to shoot it this way. Because of how visually pleasing it is, you remember it as the story later flashbacks and explains it to you.

Overall I thoroughly enjoyed the show and can’t wait to continue watching and drawing more cinematographer tidbits from the series.

Also check this awesome article from Roger Ebert on the cinematography of Breaking Bad.

“4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days” (2007)

Director: Cristian Mungiu

Cinematographer: Oleg Mutu

“4 Months, Three Weeks, 2 Days” or “432” is a tough film to swallow. I honestly can say that if had been up to me, I would have never willingly chosen to watch this film. It’s subject matter is a harsh reality that many times I try to turn a blind eye to. However, thanks to this wonderful school I attend, I’m not allowed to use that a cope-out and instead am forced to open my horizons to greater things. Having to sit down and watch this movie was a hard thing to do, but in the end I was glad I had watched it.

Again I’m watching a film with long takes (which of course I’m a fan of). This style lends itself to how grounded the film is in reality. These are characters that are set in real history alongside a very difficult time in Romania. The shots involve you in the story in way that you aren’t watching something scripted, but you feel as though you’re just a fly in the room, watching events unfold. The opening shot we see our two female leads as the pack their suitcases. The camera starts in close-up, but as one of the characters comes towards the lens we pull back to get a wider angle of their room, it does it yet another time as the characters continue their action, packing up their bags preparing to go somewhere. The shot lasts around three minutes and immediately the cinematographer has pulled you into their world. We have no clue what they’re packing for or where they’re about to go, but we feel the urgency of what their doing. We see all of their body language, uncut, and at times we become uncomfortable for how long we’re watching them.

Another aesthetic that cinematographer decided to go with was handheld. At times I think that handheld is overused in trying to get a documentary feel, but for this I felt that it was right. I think that it went along with long takes, but I was totally engrossed in our lead’s troubles as problem after problem arose. There is specific scene when she’s in a bathroom after having something dramatic just happen to her and she runs in and stares at herself in the mirror. The lighting is “ugly” in the sense that it isn’t here to make her look pretty, but it works for the emotion of the scene. The handheld camerawork is there alongside to make us feel like we’re in the bathroom with her, having just experienced what she experienced, and now having to look at “ourselves” in the mirror. It’s a shot that says so many more things than words.

Things just keeping go downhill for our protagonist and more and more the audience feels the tension that’s rising. As we follow her through the dark streets of Romania, to a train, to have dinner with her boyfriend’s parents, we are tracking alongside her, again just like a fly on the wall. Watching things progress naturally. It becomes extremely involved when we are forced to sit down with her as she has her boyfriend’s parents and their friends just throw question after question at her. The shot lasts for 7 minutes and we sympathize with her character so much. The shot sits low, as if we’re eating at the table with them, and our protagonist in the center of the frame. It’s a great image for the story of the film in the sense that she’s at the center with all of these things our of her control happening around her. It could have been shot and edited a number of ways, with shots going back and forth between all of the people talking and her reaction to the chaos, but instead the single master shot of her just sitting works so much better. Again it feels too real that we feel as uncomfortable as she is.

The last shot of the film was in fact my favorite. After having so many dramatic things happen in a single day, the two women are sitting at table about to order dinner. The lighting on the table singles them out from the rest of the empty restaraunt. As our lead in green looks past the camera she is nearly eyeing right into the lens, about to make a connection with the audience, but instead all we see are her lifeless eyes. We wish that we could reach out and help, but there isn’t a thing we can do. She know’s that she’ll never be the same and the filmmakers hope the same about the audience.

If you’re interested, here’s a link to the dinner scene, sadly however there are no English subtitles.

“Gravity” (2013)

Director: Alfonso Cuaron

Cinematographer: Emmanuel Lubezki

THIS FILM.

How can I begin to start talking about this movie. Wow. Simply wow. Having heard about this movie almost a year ago, I’ve been so stoked to see it. From the first pictures and trailer I was immediately hooked and in turn tried to go into a media blackout when it came to the movie. Friends at school kept wanting to show me the latest photos that studio had released and the “newest” new trailer, but I simply wasn’t having it. I didn’t want to worry about what the film was about, didn’t care about who was acting, I knew that I wanted to see it because of how beautiful the first teaser was. After seeing the film, my dad, who I’ve never heard him say this, said, “that film was amazing…”. I knew we had experienced something special.

One of the first things that I noticed about this film was the long takes. The opening shot alone lasts for nearly 12 minutes. In addition to that aesthetic was the choice to shoot for 3D. With the long takes are eyes are able to adjust to a scene and take in all of the beauty of  Earth from space. The 3D is complementary with it to create depth and make the audience feel as they too are 600,000 feet about the earth. The floating camera operation as well continues to build on the experience of “Gravity”. It enables the audience to swoop around and get close and personal with the astronauts as the plot unfolds. Through both the quiet and fast moments we are taken on a journey that’s unforgettable. Feeling the fear that they do as things don’t go as planned on their mission.

Another facet of the cinematography that was interesting to me was how Lubezki was lighting for a scenario that he knew little about. Yes you can look at pictures and video of space, but understanding the amount of light that the earth emits, and the sun when it doesn’t have an atmosphere to burn through. There were times when I was watching the movie and it genuinely made me sad. Not because of what was happening in the story necessarily, but I realized that I may never be able to make an image that beautiful. There was one shot in particular, when one of the astronaut makes it to the space station and begins to take her suit off. The sun shining through the port window creates an edge light around her and she begins to curl up in zero-g. Her, floating there in the fetal position, and you just can’t help but take in the wonder of it all. It was shot the director and cinematographer clearly had in mind, and it speaks for the story so well.

One of the last things that I admired about the film was it’s collaboration between departments and how “perfectly” it was executed. This is a film that would have been impossible without CGI, yet the cinematography and computer animation flow seamlessly between each other. There was never a time when something stood out to me, because it was CGI. This was because of how much of the film was actually lit as opposed to digitally lit. This led to the better blending of technological with the practical.

As I take I take my cinematographer hat off for one moment. This is a film that cannot be passed. It requires an experience in the theater and I go as bold to say that it requires a 3D experience. It was the way that the film intended and never I have I been as quite impressed with 3D as I was with Gravity. It completely engrosses you in space where there is no gravity.

“Chicago” (2002)

Director: Rob Marshall

Cinematographer: Dion Beebe

I remember back when this film came out and my dad came back from getting groceries at Walmart and finding this movie in one of the plastic bags. Why in the world did he buy a musical? Guys don’t like musicals right? I immediately judged the movie by it’s cover and I never watched it. Oof. I wish I had. By chance this week my buddy Drew got on the topic of musicals while we running around town and suggested that I watch Chicago for my blog. I started putting it on the list as a possible, then in class the next day another one of my friends also said I should watch it. So here we are, by some divine power and I’ve been privileged to watch another great film.

Chicago does some amazing things as a film and I can only imagine the creative planning that the director, cinematographer, and production designer had to do for everything to work so nicely. The film goes back and forth between the “real” world and the “stage” world where the beauty of the film really shines. With these of a stage as a way of telling a story, the cinematographer Dion Beebe, was able create lighting setups that were completely unmotivated. When I say unmotivated, I’m not saying that they didn’t have a purpose with choosing lights, but that he didn’t have to tell the audience that “hey, this light is shining over here because there’s a lamp on the desk!”. No, he started with a completely dark space and painted with light. Bringing all types of gels to color the lights, used harsh lighting to backlight and separate the characters from the set, overhead lighting to spotlight. Literally, he could light however he wanted (either a cinematographer’s dream or nightmare).

The lighting helped to differentiate the stage world from the world. During a courtroom scene, light floods in from the large windows and creates beautiful natural lighting for the scene, an escape from most of the performance lighting in the scenes of the film. This grounded the scene in reality for me, reminding me that the whole story stemmed from a crime that was committed. With the wonder if cinema though, as the scene moves on we realize that even the courtroom isn’t safe from performers. In the real world as the lawyer is walking around the courtroom trying to buy the jury, in the stage world he’s tap dancing on a platform, with lights creating a spectacle. We see motion being matched with the lawyer tapping his finger on a wooden railing to the beat of his tap shoes hitting the wood of the floor. Through these actions the worlds are unified and we understand that in both world’s he’s a performer, trying to impress the crowd.

I was thrilled to have enjoyed this movie. I’m glad I gave it a chance as it showed me so many of the options that cinematographers have when shooting musicals and films such as Chicago. You can create mood with light that would be a little offsetting given another type of genre. The glow that engulfs Renee Zellweger’s dress when she’s performing wouldn’t work unless the story had called for it. The cinematographer is able to pull the audience into feeling as though they are sitting among the crowd watching these characters perform on a stage. As I watch the movies, I can’t help but to commend the cinematographers and their work to shoot to accompany the story.

“Raising Arizona” (1987)

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen

Cinematographer: Barry Sonnenfield

Raising Arizona was the first Coen Brothers film that I’ve watched that wasn’t shot by my man Roger Deakins. With that having been said, it was interesting to try to watch the film without thinking about what Deakins would have done differently than Sonnenfield. Maybe that’s a little unfair, considering Deakins has shot some of the best looking films of the past 15 years, but couldn’t help it. The first thing I noticed was how flat the lighting was in the film. Not much dynamic going on. I realize that when shooting comedies, directors like for all of the action to be seen, thus the even lighting. Yet still, I would have liked for there to have been some more drama in the lighting.

I liked Sonnenfield’s choice to shoot the film however it needed to be shot. It seemed like whatever shot worked, that’s the one he went with. By that I mean, he made since of the ridiculous plot alongside ridiculous cinematography. At one point in the film, we have  our protagonist Hi breaking into a house to kidnap a baby. Throughout this scene the camera is put at eye level with the crawling babies, following them around as they scurry away from Hi. There’s another scene where our protagonist “Hi” get’s himself in trouble and has to escape from the cops. In this chase sequence, Sonnenfield pulled out all of the stops, using low angles alongside dogs, mounted the camera on a grocery cart, handheld wide lenses through a house. The consistency in the sequence was there was no consistency, but it works because of madness thats happening around it.

Sonnenfield’s creativeness carried throughout the film, with odd shots that personified the Coen Brothers even more. In the screen grab below we have “The Biker” character. While you may already want to hear his story just by his grizzly attire, the low angle and wide lens added even more to his peculiar nature. The shotguns seem to jump off the screen and  the low angle accents his power and importance in the story. Another scene we have a woman screaming after realizing her baby was kidnapped, instead of just showing the action, the camera starts at ground level outside of the house, up the ladder that was used to break into the room, and rush straight into the mother’s widened mouth. It’s things like this that helped not only characterize the film, but also introduce to the world some of the best filmmakers of our time.