Jump to content



Photo

Far From The Madding Crowd by Charlotte Bruus Christensen

Charlotte Bruus Christensen Far From The Madding Crowd Thomas Vintenberg Cinematography 35mm Kodak 50D

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 875 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 23 May 2015 - 07:09 PM

Far From The Madding Crowd, directed by Thomas Vinterberg and photographed by Charlotte Bruus Christensen.

 

far-from-the-madding-crowd-film-2015-hab

 

IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/...ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

 

Trailer

 

Synopsis

In Victorian England, the independent and headstrong Bathsheba Everdene attracts three very different suitors: Gabriel Oak, a sheep farmer; Frank Troy, a reckless Sergeant; and William Boldwood, a prosperous and mature bachelor.

 

I am going to let this post open because I need to be able to articulate a critic in a reasonable language rather than a critic full of WOWs and AMAZING. 

What I am going to say though is, if you like cinematography and photography, go and see it. 

Phil probably won't like it because of the "British hand - held indie camera work style" :P but it is very well done in this one and with a bit of analysis on the sequences. 

 

For me it has been one of those movies that open your mind and bring it to another level. 

 

More soon! 

 

Have a good day!

 


  • 1

#2 Igor Trajkovski

Igor Trajkovski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 320 posts
  • Other
  • Macedonia

Posted 24 May 2015 - 08:02 AM

Another remake?

 

I recently (re)watched  the 1967 film.

 

After having that beautiful and pleasurable experience of a classic,

with the super-annoying Bathsheba portrayed by Julie Christie,

and the kindness, principles and patience of Gabriel played by Alan Bates,

i don't know i am ready for another go... :)

 

I like Vinterberg's "Festen" and "The Hunt".

Will check this one out too someday.

 

Best

 

Igor


  • 0

#3 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2288 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 May 2015 - 04:42 PM

I have the seen the new one much prefer the 1967 version think its Nic Roegs  best work as a DoP .


  • 0

#4 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 875 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 25 May 2015 - 08:46 AM

Well, after watching it again in the cinemas I can only say that it is the most poetic, visually orientated and splendid movie that I have seen this year so far. 

 

I really like all the previous versions, especially the one from Nicolas Roegs. 

However, the one that Thomas Vinterberg just directed feels (obviously) more contemporary. organic and creates feelings in me that the other ones didn't do, and that's a big thing.

 

Charlotte's cinematography is just astonishing, very creative and sometimes very risky! Very deep blacks (which I like), contrast and a richness in the colours that digital cannot achieve nowadays plus the camera work which amazed me a lot. 

 

Sure it has the "hand - held independent British" camera work but it is very exquisite and the mix between hand - held and dollies is quite beautiful and impeccable. 

 

The camera is where it has to be all the times, showing what it has to show and creating a fabulous world where the light and the locations were perfectly chosen. 

 

Mr. Vinterberg's direction is, as always, flawless, the actors and actresses are superb and Gabriel's character feels a little bit more iconic than in the previous movies, Bathsheba on the other hand is still as annoying as in the other versions :D (I like her though!)

 

I forgot to mention that the soundtrack is marvelous too, Craig Armstrong creating an ethereal tempo which complements the movie fantastically. 

 

Again, a really really beautiful movie that is worth the trip to the cinema! 

Have a good day!


  • 0

#5 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 875 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 26 May 2015 - 05:51 PM

Just so you know there is an article on Far From The Madding Crowd in the June American Cinematographer issue which is very revealing. 

 

Have a good day! :) 


  • 0

#6 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 28 May 2015 - 05:26 PM

I've just seen it in Bridport, Dorset.  A stones throw from the locations, so it was a packed cinema  (Electric Palace). I'm still not sure whether I saw a digital or film print, but whatever the Vision photography was beautiful.  Yes I thoroughly recommend everyone to see it just for the lighting and landscapes.  The forest scene was particularly well done. Re the handheld footage, I wasn't too struck on some of it later on in the film,  it looked good earlier on though.


  • 0

#7 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 05 June 2015 - 03:28 AM

There is a fine line I think in any film between being aware of what the camera is doing and immersion in the film and its characters. This film passed that test. The cinematography was good but full marks also to the editing.   However, I thought the tarpaulin haystack scene wasn't particularly convincing, not enough wind and rain following.  And that shot of the corn field gleaning had far too many digital workers ;) and appeared too spacious for the period.


  • 0

#8 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 07 September 2018 - 03:57 PM

Resurrecting this rather than making a new post.

 

I LOVE this film. I'm not a cinematographer. I'm primarily a performer, writer, and director.The cinematography, to my mind anyway, is gorgeous. I would go so far as to say it rivals "Barry Lyndon" for it's use of natural light.

 

All the performers are committed and enjoying themselves. I particularly enjoyed the sheep bath sequence. It was not only shot beautifully, but it was conceived most artfully. Being a rural man myself, I believed that scene could happen in "real life." The romance was palpable, in the classic 19th century dramatic fashion—few words, all action. From a director's perspective, it's the key to Bathsheba and Gabriel's relationship. He dares her to be more throughout the film, but it's here we see her literally wade in to take up his challenge.

 

I would've sworn it was a digital film, until I saw some BTS docs. The wide landscape shots absorbed with their clarity and depth. The chaff, wool, and dust floating in the air was tack sharp as well. When I heard it was 35mm, I was shocked. I can now see where I was confused. The photography is incredibly sharp, but it's quite warm as well. I hesitate to say soft. That seems to be a pejorative descriptor. I would say soft in terms of texture. There are no cold, hard edges. The closest we get to the cool side is in Boldwood's brand-new home. It is all rough stone and polished marble, but inviting all the same. I felt like I could smell the soap from the servants' scrubbing. I could also feel the jolly heat of the Christmas party.

 

I believe the true star of this film is Charlotte Bruus Christensen and her team. It's not lost on me that Carey Mulligan's closeups are not seductive. She's beautiful, of course, but perhaps because a woman is shooting her, we see much more than we might if a man were behind the camera. I believe I would have trouble not focusing solely on Mulligan's beauty if I were the cameraman. The sex of the DP also allows us to see Hardy's world more fully through Bathsheba's eyes. It's not any less or more romantic than if a man were DP, but the subtlety of the "woman in man's world" theme is more accurately realized, in my opinion.

 

Wow, I didn't mean this to be an essay. I clearly love this movie. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do. Watch it on the largest screen you can find. If you're not into 19th century drama, you will be after this film.


  • 1

#9 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 07 September 2018 - 05:19 PM

One of English literature's great works, about a fascinating time, the 19th Century, and set in a rural location. I've read the book many times and seen the 1967 and 1998 film versions, both of which are great. We were given the book to read in school and I was very fond of the story from the beginning. Of the movies, in some ways I prefer the 1998 film, which I think might have been made for tv. There's something about this story, and the time and place it is set, and the way it's described/presented, that is quietly magical. However, inevitably, some people find it boring. I remember a woman complaining that Hardy's writing about wind sighing through trees and grassy hills, and so on, as being so incredibly dull to read. I couldn't believe how strongly my opinion differed to hers. I will watch this newer version. It's an excellent subject for a movie, and especially for film.


  • 0

#10 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 07 September 2018 - 06:24 PM

I have to admit, even with an English degree, 19th century novels are tough going. I've had to supplement my reading with film and tv adaptations. So I don't begrudge anyone who has trouble with them. I don't think they were meant to be read in a weekend anyway. Often they were published in literary quarterlies, so you'd only read a chapter at a time. Dickens novels were all like this.

If you love this novel, you must see this film. I believe it's on Netflix.
  • 0

#11 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:17 PM

I wish we could make pictures like this, here, in Australia. As in, shot on film. It would do so much for the industry here in my opinion. I know there are plenty of people who disagree.


  • 0

#12 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 07 September 2018 - 09:54 PM

This being a classic English novel, it made sense for the BBC to put up the money. I understand Vinterberg and Christensen had to do some serious lobbying to get to shoot on film. I think most
  • 0

#13 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2453 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 07 September 2018 - 10:08 PM

I wish we could make pictures like this, here, in Australia. As in, shot on film. It would do so much for the industry here in my opinion. I know there are plenty of people who disagree.

 

 

You need alot more cloud cover and mist..  :)... or shoot it in a studio..


  • 0

#14 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 07 September 2018 - 11:42 PM

Yes, would definitely miss the sun over here, if I moved to England. Aussies are addicted to sun I think. We soak it up like sponges.


  • 0

#15 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2453 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 08 September 2018 - 03:30 AM

Yes, would definitely miss the sun over here, if I moved to England. Aussies are addicted to sun I think. We soak it up like sponges.

 

 

One of the few benefits is the soft light you get.. excellent for moody historical dramas .. 


  • 0

#16 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 10 September 2018 - 02:15 AM

Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.


Edited by Jon O'Brien, 10 September 2018 - 02:17 AM.

  • 0

#17 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 10 September 2018 - 02:33 AM

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?


  • 0

#18 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2453 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 10 September 2018 - 05:57 AM

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

 

 

 I think its because alot of DP,s now operate too and they dont know, or are not 100% up to speed with geared heads..if they didnt come thorough the feature film ladder .. and also younger operators haven't used them either..and some cameras are alot lighter now too..  dont think there is really that much difference between them with a skilled operator on either.. I guess maybe a more solid end to a quick move on a geared head ..


  • 0

#19 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 875 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 10 September 2018 - 08:13 AM

One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?

 

From my side I have always preferred geared heads but haven't been able to use them because they are twice or three times more expensive to rent than a normal fluid head over here, which is nothing in a big budget production but it definitely adds on the type of productions I work on. 

 

So if I have to choose between an extra 6K or an Arrihead.. I'd choose the 6K all the time. 

 

Also, the weight and cumbersomeness of the geared heads is something to take into consideration nowadays where everything is getting smaller and less bulky. 

 

The difference between either is practically minimal as Robin said, the starts and the ends could be a bit smoother, also diagonals, but nothing that you can't do with a fluid head anyways. 

 

Have a lovely day!


  • 0

#20 Timothy Fransky

Timothy Fransky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Other
  • Belleville, Ontario, Canada

Posted 10 September 2018 - 09:59 PM

Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.


I'm so glad you also liked it! I also thought it had to be digital, no it was shot entirely on Vision3 35mm stock in varying speeds. The scene where Bathesheba sings "Let No Man Steal Your Thyme" is amazing. This is why I say it's as good as "Barry Lyndon." The scenes lit by lantern are equally masterful.
  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Charlotte Bruus Christensen, Far From The Madding Crowd, Thomas Vintenberg, Cinematography, 35mm, Kodak 50D

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc