Jump to content


Photo

The best Cinematography in the past year.


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Jacqueline Donaldson

Jacqueline Donaldson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Other
  • Hong Kong

Posted 20 March 2006 - 12:43 AM

Hi,

I'm would like to know what you guys think was the best cinematography and /or camera work in film or TV in the past year.

Thanks,

Jacqueline.
  • 0

#2 Kim Vickers

Kim Vickers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 March 2006 - 09:54 PM

Munich.
  • 0

#3 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 24 March 2006 - 01:17 PM

New World, Munich (blocking and composition, mostly).
  • 0

#4 Ram Shani

Ram Shani
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • isreal

Posted 24 March 2006 - 01:24 PM

2046
last days
  • 0

#5 Scott Bullock

Scott Bullock
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Denver, CO

Posted 24 March 2006 - 04:20 PM

If we are talking for the year 2005, then I loved the cinematography in these movies:

1. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE -- I think Peter Suschitzky is amazing.

2. WALLACE AND GROMIT -- Loved the lighting in particular.

3. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS -- Fantastic Super 16 photography.
  • 0

#6 Tim Terner

Tim Terner
  • Sustaining Members
  • 340 posts
  • Producer
  • Prague, CZ

Posted 24 March 2006 - 06:06 PM

Syriana, natural camera movement
  • 0

#7 Kim Vickers

Kim Vickers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 March 2006 - 12:09 AM

If we are talking for the year 2005, then I loved the cinematography in these movies:

1. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE -- I think Peter Suschitzky is amazing.


Can I ask you to elaborate why you liked the look of that film? I ask because I've never seen a Cronenberg film that I liked, and I really don't like the clean, sparse look he gets, but I have to respect his success. Obviously some people love it. To me his films always look bland and weak, amateurish, even. He's a postmodernist, so perhaps he's trying to make some doubly ironic point with that. But if that's the case, I still don't dig it.

I'm willing to hear-out someone who will enlighten me.
  • 0

#8 Scott Bullock

Scott Bullock
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Denver, CO

Posted 25 March 2006 - 01:11 AM

Can I ask you to elaborate why you liked the look of that film? I ask because I've never seen a Cronenberg film that I liked, and I really don't like the clean, sparse look he gets, but I have to respect his success. Obviously some people love it. To me his films always look bland and weak, amateurish, even. He's a postmodernist, so perhaps he's trying to make some doubly ironic point with that. But if that's the case, I still don't dig it.

I'm willing to hear-out someone who will enlighten me.



Film, like any form of art, is a very subjective thing. I could sit hear and write a diatribe regarding Cronenberg's work and why I feel that it rises above many other director's works, but I doubt that I could say anything that would "enlighten" you and make you feel the same. That said, however, I like Cronenberg, for better or worse, because he does strive to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack. His work is unique in a way that he can't be easily categorized or lumped with any other filmmaker or group of filmmakers. In my opinion, that's what makes his work fascinating, exciting, and even paradoxical, in the sense that you never know what to expect from him and yet it's the same every time. I do think it's grossly unfair to describe his work as amateurish, as he's certainly proved his viability and enduring worth as a filmmaker in a way that most filmmakers will never know. But he certainly has a way of polarizing his audiences; he's one of those filmmakers that you either love, hate, or perhaps, love to hate. He's simply not one of those filmmakers that concern themselves about appealing to the masses and I'm pretty sure that he wants it that way. It takes a lot of balls to make the films that he does and expect to be taken seriously, and yet he does and is. I admire that.
  • 0

#9 Kim Vickers

Kim Vickers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 March 2006 - 03:19 PM

It takes a lot of balls to make the films that he does and expect to be taken seriously, and yet he does and is. I admire that.


I admire it as well. Perhaps I wasn't making my point clearly enough. I DO admire his success, just happen not to like his approach to cinematography (or storytelling, but let's leave the scripts out of it). When I watched History of Violence I was stunned at how bare and "fake" the sets and setups looked. It looked like it was made for cable or something. Then I remembered this is Cronenberg and most of his films have an odd "fake" look to them, something unfinished and definitely unpolished. But this is just my eye. Do you feel the same, and simply happen to like this approach, feel that he's making an ironic point here, or do you feel the opposite, that his films in fact do look finished and polished and therefore there's no irony at all?
  • 0

#10 Scott Bullock

Scott Bullock
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Denver, CO

Posted 25 March 2006 - 07:09 PM

Kim Vickers wrote:

"Do you feel the same, and simply happen to like this approach, feel that he's making an ironic point here, or do you feel the opposite, that his films in fact do look finished and polished and therefore there's no irony at all?"

I suppose that of the two choices I would go with the latter; although Cronenberg certainly understands the nature of irony. I do not think Cronenberg's movies look "fake," "amateur," or "unpolished." In fact, I think Cronenberg is one of the most polished filmmakers in the commercial moviemaking world and certainly one of the most intellectual. I also happen to think that Peter Suschitzky's cinematography compliments Cronenberg's directorial style perfectly.
  • 0

#11 Kim Vickers

Kim Vickers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2006 - 04:15 AM

In fact, I think Cronenberg is one of the most polished filmmakers in the commercial moviemaking world and certainly one of the most intellectual. I also happen to think that Peter Suschitzky's cinematography compliments Cronenberg's directorial style perfectly.


I agree he's one of the most intellectual. Totally disagree that he's one of the most polished. Also, Suschitzky shot Empire Strikes Back. If you can watch ESB and tell me you see one iota of his talent on display in a Cronenberg movie, I'll....well, I'm sorry, we're not watching the same the thing.
  • 0

#12 Scott Bullock

Scott Bullock
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 245 posts
  • Other
  • Denver, CO

Posted 26 March 2006 - 12:47 PM

It's a complete waste of time arguing about things that are purely subjective. For my part, I wouldn't walk across the street to watch THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK for free, but have seen most of Cronenberg's stuff several times. From my view, films like VIDEODROME (Mark Irwin, DP), CRASH, and NAKED LUNCH are rich with visual metaphor, subtext, and intellectual and philosophical themes, whereas a movie like ESB is nothing but brainless mind candy. So please, quit berating me for my opinions on what constitutes good cinematography and filmmaking as if your opinion is of more value. You don't like Cronenberg's movies; that's great! But who cares? I don't particularly like Spielberg or Lucas, but I'm not going to try and sit here and convince you that your opinion about MUNICH is wrong. Let's just agree to disagree.
  • 0

#13 Kirk Anderson

Kirk Anderson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 220 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 March 2006 - 12:18 AM

Jarhead, Walter Murch editing didn't hurt the film at all either.
  • 0

#14 Landis Tanaka

Landis Tanaka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Student

Posted 09 April 2006 - 12:57 PM

I don't know if it was in the past year, but Sin City was the poop.
  • 0

#15 shnitzel3

shnitzel3
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2006 - 09:19 AM

History of Violence was made as a parody of violent movies, and thats why the look and feel of the movie are the way they are
  • 0

#16 Jonathan Spear

Jonathan Spear
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 April 2006 - 11:02 AM

Munich, Batman Begins.
  • 0

#17 Jordan Roettele

Jordan Roettele

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student
  • BK, NYC

Posted 16 April 2006 - 11:30 AM

Hi,

I'm would like to know what you guys think was the best cinematography and /or camera work in film or TV in the past year.

Thanks,

Jacqueline.


2046
Lighting is so moody! Can't say enough about Doyle.
  • 0

#18 jdtranetzki

jdtranetzki
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 April 2006 - 06:45 AM

Hi,

I'm would like to know what you guys think was the best cinematography and /or camera work in film or TV in the past year.

Thanks,

Jacqueline.


Capote
  • 0

#19 Chris Pritzlaff

Chris Pritzlaff
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 April 2006 - 11:48 PM

Memoirs of a Gisha, Crash, Munich
  • 0

#20 Andy O'Neil

Andy O'Neil
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Other
  • Asheville, NC (USA)

Posted 09 May 2006 - 08:47 PM

Syriana
  • 0


CineTape

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Opal

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC