Jump to content


INSIDE MAN


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher Wedding

Christopher Wedding
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2006 - 02:29 PM

Hey guys,

Just saw a sneak preview of Inside Man on Wednesday and it was great....(I promise not to give anything away.)

However, after seeing the film I'm wondering what sort of detriment a short shutter angle can cause to panning. I know the DP, Libatique, chose to contrast the stories of Denzel and Clive with one being frentic, chaotic feeling while the other is smooth and premeditated. And it works. However, some stuff was so disorienting and I'm wondering if it was the short shutter angle that might cause a severe stutter effect on some of the pans. It was the only thing that really brought me out of the film as there are a few points with this stuttering pan going on and a few shots that are just nauseating in their movement without much narrative reason. It was like Blair Witch without the Witch.

Anyone care to answer or share their thoughts about the visual feel of the film?
  • 0

#2 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 24 March 2006 - 06:49 PM

Just saw it and I thought the cinematography looked great and, for the most part, natural.

There were a couple of long pans that were hard on the eyes, but it looked intentional to me. I only noticed the fast shutter a dozen times during heightened scenes, and I thought it worked well.

I didn't see anything that warrants a comparison to the Blair Witch.
  • 0

#3 Bob Hayes

Bob Hayes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Culver City, California

Posted 25 March 2006 - 01:18 PM

I thought the photography was brilliant. Only shot that didn't work for me was Denzel rolling toward us like he was on roller skates. What were they thinking?
  • 0

#4 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 25 March 2006 - 02:38 PM

I loved the X-light/ NYPD "worklight" they made. Worked great!
  • 0

#5 Travis Cline

Travis Cline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 March 2006 - 06:50 PM

I like the movie too, but I have to say the shot of Denzel on the dolly was one of my favorite shots. Ballsy yes, but it fit the mood and the moment for me. Besides, would it be a Spike Lee movie if his actors didn't ride on the dolly? I also, like the shots of Clive Owen and Christopher Plummer on the dolly. The one with Plummer and his desk was stellar. The X-light was pretty great too.

Travis

Edited by travisclinedp, 25 March 2006 - 06:51 PM.

  • 0

#6 rbg

rbg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Director
  • Santa Monica

Posted 26 March 2006 - 03:05 AM

Hey guys,

Just saw a sneak preview of Inside Man on Wednesday and it was great....(I promise not to give anything away.)

However, after seeing the film I'm wondering what sort of detriment a short shutter angle can cause to panning. I know the DP, Libatique, chose to contrast the stories of Denzel and Clive with one being frentic, chaotic feeling while the other is smooth and premeditated. And it works. However, some stuff was so disorienting and I'm wondering if it was the short shutter angle that might cause a severe stutter effect on some of the pans. It was the only thing that really brought me out of the film as there are a few points with this stuttering pan going on and a few shots that are just nauseating in their movement without much narrative reason. It was like Blair Witch without the Witch.

Anyone care to answer or share their thoughts about the visual feel of the film?


Hey-

I'd have to agree with you about the short shutter angle on some of those panning shots. It really pulled me out of an otherwise decent film. There is a shot that pans around a room over some pictures on the wall, something that we've seen in other films for sure, but due to the short shutter angle, it was mostly out of focus and kind of pointless. I understand the artistic decision to add a hyper-active quality to the film in certain moments, thus enhancing the story, but during a shot that is basically expositional, it seemed mis-used or even a mistake. Also, when arbitrarily intercut with footage shot with a longer shutter angle, it just didn't work. Other than that, good job Mr. Spike Lee, and good job Matthew Libateque, very entertaining, dolly-shot and all.

RBG
  • 0

#7 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 26 March 2006 - 11:58 AM

Hey-

I'd have to agree with you about the short shutter angle on some of those panning shots. It really pulled me out of an otherwise decent film. There is a shot that pans around a room over some pictures on the wall, something that we've seen in other films for sure, but due to the short shutter angle, it was mostly out of focus and kind of pointless. I understand the artistic decision to add a hyper-active quality to the film in certain moments, thus enhancing the story, but during a shot that is basically expositional, it seemed mis-used or even a mistake. Also, when arbitrarily intercut with footage shot with a longer shutter angle, it just didn't work. Other than that, good job Mr. Spike Lee, and good job Matthew Libateque, very entertaining, dolly-shot and all.

RBG


Is there some sort of esthetic movement going on where producers want things to have an Internet video look? More and more I'm seeing pictures that stutter like mad and are very unsettling visually. IMHO that Internet look is pure garbage - we've got a motion picture technology that can produce pictures equivalent to gazillions of pixels per second - why does anyone think I want to see pictures with horrid amounts of compression, stutter, posterized color palettes, etc. etc.? Give me three strip Technicolor or give me death!
  • 0

#8 georg lamshöft

georg lamshöft
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Berlin

Posted 26 March 2006 - 02:38 PM

I saw it recently and had to say that I was surprised how good it was when you have some critics back in mind...

I noticed this effect especially on the scene (I think it was already mentioned) where you can see pictures and the camera moves along a guy's face while he's eating a pizza!? Man, I got headache because the motion was so... I don't know the english word for it, but is it the thing you're talking about? It's not a problem of the cinema or something else? Maybe they had to pay too much to Foster, and couldn't afford the right equipment anymore? ;-) It doesn't happened accidently?

Edited by georgl, 26 March 2006 - 02:39 PM.

  • 0

#9 Alex Sapienza

Alex Sapienza

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dublin, Ireland

Posted 26 March 2006 - 03:41 PM

I just saw the movie today and I really liked the simple lighting throughout the film. Does anyone know what kind of lighting setup did the DP use? From what I saw seems to be mainly single source lighting from outside the bank windows and practicals. I did find the shutter angle on pans quite annoying tho and a few soft extreme close ups. Overall really enjoyed the movie and great performance as usual from Denzel Whashington.

Regards

Alex Sapienza
  • 0

#10 Christopher Wedding

Christopher Wedding
  • Guests

Posted 26 March 2006 - 08:33 PM

Hey Guys,

I think the movie was very well shot, I was just wondering if it was the short shutter that caused the strobing I saw. I said Blair Witch only for the two times I got a but unsettled during long, unfocused pans. I wasn't trying to trash the whole look which overall was great and unique.

As for the lighting inside....I think I read in ICG that Libatique used 3 4K Tungsten cube shaped ballons inside (which can also be used as 2K's) and one 8K tungsten or Metal halide (which he had custom built) depending on the look outside as well as some special LRX rig outside as well.

Would anyone please comment on the look and process used for the interrogation room?
  • 0

#11 Richard Vialet

Richard Vialet
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hollywood, CA

Posted 26 March 2006 - 09:25 PM

For the interrogation scenes...(based on the new AC mag issue) they shot uncorrected Ektachrome 100D 5285, cross-processed it AND did a bleach bypass. Lee uses cross-processing in many of his movies, and gets pretty good results!
  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 27 March 2006 - 10:13 AM

For the interrogation scenes...(based on the new AC mag issue) they shot uncorrected Ektachrome 100D 5285, cross-processed it AND did a bleach bypass. Lee uses cross-processing in many of his movies, and gets pretty good results!


Ah! It was quite grainy indeed! Interesting. I was assuming it was Super16 and some really fast film stock or something.

I liked the effect to be honest.

love

Freya
  • 0

#13 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 27 March 2006 - 10:38 AM

Just dropped by to post about this film. I saw it a preview on Tuesday :P and had a really good time.
Nice to see you guys are already talking about it!

I was very worried as it turned out to be in a different cinema than I was expecting and I had invited a friend along. I knew it was going to be a trashy genre movie, but I thought it might be fun anyway, but I was worried when my friend and I had to race across town to the other cinema, that it wouldn't have been worth the effort. Thankfully it was really good.

As soon as the film started a big guy sitting next to me, said "hey it's spike lee" and I was like thinking, "you came here for some other reason?". Anyway I've been thinking about it more and more over the last few days and I really liked it. It is a trashy genre movie. In fact it is a trashy genre movie to the max. More of a parody really. When the guy who plays the bank owner says that he has something that no-one must know about in a safety deposit box, you already know exactly what it is, because of the guy playing him. Then Jodie Foster goes into the bank to talk to the hyper intelligent maniac character, and Denzil Washington plays this good black cop in a world that's bad kind of thing. It is so stereotypical that it's really entertaining.
I wondered for a moment how he got these actors to play such roles, but then of course, it's Spike isn't it! ;)

A lot of the time you know what's coming next, and you are just like noooooo! You don't want to be doing that! :) The whole film isn't really laugh out loud funny, but kind of witty make you smile fun. It's all made with a lot of fun. (Hence that silly dolly shot).

I think my favourite bit, that really did make me laugh, was the bit when the bank manager talks about all his good deeds and gestures in the direction of all his trophies and pictures and the camera pans across them. I loved that! Go Spike!

Somehow Spike has managed to totally make this film his own. Real auteur stuff. He works his political points in there at the same time, as you might expect and it's all done with a sense of humour. There is something about the film that is really optimistic too, like yeah things can be better in spite of the bad people. In some ways it might be his most political film in that it is just such a totally hollywood movie yet Spike still gets his message across.

This film is a lot of fun, and a good film to go and see with a friend, but if you don't have one, then what the hey, see it anyway! :)

What is that genre called anyways?

love

Freya

Edited by Freya, 27 March 2006 - 10:39 AM.

  • 0

#14 Rupe Whiteman

Rupe Whiteman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 336 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 March 2006 - 10:56 AM

I thought the photography was brilliant. Only shot that didn't work for me was Denzel rolling toward us like he was on roller skates. What were they thinking?


... Lee likes to use the actor on a dolly at some point in most of his films... In Malcolm X: Malcolm seems to float along the sidewalk on the day he was assassintated. I saw an interview with Lee where he mentioned it signifying Malcolm knowing that on that day he knew something terrible was going to happen to him so I guess the shot means an out of body experience... What was happening in the scene it was used in in The Inside Man?

Rupe Whiteman
  • 0

#15 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 27 March 2006 - 11:11 AM

... Lee likes to use the actor on a dolly at some point in most of his films... In Malcolm X: Malcolm seems to float along the sidewalk on the day he was assassintated. I saw an interview with Lee where he mentioned it signifying Malcolm knowing that on that day he knew something terrible was going to happen to him so I guess the shot means an out of body experience... What was happening in the scene it was used in in The Inside Man?

Rupe Whiteman


It was something like that actually! The Denzel character sort of moves at high speed towards the front of the bank. He is having a total freak out episode and he is very upset. Hard to explain, you will have to see the film! :) It kind of represents his emotional state but I think it's supposed to be a little bit funny too. I laughed anyway, and a few people in the cinema did.

love

Freya

Edited by Freya, 27 March 2006 - 11:13 AM.

  • 0

#16 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:24 PM

I really enjoyed the film.

It was essentially a throw back to 60's/70's bank robbing films. In the film they referenced "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Serpico". I wouldn't call this a trash genre especially in the sense that Sidney Lumet's films dealt with real corruption and social issues of the time.

What I really enjoyed about "Inside Man" are the people and witty dialogue. I laughed as I watched the film and kept thinking to myself, that is New York. You got a genuine feel for the real people in New York. Its a mixture of many different cultures and ethnicities all existing in the same space. You witness the beauty and animosity of that situation.
  • 0

#17 Sean Azze

Sean Azze
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • P.A.

Posted 28 March 2006 - 01:35 AM

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER













Did I miss something? Why did Clive Owen's character go to such great lengths to get these diamonds and black mail Mr. Case? How did he know about his Nazi past in the first place? It sort of bothered me that none of this was explicitly stated in the film. Also, how did Detective Frazier know something was fishy with Case after procuring the ring? Seems like so many things the audience has to assume to make the film work.

Overall it was entertaining. Very funny - especially the Grand Theft Auto parody - a grenade in the mouth - damn, is that satire or what? And yeah, that Denzel dolly shot didn't work for me - very silly. That effect only really works at a slow, dreamlike pace. But again, I had a good time. Thumbs up from me.
  • 0

#18 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:03 AM

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Did I miss something? Why did Clive Owen's character go to such great lengths to get these diamonds and black mail Mr. Case? How did he know about his Nazi past in the first place?


I guess he either knew because he is hyper intelligent, has x-ray vision, or he saw that photo on Mr Case's mantlepiece! ;)

On the other hand, lets face it, the guy is a bank owner! ;)

It sort of bothered me that none of this was explicitly stated in the film. Also, how did Detective Frazier know something was fishy with Case after procuring the ring? Seems like so many things the audience has to assume to make the film work.


I just assumed he did some reasearch into where the ring came from, that bit didn't seem so bad to me...

Overall it was entertaining. Very funny - especially the Grand Theft Auto parody - a grenade in the mouth - damn, is that satire or what? And yeah, that Denzel dolly shot didn't work for me - very silly. That effect


But surely it was supposed to be silly! The whole film is kind of silly, that is why it is fun. It's just a bit of a parody.

love

Freya
  • 0

#19 Rik Andino

Rik Andino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City

Posted 28 March 2006 - 05:58 PM

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Did I miss something? Why did Clive Owen's character go to such great lengths to get these diamonds and black mail Mr. Case? How did he know about his Nazi past in the first place? It sort of bothered me that none of this was explicitly stated in the film. Also, how did Detective Frazier know something was fishy with Case after procuring the ring? Seems like so many things the audience has to assume to make the film work.


If you'd paid careful attention...
In the last scene with Jodie Foster and Chris Plummer (Mr. Case)...
Mr. Case mentions that he got those diamonds from a Jewish family that was killed by the Nazis.
They were friends of Mr. Case but he betrayed them to get rich.

It doesn't take much to assume...Clive Owen and the rest of the gang have some relations with that family
Especially when one of the bank robbers is an orthodox Jewish man...
So they obviously knew about the betrayal and research the bank and the safety box...

When Denzel Washington discovers the ring he traces it back...
Since you can do this with many diamonds (particularly the rare and expensive ones)...
And he must have discovered that it belonged to a Jewish family that was killed by the Germans in WWII...

Being a dectective he doesn't need to go on an internet forum ( :) ) to put two and two together...
He obviously figured it was hidden there by the bank owner who stole it from the family...

These events are actually happened (not the bank robbery)
Stolen fortune from WWII is recovered by relatives of the deceased family.
I hope that clears everything up.

I found the movie to be very well made. It's the best movie I've seen this month.
I don't think it's too silly like some folks do...but it is fiction afterall.
I enjoyed it.
  • 0

#20 Sean Azze

Sean Azze
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • P.A.

Posted 28 March 2006 - 10:27 PM

If you'd paid careful attention...
In the last scene with Jodie Foster and Chris Plummer (Mr. Case)...
Mr. Case mentions that he got those diamonds from a Jewish family that was killed by the Nazis.
They were friends of Mr. Case but he betrayed them to get rich.

It doesn't take much to assume...Clive Owen and the rest of the gang have some relations with that family
Especially when one of the bank robbers is an orthodox Jewish man...
So they obviously knew about the betrayal and research the bank and the safety box...



Yeah, I caught all that. But see the problem still is nowhere in the film does it say that Clive Owen's character had any relation to this Jewish family that was betrayed. You're doing exactly what the film made you do - you're assuming because an orthodox jew was a part of the crew that they had some relation to the family. Clive Owen's character says at one point "I did it for the money." He states he left the ring to maintain some sort of dignity, and then goes on to accuse Mr. Case of not having any left. He doesn't say he betrayed his family. He doesn't say he betrayed his friends. He gives us no window into what motivated him to put into motion such a complicated heist.

When Denzel Washington discovers the ring he traces it back...
Since you can do this with many diamonds (particularly the rare and expensive ones)...
And he must have discovered that it belonged to a Jewish family that was killed by the Germans in WWII...



So essentially you can read a diamond much like a fingerprint? I didn't know that, that's interesting.

These events are actually happened (not the bank robbery)
Stolen fortune from WWII is recovered by relatives of the deceased family.
I hope that clears everything up.


No, not really. :lol: You conjured up a theory and because you weren't involved in the making of the film you're not getting me any closer to what the truth is . After my post, I thought about it some more and figured the bank robbers somehow found out about the diamonds and knew Clive Owen's character could safely walk out with them inconspiciously (because of their location as well as their size). Leaving the ring behind could be a way of clearing his conscious. But of course, my guess is as good as yours.
  • 0


Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Opal

Visual Products

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies