I was rewatching The Hustler and Pale Flower earlier, two of my favorite movies cinematographically, and got to thinking about shooting styles now and where this stuff might be going. I love The Hustler and Pale Flower for their meticulously composed frames and use of WIDE lenses - lots of Japanese New Wave stuff falls into this category, too. In my opinion it takes a lot more technical skill to control a scene shot from wide vantage points from which the director has to be aware of spatial geography and the way shots will intercut, vs shooting everything in extreme closeups or just tracking behind people's heads constantly, which is easier stuff to cut from / in and out of.
Scorsese, PT, QT, Polanski, and Cronenberg seem to still have it - I'm thinking of Shutter Island, Inglorius Basterds, There Will Be Blood, The Ghost Writer, and A History of Violence as examples of recent movies that really showcase technical bravado. I know a lot of smaller and independent films now shoot handheld as a budgetary necessity, but I'm so fucking sick of shallow depth-of field handheld nonsense becoming the norm. Part of me thinks it just has to do with the lack of opportunity young filmmakers have today to shoot with any kind of money behind their projects on a frequent basis. It takes practice, practice, practice to be able to shoot competently in a controlled formal manner (not coverage), and the infrequency at which people are able to do this might be a contributing factor to the modern, looser way of doing things...but I'm really not sure. Maybe up-and-coming filmmakers think formal shooting styles are passe and no longer in vogue? Lots of of 50s stuff is very studio and somewhat impersonal, what with all the workhorse directors cranking out project after project, but in the 1960s you started to see a shift with some of that formal stuff being combined with floatier, more experimental ways of telling stories.
I'm curious if there are any shooting styles in particular you guys really dig, or if you have any thoughts on this?
Edit - Here's a video of Alexander Mackendrick talking about 'The Longest Axis' (http://youtu.be/_3UR3VtazuQ), which is the kind of ammunition I feel most young filmmakers aren't carrying around anymore.
I agree with you, and also really like that video.
Last year I made a film in a very rushed manner, and it was a just for fun project. Looking back on it, I am disappointed in how plain and un-thoughtfully shot it was. Sometimes I did have a planned way to shoot something that would have taken much more time than we had in a location and so I just defaulted to handholding the camera and just pointing it at the actors. Since making this movie, though, I've been doing a lot of serious thinking about the kind of filming style and skill that I want to develop.
I'd say that the handheld, shallow depth of field stuff is an aesthetic that people like, so it's not just a budgetary thing. It's EASY and it's fast. At this point it may be more the case that people don't know how to shoot otherwise. Shooting close ups and cutting together performances is the norm, it seems, rather than directing and capturing a sustained, well-blocked performance.
I studied theater instead of film and there was so much covered about blocking that would never be covered in film school. But even having directed plays and studying design regarding use of space and blocking and color and lighting, I defaulted to a really plain shooting style with the actors against the wall talking in close up (because it was fast and easy and I felt like I had no time). I've spent the past year being disappointed in myself because I knew better, and could do better.
Kurosawa really blows me away with his ability regarding shooting style and especially blocking. The position of the characters within the frame is always meaningful, and any change in that is also meaningful. Also, the way in which they move or walk always says so much about their character without a single word uttered, or in addition to whatever is being said. I can't think of anyone better than Kurosawa at that.
I actually think that Spielberg really grasped onto that element of Kurosawa's work, and indeed I think that Spielberg is really masterful at shot design. He takes a lot of what Kurosawa did, but has made it more dynamic. Very little in the way of over-the-shoulder reverse shots, plenty of shots with layered action, moving the camera from one shot type to another, rather than defaulting to an edit. Say what you will about the overall quality of his films, but his ability to design and shoot a scene, as well as his very fine ear for effective sound design, is stunning. I cannot believe this guy hangs out with George Lucas.
Malick is a very, very interesting filmmaker to me, especially in The New World and everything that I see and have heard about The Tree of Life. It's handheld, little or no lighting, no shot design, no pre-determined blocking. Lots of people shoot a bunch of handheld footage and figure it out in editing, but Malick has elevated that to a poetic level. He seeks out unusual edits, developing a new grammar for that specific film through the editing, which is one of the main things that defines his style. Other people who shoot in a similar style still edit in a conventional way, making a film that feels patched together rather than a unique weave. Another thing that defines his style for me is that it's not all close ups, which is what is more common with un-pre-meditated handheld shooting. The camera is constantly going from wide to close, near the characters and then to the trees, into the scene and out of the scene, giving it this amazing scope. His characters really move through space. Look at all the clips from The Tree of Life or look at The New World. Constant movement. And with those two films he has also gotten almost completely rid of the shallow depth of field because he wants to really see everything that's going on. The people and the environment are one, so no shallow focus to tell you what to look at or make "the subject pop." The Tree of Life looks like he just put one wide lens on the camera and stuck with it--if you want a close up you're gonna have to get really close to the actors, and everything behind them is still effectively a wide shot. This is a totally fascinating visual manifestation of the primary theme of his works (man and nature). That, on top of the ridiculously adventurous editing, is part of what makes his style the bleeding edge of pushing the language of cinema.
Bergman is also a hero of mine in terms of style. His blocking of actors in small spaces is especially fabulous, creating this big feeling in a claustro'd environment. I'm fascinated by Scenes from a Marriage, because the film is so stylistically flat, and you have so many moments where the actors are just in a very plain small room, but the content and the blocking is so heart-stopping. The camera doesn't move much, but when it does, in concert with the action... my god. Also, Bergman is, to me, the total master of the close up, where the cut to the close up feels like he just cut you in the stomach while a big beautiful face fills the frame, looking back at you.
I think that this is all stuff that most people don't seem to be interested in doing anymore. It's not the popular aesthetic. The documentary style is popular in "artsy" films (you have the Dardennes influencing Aronofsky and Aronofsky then influencing a bunch of young filmmakers, and there's also people like Soderbergh), and the films that are done in a more traditional manner are just so damn plain (wide shot of a house to establish the scene, then maybe a plain master shot and then reverse close ups for the rest of the scene, maybe end on the master, repeat for the next scene, repeat).
I've got plenty more to say on the subject (thanks for starting this thread!), but this is more than enough to read in one go. I will definitely check out The Hustler and Pale Flower soon.
You bring up a great point about the inseparable relationship blocking has to shot design. I agree Speilberg is an animal in regards to this. I haven't seen very many Kurosawa movies - only Rashomon, Stray Dog, High and Low, and Drunken Angel, but your enthusiasm for that part of his work really makes me want to see more.
Quote from: matt35mm on May 22, 2011, 01:06:17 PM
moving the camera from one shot type to another, rather than defaulting to an edit.
There's a lot of stuff in Singin' in the Rain like that where frame sizes and compositions are constantly changing without cutting (a 2 shot dollying into a single, then pulling back out into a master, etc.), moving the camera imperceptibly as the actors move so that the camera movements are masked by character action. That's a skill and a half to be able to do that consistently throughout an entire film, and really impresses me.
Quote from: matt35mm on May 22, 2011, 01:06:17 PMAnother thing that defines his style for me is that it's not all close ups, which is what is more common with un-pre-meditated handheld shooting. The camera is constantly going from wide to close, near the characters and then to the trees, into the scene and out of the scene, giving it this amazing scope.
Really, really good point, and something most people attempting to emulate his style wouldn't necessarily hone in on. There's something that one of the editors of The Thin Red Line (Saar Klein?) talks about on the Criterion disc, a direction Malick gave him in post, which was to make the movie feel like a "river" was running through it. I've thought about that concept a lot and have found that there are very few movies that do it, or even attempt to do it, at least successfully: Last Year at Marienbad, Apocalypse Now...I think Inception very nearly accomplished it in parts. A thematic "idea", visually communicated, that seems to have a presence throughout the entire movie, and is woven into the narrative so that all of the scenes, however disparate they may seem out of context on their own, seem to melt together and become liquid. From what I've heard it sounds like Tree of Life is going to take this "river" concept and expand it or evolve it to become some kind of new form in the same vain, like all pieces of that movie are going to become interconnected "particles" of a larger whole instead of a linear "river" - that's my impression, anyway. Can't wait to see it.
Something else I have a lot of admiration for is color control. In Antonioni movies especially there's a coordination of costume design and setting so that scenes are almost monochromatic but in color, or comprised of three main colors with very small accents. The cool thing about this idea to me is that you can make a movie set in the "real world" feel alien or like it takes place in its own universe just by framing out different types of architecture and limiting your color palette without obviously "production designing" anything or using fantastical sets. Michael Mann does this a lot (making sure a character sitting in a car with white leather interior is wearing clothing of a color not too far off the background color, a gray suit for instance) as does Todd Haynes in Safe. Sofia Coppola's movie Somewhere had this going on as well, each shot something more like a still photograph in which every piece in the frame is carefully selected to be coordinated with everything else. I guess if you're not actively looking for that type of thing sometimes it doesn't really register, so it makes sense to me why a lot of people consider Somewhere boring. I think that movie is far better crafted than most people give it credit for, though.
Looking forward to hearing what else you have to say, that was a great read.
Thought this was a semi-interesting read - "Creating a Hitchcockian Opening" by Jeff Bays
http://borgus.com/hitch/openings.htm (http://borgus.com/hitch/openings.htm)
"Movement of the camera through geographic space is one way that Hitchcock signals to the viewer that a new story is being uncovered. Typically he begins scanning a public space, luring the viewer from an objective vantage point and calling upon the voyeuristic. In the case of films like Rebecca – repeated in openings of Psycho, Rope, Dial M For Murder, Secret Agent, and others – the camera begins wide on the landscape and moves or pans through the environment in search of a story. Rebecca begins with the moon shining through dark rolling clouds, as the camera tracks between the bars of an iron gate. Crossing into private territory, it moves down a driveway surrounded by trees, and soon the camera arrives at an old deteriorated mansion, tracking further around the mansion until it moves in on a window..."
Oh shoot, I meant to post in here but I kept not having time and then forgetting to when I did have the time. I don't have the time to write anything extensive right now but I wanted to pop in and say that it turns out that The Hustler and Pale Flower will both be playing in 35mm here in the next couple of months (Austin is seriously the best place to be a movie fan). I will definitely be there for those screenings.
I really liked reading your posts in this thread and want to keep it going because I think about this stuff a lot. I already know a couple of things about The Tree of Life that I want to talk about here but I'm not going to have the time until next week, and I want to watch it again before I talk about it.
What happened to this.