The Public Enemies Look

[ReddyForScarlet]

At the theater on Friday, watching Angels and Demons, I saw a trailer for Public Enemies. The film had a very specific look to it, one that was not very flattering at all in my opinion. I can't pinpoint exactly what it is- clearly it's a number of things, resulting from being shot on the Cinealta F23, but what exactly? In the first segment of the trailer, it seems like it's over-sharpening and low dynamic range. Later on, it seems to be a unique motion blur and inconsistent video noise.

Overall, I get a very amateur visual feel from the film...

 

[Shawn Booth]

I can't pinpoint exactly what it is-

Overall, I get a very amateur visual feel from the film...

Really? Nothing looks amateur to me... Especially taking into account who shot it...
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005883/

Can you post examples of your work that illustrate how you command the medium more so than Mr. Spinotti?

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

With much respect to Mr. Spinotti and to Michael Mann (I am a fan) I have to agree that I really disliked the look of the trailer too. There has been much discussion of this on another thread that seems to concur.

Bad things happen to good people!

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

thats the "open-shutter-michael-mann-F23-video-look"
since "collateral" very popular in michael mann-movies

(ok, i know, first big F23 assignment for michael mann ;-)

but i think, we really have to wait for the finale movie

(but the trailer looks a bit too video-ish for an "old gangster-movie", thats right...)

 

[DCC Erickson]

From the cheap seats ( I own a DVX100a, need I say more) I'd say it looks a bit green. That sickly, scifi green. Maybe they were going for a period look and missed. Looks too Hollywood for the story, but then all the tentpoles get the shiny treatment.

 

[A. Clint Litton]

With much respect to Mr. Spinotti and to Michael Mann (I am a fan) I have to agree that I really disliked the look of the trailer too.

Agreed. And I don't think it can be attributed to a lack of talent on either the Director's or DP's part. I've long been a fan of Michael Mann, and usually love his visual style. I consider Heat to be a top example of their work together.

I know a lot of people raised a fuss when Mann intercut some HD with film on Collateral, but I didn't think it hurt the film too greatly...at least, it didn't take me out of the narrative.

I was disappointed in Miami Vice, though I think that mostly had to do with casting and acting, not so much the look. I was pretty excited to see the film from a technical standpoint, having read about the production in AC. Regardless of substance, I like that Mann was pushing the digital envelope. And I don't think there's any reason to blame it all on the digital technology, as others (David Fincher, for example) have accomplished stunning results (albeit with Viper).

Which leaves...artistic choice? Honestly, I can't say I know what Mann/Spinotti were going for, but I can't help but feel that what I see in the trailer seems to be at odds with the content, considering it's a period piece and all. Granted, this reserved judgment is based on a trailer that I've only viewed on a computer monitor, so it wouldn't surprise me if refresh rate, etc makes it less pleasing to the eye. In fact, I'd really be interested in seeing the film theatrically, and from a film print.

I caught Che during the roadshow here in NYC, and there were times it didn't look very flattering to the medium, and I wondered if it may have been due, in part, to a digital screening (note: I'm 95% positive that the Ziegfeld screening was digital...if anyone out there knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm incorrect, please let me know).

Back to Public Enemies, there were even times in the trailer when I thought the framing/lens choice seemed odd. Maybe that has something to do with locations, smaller chip, digiprimes, etc. Either way, it leaves me wondering...

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

From the cheap seats ( I own a DVX100a, need I say more)

hit the road! ... no i kid, i kid ... i love the DVX100 !

I'd say it looks a bit green. That sickly, scifi green. Maybe they were going for a period look and missed. Looks too Hollywood for the story, but then all the tentpoles get the shiny treatment.

... i'm really curious how this looks on the "big canvas"
probably it's an better grade then ;-) ...

 

[Vince K]

maybe it's the new 'sepia'?:hippie:

 

[ReddyForScarlet]

thats the "open-shutter-michael-mann-F23-video-look"

(but the trailer looks a bit too video-ish for an "old gangster-movie", thats right...)

Open shutter? Can you elaborate?

This look totally worked for Collateral- made sense with the content and the time period (modern!), and gave it an interesting feeling. But I agree with previous posters that it just seems out of place for a gangster period piece.

 

[M Most]

...Honestly, I can't say I know what Mann/Spinotti were going for, but I can't help but feel that what I see in the trailer seems to be at odds with the content, considering it's a period piece and all.

Sounds to me like you're presuming that everything that is period has to use a particular set of movie conventions in order to establish its credibility. Traditional visual conventions can be effective, but they are not set in stone. If you could go back in time and actually experience the 1930's, I doubt that everything you see would be grainy or sepia toned. In fact, things would look pretty much the same as they do now with the difference being that the buildings wouldn't be made of steel and glass. But the way your eyes perceive color, light, and shadow wouldn't be any different. If you consider that Mann's concept might have been to put you in the time period and not to simply show you a movie version of it, the notion of using somewhat hackneyed visual conventions to establish the period rather than production design becomes a bit inappropriate.

 

[ReddyForScarlet]

True, Mann's intent may have been to immerse the viewer in the story, but the juxtaposition of the two styles is an obstacle that will prevent most people from ever getting to that point.

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

Open shutter? Can you elaborate?

This look totally worked for Collateral- made sense with the content and the time period (modern!), and gave it an interesting feeling. But I agree with previous posters that it just seems out of place for a gangster period piece.

easy expressed:

filmcam's normally operate with/till 180° shutter ... thats what we are used to see in/on film.

with/in videocam's there are no such "technical" boundaries ... so especially on/at dark scenes there are possibilities to shoot with 270° shutter (and more ;-) so you can "capture" more (light, i think) but thats brings motionblur too ... and thats (for the most part) is that flat, blurry-ish videolook ... sometimes its a great "artistical" style ... but sometims it's really bad ;-)


ok ... pro's out there ... that was really easy expressed ! :couch: ;-)

 

[M Most]

True, Mann's intent may have been to immerse the viewer in the story, but the juxtaposition of the two styles is an obstacle that will prevent most people from ever getting to that point.

Since I assume you have not seen the film in its entirety, it's pretty presumptuous to make such a statement. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's not really sensible to form an opinion based on a trailer.

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

good example: southland (here it works very well !)

We shoot with a 270˚ shutter at night. It's not intended to make it look like video, but we make no effort to make it look like film. The Southland look is very much its own thing...

 

[A. Clint Litton]

Sounds to me like you're presuming that everything that is period has to use a particular set of movie conventions in order to establish its credibility. Traditional visual conventions can be effective, but they are not set in stone. If you could go back in time and actually experience the 1930's, I doubt that everything you see would be grainy or sepia toned. In fact, things would look pretty much the same as they do now with the difference being that the buildings wouldn't be made of steel and glass. But the way your eyes perceive color, light, and shadow wouldn't be any different. If you consider that Mann's concept might have been to put you in the time period and not to simply show you a movie version of it, the notion of using somewhat hackneyed visual conventions to establish the period rather than production design becomes a bit inappropriate.

I completely agree with you, and this notion of putting the viewer back into the time period rather than using conventional film tricks to suggest a period piece I think is a good insight into what Mann/Spinotti may have been trying to accomplish. That said, I don't think the open shutter/motion blur and video look does anything to accomplish this, as this isn't the way I perceive motion. It may be that we've become accustomed to the "film" look as being the closest to that of real vision, but this particular look reminds me of TV shows on the CW. On the other hand, I don't expect someone to use sepia or grain to enhance a period feel simply because it's what has been done in the past.

A friend of mine worked a bit on this film, and was one of the extras using a hand-crank camera during, I believe, the scene where they've apprehended Dillinger and bring him off a plane (or something like that). He was pretty excited to be included in the scene, but even more so considering they were really running film through those cameras, so there may have been an opportunity to include that "newsreel" footage in the finished edit, though who knows how that would fit.

At the end of the day, I'll be interested to see the film in the theater, because while I find the look distracting in the trailer, the mark of a great director will be his ability to carry us through the story, despite any initial dissatisfactions with the visual look. If the story is great, everything else will become an afterthought.

 

[Michael P. Schmidt]

If the story is great, everything else will become an afterthought.

indeed !
even with an DVX100 or Canon XH A1 or ... you can shoot /tell great storys !

 

[M Most]

..I don't think the open shutter/motion blur and video look does anything to accomplish this, as this isn't the way I perceive motion.

This technique is present only in specific scenes that likely either required it or for which the filmmakers deemed it appropriate. It's not the look of the entire movie. If used sparingly, it's just a visual technique, not that much different than overcranking.

I think one of the very unfortunate byproducts of Internet based instant communication is that pronouncements are made about things that are completely premature, and yet far too many people seem to accept those statements as fact. Let's wait until the picture is released to make critical judgments as to what works and what doesn't.

 

[ReddyForScarlet]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the critique of a filmmaker's work, even if it is just a trailer.

 

[M Most]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the critique of a filmmaker's work, even if it is just a trailer.

I didn't really say it was wrong. I basically said that it is unfair, naive, and judgmental

 

[ReddyForScarlet]

If a trailer is produced with the intention of sparking interest, how is it unfair, naive or judgmental to have a response and discuss?