Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Great movie & cinematography: "Broken Embraces" by Almodovar

K

Kevin Wild

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
996
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Raleigh, NC
Website
www.drawbridge.tv
I was lucky enough to see this movie this past weekend. What an incredible work. Pedro Almodovar just continues to prove to me that he is one of the best directors of our lifetime. Not only does he do great stories, but his direction of the look is incredible.

If you want a lesson in using color in a film, see "Broken Embraces" with it's many scenes where the color RED is nearly a character in the scene.

How about creative composition? Great sex scene where you see a dolly back and forth of a couch with only an occasional glimpse of a foot above the back of the couch. Or his camera movement between 2 characters...never actually chasing the conversation.

I hope some others have seen this film and enjoyed it as much as I did. It really is one you can see as a viewer and/or watch again to learn about filmmaking. I'm going again for the latter.

Kevin
 
Sorry, one other awesome scene, though a little spoilerish, though you have to see to really get it:

Rich man watches a silently projected image of a videotape on his wall that shows his lover talking with a possible new boyfriend. That same lover walks in to the back of the room and starts telling him the same things using the exact words he's watching on screen...in perfect sync to the picture. She walks out as she walks out in the picture at the same time.

Just brilliant filmmaking and storytelling...
 
Broken Embraces

TECHNICAL SPECS
2.40:1
35mm and 16mm
Panaflex Millennium, Platinum;
Arri 416
Panavision G-Series, Primo;
Zeiss Ultra 16 lenses
Kodak Vision3 500T 5219/7219,
Vision2 250D 5205;
Fuji Eterna Vivid 160
Digital Intermediate
Printed on
Kodak Vision Premier 2393

LINK>>>
 
Jayd said:
What did you think of "The White Ribbon"? Cinematography was by longtime collaborator Christian Berger. I thought this was the strongest photography (simple, consistent, clear) I've seen in recent memory.
Click to expand...

I liked it quite a bit -- the choice of b&w was perfect for this story, giving it a starker, less sentimental view of the past without becoming pastoral. Reminded me somewhat of a Scandinavian movie, sort of Dreyer-esue.

I'm just double-checking myself that I'm not giving the cinematography extra credit for simply not being in color, i.e. is it good b&w cinematography, not good color cinematography turned b&w?

Some of the day exterior work is a bit low-contrast for my b&w sensibilities, just sort of straight-forward & natural (I know that was intentional)... however the night work is excellent in terms of b&w contrast and mood -- the torches in the woods, the dark interior scene where the boy comes downstairs and goes through the dark house, etc.
 
Man, I had a tough time trying to figure out how The White Ribbon was shot from watching the film. There were a few times when it looked like digital acquisition, others when it looked like film. The print I saw was printed on B&W print stock, but the grain structure didn't look at all like it was shot on B&W negative.

Finally read an interview with the DP. Apparently, they shot on color neg and the B&W work was all done in the DI. Which upon reflection makes a bunch of sense.

Either way, I thought it was a really nice look.

David, mind giving an example of a movie that you thought might have good color cinematography turned B&W, as opposed to good B&W cinematography? I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but was wondering if you could think of one offhand, because I'm drawing a blank right now.
 
Why would they shoot color stock for a B&W finish?
 
Tom Lowe said:
Why would they shoot color stock for a B&W finish?
Click to expand...

Apparently the producers/studio wanted a color version for television, and this was the solution.
 
Jason Murphy said:
Man, I had a tough time trying to figure out how The White Ribbon was shot from watching the film. There were a few times when it looked like digital acquisition, others when it looked like film. The print I saw was printed on B&W print stock, but the grain structure didn't look at all like it was shot on B&W negative.

Finally read an interview with the DP. Apparently, they shot on color neg and the B&W work was all done in the DI. Which upon reflection makes a bunch of sense.

Either way, I thought it was a really nice look.

David, mind giving an example of a movie that you thought might have good color cinematography turned B&W, as opposed to good B&W cinematography? I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but was wondering if you could think of one offhand, because I'm drawing a blank right now.
Click to expand...
I think a similar thing was done with the Coen Brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There.
 
Loved white ribbon, going back to see it again & looking forward to seeing broken embrace, from the trailer, the cinematography seems to be my style
 
Tom Lowe said:
Why would they shoot color stock for a B&W finish?
Click to expand...

Double-X b&w negative is only 200 ASA and is much grainier than 500T color stock, plus has less dynamic range, is harder to find a lab to process it properly, and is prone to static electricity flashing frames (on "Schindler's List" they resorted to sticking a damp sponge inside the camera.) The lab can also cause static problems if they don't wind the film carefully. B&W stock has an anti-halation backing but not a rem-jet anti-static backing.

Plus the investor required a color version for TV broadcast.

All of these reasons also factored into why "The Man Who Wasn't There" was also shot on color negative stock.

On the other hand, there is a certain "gutsy" and "sooty" silvery quality that real b&w photography (plus you can play with color filters to affect contrast outdoors) has that is lacking in color-turned-b&w unless you are careful with the gamma of the image.
 
Gabe S. said:
I think a similar thing was done with the Coen Brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There.
Click to expand...

True enough. Personally, I wasn't too crazy about the film itself, but Deakins' cinematography was great. That said, everything about the way the lighting was designed for that movie screamed classic black and white. It didn't feel (at least to me) to be lit or designed in a way that may have been better suited to color, with an image that was merely desaturated (which is what I think David was getting at).

Also, Tom, color negative is generally faster than B&W neg (500 ASA vs 200 ASA), so if you want to shoot in limited light, you may want to shoot color and go B&W in the DI. Not sure that's necessarily the best way of going about it, but it's something. Doesn't seem to have been the main reason for shooting color stock on The White Ribbon, though. That would be the investors wanting a color version for the TV, according to the DP. No clue why they would, but hey, I'm not the money.

EDIT: Never mind, Tom, David beat me to it with a fuller explanation. Bedtime for me.
 
I don't have any hard & fast rules regarding b&w photography... over the century of b&w filmmaking, we've seen all types: low-con, high-con, soft, hard, dreamlike, gritty, etc. And we've seen very straight-forward naturalistic work shot in b&w.

But I tend to feel that good b&w photography involves manipulating tonal range so that the image looks dimensional, unless flatness and greyness is deliberate for an effect. Otherwise, you need a black and a white reference in the frame, you need to create a sense of depth with tonal contrasts so your eye knows where to look -- you are fighting against all that monochrome grey mud to direct the eye, and you use tones to do it. This is also why b&w lighting tends to be a bit harder, harsher, to sculpt the image, create contrast, create a sense of sharpness and separation, and mainly to direct the eye.

But obviously there is also a naturalistic, realistic impulse that says that sometimes reality is flat, low-contrast, and lacks separation so one should embrace that as part of a realistic aesthetic rather than manipulate the image. It probably relates to what Berger said in the AC article about trying to make the movie feel "modern". Some scenes are very rich and moody, but motivated logically by practical sources, and other scenes are somewhat soft-lit and low in contrast.

But occasionally I had the feeling that this was just a color image drained of color, rather than something shot on b&w film. Maybe I'm just thinking of some day exterior shots that just look like normal color neg contrast levels, very open shadows. Otherwise, I like the b&w photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top