Bourne was grainy

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It looked significantly less grainy than a bunch of shots in Pirates 3. I actually was suprised by how clean the image was after seeing some 2k scans posted here. The scans looked far softer than the print I saw. Then again... this was one of the best prints I've seen in a theater in a long time. And the projector was in focus! Amazing!

The real problem with the shakiness was it didn't ramp up. The first scene did not need to be shaky and I don't know how you can get that much shakiness with a 25+ pound rig.

I loved most of the compositions and use of occluded frames. I also loved the transitions from shaky -> rails in africa during the case. Excellent transition from suspense to action, but personally I prefer dropped frames to putting bees in the camera op's pants. I like natural amounts of shakiness... but I don't feel like my head vibrates that badly while sitting in a chair reading my email.

 

[Albert Cheng]

I was turned off by the shakey cam in Bourne Supremacy. It took me right out of the story, and drew way too much attention to itself. I remember my temper flaring for a moment during one of the fight scenes and thought to myself "what are these filmmakers thinking". Haven't seen it yet, but if Bourne ultimatum is more of that, I have a feeling I'm gonna need to be restrained.

 

[Sam Druckerman]

Any camera move or shake that calls attention to itself is counter productive to the main objective, Story Telling, and a real pet peeve of mine.

Excessive Grain is another one of those "I'm going to give it a look" choices that can be a spoiler.

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form.

Isn't it true that most classic films that have grain, do so because of the film stock that was available, or they didn't have the budget for 35mm, so they shot 16mm. I have to wonder how many of those film makers wouldn't have jumped on 70mm if given the opportunity.

Now, grain has become a part of our film culture and film makers like to use grain as an ascetic choice.

They use it to date the story or period of the film. That's cool... But "Amadeus" is a flawless film, it's as close to perfect as any I've ever seen. It didn't need excessive grain to convey the period. "Lawrence of Arabia", same thing.

Grain used to affect a feeling (rough, tough, gritty, etc), can work great. But they way it was used in Bourne, to the point of distraction... it becomes self defeating. "Full Metal Jacket" is a pretty gritty story, but it didn't need excessive grain to be effective.

My point is, the audience doesn't need anything to help them remember there watching a film. Each and every one of them paid money to be entertained. What they want is an experience that takes them away and helps them forget themselves in the story. It's like a good dream you want to see to the end, and enjoy in the moment. When you wake up, you'll know it was only a movie.

When the audience starts thinking about how it was made, or it looks, they've awoken and you've lost them.

 

[Evin Grant]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

 

[Keith Nealy]

It was double the shake and crash edits of #2.

Even though it was an assault - I think it worked on some level.

I've notice that my kids live at a faster pace than I do. Every form of media they watch is faster. It's the game reaction times that are pushing things, I think.

So If you like Ludlum and the Bourne series it's a trip but... be forewarned.

It's a non-stop adrenaline rush with some amazing gags.

Keith

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

I saw "Ultimatum" just a couple days after having watched "Children of Men", so imagine how much it suffered in comparison. But then Lubezki is a genius, IMHO. However, consider that Lubezki and his brilliant operator try to keep the camera as steady as possible, versus the way-overdone conceit that handheld camera work is all over the place and full of spastic snap zooms. And for those that argue that in "Ultimatum" it represents Bourne's state of mind or point of view - don't you think he'd be dead a few seconds into the film if he couldn't keep it together better than that? Isn't the attraction of his character the way he always sees more of a situation than everyone else, and thus is able to elude and manipulate the CIA and the other bad guys? If he saw the way the camera does, he'd be in a corner vomitting right up until they blew his brains out.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form?

I actually have dreamed in film grain, at least twice as far as I can remember. Highlights were slightly blown out too. And they weren't dreams about watching movies, either.

I also like (under the right circumstances, of course) film grain; it can be quite beautiful. Perhaps there's a connection...

 

[Jason Murphy]

Isn't it true that most classic films that have grain, do so because of the film stock that was available, or they didn't have the budget for 35mm, so they shot 16mm. I have to wonder how many of those film makers wouldn't have jumped on 70mm if given the opportunity.

Actually, I think much of the grain that we see in classic movies becomes accentuated both because of aging and the fact that many of the classic movies we see today are copies of copies of copies; each generation loses some resolution and adds some contrast and grain. All in all, original prints of classic movies probably looked significantly better and richer than most anything we see today, thanks to the (by today's standards) ridiculous amount of silver used in the stocks. But nobody in their right mind runs original nitrate prints anymore, so hey...

16mm was used a lot for home movies and newsreels, and post WWII a number of avant-garde filmmakers took it up as well, because the surplus of cameras and stock manufactured for wartime reporting meant it was cheap and accessible to pretty much anyone. I don't think it was really used at all for narrative features until much later (like the late 60's and the 70's).

I'm sure that if they could be given the resolution of 70mm at the cost and portability of 16mm, many filmmakers would have jumped at the chance. But I think most of them valued cost and portability (ie. the fact that they could use it themselves in almost any situation) over resolving power.

 

[krd]

Some will disagree with this, but let me just say... I have never dreamed in grain, have you? And what are films if not stories presented in dream form.

The most insidiously involving images I've ever seen were Hi8 origination shot off a monitor with a 35mm camera, and then projected on 35mm. It was as if the movie was taking place inside your head, with the approximate resolution of dreams.

Can't recommend this approach for long form work -- it gets tiring after a while, as your eyes try to resolve detail which isn't there -- but there's a lot to be said for murk in imaginative story telling. Love of grain may be generational or experiential (what you grew up on?), but it's very hard to wish that film classics had the hyperreal grainless structure of video (and possibly 4K; but impossible to know, at this point). Seeing the film through a veil has a certain suggestivity.... Kind of like dreams, no?

 

[Tom Lowe]

If you want my opnion (Don't answer that!) the gold standard for handheld work is Cuaron/Lubezki, watch "Y Tu Mamma Tambien" and "Children of Men" that's frenetic, gritty handheld that doen't make you vomit into your popcorn bag. I haven't seen Ultimatum yet but Supremacy was nausiating, great story but I was totally thown by the camera work.

Agreed.

 

[Keith Nealy]

I agree with you about his state of mind and what it should look like - in reality - but this isn't reality, this is movies and audiences, especially young people have become sfx junkies and are hooked on frenitic motion.

MTV discovered that decades ago and it has ramped up ever since. This is about selling tickets. not reality. It's becomming a "can you top this" environment. I actually thought that Die Hard 3 was a better action flick because you had more empathy for the character and a more sensible pacing. But that's just me.

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Michael Caine was great, as usual.

 

[Tom Lowe]

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Uh, what about the car ambush scene?

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

I agree with you about his state of mind and what it should look like - in reality - but this isn't reality, this is movies and audiences, especially young people have become sfx junkies and are hooked on frenitic motion.

I can't argue with the economics of "Ultimatum", but I do believe that sfx-infused frenetic motion can be done way better.

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

Michael Caine was great, as usual.

Michael Caine wasn't in that sequence

I would argue that the central storyline wasn't the primary story - that the primary story is everything you saw out of your peripheral vision. And that story was briliantly told. If you check out interviews with Cuaron you'll see this was by design. It's an oblique kind of storytelling compared to most mainstream movies.

 

[Sam Druckerman]

I actually have dreamed in film grain, at least twice as far as I can remember. Highlights were slightly blown out too.

Hi Jason,

LOL Veeeeeery interesting.

But seriously, good to know. If you do, there must be others?

Let's hear from everyone who's dreamed in Grain?

I confess after reading several books on creative dreaming, I now direct / edit my dreams......

"Ah, no no no no. Do this!" ... "That's more like it".

Maybe I've shared to much...

 

[Scott M]

RE: "Children of Men" - that one long single take battle sequence was the only part of the movie worth anything. The rest of the story was lacking.

I agree wholeheartedly.

BTW, I just watched a screening of Danny Boyle's "Sunshine", there are some BEAUTIFUL images in that film. Some amazingly clear closeup profiles of an eye for instance. I was, like in "Children of Men" amazed by some of the cinematography, but again found the story to be off as some odd liberties are taken, but I enjoyed watching it though .

 

[wshultz]

Amazing... Everyone's got an opinion. I actually liked Children of Men throughout and I thought the parallels with Nazi Germany were startling. The long battle scene was very gripping.

Bourne Ultimatum does take the hand held up yet another notch. The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I was in car accident once where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. It looks just like those hand held chase scenes!

 

[Keith Alan Morris]

Hi Jason,

LOL Veeeeeery interesting.

But seriously, good to know. If you do, there must be others?

Let's hear from everyone who's dreamed in Grain?

I confess after reading several books on creative dreaming, I now direct / edit my dreams......

"Ah, no no no no. Do this!" ... "That's more like it".

Maybe I've shared to much...

what books?

 

[Adam C Lubkin]

Amazing... Everyone's got an opinion. I actually liked Children of Men throughout and I thought the parallels with Nazi Germany were startling. The long battle scene was very gripping.

Bourne Ultimatum does take the hand held up yet another notch. The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I was in car accident once where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. It looks just like those hand held chase scenes!

I was once in CIA headquarters having a conversation in a nice office and it felt just like a car accident where we rolled twice and skidded upside down for awhile. Oh, wait... hehe

 

[Sam Druckerman]

what books?

Check your PM's.

I didn't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Chris Gearhart]

The only time it bothered me and pulled me out of the story were on long static dialog scenes.

I agree totally. I think if they hadn't done it so painstakingly early on--in scenes that screamed, "See! Aren't you feeling tense along with Jason?" no one would have noticed it.

My wife and I went to see it and we had the obligatory argument about whether to sit close (me) or farther back (her). I am so glad I lost that one. I would have vomited after 10 minutes. But once things picked up I stopped noticing it at all.

The grain never really bothered me. I actually went after seeing this thread and still never thought about it.

It was all worth it to see that camera jumping from building-top to window behind Bourne. Stink I wish I had thought of that.