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 :)

Miami Vice shootout scene

mattscope said:
Michael Mann has earned the right to do whatever he wants... clearly he could have chosen to shoot the film in whichever format he wanted to... that was the look he was going for. Not to mention his cinematographer was academy award winner Dion Beebe. I think its obvious to say both of them can make a pretty picture if they wanted to... but chose not to for this particular film.
Click to expand...

I think that's absolutely true. But just because someone has the skills to make something good, it shouldn't increase the value of something they CHOOSE to make crappy. I mean, let's be honest. If someone had posted some Miami Vice footage in this forum and said, "Look what I shot on my Red!", everyone would have torn him to shreds and told him that he doesn't know how to use the camera properly. Michael Mann has made some great contributions to cinema history in the past, but that does not mean that his digital cinematography is worth emulating.
 
mattscope said:
Michael Mann has earned the right to do whatever he wants... clearly he could have chosen to shoot the film in whichever format he wanted to... that was the look he was going for. Not to mention his cinematographer was academy award winner Dion Beebe. I think its obvious to say both of them can make a pretty picture if they wanted to... but chose not to for this particular film.
Click to expand...

For me it' not so much the picture as I feel the story telling gets sloppy.

In collateral there was long scenes between Tom and Jamie that was great realistic acting but to me only felt like improvisation that was completely irrelevant to the script.

As for Vice it felt like they've shot all angles and then just edited together.

It seems (to me) that if he has to many possibilities he looses the essence of storytelling. This is a common problem for any film maker.
 
Don Julio said:
I think that's absolutely true. But just because someone has the skills to make something good, it shouldn't increase the value of something they CHOOSE to make crappy. I mean, let's be honest. If someone had posted some Miami Vice footage in this forum and said, "Look what I shot on my Red!", everyone would have torn him to shreds and told him that he doesn't know how to use the camera properly. Michael Mann has made some great contributions to cinema history in the past, but that does not mean that his digital cinematography is worth emulating.
Click to expand...

I don't think Michael Mann set out to copy himself... (yes he started with collateral but he took it further with Miami Vice). We all know he can frame up a beautiful shot, and he knows that. I do remember reading that he really enjoyed the Miami Vice shoot... cause he felt he had freedom to play with this new technology and to push it to the way that suits him... really experiment and let loose. Sure a lot of it isn't everyone's piece of cake, but that's the look and the movie he set out to make. I mean why shoot digital to make it look like film? Why not just shoot film? Michael Mann knows digital is not film, it has its own look, and he wanted to explore that look. At least he isn't playing it safe.. you have to respect someone who goes out there taking risks even if you don't agree with them. (That includes Dion Beebe).
 
mattscope said:
I don't think Michael Mann set out to copy himself... (yes he started with collateral but he took it further with Miami Vice). We all know he can frame up a beautiful shot, and he knows that. I do remember reading that he really enjoyed the Miami Vice shoot... cause he felt he had freedom to play with this new technology and to push it to the way that suits him... really experiment and let loose. Sure a lot of it isn't everyone's piece of cake, but that's the look and the movie he set out to make. I mean why shoot digital to make it look like film? Why not just shoot film? Michael Mann knows digital is not film, it has its own look, and he wanted to explore that look. At least he isn't playing it safe.. you have to respect someone who goes out there taking risks even if you don't agree with them. (That includes Dion Beebe).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
I seem to remember there was quite a troubled production history on Collateral - the original DP (Paul Cameron) got the sack after the first three weeks and then Beebe came in at the deep end. I don't know the reason why (the usual "creative differences" - whatever that means) - maybe they were panicking about how it was looking? I also don't know if they were planning all along on shooting large parts of it on 35mm but basically when Dion Beebe came on board they started shooting 35mm - that may have just been a scheduling coincidence...who knows [they also carried on with the Vipers and Sonys of course]? Sounded like a bit of a mess if you ask me...:sad:
 
Personally I don't like the look of Miami Vice either. But I do admit that it's definitely a stylistic choice. From what I've read, he really likes that "reality" in his images. The forced gain and noisy images are precisely what he likes most. "Visceral" is the word he likes to use. Which, of course, makes most of us gag as we all pretty much bend over backwards to AVOID that look.

To each his own I guess.
 
There's one good way to reduce any videolook and that is by not EVER fo under 1/48 shutterspeed or turn it off. By doing so it doesn't matter if you have the "filmkiller HD camera of the future" or not, it still looks like it was filmed with a family camera.

I really can't understand why professional photographers keep shutting the shutter off on HD cameras... or why they go down as low as 1/25. It looks like crap and whenever someone moves faster then a normal walk, it smears worse then an artists palette after work is done.

Why is this so hard? Do they want to reduce the amount of light? Well, I can live with noise more then the smearing effect of no shutters...
 
Echoing some of the earlier comments I've had plenty of clients in the suite that have loved smeary motion look of the wide open shutter and rave about how little light there was when they shot etc. I've even heard a famous DP talk about how it made the HD image more film like. No ones yet asked me to try and "fix" anything with a 360 shutter so everyone's who's shot it seams to know what their going to get.
I'm not a fan.
 
maybe if the editing and script were better, no one would have paid attention to the grain.

I like the effect he went for, sure it looks bad but the lighting works much better in many cases because of it.

KO
 
I admire Michael Mann for exploring a new medium in a way that nobody else has been. Miami Vice is certainly not my style, but some of the things he did to get night skies to read the way they did are a great example of pushing the limits of technology.

The Insider was amazing. However, I can never forget that scene with Al Pacino delivering a really long chunk of dialogue - the shot is completely out of focus! And goes on, and on, and on...

Mann doesn't care for technical precision.

Cinematographers tend to have a penchant for technical precision...for this reason I'd jump at the challenge of working for someone like Michael Mann.
 
I believe the documentary look on Vice was intended. The movie does not even have a title sequence.
But they did have big issues with the Viper in hot and humid Florida and I heared a rumor that after the movie was done Mann said that he was never going to shoot digital again...

Maybe Red will change his mind ;-)
 
Does anyone know what Michael Mann's shortlived CBS cop show Robbery/Homicide Division was shot on primarily? I remember that as being one of the best looking TV shows I've ever seen and loved how the story fit in with the Heat universe. Too bad it got canned after maybe 9 episodes.

davide
 
Looks like a VIPER to me. Another HD movie I don't like much was collateral with Tom Cruise which was also shot on the same camera in low light. The VIPER just doesn't do well in low light or is it that it does it too well? Some say the VIPER is too good in low light allowing to much color in on low lit scene. But wait didn't Michael Mann Direct both these movies? Then I would question was the same Director of photography used? So it could be one of two things. A director of Photography still getting use to HD in a low lit scene or the VIPER. I would say more so the VIPER.
 
In the DVD commentary for collateral Mann talks about shooting digitally and his reasons for liking the format through out the film. He also points out that he used a mixture of f900 viper and 35mm film for that movie.
He likes the look essentially.
 
He likes the look. He likes the grittiness of pushing underexposed HD. He thinks it brings a first person voyeur sensibility the those films. Dion Bebee shot both MV and Collateral.

I like to work in the opposite direction. I prefer a healthy exposure with a minimal amount of noise. But that's me.

Personally, I think Mann might have accidentally turned off a number of high-end DP's BECAUSE he pushed the "ugly" aspects of HD.
 
Hey guys, I figure a lot of you have probably already read or seen this article online, but here's a link anyway:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug04/collateral/page1.html

It's an American Cinematographer article on Collateral, it's pretty technical and I enjoy the hell out of it. Speaking of which, I love Collateral AND the look of it, but I haven't seen Vice yet so I'm unable to comment on that subject.

P. S., I saw Heat last night and I was as blown away as any of the coppers left on the pavement during the greatest shootout scene I've ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top