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 :)

the look of Melancholia

Joe G.

Joe G.

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
831
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
politicalfilm.wordpress.com
I finally saw this last night, on DVD, and the look of the thing often annoyed me. I thought it was a Red film, but it apparently lists "ARRIRAW" as its format, so that probably means Alexa, right?

Anyway, it appears they left a bunch of regular incandescent 2700-2900K lightbulbs in this mansion and filmed everything with a sickly yellow Youtube color palette. It even looked like channel clipping on faces, to me, anyway.

On top of that, there was all this way too shallow focus on handheld crowded party scenes. Faces were constantly in and out of focus. To me this is a detriment not an asset and only makes it more difficult to enjoy the story (which could have used some scientific consultation at the script stage).

Does anyone agree?

I would never consider filming a feature film with sickly yellow lights like that. Even at the no-budget level. To me it was ugly and not just in an artistic, intentional way, but more in a careless unnecessary way.
 
Can you think of no reasons why those choices might have been made? From the trailer alone I can see that the warm tones you are complaining about do not equal the sum total of the film's palette. Can you think of a practical or symbolic justification for those choices? Are sickly and YouTube the only things the film stirs in your mind? Is sickly incongruous with the scene in question? Why do you consider it a poor choice?
 
I think the particular tone of yellow is ugly. It isn't "warm" so much as harsh and cheap looking. If they had a better shade of tint I might have bought it, but it looks like far too many bad youtube videos.

The DP said it was supposedly "warm" and uplifting to be party like, which the director may have negated in his thinking (very depressed character, bad party). But, I didn't find it pleasing to the eyes, and I'm not entirely sure it was properly shot.
 
Have you seen any other Von Trier movies? It's kind of his schtick... The yellowness is the natural light aesthetic that a lot of people are utilizing... I think it might be because it's the easiest way to make practical tungsten light look okay...

...the vfx were pretty sweet.
 
Well, I'll be thinking of you when I see it. You have stirred my curiosity, so Melencholia just moved up in my queue.

If it were a YouTube video we were talking about I might initially jump to the same conclusion as you; incorrect white balance etc., but these are thoughtful, skilled and accomplished film makers. To assume that it was an unintentional technical blunder seems a wee bit crass to me. Try and put your personal taste aside and maybe some new ideas will come to you.
 
overall i thought it was shot well, the lighting, to me, didnt take me out of the story much. my main concern was the outrageously over the top shaky cam. handheld is fine, but the amount of shake that was there was uncalled for and almost nauseating.

I really liked the film though.
 
watch his film 'Medea' to get the full von Trier experience. you probably either love it...or hate it. He is not trying to pioneer the film industry with color grades, really. I think the point is this: did you feel melancholic at the end of the film? I did and that made the film worth watching for me, and explains all visual language as far as cinematography goes. on a more shaky note, he is about as raw as they come. if you felt nauseous, its because he wrote it in the script ;-)
 
Saw the film at the premiere at Cannes in a perfect calibrated Lumiere... well, it was one of the most visual pleasing films I've seen. Anyways, great films should not be seen on DVD. However - the handheld stuff are rough, like it or hate it - I guess?
 
jochem bakker said:
watch his film 'Medea' to get the full von Trier experience. you probably either love it...or hate it. He is not trying to pioneer the film industry with color grades, really. I think the point is this: did you feel melancholic at the end of the film? I did and that made the film worth watching for me, and explains all visual language as far as cinematography goes.
Click to expand...

I was more angry than anything... definitely not melancholic... I thought the characters were either too whiney (gainsbourg) and too emo/sanctimonious (dunst)... The kid was too oblivious to even care about (he was like 10-12 but didn't understand the gravity of the situation (which is just wrong). Personally, it didn't work for me either other than the visual fx. The characters and their actions just weren't realistic enough and it should almost be remade by someone else to capitalize more on the concept.
 
not sure it's supposed to be realistic?

the party was deliberately rough, did the lighting feel as anxious and sickly as the character?

his movies are always playing in human mud, normal scriptwriting goes out the window, he wants you to think he's going for naturalism just to drag you down the rabbit hole... take a look at the set for dogville and consider if this man is interested in portraying anything realistic

dogville-grundriss2.jpg
 
well, dogville is definitely out there when it gives the finger to current film form, edging theatre. But thats where the fun is no? How filmmakers can flip perceived reality. A good example of 'reality' would be his film Breaking the Waves, although not less European.
 
exactly where the fun is...

if you can show up and call cinema dead, shove a pamphlet in everyone's face and declare your rules the new method--then break, abandon, reconstruct and play with those ideas for a host of other films that bear little resemblance to one another save the fact that each immediately feels like your work

then i'm pretty sure you know what you're doing when you stick with 2900K bulbs.

that film had no rehearsals between actors prior to the day of filming, where they got one, just one, during which von Trier would operate. afterwards his DP picked up the Alexa and winged it. can you hate this style (it's not for me) but recognize it as a kind of style nonetheless?
 
That's Lars von Trier for you. He's not trying to write and film pleasing scripts. The last thing he wants to hear from you is, "Oh, that was a nice movie, I enjoyed it". Everything about his movies is inherently provocative. The fact that you have started a topic here complaining means that he has been successful in getting you talking. Call it ugly, call it crass, call it perverted, call it incompetent, it's all Lars von Trier thinking way out of the Hollywood box.

Of course, the second half of the film has a completely different grading style.
 
no, you are right, there is less mud in persona than in antichrist, and 2001 and strangelove will stand it's time 250 times better than any of triers films, but he is certainly up there with the likes of Tarantino, Malick and other contemporary auteurs, so complaining about the color temprature of the lights seems a bit crazy to me...
 
Dogma 95

Vow of Chastity Rules

4) The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera.)

5) Optical work and filters are forbidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top