Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 Ravenant, shot on Alexa 65

Revenant

It was the one of the most pretentious film I have ever watched.
The film was extensively copied from Tarkovsky's works.

Check the link for comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkiG3lGuUQ


Good camera? Good lighting? Good performance?

I understood why, Revenant wasn't working to me comparing Tarkovsky's.

According to Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time", he argues that exhibiting a period time in motion picture is a tool that other artistic tools can't show.

Now, Alejandro copied some of the "look" of the scenes from Tarkovksy's films such as The Stalker, The Sacrifice, Ivan's Childhood, The Mirror, and so on...
Yet, Alejandro haven't successfully showed the audience about meaning of long take, and what it means to show the "Period of time"/Duration.

Usage of steadicam, longtake with wide angle,
I understood that the films were very experimental, but it was completely ignoring the basic understanding of what it means to be cinema.

I would like to make a line here for there are two kinds of good cinematography.

One is called "Beautiful Cinematography" and other one is called "Pretty Cinematography"

In late 1800s in England, Oscar Wilder showed us the impact of "Art for Art's Sake" through The Picture of Dorian Grey" Now, if we all just not critically see the facts of the film, and give the credits, its' because of only the picture is beautiful, isn't that we all artists would call, estheticism and no meaning behind it just like 120 years ago?

Again, I would like to say a word, when I read about everyone just talk about how great Revenant is...


P.S: Alejandro also copied "Russian Ark" when he was directing "The Bird man" I really hoped that some body just stops this plagiarism in Hollywood.
 
Minu, influence/inspiration is evident in a lot of artist's work. Tarkovsky was influenced by Grigori Chukrai, Bergman and others right? I guess if you feel this was a copy, rather than an influence that's probably a different argument. But also, we have to keep things in context of eras of filmmaking. Would you agree Tarkovsky was able to experiment more than Alejandro can? There is a commercial element there.
 
Minu Park said:
I understood that the films were very experimental, but it was completely ignoring the basic understanding of what it means to be cinema.
Click to expand...
Tell me again how your life and your work allow you to know more than Alejandro Iñárritu and Chivo Lubezki and have better judgement than they do.
 
Minu Park said:
Revenant

It was the one of the most pretentious film I have ever watched.
The film was extensively copied from Tarkovsky's works.

Check the link for comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkiG3lGuUQ


Good camera? Good lighting? Good performance?

I understood why, Revenant wasn't working to me comparing Tarkovsky's.

According to Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time", he argues that exhibiting a period time in motion picture is a tool that other artistic tools can't show.

Now, Alejandro copied some of the "look" of the scenes from Tarkovksy's films such as The Stalker, The Sacrifice, Ivan's Childhood, The Mirror, and so on...
Yet, Alejandro haven't successfully showed the audience about meaning of long take, and what it means to show the "Period of time"/Duration.

Usage of steadicam, longtake with wide angle,
I understood that the films were very experimental, but it was completely ignoring the basic understanding of what it means to be cinema.

I would like to make a line here for there are two kinds of good cinematography.

One is called "Beautiful Cinematography" and other one is called "Pretty Cinematography"

In late 1800s in England, Oscar Wilder showed us the impact of "Art for Art's Sake" through The Picture of Dorian Grey" Now, if we all just not critically see the facts of the film, and give the credits, its' because of only the picture is beautiful, isn't that we all artists would call, estheticism and no meaning behind it just like 120 years ago?

Again, I would like to say a word, when I read about everyone just talk about how great Revenant is...


P.S: Alejandro also copied "Russian Ark" when he was directing "The Bird man" I really hoped that some body just stops this plagiarism in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

What a joke.
 
Some of the scenes that absolutely blew me away were shots where a subject very close to the lens was tack sharp while the background was also tack sharp. Essentially an infinite depth of field from inches to infinity. Stopping down will only get you so far with a large format camera until diffraction really starts to hurt you. Did they deal with diffraction in post or did they add the background in during post, perhaps from another take with a different focus distance?

Regardless I was stunned by the cinematography in this film. Saw it at the wonderful Cinerama in Seattle, although I don't think it was a Dolby Vision version...
 
Really wish a lot more of this movie was actually shot on the Alexa65 instead of the AlexaM. I can imagine it's a bit of unwieldy beast to move around up hills. Or maybe find some kind of dragon that is lighter. The latter part of the movie with the snowy river seemed a lot of more detailed.
 
Minu Park said:
Revenant

It was the one of the most pretentious film I have ever watched.
Click to expand...

Wow man, that's quite a bash to a damn good film. You're entitled to your opinion but you've got to realize you're not sitting with the majority vote nor is there any reason to be so harsh about it. I'm curious why you seem to be so upset by it. A few of my friends and colleagues busted their asses on this film and I think they created something incredibly beautiful, interesting and unique. It's easy to put it down with an online rant but can you do better work? If the answer is no, then why talk negatively? What are you accomplishing by your criticism? I think there's a saying about "If you can't say anything nice, then..."
 
Minu Park said:
Revenant

It was the one of the most pretentious film I have ever watched.
The film was extensively copied from Tarkovsky's works.

Check the link for comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvkiG3lGuUQ


Good camera? Good lighting? Good performance?

I understood why, Revenant wasn't working to me comparing Tarkovsky's.

According to Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time", he argues that exhibiting a period time in motion picture is a tool that other artistic tools can't show.

Now, Alejandro copied some of the "look" of the scenes from Tarkovksy's films such as The Stalker, The Sacrifice, Ivan's Childhood, The Mirror, and so on...
Yet, Alejandro haven't successfully showed the audience about meaning of long take, and what it means to show the "Period of time"/Duration.

Usage of steadicam, longtake with wide angle,
I understood that the films were very experimental, but it was completely ignoring the basic understanding of what it means to be cinema.

I would like to make a line here for there are two kinds of good cinematography.

One is called "Beautiful Cinematography" and other one is called "Pretty Cinematography"

In late 1800s in England, Oscar Wilder showed us the impact of "Art for Art's Sake" through The Picture of Dorian Grey" Now, if we all just not critically see the facts of the film, and give the credits, its' because of only the picture is beautiful, isn't that we all artists would call, estheticism and no meaning behind it just like 120 years ago?

Again, I would like to say a word, when I read about everyone just talk about how great Revenant is...


P.S: Alejandro also copied "Russian Ark" when he was directing "The Bird man" I really hoped that some body just stops this plagiarism in Hollywood.
Click to expand...



The Borg Queen in 'Star Trek - First contact' did put it this way:

"Small words from a small being. Attacking what it doesn't understand."
 
congratulations to the Oscar winners!!

...all comments are welcomed good or bad on any film...freedom of speech (or comment) is what this country is all about..
 
Minu Park said:
Usage of steadicam, longtake with wide angle,
I understood that the films were very experimental, but it was completely ignoring the basic understanding of what it means to be cinema.
Click to expand...

What does it mean "to be cinema"?

Cinema is a living and evolving language to which Tarkovsky contributed and you take issue with Alejandro and Chivo turning a phrase? What's the problem?

i don't know enough about Tarkovsky to say if this is an apt analogy, but perhaps his style was persistent and unique enough to be treated as if it were it's own dialect within the language of cinema. What then would be wrong with anyone speaking in that dialect?

This comes up with Tarrantino all of the time. Is there a hard and distinct line between homage and theft? Should there be?

If Chivo and Alejandro are guilty of plagiarism for this film, then everyone who speaks in the language of cinema is also guilty to some degree.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the film for the second time and to me this film is a cinematic achievement very few films come close to.
 
Like Minu Park said, The Revenant is just a bad tribute to the great Tarkovsky. I think this movie has no soul. My two cents.
 
Opinions are not fact. Movies are an art form, and as such will appeal to audiences in different ways.

If we all liked movies the same way, then it wouldn't be art.

I personally found The Revenant to be profound in many ways (though alarming too - what cast and crew were asked to do).

I have too much respect for the filmmakers involved to assume too little of their intentions or craft.

These guys know what they're doing...

I can understand disagreeing with their methods, but not with their integrity, character, or status as filmmakers.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I can understand disagreeing with their methods, but not with their integrity, character, or status as filmmakers.
Click to expand...
That's very well said, Nick. I think there are movies out there that are pretentious and dull -- I'm not a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson, as one example -- but at the same time I can see that the films still had a lot of thought and effort behind them. Sometimes, they still have beautiful images and are worth seeing if only on a technical level. I wouldn't say filmmakers like that are talentless hacks, but I'd say it's just not my cup of tea.

There's a way to dislike something without being insulting. Heck, I strongly dislike the Transformers movies, but there's some great photography and editing in them. And I actually think Michael Bay is a very skilled and successful filmmaker at doing what he does. Not my kind of films, though.
 
I can't answer all of you guys individually.

but here is some of the answers.

1. Tarkovsky's case, he added the extra meaning on every single take that he shot. The time "period of time" that he will intentionally show us, what are we seeing? that was one of the thing that he found it's interesting to show us as a director.

so he had to take "long take" he just needed long take to show this.

My question would be, did Alejandro has an intention of choosing long take wide angle lens?

I mean, there are other films that I didn critique for long take and wide angle, because most directors they choose for a reason. But if I didn't get his message of using long take, what would it be?


2. Tarkovsky's usage of multi angles in a take using zone lens vs Alejandro's wide angle steadicam shot.
Firstly, we all as a director choose specific space for showing exact mise en scene in a specific frame that we chose.
I use telephoto for compressing the space to manipulate the space between subject. - ex: extremely long telephoto: punch drunk love first scene, when the protagonist runs toward the camera, the character runs fast but he almost looks like going no where.
wide could be used in many different way like Jean Pierre jurnet's wide close up as an effect of character's emotional turning point.

But, Alejandro gives up all these over hundreds of knowledge that we've been studying as a filmmaker. In fact, I didn't see any intention where camera goes. it's all about pointing the camera too one's who speak. most likely. and I think that part also makes me feel cheesy.

look at Maya Daren, Ramsay's work. Some directors don't even show the character's face when one's speaking unless it's crucially important to see. these directors show what the character sees instead of a person's talking.

3. All I am saying is just a thought. I know, I might be wrong most likely. I am just a huge fan of Tarkovsky's and I felt so bad to see abut bad tribute to me. I was keep reading about Tarkovsky's books. I felt a bit bad that Alejandro just used several sequence without showing me some aspects that Tarkovsky's specifically mentioned like duration of the time.

4. Thank you for replying :) I am glad that I put my childish thoughts on redusers. You guys are really awesome as always
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top