The Ravenant, shot on Alexa 65

[Scott Crawley]

Minu,

Thank you for providing some justification of your opinions. I will certainly be considering them upon my next viewing.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Minu,

Thank you for providing some justification of your opinions. I will certainly be considering them upon my next viewing.

I agree and I apologize for being dismissive earlier. I loved The Revenant and have a personal affection for the filmmakers, but your explanation is thought-provoking, which I appreciate.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

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..."

i think a lot of people get upset when you compare modern cinema to the classics - specifically Andrei Tarkovsky

if someone said the John Seale's Mad Max movie looks just like Freddie Young's work on Doctor Zhivago... You might have some understandable critics.

I think it's understandable for someone to say that's a fucking joke, but congrats to all the winners and nominees

 

[Sergio Perez]

I think the long takes on Inarritu's/ Chivo Revenant have a "point". The great thing is that , when you compare to Tarkovsky , their approach is different. The long Takes in the Revenant, as well as the use of Wide Angles, and lets not forget the Alexa 65 in many shots, creates an immersion on the action, a sense of time and space that feels "real", yet incredibly intense to audiences. On the brutality of the opening sequence , for example, this is evident. On the narrative moments, the use of the wide angle, specially for the close ups, adds to the drama and also the disturbance of the characters. I remember clearly Tom Hardy's "religious" monologue to the kid in the fireplace, or the many moments of survival of DiCaprio. It added to the drama and overall feel of the whole movie.

As for the dream sequences, the imagery, the religious metaphors, the analogies, there were certainly nods to Tarkovsky there, but they fit very well on the whole conflict of the story, as well as the theme of the film. These moments showcased the inner struggle of a man in a foreign place fighting for survival, and at the same time soul searching through his beliefs- not only Dicaprio's Character but also Tom Hardy's. Obviously there are much more layers, related to humanity, politics, prejudice, racism, etc.

All in all, to me, it all worked perfectly as an auteur piece from Inarritu, and the "Tarkovsky Moments" made narrative sense and were not used as mere "copies".

Its good, masterful cinema, in my eyes at least!

 

[Note Suwanchote]

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...

Nope not yet.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

All in all, to me, it all worked perfectly as an auteur piece from Inarritu, and the "Tarkovsky Moments" made narrative sense and were not used as mere "copies".

IMHO, Their styles are very different

just begs to question if you've seen a Tarkovsky movie or just read his Wikipedia page. In you comparison David Lynch would be more similar in style... By your comparison

 

[Sergio Perez]

IMHO, Their styles are very different

just begs to question if you've seen a Tarkovsky movie or just read his Wikipedia page. In you comparison David Lynch would be more similar in style... By your comparison

That's my point: they are very different. One director usage of a certain cinematic language and style differs from the other.
That post I wrote was directed to those that made a montage of side by side shots from The Revenant and a montage of Tarkovsky films scenes, unified by music and out of sequence shots. Yes the composition is similar, but I feel that's more of a tribute than a copy for copy sake. That's reducing inarritu's work.

 

[Malik Tigrine]

http://nofilmschool.com/2016/05/artistic-philosophy-andrei-tarkovskys-poetic-filmmaking

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Some people perhaps don't realise that story is more important than style. Story can't be subservient to style. Story decides the style, composition, choice of shots, angles, equipment etc. Ravenant ensures that we are immersed in the story. There are also scenes where the camera swings from one end showing the event unfolding to the other end showing us the protagonist watching at the scene or rooted in the scene. Even in documentaries we don't swing the camera from one end to the other.

As kids learning in school we used to be taught the basic rules. When one becomes a master, he/she can decide when and where to break the rules as rules are just suggested guidelines so that the lesser experienced don't trip and fall. It is the same in any art or sport. Recently while watching the Candidates Chess tournament, Vishwanathan Anand in a gave vs Peter Svidler decided to take the pawn with a rook. Normally in chess one is taught about the relative value of each piece and one doesn't use a higher ranked piece to kill a smaller one. You don't use a bazooka for a knife fight. However, accomplished artists, directors break the rules that normal mortals won't.

Inarritu is a master story teller. He doesn't care about the indignation of a few redusers.

Having said that I was surprised to see the shot of ketchup spray on the lens being retained in the last fight where DiCaprio is cut on his face. And in another shot snow flakes on the lens. However, these brief shots won't be noticed by audience. I loved this film a lot.

PS: I watched the film after reading all the attack posts here in reduser.

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