"Tinker Tailor" vs "Dragon Tattoo"

[Brandon Kraemer]

A film projection print might have gate weave and some chatter (jittery) and look a touch softer due to the mechanical/optical process of being projected, so I see how digital projections would arguably look more solid in that regard, but there is a lot of information being thrown away in digital prints too. The print shouldn't be confused with the negative, films shot on film do not inherently look more jittery than their digital counterparts. Steady gate stabilization would insure that a film scanned on a datacine to 4K for a DI post-process is completely solid.

 

[Scott Crawley]

In the long run, I think it doesn't matter. I think content trumps everything. In a world where the Paranormal movies are making over $200 million every time they get released, and look worse than any home movie, I'm not sure the audience cares nearly as much about the look for a lot of films. I wish this were not true.

Even if the box office doesn't seem to show an audience appreciation for our artistic choices as cinematographers I have to believe that subconsciously, they still make a significant impact both in how our subject is perceived, and in how well the film endures. I guess that means I disagree. In the long run is where it matters most.

Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist.

Speaking of perception, choices in cinematography, and your example, wouldn't you agree that the cinematography had every bit to do with the success of the Paranormal films? The home video look gave it a visceral quality that completely reinforced the audience perception that what they were seeing was genuine, authentic and not vfx.

 

[Chris Pickle]

The look was clearly intentional and meant to be somewhat retro 70's -- they used the grainiest Fuji stocks they could get, underexposed it, and smoked almost every interior to wash out the blacks. Personally I thought it looked great, very daring, particularly the first image which was incredibly grainy and murky as someone knocks on John Hurt's door at night. I thought it took guts for the DP to make an image look that rough. It's a bit silly to compare it to "Dragon Tattoo" when the visual design is so clearly different. It's like saying that "Saving Private Ryan" looks rougher than "The Thin Red Line", which it does, but not by mistake or lack of skill or poor use of technology.

I don't think every movie has to be as sharp and grain-free as possible, that would be rather limiting for artists if that was their only option.

I'll be sad when the day comes when the only look all movies have is a grain-free high-resolution digital image.

David, you're too intellectually honest. You must find it exhausting.

 

[Mark Toia]

Just watched Tinker tailor....

Beautifully shot, great actors..

Now.. I have to ask, I would not have a clue what its shot on, but I did watch a remarkably sharp digital projection. Very sharp in fact... So I got to see everything!
but what I'm confused about it, if it was shot digitally why did the film makers decide to put such a heavey grain over the image.. It was so distracting for the first 30 mins !

Over all... I preferred Dragon tattoo... even though it was a crappy film blurry film print. Tinker tailor was a very slow, dragged out affair.

I'm just glad both films weren't in 3D !!!

EDIT: Just read David Mullens post about the grainy FUJI film stock used.
O well.. all for there own. Still beautifully shot though.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Even if the box office doesn't seem to show an audience appreciation for our artistic choices as cinematographers I have to believe that subconsciously, they still make a significant impact both in how our subject is perceived, and in how well the film endures. I guess that means I disagree. In the long run is where it matters most.

Well, in that sense, everything matters: the sound mix, the dialog, the effects, the photography, the lenses, the lighting, the camera movement, composition... everything.

I won't name the show, but I can remember a time a few years back (more like 20 years) when the worst-looking comedy show on U.S. television also happened to be the top-rated series. We were constantly baffled by how awful it was; I actually had a few DPs ask me, "is that show even shot on 35mm, or is it 16mm?" It really, really looked awful, due to bad equipment, a marginal DP, and a marginal colorist. But the show was extremely funny, and did very well. I worked on other shows that looked stunning on the air, but got cancelled after 12 episodes -- and it wasn't because of the photography.

Speaking of perception, choices in cinematography, and your example, wouldn't you agree that the cinematography had every bit to do with the success of the Paranormal films? The home video look gave it a visceral quality that completely reinforced the audience perception that what they were seeing was genuine, authentic and not vfx.

I think the movie worked in spite of looking horrible. And the later movies looked better than the first one. There's a difference between a movie deliberately shot bad because of lack of money and experience, and a movie intended to look like amateur footage by experienced DPs who know what they're doing. I would never expect a "found footage" movie to look like a $200 million Hollywood epic, but I would hope that it wasn't clipped, crushed, or awful looking.

One of the funniest lines in the original Paranormal Activity was when the husband makes a side-comment that he bought a much more expensive camera than a home video camera (Sony EX1, as I recall) than he wants to admit to his wife. And they also do a funny test with the "on-camera microphone" that miraculously picks up dialog from about 25 feet away. In reality, they used wireless mikes, there were all kinds of lights placed all over the house, and it was a lot more than just simple home video footage. But the movie was incredibly successful because it was a great, simple idea for a movie that anybody could understand, and it had a few great scares in it.

I think Cloverfield was better shot and better lit, as a fake "found footage" movie, but that was a much bigger crew and had a lot more going on. In the end, I think they wound up actually degrading the footage just so you couldn't tell that broadcast cameras were used. That also did very well, but not nearly as well as ​Paranormal.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Paranormal activity was shot on HDV, the FX1 camera according to imdb, I think they may have shot it before the EX1 was available as well.

 

[Mark Toia]

A good idea, scary content, a lot of internet hype, a HD iphone... ( a fuck-off scary trailer with scary sound effects) is all you need these days. and you could be that 1 in 10,000 that makes millions !!!!!! Sounds like good odds to me...:emote_happyhappy:

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Just got back from watching Dragon Tattoo at the movies, print was very good, sound was great, people in this forum must go to some really crappy cinemas.

 

[Eric Giovon]

I completely agree David. I thought it was beautiful. Painterly at times.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think the movie worked in spite of looking horrible. And the later movies looked better than the first one. There's a difference between a movie deliberately shot bad because of lack of money and experience, and a movie intended to look like amateur footage by experienced DPs who know what they're doing. I would never expect a "found footage" movie to look like a $200 million Hollywood epic, but I would hope that it wasn't clipped, crushed, or awful looking.

That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it. It probably did succeed in spite of looking horrible, but I maintain that if the image were not clipped, crushed and awful looking then even Joe on the street would know what they were looking at was professionally done. The filmmakers would have lost the audience's trust, they would be conscious of the filmmakers, and the illusion would be destroyed. Guys in the audience would be laughing instead of jumping out of their seats. That's my theory, anyway.

We saw Tinker and Dragon Tattoo in our own double bill this last weekend (digitally projected on Barco gear) and thoroughly enjoyed both. They are so fundamentally different that it seems odd to compare them. There was a heightened reality to Tattoo, while Tinker was faithful to realism in what seemed like every detail. It must be quite a challenge to pull off a film about a plain, ordinary, older English gentlemen and his investigation that takes place almost entirely behind a desk looking at paper. I am imagining that must have been an impossible pitch. They made bold choices indeed. Kudos to them all.

Who said adult dramas were dead? Pfft.

BTW, if a film looks like shit due to a lack of experience, can you call that deliberate?