P Andersson
Well-known member
Hi Tom,
I see your number 5 is Legends of the fall. I worked on that film and even though it has some very beautiful photography I am not sure how well I feel it actually helps tell the story. The best film I ever worked on (one of my firsts) was Unforgiven and I feel the cinematography in it does a better job to tell the story then Legends.
I have struggled over the last few years as my mind is changing on what great cinematography is. For many many years I had always felt great cinematography was the film with the most beautiful lighting and pictures. The last few years though I have begun to feel that great cinematography is what style and pictures best tell the story. An exampleof this for me this year was Children of Men. There are lots of shots and lighting in it that simply look very poor, but yet its look, style and feel do an incredible job to help tell the story and pull you in.
Just a few thoughts I have had lately on cinematography. As I mention I have begun to question how to define it and have not yet come to any conclusions on it.
Finner,
I think it is true as you say it, for years the best cinematographers and directors did make films where every shot was looking incredible, so it is natural that you would favor this style during that time. But now something else is going on in our post punk environment. The most talented people are using images that are screwed around with and used in completely different ways, shaking camera, low fi, distorted colors etc. are part of the choices to make the story come through.
However as the topic list was "masterpieces" I couldn't make myself put down "the celebration", "inland empire" or "sin city" as they are pioneers into new ways of telling a story where the style is still evolving. There will be ways that digital will create a whole new mastery, and this is really interesting as well.
so to throw in a related image:
inland empire