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 :)

What makes 'Social Network' Cinematography award winning?

Joe D'Arcy

Joe D'Arcy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
787
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
65
Location
Gold Coast Queensland Australia
I enjoyed watching Social Network. I have no criticism of the film at all. I am curious as to what makes the Cinematography in this film worthy of an Academy Award nomination. I am not a DP and do not have the ability to critically determine what makes the film worthy of nomination. However, I am very interested in hearing critical analysis of the cinematography from experienced DPs. Apart from the fact that it was shot on Red, If given the opportunity, Why would you nominate this film for an Oscar?
 
Rather than get into a deep critical analysis at this moment, I just want to quickly say that my impression was that the cinematography did an excellent job of telling the story.
 
i agree with Jim ...
but i can't see why is so acclaimed for the beauty of the image ...
it have a Fincher Look (greenish and dark ) ...and i totally don't get why is considered by many here (reduser) the best RED image so far ...

g
 
It's all very personal. Unlike many other films, in The Social Network the camerawork does not distract from the story. The cinematography is notable for what it does not do, rather than what it does. No unneeded handheld shots where it looks like the camera operator is being electrocuted (a hollywood favorite). I do get the feeling that when many people praise the The Social Network for its cinematography, they have in their mind the editing (rather than cinematography) which is the film's stronger point.

But other films have better cinematography, in my opinion. The King's Speech in particular is very strong in this department. As is True Grit.
 
Dude its Oscar...Why do you search for talent in it? Roger Deakins nominated 9 times and not received.I bet you guys will say Jeff deserves oscar more than Deakins :) This is Reduser who uses Red is the best for us..Right?
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
Dude its Oscar...Why do you search for talent in it? Roger Deakins nominated 9 times and not received.I bet you guys will say Jeff deserves oscar more than Deakins :) This is Reduser who uses Red is the best for us..Right?
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing that sort of opinion here at all - really this thread is a mild form of the opposite, if anything.
 
The Regatta scene was enough for me ;)
 
Eric Santiago said:
The Regatta scene was enough for me ;)
Click to expand...

Funny that you'd say that... the regatta scene, and the visual treatment thereof, pulled me right out of the movie and made me feel like I was watching an American Express ad or something.
 
Keith Putnam said:
Funny that you'd say that... the regatta scene, and the visual treatment thereof, pulled me right out of the movie and made me feel like I was watching an American Express ad or something.
Click to expand...
yes its true that scene was a slight distraction from the rest of the movie, but it did serve its purpose. Im from a heavily SFX background and found this movie a delight to watch ;)
 
What I liked about the look of the movie was that it was a throwback to the classical elegance and low-key naturalism of Gordon Willis' work in the 1970's, such as in "Paper Chase" and "Klute", though I think Willis' work is still compositionally superior. Of course, this is nothing new for Fincher, who picked a similar lighting style for "Seven" and "The Game".

It's not meant to be flashy, it's meant to draw you into the world of the characters, to ground the story in a place and time, to suggest or hint at deep-running emotions that are not explicit. It does that with subtlety and precision.
 
IMO it's a snowball effect. This happens at the Oscars, when a film generates buzz its grabs awards for multiple categories, some which you could argue they weren't the cream in.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It's not meant to be flashy, it's meant to draw you into the world of the characters, to ground the story in a place and time, to suggest or hint at deep-running emotions that are not explicit. It does that with subtlety and precision.
Click to expand...

I agree that overtly flashy cinematography would not suit the story.

It is impossible to judge a film based on a single element alone. You wouldn't see a straight to DVD title win best sound editing - even if that part of the film was great while the rest was poor (an exception to this would be the best FX oscar).

Hence a film with good script, performances and direction where every aspect 'gels' is where you may say it becomes more than the sum of it's parts. So those films tend to get nominated for areas which on their own don't perhaps seem stellar.
 
In my opinion the story was great, acting superb, but the cinematography was not that different from a well-shot mid-budget TV drama. There were many things that did pull me out of the story, like the sudden use of 360 degree shutter near the beginning. I agree that the "Kings Speech" would be a way better choice - and in no way did the camera in that film pull me out of that story, on the contrary, it made me vividly part of it, as opposed to just a detached, mildly depressed observer, as I did with Social Network.
 
I liked it when they broke the 180 rule in the king's speech when the king and lionel had their first session to give an air of unease.

There were a few too many uses of ultra wide lenses for my taste however. Don't get me wrong, really well shot movie and I like using the occasional 10mm but some parts of the film felt very Terry Gilliam'ish to me.

TSN looked good. Naturalistic. I liked what they did with the californian night club scene.
 
I think the cinematography in the TSN was just exactly on the money. I loved all the night exterior shots, the beautiful sodium lit campus. Nothing was over pronounced, apart from the regatta. But it was perfectly done I think. I think the cinematography and the entire style of the film was emotively driven. There was a complete duality to the regatta scene, in the internal power of the rowers and the distanced spectator.

It was all harmonious: Dialogue, score, cinematography, editing. I think it was a superbly crafted film all round.

Can't really say that I quite understand all the buzz around The Kings Speech. I thought it was a really nicely made film on all counts. It was subtly shot and directed, well played and did a service to the script and story. I would not say it was a superior film to TSN, or even Black Swan, Winter's Bone or Biutiful. As far as I'm concerned Kings Speech was a nicely made drama, and that's as far as I would go.
 
to see what makes a movie win cinematography awards ask yourself..

Did you notice the cinematography?

if you did.. FAIL

if you didnt.. WIN

Strive to make the cinematography tell the story without being noticed..

if you notice it.. that means its not doing what it should be doing. if it takes you out of the movie or the story.. then it sucks
 
but of course non of what i said makes any sense on a cinematography based board...

we ALLLLLL study the cinematography.. Any movie i go to.. thats all i am paying attention too (most of the time)
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
but of course non of what i said makes any sense on a cinematography based board...

we ALLLLLL study the cinematography.. Any movie i go to.. thats all i am paying attention too (most of the time)
Click to expand...

I found it quite difficult in Black Swan. I kept trying to remember to look at the scenes in the subway but got drawn into the story each time so much I kept forgetting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top