MovieChat Forums > Frances Ha (2013) Discussion > Looked like cheap digital turned into bl...

Looked like cheap digital turned into black and white crap

posted 11 years ago by Finerfilms
14 replies | jump to latest

Why would someone like him choose to shoot with crappy camera gear? He went from film to student cameras. I dont get it. At least rent something decent next time for god's sake because this was MUDDY as hell and noisy as F... too.

Someone said on here that it was "beautifully shot in b&w" which is pretty ignorant because it was not done professionally at all and turning it into black and white in a computer doesn't make it "beautiful". They likely did that as an after thought because of how bad it looked in the original color.

"I made him feel shame... my shame."

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] foodplz 11 years ago

Thanks for posting this, good info.

[–] gortx 11 years ago

Certainly, the movie was professionally done. But, I agree with the orginal poster when he decries the lack of true Black & White. With all due respect to the filmmakers - GRAY & WHITE would be more accurate to what is actually achieved. And, the OP's mention of "noisy" is dead-on as well. Seeing this movie in theaters, there were several instances of digital noise in the picture.

Let's face it. The key line in the lengthy quote from the DP is this one:

“Noah was interested in making a black-and-white film with a small crew and minimal equipment, in the production style of the French New Wave. He was curious about the Canon 5D as a tool for working this way."

In other words. It was cheaper.

[–] shelemm 11 years ago

Did the movie theatre show it in 35mm or on digital video? When I saw it, it was a gorgeous image.

[–] gortx 11 years ago

If you want to see "gorgeous" go see LAST PICTURE SHOW, PAPER MOON, SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, 8 1/2 next time a 35mm film print plays in your area.

Those FILMS are "gorgeous".

FRANCIS HA was a pretender - and, that's being very very kind.

[–] shelemm 11 years ago

It's fine with me if I never see Sweet Smell of Success again, but I'll check out going back to the others when the opportunity permits. I don't imagine that will be happening soon, though.

[–] Gus-69 10 years ago

Your reply is patronizing and idiotic. Just because some classics are gorgeous doesn't make new films less so. The guy saw it, thought it looked great and that's it.

----------------------
http://viverdecinema.blogspot.com.br/

[–] CCRider01 10 years ago

Your reply is patronizing and idiotic. Just because some classics are gorgeous doesn't make new films less so.

Being either a classic or new film is not the issue, it is a comparative issue, and to my eyes and those of the disparaging comments above, Frances Ha has relatively poor video quality.

The guy saw it, thought it looked great and that's it.

I saw it as did the others critical of the video quality, thought it looked crap and that's that.

[–] lepixma 11 years ago

You sound like a truly PRO Finerfilms; please show us the masterpieces that you have achieved!!!

[–] kcornelg 11 years ago

I didn’t see Frances Ha until it was available on Netflix, so I can’t determine whether it plays better on a small screen than on the big screen. But I didn’t find the lack of color to be disturbing, even if it doesn’t meet what critics and trained film professionals would consider to be the highest cinematic standards. That’s because I’m not trained to notice differences among true black and white and silver-black-and-white and gray-and-white films.

I’ve never felt that films like The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon, On The Waterfront, 12 Angry Men, The Hustler, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Elephant Man and Schindler’s List were any less enjoyable because they weren’t “colorized.” Though I'll admit that that the brief moments of color in Schindler's List are among the most memorable film scenes for me.

If it is what it is, what is it?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alifeatthemovies 10 years ago

According to the Wikipedia page on this film, he filmed it as a homage to Woody Allen's black and white films with Gordon Willis. If that was true, he should have tried to get some contrast and sharpness. I liked it but thought the cinematography was muddy, flat, noisy, and often out of focus.

[–] LinusW 10 years ago

I watched this at home on my projector and big screen. The B&W looked good enough for me but I first thought I had put in a DVD by mistake since there were a lack of detail in the picture and it looked muddy. I guess it was an artistic choice.

[–] CCRider01 10 years ago

Someone said on here that it was "beautifully shot in b&w"

I do not get all the praise the video quality is getting, a perfect 5/5 on BluRay.com. The video is muddy / soft and with poor contrast and black levels (as mentioned, more like grey levels). Maybe (and that is a big maybe), the BluRay might deserve 5/5 for video quality, if you are giving maximum browny points for fidelity to source material, but is still very much a case of garbage in - garbage out.

If you want to see a truly "beautifully shot b&w film", check out "In Cold Blood". Now that is a gorgeous looking black & white film with rich deep blacks, and it was shot 45 years before Frances Ha.