http://deadline.com/2018/01/call-me-by-your-name-sayombhu-mukdeeprom-cinematography-interview-1202230159/#comment-list-wrapper
babbling about characters and tones and only shooting on film, none of that matters if the film is going to be digitally altered and color corrected to look like digital crap. I don't understand that, being so disingenuous.
What do you think of Deakins' later digital work.
I think you are harping on this too much and it's seeming a little weird how obsessed you are.
who is Deakins? Well forgive me, just rewatching old films on bluray just makes it apparent how much we have lost once the hollywood glamour and aesthetic was given the boot in the 60's and 70's.
shareRoger Deakins. "The Shawshank Redemption," almost every Coen brothers film, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," "Skyfall," "Blade Runner 2049," etc. He is a legend.
shareDon't bother, this guy just likes to complain.
shareis he the one that did o brother were art thou? then he is responsible for destroying film photography forever. There is no color in film anymore. If a scene needs to be yellow hued, it's not lit that way but a yellow filter is used in post production, which makes everything look yellow and no other color. All we see now is hues of teal and orange and the effect is disastrous. Blade Runner 2049 looks horrific. The sad part is that, now old films are being destroyed, like Blade Runner and Aliens, now they have the digital look for their official director approved dvd releases. If he is so great as you say, shouldn't he have the wisdom to know the difference? I don't understand it.
Go see Golden Age Hollywood films, that's true color.
That settles it. You don't like movies after 1959. Roger Deakins is revered by photographers across the world as one of the greatest living cinematographers. You don't like the way the Coen brothers' films look. Their films are fairly universally praised for their aesthetic qualities, among other ones (writing and acting). You have a very particular taste. But commenting on specific movies is essentially pointless. You're like somebody who just doesn't like urban areas talking about how terrible New York is. Your being on a site in which people are going to mainly discuss current movies doesn't seem to make much sense since you won't like any of them.
shareNot true, my favorite movie is Cleopatra from 1963, which everyone should see actually, it has like ZERO grain and the texture is HUGE, which you get of course when you shoot in a massive 70 mm negative, which it was. But that was the last of real filmmaking, things turned an ugly turn in the 60's and 70's but at least it was still proper film.
You mistake me, I love cinema but I am not a fanboy, it's different. I don't care what others think or how he is regarded, I judge by what I see and films look beyond horrific today. Beyond.
Can you post something that indicates Deakins definitely used a lens on O Brother, Where Art Thou? I am curious.
sharea lens?? it's a film, of course he used a lens. What are you talking about?
shareSorry, the filter. The bit about not actually shooting in a way to show yellow, but rather to just use a yellow filter.
shareOh Brother Where Art Thou is the first film to be entirely color timed with digital software, that's where the problem begins, and since that film every single film has looked the same, they all look like a Transformers film, I'm sorry to say. I discovered this entirely by chance. I was looking at a video online about Terminator Salvation, and they showed the raw footage and it looked like SHIT, then it clicked to me that it's all done in post production, literally ALL OF IT, including lighting, and then it became inescapable, every single film looks like that and they look BAD. One of the worst was that Netflix film about the afterlife, I honestly couldn't even stomach it because the blue was so godawful, people's hairs were BLUE. And it all began with O Brother. So the question is, this guy is such a genius, he is the top of the industry, doesn't he have wisdom to know the difference? I don't understand it, but BR looked like a Transformers film. Grayer, but still Transformers.
shareThe funny thing is, Deakins' recent work is now considered some of the more subtle uses of digital colour correction π... Most movies take it to a far more extreme level with orange and teal...
Partly it's that colour correction (digital intermediate) is not always supervised by cinematographers anymore as it is done at a later date, when the cinematographer may no longer be on the project... So these colourists apply orange and teal to everything, partly to get what they consider is a "movie look"... it isn't... but people don't watch older movies so they don't remember anymore...
I saw the trailer for The Darkest Hour... it's odd... Very orange and teal.. I hope it's just the trailer that is that way (maybe they're graded differently?). In fact, the Churchil scenes in TV series The Crown looked far better photographed partly because they did not go for orange and teal and instead embraced the full range of colour available to them, or used grey for the fog and night... Yes, it still looks digital, but it looks good. It is a rare exception on TV. But it has become rare in movies to see different styles...
I think there are filmmakers out there, in smaller movies, who are still experementing aesthetically... but orange and teal is sadly the standard now... at least in the 90s the standard look was more naturalistic... Now we are lucky to see a third colour apart from orange and teal...
The problem (see images)
https://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html
Alternatives (see images)
https://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/2010/03/teal-and-orange-part-2.html
This is very helpful and extremely interesting. I'm a little bummed out; I feel like the curtain has been pulled back and you guys might've ruined movies for me.
But then I think about Inside Llewyn Davis and Sicario and how each film had one shot that made me pause the film so I could just look at it because I was so struck by the image. (In Davis it's that diner and in Sicario it's this shot of an empty parking lot just before a car drives across it.)
Looking at that blog post, I had a lot of "Oh, yeah, wow, I've seen that. I know exactly what they're talking about" moments. But in no film last year did I feel I saw a lot of orange and teal. Arrival? Hell or High Water? Hell or Water could have had orange faces, but I don't believe there was any teal. Manchester by the Sea? I don't think so. It may not be a coincidence that most of the films pictured in the post are bad ones. I just saw I, Tonya yesterday and nobody looked orange to me.
And they definitely didn't look orange to me in Call Me By Your Name, which is where I first saw letthemeatcake talk about color adjusting.
Regardless, I like that blog post. It's fascinating.
haha.. don't worry... You'll still enjoy how movies look as the blog post chooses the more extreme examples and the trend is less extreme than a few years ago... π
Inside Llewyn Davis was meant to be a cold looking film, as the character was distant and isolated, so it works... Sicario looks good, I like the compositions and subtle lighting... Unbroken looks good as well... The skin tones are a bit orange in that one, but they work as the guys are outdoors and tanned for most of the film... Also very good compositions and lighting... I like how Deakins shoots digital as it isn't immitating film, yet doesn't look like video either...
The only movie that seemed excessively orange and blue to me last year (apart from the cheap horror stuff) was Murder On The Orient Express... But i remember the look of the original and knew this new one was supposed to be shot on medium format film, so it was a shock to see it graded this way... I was surprised...
Usually, your eyes adjust in theatre, to some extent to the skin tones and movie folk tend to be shot as more tanned and warm in the US... In Asia, they shoot with pale neutral/cool looking skin as a target "in general"...
Some movies use different extreme colours for creative effect like Neon Demon, or Only God Forgives, others are more subtle in their use of orange and teal and it goes unnoticed... it also affects the choice of art direction as can be seen in most cheep horror movies that have teal sets... π
I don't mind them playing around with digital to see what works, but I hope they're getting away from a lazy orange and teal default grade... These days it seems more that TV relies on orange and blue, with The Crown as a notable exception (very well shot)...
I like the urine-colour yellow grade of Enemy, as it fit the murky vibe of that film... La La Land had some nice use of primary colours, but once you look at the "Golden Age" musicals that inspired it, you realise that that level of aesthetics used to be the norm π
Not all films have the Transformers look like Nolan's and Scott's films do, however every single film out there has altered, fake and unnatural color. The sky in Call Me By Your Name is yellow blue, not blue. The skins are green. It's inescapable, there is no color in film anymore.
shareThis is one of the worst looking films I've ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opDlMeqRACI
It's as blue as any Transformers film. It's awful. It's a joke. This is the work of a genius?
Blade Runner 2049 is a 100% teal and orange film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMk99drt1B4
it alternates from scene to scene but it is no different than a Transformers movie. Where are the masterful visuals? I think the problem is the fanboys have taken over everything. I googled deakens' name and there's articles about him and the arrexa camera or whatever and that's what it's all about. Equipment. That is a fanboy mantra but the finished result is bad.
Also, Shawshank Redemption looks bad. Movies looked very ugly during the 80's and 90's. When Golden Age Glamour was out it was OUT. The preference was for ugly, dark, grainy filmmstock, and Shawshank is part of that.
[deleted]
[deleted]