love

Author Topic: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers  (Read 18434 times)

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #60 on: March 29, 2011, 01:52:20 PM »
I don't get the animosity. I'm one of the forum's biggest fans of animated film and I resolutely believe that animated film does not have cinematography. It doesn't make animated film less good or less valid. The cinematographer is also known as the director of photography. Animated films aren't photographed, they are drawn (or computer generated). I suppose stop-motion (and puppets) and motion capture are all exceptions to this, but those are fairly rare.

I was going to respond to this, but I decided to bear-hug a cactus instead.

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #61 on: March 29, 2011, 02:01:24 PM »
Hmm, "visually striking" sounds like it favours bright colors and flashy camera moves (Speed Racer). Could we call it something more all-encompassing so that all visual styles receive equal emphasis?

The wording isn't great, I agree, but I was more just asking whether it would be better if we did a list on the entire visual component rather then arguing over the boundaries of cinematography.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17857
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #62 on: March 29, 2011, 02:17:24 PM »
"Visually Striking" is the most neutral term I can think of at the moment.  I don't think it implies flashy Speed Racer style, and as long as the terms are defined up front, I don't think it matters much.  Maybe "Top 100 Visual Masterpieces"?  Of course, that might imply a certain grandiosity to some.

Also, I keep thinking of films I would include... I better start writing these down, if we're actually going to do this.

If we do, it'll be a fantastic thread for screenshots, if it doesn't break the forum.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23077
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #63 on: March 29, 2011, 02:21:44 PM »
I don't get the animosity. I'm one of the forum's biggest fans of animated film and I resolutely believe that animated film does not have cinematography. It doesn't make animated film less good or less valid. The cinematographer is also known as the director of photography. Animated films aren't photographed, they are drawn (or computer generated). I suppose stop-motion (and puppets) and motion capture are all exceptions to this, but those are fairly rare.

I was going to respond to this, but I decided to bear-hug a cactus instead.

I don't understand. Are you claiming that animated films ARE photographed?

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36101
  • Marathon Man
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #64 on: March 29, 2011, 02:35:06 PM »
I always liked the term "feast for the eyes" to which films as varied as Brazil, Days of Heaven, Rope and Last Days all qualify.

That being said, I preferred voting for actual Cinematographers.

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2011, 03:02:57 PM »
I don't understand. Are you claiming that animated films ARE photographed?

Not that specifically (Although they are photographed in a sense. Unfortunately most people simply don't understand how 3D animated films are made, and substituting disparaging terms like "computer generated" in place of what is actually involved doesn't help (i.e., "computer-generated" describes animated films about as much as "canvas-generated" describes paintings). My argument is that the art of cinematography is shared between the mediums despite purely technical differences of implementation. Sorry that my post was confusing, I think groaning and saying something snarky is my permanent reaction when this subject comes up after 18 pages of this thread. :)

Back to the topic at hand, I realize we're getting a bit far away from the original idea of "Best Cinematographers", but personally I think that is a much more difficult endeavor. I think doing a list of best-looking movies, however we end up titling it, would be a lot of fun.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26772
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2011, 03:04:19 PM »
I think so many problems get solved if we just stick to my original vision. Sure, not as many people will participate, but I hope those that do will be able to craft a list that give people a good idea of the people behind some of the best shot films of all time.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17857
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #67 on: March 29, 2011, 03:20:19 PM »
I think so many problems get solved if we just stick to my original vision. Sure, not as many people will participate, but I hope those that do will be able to craft a list that give people a good idea of the people behind some of the best shot films of all time.

I think there's two problems with this:

1) It's going to be mostly the same handful of names over and over again.  I can rattle off maybe 20-25 cinematographers that I love before I need to start looking up credits on IMDb.

2) The look of a film is not solely in the hands of the cinematographer.  Some films look fantastic because of their set design, or their animation, or their special effects, or even their choreography.  Also, it's often difficult to know whether a film has great photography because the cinematographer knew what he was doing, or because the director held his hand.

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #68 on: March 29, 2011, 03:23:59 PM »
It seems like the only real problem is figuring out what to call it. The idea itself of "Best-Looking Films" doesn't seem to be in much contention. I'm mainly in favor of that idea because it would be a lot of fun to participate in, whereas I would be completely unprepared to do the other (maybe I could come up with 5 names that I felt good about). Leaning more about Cinematographers and their bodies of work is a great idea, but I'm not sure a group top 100 list is the best way to do it.

Martin's second point is a good one also. It seems the cinematographers that I do know I know because of their tie with a director.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26772
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #69 on: March 29, 2011, 03:41:33 PM »
The inverse could also be said of directors. How many great directors are coupled with the same cinematographer time and time again? Who's to say they don't influence the film just as much as the director?

 

love