Author Topic: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers  (Read 18417 times)

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17854
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #70 on: March 29, 2011, 03:58:32 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?

There's some merit to what you're saying, but come on.  The director has far more control over the finished work than the cinematographer.  We often think of directors in terms of their body of work.  With cinematographers, we tend to think more of their individual projects.  Even some of the greatest cinematographers have projects where they're just a hired gun, phoning it in so to speak.

It's just more interesting to highlight the look of specific films than the talents of specific cinematographers.  If we do cinematographers, everyone's lists are going to have the same names over and over, in slightly different orders. 

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36101
  • Marathon Man
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #71 on: March 29, 2011, 04:10:25 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?

There's some merit to what you're saying, but come on.  The director has far more control over the finished work than the cinematographer.  We often think of directors in terms of their body of work.  With cinematographers, we tend to think more of their individual projects.  Even some of the greatest cinematographers have projects where they're just a hired gun, phoning it in so to speak.

It's just more interesting to highlight the look of specific films than the talents of specific cinematographers.  If we do cinematographers, everyone's lists are going to have the same names over and over, in slightly different orders.

and there are numerous films where the director gave the cinematographer complete control over the lighting and camera placement. If we discount one for not having complete control we should discount the other for the exact same reason.

I agree that a list would be too heavy with films shot by Roger Deakins and films by Terrence Malick. I would like to see Top Cinematographers ranked against each other, like March Madness. (Gregg Toland vs. Emmanuel Lubezki), but for a list of 100, it should be Top 100 Feast For The Eyes.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17854
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #72 on: March 29, 2011, 04:12:58 PM »
As a sidenote, I've started compiling my "feasts for the eyes" and I'm already up to 156.  Including a number of movies I'm not that crazy about in general (I've got a lot of problems with the The Fall, but it sure makes nice eye candy).

JeanRZEJ

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
    • Velvety Blackness
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2011, 04:22:16 PM »
I find the cinematographer to often be a very, very distinctive element of a film. One of my favorite filmmakers worked with a number of different filmmakers, and you can tell which films shared the same cinematographers without consulting the credits. You know immediately which Raul Ruiz films had Sacha Vierny as cinematographer. You probably know before you know it's a Ruiz film, in fact. As with directors, some cinematographers have a more pronounced stamp than others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are less talented, but it's not so different from directors or actors.

All that being said, I think all popularity contests are meaningless, and this one moreso than others.

This 'feast for the eyes' thing seems to miss the point by a mile. Some films are great because they're the most exquisitely prepared hors devours.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 04:24:59 PM by JeanRZEJ »

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17854
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #74 on: March 29, 2011, 04:24:49 PM »
I find the cinematographer to often be a very, very distinctive element of a film. One of my favorite filmmakers worked with a number of different filmmakers, and you can tell which films shared the same cinematographers without consulting the credits. You know immediately which Raul Ruiz films had Sacha Vierny as cinematographer. You probably know before you know it's a Ruiz film, in fact. As with directors, some cinematographers have a more pronounced stamp than others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are less talented, but it's not so different from directors or actors.

All that being said, I think all popularity contests are meaningless, and this one moreso than others.

If I was doing a list of cinematographers, Vierny would be very, very near the top.  Maybe #1.

The "popularity contest" aspect of doing things like this is of little interest to me... I just like to showcase the films (or filmmakers) that I love.

JeanRZEJ

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
    • Velvety Blackness
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #75 on: March 29, 2011, 04:25:51 PM »
I find the cinematographer to often be a very, very distinctive element of a film. One of my favorite filmmakers worked with a number of different filmmakers, and you can tell which films shared the same cinematographers without consulting the credits. You know immediately which Raul Ruiz films had Sacha Vierny as cinematographer. You probably know before you know it's a Ruiz film, in fact. As with directors, some cinematographers have a more pronounced stamp than others, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are less talented, but it's not so different from directors or actors.

All that being said, I think all popularity contests are meaningless, and this one moreso than others.

If I was doing a list of cinematographers, Vierny would be very, very near the top.  Maybe #1.

The "popularity contest" aspect of doing things like this is of little interest to me... I just like to showcase the films (or filmmakers) that I love.
Judging from the names thrown out so far I'm not so sure he'd make the list.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Maybach School of Film Studies
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #76 on: March 29, 2011, 05:15:47 PM »
How about we drop the "Top 100...." aspect from the title and go for something like Filmspotters on Storytelling Through Images?  Or Filmspotters on Visual Storytelling?  Or just plain Storytelling Through Images or Visual StorytellingSight and Time?  Or something like that.
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26231
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2011, 05:17:19 PM »
Filmspotters on Visual Storytelling
I like this.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4479
  • Maybach School of Film Studies
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #78 on: March 29, 2011, 05:19:51 PM »
As for the issue of voting on cinematographers or films, why not do both at the same time?  The cinematographer list could be shorter, say, a top 25, and the films might be, anywhere from 25 to 100.
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26767
Re: Filmspotters' Top 100 Cinematographers
« Reply #79 on: March 29, 2011, 05:29:13 PM »
Yea, it might just be shorter on both ends, I guess. I don't really like the idea of a top 100 visual films (or whatever other name you come up with), but if people aren't up to the endeavor of 100 cinematographers or if more people want to do film compromise is inevitable.