what is cinematography?

>>84065101
>good cinematography
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hC_qfDXGBQ
>natural, floating camera, makes you feel like you're right there

>bad cinematography
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_iASz1Si8
>CGI CGI CGI CGI

when yu lik how the pictur looke

File: BvS Superman pulling the ship.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>84065101
/thread

>>84065101
a combination of costumes, camera work and set design
most kubrick stuff has good cinematography, the star wars prequels are the only thing with bad cinematograohy i can think of right now

>>84065101
Mai was best girl

You Thea/Anzu fags can fuck off

>>84065242
This is pretty meh. Extremely basic in terms of composition.

>>84067134
Costumes and set design are not cinematography

It's camera work, which is a lot more than just pointing and moving the camera. It could also be argued that composition/mise en scene is part of cinematography.

File: cinematssdd.gif (2MB, 339x229px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 339x229px

Cinematography works best when it's being used to tell story or work with mise-en-scene to highlight certain aspects.

>>84067249
so what is in the shot doesn't matter at all?

>>84067385
See >>84067364
Costumes and set design are obviously important for the look of a film but cinematography constitutes how these things are arranged and shot in a scene, not the act of designing them.

>>84065101
A E S T H E T I C S

>>84067385
What's in the shot is mise-en-scene. Cinematography is how you show it.

>>84067412
>how these things are arranged
I hought that is what set design is in contrast to production design where it's about the look of individual things

>>84067439
How things are arranged in the camera frame, ie. composition/mise en scene. Not how the set is designed

File: 1473272936915.jpg (80KB, 615x922px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 615x922px

bad cinematoraphy = shot/countershot

too the point where anything is a bubble of fresh air. this is why tv shows are shit

Cinematography is good when it helps convey the narrative through visual elements and provides a interesting look

Bad cinematography ignores any kind of visual storytelling and looks bland or outright shit

Revanche has good cinematography
Captain America Civil War has shit cinematography

Likewise you can have a "pretty" movie with shit cinematography that is just hollow "LOOK AT ME" visuals (like the works of Alejandro Inarritu and cinematographer Lubezki) that lack any sort of visual literacy but are hyper-clear so it gets a lot of praise because the majority of popular movies look like absolute garbage. Meanwhile people with highly dynamic cinematography that's both narrative AND inventive can get shit on because it's more than just "pretty" (Wong Kar Wai and Christopher Doyle, the works of Brian De Palma and Bernardo Bertolucci).

Films are a visual medium, and the visual portion is being destroyed by directors whose only prior experience was television before moving to movies. Their experience and mindset is a focus on faces delivering dialogue and plot-centered storytelling, lacking even basic filmmaking technique and resulting in a sea of borderline inadequacy, so a movie that slightly challenges that norm (like the works of Damien Chazelle) gets heaps of praise.

>>84067717
Nigga who the fuck shits on Wong Kar Wai?

>>84067717
>"LOOK AT ME" visuals (like the works of Alejandro Inarritu

>frog perspective tree shots intensifies

>>84065178
Wrong and wrong

>>84067540
This is a shallow and wrong observation. The use of shot-reverse shot is (although extremely basic) can be magnificently effective when done with proper editing and performance. See the movies of the Coen brothers. The implimentation of their dialogue would not work if it was done in a long wide shot of two people having a conversation. But the shot/reverse shot allows them control over the pace to deliver funny or nervous dialogue.

It's a tool, like CGI, digital cameras and child actors that a lot of "film buffs" have been trained to outright dismiss but ultimately a good filmmaker can make very good work of. By having a "no movies should only look a certain way" mindset, these sort of people are helping a sort of blandification of movies, rejecting cinematic invention or creativity in favor of boring adequacy.

>>84067717
>Cinematography is good when it helps convey the narrative through visual elements and provides a interesting look
pretty much just this, with a well shot movie you should be able to watch any given scene with the sound off and get clear idea what's going on.

>>84067540
>this is why tv shows are shit

Mr. Robot and The Knick prove you wrong

>>84067380
What was Orson trying to convey in this scene, I don't think I quite understood

>>84068391
my first guess would have been
>at first he seems alone, the initial focus on him facing the camera and pan back to reveal empty space emphasises that
>then it's revealed he actually does have company
>but his posing remains the same and the composition emphasises the distance between them
>taken al togethe the shot is showing his isolation despite not being physically alone

>>84068391
It doesn't show the whole scene, but the table gets increasingly bigger with every time-skip, showing the distance literally growing between them.

Yeah it's simple and maybe you're being sarcastic, but film isn't about needing a youtube video to tell you the deep meanings. The way the camera pulls back to show us the huge table is good, fun, and clear moviemaking.

>a thread where /tv/ actually discusses film comprehensively
Holy shit

>>84068391
It's about both the growing distance between the two characters and the increasing empty opulence of Kane's life

File: ck.jpg (138KB, 985x719px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 985x719px

>>84068543

>>84065101
What makes Cinematography good is whether or not it looks good, but more importantly how the shot makes you feel about what you are seeing. David Lynch films are often a great example because he frequently shoots a scene in a fashion that's engineered to make you feel a certain way or have a certain expectation and then he totally flips it on it's head.

File: His soul is still dancing.jpg (41KB, 386x411px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 386x411px

>>84068654
>tfw the switch in Mulholland Drive from that soft-focus hollywood-y look to the hyper-clear reality

>>84067385
He didn't say it didn't matter. It does matter to the quality of the film. He said it's not cinematography, and he's right.

>>84067380
So just point the camera at the thing you want to shoot?

>>84065178
wow, that's like objectively wrong on both cases.

here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuqmDd0EXkU

>>84067439
>I hought that is what set design is

You hought wrong.

>>84068391
I know you think you're being clever, but that movie came out in 1941, so that pan was clever back then.

>>84068497
>>84068543
>>84068630
Lads, I was being sarcastic because of how obvious and over the top that camera move was. Citizen Kane is shit btw

>>84068810
You're shit, Bergman

>>84068800
It really wasn't, films had been around for decades at that point

>>84068830
I didn't say films hadn't been around for decades at that point. I'm saying what he did in that scene was clever and new back then. It was.

>>84068860
>camera movement, a technique in regular use at that point for 26 years was clever and "new"

>>84067855
they're both shit though.

>>84067760
>>84068747
explain why

you can say whatever you want about Malick but not that it's one of the most stellar digital cinematography of the current decade

Alien is a good example of good cinematography

File: Conrad in Quest of His Youth - Duplicity of Frame.jpg (781KB, 1500x924px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1500x924px

>>84065101
Good inematography is depth and staging which good use of foreground and background with small amount of mise en scene for highlighting, telegraphing, and foreshadowing. You can overdo it, but it's a balance and marriage of content and form. When you emphasize form over content, you enter style over substance. For good examples of good cinematography, see anything by DW Griffith or Scarface from 1932.

>>84067806
>>84067540
Shot reverse shot is not cinematography, it's basic editing. But it's one of the most crucial editing tools because it can emphasize contrast in less overt ways when done right.

>>84069052
It would be better for starters if you didn't use his only shit film.

Regardless, i can hardly say BvS has "the most stellar digital cinematography of the current decade", but i can damn well say that simply because something use CGI, it has no objective impact on whether it has good cinematography or not. Sure you don't have to like it, but to say its bad makes you sound like a pleb.

Here, more shit for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF3ZwXEG45M

>>84068810
And you're a complete numpty. You don't deserve our (you)

>>84069052
>one of the most stellar digital cinematography of the current decade
kek what is this gibberish?

File: bdabr.jpg (86KB, 1280x496px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1280x496px

>>84068745
John Sturges would say just that. Just point it at what you want. As long as it's true to the characters and story.

>We shoot up at Bob and down at Tracy. Well it so happens that shooting up at Bob makes him menacing and interesting and he and the gas pump and the sky and the mountains are a very effective angle. But the reason we shoot up at him is because Spencer's sitting down and he's looking up at him. And vice versa. We shoot down at Spence for the simple reason that Bob, who's 6'2'', is looking down at Spence. So a lot of talk about angles reduces itself to your eye. You don't go out there with preconditioned notions about how you're going to set the camera for every scene. You watch the scene. And there's a place to see it. Anybody watching something will drift over to the place where you should see the scene and you do it. That's where you put the camera.

Of course this is reductive, but a lot of filmmakers think as a general rule that the audience should not be aware of the camera.

>>84067841
Got any examples?

File: The Devious Path 1928 .gif (2MB, 500x367px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x367px

>>84070005
literally any silent film

I'll just leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke2CFuLQ6t8

>>84068810
>muh subtlety
Kys

>>84070005
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCe_L9MP_a4
this one has no dialogue anyway, and it's very easy to tell what's happening, and hat the potential conflict is visually

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU8jKn7sMwU
conversly this scene has a lot of (important) dialogue, but you can still see a lot of the tenor of the conversation through the visuals

Obviously in both these cases the actors' performances are also a large part of this, but the camera plays an important role in terms of what it draws attention to

>>84070232
Long shots are boring and take you out of a film.

And The Passenger is the most boring film I've ever seen.

So is the Academy Award for best cinematography ever right?

>>84069322
I love Herzog and Nosferatu, but maybe you just don't get Malick's minimalist approach to cinematography. There are different kinds of cinematography you know, there's colorfoul and bombastic or muted and subtle. STS isn't the best Malick but we're not talking about story/characters here, Malick's cinematography is generally spotless but not in a clinical way.

I disagree, getting CGI flung at your face every single shot makes a film look aesthetically gaudy.

File: Dead or Alive.jpg (3MB, 2500x1485px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x1485px

if it's kino like this

Reminder that retards created ''blood on camera'' kinomatography

>>84071112
Malick's shit was already done by Murnau and Jean Vigo

>>84071391
is it you Griffith fan? I watched your movies, they were mediocre at best.
to my knowledge Murnau and Vigo never did Malick's floating camera, and even if they did I don't really care.

File: Cinemagraphique.png (109KB, 1199x1047px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1199x1047px

>>84071053
No

>>84071112
>>84071391
i love malick generally, i just detest some of his more recent stuff, song to song especially.

Knight of Cups was great though mind.

>>84071595
how can you like KOC but not STS? they're basically the same movie but with more characters

>>84071686
because i liked what i did and dislike what i don't care for?

While i don't care to go in to detail, as i really don't need to explain myself over my opinion, i really don't see how "they're basically the same movie".

>>84065242
>/threading yourself
>with fucking plebeian manchild garbage
i really hope you fall over today

>>84068548
>comprehensively
nobody knows anything are you retarded

>>84071806
sorry to trigger you, nice argument.

They're both stories about somebody rich and famous living in ennui and leading their lives superficially until they repent and discover their true selves with heavy Christian undertones.

File: 24753560745359.gif (3MB, 685x478px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 685x478px

>>84071493
whoops your pleb is showing

>>84071978
>sorry to trigger you, nice argument.
Eh?
Matey i ain't triggered, and what argument did i make there?

>>84072097
took you this long to find a single scene? Neither of them does this frequently enough to be comparable with Malick, just like I am a fugitive from a chain gang had absolutely nothing to do with Il posto. I know you're full of shit.

>>84072408
I don't know why you think you're patrician for liking Terence Malick or imdbshit

>>84071806
kys pretentious fag

>>84072326
I misunderstood your tone, no problem mate

File: 132860397966.jpg (97KB, 642x480px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 642x480px

Griffith is shit. Kill yourself, faggot.

>>84072585
no harm done.

>>84072565
how was any of that pretentious?

>>84071825
>expecting this thread to being anything other than shitposts and griffithautist

>>84072504
unlike you I don't like films to be cool but I recognize when something is good despite of how famous or well known it is
and unlike you I have an extensive knowledge of non-imdbcore films that would be considered 'obscure'
I just take the best of both words really, while you miss out on every masterpiece made after 1930

File: IMG_4086.jpg (327KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1920x1080px

i thought cinematography was just the scene looking pretty, but it's actually camera movement and symbolism of things in the shot?

>>84067134
>costumes and set design

Nigga do you have any idea what you're talking about.

File: Doyle.jpg (1MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x2000px

>>84071053
>Best Cinematographer of all time
>Never even nominated
yeah nice one Academy.

>>84067717
>says cinematography should be used to tell story
>shits on WKW

Just how dumb are you?

>>84073069
>Best cinematographer of all time
What did he do new that James Hong Howe or Karl Struss didn't already do

>>84073091
WKW is pretty shit

>muh reds
literally vincente minelli

>>84073123
He single-handedly ruined the yuropoor Oscars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RK4sp8aMWA

>>84073091
>it's an "anon failed 6th grade reading" episode

>>84065101
IMHO, good cinematography suits the film, its mood, story, pace...

Bad cinematography is distracting, annoying and just plain wrong. Very saturated colors or glossy, tv ads-like lightning usually are bad signs.

For example:

- In the Heart of the Sea (horrible, horrible palette)
- Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
- Most american movies or series set in Mexico, which is always yellow for some reason
- Thor

File: 165832439673.gif (3MB, 298x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 298x200px

>>84072679
babby can't into silent films

File: gb.jpg (215KB, 1920x1040px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1920x1040px

Good cinematography that adds to the lofty, fantastical storytelling mood of the film or distracting, immature wank?

>>84075486
Wes' widescreen movies>GBH

File: sig-4271034.18l0nenm87kodjpg.jpg (12KB, 431x324px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 431x324px

>>84065101
you want good cinematography? this is a good cinematography

>>84068983
>being this intentionally confrontational over what is near universally approved of as true

>>84065101
Cinematography isn't just about pretty frames.

The visual narrative is the most important aspect.
Quality cinematography isn't just empty pretty pictures but actually telling the story using visual narrative through framing and composition and the performances.
So the context is important, you can't judge it by a screenshot alone.

There is technically bad cinematography, like too strong obvious night scene lighting or breaking the 180 rule for no reason.
And there is bad cinematography because of the lack of actual substance, empty pretty pictures which only fill the form without actually using framing and composition to propell the visual narrative.
And I think the second one is a bigger problem in today's industry because everyone can learn basic photography and produce balanced pictures, but it takes talent/vision to be able to actually tell the story through the visuals.

End of blog post

>>84076084
>Quality cinematography isn't just empty pretty pictures but actually telling the story using visual narrative

could you at least make an example of a film where this happens? Cinematography and story are two separate things, unless you mean shit like zooming in on a particular detail that's relevant to the plot, or changing color filter to represent different emotions but those things don't make good cinematography.

>>84076924
>Cinematography and story are two separate things
Yes they are separate elements, but they should work together. Every decision in the cinematography department should be solely to support and add to the narrative, not call attention to itself with an unnecesary "impressive" long take or camera movement just to look "cool" if the narrative doesn't call for it.
Everyone can learn basic photography and make balanced framed pretty pictures, but they are just "empty" pretty pictures with no idea or vision behind it, it's just a pretty picture.

You should use framing and composition to tell a story with the visual narrative just like you tell a story with a written one, they should form a whole.
Tarkovsky is the best example, he truly used the visual medium where his written narrative is merely plot lines for the actual "story" to be told through the visuals. You can't just retell his films by retelling the story, you literally have to see it to get a grasp on it.

>unless you mean shit like zooming in on a particular detail that's relevant to the plot, or changing color filter to represent different emotions but those things don't make good cinematography.
Yes that's exactly good cinematography (a bit of simple and surface level example, but true). Also the visuals don't even need to be "pretty" for the cinematography to be considered good, if a script is gruesome dark nasty and uncomfortable than the visuals should do the same thing.

>>84075486
the cinematography, much like the rest of the film was incredibly kitsch and gimmicky

>>84065242
>literally none of this is real

>>84077299
>If a script is gruesome dark nasty and uncomfortable than the visuals should do the same thing.
Reminds me of Angst (1983) where the camera is shaky because the main character is schizophrenic.

I can't recall many examples of what you're speaking of though, Tarkovsky does it with the different color filters to represent different moments in time, Antonioni does it with his color palettes in Red Desert to represent different moods, and I can think of maybe a bunch more examples but mostly it doesn't happen in films with great cinematography
for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpQoB_FrGus
the cinematography does nothing for the story but it's still amazing

File: 1480316117412.jpg (67KB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 384x288px

>>84071326

File: 1475754176586.jpg (364KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1920x1080px

WHO YELLOW FILTER HERE ?

File: image.jpg (104KB, 1024x507px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1024x507px

>>84067717
This. Good cinematography tells stories in an interesting manner and plays just as much a part, if not more, than the writing and dialogue, whereas bad just captures what's going on on screen without playin any part in it.

>>84070005
Here's my personal favourite
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g6tR78d0cmA
This scene really captures the essence of everything that separates film from other mediums. It uses sound, performances, setting, visuals, editing, and camera work all to tell a simple story without any dialogue. I'm not gonna spoon feed you, but notice the way the camera angles get tighter as the music escalates and the characters get more unnerved, then the close ups of the guns showing you the threat at hand, and how the graves make a classical theatre, as if there's an audience watching. It's perfect

File: the kid 1921.jpg (103KB, 900x687px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 900x687px

>>84078993
What about realist films like Bicycle Thieves and The Kid

>>84079318
Who said realism is bad to start?

File: Kubrick bashes Eisenstein soviet propoganda flicks.png (80KB, 949x629px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 949x629px

>>84079389
You said "good cinematography" was anything told in an interesting visual manner. What about realist films that have little in way of form and aesthetics

>>84079485
If a realist style of cinematography complements the movie, then I have no qualms with it

File: William Wyler deep focus The Little Foxes .jpg (332KB, 796x600px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 796x600px

Good cinematography is the kind that doesn't tell you how to feel and merely allows you to inspect the frame for yourself to find detail. It is much more closer to the complexity of life which is what art ought to do.

File: little-foxes-1941.jpg (54KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 512x384px

>>84079623
>One of the examples Bazin repeatedly cites in lauding Wyler’s technique is the death scene of Horace Giddens in The Little Foxes, where the stricken man tries to climb the stairs to get his medicine while his estranged wife sits by, making no attempt to help him. Bazin considered Wyler’s decision not to move the camera or cut to the dying husband stumbling up the stairs much more powerful than any technique to make the action more cinematic. Wyler does indeed keep his camera focused on Regina’s face, but the viewer also sees Horace climbing the stairs in the background, although his ascent remains out of focus, which limits both the “realism” and the open-ended quality of the deep-focus technique.

>>84065178
how fucking dare you. batman v superman was super kino

File: Audry-Hepburn-How-Make-a-Funny-Face.jpg (57KB, 605x455px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 605x455px

>>84079790
Which is why How to Steal a Million is better

>>84073794
what kino is this?

>>84080357
If you knew anything about film history, you would instantly know the answer. Too bad you're not me. Stick to lists, babby.

File: argent.jpg (72KB, 737x561px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 737x561px

>>84073794
that's simply not true, you contemptuous little man

What are some tv shows with good cinematography?

File: 12576592976.gif (2MB, 477x354px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 477x354px

>>84080517
>knowing one of the highest grossing French directors is something special
You couldn't even name the origins of this gif. I'll be waiting for your reply 4 hours later

>>84081059
There's not many. Most tv shows only focus on the characters and all the other filmmaking elements become completely secondary, especially in the long term.
Shots become standardised and framing and composition is there just to "fill the form". Maybe there's an edgy long take or two every few episodes to spice things up a bit but that's it.

File: 14642477322584.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>84081252
babby can't into I Love Lucy geometric minimalism and symmetry

>>84080357
This

File: gfdgssgsg.jpg (134KB, 1231x916px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1231x916px

>>84081140
>takes a random screenshot of an otherwise well know film
>thinks it somehow means anything

Anybody can do that. You've seen every silent film ever made right? What's this from?

File: DW Griffith acting direction vs Viktor Sjostrom.png (670KB, 1418x732px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1418x732px

>>84081631
Thanks for admitting you don't know any silent films beyond bare essentials
>>84081476
>>84080517
>>84080357
Also your pic looks like Terje Vigen. Wouldn't know though since Seastrom is one of the worst Swedish directors.

>>84081631
If you don't know where this gif is from >>84081140 you have no business speaking to me

>>84081809
it's not and it's much better than The Italian or that other piece of crap you recommended. Wonderful acting, stunning photography, hearth wrenching story it really is a pity you don't know it.
>>84081968
fine, you are my nemesis and I hate you, anon.

>>84081140
>posts tumblr gif
>gives it a fake 4chan filename to hide that it's from tumblr
wew

andré legrand is a shit tier writer no one knows about for a reason my dear pretentious anon

>>84082105
>it's not
It most likely is. Hopefully in your next life, you get better genes.

>>84082107
Nice identical response.

>>84071560
Wow, it really is true. The more stuff you think is bad, the cooler you are.

File: ZWvF3df[1].jpg (36KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 720x540px

>>84082301
>mfw dumb amerifat can't into USSR kino

File: 1364234788843.gif (4MB, 332x245px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 332x245px

>>84082732
>double exposures are something new

>>84082301
an identical response for an identical post my dear false "patrician"

File: T0IMaywxtc0qJIyC[1].jpg (26KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 720x528px

>>84083112
>mfw this much cognitive dissonance

you make moving the goalpost into an art

>>84083130
You think Kote Mikaberidze is "obscure" >>84082732 yet you can't even name either of these gifs >>84081140 >>84083112 pseud

>>84083262
what's this >>84083213 from?

>>84083213
>only proving everything formally was already done by 1939
w e w

>>84083262
Yes, Kote Mikaberidze is certainly not a popular director with films that have sub 50 ratings on IMDb.
Anyone can google a few films shit films no one heard about with like 3 ratings and pretend they are some ultimate patrician, it's just pathetic.

>>84083627
popular actor/director*

File: trying to hold in the laughter.gif (2MB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x250px

I can't believe you don't even know where these gifs>>84083112 >>84081140 >>84073794 are from. And I picked easy ones for you too

>>84083413
answer my question >>84083410
can you or can't you tell me, a yes or no will do

>>84083627
my grandmother is actually an excellent film for its time anon, this autist recommended 3 'obscure' movies and they were all 3 mediocre at best

>>84083627
>picking films by imdb scores
>picking films on imdb at all

>>84083788
It's a fairly approved way of determining is a certain film popular or not, and that film certainly isn't.

>>84083744
If they were mediocre then why did multiple people ask for their names here >>84081476 >>84080357

>>84083744
I've named several of your mediocre films. You haven't named a single one of mine. And what's funny is I could pick out thousands more gifs and you wouldn't be able to name any.

>>84083883
>And what's funny is I could pick out thousands more gifs and you wouldn't be able to name any.
And? I could make short gifs of a random low quality footage and no one will be able to indentify those too, so what?
Also post WEBM's not gifs, this is not tumblr/reddit.

>>84083883
>If they were mediocre then why did multiple people ask for their names here
because you're a filthy samefag

>>84083883
so you don't know where >>84083213 is from.

Yet if you had seen my grandmother you should know it's from the same film, but you couldn't reverse image search it so you didn't know.

You're just a fraud who watches mediocre silent films and when somebody actually watches them you have no reply for them other than moving the goalpost.
And my movies are not mediocre like yours, they're actually amazing, watch them for yourself and find out pleb.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 5069x2852px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5069x2852px

>>84081059
The later seasons of Sopranos are pretty good, as is Hannibal

>>84081059
Better Call Saul

File: 136424853587.gif (3MB, 332x245px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 332x245px

>>84084066
Gifs are quicker don't care.

>>84084097
Nah. But you're obsessed with me since you reply to me every thread I'm in.

>>84084168
See >>84083413
Doubt you could name this flick since you haven't been able to once thus far.

File: 1fb474ec06aac4d6eb5e65184c630ba0.jpg (6KB, 236x294px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 236x294px

>tfw Griffith will never lose prestige

>>84084413
glad you could discover a great obscure movie through me, faggot. I promise you it won't happen again.
At least you still don't know where >>84081631
is from, good luck with that.

File: $_57_34.jpg (31KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 720x540px

I can't believe you don't even know where these gifs>>84083112 >>84081140 >>84073794 are from. And I picked easy ones for you too

>>84084413
>Gifs are quicker

no they're not you absolute turboautist, why do you think the entirety of 4chan uses them then?

>>84084828
>he doesn't know about modsource

File: DieNibelungen.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>84080357
Phantom dir. F.W. Murnau. It's really not that good of a film, there's a few instances of cinematic genius here and there, but really Phantom is just a precursor of what Murnau would do much better later on. His early story telling was long-winded and, to put it frankly, such a fucking bore. Webm unrelated

>>84065242
I mean thats not good or bad its pretty standard so im confused why you said thread at all

>>84085106
>such a fucking bore
t. plebbicus maximus

The comments on thread are a good explanation of what makes cinematography good or bad, using Gone Girl and Interstellar as examples of each:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/43j4ta/what_exactly_makes_interstellars_cinematography/

>inb4 "reddit"

Griffith and early Murnau are some of the biggest pleb filters I've seen thus far

>>84085248
No you know exactly what you did faggot. You have to go back.

File: revenant-gallery-13-gallery-image.jpg (405KB, 2000x1076px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 2000x1076px

>>84067717
I thought the revenant was really well done in terms of cinematography.

For a movie like that it's really hard to have a lot of creativity in terms of visual literacy, because practically the whole movie is man alone in nature. He nailed the breathtaking landscapes and color palette imo and communicated that lonely cold feeling really well.

File: haosam.png (752KB, 1198x900px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 1198x900px

actual kino coming through

>>84071053
>>84071560

>2012
>The Life of Pi wins over literally any of the other 4 films

what the fuck
that movie was shot with a brown kid in a boat on a green screen, everything else was done digitally.

Why not nominate animated films at that point? Same for Gravity, what the fuck.
>go out into the middle of nowhere
>get up at 3 am, start setting up a shot
>spend hours lighting it and perfecting it
>it's 5 seconds of footage in the finished film
>do this daily
>create kino
>months later, nominated for an Oscar
>lose to a movie that was 99% done on computers
>none of the people who did the CGI on the movie didn't get paid and the company went under the day after the oscars
>the irony of this is lost on everyone

>>84085450
You couldn't have picked a worse Croatian film

>>84085509
Anything shot digitally fundamentally cannot be kino

>>84085536
Oh believe me, I could. Also don't pretend like you watched a whole lot of croatian films, most films don't even leave our market.

t. a croat

If you were Croatian you wouldn't have picked one of the most mainstream ones. Either that or you have shit taste

>>84085578
"shot digitally" as in with digital cameras? Because I disagree (although in more cases than none shooting digitally ends up looking like shit)

but if you mean "shot digitally" as in it was mostly shot on green screens (ie: Star Wars Prequels, capeshit, The 2nd and 3rd Hobbit films) then yeah I agree. Even the most visually appealing shots from those movies I struggle to find impressive knowing that it wasn't created by talented filmmakers using the camera and lighting to make art, but was done by a bunch of guys on computers with the only thing actually shot was an actor in front of a green screen

>>84085971
Digital cameras are cancer. There is nothing physical to manipulate and any changes can only be done via a computer. Ergo, you have shit taste and you're retarded. You're a lost cause.

>>84085709
Who cares is it mainstream or not (and it certainly isn't mainstream, no matter the critical acclaim the vast majority of our population isn't even aware it exist), it's still one of the best films produced from our country.

It's fairly popular outside of our country because it's probably one of the few films made here with zero propaganda or balkan social drama which 99% of the films here are so anyone in the world can connect to H-8.
The rest is pretty much overwritten garbage aside from a few yugoslavian classics, far too much of the same themes, over the top pathetic "war is bad/we are poor" social dramas and the polar opposites in comedy "we are so poor lmao ustaše and četniks the same lmao"
The film industry is completely fucked here.

>>84086071
>There is nothing physical to manipulate and any changes can only be done via a computer.

What? Are you just baiting? Digital cameras don't have any options/can't be manipulated, only on a computer?
I'll just pretend like this is bait, surely you aren't that retarded.

>>84086071
Another pleb who has never edited a film talking about muh physical connection, that's rich.

>>84086071
the fuck man why are you calling me retarded and acting like I'm preaching for films to all be shot on digital cameras? I just said that there are some cases when films shot on digital cameras can still look good but they usually don't. What are you talking about?

>>84086223
>>84086179
If you think you can physically manipulate the visual makeup of digital media, you're retarded. It can't be said any other way.

>>84086532
Like it even matters. Get a life, old man.

>>84086657
You're only admitting I'm right like always.

>>84086800
When talking about film you sound like Tarantino. Must be the auts.

>>84085413
Some of the long takes were so unnecessary and poorly utilized that they took me out of the film

>>84086926
You're only admitting I'm right like always.

Me
>
>
>
you

File: mr turner.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>84065101
couldn't tell you honestly but good cinematography just feels good to look at

>>84087065
no no no

File: nice horsies.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>84087139

>>84087160
yes yes yes.

>>84087276
>>84087139
Shit. Would not hang on my wall

File: pirds.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>84087315
Nigger

File: 124724834583.jpg (408KB, 1600x1241px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1600x1241px

>>84087520
Is this supposed to be good? Post actual good painterly aesthetic

>>84065178
>We thought we could move like Song to Song, the moving film from award-winning director Terrence Malick
jeez louise, really?

File: Mr. Turner (2014).mp4_20170620_012640.870.jpg (337KB, 1920x808px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1920x808px

>>84087581
the cinematography is supposed to portray Mr. Turner as a stoic and contemplative man

File: Hole in the Wall 1929 edgar g robinson.jpg (19KB, 400x311px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x311px

>>84087761
What's bold and new about that. Shit's been done a million times before

File: Faust2.jpg (2MB, 2815x2088px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2815x2088px

>>84087581
Speaking of paintings. This screenshot reminds me of a painting I saw a while ago that also had the side profile of a guy in the foreground, but I can't remember the name of it and it's been killing me.

>>84088844
Worst silent Faust adaptation

what the fuck keep this thread alive

File: 2yuf311.gif (3MB, 400x228px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x228px

>>84083734
>>84084806

File: barry.jpg (198KB, 1272x720px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1272x720px

>>84087581

>>84086940

hurr durr

cinematography is a meme word people use to sound like "patricians", whatever the fuck that means. technically every shot in every movie is an example of cinematography. people just pick and choose when they want to appreciate it

>>84071560
>social network not having good cinematography
>birdman and Grand Budapest not having good cinematography
>fury road not having good cinematography
>arrival not having good cinematography

little hint for next time, you have to either go all in on your contrarianism or be very subtle with it, at the moment you just look like a retard picking names out of a hat.

>>84071560
>the most excruciatingly obvious bait

next time don't spell it out that you want people to reply

File: barry-lyndon-candle-scene-cinematography-hi-res.jpg (496KB, 1440x816px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1440x816px

Editing is an essential piece of cinematography. You can't just have a meaningless wide shot thrown in and then call it a day like Snyder. His garbage wants to trick you into thinking it's good cinematography, but it's all disjointed and forced.' Every single moment has to be artistically designed and be tied together at the same time. These shots have to have momentum and tension and rhythm. That's the challenge of being a filmmaker.

the two pretentious faggots trying to out-obscure silent movie gif each other is the best part of this thread. i've never seen such boring taste in films. two lofty faggots like them should ideally get along great, but we all know people like that are incapable of having friends.

bumpr

bumpo

File: gdsgsd.jpg (20KB, 640x464px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x464px

>>84098445
do never compare me to him again

>my films
>well acted, gorgeous cinematography, hearth wrenching stories

>his films
>overacted, sappy, kitsch

I won't rest until he's exposed for the fraud that he is, the most he can hope for is that it ends in mutual destruction

bumpimh

>>84101999
you're both pathetic turboautists

>gorgeous cinematography
Cinematography doesn't have to be "gorgeous" to be good, why would a for example dark gruesome uncomfortable narrative have gorgeous pretty shots, cinematography isn't just pretty balanced pictures

>>84080461
Fucking hell you're so cool.

Twat.

File: 1bd10929c7d9f338408be9f27fd3e12c[1].gif (717KB, 273x220px) Image search: [Google]

717KB, 273x220px

>>84103800
I never said it has to, idiot, gritty bw films are my favorite in fact.

>>84068795
ma nigga

File: 2012MomentsMoonriseKingdom.jpg (52KB, 510x286px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 510x286px

>>84065101
its the use of lighting in a shot to aquire the desired mood. look at a Wes Anderson film and Robert Yeoman tends to have this grainy pastel coloring to his shots. this has the effect of creating this old vintage aesthetic, especially in Moonrise Kingdom. Compare to Kubrick (barring Barry lyndon where perceived lighting is used to create paintwork like shots) where the shots do not have such drastic stylization and are played rather straight, along with the topic matter of most of his movies they shots tend to give this nearly nihilistic quality

>>84085509
>Why not nominate animated films at that point?
Because the academy doesn't give a fuck about dumb cartoons, they just give the award to whatever disney shit they took their kids to see.

File: moonnigger.png (880KB, 1019x561px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1019x561px

>>84101999
>Soviet shit
>well-acted
AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHHHAHHHHHAAHA

Pic-related shows why you hate Griffith and why you of all people shouldn't be talking about tastes

File: 1375797275679.jpg (14KB, 280x350px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 280x350px

Stop watching Soviet shit

watch The Patriot

>>84105344
>>84082732

Also nice try, good luck finding out who I am. And that guy has great taste: Bene, Chambers, Baillie, all great directors, your pleb is showing again.

>>84106176
>Moonnigger 5 stars
>great taste

>Bene
>good
Looks like you don't know anything about the Italian silent avant-garde, wikipediababby. And no, not futurist shit.

>>84077475
who the fuck actually says kitsch

kys

File: Aq8uKNXlroqt3U4v[1].jpg (42KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x480px

>>84106771
how can one single person be so wrong on so many things wew

Bene > Griffith

>>84107035
Constantini + Sanna > Bene

Tinting is nothing new

>>84107194
now you're just making up names
it's Costantini not Constantini

fraud

File: 1346426786458.png (328KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 853x480px

Fantasy shit is not avant-garde. You should know that if you had any semblance of the definition avant-teen. Also, I find it funny Nino Oxilla released that garbage the same year as this. Really funny you even think Nino Oxilla is somebody noteworthy in the history of Italian silent cinema.

>>84107390
>it's Costantini not Constantini
How are you going to tell how to spell the guy's name, you don't even know him

>>84107575
because I'm Italian and we don't put s's in front of n's

confirmed fraud

File: Birth of a Nation 1915 2.png (268KB, 854x479px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 854x479px

Griffith is a god, he is not man.

>>84107627
>because I'm Italian and we don't put s's in front of n's
Why is why his name is Constantini. Marioluiginigger confirmed illiterate and not not knowing his own country's cinema

whoops too many not's

And didn't even write which. Just goes to show how irrelevant you are marioluiginigger. I don't even bother writing proper for you, just let you fill in the blanks

File: neverforget.jpg (41KB, 922x339px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 922x339px

Give up, you're stumbling over your own words because you know you've been exposed for the fraud that you are. And I didn't even need to be an expert on silent cinema to do that, imagine what somebody else with more knowledge could do, pray that you never meet such a person, fraud.

File: 1493371358966.jpg (302KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1920x1080px

The amount of newfags in this thread is alarming.

There is no right way to have good cinematography. There are a lot of wrong ways, but not a right way.

This applies to every craft. Anything you call bad can be good in a certain context. That's why it's hard to do, you have feel it rather than calculate it.

This is so basic just telling you faggots something so elementary is infuriating.

File: DW Griffith poetic romance - Birth of a Nation.jpg (258KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 800x640px

>stumbling over your own words
>we don't put s's in front of n's
You're doing a pretty good job at that already. Also predictable.

[insert baseless Griffith insult]

>namedropping unknown half time plumbers half time directors as a sign of knowledge

Atleast say why is your precious Griffith better than a whatever other director the other autist mentions, the discussion is on the level of SPIERLBERG IS BETTER THAN CAMERON, NO CAMERON IS BETTER THAN SPIELBERG FAGGOT, absolutely pathetic

File: The Enigma of Griffeth.png (199KB, 678x620px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 678x620px

Griffith is the biggest pleb filter known to man. As a stirgent man of the 19th century, he is considered outdated yet he anticipated every development and technique in the medium years and decades before anyone else. With his painterly eye, he was a master of the tableau style of cinematography and was able to speak to those on a spiritual and metaphysical level with bucolic lyricism and poetry. In his pictures, he includes everything intelligently in service of the content with a far-reaching grasp to envelop even the smallest animals in his grandiose concoctions. A master of the instinctive cut, the long take, the static shot, the use of depth and distance, and performing the ever so delicate balancing act of comedy and tragedy, Griffith's pictures are those closest to mimicking the complexities and relationships of life. They are eternally relevant.

File: lifeaquatic.jpg (191KB, 1024x865px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1024x865px

Here is my favorite scene transition, from The Life Aquatic. One shot shows somebody waving the helicopter down to the ship's helipad. The next shot shows the characters on the boat and the helicopter parked. Your attention is drawn to the helicopter by the way the characters heads frame it. We already saw a helicopter landing earlier, so we don't need another. This scene transition makes it very obvious what happened without slowing the movie down.