Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think in the situations you describe, key is what you said, to discuss more dramatic changes in exposure with the director and/or DP. Because sometimes things are really intended not to be seen. I had this issue a few times, where the colorist pushed the (low-key) image so that the viewer could better see what’s happening. But the intended purpose was to force the viewer to guess, not see, which was much more powerful.
He answers most (or maybe all?) of these questions in the latest Q&A video on their YouTube channel, e.g. he does not visualize much of a script before having talked to the director about his/her vision.
In-camera action with no (or very little) editing is the only kind of action that I like. The corridor fight scene in ‘Oldboy’ is my favorite.
Hey Andy, do you have a website or reel ect?
Great work! Love the daylight interiors. Most DP’s shy away from using no or little film lights but I too prefer when they start from the minimum (nothing) and work the way up only if necessary.
From the top of my head I mostly remember aggressive use of color being done in films that can be described as ‘visceral’. So less story and plot and more focus on mood and experience.
“But by cutting that scene out in the film and telling the story through the eyes of Kate is a very risky choice.”
I just looked into the script because I didn’t know Alejandro was introduced early. By leaving that away, he stays a mysterious character. Kate constantly wonders who that guy is, where does he come from, what’s his motivation – and so do we! Much more powerful imo.
“…because the Kate character rarely acts, she always reacts to the actions done in front of her. ”
I think that’s part of why Sicario works so well, the audience basically is Kate – only watching, feeling powerless to intervene. Now add Roger’s speciality of putting the audience exactly where they need to be in each shot and you get that unique viewing experience of Sicario. I think it’s a major reason why so many people love this film.
In hindsight it seems like an easy decision but it definitely was a major change to the dynamic of the viewing experience. And it would surely be interesting to know what considerations they made (who decided it, just Denis, more people, was someone against it?) to go with this change.
Those are all great suggestions, thanks guys!
I haven’t seen ‘Columbus’ yet. Looks like it’s an unagitated, intimate story and the cinematography seems to reflect that – will certainly watch it!
“I’m Wondering how DPs keep a consistent lighting ratio throughout the whole piece.
Or don’t they?”I don’t think they do (unless there’s a specific reason to). They keep it consistent throughout a scene.
If a couple says farewell to each other in tears in a dim barn, and then one of them steps outside into a desert at noon to face the antagonist, there’s not much reason to stick to the same lighting ratio I would think. But the wide, medium and CU shots inside the barn must match each other.
