To every generation there is a film technique which defines it. There was the smokey grey/green from the Matrix films. Michael Mann had his desaturated shallow-DOF look. David Fincher uses silver-retention on his film development to extend the dynamic range while underexposing his shots (thats why interiors in Seven were so "dark" yet exposed).
Part of the device of cinema is extending the mise-en-scene outward and upward to the representational devices (projection, development and treatment).
Part of the study of film is tracing how the use of technique defines generations of film makers. Often, technology serves as an impetus for a style (i.e., Robert Altman and the use of multi-track audio on Nashville precipitated very "talky" films from the 70's/80's), or the developments in computer motion controlled rigs.
Or lets not forget: lens flares.
Color grading (ie, the orange/blue compliments in this article) are also defined by outward influences like magazine photography, trends in CGI, etc.
Anyhow, in a few years a new dominate "look" will pervade cinema and we'll all have something new to complain about.
Both this comment and your comment further down below are really illuminating to a film luddite like me. It's always interesting to hear the nitty-gritty details of someone else's trade. It always amazes me how much detail goes into things that at the end of the day, the end user is none-the-wiser.
Interestingly you might find that once you are aware of such details it is hard to go back and "just watch a movie".
You start noticing color gradients, lighting techniques, camera angles, and many other technical details, and spend mental effort categorizing and critiquing them instead of being immersed in the experience, like, perhaps, you were before.
As computer geeks notice bogus computer terminals in the movies, and it is somewhat irritating and frustrating "no, dammit, that is not what a mainframe terminal looks like!" film geeks do the same with movies.
After working a bit on a film in college, I started noticing cuts, and it started to drive me insane. It's one of those things that's largely inconsequential. I, as an audience member, am aware when a cut is made. But now, after doing a bit of editing, I notice just how many cuts there are. Conversely, I now have eternal admiration for scenes comprised of as few cuts as possible (cf. "Children of Men").
Cuts are not a bad thing though. They are a part of the rhythm of the narrative and when a movie is edited properly they are a device that binds and moves things.
Dissecting a movies cuts is always fascinating though. One of the Film Studies 101 exercises is to story-board the gas station explosion in The Birds. I like doing cut analysis on animated films, because they have to be so deliberate. Films are edited in a winnowing approach, but animation (because of the cost per frame) is edited first, then filled in second.
When I was doing a lot of editing in school my approach was to use markers first to set a beat for the mood of the piece (sometimes relating to music, a presence track or even just a bpm/heartbeat), and edit to that.
> I now have eternal admiration for scenes comprised of as few cuts as possible
Andrey Tarkovsky's films are awesome that way. A part of brain will keep track of the length - perhaps the same way as a music aficionado keeps track of the the current note and the starting note of a melody (or the way jvm keeps track of a stack trace).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark just took that to the extreme and made the whole movie in one long shot. It is interesting to watch just for that effect. The content is only interesting if you care or are familiar with Russian history.
Just a +1 for Children of Men - I wasn't that taken by the story but the way it was put together was phenomenal with lots of beautifully choreographed long shots.
Comments
To every generation there is a film technique which defines it. There was the smokey grey/green from the Matrix films. Michael Mann had his desaturated shallow-DOF look. David Fincher uses silver-retention on his film development to extend the dynamic range while underexposing his shots (thats why interiors in Seven were so "dark" yet exposed).
Part of the device of cinema is extending the mise-en-scene outward and upward to the representational devices (projection, development and treatment).
Part of the study of film is tracing how the use of technique defines generations of film makers. Often, technology serves as an impetus for a style (i.e., Robert Altman and the use of multi-track audio on Nashville precipitated very "talky" films from the 70's/80's), or the developments in computer motion controlled rigs.
Or lets not forget: lens flares.
Color grading (ie, the orange/blue compliments in this article) are also defined by outward influences like magazine photography, trends in CGI, etc.
Anyhow, in a few years a new dominate "look" will pervade cinema and we'll all have something new to complain about.
Both this comment and your comment further down below are really illuminating to a film luddite like me. It's always interesting to hear the nitty-gritty details of someone else's trade. It always amazes me how much detail goes into things that at the end of the day, the end user is none-the-wiser.
Thanks for the informative posts.
Interestingly you might find that once you are aware of such details it is hard to go back and "just watch a movie".
You start noticing color gradients, lighting techniques, camera angles, and many other technical details, and spend mental effort categorizing and critiquing them instead of being immersed in the experience, like, perhaps, you were before.
As computer geeks notice bogus computer terminals in the movies, and it is somewhat irritating and frustrating "no, dammit, that is not what a mainframe terminal looks like!" film geeks do the same with movies.
After working a bit on a film in college, I started noticing cuts, and it started to drive me insane. It's one of those things that's largely inconsequential. I, as an audience member, am aware when a cut is made. But now, after doing a bit of editing, I notice just how many cuts there are. Conversely, I now have eternal admiration for scenes comprised of as few cuts as possible (cf. "Children of Men").
Cuts are not a bad thing though. They are a part of the rhythm of the narrative and when a movie is edited properly they are a device that binds and moves things.
Dissecting a movies cuts is always fascinating though. One of the Film Studies 101 exercises is to story-board the gas station explosion in The Birds. I like doing cut analysis on animated films, because they have to be so deliberate. Films are edited in a winnowing approach, but animation (because of the cost per frame) is edited first, then filled in second.
When I was doing a lot of editing in school my approach was to use markers first to set a beat for the mood of the piece (sometimes relating to music, a presence track or even just a bpm/heartbeat), and edit to that.
If you want to read about editing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_Effect
The original experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gLBXikghE0
A case study in editing: The Odessa Steps sequence from Battleship Potempkin - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v-kZzfec
The Birds gas station scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-HYj5cLfEI
> I now have eternal admiration for scenes comprised of as few cuts as possible
Andrey Tarkovsky's films are awesome that way. A part of brain will keep track of the length - perhaps the same way as a music aficionado keeps track of the the current note and the starting note of a melody (or the way jvm keeps track of a stack trace).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark just took that to the extreme and made the whole movie in one long shot. It is interesting to watch just for that effect. The content is only interesting if you care or are familiar with Russian history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0epB5Z6ijpk The Player, opening scene. Self referential of the fact that it's all one cut.
A dissection of the Copacabana shot from Goodfellas - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMKyNJvNV8
And one of the most brutal long-takes I've ever seen: the Death of Little Bill, Boogie Nights (NSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znwh41szei4
Was going to say "Old Boy". It has a several really wonderful long shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OzB-mop6AA
Just a +1 for Children of Men - I wasn't that taken by the story but the way it was put together was phenomenal with lots of beautifully choreographed long shots.
My wife is an animator (worked on South Park). We are the absolute worst people to see a film with.
Glad my years in film school amounted to something :)
In the Matrix films the greenish tint is used while 'inside' and blue-ish for the 'real world'
It's actually fun to use Kuler to do the palettes for the Matrix. They did the whole complimentary triad thing in spades with both looks.