The Gravity of Cinematography
cin·e·ma·tog·ra·phy (sĭn′ə-mə-tŏg′rə-fē)
n.
The art or technique of movie photography, including both the shooting and development of the film.
So... something happened today. I continued writing for my traditional "seasonal ranking" of films and when I started to write about Gravity, I sort of went on a rant about cinematography and it got... Pretty out of control.
Anyway, I thought I would give you kind people a preview of what's to come in my ranking by posting the initial rant I currently just drafted up.
-Enjoi
Alfonso Cuarón! where to begin? Well, the man is a visual entrepreneur, has a knack for beautiful cinematography and he loves threatening his characters while offering them mild comic relief in moments of pure peril. Hell, he alone changed up the Hogwarts game and is the sole reason the Harry Potter franchise ever saw life again after Richard Harris (Dumbledore #1) died and after Chris Columbus signed off on the franchise. The man is a visual genius and his Mexican roots influence his American films with such richness and unique quirkiness, they've even earned his latest lost in space flick a few Oscar noms, including Best Picture. So with all that said, I will begin by saying yes, Bad Grandpa is ahead of Gravity on my ranking.
As per usual, grab your torch and pitchforks, he's at it again!
Honestly folks, it's not that I think Bad Grandpa is a better movie (I'm opinionated, not blind) nor do I think some of the other films to follow on my list are better. I rank based on a mix between quality and affection. A film can be a sheer front runner for Best Picture and I can admit when it's flawless, but at the end of the day I have to be able to enjoy the film to an extent in order for its blend of quality and entertainment value to earn it a top slot (as unseen with 12 Years a Slave). Does this make me ignorant and rather one sided? Sure. But does it mean I can't enjoy depressing films? Hell no. I, like so many youthful college kids, love films like Requiem for a Dream. Sure it's cliche but the craft is just so good and portrayed in such a way that pain becomes a thing of pleasure and you can't ignore the sheer quality that keeps you coming back for more even if it's not easy to watch. Sure, that pleasure might be from more of an "artistic" value where a film like 12 Years a Slave is so real, raw and painful through the real life experiences, I love it for the same reasons I love Schindler's List... Just because it's superbly well made to every degree, doesn't mean I enjoy the final product with a smile on my face. The fact that it negatively resonates with me because it disturbs me means the film did its job damn well. WITH THAT SAID, is Gravity superbly well made? Fact. Does it amount to much more than visuals? False.
Let's examine visuals in film for second; what cinematography actually means vs. computer generated effects and why the future of film is changing due to the digital age of realism being blinded by perception. Yup! It's time to play our favorite game again folks!
Alright so right off the bat, let's call out our first and probably most important spade:
A computer is not a camera.
Without the computer, let me specify before this turns into a damned Freudian essay; without digital FX, we would have virtually no films today. And I'm not just talking about The Hobbit or Gravity here. I'm talking about even The Wolf of Wall Street using mind blowing effects that convince us that the rich pigs of Wall Street are living in ginormous estates on a secluded private beach when in all actuality, Brain Storm Digital removes normal suburban locale and replaces what normally is a local street surrounded by a small beach with a giant Miami-looking empire of rich property.
The beauty of film is its ability to pull a false sense of reality over the eyes of the world, convincing audiences that events are so realistically taking place in the context of a story that the goal is to make us forget that the whole thing is fake and up until the 80's or so, film used to do that strictly with camera tricks and old fashioned, hand made effects as opposed to present day computer generated effects making fiction seem so damn realistic that said effects are used even when they're not called for (not to mention it's hella cheaper). With that said, are you gonna have the fans who bitch because "it's fake" or "done with a computer"? Always. That notion will never go away but the reality is, CGI makes the world of film not only easier to achieve visuals we only dreamed of (it's outrageously overrated but just look at Avatar) but it saves time and money and unfortunately those two elements are drastically severe when it comes to filmmaking. Look, I'll take puppets over computerized creatures any day of the week but if a filmmaker is saving X amount of millions of dollars and weeks (often months) of preparation to use a physical element to create fantasy, I'm gonna go with the CGI, especially when CGI can be so wildly frighteningly realistic (District 9 folks!!!).
"So what on God's green earth does any of this have to do with Gravity!?" You may shout in exclamation. Well, let's take a look at some recent predecessors that have paved a predictable road proving that Gravity will undoubtedly take home Best Cinematography next month, shall we?
Let's examine Avatar, Hugo and more notably last year's Life of Pi. These films, more so Avatar and Pi are notably comparable because both films used about 90% CGI to make audiences believe what they were watching was a textbook definition of cinematography when in reality, the talent there isn't the man behind the camera but the man behind the computer. Now, here's what splits the debate between filmmakers. While new artists of a digital age favor faked landscapes, oceans and in this case, the stars because it's so damn realistic looking, there will be old school style film nerds who favor literal textbook cinematography; the kind done with a camera, a 1K and a light meter who will cry slander against Pi without seeing the final product because "that's just not cinematography" and you know what? They're... Really not wrong. Is it worth getting one's panties in a bunch? Hell no. Do you really think they'd have been able to pull off Gravity with just a camera? Don't be dumb now. And that's my point folks. We have to accept that we live in an age where film is literally going digital and I don't just mean the cameras... The problem at hand is, what is cinematography? The definition has changed so drastically that we can lump a movie like Avatar in the same visual category as Inglourious Basterds (and Avatar wins! WHY!?). It's a f**king outrage that Basterds is crafted with such astute camera work and lighting while Cameron, while breaking the mold, sat behind his team of editors as they made a cardboard Sam Worthington (his acting just sucks, I'm sorry kids) look like a still mediocre performer even when he's enhanced to look like a damned blue alien!
MY POINT IS... All this computer mumbo jumbo requires exceptional talent and skill that you nor I possess and it should be rightfully recognized, don't get me wrong... But perhaps the academy should invent a new category altogether that recognizes "cinematography" that's, gee I dunno, 90% computer generated and maybe we should categorize it as something else.
My God I haven't even gotten to the actual film yet... Screw it, I've strayed too far away from the subject to go in depth so let me give you the lazy recap, bullet point style (sorry guys)...
I'm not kidding.
As per usual, grab your torch and pitchforks, he's at it again!
Honestly folks, it's not that I think Bad Grandpa is a better movie (I'm opinionated, not blind) nor do I think some of the other films to follow on my list are better. I rank based on a mix between quality and affection. A film can be a sheer front runner for Best Picture and I can admit when it's flawless, but at the end of the day I have to be able to enjoy the film to an extent in order for its blend of quality and entertainment value to earn it a top slot (as unseen with 12 Years a Slave). Does this make me ignorant and rather one sided? Sure. But does it mean I can't enjoy depressing films? Hell no. I, like so many youthful college kids, love films like Requiem for a Dream. Sure it's cliche but the craft is just so good and portrayed in such a way that pain becomes a thing of pleasure and you can't ignore the sheer quality that keeps you coming back for more even if it's not easy to watch. Sure, that pleasure might be from more of an "artistic" value where a film like 12 Years a Slave is so real, raw and painful through the real life experiences, I love it for the same reasons I love Schindler's List... Just because it's superbly well made to every degree, doesn't mean I enjoy the final product with a smile on my face. The fact that it negatively resonates with me because it disturbs me means the film did its job damn well. WITH THAT SAID, is Gravity superbly well made? Fact. Does it amount to much more than visuals? False.
"We got the shot we need! Moving on!"
Let's examine visuals in film for second; what cinematography actually means vs. computer generated effects and why the future of film is changing due to the digital age of realism being blinded by perception. Yup! It's time to play our favorite game again folks!
(crowd shouting sans Wheel of Fortune) "Let's-call-a spade-a spade!"
Alright so right off the bat, let's call out our first and probably most important spade:
A computer is not a camera.
Without the computer, let me specify before this turns into a damned Freudian essay; without digital FX, we would have virtually no films today. And I'm not just talking about The Hobbit or Gravity here. I'm talking about even The Wolf of Wall Street using mind blowing effects that convince us that the rich pigs of Wall Street are living in ginormous estates on a secluded private beach when in all actuality, Brain Storm Digital removes normal suburban locale and replaces what normally is a local street surrounded by a small beach with a giant Miami-looking empire of rich property.
The beauty of film is its ability to pull a false sense of reality over the eyes of the world, convincing audiences that events are so realistically taking place in the context of a story that the goal is to make us forget that the whole thing is fake and up until the 80's or so, film used to do that strictly with camera tricks and old fashioned, hand made effects as opposed to present day computer generated effects making fiction seem so damn realistic that said effects are used even when they're not called for (not to mention it's hella cheaper). With that said, are you gonna have the fans who bitch because "it's fake" or "done with a computer"? Always. That notion will never go away but the reality is, CGI makes the world of film not only easier to achieve visuals we only dreamed of (it's outrageously overrated but just look at Avatar) but it saves time and money and unfortunately those two elements are drastically severe when it comes to filmmaking. Look, I'll take puppets over computerized creatures any day of the week but if a filmmaker is saving X amount of millions of dollars and weeks (often months) of preparation to use a physical element to create fantasy, I'm gonna go with the CGI, especially when CGI can be so wildly frighteningly realistic (District 9 folks!!!).
R.I.P.
"So what on God's green earth does any of this have to do with Gravity!?" You may shout in exclamation. Well, let's take a look at some recent predecessors that have paved a predictable road proving that Gravity will undoubtedly take home Best Cinematography next month, shall we?
Let's examine Avatar, Hugo and more notably last year's Life of Pi. These films, more so Avatar and Pi are notably comparable because both films used about 90% CGI to make audiences believe what they were watching was a textbook definition of cinematography when in reality, the talent there isn't the man behind the camera but the man behind the computer. Now, here's what splits the debate between filmmakers. While new artists of a digital age favor faked landscapes, oceans and in this case, the stars because it's so damn realistic looking, there will be old school style film nerds who favor literal textbook cinematography; the kind done with a camera, a 1K and a light meter who will cry slander against Pi without seeing the final product because "that's just not cinematography" and you know what? They're... Really not wrong. Is it worth getting one's panties in a bunch? Hell no. Do you really think they'd have been able to pull off Gravity with just a camera? Don't be dumb now. And that's my point folks. We have to accept that we live in an age where film is literally going digital and I don't just mean the cameras... The problem at hand is, what is cinematography? The definition has changed so drastically that we can lump a movie like Avatar in the same visual category as Inglourious Basterds (and Avatar wins! WHY!?). It's a f**king outrage that Basterds is crafted with such astute camera work and lighting while Cameron, while breaking the mold, sat behind his team of editors as they made a cardboard Sam Worthington (his acting just sucks, I'm sorry kids) look like a still mediocre performer even when he's enhanced to look like a damned blue alien!
OSCAR FACE!!!
MY POINT IS... All this computer mumbo jumbo requires exceptional talent and skill that you nor I possess and it should be rightfully recognized, don't get me wrong... But perhaps the academy should invent a new category altogether that recognizes "cinematography" that's, gee I dunno, 90% computer generated and maybe we should categorize it as something else.
My God I haven't even gotten to the actual film yet... Screw it, I've strayed too far away from the subject to go in depth so let me give you the lazy recap, bullet point style (sorry guys)...
- Sandra Bullock is great but at the end of the day she's still Sandra Bullock.
- The film is worth it for the visuals alone. Seriously. I've never with another film felt more like I was actually in space. It's actually mind blowing and worth the full admission.
- Clooney's role is not big at all.
- Make no mistake, the film really is Cast Away in space (but with a disappointing lack of Tom Hanks... and Wilson).
And the Oscar goes to...
That is all for now. May the Lord be with you.
