Even among so called cineastes DPs are often at best an afterthought when discussing a given film.
A good DP, good casting and a good script can help make even a mediocre director to a masterpiece.
Do you really think so.?
To "the masses" ,which is most people i suppose, i guess they are pretty unknown. But among followers of cinema i would think the DP is very well appreciated.?
I am just a "casual" fan of movies............Gregg Toland and Haskell Wexler are a couple of my faves.
With regard to Kubrick (U.S. 1928-1999), a digression on the subject: when the director also has a career as a photographer..
View attachment 295497
View attachment 295498 View attachment 295499 View attachment 295500
Kubrick not only started as a still photographer, but he also kept his own collection of cinema lenses. He said he couldn't understand why other directors did not do that.
I thought someone revived this thread to talk about Joel Coen's recent work to showcase the photography of Lee Friedlander, reported last week in the New York Times, "Filmmaker Joel Coen Puts His Spin on the Photos of Lee Friedlander," May 1, 2023 (paywall). The article talks about how Coen and Friedlander's dealer, Jeffrey Fraenkel, worked to storyboard Friedlander's photographs into a narrative of sorts.
In the article, Coen touches on how "a still photographer and a filmmaker have very different aims." Coen explained: "I take photos with my iPhone like everybody else, but I was looking at a visual form that I have no connection to. The primary thing in cinematography is a narrative, and everything else is secondary. Often the director of photography will set up a shot that is so beautiful but so deficient from a narrative point of view. And the shot is scrapped."
I thought someone revived this thread to talk about Joel Coen's recent work to showcase the photography of Lee Friedlander, reported last week in the New York Times, "Filmmaker Joel Coen Puts His Spin on the Photos of Lee Friedlander," May 1, 2023 (paywall). The article talks about how Coen and Friedlander's dealer, Jeffrey Fraenkel, worked to storyboard Friedlander's photographs into a narrative of sorts.
In the article, Coen touches on how "a still photographer and a filmmaker have very different aims." Coen explained: "I take photos with my iPhone like everybody else, but I was looking at a visual form that I have no connection to. The primary thing in cinematography is a narrative, and everything else is secondary. Often the director of photography will set up a shot that is so beautiful but so deficient from a narrative point of view. And the shot is scrapped."
I agree with Coen. I have heard some people gush about how every frame in the films of a master director was a masterpiece of a still photo. While there are similar aesthetics between cinema and still photography, one can go overboard on the notion that the goal of a filmmaker is to have every frame a great still picture or that that is the quintessential measure of a great director or a DP. Ultimately they are different media with different goals. For example, whenever there is something moving in a scene, the movement will capture the viewers' attention. They will be far less able to discern the details of the overall scene than with a still photo. When directors have long shots of static subjects, it is more similar to still photography, but you don't usually see a movie that has only those kinds of shots. When there is motion, it is of utmost importance to have the motion work well, and other aspects of the scene may be less important than with still photography.
If you want great unfamiliar-to-Americans black and white, look at Bela Tarr or Akio Jissoji or really any of the Czech avante-garde e.g. Closely-Watched Trains.
If you want great unfamiliar-to-Americans black and white, look at Bela Tarr or Akio Jissoji or really any of the Czech avante-garde e.g. Closely-Watched Trains.
Not an "Old Master" but Edward Hopper's influence on movies has been huge. See the real deal while you can....
If you want to see the very best compositions in cinematography and visual poetry, just watch any film by Andrei Tarkovsky. Stalker is my favourite.
Watched the documentary The Truffle Hunters recently. Has some of the most beautiful cinematography I've seen in a long time.
Wasn’t sure that it was strictly documentary, however?
I watched some of John Wayne's old movies. He was quite a good horseman in reality.
One way Boogie Woogie (James Benning, 1977). This clip include his latter version: One way Boggie Woogie (27 years later). BTW, certainly you can see how Benning is influenced by Lewis Baltz probably...
Glad you mentioned Lewis Baltz. One of my favorites.
When I was younger (around 2003) I thought that watching movies is an activity that you have to finish it ALWAYS in just one journey. Then I found Stalker. It took me 3 years to finish it. Don´t ask me why, I just simply wasn't able to continue watching this movie in that age. This experience taught me that sometimes I need to respect my body's own times. Since then, some movies can take me months or years to finish them, like any challenging book.
I really like Andrei Rublev and Solaris has some interesting points, but Stalker... I started 2-3 times and only gather enough temper to finish it once and then regret doing it. A collection of tedious sequence shots and boring philosophical monologes that completely dilute any possible plot or underlying theme will be my summary. Never again!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?