I had mixed feelings about this movie, just one thing that bothered me in particular. I wish they would have put the names of each person being interviewed next to them throughout the whole film, rather than just them telling the audience their name at the beginning. For me, it was very hard to keep track of who was who when it would cut from them later. Aside from that, I thought the movie was very useful in discussing cinematography as an art and giving me a greater appreciation of the trade.
I really liked how each different artist was lit in a unique way. It made me wonder if they chose to light each artist based on their own personal style of lighting. I thought that would have been a cool concept. I really liked the guy that compared lighting to jazz music. You learn everything you can about the art, but everyday it changes and things can change rapidly. I thought that was a very cool comparison to make. I also didn't realize the importance of DP's in the production of commercials, being able to grab an audience in such short periods of time. I liked the idea of "happy accidents", that even pro's can stumble upon the unexpected and make them work to their advantage. Also how every person can have the same technology available to them but the images must come from them. They are able to create different images and tones with the same types of technology. I really liked the guy who worked with the Coen brothers and the guy who did Gangs of New York that was inspired by Rembrandt. Overall I enjoyed the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment