3 ms·

A beautifully shot movie, in the era when Hollywood had perfected its film craft just before digital post production techniques started ruining it (because toda

by pavlov 4y ago

A beautifully shot movie, in the era when Hollywood had perfected its film craft just before digital post production techniques started ruining it (because today it’s far too easy to do a sloppy shoot and say “we’ll fix it in post.”) Gattaca’s cinematographer Slawomir Idziak worked with famous director Krzystof Kieslowski and shot some of his most striking films.

kranke155 4y ago
You’re cherry picking. If you look at the average film shot in the 70s, they were terribly lit and shot. The same thing happened then - we started having widely available cheap color film stock, and the result was a flood of poorly lit and framed films. Lots of those people got way better tho. Hopefully the same will happen now.
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  No one said every film was perfect. But that this was an example of a very well done, non-digital film
- pavlov 4y ago
  I’m not talking about the 1970s. Gattaca was made in 1997 and was a major production with a famous foreign cinematographer at the helm.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    I was responding to your sentiment about how digital ruined Hollywood or whatever. It really didn’t. It just made it easier to produce things. That’s happened a few times before in film history, and the result was always an explosion in poorly lit, poorly shot films, and then slowly a filtering out that results in the next decade or two when the good people who started then become masters. You have this in the 1960s when the French New Wave starts using the recently invented 16mm and portable film cameras to make their films, and they make a bunch of movies which don’t look that good (for my money ‘Breathless’ has some terribly lit shots). The same thing happens in the 1970s when cheap color film stock arrives and you have an explosion of films in general, giving birth to exploitation and drive in films, many of which are again, terribly lit and sometimes poorly shot (‘Rolling Thunder’, a lot of Sam Peckinpah) The digital revolution didn’t “ruin things” it just made it easier. And whenever that happens you often get a glut of poorly made films, and then the best people who work on those films get better, and then the films they make in the next decade or two are astonishing and amazing. Just saying this isn’t new. It’s a phase.
rowanG077 4y ago
I don't see the problem with fixing shots in post. It's simply the best way to obtain high quality shots.
js2 4y ago
> Gattaca’s cinematographer Slawomir Idziak worked with famous director Krzystof Kieslowski and shot some of his most striking films. Oh wow that’s so obvious now thinking about Gattaca and say The Double Life of Veronique. Thank you for that tidbit.
eternalban 4y ago
DPs don't get the attention they deserve by the public at large.

by pavlov 4y ago

kranke155 4y ago

You’re cherry picking. If you look at the average film shot in the 70s, they were terribly lit and shot. The same thing happened then - we started having widely available cheap color film stock, and the result was a flood of poorly lit and framed films. Lots of those people got way better tho. Hopefully the same will happen now.

GenerocUsername 4y ago
No one said every film was perfect. But that this was an example of a very well done, non-digital film
pavlov 4y ago
I’m not talking about the 1970s. Gattaca was made in 1997 and was a major production with a famous foreign cinematographer at the helm.
- kranke155 4y ago
  I was responding to your sentiment about how digital ruined Hollywood or whatever. It really didn’t. It just made it easier to produce things. That’s happened a few times before in film history, and the result was always an explosion in poorly lit, poorly shot films, and then slowly a filtering out that results in the next decade or two when the good people who started then become masters. You have this in the 1960s when the French New Wave starts using the recently invented 16mm and portable film cameras to make their films, and they make a bunch of movies which don’t look that good (for my money ‘Breathless’ has some terribly lit shots). The same thing happens in the 1970s when cheap color film stock arrives and you have an explosion of films in general, giving birth to exploitation and drive in films, many of which are again, terribly lit and sometimes poorly shot (‘Rolling Thunder’, a lot of Sam Peckinpah) The digital revolution didn’t “ruin things” it just made it easier. And whenever that happens you often get a glut of poorly made films, and then the best people who work on those films get better, and then the films they make in the next decade or two are astonishing and amazing. Just saying this isn’t new. It’s a phase.

rowanG077 4y ago

I don't see the problem with fixing shots in post. It's simply the best way to obtain high quality shots.

js2 4y ago

> Gattaca’s cinematographer Slawomir Idziak worked with famous director Krzystof Kieslowski and shot some of his most striking films. Oh wow that’s so obvious now thinking about Gattaca and say The Double Life of Veronique. Thank you for that tidbit.

eternalban 4y ago

DPs don't get the attention they deserve by the public at large.