Potential Inspiration

[fuzzynormal]

Not sure who'll care about this one, but I just noticed that "IDA" is now free for viewers that have Amazon Prime.

 

IMHO, just about every shot is perfect.  For me, the film was cinematography on a whole 'nother level.

 

And whattaya know?  There isn't any anamorphic, color grading, stabilization, etc.

 

So many of the things that aspirational shooters like myself tend to worry about just aren't part of the visual narrative in this film.  Yet, for me, it works.

 

So, you know, kind of informative about what can really matter when telling a motion picture story.

[Axel]

Are you talking about the polish film?

 

Then let me say, there is imo a lot of stylish hokum going on. There is no color grading, for sure, but there is an awful lot of grading. B&W today is the most style-oriented decision, it has more influence on look&feel of the film than any of the other parameters. The decision against scope is a stylistic one. There is very little sDoF-gimmickery. But then, on the other hand, absolute DoF was the style of the ancient. As you may have heard, Orson Welles used red filters to deepen the field for Citizen Kane. 

 

But the film is great, that's right. Since you don't seem to be abhorred by european films, have a look at La Grande Bellezza (watch with subtitles!). The opposite of IDA, it uses every trick ('truco') available so far, but nothing muddies it's message. 

[fuzzynormal]

Yeah, that's the film.  I liked it a lot.  Personally, I found myself mesmerized at how many times their static shots would just unfold gracefully, subjects moving in and out of frame, or staying still inside it, while always informing the storytelling.

 

there is imo a lot of stylish hokum going on.

 

If it was just style for style sake, like a ridiculous superficial movie such as Suckerpunch, I'd say it was 'hokum' too, but it's not.  The B&W is very purposeful.  It forces the viewer's perception of the story, I think.

 

What I find cool about it all is that it's not too hard to understand technically HOW they do all the shots they do.  Quite easy really.  However, for someone like me, it would be near impossible to recreate their effective storytelling cinema.  There's the rub. 

 

Even though it's considered minimalist by contemporary cinema style, it's artistically impressive --and if there's one thing I've discovered while trying to be a good craftsman in motion picture creation, simplicity and poignant is incredibly difficult to do well.

 

The film is just a good illustration to me of how tech-centric blogs like this one (which I like a lot) focus their energy in askew direction.  If you want to be a good film maker it's not about buying a great camera and owning the coolest new imaging toys, it's knowing how to be a great storyteller; art built upon superior craftsmanship.  The gear matters, but it's not as important as beginners and neophytes seem to think it is.

 

Owning the best paint brush in the world doesn't make one a good painter.

 

Those that understand this early-on have a better shot at being successful than those (like me!) that did not.

 

On the other hand, and this is me projecting my own foibles, I tend to think that for many people just playing the game of "awesome camera" ownership is their ultimate goal, whether they admit it or not... 

[Axel]

'Hokum' was a too strong word, I realize. English is not my native language. You wrote 'minimalism'. That's a proper name.

 

What is color grading else but minimizing distracting tones? As we can see here, B&W can have way more nuances than the Matrix's O&T (orange-teal), which is an even more 

arbitrary style.

[Francisco Rios]

"For me, the film was cinematography on a whole 'nother level."

 

For me either. Fantastic Movie.