In terms of composition and visuals, who's the most talented director of all time?
>>48591505
Why the fuck are you asking us? Does it fucking look like we talk about movies in this board?
ingmar bergman
John Ford
As far as living directors goes I'd have to give it to Fincher. His visuals might not be the most exciting or experimental, but god damn does the man know how to frame/block a shot, build a scene and light it like a fucking champ. He makes his productions with a machinelike competency and clarity that's unmatched by other directors. It's kind of a boring choice but I think he's underrated as a visual director.
James Cameron
You're a hater if you disagree
Kubrick or Tarkovsky
>>48591505
Tarkovksy. Dreyer if you like to see how spartan can be one motherfucker genius while still being impressive as fuck.
>>48591699
You are not real abatap
>>48591693
All of the most hauntingly beautiful things I've seen in cinema have been in Fincher movies. Watching his last four films muted is still an emotionally fulfilling experience.
He's unparalleled.
Terrence Malick
>>48591751
>>48591814
You cannot hide your shame
>>48591814
I'm not being "that guy" I swear but have you checked out older stuff like Tarkovsky? If you want to talk about a film being perfect even with no sound look no further than Stalker
>>48591825
>eleven minute closeup of wet leaves with some actors voice rambling about black holes
>>48591884
>hasn't seen Days of Heaven
It's his only really great film too. Everything else is just sorta good, but every frame in DoH is a painting.
Some parts of Thin Red Line are like that too
>>48591884
>This great evil, where's it come from? How'd it steal into the world? What seed, what root did it grow from? Who's doing this? Who's killing us, robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might've known? Does our ruin benefit the earth, does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night?
>>48591950
I can't remind that film without crying. Seriously.
Kurosawa
every frame is a perfect composition
>>48591950
is that the final line in the movie? Haven't seen it in a while.
One thing that really stood out for me though is this shot where it's a small group of soldiers running up a hill, and as they're running up you can see the sun break out of the clouds and the golden lights starts behind them and reaches the soldiers right as they reach the top.
How do you even get a shot like that? It obviously wasn't planned, Malick just sold his soul to the devil...
>>48592021
you're telling me
Nolan
>>48592021
>eleventy-hundred lighting rigs making every shot appear to be taking place next to a nuclear blast
>six inches of makeup on everyone's face
>good characters are nice, bad are mean, women are fragile elves, every movie has some retard acting like a homosexual monkey for "comedic relief"
>>48591505
Not thinking of my nigga Sergei
>>48592046
Malick has the cameraman running a lotta the time. Christian Bale talked about how they'd shoot even when he wasn't in the scene during New World. Terrence has an eye for natural beauty.
Also that wasn't the final line. I feel a lot of the narration helps set the tone and get across the points in his movies.
>>48592118
Fuck you and all your family, included the dead ones.
>>48592118
Can you elaborate on the criticisms that were obviously someone else's.
>>48592125
Based Sergei is my nigga.
Probably Wes Anderson.
>>48592118
It took a Jap to make me appreciate Shakespeare.
Paul Thomas Anderson
OP I hope you mean Director of Photography?
>>48592118
Eh those are almost fair points, but it seems like you've only seen Ran or Yojimbo and not his more nuanced films like Rashomon or High and Low (ESPECIALLY High and Low).
A lot of what you're saying (barring the lighting complaint which is straight wrong. There's some shots like that, sure, you must have had your eyes closed for most of the movie) is really a fault of the samurai genre.
Directors get too much credit. It's like saying Michael Bay is great at making CGI. Give the cinematographers some credit.
>>48592183
Though it's good to talk about one of the masters of cinema, composition and long takes, that rival ophuls and Kubrick.
MIZOGUCHI
>>48592183
>3rd image down from the top right
I'll say it: That might be the most effective frame in all of cinema. Two armies suddenly stop to see their emperor emerge from a burning building like a ghost, stumbling down the stairs.
Straight up perfect.
>>48592236
The aesthetic choices should be made by the director.
The DoP will help him get the look he is desiring.
>>48592236
The directors that are mentioned here are probably only make up 5% of directors actually involved in the cinematography of film.
Kubrick, Sodebergh, and others are their own cinematographers.
>>48592236
I give credit to Cinematographers sometimes. But we're talking about directors who put their visual mark on the film. Some of them [Kubrick] are pretty much their own cinematographers, they just use the real ones as assistants.
>>48592236
Usually (obviously generalizing here) the director will figure out how to block a scene, think of the angles, and describe the "look" he wants the shot to have. The DP then lights it and uses filters and all that complex shit to achieve the look.
Sometimes it's more of the director (look at Wes Anderson for example), whereas sometimes it's almost all the DP and the director just provides notes to the actors.
>>48592273
>MFW
Ridley
>>48592327
Over rated I think. He's still good, obviously, but no where NEAR the GOAT.
>>48592336
Ridley I would say has the most generic looking films.
>>48592241
I still haven't seen Ugetsu, what's it aboot?
It's a movie-by-movie basis on how involved a director is with the DOP and cinematography
>>48592327
It's true. That is what should happen. I imagine that's why a lot of young directors would be intimidated to work with someone like Deakins or Hall. They wouldn't be able to speak up or enforce their desires and would just go along with whatever the DoP says. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other to look good.
>>48592370
You kidding me? Blade Runner, Alien? "Generic"?
Generic is something like a Judd Apatow movie in that is has absolutely no style at all
>>48592301
Kubrick still used cinematographers. The he seemingly more used them as lackeys to do what he said rather than take any suggestions or advice from.
>>48592349
Who's your GOAT dp? I love Storaro
>>48592401
Ye
But a great director directs everything to his will
>>48592377
God damnit now I have to watch Kill Bill again
what a fun fucking movie. I don't even care that it stole most of the story beats, it's just fucking cool
>>48592377
Doesn't matter go see it.
>>48592401
The problem I have with most cinemtography today, especially coming from film schools is that this shot looks cool. The better question is why do i show this shot at this angle in this scene.
It's the kind of cinematography practiced by the greats like Kubrick, Ophuls, Fincher, Coens, Laughton, Kurosawa, and Edward Yang.
I don't like long takes done because they can do them for a long time, probably why I don't like Children of Men or Gravity.
Though I'm open to see Birdman.
>>48592462
How much of the color scheme work for ILD was done in post production?
>>48592473
That is what the Tarantino do
>well made
>engaging dialogue
>fun
>creative shots
He's neither great nor terrible, but I enjoy his films, juvenile though they are, they are very entertaining.
>>48592462
Probably Willis. I'm not too familiar with any Non-American DP though, so that might be why. All of his movies have a distinctive look that is just captivating
>>48592440
Well remember though, Kubrick had to use cinematographers by law of unions. He tried to be his own Cine on The Killing, but it was required that he hire a cinematographer.
The people he'd usually use were weak willed and eventually he'd hire their AC and start the process over again on the next.
Look it all up on John Baxters book on Kubrick.
>>48592523
>Anonymous 09/11/14(Thu)17:43:17 No.48592349 ?>>485
all of it, they used DIT like with O Brother. Their inspiration of the look was by album covers like Dylan's Free wheelin.
>>48592588
There's a story I've heard about how Kubrick would challenge every single crew member he worked with to a game of Chess when he first met them, to show who was "intellectually superior".
He won every time.
>>48592619
Well anyone that would play chess, some crew members, but people like George C. Scott he'd play him in chess and win.
Essentially tricking him in the same way to give that over the top performance.
There's a story about Ken Adam, his set designer, was so stressed out by Kubrick that someone observed him trying to light a biscuit that was in his mouth.
>>48592554
Nice pick though. If I had a better Godfather rip I might make a grid.
I love Ozu's composition, especially since there isn't much camera movement.
I'd have to go with Tarkovsky though. Everything he has done is stunning.
>>48592834
Stalker is especially smart with it's composition and movement.
>>48592834
I think a static shot is much much easier to compose than a moving one though.
>>48592889
It's not though, the thing about static shots you need to be aware of what is in the frame and what is not in the frame.
>>48591505
>>48591672
ford admitted that leone was better than him
>>48592973
source?
>>48592183
this movie was so beautiful
>>48591950
I'm fucking angry. I tried to watch my dvd copy of TTRL the other day and that shit wouldn't play past the first five minutes.
And I'll be goddamned if I download that shit.
>>48592942
I disagree.
>>48592973
[citation needed]
I've posted this in threads about paintings before and didn't get called out on it.
>>48593050
Why do you disagree, can you elaborate?
>>48593022
>>48593050
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlLa5Jz33pM
i can't remember where abouts but it's in here somewhere
one of the interviewed mentions it because leone loved ford so much. Apparently Ford wrote him a letter saying he surpassed him
>>48593076
It says so much without saying anything. Like with a painting the characters can't escape their surroundings.
>>48592140
hnnnnnnng this film is so beautiful
>>48593027
Not really
>>48592618
Anyone got any ungraded footage or shots from ILD?
>>48592370
don't be a nigger
visually he's one of the best
>>48593076
Well he was trying to recreate the whole "classical paintings' look
>>48593101
I feel that shots that are moving are much harder to have good composition in, as you are dealing with a much larger area. When you take a static shot, you aren't dealing with much more outside of the shot. What you are looking at for instance could be just a set made of two walls and some furniture. In long shots, not only do you have to ensure a larger area is lit and arranged correctly, but also that the camera is able to keep everything in frame and in the correct spots on the shot.
>>48592686
George C. Scott lost to him. That's why George C. Scott would listen to him afterwards.
>>48593185
I can't really picture anything from his films that I remember individual frames or scenes like with Kubrick, Kurosawa, Ophuls, and Pabst.
It's just one anon's opinion.
>>48593076
This is a painting though isn't it? Or is it from Barry lyndon ?
>>48592834
>the camera is so low that you can see the floor
i love this fucking japs
>>48593223
I can agree to that, but if you replicated Ozu's style into another film, do you think it would be just as effective?
>>48593270
that's Ozu's style, the camera was never more than 1 or 2 ft from the floor.
>>48591920
Days of Heaven was great, but I don't like the treatment of animals in that film.
>>48593257
>This is a painting though isn't it?
I demand satisfaction.
>>48593275
I wouldn't know. I believe if the story, character and tones were also similar, yes it would be effective. But just having the shot alone without those things makes a pretty empty movie.I haven't actually seen Ozu movies.
>>48593304
It was trying to be realistic to the time period. Animal activists have only been effective fairly recently. Days of Heaven is during the depression.
When it comes to shooting scenes at night, Michael Mann is great
>>48593363
Watching Tree of Life was like paying for a 2 and a half hour cinematography reel. Baraka and the rest are better films.
>>48593367
He can do some day shots pretty well too. But goddamn he needs to work on pacing.
>>48593414
and writing.
>>48593363
>I haven't actually seen Ozu movies
>>48593363
That's not an excuse. You can be realistic and faithful to a period without actually recreating actions that are frowned upon nowdays.
Actually I feel conflicted about many great films for this reason.
>>48593476
Kubrick never hurt animals, except a horse offscreen in the Killing.
>>48593399
Tree of Life only works for certain people. If it doesn't resonate emotionally, all you get is a really good looking movie, but some people get really moved by it. I wasn't one of them but can appreciate the craft. I intend to see Baraka at some point soon. I really enjoyed Samsara and would like to see more "exhibition" documentaries over narrative ones.
>>48593446
Maybe he should just hire a screenwriter.
>>48593452
Nigga I'm working my way through Welles, Hitchcock and Fellini, I'll get to your Jap soon enough.
>>48591872
>>48592377
le pretty colours
>>48593476
If it adds to the tone of the scene I don't much mind it. If it's just to show cruelty, maybe it starts to bother me. But the cattle that died in Come and See and Apocalypse Now (which was actually done for a ceremony by the extras) really really added to the tone and voodoo of the scene.
>>48593490
Tell that to Mann not me, Public Enemies had probably one of the worst cinematography I had seen in a while.
>>48592973
>>48593022
>>48593050
here you go
>>48593562
I blame that almost entirely on the low shutter speed. It gave it a really weird look when things started to move. Didn't help that it was a really boring gangster flick.
>>48593584
I can't go on words, need the actual writing.
>>48593562
that's fucking bullshit and you know it
>muh i need 24fps to feel cinematic
fuck off and go die
public enemies looked amazing
>>48593595
And the worse use of digital video, when I saw that on the screen I went fucking bananas.
>>48593623
What's bullshit about it? He remade Heat again and then decided to shot a student film and show it in theaters.
>>48593600
well I don't personally own the book... maybe just trust this guy? why would he lie?
there's a bit where they talk about kubrick later and he never says kubrick wanked all over him
in fact he says kubrick phoned him up asking how he did the music for the rising shot of the town reveal in OUATIW so perfectly synched to the music which you can look up and see referenced in different places/ways online
>>48593646
They actually filmed one of the courthouse scenes in my home town, got to meet Depp and the crew, get autographs etc. I didn't go and basically said "I will see him in the movie". So my little brother held that over my head for quite some time. Then I saw the film for the first time this summer and man was I not at all regretting not bothering with it for so long. Within the first few minutes I knew I wasn't going to enjoy it.
>>48593623
It was the shutter speed, not the framerate that was disgusting.
>>48593721
I remember a quote from Kubrick asking him why Ennio Morricone songs sounded better when played with Leone's films
Right now? Malick
Too bad he cant write a damn script
>>48593702
>remade Heat
fuck off? like they're comparable sure, but not that similar
the visual aesthetic is probably better than heat anyway
also it's literally the best 30s gangster film
bonnie and clyde's a close second
>>48593767
What was special about the shutter speed?
>>48593805
>tfw this pleb doesn't live his life in the way of grace
shiggy diggy
>>48593819
Are you kidding me? Have you not seen Public Enemy? The Roaring Twenties? Angels with Dirty Faces? Any Cagney film?
Watch those and tell me again if Public Enemies is the best 30's gangster film
Micheal Bay
>hire great DP
>director gets all the credit as a visual genius
>>48593805
I disagree with that statement.
>>48593833
They had lowered it a great deal below and it caused even more blur than what is traditional in most movies. I personally hated it as much as the 48fps Hobbit. Looks good if things are standing still or moving slowly, but as soon as stuff starts going fast, it just turns to shit.
>>48593926
>tfw in film school and I still don't understand shutter speed
explain pls
>>48593833
>>48593926
Well he CAN write a script, it's just always ends up disappointing. I just wish he had someone really good to help him out.
>>48593861
i don't watch films from before the 40s on a frequent basisinb4 pleb
the pacing tends to be terrible, along with the photography and acting
plus censorship laws make any violence comical and all relationships stupidly unrealistic
>>48593805
do you reckon malick would be a good DP?
>>48593964
The shutter speed is the amount of time the film/sensor is exposed. A higher shutter speed means a much clearer image with less motion blur. A lower speed has the opposite effect.
>>48593964
Shutter speed is the speed at which the shutter is open for when rolling the camera. The longer the shutter speed, the more light enters and exposes the film. Long shutter speed, brighter film, shorter speed, darker. Like the previous poster said with blur, the faster the shutter speed, the more blur there is when you move the camera. Essentially you will be getting alot more distortion.
>>48594008
Absolutely, I consider him more of a visual artistic genius than a filmmaker
>>48594008
Did you just say all that? I don't know what else to say except that you should grow up a little. I'm not saying you are immature, but your making odious statements backed by subjective views that are clearly not grounded in fact.
>>48593805
Badlands was actually a well written film. I have no idea why his writing fell off so hard after that.
>>48594051
>>48594047
ok so why would a director fuck around with shutter speed? seems like the standard 48 should be good?
>>48594114
Living in france reading poetry does that to you.
>>48591825
This.
I fucking hate his movies tho.
>imagine Malicks' filmmaking with a good script
JESUS
>>48594129
Like what >>48594047 said there is alot of blur, especially when it moves.
Plus it strains your eyes trying to watch 48fps, you loose alot of the detail and info that the films is trying to communicate as your eyes start to bleed from "realism"
You have Douglas Trumball saying he's making a 120fps film, it's another tool, but it shouldnt be the standard.
>>48594114
The creative well ran dry
>>48594134
>Tfw that will always be one of life's greatest "what if's"
>>48594008
Try Orson Welles' movies. I find they have a very modern pacing, great visuals and editing.
But it really is different from film to film.
>>48594129
Sometimes style is more important than clarity. Say your character is just bashed in the head and concussed to the point where he is dizzy and losing consciousness. I would imagine having a low shutter speed would give the image a druggy, blurry quality similar to how one experiences things just before passing out. Otherwise yeah, higher shutter speed is preferable for me.
Regarding framerate, if you pack too much moving images into the shot then I say no, if it's going to be played at close to "normal speed" at a higher framerate, then it can be very disorienting and uncomfortable. But if the high-framerate capture is reduced to slow motion, not only do you get that clarity of image, but it is going slow enough that you aren't overwhelmed.
>Static/Low movement shots in HFR
Good
>Fast moving/wide shots in HFR
Bad
>>48594093
there are only so many films one can watch in their lifetime
on average films before the 40s are considerably worse
i'm not really missing out on much
the only film from then that i haven't seen that i'll give my time to is citizen cane at some point
if it's good i might check out some orson wellesi do admit that i love a bit of marx brothers though
but film has come so far from then that even films from the 40s are pretty dated that it just feels like a chore as opposed to enjoyment
>>48592889
where are you getting all these cool cinema cinematography samples from movies
>>48594174
I meant a shutter speed of 1/48 which is the standard. Why would directors fuck around with that?
>>48594134
he'd butcher it
have you heard stories from thin red line? essentially the final film does not even slightly resemble the script written
he's like a child with adhdor someone with no actual visionwho gets distracted so frequently and changes everything from small pieces of inspiration halfway through shooting
>>48594286
Go hang yourself
I don't think there can ever be a best. I agree with most of the directors listed in this thread, I just also wanted to throw a shout out for Terry Gilliam.
>>48594270
I read somewhere that the human eye, and visual instincts are wired to focus and follow on one thing at a time, which 24fps helps because it can follow the motion in focus and blur out the rest. If too many things are in focus the eye has trouble adapting given the screen is a 2D surface.
>>48594352
Terry, Ridley and Carpenter defined sci-fi/weird for me.I haven't gotten into Cronenberg yet though.
>>48594286
Some of them are made by some other anons, some of them I made. It's seriously just screencap, copy and paste in MSpaint.
>>48594356
My friend that is almost exactly it.
>>48594328
If you don't have a strong script to deviate from, the script is a skeleton, but in Terry's case, he thinks because he's an artist he can do whatever he wants.
The difference between him and a painter is that painters have all the time in the world to work on their projects.
Unless you're SK, you can't work like that, at least with Kubrick he had an idea of what he didn't want, but he had an idea of what he wanted overall.
>>48594134
His scripts are terrific if you're not a pleb.
>>48594441
Cool.
btw your grid is missing that GOAT shot of the deer through the rear window of the truck.
>>48594467
I think the stories in Terrence's movies are less about the conventional characters and goals, and focus more on his personal beliefs on things. He is using the medium of film to express himself. Be it a meditation on faith in the presence of evil, violence and its consequences, or just a simple tale of a rural family in anywhere-town, his movies are his way of communicating his beliefs. He was a philosophy major, not a conventional screenwriter.
Cormac McCarthy wants him to do Blood Meridian, and I think he would do an amazing job because they both have the same way of handling violence and faith. The only others I imagine who could do it might be the Coens, as their adaptation of No Country for Old Men was fantastic.
But James Franco's trying to get the rights and he'll ruin everything.
>>48594497
Probably one of my favorite shots isn't in this oneanother anon made itThe shot of the kids through the rear window of the trailer.
>>48594593
Scratch that, the shot is there, I'm just going insane.
>>48594593
Dude Fuck James Franco, tried watching As I lay dying. Couldn't stop crying how much he fucked up Faulkner.
>>48594497
>>48594593
>>48594617
The shot of the deer is there, I recently installed f.lux and it's hard for my eyes to see those yellow/brown colors after sundown.
currently living.
Scorsese.
>>48593819
you're so fucking wrong
>>48594008
>i don't watch films from before the 40s on a frequent basis
>the pacing tends to be terrible, along with the photography and acting
>plus censorship laws make any violence comical and all relationships stupidly unrealistic
this has to be some pasta
Parajanov
>>48594805
Scorsese was probably the only really good thing to come from the rat pack. Spielberg is hit or miss, Lucas can't write or direct without lots of help, and Coppola is REALLY hit or miss. Scorsese at least has a fairly consistent level of quality. Although I want him to do a non-ganster/crime film next. When he does that he can do wonders.Still like most of his crime/gangster films though
>>48594387
he's the best
Theo Angelopoulos
Sergei Parajanov
Andrei Tarkovsky
Terry Malick
One of these four.
>>48594593
>James Franco
>doing Blood Meridian
fuck Hollywood
>>48594963
To me, Coppola is the best of the bunch for how interesting his filmography is. Going through his work was much more interesting than going through Scorsese and Spielberg's. As far as composition, I'd say Spielberg is the best unless we're including Malick as part of the brat pack
>>48595184
Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite movies, ever.
that said...why has no one said "Sergio Leone" yet?
>>48595224
>why has no one said "Sergio Leone" yet?
Because he doesn't belong in this thread, along with Coppola or Scorsese. Plenty other directors that have better visuals than these three.
>>48594963
Scorsese wrote up a storyboard when he was like 11 called "The Eternal City" its a roman epic. I really want him to actually do it, and make it a Spartacus level epic of the century. while doing all the right moves and paying homage to the epics of the 40's and 60's.
The Departed, Hugo, Shutter island and even WOWS had some amazing shots. really his almost alway hit, all of his movies have visual and contextual depth, while still being chewable to the mainstream. I wish he'd go a little out of the mainstream, but his stuff definitely does not suffer.
Speildenjew is a hack, and only makes the movie equivalent of a Macaroni Grill meal.
>>48593512
>colors are bad
>>48594593
>But James Franco's trying to get the rights and he'll ruin everything.
He has the rights and was all set to make it but made Child of God instead, another McCarthy story he had the rights to.
I don't think Malick would be good. I'd like to see Mel Gibson direct Blood Meridian but it won't happen.
>>48595290
Extremely saturated colors are.
>>48595278
I dissagree.
>MFW I don't have a folder of movie shots
>>48595278
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pd0dByEnDU
>>48595282
I hope he manages to get around to it before he dies. It was really depressing hearing about Kubrick's Napoleon going out the window, and I'd hate to see another fantastic director's potential masterpiece never even see the light of day.
>>48595310
No right now he's trying to get the rights. There was a VICE article where he explained how Tommy Lee Jones, whose movie The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada was great, was going to do it but couldn't find funding because of the level of violence. So he's trying to get the rights so he can re-write it so it's "tolerable for mass consumption". The only thing he understands is that the Judge should've been played by a hybrid Apocalypse Now Brando and Jack Nicholson.
>>48595310
Yeah Mel might be neat. But that's got a snowball's chance in perdition of happening.
>>48595452
>>48595431
I'm not saying he's bad but when we're talking about who has the best visuals and composition there are so many better directors out there. I only assume that you haven't seen the people that are being listed continuously in this thread like: Tarkovsky, Malick, Parjanov, Eisenstein, Kurosawa, and Angelopoulos. If you think Scorsese has better visuals than any of these people then your either blind or completely biased.
I'm done for the night fellas, it was a decent thread.
>>48595612
alright you got me on Malick, and Tarkovsky, but I think Scorsese does more with the moving camera and moving charter, where your list points out many directors who are fantastic at extremely striking, and beautiful compositions. Scorsese's camera flows, and moves, almost mechanical the way characters are framed throughout a shot. I mean Malicks camera floats too, but its very different
Anh Hung Tran
Kenji Mizoguchi
Terrence Malick
Nicolas Refn
Harmony Korine
Ridley Scott
One of these. I can't pick a best and they all have different strengths. The way Scott, Mizoguchi, and Korine can move a camera is sublime.
Anh Hung Tran has a movie I rate really highly pretty much solely because of his amazing direction.
>>48595927
>Anh Hung Tran
Terrible filmmaker, hated his adaptation of Murakami and his other film.
The cinematography was amazing in NW, but that was due to the cinematographer Mark Ping Bin lee
>>48596000
if you hated At the Height of Summer, Cylco, or A Scent of Green Papaya (I don't know which one you saw since you just said 'other movie' but I guess it's one of those) you're pure pleb.
haven't seen Norwegian Wood yet.
>>48595493
>that guy's slowly ascending in pitch screaming as his vocal cords get stretched thinner and thinner as his head is torn from his body very slowly
Goddamn, that was unnerving
>>48594593
>But James Franco's trying to get the rights and he'll ruin everything.
just watch this
http://www.vice.com/read/james-francos-blood-meridian-test-656
Probably Christopher Nolan
>>48597296
B R A V O
>>48593914
Fincher has used different dp's on almost every movie (because he drives them fucking crazy) and all his movies look amazing
your argument is invalid
>cntrl + f
>david lynch
>no results
>the pleb filled hut of /tv/
>>48597335
Just look at this composition.
>>48598303
What's wrong with it?
Also is that young Alec Baldwin?
>>48598178
>pleb that buys into the lynch hype
>>48591920
>he hasn't seen Badlands
It's right up there with Citizen Kane and Breathless as the greatest feature debuts of any filmmaker
>>48593050
such a good movie. That dancing to Love is Strange is fucking great.
>>48594441
This movie aint got shit on enemy tho
>>48591693
agreed on his choice of physical information
>>48592217
probably the best modern director out there.
>>48598393
mediocre composition and color pallete is fuck
>>48592236
Without a good director a good cinematographer is worthless. He is the one who calls the shots, the one who frames the scene.
