What movies match that description? I just want a visual marvel.
>>69830630
Looks incredible, thanks. From the Koyaanqatsi guys, right?
More.
Sunshine was pretty amazing for that, though there is a consensus the story falls apart a bit near the end.
I actually think 28 days later is much more creative with its shots.
Samsara is an easy pick.
>>69831319
> kid cycles up to you
> "Hey you buy postcard?"
> Bagan
>>69831319
Woah
>>69830630
>>69831319
Dang, I guess I should start paying attention to non-white cinema
>>69832352
the director is white
>>69832352
Dang, I guess you should Google who made those films.
>>69832266
> Wide angle environmental shots are the pinnacle of cinematography
The mantra of a 19 year old.
>>69832433
I thought like that until I saw Bergman and Tarkovsky
Persona
>>69830500
Here is a shortlist OP
Koyaanisqatsi
Naqoyqatsi
Anima Mundi
Baraka
Samsara
Chronos
Visitors
The BQE
And that's about it for now.
>>69832393
>>69832399
Huh, ok.
>>69832352
>>>/reddit/
>>>/co/
fuck off
>mfw the urban shots in Michael Mann films
>>69832564
>le reddit switcheroo
Not gonna work faggot
>>69830959
actually no but in the same vein obviously
>>69832596
go jerk off over the wonders of african cinema somewhere else you sperg
>>69830500
Pure visual perfection
>>69832650
If it wasn't for Yellow Jacket in the bottom middle screen, this would have completely rused me.
>Spring Breakers
>Beyond the Black Rainbow
>Drive
>Only God Forgives
>Black Swan
>The Revenant
>Kumiko The Treasure Hunter
>Suspiria
>127 Hours
>Trance
>Black Coal Thin Ice
>Anti-Christ
>Blade Runner
>Werner Herzog's Nosferatu remake
>2001
>>69832749
>Le Revenant
might be time for you to go to that website where they worship pseudo-artistic/intellectual hacks.
>>69832840
so stay right here then?
>>69832650
Does bring to light how crap these 4x4s or whatever are. Cinematography in films shouldn't just come down to 'cool stills', that's photography and none of the stills here would win any competition for that. It has to be dynamic and relevant, it has to help forward the film in some way.
Some films are ruined by over dependence on dramatic shots, a recent example being 'The Revenant', a poor film but a nice photography project. I also think Enemy, despite having a great story, was ruined for the same reasons.
>>69832749
> "I like high contrast"
here OP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN_JXwNudh8
>>69832840
fuck off pleb
>>69830500
Enter The Void will make you cum in your pants.
>>69833033
>digital clouds
wow such artistry
>>69833033
Not the guy you are arguing with, but you are genuinely the pleb.
>>69832266
Which film is this from?
Only God Forgives (at least to me, i love the visuals) - anyone got a cinegrid of it?
>>69833061
> "Vagina shot"
> So kino
What a meme fucking movie
>>69833033
> DUDE WIND LMAO
Lost River
Only God Forgives
Under the Skin
Enemy
>>69833033
Boring shit
Cinematography without substance is empty trash
>>69833235
The reddit visuals starter pack
>>69833348
>le ebin style over substance meemee XDDD
>>69833033
hahaahah
First year "being into movies" huh kid?
Here's a clue: a movie is pseudo-intellectual/artistic when the director constantly and overtly has to insert bombastic images and screaming dialogue to convey any "insight" or "creativity" especially because he's worried about casuals and plebs "getting the message."
Much better directors than Shitarritu make much smarter, more beautiful movies without beating the viewer over the head with the cinematic equivalent of "TAKE MY MOVIE SERIOUSLY, I'M THOUGHTFUL, AND THIS IS ART, I SWEAR!!!!"
here is a list where you'll find many of these directors:
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/directors.htm
Inarritu is about 4% better than Nolan, meaning he's quite mediocre at best.
>>69832879
Yes, I think if you come to a point where you pause the narrative to just show a nice looking clip, you turn your film into a photography project as you described
In the Mood for Love
>>69833414
>he likes style-over-substance
/tv/ is perfect for you!
>>69833414
Mate, the Revenant has no substance. Pretty pictures that mean nothing get boring every once in a while
Innaritu also needs to learn when to cut. Those action scenes were so over indulgent that I wasn't excited even once
>>69833415
>http://www.theyshootpictures.com/directors.htm
>woody allen
>spike lee
>>69833415
Don't even think he is better than Nolan, Birdman was criminally overrated and self-indulgent. It's a real sign of immaturity that when you come into contact with a small amount of ability or concept you deliver it in the most heavy-handed way.
I cringe when I look back at my first university essays and how overly complicated they are, thinking they are the first of their kind delving into the issues and my use of words is Shakespearean. Birdman and The Revenant were both like that - they failed to deliver any gripping story whilst beating you over the head with 'cinematic flair' and symbolism. Make it good. Then make it smart.
Nightcrawler
>>69832624
Actually, yes. Ron Fricke was Director of Photography for Koyaanisqatsi.
Later he made Samsara and Baraka with the same idea.
>>69833512
>Those action scenes were so over indulgent
you must be a fucking idiot if you actually think that.
this is coming from the same board that thinks transformers movies are well made action
>>69833414
>I think cinematography is just framing and colors!!!!!!
>>69833766
What? I don't understand what the fuck you're saying. Transformers is shit action. Almost as bad as marvel movies.
You want to see good long take action? Watch Hard Boiled. It's made by a director who knows how to make effective action and doesn't care about artificial things like long shots with no purpose. He's trying to one-up Cuaron and it's fucking pathetic
>inb4 snyderdrones shit up the thread like always
>>69833613
lmfao you are so fucking clueless it's hilarious
this entire thread was over with this post >>69832500 yet you fucking faggots keep arguing over your own stupid, empty opinions
Whilst i agree The Revenant was pleb level 'deep' cinema, the action scenes were genuinely great: very visceral, clear and well paced.
God knows how much I hate action in things like the MCU and pacific rim etc where fast cuts mean you cant tell what the fuck is happening.
>>69833964
No-one responded to your post and no-one's going to, literally no-one is bothered for your input.
>>69833415
so you think other directors whose cinematography you like don't actively try and make those shots??
are you a retard?
>>69834048
Not who you are arguing with but if you cant tell the difference between a director thoughtfully choosing his direction in a way that is aesthetic, appropriate and in unison with the other components of a film with a director who's dependence on photography interrupts the film, drawing the audience out of the experience and into a screensaver then god help you.
You guys think cinematography is pretty shots?
>>69830500
Werner Herzog's Lessons of Darkness is one of the most visually striking things I've ever seen.
>>69834165
you do realise you only feel that way because 4chan actively memed you into noticing it every second right?
I felt quite immersed watching it and a real sense of the time period
why dont you tell me some of your favourite films in terms of cinematography :)
>>69834199
No, pretty much the entire thread has been shitting on that idea and the people posting collages.
![Picture-29[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tMqpa3t.jpg "Picture-29[1].jpg")
literal perfection
>>69834260
Well a few I have seen lately which I liked, but by no means favourites:
The Witch
Jagten
Crank 2
Amadeus
Mars Attacks
Syndoche, New York
>>69834260
not the guy you're debating but when you say things like "I feel quite immersed watching it and a real sense of the time period" you just make yourself sound rather illiterate and not at all in any position to discuss a film's qualities with any knowledge or clarity
>>69834380
it's shit, needs more diversity
>>69834422
yes because that's less meaningful than:
> but if you cant tell the difference between a director thoughtfully choosing his direction in a way that is aesthetic, appropriate and in unison with the other components of a film with a director who's dependence on photography interrupts the film, drawing the audience out of the experience and into a screensaver then god help you.
LMAO
ITT: Kids that believe cinematography is defined by pretty landscape shots
>>69834468
um
yeah
yeah, it is
>>69834418
Genuinely agree. But getting 15 year olds to understand that something like Crank is kino but "shots of trees" in 2deep Revenant isn't is a tough fight to have.
>>69834483
1 kid is saying that and he's being pretty BTFO
>>69834468
I thought i was pretty straight forward there - if you have trouble with what i meant, feel free to ask me directly instead of quoting me to other people.
I know they were already mentioned, but Baraka and Samara and the toppest of the top
>>69834579
> More wide angle HD photography
> Cinematography
I thought /tv/ was better than this
>>69834609
would you prefer 150mm SD photography?
please educate me, instead of talking shit with nothing to post
>>69833613
>don't make your movies beautiful and indulgent if you have the ability to do so
why? just why? the last time I checked film was a visual medium and Birdman and The Revenant are flawless visually, criticize anything else you want but not how they look. Fool.
>>69834725
I've posted plenty. You just haven't read through the thread, or if you have are being willfully dense. I guess ill let you choose which you'd prefer to admit to.
>>69834845
>plenty
pretty much every single image ITT is wide angle
also, you might have forgotten that this tab isn't reddit because nobody can tell which ones you've posted
>>69834775
Because it's infantile - there is no subtlety or depth. It's like a 16 year old girl snapchatting herself in a pushup bra and hotpants.
The director is producing a film, alongside hundreds of other staff, not a reel for consideration of national geographic. If direction is just pretty images then what is even the point of film. Great cinematography is suggestive, it highlights, it is dynamic and in keeping with the film. It works with all the other factors: the plot, the sound, the acting. In its perfect form these all blend seamlessly and absorb you, the director works with the audience to convey what he is trying to. A poor director stands opposite his audience and bashes them with imagery and forces you to 'look' at his shots, and not be engaged with them.
>>69832500
>The BQE
the sufjan stevens album?
>>69834942
Then clearly don't suggest whether ive posted or not you...
>>69835006
Get out of here with your understanding of film, /tv/ is exclusively for MCU and 'kino' environment photos shit posting.
(great post though)
>>69835006
i'll take a movie that has striking cinematography and a soso story over one that has a good story and bland/flat/boring cinematography 9 times out of 10
>>69834775
You have to have seen almost no films to have such stupid opinions
>>69831319
>>69832352
This movies are literally directed by cinematographer though
>>69833084
>digital clouds
you sure are one dumb fucking pleb
everything was natural that was the big deal about the movie.
actors shooting in -983133213 degree weather
>>69835205
>bland/flat/boring cinematography
Ok, but i never said anything in defense of bland cinematography, I clearly just said what good cinematography was.
Earlier in the thread I said 'Enemy' was a film with a great story but was ruined by bad cinematography. It can happen.
>>69835282
Fuck so Leo actually fought a bear and they happened to catch wolves attacking Buffalo? and no post-processing over the environments to create effect? What a brilliant analogue movie it was.
>>69835298
how can you say Enemy has bad cinematography? Prisoners, Enemy and Sicario are all very striking, yes Enemy is a lot more drab than the others but it is in perfect harmony with the tone of the movie.
>>69832879
>implying Ant Pham isn't kino
>>69833033
Production still. The actual shot in the film doesn't look this good and it was even difficult to distinguish what it was made of on the big screen.
>>69835213
what is stupid about wanting every movie to be as visually striking as possible
>>69835380
I'd be hard pressed to think of specifics now as it has been a while, but I remember finding the story and metaphor deeply let down by the film style which didn't cohere. It was punctuated by stills, which as I have said before, is bad practice. It slowed the film to a subdued pace and created an atmosphere not in keeping with the themes. It felt laborious moving through the film and not introspective enough.
Tree of Life TB H F AM
Inb4
>I'm too stupid to grasp simple concepts so I'm going to pretend to hate the movie xD so i can get upboats
>>69835343
yes you stupid faggot, thats how movies work.
everything is real just like that cock up your ass you fucking faggot
>>69835504
> what is stupid about wanting every song to be as loud as possible
>>69835611
A movie cannot be beautiful until the point it is obnoxious, unlike a song that is too loud. Awful comparison.
>>69835604
Having a cock up my ass would be a more pleasant experience than watching another Inarritu reddit-meme. There's even a chance I might get aids and so something would stick with me after the event is over, something I can't say has ever happened watching one of his movies.
>>69835643
Visually striking doesn't equate to beauty.
>>69835643
Ayoer's The Double becomes obnoxious despite looking amazing once you start watching it.
Only God Forgives too.
>>69835731
Chill.
>>69835643
The highs only make sense in a framework, with lows and averages. That's something that is different in the cinematography of a movie and in a photo, not every shot can be a stunning image or else it loses meaning and structure, eventually boring you.
A much more impressive beauty comes from the masterful balancing of the striking with the functional or the offputting.
>>69835006
OP requested a thread on pure kino, and that's what people are posting. Why is your butt in such pain?
>>69835970
Read the posts - it's because they aren't good kino.
>>69830500
>>69835967
Movies are not reality and are not subject to the mundane nature of it, if a film-maker chooses
>>69836067
Well yes human experience is a part of reality, a director can't just say "my film isn't based on reality and therefore it's great because i say it is". Films don't somehow transcend value and meaning.
>>69835776
those movies have an overbearing atmosphere that are offputting more so than any visual content
>>69836183
it doesn't have to be great, it just has to be his or her vision, if it lines up with reality or not literally does not matter. who are you to say every movie should be rooted in the ordinary and mundane?
>>69836058
>doesn't feature the OH MY GOD scene
The fuck anon.
>director goes out of his way to make his film look as beautiful and visually appealing as possible
>stop making this look so good!
>>69836329
what i've been trying to say for the last 20 minutes
>>69836253
I literally never said it had to be rooted in the mundane. You permanently seem to conflate non-extravagant shots with the boring - and that therefore any film without these is lacking.
As said several times, a film is much less mundane and ordinary if it masterfully balances itself, making the moments of extravagance that much more impactful. Furthermore extravagance and brilliance in a film isn't just along one criteria: photography. It's about the film, and all the constituent parts. So brilliance is always better achieved when the parts work together, not when one takes over and demands attention, that isn't film making, that's just photography.
>>69836027
Okay I read the thread and keeping in mind this board doesn't have ID's from what I could make out you're arguing a movie can't objectively have good visuals without a good story because telling the story is the purpose of cinematography?
>>69836329
> he hasnt read the thread
>>69836329
Stop embarrassing yourself
making a movie as aesthetically please or aesthetically precise as possible doesn't necessarily make it a good movie, but it doesn't necessarily make it a bad one either
aesthetics doesn't make the totality of the movie, but it can play a bigger or lesser part depending on the director's vision
>>69836488
Clearly haven't read it, so ill let you go do that
![Knight.of.Cups.2015.1080p.H264.AC3-EVO.mkv_snapshot_00.47.52_[2016.01.02_20.52.47].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vbZ0OSE.jpg "Knight.of.Cups.2015.1080p.H264.AC3-EVO.mkv_snapshot_00.47.52_[2016.01.02_20.52.47].jpg")
There is nothing wrong with pretty pictures.
>>69836580
Literally no-one has said there is. Just that good imagery doesn't simplify down to a wide angle lens and striking environment.
>>69836540
look everything past that basic argument just descends into either pointless arguing about what makes a movie good in general, which was not what the thread is supposed to be about, or some kind of film school jargon about the technical definition of cinematography.
If you'd like to lay out your arguments in a concise manner and in plain language I'm sure you would have an easier time getting your point across.
>>69832702
THIS.
![To the Wonder.mkv_snapshot_01.45.58_[2015.02.22_03.30.18].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lQDXtF2.jpg "To the Wonder.mkv_snapshot_01.45.58_[2015.02.22_03.30.18].jpg")
>>69836645
There is nothing wrong with wide angle lenses and striking environments
>>69830500
If you want a "pleb" answer, you should go with Terence Malick.
If you want non-pleb try Inherent Vice by PTA. It's a gem.
>>69836280
I left out some of the best parts/shots in consideration of the people who have yet to see this piece of extraordinary kino craftsmanship
>pic related
>>69836688
I've laid my arguments out concisely and in plain language, only getting more in detail as the argument went on.
I dont really have anything else to say on it either - if you disagree at this point I'm not going to change your mind and we'd just waste each other's time.
It's late now and im going to have to sleep, so sorry if you were looking for more debate.
>>69836516
>Playing an instrument well or precisely as possible doesn't necessarily make a song good, but it doesn't necessarily make it a bad one either
>an instrument doesn't make the totality of the song, but it can play a bigger or lesser part depending on the musicians vision.
holy shit do you even think before you type? your dumb pleb
>>69832840
But it is cinematography: the movie. That is all that is great about it
>>69834048
you don't get it.
Orson Welles (and many other directors) can make a legit intelligent movie with legit sophisticated mise en scene and cinematography without having to create surrealistic dream sequences or other over-the-top seemingly deep imagery, and without having actors literally scream about the themes via dialogue.
Because Inarritu isn't a fraction as talented as they are, he can't convey art and insight well. He has to have Emma Stone and Michael Keaton literally scream what a good film maker could suggest via subtle imagery, characterization, and storytelling.
>>69836759
>PTA
>non-pleb
>>69836986
Found the 17 year old.
>>69837027
Why are you pretending that isn't precisely PTA's audience?
>>69833512
Yes pretty pictures do get boring. Samsara is a great example
>>69836876
But a bad song can be played proficiently and a good song can be played badly, so what's your point?
To use your metaphor I'd say that a film is the performance, the story is the notes written on paper, and cinematography is the skill of the musician.
You can go see a performance of a song which may not be the best in terms of it's melody but which is technically demanding because the musician is proficient, and seeing the song performed proficiently is what makes it entertaining, and that is how I would characterize movies like Samsara.
>Post Good Cinematography
>Post pictures rather than clips
>Not expecting people to just post pretty pictures where the measure of good photography=/=good cinematography
How inherently ridiculous.
>>69836986
>>69837047
Let's hear your definition of good cinematography. I'm curious.
>>69835006
wow, someone who actually cares about film and understands they are simply pretty pictures arbitrarily connected to generic stories and plain characters.
>ctrl+f: Russian Ark
>0 results
S M H
>>69830500
cinematography doesn't necessarily mean it's a visual marvel.
Why don't you just say "pretty movies" instead.
>>69830500
Almost everything WKW did with Doyle has exceptional cinematography
>>69837047
Because neither would a 17 year old understand There Will Be Blood, nor The Master.
any movie not shot in one take is literally garbage of the highest order
>>69830630
>>69830630
Thanks Anon, I've been wanting to this film for awhile but forgot the title.
>>69837141
What's the point? You're going to call me a pleb anyways.
>>69837168
Mah nigga, Russian Ark is great.
>>69837185
This. Wong Kar Wei is amazing.
>>69837130
This also.
>>69837168
Sokurov is interesting but if you complain about this already- nobody even posted the Tarkovskij webm yet
>>69837130
That is what pisses me off. People should be posting webms of good cinematography, not stills.
>>69837260
Come on, don't be scared.
>>69837308
I just posted it, idiot.
Lawrence of Arabia
>>69837276
>nobody even posted the Tarkovskij webm yet
LEAVE KINO TO ME
>>69833415
>Wes Anderson
this is some good b8
>>69837371
>>69837371
>posting a miserable still from Stalker
>cinematography
Alright now I'm assuming you're an actual 17 year old /tv/hipster that doesn't know shit.
>>69834609
you really need to stop posting
>>69837476
>Stalker
Pretending or actually retarded?
>>69830500
More like
>Autism: The Thread
>>69837418
There we go
all movies with cinematography that don't consist of strong primaries like OGF and suspiria are literally the worst garbage ever made
Planet Earth
Barry Lyndon looks like a painting
>>69837572
this
>>69837637
looks like a meme
literally every movie ever made is the worst movie ever made tbqh
>>69837418
>not posting the 1080p Japanese colour corrected version
just watch the night of the hunter for GOAT cinematography
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9LnkKQfuc
>>69837883
wow so GOAT
based
the dark knight rises mwah, has only the finest cinematiqueographie ever put to the silver screen
>>69830500
>he watches movies with color
>he watches movies with sound
>he doesn't imagine movie adaptations while reading the original book transcripts before they were even written
Pleb thread.
>>69836742
>>69836645
>>69836580
The difference between Malick and Inarritu is that Malick's style is inherently tied to his substance: his awe of nature, his macro vs. micro view of the world, his fear of God, his obsession with beauty, his romantic existentialism... all these themes and motifs are reflected in the scenery shots and wide angles just as much as his choice of beautiful Hollywood stars or the editing which alternates these shots of nature being still with mundane character moments, it's the result of decades of research and experiments as a filmmaker, decades of thoughts and development as a man, that brought him to use these aesthetics to tell his stories.
He developed cinematography "rules" and an iconic style with Lubezki, which Inarritu simply reused without context or understanding, simply because it looks pretty.
>>69838010
But the cinematography and visual aesthetics of Inarritu's films is different from Malick's, despite them sharing the same cinematographer.
>>69838010
Inyoureartoo is the greatest directional who ever lived
>>69838010
I want to be as thoughtful as Malick - I just lack the drive and discipline to do as much work and research as he probably does.
>>69838010
>tfw you will never meet Malick and have a spiritual ephiphany
>>69838171
Q: Who have been your spiritual influences?
Martin Sheen: Terrence Malick (director of the film Badlands) is a deeply spiritual, bright, articulate man who had a profound influence on me at a critical time. Twenty years ago, I left India and went to Paris to do a film which I was not wild to be doing because I was not feeling focused at the time. I had just experienced India for the first time, and it had a very profound impact on me. I went to Paris and ran into Terry, who'd been living there for a couple of years, and we got reacquainted and got very close, and he became a mentor in a lot of ways for me. He was able to see where I needed to focus and was able to guide me to a little clearer place. He would give me material, books to read. Finally, the last book he gave me was The Brothers Karamazov, and that book had a very profound effect on my spiritual life, and that was like the final door that I had to go through. I finished reading that, and it was May Day, and I went into what turned out to be the only English-speaking Catholic church in all of France. I had not gone to church in years. I came across an Irish priest. I told him I'd stayed away from the faith for a long time, and I'd like to make a confession. He said you come to see me Saturday afternoon at the appointed hour, and I did. That was for me the journey home. Terrence was key to my awakening.
ITT: Cuck Central
>>69838278
When are they making Terry into a Saint
>>69835549
Man I like Lubezki so much, it's such a shame this board is full of tryhard faggots
>>69838760
>Kurosawa's Memes
No thanks
>>69830500
Not live action, but 5 Cm per Second has some great shots.
>>69838860
yr welcum
