It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
It's funny, but I've always felt that SF, a bloody gorgeous film to be sure, had a cold aesthetic. Even the scene on Silva's island, which takes place in the sun, seem to have some of the rich warmth of the sunlight filtered out.
But then again, when talking about visuals like this, it's so subjective that it's hard to actively agree or disagree with opinions. It comes down to what the palette makes you feel.
I do not know if we do that because it's much easier in this technological landscape to attach to a DP like this, or simply because Deakins has a more visible style than other Bond DPs of old.
As an example, I was terribly unimpressed with the cinematography during the entire Brosnan years, and some of the Glen years as well. The shots lacked some of the wide perspective that I preferred from the early Bond films up to MR (excepting some of the Hamilton entries which were more bare bones).
It's only with CR that I saw a return to form, with robust, vivid colours and wide angle action shots. QoS was beautiful as well. I have no idea who the cinematographer was in either of these films. Deakins did a superb job on SF, but I think his work really stood out more in the night scenes, which were wonderfully crisp. With Van Hoytema, as I said earlier, his shot framing is almost perfect post-card like, but the monotone colour spoiled the experience for me, because vivid colours are something I associate with the Bond experience.
So whoever is selected next, I won't mind, as long as they give us that vibrant, vivid experience, where all the colours are natural, distinguishable, and pop.
It seems such a bad idea to take out vibrant colours.
You can choose to believe me or not if you like, but that's actually not true in my case. I've always held TSWLM, OHMSS and CR in extremely high regard for their cinematography (among other things as well). I've also always very much admired the look of TLD.
All that being said, in fairness I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that I was in the minority as someone that paid close attention to that kind of stuff before the arrival of Deakins for SF.
Nor mine. It's usually one of the first things that gets evaluated along with music and performances. Being a camera savvy person myself, cinematography is top of the list.
Luckily, the franchise has had real talent in both those departments through the years.
Lighting is just perfect.
Of course this based on first view in cinema, we will see how it look like over 2 years with the Dutch tv premiere.
Oooowh come on, if "SPECTRE" had a truly good story, without plotholes, but with a lot of "FRWL"-esque, "CR"-esque intrige and espionage, then you would not have bothered at all about the cinematography. On the contrary, perhaps then people would have said that this orange hue was a masterstroke of a DP.
Ironically Meheux lensed both GE and CR for Campbell. It goes to show that it's not always the cinematographer, it's the choices they make along with the director. I happen to like the cinematography in GE, but CR is superior and some of the best in the series.
What I'm struggling to understand is some peoples refusal to accept that these choices are very carefully considered. SP is coloured in the way it is to enhance the feel and to support the narrative. The whole picture has a haunted feel to it, it's almost nightmarish and at time feels hazy, or muggy. Removing or adjusting the grade as this article suggest http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre is a ridiculous suggestion, because unlike with a film such as 'Man of Steel', this isn't a purely stylistic choice. There is no thematic reasoning for why that film is unreasonably saturated. None whatsoever. With SP it's unquestionable that the the colour balance is specifically tweaked to evoke a 'spectral' feel. So when that articles states - 'the colours of certain scenes appear unnatural' that's the whole point Sherlock!
Combined with the sparse populating of scenes, the allusions to death and ghosts of the past, it all combines beautifully for me. This is coming from someone who was one of the first to complain at the lack of vibrancy is the Mexico trailer scenes. In context it's superb and very idiosyncratic.
I agree with you that there was definitely a creative choice made on SP. How could there not be, since it's so obvious. I just didn't like it personally, nor did I like the sparsely populated scenes. The yellow grade didn't evoke a 'SPECTRE' feel for me. Why choose yellow for a haunted impression?
I think that effect, if desired, was done best in the trailer and in the film when Bond is on the boat going to see White, and also in the cabin - that to me was haunting, but the yellow just seems Marvel or DC. Superman as you say is a good example of over graded approach, as is some of the later Hunger Games, Avengers-Ultron and many others. Its uniqueness is lost on me because it seems so contemporary and 'of the moment'.
I agree with this mostly.
I hate how boring movies with no dialogue or character development get good reviews cause of "camera movement" or stuff like that..
What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.
Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.
I meant the film as a whole.
I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.
IF Eon Productions decide to do something with Ian Fleming's "Murer On Wheels", then I want it to look like this:
I'm a big Kubrick fan, but none of those you mention could've/would've made GF. Nor would they have made DN.
Oh God, a Bond by Bergman...
I reckon Bond could beat the Grim Reaper at chess
Or perhaps he could take him down with a little bit of supernatural magic.
Growing concerned, M sends agents on location in Sweden to visit the far away facility to check on 007 when he fails to call in and update MI6 on his progress. Bond was told to write and mail written reports to M on how his post was going, but the only thing he can ever write is "All work and no play makes James a dull boy," over and over and over again. Bond is so distraught that at this point he can no longer ascertain reality from the nightmarish mirages he has constantly of SPECTRE assassins coming to kill him. When M's agents arrive to check up on him, Bond sees them not for who they are themselves, but as Blofeld's killing squad, causing him to open fire on them the very moment they appear.
Word gets to M about Bond's unraveling and the rising body count, and in the climax of the film he heads there himself to see if the rumors of 007's madness are true. By this time Bond has wasted all his bullets on the MI6 agents M has sent after him, forcing him to employ an axe for later killings, which he drives into M's stomach the moment he appears, mistaking him for Blofeld himself. The film concludes with Bond being pursued into one of the training facility's mazes, as the remaining MI6 agents in the region attempt to restrain and capture him amidst a heavy blizzard. However, soon the weather drives them back, even as Bond himself runs deeper and deeper into the maze's labyrinthine center. The last shot of the film is of Bond, frozen to death after succumbing to the chilled temperatures of the climate, his life lost like his sanity so long before it.
Or something like that...
Yes, I too see Bond films as a separate entity. I never compare them to other films.
FRWL is my all time favourite film, but I couldn't say it's better than The Godfather or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. That would sound silly.
But that's the fun thing to do. Judge Bond films solely as.......films......every now and then. And I actually think that's the reason "Skyfall" was such a phenomenon.