Clyde wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:49 pm Often, though, even the best cinematographer is at the mercy of the director. Woody Allen always hires the world's best cinematographers (Carlo Di Palma, Sven Nykvist, Vittorio Storaro, Darius Khondji) and all those films still manage to look like dogshit. And there are DPs I really only associate with one director (eg, Vadim Yusov and Tarkovsky), but man, the movies they made together...

Someone (maybe you?) made this point once before, and I agree with it. Well, maybe not with the “dogshit” part. But visually, Allen’s movies are wholly unremarkable. Manhattan is probably the best-looking Woody Allen movie, and it wouldn’t even crack the top five for its cinematographer Gordon Willis.

I don't know if I could do a favorite, but here are some I like.

Jack Cardiff for the Powell and Pressburger films.

John Alton for the early Anthony Mann films.

Rudolph Mate, especially for his two Dreyer films.

Mark Lee Ping-Bing for his work with Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Ann Hui. Also for his work on In the Mood for Love, Fong Sai-Yuk 2, Wing Chun, and After This Our Exile.

Sacha Vierny for his work with Resnais, Raul Ruiz and on Belle du Jour.

Kazuo Miyagawa. Who's that you might ask? Well he was cinematographer for:

Kenji Mizoguchi- Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Chikamatsu Monogatari, Gion Bayashi, Street of Shame, Taira Clan Saga, The Woman of Rumor, Oyusama
Akira Kurasawa- Rashomon, Yojimbo
Kon Ichikawa- Enjo, Odd Obsession, Ototo, Tokyo Olympiad
Masahiro Shinoda- Gonza the Spearman, Ballad of Orin, Silence
Yasuzo Masumura- Irezumi, the second Hanzo the Razor film

He worked with Shintaro Katsu on his Zatoichi and Bad Reputation movies. He also worked on a handful of Kenji Misumi films, a couple of Kozaburo Yoshimura films and a Lone Wolf and Cub entry. Guy covered a lot of ground.

bishopdante wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 10:35 pm Stanley.

(yes, that's a full stop, no quibbles).

His DP John Alcott is the business, but please note that the whole company was called "stanley kubrick cinematography", and as such, I'm citing the boss. Some directors can't operate a camera and just yell at people, Stanley wasn't one of those sorts.

His composition in anything he did is remarkable. Anyone who kind of likes film can clearly picture a few shots from 2001 or the Shining without effort because they're so iconic. But on the less hyped side the color and light of Barry Lyndon is so good. Unfuckwithable, that guy.

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:59 am

Clyde wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:49 pm Often, though, even the best cinematographer is at the mercy of the director. Woody Allen always hires the world's best cinematographers (Carlo Di Palma, Sven Nykvist, Vittorio Storaro, Darius Khondji) and all those films still manage to look like dogshit. And there are DPs I really only associate with one director (eg, Vadim Yusov and Tarkovsky), but man, the movies they made together...

Someone (maybe you?) made this point once before, and I agree with it. Well, maybe not with the “dogshit” part. But visually, Allen’s movies are wholly unremarkable. Manhattan is probably the best-looking Woody Allen movie, and it wouldn’t even crack the top five for its cinematographer Gordon Willis.

I'm almost certain it was me, because I'm fascinated by how plain Woody Allen's films look despite him hiring 80% of the subjects from "Masters of Light" to shoot his movies. (But, yes, dogshit was an exaggeration...for most of them.) Which, by the way, there is nothing wrong with a film that isn't chic or shot all at magic hour or whatever. Especially comedies, where it might be distracting (although Bulworth, while not a great movie, has a distinctive and stylish look that compliments the film's mood), but then why make a point of only hiring the biggest and most regarded names in the field?

And Manhattan is such an interesting example to me, because it's his best looking movie as far as I can remember, but how could it not look decent when you have Gordon Willis shooting in b&w? But as you pointed out, it can't compete with any of the films he did with, say, Pakula or Coppola. I appreciate, actually, that Willis is such a consummate pro that he never tried to impose himself onto the films, and worked with Allen to realize the director's vision. It's just that Allen doesn't have any visual imagination.
To go off on a tangent: Even that opening montage in Manhattan, which is so celebrated, I think is overrated to the point of being trite. So many of the shots are giving the viewer the tourist's eye view of the city: Radio City Music Hall, Yankee Stadium, the flashing BROADWAY sign. This was all stuff I already knew about New York as a little kid growing up in small-town Midwest. It's all really showy without actually telling you anything about what it's like to live in that particular place. Ending with fireworks and the Gershwin doesn't help.

Clyde wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:06 am

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:59 am

Clyde wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:49 pm Often, though, even the best cinematographer is at the mercy of the director. Woody Allen always hires the world's best cinematographers (Carlo Di Palma, Sven Nykvist, Vittorio Storaro, Darius Khondji) and all those films still manage to look like dogshit. And there are DPs I really only associate with one director (eg, Vadim Yusov and Tarkovsky), but man, the movies they made together...

Someone (maybe you?) made this point once before, and I agree with it. Well, maybe not with the “dogshit” part. But visually, Allen’s movies are wholly unremarkable. Manhattan is probably the best-looking Woody Allen movie, and it wouldn’t even crack the top five for its cinematographer Gordon Willis.

I'm almost certain it was me, because I'm fascinated by how plain Woody Allen's films look despite him hiring 80% of the subjects from "Masters of Light" to shoot his movies. (But, yes, dogshit was an exaggeration...for most of them.) Which, by the way, there is nothing wrong with a film that isn't chic or shot all at magic hour or whatever. Especially comedies, where it might be distracting (although Bulworth, while not a great movie, has a distinctive and stylish look that compliments the film's mood), but then why make a point of only hiring the biggest and most regarded names in the field?

Allen was a huge name, sometimes a cinematographer wants to work with someone and see how it is or they just get along for whatever reason. From what I have read Allen is a real hands off director, he hires good people to do their job and he doesn't have to worry about it. We need to knock these 20 set-ups off in one day, having the best guys are going to do that, they are going to suggest the best ways to do that. Also he pays pretty good especially then, if you get a big pay check working with a big name, you can take whatever job you want for a few years and not worry about bills for a bit.

Allen loves Bergman makes sense he would want to work with Nykvist, and his work in something like Scenes from a Marriage is not far off to something like Crimes and Misdemeanors. I am not going to go to bat for Allen, but his films I think are more visually interesting then you are giving them credit for, Another Woman, Hannah and Her Sisters, Stardust Memories, look and feel nothing like Bananas or Love & Death, the visuals always feel at piece with what he is doing. Compare that to Kevin Smith using Vilmos Zsigmond for Jersey Girl, that is what makes me feel like what you are expressing.

Anyways now I feel dirty for defending Woody Allen.

Owen wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:58 am

Clyde wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:06 am

Wood Goblin wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:59 am

Someone (maybe you?) made this point once before, and I agree with it. Well, maybe not with the “dogshit” part. But visually, Allen’s movies are wholly unremarkable. Manhattan is probably the best-looking Woody Allen movie, and it wouldn’t even crack the top five for its cinematographer Gordon Willis.

I'm almost certain it was me, because I'm fascinated by how plain Woody Allen's films look despite him hiring 80% of the subjects from "Masters of Light" to shoot his movies. (But, yes, dogshit was an exaggeration...for most of them.) Which, by the way, there is nothing wrong with a film that isn't chic or shot all at magic hour or whatever. Especially comedies, where it might be distracting (although Bulworth, while not a great movie, has a distinctive and stylish look that compliments the film's mood), but then why make a point of only hiring the biggest and most regarded names in the field?

Allen was a huge name, sometimes a cinematographer wants to work with someone and see how it is or they just get along for whatever reason. From what I have read Allen is a real hands off director, he hires good people to do their job and he doesn't have to worry about it. We need to knock these 20 set-ups off in one day, having the best guys are going to do that, they are going to suggest the best ways to do that. Also he pays pretty good especially then, if you get a big pay check working with a big name, you can take whatever job you want for a few years and not worry about bills for a bit.

Allen loves Bergman makes sense he would want to work with Nykvist, and his work in something like Scenes from a Marriage is not far off to something like Crimes and Misdemeanors. I am not going to go to bat for Allen, but his films I think are more visually interesting then you are giving them credit for, Another Woman, Hannah and Her Sisters, Stardust Memories, look and feel nothing like Bananas or Love & Death, the visuals always feel at piece with what he is doing. Compare that to Kevin Smith using Vilmos Zsigmond for Jersey Girl, that is what makes me feel like what you are expressing.

Anyways now I feel dirty for defending Woody Allen.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't blame any DPs for taking a job with Allen. As you said, he was a big name and "an important filmmaker." As for Allen, I get why, in a sense, he'd want to work with Nykvist et al. They are all amazing craftspeople and incredibly accomplished. Plus, starting around Annie Hall it's clear he also considered himself "an important filmmaker, the American Bergman" or whatnot. But where we differ is I don't think he actually needs those types of talents or uses them especially well. I don't think anything the Nykvist shot for Allen comes close to approaching any of the Bergman stuff, because I think Allen doesn't have much of an eye. I think that goes with the hands-off approach. He's indifferent as a stylist, which goes to my original point of, then you don't really need the Nykvists and Storaros of the world shooting your movies. It's not about being showy either. You mentioned earlier Conrad Hall, another just giant. And it reminded me of how he shot Fat City, which isn't flashy, but is lit so perfectly and subtly, that I'm sure came from a collaboration with Huston.

But I also think that Allen's best films are, mostly fine, not great which undoubtedly colors my opinions.

I had forgotten that Vilmos Zsigmond shot a Kevin Smith! If there is anybody out there that can make Allen look like Terrance Malick ,it's Kevin Smith. OTOH, Zsigmond shot a couple of Allen films, too, that I don't recall being the least bit visually interesting.

Clyde wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 1:28 pm

Owen wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:58 am

Clyde wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:06 am

I'm almost certain it was me, because I'm fascinated by how plain Woody Allen's films look despite him hiring 80% of the subjects from "Masters of Light" to shoot his movies. (But, yes, dogshit was an exaggeration...for most of them.) Which, by the way, there is nothing wrong with a film that isn't chic or shot all at magic hour or whatever. Especially comedies, where it might be distracting (although Bulworth, while not a great movie, has a distinctive and stylish look that compliments the film's mood), but then why make a point of only hiring the biggest and most regarded names in the field?

Allen was a huge name, sometimes a cinematographer wants to work with someone and see how it is or they just get along for whatever reason. From what I have read Allen is a real hands off director, he hires good people to do their job and he doesn't have to worry about it. We need to knock these 20 set-ups off in one day, having the best guys are going to do that, they are going to suggest the best ways to do that. Also he pays pretty good especially then, if you get a big pay check working with a big name, you can take whatever job you want for a few years and not worry about bills for a bit.

Allen loves Bergman makes sense he would want to work with Nykvist, and his work in something like Scenes from a Marriage is not far off to something like Crimes and Misdemeanors. I am not going to go to bat for Allen, but his films I think are more visually interesting then you are giving them credit for, Another Woman, Hannah and Her Sisters, Stardust Memories, look and feel nothing like Bananas or Love & Death, the visuals always feel at piece with what he is doing. Compare that to Kevin Smith using Vilmos Zsigmond for Jersey Girl, that is what makes me feel like what you are expressing.

Anyways now I feel dirty for defending Woody Allen.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't blame any DPs for taking a job with Allen. As you said, he was a big name and "an important filmmaker." As for Allen, I get why, in a sense, he'd want to work with Nykvist et al. They are all amazing craftspeople and incredibly accomplished. Plus, starting around Annie Hall it's clear he also considered himself "an important filmmaker, the American Bergman" or whatnot. But where we differ is I don't think he actually needs those types of talents or uses them especially well. I don't think anything the Nykvist shot for Allen comes close to approaching any of the Bergman stuff, because I think Allen doesn't have much of an eye. I think that goes with the hands-off approach. He's indifferent as a stylist, which goes to my original point of, then you don't really need the Nykvists and Storaros of the world shooting your movies. It's not about being showy either. You mentioned earlier Conrad Hall, another just giant. And it reminded me of how he shot Fat City, which isn't flashy, but is lit so perfectly and subtly, that I'm sure came from a collaboration with Huston.

But I also think that Allen's best films are, mostly fine, not great which undoubtedly colors my opinions.

I had forgotten that Vilmos Zsigmond shot a Kevin Smith! If there is anybody out there that can make Allen look like Terrance Malick ,it's Kevin Smith. OTOH, Zsigmond shot a couple of Allen films, too, that I don't recall being the least bit visually interesting.

It's funny we are ALMOST on the same page here. I guess if I was someone like Allen who knew my strengths lied with scripts and actors, while I lacked a visual imagination, I would lean on the best cinematographers and production designers that would work with me. Now, I would wager some of those cinematographers crave more input from the director and the results are lacking because of that.

As much as I hate a lot of movies, directors, actors, writers, fx guys, I don’t think I mind any cinematographers, but Chris Doyle is a bit of a rock star. And Nykvist and Ballhaus for their indispensible contributions to their respective collaborators films.

zorg wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 11:46 am As much as I hate a lot of movies, directors, actors, writers, fx guys, I don’t think I mind any cinematographers, but Chris Doyle is a bit of a rock star. And Nykvist and Ballhaus for their indispensible contributions to their respective collaborators films.

In the late 2000s I got to work on a commercial with Christopher Doyle (I was the 2nd AC). Rock star is an apt description as it felt like working with Keith Richards, down to the impenetrable accent. He had a half dozen film stocks, all mapped out shot-by-shot, and was a pro. But very funny and a gentleman.

I also have stories from Assassination of Jesse James.

Hong Kyung-pyo is a genius. The Wailing, Burning, and Parasite is a staggering three-film run - each the director’s best work, two of them easily the best Korean film of the year (The Wailing had to compete with Train to Busan)