ST The Cinematography of TFA and beyond

Given the slow motion available to us now I would say it is only 'slight'.

Another other note is that sometimes they shoot at a higher frame rate for special effects purposes.

 

Apparently the Dark Knight and The Martian (I'm sure there are other examples) shot stuff in 48fps as well.

 

Of course.

I'm a simple man just trying to make my way in the universe.

I don't think JJ's style is any more "kinetic" in the definition of the word per se but generally could be said to be "more" in the sense of so much that it's over the top at times that it "overloads" to the point that the viewer can be confused as to what is going on.

Lucas' style of course created the modern cinematic kinetic look with the movement within the frame combined with the cutting from one image to another.

JJ moves the frame itself. He loves to use the camera itself as a tool and how it captures the image hence his camera shaking and lens flare techniques.

Basically in simple terms Lucas makes the viewer move their line of vision while JJ moves the line of vision for the viewer.

The most basic difference in their styles is illustrated from the cantina in ANH and Maz's castle in TFA.

 

Yeah, that's a good summarisation. You can see it as a positive or a negative, but it is what it is.

A lot of Lucas's shots make the viewer want to explore what's going on in the background. JJ actually does explore the background.

 

Exactly.

To further that point though JJ's exploration of the background means that a lot of what you see is what he wants you to see. So like a magician he directs you the viewer.

Lucas can strongly suggest what to look at but hey if you want to stare at that dude in the upper back corner that is up to you. Now you might only have 16 frames to look at it but you can. With JJ it might be 4 frames because he's zooming to the other side of the room.

So per the cantina and it's original impact. There was just enough in multiple shots that we could center (albeit for a moment) on something while JJ did far less of that and zoomed by.

JJ's speed came from the camera move while Lucas' from the edit.

I like many will be paying particular attention to all of this when the BD comes out. After the intial viewing I will do a cinematography screening (ie paying attention to that as opposed the story).

 

Interesting. I wonder if, unconsciously, the way Lucas visually suggests/hints at places to explore could explain why the EU around the time he was making the prequels has been seen as a positive by people, whilst the new canon is greeted with a higher degree of scepticism and accusations that the info should be on screen?

 

Lucas allows one to believe there are things unexplored just off camera because the camera lingering allows one's mind to wander. We believe the GFFA to be complex and gigantic.

Abrams takes one on an intricate yet predetermined path much like a roller coaster. It's a great thrill as the scenery flies by. But, once the ride ends, there's not much left except the line to get back on the ride.

While both approaches require a magician's touch, some magic tricks are more memorable than others.

 

I agree with this in regards to Abrams' previous films, but not in regards to TFA. There was far more lingering in this one, which is partly why a lot of its moments (and images) have lodged themselves in my mind. With his Star Trek films, I can barely remember anything I saw.

 

I personally have no problem with the Cinematography of TFA. Aside from the tentacle monsters and StarKiller Base dogfight every sequence was exciting and watchable for me...

However, I won't go far to say that it is Mad Max, Star Wars OT, Revenant level. I do believe it is better than JW but not far...

 

Yeah, I'd agree that the Rathtars were the low point of the film. Look-wise I don't have an issue with the SKB fight but I do feel it could have been more exciting/ tense in execution (and more original in conception).

 

I think Lucas' is more lasting because it engages the imagination more (if you so choose to). Lucas particularly stocked the prequels with imagery (not because he didn't want to in the OT but because it simply wasn't possible on the scale he wanted) hence the "density of image" we hear so much about.

The joke to this of course is this:



While funny it does (probably unwittingly) make the point of how well Lucas does it because he isn't the one calling attention to all that he places in the frame. That is up to the viewer. There are things going on that I have never yet "seen" in the prequels.

He certainly pulled in some aspects of Lucasism's to his style and toned down some of what had bothered people in regards to Trek and STID in particular. I think he realized that he was starting to become something of a self parody in that sense. Not that he wasn't himself but just not to the degree as before.

 

Agreed. And I found that blend of Lucas-style (or really, classic style) framing and composition, and his own more mobile style, to generally work very well.

 

Replace "Lucas" with "Spielberg" and I might buy into it.

 

Upon rewatching certain action sequences of TFA, it's evident to me how urgently and, on occasion, manically Abrams uses his camera. Often this can generate great choreography between the movement of the camera and the blocking of the elements in the frame, and other times it can be too much to process. This has been a constant in Abrams' filmography from the start, and he's settled down a bit in TFA, but there are still times when an overabundance of movement and cutting muddies the action rather than clarifying it.

My general philosophy on camera use in film is that it either functions as an observer or as a participant. This can differ from shot to shot. In action sequences, Abrams often makes the camera a participant by keeping it moving in every single shot. This is particularly evident in the rathtar sequence, which has a couple good dynamic beats to it, but becomes too reliant on the camera generating the tension. It's the equivalent OF TYPING OUT AN ENTIRE PARAGRAPH OR MULTIPLE PAGES IN ALL CAPS. The more you depend upon it for your storytelling, the less effective it becomes.

My favorite action sequence in the film might be the Battle of Takodana, which does a healthy job of alternating between shots of the camera as a participant (flying alongside the X-Wings), and as an observer (the wonderfully choreographed shot of Finn watching Poe take out multiple TIE Fighters in one shot).

 

Funny. I felt the Takodana battle was the worst action sequence in the film.

 

Hmm, I may have to take another look. It seemed pretty geographically clean to me, which is another factor I take into account with most action scenes.

 

I liked the cinematography of TFA. Generally nice framing and there were some camera moves which I thought were neat that didn't draw too much attention themselves - in contrast to Abrams' Star Trek films (which I don't rate highly). My heavy bias means anything with ships flying around is instantly awesome, but I'll still say that lots of the X-wing shots are really great (those that appeared in the trailers especially).

There's one shot I don't care for, and it's accompanied by a musical bit that seems way too much - the crane shot of Rey running out of Maz's castle.

 

Nicely put. The camera as a participant in the action is one of my favorite aspects of TFA, though I think the Jakku chase is my favorite sequence. Finn watching Poe actually feels somewhat in the participant mode, in the way it follows Finn. But it could be that tracking shots are sufficiently uncommon that I'm inclined to think of it as a participant example (my technical knowledge of cinematography is very little). Another moment that stands out on Takodana is the set of quick pans to each of the Stormtroopers near Han, Chewie, and Finn as they're hit.

 

I confess I'm on the fence about the tracking shot of Finn and Poe on Takodana. I like the concept, but I guess Poe's abilities don't sit right with me. Generally, the piloting of ships in this far exceed anything that we've seen in previous films and this is the most egregious example. It makes Wedge seem pretty average by comparison, and I like Wedge darn it. It also falls into that same trap as they did with Optimus Prime in Transformers 3 I think it was. If one of your characters is that good, why do you need anyone else? But neither of these quibbles relate to the cinematography.

I absolutely love how the shot starts off though, from a shot of the sabre in the hand of a stormtrooper, tracking along as Finn picks it up, and then to a wide shot as he shoots a stormtrooper.

Couple more things I still love are the opening shot of the movie with the dagger-like front of the SD cutting across the moon, everything on Jakku and Rey alone in the forest anticipating Kylo (which I think is pretty tense).

 

redxavier We've never seen air to air battles in a tight space with air to ground support happening at the same time: space is vast and unconfined. I think it was an unusually target rich environment,for a good pilot with the element of surprise. That's how I rationalized it anyway. It was fun to watch.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum hows about Jango fett chasing obi wan through the asteroids and is soooo BAD he literally fires thousands of rounds and misses. When you've got someone that incompetent why would he ever get hired? Slightly off topic but it made me think of that. I think the tracking shot bit is wicked.

It might be nice in star wars to have a red baron situation with some invincible Tie pilot.