285 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

Love the shot in Dr No, of Bond in the car from the airport looking back at Leiter's car.

 

In Skyfall there are so many to choose from, including:-

 

- Bond's entrance to the casino on the boat

 

- tracking shot of Severine and Bond on the boat to Silva's island

 

- Bond and M in Scotland

 

- rooftop scene with Moneypenny

 

- the classic view of M's office

I agree that Skyfall is probably the most stunning visually. The Macau opening with the fireworks then Bond on the boat is breathtaking.

[SecretAgentFan]

That´s why I was so disappointed with the cinematography in SPECTRE.  The difference between this and SKYFALL is enormous.

[New Digs]

A cursory glance at this thread confirms something I've believed for decades. Most of the Bond films are badly shot.

Bond & film historian Adrian Turner also holds this view. Let me quote him: "Sad about that - however, I might argue that none of the original Bond films (everything up to the Brosnan era) had more than routine-looking photography. Thunderball is especially ugly, in my view. Considering the money they lavished on the sets and locations, most of them looked fairly ordinary. Even You Only Live Twice, shot by Freddie Young, looks ho-hum and could have been shot by any old journeyman."

I wouldn't go that far. I think Goldfinger has some startling visuals, as do some of the other films. But by and large the films are not well shot. Just looking at some reference book on the Bond films full of pictures, I was struck by how truly ugly a film Live and Let Die is. The colors, the lighting, even the framing of the shots. Just awful. I flipped to the end of the book and was amazed how startling the imagery in QoS is by comparison.

 

This is an interesting discussion, but if Turner isn't impressed I think its worth quoting some very wise words from DP Oswald Morris. Morris spoke about the how the Bonds were photographed and makes the point that at the time the early films were made lavish cinematography was not required:

 

"It's the design of [the Bonds] thats the thing that impresses. You're not attempting to put anything into it because its all there, a in the story, b in the performance and c in the design of the sets. You don't have to put an input into it.... the spectacle and the stunts do it all for [you]. You just make a very efficient photographic input .... and thats exactly what Ted [Moore] did I think. He set the pattern and we were all ordered to keep to that because Cubby liked that. I lit the Bond film as a professional job but I was impressed by the sets and everything that went on in it... [the photography] wasn't as important as say a [Franco] Zefirelli film where the photography plays a very important part. You don't need that on a Bond film. There is so much going on in it, god you know if you put another input into it the audience would be totally bewildered....".  

[tdalton]

That´s why I was so disappointed with the cinematography in SPECTRE.  The difference between this and SKYFALL is enormous.

 

It's certainly not as good-looking a film as Skyfall, that much is for certain.  That's probably the only part of Skyfall that I'd prefer over SPECTRE, although both films are far from perfect.

[dtuba]

 

 

This is an interesting discussion, but if Turner isn't impressed I think its worth quoting some very wise words from DP Oswald Morris. Morris spoke about the how the Bonds were photographed and makes the point that at the time the early films were made lavish cinematography was not required:

 

"It's the design of [the Bonds] thats the thing that impresses. You're not attempting to put anything into it because its all there, a in the story, b in the performance and c in the design of the sets. You don't have to put an input into it.... the spectacle and the stunts do it all for [you]. You just make a very efficient photographic input .... and thats exactly what Ted [Moore] did I think. He set the pattern and we were all ordered to keep to that because Cubby liked that. I lit the Bond film as a professional job but I was impressed by the sets and everything that went on in it... [the photography] wasn't as important as say a [Franco] Zefirelli film where the photography plays a very important part. You don't need that on a Bond film. There is so much going on in it, god you know if you put another input into it the audience would be totally bewildered....".  

 

This is an interesting point. Is he basically saying (if I may put on my film studies geek hat) that if the misc en scene is interesting enough, that the cinematographer is basically there to turn on the camera and walk away? That is the sets/costumes/stunts are good enough, you don't need good photography?

Not sure I agree, but it reminds me what I like so much about the Guy Hamilton directed Bonds: They may have looked slightly cheap at times, and the lighter touch of his films are obviously not everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master of putting stuff on screen that no one had ever seen before and his films are visually anything but boring. Even the worst of the lot (DAF) contained plenty of wacky stuff to keep the viewer amused. The moon buggy chase may be stupid but it was fun to watch.

 

Compare this to the chase scenes in SP : Well staged, lavishly photographed, but the end result felt somewhat lifeless. Especially the car chase in Rome. Did those cars even get dirty before being flamed and drowned?

Edited by dtuba, 12 December 2015 - 10:43 PM.

[tdalton]

I think the problem with the car chase isn't necessarily the way that it's shot (not that it couldn't have been shot better), but rather more revolving around the decision to make Rome feel so empty.  It's a hugely populated city, yet Bond and Hinx encounter a grand total of what, two civilians on the road during their chase?  

[New Digs]

 

 

 

This is an interesting discussion, but if Turner isn't impressed I think its worth quoting some very wise words from DP Oswald Morris. Morris spoke about the how the Bonds were photographed and makes the point that at the time the early films were made lavish cinematography was not required:

 

"It's the design of [the Bonds] thats the thing that impresses. You're not attempting to put anything into it because its all there, a in the story, b in the performance and c in the design of the sets. You don't have to put an input into it.... the spectacle and the stunts do it all for [you]. You just make a very efficient photographic input .... and thats exactly what Ted [Moore] did I think. He set the pattern and we were all ordered to keep to that because Cubby liked that. I lit the Bond film as a professional job but I was impressed by the sets and everything that went on in it... [the photography] wasn't as important as say a [Franco] Zefirelli film where the photography plays a very important part. You don't need that on a Bond film. There is so much going on in it, god you know if you put another input into it the audience would be totally bewildered....".  

 

This is an interesting point. Is he basically saying (if I may put on my film studies geek hat) that if the misc en scene is interesting enough, that the cinematographer is basically there to turn on the camera and walk away? That is the sets/costumes/stunts are good enough, you don't need good photography?

Not sure I agree, but it reminds me what I like so much about the Guy Hamilton directed Bonds: They may have looked slightly cheap at times, and the lighter touch of his films are obviously not everyone's cup of tea. But he was a master of putting stuff on screen that no one had ever seen before and his films are visually anything but boring. Even the worst of the lot (DAF) contained plenty of wacky stuff to keep the viewer amused. The moon buggy chase may be stupid but it was fun to watch.

 

Compare this to the chase scenes in SP : Well staged, lavishly photographed, but the end result felt somewhat lifeless. Especially the car chase in Rome. Did those cars even get dirty before being flamed and drowned?

 

 

My understanding of his point is the that the early Bonds certainly needed good efficient photography, but the DP didn't need to add anything with the photography. The story didn't need to be enhanced by outstanding camera work cause at the time there were enough exciting elements going on anything more from the DP would have been overload. I can see his point and it makes sense to me. 

[dtuba]

Yes, I thought the car chase was badly staged. No civilians, no crashes, no real stunts (going down some steps, big woop)...no real sense of danger or urgency. Compare it to the PTS of QOS, a much better chase.

 

Was it because they only had one Aston Martin to play with, and they didn't want to wreck it?

[jaguar007]

That´s why I was so disappointed with the cinematography in SPECTRE.  The difference between this and SKYFALL is enormous.

I agree, with the exception of the opening long shot, and when Bond saves Lucia.

[New Digs]

Yes, I thought the car chase was badly staged. No civilians, no crashes, no real stunts (going down some steps, big woop)...no real sense of danger or urgency. Compare it to the PTS of QOS, a much better chase.

 

Was it because they only had one Aston Martin to play with, and they didn't want to wreck it?

 

I wonder if the nature of the chase was related to the permissions they had (or didn't have) when using the Rome location. They may have been restricted to the number of vehicles, time of day and numbers of extras etc. It was a waste, and I agree the car chase in QoS is far better, much more cinematic and tense.  

 

I had high hopes for the cinematography of Spectre, particularly when I heard they were going back to 35mm, but I think its the worst looking of all Craig's films. 

[DaveBond21]

Lots of good camera shots in SPECTRE:-

 

 - the opening shot

 

- the champagne instead of the Aston Martin

 

- Welcome to Rome

 

- Lucia walking outside with the Opera music playing

 

- Welcome to Tangiers

 

- Rolls Royce in the desert

 

- The walk outside Blofeld's lair

[seawolfnyy]

The fault in the poor cinematography lies entirely with Hoyte van Hoytema. This is the same guy who gave us the incredibly bland Interstellar don't forget. Spectre's production crew, overall, did a far poorer job than Skyfall's. Even worse than Hoytema though has to be Newman. After the superb Skyfall soundtrack, he really seemed to phone it in with the Spectre score. Bland music to match bland visuals, what a shame.

[New Digs]

The fault in the poor cinematography lies entirely with Hoyte van Hoytema. This is the same guy who gave us the incredibly bland Interstellar don't forget. Spectre's production crew, overall, did a far poorer job than Skyfall's. Even worse than Hoytema though has to be Newman. After the superb Skyfall soundtrack, he really seemed to phone it in with the Spectre score. Bland music to match bland visuals, what a shame.

 

I agree. I think Newman really struggled with the action in Spectre. The PTS music was especially bad. Hit all the wrong places, and left scenes crying out for music unscored. 

[Vauxhall]

Without wanting to deviate too far off topic, wouldn't choices about the visual appearance and which parts are scored lie more with Mendes rather than van Hoytema and Newman?

[glidrose]

I've started a (somewhat) relevant thread for you Hoyte van Hoytema bashers.

http://debrief.comma...inematographer/

[New Digs]

Without wanting to deviate too far off topic, wouldn't choices about the visual appearance and which parts are scored lie more with Mendes rather than van Hoytema and Newman?

 

Thinking about it its probably a 50/50 split between the two of them. One of them should have at least have known better.