Anyone heard anything about this movie Wrong? I'm intrigued.

---

Gandalf Problem Solving – A Flowchart.

---

Bwahaha!

---

Wrong is very aptly titled.

---

Hulk Film Critic on Les Mis: [link]

This is seriously one of the best pieces of film criticism I have ever read.

---

Hulk Film Critic on Les Mis: [link]

Is there a Chrome extension that will get rid of the capslock so I can read this? (I get that it's because HULK but I literally can't read the page. My eyes will not focus on that much capslock.)

---

Mine either.

---

Because I love you both:

**********

1. Did you know that the placement of a camera in a film has a direct effect on you as a viewer? For some of you, of course you know that. For others, maybe you didn't know that. Maybe you don't understand just how much a certain angle and what is precisely shown in it conveys not just a very specific meaning, but has a direct physiological effect on you that results in a careful and purposeful manipulation of your emotions. And for most of you out there, you instinctively know what hulk is talking about, but perhaps don't understand the specifics, the language, or most importantly of all, just how much it truly matters. Hulk has talked on and on about how much sound is "the actual visceral experience of movies," and that is very much true, but that statement is not to downplay the stunning importance of cinematography that conveys both information and feeling too. Every use of angles, specific camera, lens, proximity and framing has a direct correlation on how the viewer takes in the information. It is not an accident that they call the film camera "god's eye" because it's our gateway to omniscient experience. And it all adds up to one very simple notion: Cinematography matters. And because of that simple notion, hulk dreamed a dream that tom hooper knew where to stick a fucking camera. 2. It is both very easy and very precarious for hulk to sit here and lob negative assessments from afar. Especially given that tom hooper is a respected person in the field and has won an oscar for the very thing for which hulk is criticizing him. But this isn't about public sniping or the taking down of sacred cows or anything like that. It even goes far beyond the difficulties of swaying the court of public opinion as there have actually been enough people damning his choices lately that swaying may not even be necessary. But instead of explaining simply that it is bad, hulk thought it was high time to explain exactly why it is bad in typical thorough hulk-fashion. Because in the end, this is only ever about us all understanding cinema better. And there can be no truer goal than that. But before we go on, hulk really does have to emphasize just how much hulk hates these things. Hulk's got too much of an empathetic burden to find this take-down stuff any fun. So this comes from a belief that we simply have to talk about it. We have to issue a warning to those out there discovering cinema that "this isn't the way" or something equally silly. Perhaps hulk's never hate a movie/director mantra is the important thing to understand about what is to follow. It's not about taking people down a peg. It's about understanding why things work and having the best possible conversation about it in the process. But what is perhaps most troublesome about this particular subject matter is that tom hooper does seem to be rather great with actors. Exceptional even. Every project hulk has seen of his is filled from head to toe with excellent performances, and that makes it worth hoping he comes around. If he was simply inferior all around, chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation (or even be in a position to have it). But there's so much good there. And so much bad that gets in his own way. 3. Hulk doesn't talk about cinematography all that much in these columns. The reason is that it's kind of boring to discuss. A lot of it is minutiae. It's scientific. It's nerdy. And quite frankly, there is rarely a case where one has to bring it up. And that's because most professionals have a damn good idea about what they're doing with a camera and what looks good and it only seems to become a problem when they are brought in the wrong direction by an adventurous director (cue this entire conversation). The other reason is that hulk doesn't want to present hulk-self as some kind of authority on the issue. One of the reasons hulk brought in a collaborator on the action columns with tom townend, was that very apprehension (also tom is funny as hell). But when it comes to the basics of (continued...)

---

( continues...) cinematography and, more importantly, the theory of cinematic affectation, hulk feels much more confident in conveying a few key ideas. And hulk owes most of it to this man. The man's name is gordon willis. And in this hulk's opinion he is the greatest cinematographer of all time. Many of the reasons for which deal with aesthetics, mantra and personal preference, but you may need no more convincing than the fact that he shot both the godfather and the godfather part ii. But let us also not forget he shot the paper chase and alan j. Pakula's masterpieces all the president's men, the parallax view and klute. Oh, and let's just throw in the fact that he shot the films that easily qualify as woody allen's best in annie hall, manhattan, interiors, stardust memories, zelig and the purple rose of cairo. ... Yeah. People have had worse resumes. But his influence upon hulk, beyond his work itself, was pure happenstance. It was hulk's first cinematography class and as a friend of the professor, he came to visit. It was incredible. He's the kind of person even a bunch of overly-cocky teenagers would shut up and listen to. But his ability to communicate ideas was the most remarkable part. He had a no bullshit attitude that could cut through almost anything, but it wasn't an attitude that was meant to be brazen. It was quiet. It was confident. It came from a sense of wisdom. And the odd thing is that right after that very first visit, hulk's professor suddenly fell ill (he ended up being fine, don't worry), but he still could not come in to teach for a long, long time... So mr. Willis decided to "hang out for a while." When hulk says that gordon willis was (sort of) hulk's first cinematography teacher, people can't seem to believe it. It was largely informal. It was dumb luck. And something that seems more ridiculous as time passes. But hulk knew enough at the time to dive headlong into it... Perhaps too much so. Hulk, ever the studious gamma-irradiated little monster, was perhaps a bit overzealous in frequent questions and emails. But luckily, willis was good-natured enough to humor hulk. But what the experience taught hulk is there is not nearly enough precedence in this world for valuing how important it is to be set off on the right foot. His lessons in those few short weeks constitute a breadth of knowledge that hulk finds both more true and more valuable with every passing year. Even his random asides constituted some of the most prophetic things that hulk has ever heard about what would happen with the film industry (and will still happen). So often he laughed at a bunch of teenagers who didn't realize they would have the rest of their lives to play with cameras and instead focused on the core central tenets of the theory of cinematography. He hated complicated diagrams and overt ostentatious design. He embraced basic cinematic notions that he argued "had been working just fine since the 20's, so don't knock 'em." he could always just make it so clear for us in learning purposes "this makes us feel this" and "that makes us feel that" and all of these nuggets he chalked up to what he talked about the most in the term: "cinematic affectation." In short: he always advocated the notion of doing the most appropriate thing for a scene. Conveying the most important information, whether it be emotional or otherwise, was the only job. He brushed off his famous shots including the famous pull-up in the library in all the president's men: "[paraphrasing]: i had to show that they were looking for a needle in a haystack. So i just showed that. It didn't become famous because it was good shot. It became famous because it had the right information. It told the story." he talked about hating the concept of having a singular style, said you could never just layer an aesthetic over a film. You even look at his wiki page and his first quote about the godfather hits you square in the nuts: "You Can Decide This Movie Has Got A Dark Palette. But You Can't Spend Two Hours On A Dark Palette. . . So You've Got This High-Key, Kodachrome (continued...)

---

( continues...) Wedding Going On. Now You Go Back Inside And It's Dark Again. You Can't, In My Mind, Put Both Feet Into A Bucket Of Cement And Leave Them There For The Whole Movie. It Doesn't Work. You Must Have This Relativity."

• Cough cough fincher*

What? Nothing. Oh, right. Wrong guy. We're talking about tom hooper and the fact that he wanted to make an "intimate" and "organic" les mis so he filmed the entire thing in close-up and hand-held. Despite the fact that that was inappropriate for about 90% of the movie. Yup. He put both feet in the bucket of cement. 4. Okay. So no one ever actually explains what makes good and bad cinematography and why a choice will work in one setting and not in another. So let's talk cinematography theory basics with a little mini-column that hulk will call: "cinematic affectation 101." hulk isn't going to explain the shots in detail or anything because you can supplement that information anywhere. Hulk's point is to discuss the way those shots affect you. Note: if you're a newbie, stick this list somewhere. And let hulk know if you have any questions in the comments. A) first up hulk is going to explain basic concepts of "shots." one judges what constitutes "a shot" by the size of the subject, how much we can see of it and how close we are. A wide shot covers a lot of space whether it be a landscape or a room, and it establishes the needed scope, geography, space and context. B) meanwhile, a close-up is one of the most powerful tools filmmakers have at their disposal. It brings us close to an actor to see every bit of emotion on her or his face... But there's a delicate art to it. Letting us close to an actor's face makes for such a uniquely intimate moment that if you do it for too much time it loses its effect. But if you're too far away in a given moment where you need to connect, it can be equally damaging. But while finding the balance is difficult to perfect, most filmmakers and cinematographers still understand the remarkable power of the close-up and how it must have context within a movie. C) a static shot is the base language of all filmmaking. It presents the subject plainly, but that plainness is its own language if used correctly (think of how films build up "normalcy" by not stylizing their films and bring the subjects to the forefront). D) a hand-held shot is akin to "god's eye" suddenly being off-kilter. Now. It doesn't necessarily lend itself to an automatic docu-like affectation, where the intent is to make god's eye human (though it can if that's the intention), hand-held is more of general way to characterize that we lose the stability of the static shot and embrace a wilder sense of our cinematic world. It is the sense of things now being somewhat out of control and uneasy. What hulk hopes to convey is that hand-held does not automatically = real. Cool? Cool. E) a dolly shot (camera on a rig with tracks) puts the camera's eye in motion, but just on the horizontal plane. It puts the entire world in motion and gives the viewer a sense of control, believe it or not. We feel less like we are watching and more like we are investigating if that makes sense. While our perspective can move, without the y-axis it is more of the voyeur traveling with other people. F) a steady-cam / crane shot functions like a dolly, but with even more fluidity and use of the y-axis. It is the true god's eye view. All-seeing, but ornate and quite powerful. Almost dream-like power. Like the close-up there is a dichotomy. Not enough steady-cam or diving into that kind of shot without a good reason can feel like a sudden break in how you see the film's universe. But since most hollywood films shoot as much as they can on steady-cam these days, they fall victim to the opposite effect and lose the power of the shot's real purpose. (note: now is as good a place as any to talk about this, as points d through f can all constitute a similar term for a camera move called a "tracking shot." people use this term all the time and the whole usage issue secretly drives hulk fucking nuts. And the reason is (continued...)

---