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...)

---

( continues...) that people mistake "tracking shot" for meaning "a shot that tracks the subject," but that's not where it comes from at all. History! Once upon a time all moving shots had to be done on dollies because there was no other equipment. And for dollies you needed to lay down actual "track," hence "tracking shot." the problem is once we started making rudimentary cranes and eventually steady-cams, a lot of people kept calling it "tracking shots," but you will find cinematographers who only use the term meaning dolly shots, ones who use the term for just when a shot "tracks the subject from behind" and not anything else, and ones who use it to mean anything. Just a tip cause it's silly so hulk never uses the word ever. Dolly. Steady-cam. Crane. That's it). G) a dutch angle is meant to make us and the world feel off-kilter. H) as for character eye-lines, most of the time a character looks "within 45" (degrees), meaning they are communicating with another character either within the frame or just outside of the frame, and this gives us just enough visibility to see the full information of what their eyes are doing and communicate their emotions beautifully, while still having the added benefit of their not looking at the camera/audience and breaking that emotion. I) when a character looks completely away from a camera they instantly become a mystery, and even if they are trying to hide something, it is important to remember that we are still missing the quality that best shows their emotional connection (their face). So if you turn a character away, please understand how much resonance you are losing (hulk's looking at you, eat pray love). J) when a character looks directly into a camera, it is... Unnerving. Off-putting. Creepy. Even scary. And that's because unless we're a stand-in for a character the person is talking to (think silence of the lambs) it is effectively "breaking the fourth wall" and the social contract with the audience. It automatically makes us the voyeur. And even if we are the literal stand-in for the character p.o.v. so that it doesn't break the fourth wall, it should still have the direct intention of creeping us out. K) with lenses you are essentially talking about two arenas: depth and angle. A lens with a deep focus can show lots of information in both the foreground with the subject and deep in the background as well. It's good for landscapes or whenever you want to put a subject in detailed context with the surrounding area. L) a lens with a shallow focus will make anything not on the plane with the subject seem out of focus, which has the benefit of just getting you to focus on what matters and everything in the background or immediate foreground seem unimportant. M) meanwhile the angle of the lens affects the size of the information depending how close it is. For instance, a "normal lens" will act like our eye does and effectively correct everything so that it both has a sense of depth, but appears "flat" to a certain degree (fyi - our eye, aka the way we see the world, is supposedly closest to a 50mm lens.) N) but a "wide-angled lens" will make everything close to the camera seem huge and bulbous and everything far away seem small and tiny. It has a rather dramatic, surreal effect on the viewer and it looks like this: Note: there's a reason cinematographers are obsessed with lenses and could kind of give fuck all about the camera: the lenses control what you see more than anything else. It's that simple. So mix and match lens angle and depth until you get the clarity and size of image you want and it conveys what you want your story to convey. O) when it comes to tone and color, a warm summer palette makes things feel romantic and sumptuous. P) a cool blue sheen makes things feel distant, cold and possibly unruffled or "cool." Q) comedies, romantic or otherwise, are often shot in high-key light (meaning everything is really brightly lit and detailed and there's no contrast) which makes the actors look good, but it has the added benefit of making the audience feel comfortable. (continued...)

---

( continues...) Seriously, it makes us feel like nothing truly wrong could happen. It represents safety and "movie normalcy." R) drama is low-key lighting. High contrast. Shadows. Lots of shades of gray and gradient. It is essentially more "designed" and signifies to us a more serious, dangerous, tragic and sad world. Ta-da! That's it! Hulk could probably think of a s-z, but that's all the relevant stuff for today. Them's the basics and hulk hopes that was fairly simple and self-explanatory. After all, this is not rocket science. But what a director or cinematographer does that is truly remarkable and kind of like rocket science is to use these basics to their advantage to craft moments. Like how eisenstein discovered story via edit, you can create story via camera information. Great directors make you feel one way and then push you in another direction with that basic language. For instance, if you're watching a scene where things are still for a period of time and suddenly the camera is hand-held and shaky, it gives the audience a worried feeling that something bad is about to happen. Or you can even use the exact opposite to the same effect, where a character will be in motion and we'll be comfortable with it and all of a sudden things may get rather still and quiet. We'll pause with them and feel unnerved that things are progressing in the same way. Cinema is a language and the way we use it, invert it and communicate with it is everything. And with that understanding you can stretch the limits of cinema, test the boundaries of art and juxtapose story and meaning and themes and symbols and shape our experience in the name of something better. To our highest possible selves. But the basics have been, are and will always be the foundation of how we get there. 5. Sometimes it's easier to talk about the basics of cinema and how to use them by not talking about cinema whatsoever. So let's try that for a brief moment. Cooking is cooking. It's the science of heat and application to food. To cook is to literally dehydrate. That's it. But it's also other basics like particles and nutrients. It's what tastes good and excites our brains, tongues and stomachs. And no matter how far along we come in our understanding, no matter how many foods we deconstruct or molecular gastronimize, the basics are the basics. And to watch the greatest chefs in the world, as they sous vide a fine, true japanese wagyu and serve dehydrated forest mushroom with espuma of red radish and compressed "eggs of the sun" (japanese mango), and edible foraged wildflower, and... To possibly get lost in the details of all this ornate presentation, is to miss the understanding that they are not actually fucking with the basics. It's "steak and eggs" with mushrooms. And it's just trying to hit the same flavor notes with different terminology. Sweet. Salty. Sour. Bitter. Umami. The way these five things are played with, time and time again, are everlasting. Warm. Crispy. Cool. Clean. These textures that have been played with over and over are everlasting too. And the way we bring it all together is cooking. The names of the starches and animals and dairies and vegetables which contain all these elements might change, as do the proper names of the equipment we use to apply heat and dehydrate them, but it is all still cooking. And the basics of cooking have been the same since we threw some mammoth over a roasting pit. Cinema is the same. And you have to understand the basics. 6. The experience of watching les misérables is one of the weirdest that you can have in a movie theater. On the surface, you have these delicate, soulful performances that you do truly get to see. There's no denying that. The performances are on full display. And you also get to have this beautiful music that so many people are getting to discover for the first time or maybe even re-discover again. After all, the show of les mis is great and hulk has seen it many times. The story. The tragedy. The themes. The words. The sounds. All of these things have become classic for a reason. And yet (continued...)

---