MovieChat Forums > How Do You Know (2010) Discussion > What the crap is with the cinematography...

What the crap is with the cinematography?!

posted 14 years ago by gazboselectamo
21 replies | jump to latest

It's all over the place!

Random hand held camera shots come out of nowhere completely disrupting the flow of a sequence of otherwise steady and nicely framed shots.

The lighting is over the top and saturates all the colours, night looks like day (to the point where it looks like there's actual daylight inside George's flat while he's supposed to be on the phone at night).

When George meets Lisa for the first time, there's a simply horrific shot that steadily zooms in too close to George's face then pans off towards a close up of his shoulder. Completely unacceptable for a film that cost this many millions to make. What on earth was going on?!

Janusz Kaminski was the director of cinematography on this picture and considering how similar in content this was to "Jerry Maguire" (which he also shot), you'd have thought he would have known how to handle it. Then again he also shot "Indiana Jones and the Crystal *beep* so....

EDIT: John Bailey who shot "As good as it gets" for James L Brooks was busy with several projects in 2010. I'm sure he would have been considered, a pity he wasn't available.

[–] andy2008 14 years ago

I noticed several zoom-ins, pull-outs, and pans that were out of place, too.

Build a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire & he's warm for the rest of his life!

[–] Filmnut87 14 years ago

Im glad this post was here, I was unwilling watching this movie and I didnt want to seem like a snob but wtf was going on with the direction and cinematography? Even at the end when they were at Matty's place on the balcony, I know they were in a sound stage but could they make the night backdrop look real, it looked like a backdrop for an "exterior" scene of I love Lucy. It overall had some funny ideas, but the random extreme wide shots with something in the foreground followed by a bizzare array of unflowing shots threw me way off.

[–] sensei_mike 14 years ago

I am also glad I wasn't the only one who was annoyed by this! Did you guys also notice how in every single exterior scene it looked like it just rained? (rain puddles all over the place) What was up with that? Could they not get a few dry days to shoot??

[–] who_took_ID_edifer 14 years ago

I actually like that, as someone who lives in DC it made it all seem a little more real.

Movie buff, ya right who watches TV anymore

[–] stgabriel1972 13 years ago

oddly this was filmed in Philadelphia wasn't it?

[–] snowstorm077 14 years ago

I remember reading in the trivia for Catch me if you Can that many cinematographers prefer using roads that look wet.

[–] Gus-69 14 years ago

"Then again he also shot "Indiana Jones and the Crystal *beep* so...."

Which is brilliantly lensed.

He also lensed SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY.

What is your point?

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

[–] gazboselectamo 14 years ago

We'll just have to disagree on Indy 4, I didn't enjoy the cinematography in that one bit. Are you telling me the super close up swinging through the trees with CGI monkeys was "brilliant"!?

As far as other films he's worked on, Saving Private Ryan I agree is brilliantly shot, but that doesn't mean because one was nicely shot all his work is.

I'm not disagreeing with you that other work of his is good, but specificaly the shot in the restaurant in "How do you know" is what led me to look up who shot the film. Frankly that shot was a total WTF moment for me. All I could think was how on earth did such a terrible shot get into a film that cost over $100m to make. There's simply no excuse at or anywhere near that level.

In any case, this was probably the most disappointing James L Brooks film I've ever seen. I do hope he continues though as I love several of his other movies. Certainly it wasn't just the cinematography that was broke in this one.

[–] KellyMaree 14 years ago

i totally agree. i was wondering the same thing. TERRIBLE!!!!!

[–] JonPaula 14 years ago

Besides the perplexing shot compositions there were multiple instances where the blocking and framing seemed off too... a couple times the actor's eye-lines didn't line up. One actor would be looking off-right, and the reverse angle had them looking directly at camera. Not quite as bad as breaking the 180-rule... but definitely jarring.

I wasn't impressed in the slightest.

- Jon

[–] I_Guard_Tanelorn 14 years ago

I definitely got some motion sickness from this. It was the weird slow zooms.

"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"

[–] PutTheGlassesOn 14 years ago

I am still in the middle of watching this right now, and maybe it gets better, buy I certainly have noticed a few off cinematogrpahy moments in this myself.

The one in particular that really seemed odd to me was the ECU of Reese Witherspoon's butt as she is walking down the sidewalk after leaveing Owen Wilson's apartment for the first time. She is wearing this red dress and it's very wrinkled looking. Now I'm not an expert on women's fashion, so maybe that's just the design of the dress, but I assumed that may have been the reason for the shot- to show that her character's clothes were in disarray after having spent the night. But other than that, I can't figure out why they would have used such a gratuitous shot (although I certainly don't mind seeing Reese's attributes showcased, it's just that it was kind of a weird shot.)

It reminded me of an obviously male-driven shot in the first Slumber Party Massacre where, in the shower scene, the camera cranes down to some woman's assetts for like 10 seconds for no reason whatsoever, other than just because it was a guy's movie.

Like I said, Reese is beautiful and I certainly don't mind seeing her, but that shot in particular was weird. That, and a few others.

If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature

[–] PutTheGlassesOn 14 years ago

And I just want to say that I just finished watching this now and that I really do like it. And the shots seemed to not have any odd cinematography!

If you believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it put this as your signature

[–] josebut8 14 years ago

James L. Brooks makes giant sit-coms for the movie screen. That's why all his flicks look and sound like TV shows. Except the law of diminishing returns has set in and it's becoming more and more obvious he's something of a hack. This one wasn't even equivalent to a mid-rate "Friends" episode. All that wasted money!

[–] zokot-junk 14 years ago

When George meets Lisa for the first time, there's a simply horrific shot that steadily zooms in too close to George's face then pans off towards a close up of his shoulder. Completely unacceptable for a film that cost this many millions to make. What on earth was going on?!

exactly ...i was like WTF ??!!? man that was baaadd..

STEVE HOLT !!!

[–] Desertman84 14 years ago

They spent $120 million on this film.
Wow!!!!!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]