While Skyfall’s colors stood out (the deep blue of the skyscraper scenes in Macau, for instance, or the vibrant reds in Shanghai, or the chilly desaturation on the Scottish moors), the lighting was the real accomplishment: this was a film about mirroring and self-reflection, Bond seeing himself in others and examining his own psyche, and it used a constant motif of glass and mirrors to get that across. Three things marked Deakins’ style for me in Skyfall: the gorgeous lighting traversing palettes across locations, the quiet or very smoothly moving camera that didn’t sacrifice clarity for action, and the framing that balances movement within each shot without resorting to the heavy-handed center framing that’s becoming all too common in action films. The bar was high, though Roger Deakins is one of the most well-regarded cinematographyers, and his genius is all over films like The Shawshank Redemption, A Beautiful Mind, Kundun, and all the Coen Bros’ best ( O Brother Where Art Thou?, Fargo, The Big Lebowski, etc.).
Unfortunately, I think it turned out less nostalgic than stultified, less romantic than old-fashioned. He suggested to director Sam Mendes that they could get a nostalgic, more romantic feel by using 35 mm film, rather than digital equipment like the Arri Alexa DP Roger Deakins used for Skyfall. In the film it is revealed to Bond (Daniel Craig) by Q (Ben Whishaw) in his Mechanical Workshop the car is. Spectre’s director of photography was Hoyte van Hoytema, who did Interstellar and Her, among others. Cubby Broccoli 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios. While I don’t want to carry on about how Spectre was a disappointment after Skyfall, it’s been instructive to look at the cinematography of the two films, and think about why the former fails, and what made the latter so satisfying. Cinematography from the sublime to the meh ( Skyfall v.
0 kommentar(er)
