mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:upon rewatch im actually not blown away by hoyteys work
individually he has some gorgeous shots but overall it feels like a jumble of different styles and ideas. great cinematography will create a specific look which you can attribute to the film but i don't think you can do that here. Contrast ratio, style of lens and of camera movement all sorta jump around.
also i feel pfister handles imax better than hoytey. i cant find a screencap but i remember some shots on mann's planet where they were just standing outside talking, but their heads were at the very top of the screen, which makes you crane your neck up. i found a lot of shots weren't quite framed for imax, which meant i didn't get that immersive feel as much as TDK or TDKR.
It's fairly clear from some of his interviews that Hoyte didn't treat the IMAX camera like it was "built" for a 6-10 story screen, he seemingly treated it like it was purely another medium format camera. This never bugged me seeing it on a 6 story 70mm screen, but the framing was definitely more loose and less centered than Wally's work.
I think it's a new approach for IMAX, and I wouldn't mind see more filmmakers try using it. He essentially treated it like an overgrown Hasselblad, which is awesome.
Overall, I found Hoytema's style quite beautiful to look at. I'm especially impressed with the IMAX sequences, particularly the pursuit of the Indian surveillance drone in the cornfield and the wide shots on Mann's planet. And it is easy to see the difference in visual style with Interstellar- there's a lot more fluidity, close ups and a generally less rigid and composed style compared to Pfister's work. Which is not to say one is better than the other- they both serve their purpose.
When I first heard the announcement that Pfister would not be shooting this film, I was quite heartbroken. But having seen Hoytema's work on films such as Let the Right One In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Her, it's obvious that he's extremely talented and has an excellent eye.
But I do have one issue. I've seen the film twice- once in IMAX film and another in a regular cinema. And both times I've noticed that most of the 35mm scenes that take place on Earth when Cooper is still there look a bit odd. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it seems as though there's a bit too much film grain or the focus may be off just slightly. I've noticed this in the scenes that take place in the house. And I find it strange that Hoytema and Nolan have not corrected this- it's definitely something I've never seen in a Nolan film before. At times like this it does make me wonder what the film would have looked like if Pfister had been the DOP. Or perhaps if someone like Bob Hall had been assistant camera, having worked on multiple Nolan films and being an excellent focus puller.
ComptonTerry wrote:There is still a lot of Hoytes work I haven't seen, but from what I have seen it doesn't seem like he ever really uses any specific or consistent color palette even within the same film. I think this is a unique trademark of his.
Hmm, colour palette or not, Hoytey's work is visually consistent in his films. On stuff like Her and TTSP, he had the luck of working with incredible production designers so they complemented each other but overall, his work doesn't seem disparate to me. Nothing seems out of place really.
99SayGoodbye wrote:
But I do have one issue. I've seen the film twice- once in IMAX film and another in a regular cinema. And both times I've noticed that most of the 35mm scenes that take place on Earth when Cooper is still there look a bit odd. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it seems as though there's a bit too much film grain or the focus may be off just slightly. I've noticed this in the scenes that take place in the house. And I find it strange that Hoytema and Nolan have not corrected this- it's definitely something I've never seen in a Nolan film before. At times like this it does make me wonder what the film would have looked like if Pfister had been the DOP. Or perhaps if someone like Bob Hall had been assistant camera, having worked on multiple Nolan films and being an excellent focus puller.
they were using anamorphic lenses. you can identify them by the warped background and lens flares they produce. they used to be very common but are used more deliberately nowadays to give a classic cinematic look. my guess is hoytey chose em in an attempt to emulate those spielbergian feels.
focus can be an issue with them but it's really an aestetic choice. tack-sharpness isn't always what you're goin for
99SayGoodbye wrote:
But I do have one issue. I've seen the film twice- once in IMAX film and another in a regular cinema. And both times I've noticed that most of the 35mm scenes that take place on Earth when Cooper is still there look a bit odd. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but it seems as though there's a bit too much film grain or the focus may be off just slightly. I've noticed this in the scenes that take place in the house. And I find it strange that Hoytema and Nolan have not corrected this- it's definitely something I've never seen in a Nolan film before. At times like this it does make me wonder what the film would have looked like if Pfister had been the DOP. Or perhaps if someone like Bob Hall had been assistant camera, having worked on multiple Nolan films and being an excellent focus puller.
they were using anamorphic lenses. you can identify them by the warped background and lens flares they produce. they used to be very common but are used more deliberately nowadays to give a classic cinematic look. my guess is hoytey chose em in an attempt to emulate those spielbergian feels.
focus can be an issue with them but it's really an aestetic choice. tack-sharpness isn't always what you're goin for
Not so much his choice. Nolan's just as strict about using anamorphic glass as he is about shooting on 35. Likely one of the more fundamental reasons he'd never work with Deakins, who only shoots spherically.
