Michael Mann, what happened to you, bruh?

[CerebralKnievel]

Manhunter is a testament to everything that was good, stylistically, about the 80s.

 

[minute bull]

PUBLIC ENEMIES is so good. As an experiment, try watching it on mute. Really try to see the visuals, the immediate storytelling that most people miss. A strong narrative style renders a film without the need for dialogue. I'm not saying you'll understand the story as a whole, certain points will be missed without the words, but you may get an understanding of the mechanics at work.

How characters enter rooms and hold their expressions, their bodies. How their interior feelings are expressed on the outside, by the camera moves, by their surroundings and the people around them. Crowd work is telling, but ironically mute makes it obvious during rave scenes that they aren't dancing to the same beat.

Watch the introduction of Don Frye. It starts with Christian Bale.

The rhythm of cuts and what their juxtaposition says. The way elements fill the screen.

The direction across screen the camera travels, the mood of the camera.

The awesome fidelity of setting and costume. There are no obvious movie lights. It's as though you're looking at what people really would have seen back then.

And compare Stephen Lang between MANHUNTER and PE, in case you think monotonous and flat characters are Mann's bag.

 

[Guestx]

He is studying the form.

The convenience enumerated above simplified the directorial process for those small of vision, which, combined with the backlash against the "soap opera" effect, resulted in a momentary imperative for digital to assume the appearance of film, notably with grain and mimicking FPS rate. However, both filming and viewing have evolved past the desire for grain, in preference to crystal clear verisimilitude. What happened to movies was a Judd Apatow llike explosion of improv type performance pieces, which eventually started to look indistinguishable from bona fide well made cinema. Here's where television took over, because tv had the good sense to stick to form, now with the benefit of digital technology.

All the while Michael Mann continues to explore the reaches of digital as its own look, independent of film and crystal clear aesthetics. Analogous to paint styles: it's photorealism vs avant garde as filtered through Mann's story sensibilities, which are also monstrously prodigious.

I think the backlash against the soap opera effect was entirely justified. Granted, it's all subjective, but I just don't think it looks good and it seems that most other moviegoers agree with me.

The problem with Mann's recent films, in my view, goes beyond just the digital look though. The writing also just seems quite weak in comparison to his older work. If something like Heat or The Insider were shot digitally in Mann's preferred style they'd still be great movies. But his films post-Collateral have tended to have stories that are simultaneously hard to follow while also being dull, then there's just eye-rolling shit like the firefight at the end of Blackhat.

 

[Guestx]

Jesus!

Get on it.

You'll see Brian Cox give the definitive Hannibal performance with the back drop of 80s chic.

I've heard good things. It's one of those movies that I've been meaning to watch for ages but just haven't done it.

I will go ahead and bump its priority up. Probably get to it in the next week or so.

 

[coopdro]

Hooray @shadow_priest_x , we agree that Miami Vice was garbage. I tried to rewatch it myself roughly a year ago, couldn't do it. I didn't buy into either lead characters. The "cool" felt way too forced and I agree that the story felt borderline incoherent often. I didn't care for the lighting and the way it was shot much either.

 

[minute bull]

I think the backlash against the soap opera effect was entirely justified. Granted, it's all subjective, but I just don't think it looks good and it seems that most other moviegoers agree with me

I'm not saying it wasn't, but times have moved on; it's an outdated perception and now it's just a meaningless label that you're clinging to for no real reason it seems. There's no point in saying something that doesn't exist is justified; that's like me saying, "Bread was a nickel and man that was great." Fun story, Grampa.

The problem with Mann's recent films, in my view, goes beyond just the digital look though. The writing also just seems quite weak in comparison to his older work. If something like Heat or The Insider were shot digitally in Mann's preferred style they'd still be great movies. But his films post-Collateral have tended to have stories that are simultaneously hard to follow while also being dull, then there's just eye-rolling shit like the firefight at the end of Blackhat.

In what ways do you find this to be true? Can you pull comparative examples between the films?

If this is one of those times people say, "It's just a feeling I cannot put into words," then I can say there might be nothing that can be said that would suffice, either from you or me. Much like the principle behind, "If you have to ask you'll never know." Murakami says it another way: If you can't understand without the explanation you won't understand with the explanation.

 

[Guestx]

Hooray @shadow_priest_x , we agree that Miami Vice was garbage. I tried to rewatch it myself roughly a year ago, couldn't do it. I didn't buy into either lead characters. The "cool" felt way too forced and I agree that the story felt borderline incoherent often. I didn't care for the lighting and the way it was shot much either.

I think that with a better story I could've overlooked everything else that I felt was lacking, Foxx's performance and the cinematography most specifically.

But the story just was not interesting to me at all and the double-whammy that it was also hard to follow really kills the movie. I mean, c'mon, if your story is going to be dull don't also insult me by making me work hard to try to follow it.

 

[Thad Castle v2]

haven't seen Miami vice but Blackhat was dog shit

 

[Guestx]

I'm not saying it wasn't, but times have moved on; it's an outdated perception and now it's just a meaningless label that you're clinging to for no real reason it seems. There's no point in saying something that doesn't exist is justified; that's like me saying, "Bread was a nickel and man that was great." Fun story, Grampa.

Are you saying here that the soap opera effect no longer exists? Because I think the whole point here is that Mann's recent films harken back too much to that specific look, a look that most people just don't find aesthetically pleasing.

I mean, sure, Blackhat looks much more filmic than Guiding Light. But it is still overtly "video-ish" in its look.

In what ways do you find this to be true? Can you pull comparative examples between the films?

If this is one of those times people say, "It's just a feeling I cannot put into words," then I can say there might be nothing that can be said that would suffice, either from you or me. Much like the principle behind, "If you have to ask you'll never know." Murakami says it another way: If you can't understand without the explanation you won't understand with the explanation.

I think that whether or not a viewer responds to a narrative is often entirely subjective, not objective. I may find a narrative exciting and compelling; you may find it boring.

With Miami Vice, I thought it felt like a generic cops-go-after-drug-lord storyline. With Blackhat, like I said, there was shit that literally made me roll my eyes. I mentioned the firefight at the end. "Okay, yeah, let's meet in this place where there are thousands of witnesses standing around just so that we can engage in mortal combat with guns and screwdrivers." That is just inept decision-making and I didn't buy that any of the people involved would've actually made some of the decisions that they made.

 

[minute bull]

Are you saying here that the soap opera effect no longer exists? Because I think the whole point here is that Mann's recent films harken back too much to that specific look, a look that most people just don't find aesthetically pleasing.

I mean, sure, Blackhat looks much more filmic than Guiding Light. But it is still overtly "video-ish" in its look.

I'm saying two things.

I'm saying that that's the preferred look now, while conceding it's a bit more refined than what we remember as being "the soap opera effect." Still viewers are more willing to engage this new generation, and more people are finding film grain intolerable.

Hence, new cinematic language.

I think that whether or not a viewer responds to a narrative is often entirely subjective, not objective. I may find a narrative exciting and compelling; you may find it boring.

With Miami Vice, I thought it felt like a generic cops-go-after-drug-lord storyline. With Blackhat, like I said, there was shit that literally made me roll my eyes. I mentioned the firefight at the end. "Okay, yeah, let's meet in this place where there are thousands of witnesses standing around just so that we can engage in mortal combat with guns and screwdrivers." That is just inept decision-making and I didn't buy that any of the people involved would've actually made some of the decisions that they made.

Thank you for trying. I'm seeing that you refer to plausibility? Have I got that right?

You wouldn't say you didn't get it, would you? You'd say you'd "got it?"

 

[Guestx]

I'm saying two things.

I'm saying that that's the preferred look now, while conceding it's a bit more refined than what we remember as being "the soap opera effect." Still viewers are more willing to engage this new generation, and more people are finding film grain intolerable.

Hence, new cinematic language.

It's like I said before. . . Most films are shot digitally now. But most films do not look like Michael Mann's recent films.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake, Drive and Blue Ruin were all shot with digital cameras. Do they look EXACTLY like film? No. But they look much more like film than Blackhat does.

Mann is literally doing his own thing and it's a thing that virtually NO other directors are also doing. So I'm not sure what you mean about it being "the preferred look now."

Thank you for trying. I'm seeing that you refer to plausibility? Have I got that right?

You wouldn't say you didn't get it, would you? You'd say you'd "got it?"

Yes, I'm referring to plausibility. I'm talking about the film's ability to convince me that what I'm seeing on screen is real within the world of the film, to "buy" the action. I did not buy the finale in Blackhat.

 

[Guestx]

@Secret Agent, here's an interesting thread I found on the Cinematography sub-reddit.

One guy asks:

After seeing the trailer to Michael Mann's Blackhat, I was a bit shocked to see how bad it looked. I understand that whether a film looks good or bad is subjective, but compared to Inarritu's Birdman or Fincher's Gone Girl, Blackhat looks "smudgy" and noisy. And this film was shot with Arri cameras. My question is why is the film like this? How come Birdman and Gone Girl look so good compared to Blackhat?

And here's one of the more interesting responses:

He definitely doesn't give a shit.

I've heard stories about how he normally works (shouter, pain in the ass, short temper, etc). Add to the mix a digital workflow that doesn't need to "wait for lighting", and you've got a bad combination. "Public Enemies" is almost 2 different movies: one where they had the time to light and care for the image, and the other where MM was clearly pushing to keep moving, keep shooting, "fuck it I'm not waiting", etc. I still cite the shootout at the cabin in "Public Enemies" as one of the shittiest images I've ever seen in a big theater; rolling shutter, light source from the muzzle flashes that looks terrible, noise, etc.

The fact of the matter is: take any artist, and move them to another medium, you sometimes wind up with a complete mess of the art form. David Fincher shot Zodiac in 2007, and on probably the cleanest best camera at the time (Thomson Viper). Public Enemies was in 2008, and they used everything from 35mm on Arri 235/435 to a fucking Sony EX1 (as if the footage was ever going to match). Zodiac looked great (as good as could be). Public Enemies looked like someone impatient who didn't understand the imaging side of his job was angrily directing.

Watching the trailer for "Blackhat" right now, he seems to switch between 24 and 30 fps once again for some sort of visual effect, not sure what. Likewise, when he shoots at 30fps, it appears like he's doing so with the same shutter angle. If shooting above 24fps, a common thing is to close down the shutter to 90 degrees, which results in less image "smearing" during whip pans and fast action (30 frames in a second, motion blur has 30 chances per second to really show itself, and persistence of image is a bitch).

Anyway, handing someone a $90,000 Fender Stratocaster won't suddenly make them Stevie Ray Vaughn. Sure, Michael Mann has his credits in the 90's, but his attitude and neglect for understanding cinematography has hurt his box office clout and probably his career.

 

[Guestx]

Interesting, apparently MM restructured Blackhat significantly in a new cut of the film, but that cut will probably never been made available on home video:

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/02/th...nns-blackhat-and-its-really-different-124860/

 

[minute bull]

It's like I said before. . . Most films are shot digitally now. But most films do not look like Michael Mann's recent films.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake, Drive and Blue Ruin were all shot with digital cameras. Do they look EXACTLY like film? No. But they look much more like film than Blackhat does.

Mann is literally doing his own thing and it's a thing that virtually NO other directors are also doing. So I'm not sure what you mean about it being "the preferred look now."

NO IT'S LIKE I SAID BEFORE .... oh jesus christ....

Let's try this again. Directors these days do not look like Michael Mann because digital has trended toward emulating the look of film. It looks like film, and this is fine for most people and directors who lack vision. Let's call this moment the Digital Revolution: that is, once again for the cheap seats in the back, the point which DIGITAL became functionally indistinguishable to FILM. Got it?

Okay, moving on.

Directors who came after DR have entered a generation where digital ALREADY looks like film. They don't experiment with the visuals, except in aspects where convenience and expedience do it for them. And unlike you, I will provide a concrete example of what I mean.

Back in the day of film, film had to go through several processes to attune the correct look. Look up SILVER BATHS if you'd like. ADR, these processes were made obsolete. They didn't need to experiment because the picture looks exactly how they (of superficial vision) imagined it.

The experimentation ADR directors DO DO (hee hee) is because of the technology. The other example here is depth of field. With film, you had to use a specific lens to capture a specific depth of field, which limited the actors' movements. Moving too far front or back meant they would be out of focus. With digital, the range of focus is so wide that you can have an extreme close-up and a far-off distance shot in the same shot, with both places being in tack sharp focus. Because the technology allows for it, the directors have more freedom in the experimentation but this is more of a benefit of the technology than it is a creative study. It's like saying, "Hey, I didn't know we could do this too!" Whereas Mann is actively looking to see what else it can do, beyond mere mimickry.

With me so far?

Okay, "the preferred look."

This is something about different from what I'm talking about in the preceding paragraphs, because aforementioned is from the filmmaking side and the "preferred look" refers to the viewing side. In this I mean that it used to be people liked to watch film, then they chafed against the soap opera effect, but now prefer something closer to the latter than the former.

Let me know if we need to dance this dance once more time.

Yes, I'm referring to plausibility. I'm talking about the film's ability to convince me that what I'm seeing on screen is real within the world of the film, to "buy" the action. I did not buy the finale in Blackhat.

I understood you.

With more appreciation for tacit narrative techniques you'll come to realize different. If you're lucky. If you're not lucky, no sweat. No need to revisit hot garbage.

 

[Guestx]

In this I mean that it used to be people liked to watch film, then they chafed against the soap opera effect, but now prefer something closer to the latter than the former.

I was okay with everything you said up until this point, but no, I just don't think this is true.

Most digital productions today look very close to film, and that is what people want, even on the viewership side.

Let's imagine a graph:

Film
.
.
. Modern digitally shot movies
.
.
.
.
.
Soap Opera

If you took that "modern digitally shot movies" entry and move it more toward soap opera and farther away from film, then moviegoers will like it less.

 

[minute bull]

And here's one of the more interesting responses:

FUCK THAT BOOLSHIT GUY. The mistake he's made is the same mistake you make and that's why you brought him here.

And to spare you future grief, remember this: It's asinine to measure quality using the wrong tool.

The standards by which this idiot is governed are outdated and do not apply to the new technique. I can already see your counterargument that film is film is film is film and thereby everything can be judged on a level playing field -- but that too is nothing more than being argumentative. And so are the ad hominem attacks that pan-out to nothing more than strawmen arguments. That is: If this were judged by the old standards, this would be considered shit.

We're not in the time of the old standards anymore.

There's a clear split between camera techniques in this one scene, and it's not as clear on youtube as it actually is. The camera that captures them from the front is different from the one in the back. The one in the front nominally showcases Billies misgivings about pursuing her relationship with John, signifying conflict and strife. As such, the camera in the front is much jumpier and frenetic as Billie confesses her fears in anger, mirroring the chaotic moment in which she finds herself. It's not as clear here, but the quality of picture was also spottier and harder to read, signifying the lack of understanding between them.

As John reassures, we concentrate on the steadier camera that's placed behind them, and ultimately when she is reassured this is played by the roaring crowd.

Let's imagine a graph:

Film
.
.
. Modern digitally shot movies
.
.
.
.
.
Soap Opera

If you took that "modern digitally shot movies" entry and move it more toward soap opera and farther away from film, then moviegoers will like it less.

You're incorrect, unless you're talking about just your own preferences.

 

[Guestx]

I can already see your counterargument that film is film is film is film and thereby everything can be judged on a level playing field -- but that too is nothing more than being argumentative.

I should point that I'm anything but a film purist. I have a Nikon D3300 right now that I think captures a nice looking image. Before that I had a Canon T3i that I used to shoot a short film that I thought turned out looking nice and I shot a short doc on a Canon XF-100.

I have never shot anything on film and I'm sure that I never will ever shoot anything on film. I appreciate digital technology but I think that the only reason it's really gained a foothold is because video cameras today can capture an image that doesn't really look "like video," at least in the traditional sense of what we think of as the "video look."

Occasionally I'll see an image that was clearly shot digitally but that still looks good, perhaps sometimes even more pleasing than film. Some of the night scenes in Drive fall into this category, for instance.

But there is also clearly a digital look that is NOT aesthetically pleasing and this is the look that is reminiscent of the OLD video look, which I think characterizes Michael Mann's visual style in Blackhat.

But hey. . . You seem to like that look and find it somehow revolutionary or "the future" when I think it's a blatant throwback to the past.

And so are the ad hominem attacks that pan-out to nothing more than strawmen arguments. That is: If this were judged by the old standards, this would be considered shit.

We're not in the time of the old standards anymore.



There's a clear split between camera techniques in this one scene, and it's not as clear on youtube as it actually is. The camera that captures them from the front is different from the one in the back. The one in the front nominally showcases Billies misgivings about pursuing her relationship with John, signifying conflict and strife. As such, the camera in the front is much jumpier and frenetic as Billie confesses her fears in anger, mirroring the chaotic moment in which she finds herself. It's not as clear here, but the quality of picture was also spottier and harder to read, signifying the lack of understanding between them.

As John reassures, we concentrate on the steadier camera that's placed behind them, and ultimately when she is reassured this is played by the roaring crowd.

An interesting analysis.

I don't think that particular scene looks bad BTW, but like the guy I quoted said, the film's look is wildly inconsistent. You have a scene like that one, which looks fine, and then you have the cabin scene which lS the fucking soap opera effect.

You're incorrect, unless you're talking about just your own preferences.

I would love to see a study done on this.

 

[minute bull]

 

[LEWIS540]

I've heard good things. It's one of those movies that I've been meaning to watch for ages but just haven't done it.

I will go ahead and bump its priority up. Probably get to it in the next week or so.

Do it.

Hopkins v Cox.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Can't believe we have a page-long debate on the qualities of Public Enemies. The film was pitifully written - Depp's "portrayal" of Dillinger was essentially reduced to some stares and constantly saying his own name.

The story lacked depth and was disengaging and the digital lighting techniques were too distracting to be considered tasteful.