Is anyone else getting tired of "gritty cinematography" in movies?

I don't know if that's what you call it, but it's being overused in a lot of "documentary style" thrillers. Pretty much Paul Greengrass's movies, like Green Zone, United 93, and Captain Phillips, but it was also really heavily used in End of Watch, Rampart and Zero Dark Thirty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR4IhcZzAkg

In fact, in Zero Dark Thirty, the cinematography was so dark and grainy, to the point where it was very difficult to see what was happening, even in the theater! Basically the grainy look was good when it came out, but I think it has really run it's course, and filmmakers feel they have to use it, whenever they are making a movie that is based on a true story, or a movie dealing with really sensitive subject matter.

They also shoot at discreet camera angles that feel off. Like in United 93 for example, the camera was never in front of anyone's face much, and always off more to the side. A lot of profile shots, but you didn't see any dead on frontal face shots. Like for example, whenever they show the terrorist pilot, they always shoot his face from behind, and off to the side, rather than from the front windshield point of view of the plane.

I guess this is suppose to make the movie less exploitative in a way, but by doing that, the director could be making it more exploitative cause he is making the documentary style too obvious and possible pretentious. The French Connection was a dark crime drama, based on true events and true people, but they had no problem showing the front of Gene Hackman's face, through the windshield of the car, during the chase.... and no one complained it was exploitative for doing that.

This style also uses a lot of hand held cam, which sometimes I don't mind, but it feels overdone when they use for pretty much the WHOLE movie.

I watched Skyfall again, and thought it was really refreshing to see a thriller type movie, that did not feel the need to implore that style. Zero Dark Thirty has very ugly cinematography that looks way cheaper than it's budget. On a microbudget indie film I would understand, but for a movie like that, really? Would it really be so bad to shoot it like Skyfall? The climax raid on the house in Skyfall was beautifully shot, compared to the night raid climax in Zero Dark Thirty.

I talked to a fellow filmmaker who is an aspiring DP and he liked the new style saying it takes away exploitation. He said he hated Schindler's List for example, cause the cinematography was too artistic for such serious subject matter. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite movies though, and I would have hated if it were shot like Zero Dark Thirty, and probably would not have been that engaged by it, if it were.

What do you think, is it an overused now pretentious style, or does it have it's place in removing exploitation from serious movies?
 
If you mean almost exclusively hand-held, overly shaky-cam, and barely lit... or in any other way related to 'dogme 95' Most often found in so-called "found footage" films, and every Michael Bay action sequence ever.. yes. I'm tired of that "style" ;)
 
United 93 is an EXCELLENT example of good use of the handheld style. There is actual shit going on in each frame -- unlike most other films where the camera is shaken to give the illusion of something going on.
 
There's a place for a bit of shake, but overall I'm in the "put that camera on a damn tripod already" camp.

I do however like the fluid camera movement style of a DP like Mac Ahlberg and from directors like Joe Dante and Charles Band.
 
Yes, I am extremely tired of that style. In fact, although I know this won't happen, I miss the good old days of Technicolor and that more saturated look that films had. I think the last notable films to have that rich kind of color are Zhang Yimou's films from the 90's (maybe also the 2000's, but I haven't seen those yet so idk).

I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, but I'm always happy to see his films just because they have the kind of color I like (I don't think he's incredible with color but he maintains a standard that I admire).

Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place for more 'gritty' cinematography, but I don't like how dominant it is. I guess if we were to go back to brighter, more saturated colors, I'd complain about them too after a while. I actually like some of Dogme 95 though.
 
I agree that Paul Greengrass films are the EXCELLANT examples of how handheld style can be used very well. Very well and to great effect. Especially United 93.

I think the reason United 93 doesn't use cutaways (taking your word for it, it's been a while now since I watched it) to close-ups etc like we expect from your typical feature, like looking at the terrorist pilot as though the camera/viewer is placed or sitting at the windshield or even outside of the plane, the usual filmmaking trickery, has nothing to do with worrying about exploitation.

What it is all about is immediacy. Greengrass wants to give you the impression, if only subliminally, that the camera, or you, are observing as a documentary cameraman (or just another observer standing there in body) would. There won't be any "cuts!" to a take and re-arranging of the set-up for different shots. Instead, it gives you the sense that this is really happening...now...live. In other words, immediacy. Or even immersion.

And I always think of the excellent making-of stuff with the special edition of The Mist. Frank Darabont gives us an excellent explanation of how he shot (at least some of) The Mist handheld (he used experienced camera operators from The Shield, I think it was). I don't think I'd want to shoot the whole film handheld. But in the scenes in the store in which people or are arguing, getting hostile, I really get how going handheld lended itself to creating the intensity the filmmakers wanted for that.

So yeah, I too generally loathe shaky cam. I mean, it really can make me just quit watching if I see that's how a film is going to be. But, handheld in the hands of those who use it wisely can be very good.
 
Some people are prejudice against handheld but certain scenes would look ridiculous without it imo
 
Yes, I am extremely tired of that style. In fact, although I know this won't happen, I miss the good old days of Technicolor and that more saturated look that films had. I think the last notable films to have that rich kind of color are Zhang Yimou's films from the 90's (maybe also the 2000's, but I haven't seen those yet so idk).

I'm not a huge Tarantino fan, but I'm always happy to see his films just because they have the kind of color I like (I don't think he's incredible with color but he maintains a standard that I admire).

Don't get me wrong, there's a time and a place for more 'gritty' cinematography, but I don't like how dominant it is. I guess if we were to go back to brighter, more saturated colors, I'd complain about them too after a while. I actually like some of Dogme 95 though.

I agree that that saturated look was good. I have been shooting in that lately, and the last project I shot in that, I chose a saturated picture style. Although it may have been a mistake cause some people said it looks too colorful. People are just so use to not seeing a technicolor look, that it may come off as accidental nowadays (shrug).
 
I agree that that saturated look was good. I have been shooting in that lately, and the last project I shot in that, I chose a saturated picture style. Although it may have been a mistake cause some people said it looks too colorful. People are just so use to not seeing a technicolor look, that it may come off as accidental nowadays (shrug).

I'd like to see the way you use that style!

I think when it's done right, it can be incredible. Have you seen Leave Her To Heaven? That is one of the most beautiful films I've seen. Then there are Zhang Yimou's films from the late 80's and 90's that were a more modern use of Technicolor. I don't know why people don't want their films to just be beautiful today. It doesn't fit all content of course, but I feel like this dominant trend of more 'gritty' cinematography makes most films look more dull and ugly.

I think if we want that style to come back, it has to be done gradually since people are so accustomed to this 'gritty' style, which they think make the films look more "realistic" yet it is just as artificial as the saturated style.
 
Why not go ahead and do it anyway? Nothing is really dead permanently in film. I for one like the saturated look and used some in my last film and will likely do so again.

Oh yeah, definitely. I would never make a film with the visual style in today's films, unless it enhanced the content (and the films I want to make aren't 'gritty' so I wouldn't use that visual style). I prefer more stable, beautiful looking compositions. And when the camera moves, I usually don't like it to be handheld, I prefer the camera motion from something like In The Mood For Love.
 
It seems like not only is Hollywood overusing the style, but indie films are as well. At the last film festival I attended, I would say perhaps 90% of the movies there were very gritty colored, or mostly handheld or both. There were no technicolor style movies, that used a lot of smooth camera movements.
 
Because many of the "indie filmmakers" (read: amateurs) either don't know any better because they never bothered to learn the craft of filmmaking properly, or are too cheap to invest in quality camera support gear and/or favor "handheld" for "speed" ignoring that it often means at the expense of viewability when they're working with a 17oz camera. :D
 
But a lot of those movies did a decent job in other areas. They got decent sound, decent costume and production design, and good actors. Why is it that they don't bother to learn cinematography and camera work, but succeed in other areas? Not saying that they do super fantastic jobs, in those other areas, just decent at least.

Is it because they think that the camera aspects are not as important to learn?
 
Back
Top