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?
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?