What's up with Spielberg and Kaminski?

Crusade>Raiders

New member
If it aint broke, don't fix it. I love those five movies you posted(well, I loved three of them, Catch me if you Can and War of the Worlds were really good), and one of the main reasons is the cinematography.
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
Probably the same reason SS uses John Williams for ever score - these are folks he doesn't have to explain things to - they already know what he wants. And he's not like David Lean - who would fire key people in the middle of production 'cause they weren't doing exactly what he wanted. SS is a collaborator.

>>Catch me if you Can and War of the Worlds were really good<<
Yeah, both those movie (and A.I.) got me back into SS. He lost me in the 1990's - I thought Jurassic Park was too polished and not scary (I like it now). I felt that Schindler's List got really lost & bogged down in the second half, and then just ended (still do). And I really couldn't get into "Saving Private Ryan" - it's a film that feels really shallow to me. And "Lost World" seemed to put me outside the gates forever.

Then A.I. piqued my interest again. Flawed by compellingly watchable. I didn't like "Minority Report" (the end just ruins it for me - and it's far too long), but "Catch Me" I loved, "War of the Worlds" really surprised me - much darker and epic than I was expecting, and I think "Munich" is the best movie he's ever made. And I Loved KSC. So I'm back on board for SS.
 

Crusade>Raiders

New member
I think he's been pretty consistent over the years, 'cept for Lost World, which I thought was garbage, and Hook, which was just really too sappy, even for a Spielberg family film(yes, I know thats redundant).
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
I forgot about Hook!
It's some people's favorite!
That may be where I "jumped ship" ;)
I really don't like that one at all.
"Always" was weak too.
"Empire of the Sun" is up there with Munich for me.
 

deckard24

New member
Peacock's-Eye said:
Probably the same reason SS uses John Williams for ever score - these are folks he doesn't have to explain things to - they already know what he wants. And he's not like David Lean - who would fire key people in the middle of production 'cause they weren't doing exactly what he wanted. SS is a collaborator.

>>Catch me if you Can and War of the Worlds were really good<<
Yeah, both those movie (and A.I.) got me back into SS. He lost me in the 1990's - I thought Jurassic Park was too polished and not scary (I like it now). I felt that Schindler's List got really lost & bogged down in the second half, and then just ended (still do). And I really couldn't get into "Saving Private Ryan" - it's a film that feels really shallow to me. And "Lost World" seemed to put me outside the gates forever.

Then A.I. piqued my interest again. Flawed by compellingly watchable. I didn't like "Minority Report" (the end just ruins it for me - and it's far too long), but "Catch Me" I loved, "War of the Worlds" really surprised me - much darker and epic than I was expecting, and I think "Munich" is the best movie he's ever made. And I Loved KSC. So I'm back on board for SS.
Good point regarding John Williams, but once again he's been on board since day one as opposed to Kaminski! Kaminski has a great eye and a unique visual flair, but every film feels the same aesthetically and that bugs me! It's kind of like Tim Burton's movies, after the first couple it's like enough is enough, do something different. I think Kaminski's look is great for sci-fi films like Minority Report, and it worked fantastic for Munich capturing that 70's look. But the washed out, metallic grey/blue, hazy, dream sequence feel is just overused to me! 11 films plus 4 more to come over the next few years, just feels like a lot of time to me to spend making movies that all have a similar aesthetic feel yet vastly different storylines, time periods, and genres.

I agree with a lot of your opinions regarding his filmography, and I too was not a fan of Hook or Always. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan since it came out, but I did like it. I enjoyed the first half of War of the Worlds a ton, but then it fell apart in the second half with a horrible cliche Hallmark reunion ending! I liked Minority Report, but I agree about the ending, A.I. I'm mixed on, Catch me if you Can was fun but forgettable, and Munich I agree is one of his best works by far!!
 

deckard24

New member
Katarn07 said:
Say what? :eek:
To clarify, in it's entirety! I've seen bits and pieces on TV, but I haven't sat down to watch the whole thing in a while. Actually I've been meaning to considering I own it, and my Dad who's a vet has been asking to watch it.
 

Peacock's-Eye

New member
>>I agree with a lot of your opinions regarding his filmography, and I too was not a fan of Hook or Always. I haven't seen Saving Private Ryan since it came out, but I did like it. I enjoyed the first half of War of the Worlds a ton, but then it fell apart in the second half with a horrible cliche Hallmark reunion ending! I liked Minority Report, but I agree about the ending, A.I. I'm mixed on, Catch me if you Can was fun but forgettable, and Munich I agree is one of his best works by far!!<<

I sympathize. I found the "digital grading" effect on Fellowship of the Ring & the Two Towers to be seriously grating - my eyes were screaming for mercy (and color) by the end of TTT. I was deeply relieved to see that King Kong had a very different, vibrant look to it.

My favorite films to look at (which is different from "watching"), of all time, are: Die Niblungen (Fritz Lang), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Barry Lyndon (Kubrick), Star Wars (1977), Raging Bull, Ran (Kurosawa), Dracula (1992), The Phantom Menace, and Youth Without Youth.

But I confess that I have become very attached to the comfort value of the familiar in movies - so Kaminski isn't bother me, it's nice to know that there is a visual continuity from one SS to another.

It's bad, but I used to know the names of all the DP's, but I've forgotten them. That was when I lived/breathed movies & all I wanted was to direct or write a feature film!

I agree, that the main character's son should have had his heroic death in WotW. But the end was ok for me - I was pretty stunned that SS took it as far as he did in that one, so I accepted the ending. AI is super-flawed, but for some irrational reason, it really intrigues me. I watch it every two years or so, and it works every time.
 

segask

New member
Kaminski makes all his outdoor location footage look like it was shot in a studio. For Indiana Jones that's all wrong. Indy movies should be bright and sunny.

But I guess Spielberg wanted that look for this one. Notice how in the beginning when Indy is pulled out of the trunk it looks like it was shot outdoors. Then when we see the first shot of Spalko, it switches to studio filming.

Hitchcock would do that sort of thing on purpose. Jimmy Stewart or Cary Grant would be in an outdoors scene, then for a brief second or two we would see the character in an obvious rear screen studio shot, then it would be back outdoors again. I never fully understood why Hitch did that.
 

IndyAJA77

New member
I wonder how much of a difference it is watching the original three on video, while having Crystal Skull only in the theater right now. I agree with color desaturation and other lighting techniques that have made most Spielberg/Kaminski films gritty, but in most cases it has also been due to the tone and subject matter of the films. Is it the same with Catch Me If You Can or The Terminal which are lighter in tone as opposed to Schindler's or Private Ryan?

Also, have changes in film stock and processing had any effect on their cinematic look? Unlike Spielberg's other homages to 50's films, I don't see any in regard to 50's films look in lighting or film stock. While it might not have been necessary to mimic the style, what they did choose doesn't seem to work either.

What I find most odd is that Spielberg made reference to the two of them reviewing the other three films and "Swallowing their pride a bit" to capture the same flavor of those films. I didn't see it in Crystal Skull.
 

Dr. Joenes

New member
I like Kaminski on some of Spielberg's films but I agree that for all the talking they did about trying to recapture Slocombe's look the results were a bit uneven. Several sequences hold up extremely well compared to the others but that diffuse, hazy sky and the other "tricks" in Kaminski's arsenal did intrude a little for me here and there.

I do think that Spielberg's work over the last 10+ years or whatever has been too defined by Kaminski though. I love almost all his movies but I prefer the look of the pre-Kaminski stuff (with some exceptions) much more overall.
 

FILMKRUSC

New member
deckard24 said:
I still haven't decided how I feel overall about KOTCS, but when I see it for the second time tomorrow I'll have a better idea of where I stand. One thing is for sure Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was as distracting and out of place as I knew it would be!! It seems Spielberg's continual use of him for his films, really gives weight to the argument that he's gotten complacent, comfortable, and somewhat lazy in his advancing years.

If you go back to Jaws in 1975, Spielberg used Bill Butler for his cinematography, then for Close Encounters of the Third Kind he used Vilmos Zsigmond, for 1941 William A. Fraker, for Raiders of the Lost Ark , Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Douglas Slocombe, for E.T. Allen Daviau, for The Twilight Zone:The Movie Allen Daviau, John Hora, and Steven Larner, for The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun Allen Daviau again, for Always Mikael Saolomon, for Hook and Jurassic Park Dean Cundey. Then from Schindler's List(1993) to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull( 2008), 11 films in total plus 4 more over the few years including the upcoming Lincoln, Spielberg has used and will use Kaminski!:confused: 15 films?!

I don't get it! Spielberg switched up cinematographers continually for some of his greatest films Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T., the Indy series with exception, but now he's gotten into this trend of Kaminski and Kaminski only! I for one am sick of Kaminski's visual style! His blue/grey metallic palette, overly lit, hazy atmospheric look has gotten stale. I personally think KOTCS would have been light years better if someone other then Kaminski was behind the lens. Come on Spielberg, get out of your rut and mix things up again!!

What do you guys think?

I agree. I hated the look as well. Some scenes when they were driving were bright on the actors and the background darker. huh... I thought the look was distracting and after reading how he studied the look of the original films - he should have studied more and harder. Didn't look like a Indiana Jones film at all.
 

segask

New member
Matt Holcomb said:
All will be revealed in the upcoming American Cinematographer article.

here it is: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/CrystalSkull/page1.php

a few quotes:
says Kaminski. ?An Indiana Jones film has to have that glossy, warm look with strong, high-key lighting. It?s suspenseful but not too dark ? you always see things clearly. We also had to recognize that we couldn?t use some of the same tricks that worked 20 years ago because the audience has become more sophisticated; today, you can?t use a torch in a cave scene and have light coming from other directions. We were always asking, ?How can we do this as well as Douglas Slocombe but make it a bit more contemporary?? ...

... Kaminski frequently softened the image with Schneider Classic Soft filters to create ?an idyllic Americana look.? ...

...A 4K Xenon lamp was used to create the hard shadow on the car in full daylight. ?We were in New Mexico, and it was 108°, and all of our electronic lights kept shutting off because of the heat, . . . We ended up giving a lot of star treatment to all the electronic lighting because it just hated being in that kind of temperature. Steven just smiled and said, ?Well, that?s why we used arcs last time!?? ...

...Kaminski muses, ?It was a tremendous honor to follow in Douglas Slocombe?s footsteps and continue the visual style he established. At the same time, I was happy to be able to create my own interpretation of the material, because this movie takes place 20 years later. Overall, it was great to be part of the legacy of Indiana Jones.?
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
There's an old thread from pre-release times containing some potentially interesting (I'm unable to judge) stuff about Skull's cinematography:

playmountain said:
According to David Mullen ASC (DP on The Astronaut Farmer among others) over at Cinematography.com:

"I talked to someone working on the movie who said that they were shooting 35mm anamorphic, Panavision C and E-Series, and did not plan on doing a D.I. (Digital Intermediate) except for the digital efx that had to be transferred to film, otherwise a traditional film post."

C and E-series Panavision anamorphics do date back to the original films.

I did hear that Kaminski was using his usual diffusion filters, which the original series of films did not really do (except for a few scenes shot with Dior nets, particularly in "The Last Crusade"). But I also heard that they were lighting to deeper stops like Slocombe used to do, shooting on average around a T/8."

***

So, overall... very good news! For those keeping track, this will be Spielberg's first 2.40:1 aspect ratio film shot with anamorphic glass since Hook in 1991. His last film, Munich was shot in the Super 35 format using spherical glass with a 2.40:1 theatrical AR.

There has also been this thread about all film stock questions, btw.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
That quote from Kaminski sounds like he's saying nothing. An interpretation of Slocombe's work? That ends up in a very different result, is more like it.
 

AtomicAge

New member
deckard24 said:
I still haven't decided how I feel overall about KOTCS, but when I see it for the second time tomorrow I'll have a better idea of where I stand. One thing is for sure Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was as distracting and out of place as I knew it would be!! It seems Spielberg's continual use of him for his films, really gives weight to the argument that he's gotten complacent, comfortable, and somewhat lazy in his advancing years.

If you go back to Jaws in 1975, Spielberg used Bill Butler for his cinematography, then for Close Encounters of the Third Kind he used Vilmos Zsigmond, for 1941 William A. Fraker, for Raiders of the Lost Ark , Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Douglas Slocombe, for E.T. Allen Daviau, for The Twilight Zone:The Movie Allen Daviau, John Hora, and Steven Larner, for The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun Allen Daviau again, for Always Mikael Saolomon, for Hook and Jurassic Park Dean Cundey. Then from Schindler's List(1993) to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull( 2008), 11 films in total plus 4 more over the few years including the upcoming Lincoln, Spielberg has used and will use Kaminski!:confused: 15 films?!

I don't get it! Spielberg switched up cinematographers continually for some of his greatest films Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T., the Indy series with exception, but now he's gotten into this trend of Kaminski and Kaminski only! I for one am sick of Kaminski's visual style! His blue/grey metallic palette, overly lit, hazy atmospheric look has gotten stale. I personally think KOTCS would have been light years better if someone other then Kaminski was behind the lens. Come on Spielberg, get out of your rut and mix things up again!!

What do you guys think?


I will say that I love what Kaminski did with Catch Me If You Can. It's warm and colorful. Beautifully photographed film.

Doug
 

AtomicAge

New member
torao said:
There's an old thread from pre-release times containing some potentially interesting (I'm unable to judge) stuff about Skull's cinematography:



There has also been this thread about all film stock questions, btw.

Interesting. I thought they might have been using older Panavision lenses. They flair more when there is a bright light on the screen. When I say flair I don't mean the blown out whites, but rather the red ovals you see around lights and the long thin blueish streak that come off of them horizontally.

Doug
 

Blade

New member
AtomicAge said:
I will say that I love what Kaminski did with Catch Me If You Can. It's warm and colorful. Beautifully photographed film.

Doug

Doug - When Catch me if you can was good it was amazing - I'm thinking of the scene at the pool / hotel when hanks nearly catches di caprio and the scene towards the end with come fly with me is being played. However, most of the film doesn't live up to these highs imo. Is that fair?
 

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
Doug - When Catch me if you can was good it was amazing - I'm thinking of the scene at the pool / hotel when hanks nearly catches di caprio and the scene towards the end with come fly with me is being played. However, most of the film doesn't live up to these highs imo. Is that fair?

Most of which film doesn't live up? Catch Me If You Can or Crystal Skull?

Doug
 

Major West

Member
segask said:
here it is: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/CrystalSkull/page1.php

a few quotes:
says Kaminski. ?An Indiana Jones film has to have that glossy, warm look with strong, high-key lighting. It?s suspenseful but not too dark ? you always see things clearly. We also had to recognize that we couldn?t use some of the same tricks that worked 20 years ago because the audience has become more sophisticated; today, you can?t use a torch in a cave scene and have light coming from other directions. We were always asking, ?How can we do this as well as Douglas Slocombe but make it a bit more contemporary?? ...

... Kaminski frequently softened the image with Schneider Classic Soft filters to create ?an idyllic Americana look.? ...

...A 4K Xenon lamp was used to create the hard shadow on the car in full daylight. ?We were in New Mexico, and it was 108°, and all of our electronic lights kept shutting off because of the heat, . . . We ended up giving a lot of star treatment to all the electronic lighting because it just hated being in that kind of temperature. Steven just smiled and said, ?Well, that?s why we used arcs last time!?? ...

...Kaminski muses, ?It was a tremendous honor to follow in Douglas Slocombe?s footsteps and continue the visual style he established. At the same time, I was happy to be able to create my own interpretation of the material, because this movie takes place 20 years later. Overall, it was great to be part of the legacy of Indiana Jones.?

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
Top