Cinematography for Indy 5

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I see filmic, crisp, vibrant images with none of the unmotivated filtration and blasted backlighting of Kaminski's work. Funny how the techniques Kaminski was supposedly using to capture a 50s aesthetic happen to be recognizable in pretty much all of his other work and have no obvious basis in actual 50s cinematography. Sometimes the correct explanation is the obvious one.

Don't get me wrong, Kaminski is a manifestly skilled DOP, but his style is very distinct and he chose to bring it to Indiana Jones when it had no place there, and most insultingly after we'd been explicitly promised Slocombe's work would be honored. Kaminski's flourishes fit projects like Lincoln, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, etc. quite well, but this was the project to dial that stuff back on and he chose not to.

It was more the overall '50s look they were going for:
kodachrome_1964_lg.jpg

800px-Garden_of_the_Gods_Park_%2C_Colorado_%2C_1950%27s_%2C_Kodachrome_by_Chalmers_Butterfield.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I see filmic, crisp, vibrant images with none of the unmotivated filtration and blasted backlighting of Kaminski's work. Funny how the techniques Kaminski was supposedly using to capture a 50s aesthetic happen to be recognizable in pretty much all of his other work and have no obvious basis in actual 50s cinematography. Sometimes the correct explanation is the obvious one.

Don't get me wrong, Kaminski is a manifestly skilled DOP, but his style is very distinct and he chose to bring it to Indiana Jones when it had no place there, and most insultingly after we'd been explicitly promised Slocombe's work would be honored. Kaminski's flourishes fit projects like Lincoln, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, etc. quite well, but this was the project to dial that stuff back on and he chose not to.

Why is it such a big deal?
 

seasider

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
Why is it such a big deal?

I think it goes back to making the viewer feel at home and feel like they're going back to those adventures they loved in 80's. In my opinion, the cinematography doesn't have to completely mimic the first 3 movies but it should be shot in a way that draws you into the movie and makes you feel like part of the action. Many would argue that Kaminski failed to understand that his glossy soft color schemes and excessive backlighting was distracting and did not give the viewer a fully immersive experience.
 

Henry Jones VII

Active member
I quite liked the cinematography on Logan. I wouldn't mind something along those lines.

Speaking of James Mangold's movies, 3:10 To Yuma is another good example of a quality photography and camera work.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
Why is it such a big deal?

Because movies are a visual medium, and what one looks like kind of matters. As I've said, I feel the choices made on Indy 4 had damaging effects on the movie's sense of immersion and ability to engage. That's a big deal in an Indiana Jones film, to my way of thinking.

I would not be nearly this passionate in my disappointment if it wasn't easily avoidable. Kaminski is an eminently skilled cinematographer who knows exactly what he's doing. There are gorgeously composed shots in Indy 4. That there's good work on display makes the damaging choices that much worse.
 

DeepSixFix

New member
Henry Jones VII said:
I quite liked the cinematography on Logan. I wouldn't mind something along those lines.
What did you like about it? Any takeaways/lessons on how an older world-weary character (Logan) is presented?
 

Henry Jones VII

Active member
DeepSixFix said:
What did you like about it? Any takeaways/lessons on how an older world-weary character (Logan) is presented?
I liked the lighting style used, more natural and simple. A more traditional look, just like the original Indy trilogy.
 

seasider

Active member
In looking at some of Kaminski's work recently, I see a couple of movies he did with Spielberg where I could see a certain style work with Indy 5. With Bridge of Spies which takes place in the 60's we see Kaminski using some restraint with his backlighting and I think it works out well. There are some nice shots throughout the movie.

<img src="http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56bd138ff80b269a4abafcb7/master/pass/bridge-of-spies-movie-sets-010.jpg" width="50%" height="50%" />

Bridge-of-Spies-tom-hanks-bridge.jpg


War Horse was arguably his most picturesque work to date.

war-horse-movie-image-jeremy-irvine-slice-01.jpg


wh4.jpg


It's pretty clear at this point that Kaminski will not emulate the look we saw from the first 3 movies but my hope is he will be able to draw from his past work and at least help make Indy 5 a movie that looks pretty.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
I'll never understand why fans and normal people at home seem to have an easier time recreating the look or sound of something. For whatever reason, Hollywood always seems to really struggle with this. Makes no sense.

I've seen fan films that try to emulate the look of certain older films and they turn out looking almost exactly perfect. Yet Hollywood tries it and it doesn't look anything like what came before (KOTCS, etc). Makes zero freaking sense. Especially with their nearly unlimited budget.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Henry Jones VII said:
I liked the lighting style used, more natural and simple. A more traditional look, just like the original Indy trilogy.

I miss the lighting of the older films. KOTCS was so bright and soft for most of the film, whereas the older Indy films used more natural light and even darkness to create an immersive atmosphere. Crystal Skull looked washed-out and soft, even in areas that should have been dark and grim. I'd love to see them tune that down for the next one.
 

Willie Hott

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Because movies are a visual medium, and what one looks like kind of matters. As I've said, I feel the choices made on Indy 4 had damaging effects on the movie's sense of immersion and ability to engage. That's a big deal in an Indiana Jones film, to my way of thinking.

I would not be nearly this passionate in my disappointment if it wasn't easily avoidable. Kaminski is an eminently skilled cinematographer who knows exactly what he's doing. There are gorgeously composed shots in Indy 4. That there's good work on display makes the damaging choices that much worse.
Couldn't agree more.
 

Willie Hott

New member
IndyBuff said:
I miss the lighting of the older films. KOTCS was so bright and soft for most of the film, whereas the older Indy films used more natural light and even darkness to create an immersive atmosphere. Crystal Skull looked washed-out and soft, even in areas that should have been dark and grim. I'd love to see them tune that down for the next one.
I feel like a lot of this criticism, which I also agree with, was due to shooting too much of the film on soundstages rather than outside in the elements. A lot of the movie felt closed in and fake because of this.
 

seasider

Active member
Willie Hott said:
I feel like a lot of this criticism, which I also agree with, was due to shooting too much of the film on soundstages rather than outside in the elements. A lot of the movie felt closed in and fake because of this.

KOTCS did have a fair amount of location shooting. They shot in New Mexico, Connecticut and Hawaii. The problem was how they used certain locations. Adding unnecessary CGI vegetation to scenes like the Jungle chase sequence (filmed on location in Hawaii) probably didn't help.

I think shooting the whole movie on U.S soil was part of the issue. The movie was essentially a Hollywood production and that wasn't how they first 3 movies were done. They were shot on location in foreign countries usually working in collaboration with a British film crew. I'd like to see a return to that with Indy 5.
 

Olliana

New member
Some scenes like the whole jungle chase look terribly washed out, especially compared to modern action movies that came out since. KOTCS's look doesn't age well at all. And is it just me or are there lots of Abram's style lens flares in the movie?

Would be cool to see an altered version with more natural colors, lighting etc., at least for a few shots with a side-by-side comparison, but I don't even think that would be feasible.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Things were just too bright and glossy in KOTCS. Even in the desert scenes with the sun appearing at high noon, you could STILL see the actors being lit by fake light. Makes no sense.
 

Willie Hott

New member
DoomsdayFAN said:
Things were just too bright and glossy in KOTCS. Even in the desert scenes with the sun appearing at high noon, you could STILL see the actors being lit by fake light. Makes no sense.
Yes, this was definitely a part of what made the movie feel less real and organic as the others.
 

seasider

Active member
DoomsdayFAN said:
Things were just too bright and glossy in KOTCS. Even in the desert scenes with the sun appearing at high noon, you could STILL see the actors being lit by fake light. Makes no sense.

Well that is one of Kaminski's trademarks. He loves strong backlighting and will often use that lighting as another keylight on the character against natural sunlight to make them look brighter. A famous example is the airport scene in Catch Me If You Can. Sometimes it looks pretty and other times it can come off looking wishy washy.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
seasider said:
Well that is one of Kaminski's trademarks. He loves strong backlighting and will often use that lighting as another keylight on the character against natural sunlight to make them look brighter. A famous example is the airport scene in Catch Me If You Can. Sometimes it looks pretty and other times it can come off looking wishy washy.

It works well in some films but Indy calls for more natural lighting and darker interiors. I can appreciate the style but it didn't mesh well with this franchise.
 
Top