Q&A: General Movie Discussion

Look, I suppose I'm rolling 😈

wearygardener13 said:Look, I suppose I'm rolling 😈

oh, you're rollin? 🤣 hit me up next time you head out😬

So, let’s talk about remakes. There’s this almost metaphysical take from Zvonimir Berković regarding why he thinks remakes, by their very nature, just don't work as movies.
A few weeks back, Berković sat down with The New York Times to explain his reasoning—specifically why he thinks a remake of an old classic like "H-8" is a total wash, and why remakes in general tend to miss the mark.

His whole argument boils down to this: you can always sense the era in which a film was captured. It’s in the hairstyles, the tiny details, the way the actors carry themselves—it all screams the time period, even if the movie itself isn't set in that era. (Take "New Hope," for instance; despite all the modern touch-ups and CGI, it practically shouts "the 70s!" at you.)

And according to Berković, that specific era acts as a sort of silent collaborator with the story. The time period is like a hidden actor in the cast. When you remake a film and transplant it into a different decade, he argues that this "hidden actor" stops performing. You end up with this nagging feeling that something is off—something just doesn't sit right—even if you can't quite put your finger on what it is.

Cheers to Zvonimir Beraković🙏

Does anyone happen to recognize this movie? I caught a glimpse of it on CNN, but they had translated the title into <Empire of Crime<. To give you a little bit of a rundown so I don't leave you totally in the dark: the story follows a man who starts out as a young guy, and his older brother gets killed over some drug business right at the beginning. As he grows up, he leans further into that lifestyle and ends up becoming quite successful in his own way. He even marries a woman and takes her away to some tropical island where they're just sipping cocktails in paradise. But the ending—oh, it's a real gut-punch—he’s sitting in a black convertible parked in a small courtyard when some guy shows up with a silencer and puts a bullet in his head.

I’m reviving this ancient thread because I have no idea where else to go with some "general" questions about movies

Basically, I’ve been dying to watch the film Goran
But I can't make it to the theater
It isn't available on any streaming services
And I don't even own a TV or whatever device you need to pay for stuff like this

Is there any legal way to see it??

I’ve noticed some people tossing around the term "cinematography" in their reviews like it’s just another checkbox for a movie... but what are we actually talking about here?

photo.

That’s all down to the cinematographer. I mean, Roger Deakins is the reason those scenes look so damn incredible. Just look at that hotel sequence in 'No Country for Old Men,' Harrelson versus Bardem. It seems like such a simple, straightforward scene on the surface, but it’s absolutely masterful.

Or take that moment in 'Prisoners' when we get our first real look at Jake, the detective.

goldenhound32 said:photo.

That’s all down to the cinematographer. I mean, Roger Deakins is the reason those scenes look so damn incredible. Just look at that hotel sequence in 'No Country for Old Men,' Harrelson versus Bardem. It seems like such a simple, straightforward scene on the surface, but it’s absolutely masterful.

Or take that moment in 'Prisoners' when we get our first real look at Jake, the detective.

I'm still struggling to wrap my head around this, honestly... because you've got all these different crew members on set moving things around—tables, chairs, cars, whatever they need to get the shot.
If I just show up and take a photo of the scene, what does that actually have to do with Cinematography?
In other words, how does that visual style actually weave itself into the fabric of the movie?

I’ve finally come to realize that the cinematographer is really just the cameraman, you know, that guy behind the lens who actually captures the footage...

That isn't quite right.

I haven't seen anything yet. It’s like trying to explain the nuances of a classic film to someone who only watches thirty-second clips on their phone; you can provide all the context in the world, but if they aren't willing to sit through the slow build, the payoff won't mean a thing to them.Roger Deakins is the one calling the shots for the cinematography in his role as director of photography, and if you bother to scroll down past the Camera and Electrical Department, you'll see just how massive the crew of camera operators and lighting technicians actually is. At the end of the day, the person in charge of the cinematography—or the visual language of the film, as some prefer to put it—is the one truly responsible for the entire aesthetic look of the movie.

The cinematographer is essentially the director's right hand when it comes to shaping a film's visual identity. That said, the actual level of authority and creative weight they carry varies wildly depending on whose Cinematography we're discussing, which often leads to different job titles altogether.

The last two posts laid everything out quite clearly. That said, there are times when the director actually steps into the role of the DP themselves. Take Steven Soderbergh, for example.

Jacob Cooper5 said:I'm still struggling to wrap my head around this, honestly... because you've got all these different crew members on set moving things around—tables, chairs, cars, whatever they need to get the shot.
If I just show up and take a photo of the scene, what does that actually have to do with Cinematography?
In other words, how does that visual style actually weave itself into the fabric of the movie?

Look, choosing the lighting, picking out camera filters, managing grain, depth of field, focus, the final color grade—if you're just some amateur snapping shots on auto mode, sure, you might think you aren't contributing much, but a professional photographer, much like a cinematographer, makes a mountain of technical decisions before they even think about "photographing the scene."
When a film feels blue and gloomy, or bright and vibrant, or maybe even high-contrast black and white, that’s all part of the Cinematography...

So, let’s wrap this up... Cinematography is essentially the visual soul of a scene—it's that specific look and feel that falls squarely on the shoulders of the Director of Photography. They’re actually pulling those levers during the heat of the shoot itself, which means they're the ones calling the shots on everything Douglas Clark2 was talking about...
Does that include the post-production digital effects too? You know, the whole VFX suite... the digital stuff...

Just a quick little thought on my part, but who actually gets the final say when it comes to framing...

Jacob Cooper5 said:So, let’s wrap this up... Cinematography is essentially the visual soul of a scene—it's that specific look and feel that falls squarely on the shoulders of the Director of Photography. They’re actually pulling those levers during the heat of the shoot itself, which means they're the ones calling the shots on everything Douglas Clark2 was talking about...
Does that include the post-production digital effects too? You know, the whole VFX suite... the digital stuff...

Take a look at this clip from 2:25 to 3:20; they discuss exactly what Roger Deakins did to achieve his signature look.

Jack Murphy5 said:

Take a look at this clip from 2:25 to 3:20; they discuss exactly what Roger Deakins did to achieve his signature look.

So yeah, it’s everything. From the lighting setups on set to the whole post-production grind.
Anyway, just curious—what’s the actual dynamic like between the Gaffer and the Cinematographer? Like, who really has the final word when things get real?

To be honest, I don't know all the specifics. My assumption is that the Director of Photography calls the shots on the visual look, while everyone else provides support. 😁

Thanks to everyone for all the input. Now I can finally go around acting like I actually know what I'm talking about 😉