Comments on: Public Enemies | A review & exploration of HD cinematography http://www.niamhredmond.org/2009/06/24/public-enemies-film-review/ Web/ Graphic Designer & Multimedia Producer. Digital Media Consultant. I Design, Develop, Produce & Consult on Multimedia & the Web. A blog abot design, Web strategy, usability, social media, experience, simplicity & culture... Fri, 28 May 2010 09:10:42 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Niamh Redmond http://www.niamhredmond.org/2009/06/24/public-enemies-film-review/comment-page-1/#comment-2074 Niamh Redmond Wed, 16 Sep 2009 06:42:01 +0000 http://www.niamhredmond.org/?p=569#comment-2074 Hi L, Thanks for your comment and I appreciate your opinion but I must disagree with your point about the film (and it is a film) looking "like a home video", not quite. Yes, it did look different than had it of been shot on "traditional" 35mm but that was the point. If you are interested, you should read the "Michael Mann’s HD defence" article that I have linked to above that explains the Director's approach. Also, it would be worth reading the following article that also touches on the use of HD for this film: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/07/01/movies-johnny-depp-and-christian-bale-public-enemies-michael-mann-doing-what-he-d "The slick, crystal-clear images of the digital video camera should be out of place for the Depression era. Unlike with David Fincher’s Zodiac, which was also shot digitally, it’s obvious Public Enemies was not shot on film. I’m not totally sold on the benefits of digital video. It is cheaper and easier for filmmakers to work with, but it doesn’t look that good. Motion is often blurred, and dark, under-lit scenes have a strange aspect to them. So why does it work here? For one, we’ve never seen a Depression-era gangster film that looks quite like this. Never have those three-piece suits and fedoras looked so vibrant and stunning on the big screen. The gunfights (and there are many, all properly exciting as hell) have a raw, you-are-there intensity. A sense of documentary realism and Hollywood gloss coalesce to give a new type of look to one of the oldest, clichéd genres, and it’s invigorating." Finally, I would point you to a very good article on theauteurs.com. In this article, there is a paragraph that sums up the argument quite well: "... video makes the historical more vivid and also more mysterious, and not for pseudo-documentary reasons. It's simply because HD looks like nothing we know. It's like rediscovering the image. It doesn't look like our experience of the world, but neither does 35mm. It's just that 35mm has a tradition." http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/838 Perhaps, your issue with the film is that you, like most, are used to the tradition of 35mm. You even refer to a "traditional" 35mm shot in your comment. :) - Niamh. Hi L,

Thanks for your comment and I appreciate your opinion but I must disagree with your point about the film (and it is a film) looking “like a home video”, not quite. Yes, it did look different than had it of been shot on “traditional” 35mm but that was the point. If you are interested, you should read the “Michael Mann’s HD defence” article that I have linked to above that explains the Director’s approach. Also, it would be worth reading the following article that also touches on the use of HD for this film:

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/07/01/movies-johnny-depp-and-christian-bale-public-enemies-michael-mann-doing-what-he-d

“The slick, crystal-clear images of the digital video camera should be out of place for the Depression era. Unlike with David Fincher’s Zodiac, which was also shot digitally, it’s obvious Public Enemies was not shot on film. I’m not totally sold on the benefits of digital video. It is cheaper and easier for filmmakers to work with, but it doesn’t look that good. Motion is often blurred, and dark, under-lit scenes have a strange aspect to them.

So why does it work here? For one, we’ve never seen a Depression-era gangster film that looks quite like this. Never have those three-piece suits and fedoras looked so vibrant and stunning on the big screen. The gunfights (and there are many, all properly exciting as hell) have a raw, you-are-there intensity. A sense of documentary realism and Hollywood gloss coalesce to give a new type of look to one of the oldest, clichéd genres, and it’s invigorating.”

Finally, I would point you to a very good article on theauteurs.com. In this article, there is a paragraph that sums up the argument quite well:

“… video makes the historical more vivid and also more mysterious, and not for pseudo-documentary reasons. It’s simply because HD looks like nothing we know. It’s like rediscovering the image. It doesn’t look like our experience of the world, but neither does 35mm. It’s just that 35mm has a tradition.”
http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/838

Perhaps, your issue with the film is that you, like most, are used to the tradition of 35mm. You even refer to a “traditional” 35mm shot in your comment. :)

- Niamh.

]]> By: "L" http://www.niamhredmond.org/2009/06/24/public-enemies-film-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1993 "L" Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:33:42 +0000 http://www.niamhredmond.org/?p=569#comment-1993 I must disagree with you on the choice of using a HD format for this "film". Over-all I enjoyed the story, script, casting and production design but the overall look seemed cheap and, at times, looked like a student film. I am all for the experimentation into the digital cinematography realm, but the lighting must be impeccable in order to make the film look like a finished product. When the camera was in a fixed position, it looked like a traditional 35mm shot, but when the camera was moving---gezzz it looked like a home video...ive seen better quality production on my television. I really expect more out of Hollywood. I must disagree with you on the choice of using a HD format for this “film”. Over-all I enjoyed the story, script, casting and production design but the overall look seemed cheap and, at times, looked like a student film. I am all for the experimentation into the digital cinematography realm, but the lighting must be impeccable in order to make the film look like a finished product. When the camera was in a fixed position, it looked like a traditional 35mm shot, but when the camera was moving—gezzz it looked like a home video…ive seen better quality production on my television. I really expect more out of Hollywood.

]]>