The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

In the realm of action movies, nothing comes close to the Bourne series. Nothing comes close to the intense action, the deep and riveting storyline, the excellent soundtrack, and the magnificent cinematography. But one of the best aspects of the Bourne films are the car chases. This review will focus especially on the final, climactic car chase of the movie The Bourne Supremacy.
A wounded Bourne walks toward a taxi. He takes a swig of the vodka bottle he is holding and opens the door to the taxi. (01:35:54) The owner tries to stop him, but after Bourne quickly apprehends two guards, he backs off. (01:36:05) He climbs into the cab, puts it in gear, and begins what is now one of the best and most well-known car chase sequences in history. (01:36:13) There are two main reasons why this is so. The first and most important aspect of this car sequence is the cinematography. The brilliant use of camera angles and rapid cuts all add to the excitement of the scene. When Bourne throws a shift, it is accompanied by rapid close-ups of the shifter, the steering wheel, and the gas, brake, and clutch. (01:36:48) The camera is never steady and always constantly vibrating, giving the sheer thrill of insane speed. The camera is also allowed to shake at the movements of the car, giving the audience a first-person perspective behind the wheel. You can almost feel the impact when the police car slams into Bourne’s taxi. (01:37:12) Rapid pans and high angle shots capture the moment from different angles and perspectives. Watch how the track/pan of the high speed Mercedes police inceptors add to the excitement. (01:38:00) Finally, long shots are tastefully used to capture the full extent of the action. This particular long shot captures Bourne performing a brilliant drift around a corner while the police close in on him with rapid speed. (01:37:49)
The second aspect that makes this chase so thrilling lies in the sound. The soundtrack, a orchestral techno breakbeat, surges the adrenaline in the audience and locks them into the action. The violins build and the tempo increases as Bourne is chased into the tunnel, indicating that a major event in the chase is about to unfold. (01:39:55) The captured/diegetic sound itself is something to marvel at as well. Whether it be the revving of the engines, the wail of the police siren, the honking of civilian cars, the screeching of tires, and even the chatter of the police intercom, all of the sounds are captured and enhanced with exceptional quality. The already beautifully-executed shift scenes are accompanied by the solid ‘thunk’ and ‘clank’ of the shifter banging the gears into place, sounds that car aficionados absolutely crave. (01:37:16)
This film is one of the greatest action films ever to be produced, so it is only sensible that it have one of the best car chase sequences in Hollywood history. The epic cinematography and the stellar sound make this chase one that will make the heats of viewers beat faster for years to come.

Bullitt (1968)

Ask any film buff about car chases, and all of the will respond, “Bullitt”. Bullitt is hailed as one of the best car chases in the entire history of cinematography. Starring the famous Steve McQueen driving the legendary Ford Mustang, this chase scene is renowned and cherished for a multitude of reasons.
The reason why this chase scene was so successful was due to the incredible skill and finesse of the lead cinematographer, William A. Fraker. Many interesting camera angles are used throughout the chase scene, with the most notable being the indoor-mounted camera. Unlike most shots of the inside of a car, where the camera is focused on certain parts of the car such as the steering wheel, gas pedals, and shifter, the inboard cam in Bullitt is positioned so that the windshield fills the frame and the silhouette of the driver is on the right side. Essentially a POV shot of a passenger, the audience is transported inside the car and can experience the sights and sounds of the driver in a chase scene. It also captures the vivid urban landscape that the cars are racing through. Here is an example of one of the indoor camera shots. Notice how it captures and frames the surrounding urban setting perfectly while simultaneously placing the audience in the middle of the action.

Internal Assessment: The Cinematography of Car Chases and Races

For my internal assessment, I plan to research how the cinematography of car scenes engages the attention of the audience. I will investigate different cinematographic techniques specific to car chases, such as green/blue screens, chase cars, and outdoor and indoor mounts, and how they contribute to the movie in terms of audience engagement.

Movies:

The Bourne Supremacy. 2004. Director: Paul Greengrass.

Bullitt. 1968. Director: Peter Yates.

The Blues Brothers. 1980. Director: John Landis.

Ronin. 1998. Director: John Frankenheimer.

The Italian Job. 1969. Director: Peter Collinson.

Dirty Mary Crazy Larry. 1974. Director John Hough.

Resources:

Cinematography: Theory and Practice. Blain Brown. Elsevier Science, 2002.

A French Kiss with Death: Steve McQueen and the Making of LeMans. Michael Keyser. 2000.

The Greastest Movie Car Chases of All Time. Jesse Cross. 2006

Hollywood’s Science Guru. Gregory Mone. Popular Science, 2005.

Scene Outline for “Oh Brother…”

Scene 1

Waking up:
This scene establishes the setting, the protagonist, and the two antagonists. Jack Adams is dreaming of kissing his ‘study partner’ in a sunset when his brothers rudely awake him. The youngest brother, Benjamin slams a pillow over her head, and the title appears.
Scene 2
Purpose:

Girl at the door:
This scene establishes the conflict and is the no turning back for the protagonist. Jack is desperately trying to dress himself up while the little brothers, Peter and Benjamin, tease him, telling him that he has a girlfriend. All of a sudden, the doorbell rings and Jack opens the door. A very pretty girl appears, Jack takes her hand and leads her into the house. The two brothers look at each other with a shocked expression, and run up the stairs.
Scene 3
Purpose:

Prank number one:
The boy is leading the girl to the room to study. He opens the door for her, but the girl says he can go first. However, she distracts him, and he walks into a film of cling wrap. Blinded, he then trips over a wire and falls. The girl tries to repress her laughter, and the brothers start laughing. Jack starts to get angry, but when the girl helps her up, he smiles and regains his posture.
Scene 4
Purpose:

Prank number two:
Jack and the girl are working on a laptop, when Jack offers to get her a snack. Meanwhile, Benjamin is putting pictures of bikini/lingerie models in a folder labeled “HOT HOT GIRLS”. He then downloads the folder onto a flash drive, runs downstairs, and plugs it into the unguarded laptop. But as he is opening the flash drive to put the malicious folder on Jack’s desktop, he is distracted and accidentally drags the wrong folder onto the desktop.
Scene 5
Purpose:

Final prank:
This scene presents the climax and resolves the conflict. Jack is preparing a light dinner for the girl in the kitchen. Meanwhile, his brothers Peter and Benjamin are arming themselves with an arsenal of water/Nerf guns. They advance downstairs while Jack and the girl are enjoying their light dinner. They sneak around the corner, and Peter chucks a water balloon on Jack’s head. Infuriated, Jack gets up, takes his Nerf gun, and fires back at them. During the fray, a water balloon hits the girl. However, she laughs and picks up one of the water balloons. She throws it at Jack, and then everybody joins in. Scene ends with Jack, Peter, Benjamin, and the girl all playing together.

Pitch for “Oh Brother…”

5/3/2009:

Pitch:

Set in the household, two brothers attempt to separate their older brother from his new girlfriend. Upset that their older brother no longer spends time with them, the two brothers plan and execute a variety of pranks on him and his girlfriend. The pranks, including pouring water on the brother’s pants, putting risqué pictures on the brother’s computer, and ambushing the couple with water and pop guns, increase in intensity as each previous attempt fails.

Roles of a Cinematographer

I have always been fascinated with technology and how things work. This applies especially to film. When I joined film class, I knew what I wanted to be: a cinematographer. Finally, for the first time in my life, I would be able to use a full-fledged camera and use real cinematic techniques, not the outdated, low-res camcorder point-and-shoot that I was forced to sludge through for the numerous school projects of my old school. I got my first experience as a cinematographer in Kinno’s film, Synecdoche, but as the production progressed, I realized that I did not fully understand the role of the cinematographer. Doing more research, I found out that cinematography was much more than merely an understanding of how cameras work and how to execute certain camera techniques. Cinematography is an art in itself; conveying meaning through light and sound. The role of cinematographer is a very prestigious and privileged one, a position that I have yet to fully earn.
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers, cinematography is “the art and craft of the authorship of visual images for the cinema extending from conception and pre-production through post-production to the ultimate presentation of these images.” (Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers) This means two things. First, the cinematographer is responsible for the “cinematography” or “visual images” of the film that he or she is working on. Second, the cinematographer job and responsibility starts from pre-production and ends only after post-production. The Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers also emphasizes the fact that cinematography is very technical, highlighting that “cinematography involves such technical concerns as camera, lens, film stock, lighting, processing, and printing and such techniques as camera angle, distance, and movement. Significant to each image and the relation of images are composition, form, color, light and dark, and motion.” (Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers) Not surprisingly, this indicates that a cinematographer must have the knowledge and experience to understand and operate the film equipment provided to him or her. In addition, Wise Geek, a site focused on the technical aspects of film, indicates that “the working relationship between a director and a ‘cinema photographer’ requires a shared vision with regards to the overall look of a film,” and that “he or she works closely with the director during principal shooting in order to properly frame each shot according to the script and/or the director’s personal vision.”(Wise Geek)
Using this definition of cinematography as well as the set roles of a cinematographer, I can assess how well I performed my duties as a cinematographer in the film Synecdoche. I feel that I had a good grasp of the “technical concerns”, as I learned how to use and maintain film equipment. I particularly put my efforts into understanding how to use the Canon GL2 and the necessary attachments, such as the tripod and audio adapter. I also was able to address the areas of lighting and motion, indicating whether the lighting was adequate in the room and what camera movement would best shoot the shot. I also had a generally good relationship with the director, Kinno. She ensured that I understood what her vision for the film was and we both worked together to capture the best shot possible. However, there is the other aspect of the cinematographer that I have not fulfilled. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers, the cinematographer is responsible for his work from pre-production to post-production. I had a lot of involvement in the pre-production and production, but I contributed very little to the post-production of the movie. A diligent and professional cinematographer would work very closely with the editor to ensure that the shots he or she took are properly presented in the film. This is something that I failed to do, and something that I need to do for our next film.
While I look at a variety of films for inspiration, I have not really looked at a specific cinematographer and try to emulate his or her unique cinematography. Since the next film that we are planning to do is a romantic comedy, I looked around and did some research on some famous cinematographers who worked on romantic comedies. One of these cinematographers is Don Burgess. Born on the 28th of May, 1956, Don Burgess rose to cinematographic fame when he became the cinematographer of the famous 1995 movie, Forrest Gump (although Forrest Gump is not fully a romantic comedy, it has elements of romance and comedy in it). (Don Burgess) In this movie, Don Burgess used simple cinematography, such as establishing shots, medium shots, and the occasional close-up, to put emphasis on the humor and storyline of the film, which is one of the most important parts of a comedy. (Don Burgess) For example, in the beginning of Forrest Gump, the young Forrest begins a conversation with his future girlfriend Jenny, Burgess uses a simple three-quarter match cut between Forrest and Jenny. This emphasizes the conversation, frames the scene neatly, and ensures that the cinematography does not intrude on the dialogue. I hope to emulate this style in our upcoming film, because we are focusing a lot on our plot and I would like to make sure that the shots are creative yet unobtrusive.
 
Works Consulted:
Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers. 1998. Web.5 May 2009. .
“What is a Cinematographer?.” Wise Geek. 6 May 2009 .
“Don Burgess.” Internet Movie Database. IMDB. 6 May 2009 .

Documentary Analysis

Many people believe that documentary films are non-biased creations that merely present the facts. However, this is far from the truth. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a documentary is a “motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment.” Indeed, documentaries don’t just present the facts, but they analyze and manipulate them to create the biggest impact on the viewers. Whether it is to convey a message or vision or simply to attract an audience, documentaries have bias. This assessment will analyze the winner of the Grand Jury Prize of the Sundance Film Festival, a documentary known as “Why We Fight” created by Eugene Jarecki. It will analyze the different elements of the film, such as information presented, character development, and cinematography, and it will show how these components contribute to the position and ideas that this documentary supports.
“Why We Fight” is an analysis of the political-military action taken by the United States since World War II, and explains that the motives behind these actions are not for democracy and freedom as the government has stated. Rather, this documentary finds that the intentions for recent military involvement, most noticeably being Iraq, are heavily economical and imperialist, and that these conflicts serve the interest of the “military-industrial complex,” an economic-political infrastructure that generates profits off of war. This isn’t a new topic, as this has been the argument of the many people who have been against United State’s involvement in other countries.
The reason why it is very easy to identify the bias in this documentary is because the many different elements work together to emphasize the position that this documentary takes. The first element that will be assessed is the information used and how it is presented. Interestingly, this documentary, although heavily biased, contains about the same amount of information from both sides of the argument. Advocates of U.S. involvement get as much screen time as those in opposition to it. So how does this documentary take a clear stance when each side has an equal amount of convincing evidence? The answer lies in the presentation of the information. The information justifying involvement is presented first, which is then immediately followed by critical evidence to the contrary. For example, a statement is made by the ministry of defense boasting about the accuracy of precision-guided munitions, which impact a great deal of damage to the enemy while at the same time reducing collateral damage. This segment is then followed by shots of destroyed civilian homes and a written line of text that read “During the first 50 precision air strikes of the conflict, none of the bombs hit the targets.” This presentation of information therefore renders the opposing arguments’ facts ineffective and useless, as they are always rebutted and disproven by contradictory evidence that comes afterward.
While one may think that characterization is an element only found in narrative-type structures, character development plays a key role in enhancing the side taken by this documentary. As stated before, the advocates of the opposing side have as much screen time as the supporters of the stance that this documentary takes. But again, like the use and presentation of information, character development is used to the film’s advantage. Characters in support of the side that this documentary takes are portrayed as honest and intelligible people who are well informed of the subject at hand and express their concerns very seriously, whereas the characters that oppose the side of the documentary are portrayed as cunning and manipulative; seemingly lying outright. This portrayal is accomplished through interviews or excerpts of the character, which serve as the narrator of the film. In most documentaries, a dedicated voice is used as a narrator to convey facts and ideas. By choosing not to have a set narrator, more characters can voice their opinion and statements, thus increasing the involvement and impact that the characters have in the film and allowing the contradiction of opposing ideas to be taken to a higher visual and auditable level. Simply put, characters both narrate the documentary and are developed through their statements; either recorded from past events or from a recent interview. An example how this all plays together is when a representative of an aircraft corporation is seen highlighting the impressive specifications and low cost of a new fighter plane, and then is shown joking and smiling at the panel of judges who later award him the contract. Following this is are statements made by aviation specialists, all speaking in a very educated, serious manner, and all concluding how the representative lied about the specifications as well as the projected cost of that aircraft. The aviation specialists, whose views support that of the film, are characterized as trustworthy and honest people who take matters very seriously through their authoritative tone. In contrast, the representative is characterized as a crafty, hypocritical salesman who botches the facts and relies on charisma to sell his product to the military, all shown through his informal attitude as well as his statements that contradict the facts presented by the specialists.
The final aspect that is utilized to convey the stance of this film is cinematography. Like the previous elements, the concept revolves around showing the opposing side’s argument first before rebutting it with evidence. In the case of cinematography, this is done visually. For example, a grainy footage of a politician talking about the peaceful intentions of the United States is shown first. However, during certain parts of the speech, it cuts clear and very long tracking shots of a desert filled with hundreds of fighter aircraft. In addition, there are close up director’s-perspective-type shots of the aircraft’s fierce weapons. By showing the politician’s speech as grainy and ancient makes the politician quaint, old-fashioned, and stating old and unreliable information. Furthermore, the long tracking shots show the full expanse of the United States aerial arsenal and the close ups on the armaments emphasize the fact that the purpose of this collection of aircraft is far from peaceful.
Sources Used:
“documentary film.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 09 Feb. 2009 .

Cinematographer:2nd Entry

My role as a cinematographer has been somewhat challenging, but I also found it quite interesting and enjoyable. Being that it was my first time working on a film production of this caliber, I was at first nervous and was not familiar with the procedures and jargon that is expected of a cinematographer. However, as the production progressed, I began to feel more comfortable in my role.
My first major task as a cinematographer was to create a portion of the shot list. Having never written a shot list, I read previous shot lists to get a better idea of what was expected of me. Looking at the example shot lists taught me the important elements that must always be incorporated in a shot list. First, I learned that cinematographers often abbreviate the shot in order to leave more space for description. Some examples of these industry-standard acronyms include MS for medium shot, LS for long shot, and CU for close up. Second, I learned that the cinematographers always wrote the type of shot in upper case font, as well as any characters in the scene. For instance, a description of a shot may look like this:
CU and TRACK of CAITLIN leaving the clinic.
The reason for capitalizing these elements is so that it is easy and efficient to refer back to the shot list to determine the type of shot needed as well as the characters that need to be on set. This is especially useful during the shooting phase, where time is of the essence. After learning the prerequisites of a good shot list, I commenced writing ours, and I soon found it to be very entertaining. I was able to be very imaginative and creative, thinking about which shot to use in what situation, how the angles would affect perception of the audience, how objects and the actors should be framed, the purpose of each shot, and the actual mechanics of pulling off the shots. I also liked the fact that I was able to effectively use the jargon of the film world. Using words such as match-cuts and rack focus made me feel like I was a professional cinematographer working on a full-blown production.
The second major task occurred during the actual filming of out short. I was thrilled, mainly because I was able to operate a Canon GL2, complete with tripod, dolly and boom microphone. This is a major milestone for me, as before this I was never given the opportunity to fully operate any recording device more sophisticated than the video recorder of a digital camera. I was amazed at the quality of the image as well as the control I had over the camera’s functions, such as focus and color filters. I also enjoyed playing around and experimenting with shots that were not on the shot list. I was able to identify numerous angles that I thought would be nice, and after getting the permission from our director, I was able to get it on the tape. Indeed, my first experience as a cinematographer was a very enlightening experience.

Internal Assessment Question

For my internal assessment I plan to investigate how cinematography differs between environment-oriented documentaries and political oriented documentaries. I will research the significance of these differences, and exactly why cinematography differs between these two types of documentaries. I will also elaborate on how certain cinematic techniques are more effective in certain situations than others. Some examples of sources that will be used in this portfolio will include:
• assorted documentaries from the environmental or political category
• guides to making documentaries
• reviews of documentaries
• testimonies of directors or others who have worked on documentaries
• basic overviews of documentaries
• authoritative film websites

Cellphone Cinematography

Here is a simple tutorial on how to add some cinematographic techniques in your videos in your cellphone. This is the first tutorial, and I hope to make more. Enjoy.