It has to have a meaning, and - hear me out - even if the author himself didn't mean anything and he just lost a bet or spent all the money on the cast and couldn't rent a complete set of lenses, the fact that this technical decision can spark an analysis such as the very good one by OP and produce meanings enriches the film experience and the discussion and it's never wrong. I wouldn't call this a mistake: maybe a bold and even unpleasant choice, but the guy has 30 years of experience as a cinematographer aside from being a director and editor, he may be not the best and often experiment with effects quite on the nose, but he is no film student who chooses the wrong lens to shoot the scene out of inexperience or poor judgement, he knows exactly what he's doing and how the film will look and feel like and consciously chooses to systematically use that kind of lens, plus blocks the scene and moves the camera in such a way that it's impossible to not notice that. The lens sees this, it understands this, and it shows them fixed and as rigid as the hierarchies they enforce, with everyone else simply twisting away to claw and scrap for their own place in the world. The powers that be have the police at their mercy, they control industry and bend the environment to their will, both figuratively and literally. Lowen gets what he wants, he gets his money back and then some, he gets the designs, and he knows he is ultimately the one on top. This all might be just the rambling of a man pushed into overpaying for some corporate espionage, but in the end we see that he was right. He explains while they might think they are in control of the situation, the laws of motion were laid down by the Establishment well before they came onto the scene and they are simply living in his universe. It appears Lowen is on his back foot when handing over the money, with his impassioned speech claiming that the thieves just operate in his world as the insecure thoughts of someone trying to reestablish their own self-image as someone of power. In the moment, it looks like he just shelled out $275k to maintain some automotive collusion, a small price to pay overall, but still a hefty sum in 1954, yet ultimately we learn he comes out on top. He, and everything he represents as the Establishment, is the only object in the movie that doesn’t change. The sole time (that I could tell, at least) when the camera uses a traditional lens and there is no distortion present, is every scene with Matt Damon’s character, Mike Lowen. The ultimate effect is of constant change, nothing is ever truly standing still, with one exception. It doesn’t become disorienting or overly distracting, but is present throughout. The movement still exists when the camera sits still as cars and bodies pass through the frame. Here, during routine camera dollys and pans, the movement is evident not only through the camera moving but the actual image distorting and bending as the camera passes stationary objects. Mobile camera shots are the classic technique for introducing movement and the associated emotions, from the shaky cam of Saving Private Ryan and The Blair Witch Project to the tracking shots of Spielberg and Scorsese, but other ways to introduce movement exist as well such as the great ferry scene in Jaws or through rapid editing. What’s most striking is how the distortion changes the visual field as either the camera moves or objects within the frame moves. It’s not as bad as some of the shots in The:no_upscale()//uploads/chorus_asset/file/14059469/008_TheFavourite_032249_SearchlightMarketing_Jacquelyn_Silverman_091818.00.jpg) Favourite, but is obvious at the edges of the frame, where the characters are often living. The film uses a wide-angle lens for almost the entire film, providing not only a larger field of view than a traditional lens selection but a significant distortion of the image. The only constant in the film is change, no situation stays the same longer than ten minutes and everyone’s fate is in flux, something I believe is reflected in the choice of lens. As soon as the documents are discovered to have disappeared, everyone starts to revert to their instincts and begin to cross and double cross each other, involving larger crime syndicates and more money. Without going too much into the plot, a group of criminals who don’t know or trust each other are brought together to steal this design, and the plan quickly goes off the rails when the heist goes wrong fairly early into the film. The story essentially revolves around the object of desire: a breakthrough technology and its confidential design. Steven Soderbergh’s latest movie, No Sudden Move, is a complex heist thriller, a genre Soderbergh does so well (Oceans 11, Logan Lucky).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |