Did "director Anna Kendrick demonstrate how subtly changing the position of a camera can dramatically change how we feel about a scene"?
Or was that the cinematographer? I recall William Goldman in "Which Lie Did I Tell" saying that whenever you are impressed by the look of a film, don't credit the director, credit the cinematographer. (I think he was referring to "All the President's Men" in that take.)
Although, the editor probably had a lot to do with that result (not that I've seen the film yet and have no idea).
I mean, I haven't interviewed either of them, but I find it hard to believe that director Anna Kendrick did not decide how to frame star Anna Kendrick's face in this pivotal scene. But sure, maybe the cinematographer was freelancing! It's possible! (What Goldman is referring to is more the lighting than anything else, and the cinematographer deserves an enormous amount of credit for how that scene is lit, for sure.)
I haven’t had a chance to chat with Anna either :-) so of course I have no idea. My understanding though is that directors focus on overall concept and details such as blocking, placement and movement of actors, and so forth, and the DPs are responsible for camera placement, along with lighting, lens choice and so forth.
My guess is that at the end of the day it’s all dependent on collaboration and teamwork and when we talk about Kendrick’s “directorial choices” we’re talking about how she conveyed her vision and desires to a large team and how they executed on those.
LOVED Conclave! Who knew management of a conclave would be so gripping? Lawrence's humanity, his clarity, and deft handling of each crisis has all my admiration.
I disagree that Woman of the Hour had a message of "believe women", in that scene she's 90% sure, herself, and that was it's point to me, the fear and fragility of being pedestaled. It's hard for me to convey to my daughter what it was like, the secret eye language you had with other women, the tension of being so unsure and afraid and yet wanting to believe in an equality of personal sovereignty. That movie will show our daughters what it was like to constantly be underminded, groped, pushed and if you wanted to stay safe you didn't say anything and you smiled and went along but you helped watch out for other women. It captured the constant bombardment of male dominance in the 70s as women tried to be free.
I agree that Woman of the Hour was really well done. There were so many things that made me viscerally uncomfortable watching it, that I couldn’t quite put a finger on. I thought Kendrick was a promising director and appreciated how he donated her earnings and an actress, director, and executive producer to domestic violence charities.
Just saw ‘Conclave’ yesterday afternoon. I don’t think I’ve been to a movie in more than two years, maybe not since COVID, and I was blown away. It is visually stunning. There are so many moments that say multitudes: the cigarette butts in the courtyard after the cardinals have all been smoking, the contrast of men in ancient ceremonial robes with cellphones. I had not read the book, so the final twist was a genuine surprise. The Nigerian cardinal’s attitude towards homosexuality represents a widespread view in the African (and other) Catholic Church (and countries). I didn’t think the cardinal who said that it would be good for the Church to have its first black pope was expressing his own opinion - he was running against that cardinal and had clearly stated his disapproval of him in an earlier scene - but was trying to put the best possible spin on a possibility that he hoped would not occur. I thought the movie had interesting observations about the corrupting influence of ambition. I agree that some of the characters might as well have had “HERO” or “VILLIAN” signs above their heads (in one case, other cardinals discuss their feelings about one of the candidates, suggesting to the audience how it should react to him, before he even appears on stage). One thing that struck me was the fact that all of the characters were middle-aged or older. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen many movies recently, but that seemed like a refreshing change.
We saw Conclave last night to escape from Halloween. I thought it was great, although a little too dark photographically (not much light). The ending, which was not actually divulged in this review, was amazing. It hit me in the face quite unexpectedly. Fiennes is going to get the Oscar for best actor for sure.
I read a lot of mystery / psychological thriller novels, so it’s hard to take me by surprise, but that ending did. I correctly guessed who the new pope was going to be, and that there would be a revelation about him after he was elected (that’s pretty standard in this type of plot), but I would never have guessed what the revelation was. Glad you liked it as much as I did!
I’m a murder mystery/thriller fan myself, both books and tv, so I’m always attuned to what the reveal might be. By the end of Conclave, I was thinking it would be Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) since the others were falling one by one and Lawrence had the purest intentions, but then I thought “oh, it’s going to be the new guy”, but the reveal…wow. Context is everything.
The audience was being set up to think it would be Lawrence, which made me wary. I thought it was interesting that Lawrence , who consistently claimed not to want the job, eventually chose a name. He was like Bellini (Stanley Tucci), who said he didn’t want to be pope but then got mad at Lawrence when he thought Lawrence was competing with him. The observations about power and ambition were very perceptive, I thought. The one thing that bothered me about the ending was that we never saw the white smoke. We saw the black smoke every time, but never the white smoke.
Oh, I think Lawrence honestly didn’t want to be Pope, but thought he might get stuck with it. Bellini was probably right when he said every Cardinal secretly knows what he would want for his Pope name, so Lawrence had “John” tucked away in his brain, but to me, he didn’t look like he really wanted it. He just looked stuck and resigned to it. Bellini, however, was definitely playing at being disinterested. He was counting on getting votes from people who follow the dictum that the best person for a position of power is the person who doesn’t want it.
We have a good priest friend who’s spent a lot of time working in Rome at the Vatican. He calls the Cardinals “the purple mafia”. Make of that what you will.
"Woman of the Hour" sounds interesting based on your description of the camera work here. The main thing I noticed rewatching "Silence of the Lambs" recently for the first time in decades was how much the movie uses unusual framing (specifically, close shots of people looking right at the camera) to make you feel Clarice Starling's discomfort on a truly visceral level.
I went to Conclave, only the 2nd or 3rd movie in the theater this year; Sorry Sonny, I'll do better.
I knew all the spoilers, and let me just say, I'm not ready to do your job, but I thought the film did an excellent job of transmitting the weight of the decisions the men faced. I really felt the pressure on Cardinal Lawrence. I felt the striving and excitement of the men who could become pope. And since I'm never going to be in any of those roles, I thought the film was well done. The spin at the end was ... a bit gratituous.
Did "director Anna Kendrick demonstrate how subtly changing the position of a camera can dramatically change how we feel about a scene"?
Or was that the cinematographer? I recall William Goldman in "Which Lie Did I Tell" saying that whenever you are impressed by the look of a film, don't credit the director, credit the cinematographer. (I think he was referring to "All the President's Men" in that take.)
Although, the editor probably had a lot to do with that result (not that I've seen the film yet and have no idea).
These things are always a team effort.
I mean, I haven't interviewed either of them, but I find it hard to believe that director Anna Kendrick did not decide how to frame star Anna Kendrick's face in this pivotal scene. But sure, maybe the cinematographer was freelancing! It's possible! (What Goldman is referring to is more the lighting than anything else, and the cinematographer deserves an enormous amount of credit for how that scene is lit, for sure.)
I haven’t had a chance to chat with Anna either :-) so of course I have no idea. My understanding though is that directors focus on overall concept and details such as blocking, placement and movement of actors, and so forth, and the DPs are responsible for camera placement, along with lighting, lens choice and so forth.
My guess is that at the end of the day it’s all dependent on collaboration and teamwork and when we talk about Kendrick’s “directorial choices” we’re talking about how she conveyed her vision and desires to a large team and how they executed on those.
LOVED Conclave! Who knew management of a conclave would be so gripping? Lawrence's humanity, his clarity, and deft handling of each crisis has all my admiration.
I disagree that Woman of the Hour had a message of "believe women", in that scene she's 90% sure, herself, and that was it's point to me, the fear and fragility of being pedestaled. It's hard for me to convey to my daughter what it was like, the secret eye language you had with other women, the tension of being so unsure and afraid and yet wanting to believe in an equality of personal sovereignty. That movie will show our daughters what it was like to constantly be underminded, groped, pushed and if you wanted to stay safe you didn't say anything and you smiled and went along but you helped watch out for other women. It captured the constant bombardment of male dominance in the 70s as women tried to be free.
Re your last sentence, or just navigate their day unmolested and un-menanced.
I agree that Woman of the Hour was really well done. There were so many things that made me viscerally uncomfortable watching it, that I couldn’t quite put a finger on. I thought Kendrick was a promising director and appreciated how he donated her earnings and an actress, director, and executive producer to domestic violence charities.
that's super cool
Just saw ‘Conclave’ yesterday afternoon. I don’t think I’ve been to a movie in more than two years, maybe not since COVID, and I was blown away. It is visually stunning. There are so many moments that say multitudes: the cigarette butts in the courtyard after the cardinals have all been smoking, the contrast of men in ancient ceremonial robes with cellphones. I had not read the book, so the final twist was a genuine surprise. The Nigerian cardinal’s attitude towards homosexuality represents a widespread view in the African (and other) Catholic Church (and countries). I didn’t think the cardinal who said that it would be good for the Church to have its first black pope was expressing his own opinion - he was running against that cardinal and had clearly stated his disapproval of him in an earlier scene - but was trying to put the best possible spin on a possibility that he hoped would not occur. I thought the movie had interesting observations about the corrupting influence of ambition. I agree that some of the characters might as well have had “HERO” or “VILLIAN” signs above their heads (in one case, other cardinals discuss their feelings about one of the candidates, suggesting to the audience how it should react to him, before he even appears on stage). One thing that struck me was the fact that all of the characters were middle-aged or older. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen many movies recently, but that seemed like a refreshing change.
We saw Conclave last night to escape from Halloween. I thought it was great, although a little too dark photographically (not much light). The ending, which was not actually divulged in this review, was amazing. It hit me in the face quite unexpectedly. Fiennes is going to get the Oscar for best actor for sure.
I read a lot of mystery / psychological thriller novels, so it’s hard to take me by surprise, but that ending did. I correctly guessed who the new pope was going to be, and that there would be a revelation about him after he was elected (that’s pretty standard in this type of plot), but I would never have guessed what the revelation was. Glad you liked it as much as I did!
I’m a murder mystery/thriller fan myself, both books and tv, so I’m always attuned to what the reveal might be. By the end of Conclave, I was thinking it would be Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) since the others were falling one by one and Lawrence had the purest intentions, but then I thought “oh, it’s going to be the new guy”, but the reveal…wow. Context is everything.
The audience was being set up to think it would be Lawrence, which made me wary. I thought it was interesting that Lawrence , who consistently claimed not to want the job, eventually chose a name. He was like Bellini (Stanley Tucci), who said he didn’t want to be pope but then got mad at Lawrence when he thought Lawrence was competing with him. The observations about power and ambition were very perceptive, I thought. The one thing that bothered me about the ending was that we never saw the white smoke. We saw the black smoke every time, but never the white smoke.
Oh, I think Lawrence honestly didn’t want to be Pope, but thought he might get stuck with it. Bellini was probably right when he said every Cardinal secretly knows what he would want for his Pope name, so Lawrence had “John” tucked away in his brain, but to me, he didn’t look like he really wanted it. He just looked stuck and resigned to it. Bellini, however, was definitely playing at being disinterested. He was counting on getting votes from people who follow the dictum that the best person for a position of power is the person who doesn’t want it.
We have a good priest friend who’s spent a lot of time working in Rome at the Vatican. He calls the Cardinals “the purple mafia”. Make of that what you will.
Wow. I love how Sonny makes you FEEL the movie. Bravo.
"Woman of the Hour" sounds interesting based on your description of the camera work here. The main thing I noticed rewatching "Silence of the Lambs" recently for the first time in decades was how much the movie uses unusual framing (specifically, close shots of people looking right at the camera) to make you feel Clarice Starling's discomfort on a truly visceral level.
How should I feel about a movie (like Conclave) that I love for 95% and then groan at the ending?
I haven’t seen the Conclave, but I get your vibe.
I went to Conclave, only the 2nd or 3rd movie in the theater this year; Sorry Sonny, I'll do better.
I knew all the spoilers, and let me just say, I'm not ready to do your job, but I thought the film did an excellent job of transmitting the weight of the decisions the men faced. I really felt the pressure on Cardinal Lawrence. I felt the striving and excitement of the men who could become pope. And since I'm never going to be in any of those roles, I thought the film was well done. The spin at the end was ... a bit gratituous.
Gratuitous, but still cool. I’m Catholic and thought it was quite fitting.