>> |
Anonymous
A few things:
1. I sorta look down on film directors who detach themselves from the process who just give directions and approval to the cinematographer. It doesn't really matter, no, who presses the buttons, but there's a difference between a film where the cinematographer calls the shots on camera angles, lenses used, etc. and where the director does and the cinematographer plays a more minor role. In the former case, and on anything where the director isn't deeply involved in the cinematography, editing, etc., the film is just as much the cinematographer's and the editor's as the directors, even if the director gets the big credit. Same here.
Besides, is it really that hard for a director or photographer to work his own cameras? I can understand help building the set, and even arranging the lighting and having focus pullers on motion pictures, but why not do the camera work and the editing and, with still photography, development yourself? Like, Annie Liebowitz only works with some 6x7 Mamiya, but she has a team of assistants who do everything for her. It's just a medium format SLR, nothing even remotely involved like a view camera, but she has to have a team of assistants.
2. It isn't inherent, but most of the staged photography I've seen is sort of lifeless, low on content, lacking a human core, even if it's really technically well-done. DiCorcia is the epitomy of this; I'm not familiar with Crewdson, but from the two in this thread he seems the same way. I've seen good staged, film-like photography, but it's rare. Again, not inherently, but photographers who choose to do it seem to tend to be the type to privelege form over content way, way too much. Cinema probably avoids this because it has a longer, deeper tradition, and because it (usually) has to at least ostensibly have a plot.
|