Movie Birdman. Cinematography just amazing.

Jerry K wrote on 2/4/2015, 11:14 PM

Yesterday I saw the movie Birdman which is up for 9 academy awards. This is a movie you should not miss. One of the 9 awards was for cinematography.

I could not believe the work that went into filming this movie.

First off 95% if not all of the movie was filmed with one camera. Mostly ever segment lasted 10 to 15 minutes with out a cut or fade and all shot with one camera moving from place to place through hallways, up and down stairs and in to many different rooms and locations.

Most of the time the camera was 2 to 3 inches from the actors face. It was just breathtaking how this movie was filmed. I never saw anything like this before.

Many of the scenes were shot in rooms with mirrors, never once did I see the camera in the mirror and the camera was moving constantly.

One scene there were two women talking in front of a mirror in a dressing room. One of them was on the left side of the mirror and the other women with blood on her was on the right side of the mirror. The camera at one point was dead center shooting in to the mirror eye level you could see both women left and right of the screen and also see them in the mirror but never saw the camera. I want to know how they pulled that one off?
The cinematography was just amazing. A must see.

Jerry K.

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 2/5/2015, 4:33 PM

I logged onto this forum for the first time in a while just to agree with you.

Fantastic movie.

I didn't know much about the movie at first, but the camera work is incredible. Years and years ago, I saw a similar movie called Russian Ark which was filmed in a single Steadicam shot, but it still felt a bit formal and stilted and you noticed it. This movie just feels so alive and, later, when I asked my wife if she noticed how they filmed it, she said what do you mean? I said, there are no cuts. She wasn't even aware of this, because you just fell the energy of the drama of the movie and the acting.

Jerry, I first noticed it when they went all the way from the dressing room to the stage. And I just thought to myself, Wow, are they going to do this all the way through? It's was kind of a thrilling moment. I felt something similar in the beginning of No Country for Old Men. It just made me realize how ambitious this movie was going to be and that it was going to be special. The raised the bar a couple of times during the movie too.

No Spoilers, but what about that opening shot? That was a grabber.

I caught a tribute to Citizen Kane too that they used some digital trickery for, the probably used something similar for the mirror.

All the performances were great too. Typing this up makes me want to see it again on a big screen.

VidMus wrote on 2/5/2015, 4:48 PM

"Most of the time the camera was 2 to 3 inches from the actors face."

and

"...and the camera was moving constantly."

You just convinced me that I DO NOT want to see this movie!!!

Edit: I just watched the trailer on YouTube and it also convinces me that I do not want to watch that awful movie.

Jerry K wrote on 2/5/2015, 9:30 PM

Yes the camera was 2 to 3 inches from the actors face moving constantly most of the time but in a very professional and very smooth way. Its just an all around well made movie that shows how professional actors and crew can make a movie with out all the special effects with one camera.

Don't get me wrong, not everyone has to like it but as film makers and editors on this forum it might be of some interest plus it's up for 9 academy awards so the movie must have some good viewing value to it.

Jerry K.

deusx wrote on 2/5/2015, 10:01 PM

>>> I said, there are no cuts<<<

There are plenty of cuts, they just removed them in the post. You could call it a transition that makes it look like there's no transition ( maybe Vegas 14 will have that as one of it's transitions )

>>>Its just an all around well made movie that shows how professional actors and crew can make a movie with out all the special effects with one camera<<<

I think this movie uses far more special effects than most movies like this. They just aren't the obvious, constantly in your face effects. I'm guessing they had to spend a lot of time compositing different shots and removing/blending those cuts to make it look like it was a single continuous shot. And Michael Keaton didn't really jump off a building.

Jerry K wrote on 2/5/2015, 11:10 PM

Yes we know Michael Keaton out side shots had many edits and special effects to make it look real but that was only 5% of the movie. The other 95% that was shot inside had many continues none stop shots lasting a good 10 minutes or more moving from place to place and I doubt if It was edited ito make it look like one long segment.

What I will give you is about half way through the movie the camera moved in to a very dark area that could have very easily have a edit point to transition to a new clip making it look like one long take.

Anyway the movie for the most part was shot with one camera and the cinematography and acting was was outstanding. Just my opinion.

Jerry K.

Tim L wrote on 3/22/2015, 1:13 PM

I just watched this on DVD last night, and I agree that the camera work and the staging/blocking are incredible. Almost distracting to me, though, because I took so much notice of it. (The average movie-watcher wouldn't notice, though.)

I also watched the behind-the-scenes feature on the DVD, which was very engaging.

Yes, most of the shots are very, very long, continuous takes, walking from a dressing room, down a hallway, up or down stairs, onto the theatre stage, back to offstage, etc. Camera work was sometimes on steadicam, and sometimes handheld, but very smooth -- not like the "shakey cam" style of shooting. A few exteriors were high crane shots that come down to street level, or fly directly into a dressing room window and continue the scene, etc.

Here is a very abbreviated version of the behind-the-scenes feature:

At 3:07 is an example of shooting in front of a mirror and not seeing the camera. (I assume it has been removed in post.)

Of course, there are "hidden" transitions to new takes that are easy enough for anyone on this forum to pick out -- for example, going from inside the theatre and walking out a door into the street I assume was normally a transition to a new take. But the overall flow was very different from a normal movie. And there may have been other, less obvious ones. But very well done.

The actresses even talk about how nervous they were -- almost sick-to-their-stomach nervous -- because blowing a line could wreck the last 10 minutes of a perfect take. Not like a regular movie, where you blow a line, and then just repeat it again while still rolling, so that it can be edited in post.

"Yes the camera was 2 to 3 inches from the actors face..." hmmm, 2-3 inches is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but plenty of close-ups.

xberk wrote on 3/22/2015, 7:32 PM

For me -- my opinion -- this movie was very interesting for filmmakers, film buffs and film students because of the way it was shot, lit and recorded with brilliant post production work (and effects) which made everything look so seamless and flowing (how the hell did they do those mirror shots?) -- but and this is a huge BUT, I believe the movie has very limited appeal to a wider audience. It fails to develop characters to which an audience can relate and root for. It's a classic case of the story falling flat because the characters have no redeeming qualities and wonderful actors wasted in roles with no mass appeal. Don Corleone in the Godfather, a drug dealer and murder, has more of our sympathy than anyone in this movie. Long takes in a labyrinth a movie does not make.

My two cents while sitting on the bench watching the game from far away.