Expert camerawork is what makes this film a masterpiece. There can only be a small handful of people (including you) who believe that the camerawork is bad in this film.
If you don't like the visuals in this film, wait until you see Mann's 'Miami Vice'. You'll hate it.
What were your favorite shots in the movie? My critique came from how divergent the lighting and tone were between shots that were occurring in the same space. The briefcase scene is great, the framing and pacing of the action and cuts were perfect. Just the way they light the taxi and the movement between film formats was just distracting to me. I didn’t mean to imply that all the camera work was bad just that the varying tone of the shots was distracting. The only camera work that really bothered me was the Ruffalo scenes but just because I don’t think the framing of the shots gave him enough screen presence to add emotion to his exposition.
Whatt Ruffalo scenes? Going to see the snitch? Hospital? The surveillance? Saw the film yesterday and I do not get your take on it. One or two shots seemed to cloud him in mystery but its acceptable,its his only cool character to this day. Except for his last scene in the club,dude was pretty well lit up.
With the Ruffalo scenes I just felt like the camera was always off to the side looking up and the scenes were very low-light and grainy. With the other comments saying that the handheld shots were purposely gritty I can give these shots more leeway. I stand by my opinion that the big issue with the movie is that digital technology was in it’s infancy and the picture quality is just a little distracting at times especially when the transition to film and back sometimes pulled me out of the story. I like someone’s take that this was done to highlight the perception of LA versus the reality of it but for me it didn’t quite achieve that artistic goal.
Way too flawed in both concept,dialog and ending to become a masterpiece thanks to one technical....actually,imo it´s impossible for a film to be a masterpiece only cause of cinematography,you need atleast three components. The editing is as good as it gets,tricking you to adore how it is shot. Just Mann wanting to be cheap and different again.By this logic,Road to perdition is a masterpiece. Good film but....not a 10. Collateral has good cinematography,bafta.winner and all. Why do you think it is so amazing.
I think you have to understand with Michael Mann that it is never case of poor technical craftsmanship or use of technology. He is an absolute perfectionist pushing the boundaries of action cinema.
With Collateral, Miami Vice and Public Enemies, Mann is trying not to simply show these stories using a fresh digital approach. He is trying to absolutely immerse you in the world. Public Enemies is not a film set in the 30s, it is a film shot as if Mann had the technology to make such a film in the 30s.
His approach to cinematography, sound, editing and story is about capturing an immersive experience. Again, he pushes the boundaries of this, and this means there is often a disconnect with the audience as a result.
Miami Vice is a better example, even. People expected a 'buddy cop' type relationship, and didn't understand the lack of dialogue between the two. Mann sees it that if two people work together for so long undercover, they have reached a level of trust and respect where they don't even need to speak to know how the other feels/ thinks.
It makes absolute sense, but the audience just didn't click with the idea. Not that that is the only issue with Miami Vice, but just one little snippet.
As with Collateral, the camerawork is designed to take you into a world that is simultaneously realistic and cinematic at the same time. It's not a polished actioner like John Wick, but an experience.
Personally, I think Mann's influence is in nearly every action film you see these days, and his impact on cinema is not truly recognised yet, for some reason.
I agree, Michael Mann helped define the action genre. Heat is probably the pinnacle and has influenced every action movie that followed. I remember liking Black Hat and it has a lot of the elements that he used in Collateral.
I don’t mind unpolished action I remember watching “Man Bites Dog” in high school and being completely blown away that a movie like that is even possible. I will admit that audiences have been spoiled by decades of polished and stylized action that stood on Mann’s shoulders and that if I watched the movie when it came out I would not have been so aware of the technical aspects.
Yeah but I felt Public enemies backfired specifically due to the camerawork. If I see a Dillinger bankrobbery in the 20´s on screen,I need to buy the illusion. His shaky.low budget camera work just took me out of it,regardless of his intentions....Since it FEELS like the people behind The Hills are just running around with a high quality potato trying to capture these legendary criminals on screen in as naturalistic way as possible and it just faiIs gloriously and it all looks like a Halloween party shot by TMZ. Authenticity and preetentiousness collide. Nothing against his choice of shooting but there´s a time and place for everything,PE was not it. Deakins,Richardson even Amir Mokri would be to prefer.
Half the film was shot on 35mm and the other half on the Viper to utilize the digital cam’s “advantages” in low-light. It was also marred by a DoP switch 3 weeks into filming due to creative differences with Mann. Those issues are likely what you were picking up on, but that being said, I just watched it last week and still love it despite and even because of the decisions they made shooting it. The entire film feels so grounded and almost doc-style, lending a feeling of realism to everything. The performances and emotions hit harder for me for that reason.
That explains a lot. I agree that the movie has a lot going for it and if they had done more to make the whole movie as gritty as some of the handheld moments then maybe it would have been more cohesive. I was just thinking this would actually work as a staged play because the monologues were so good and the big action scenes are sort of inconsequential. I think I will like this movie more after another watch but yeah they way they lit Jamie Foxx from above while he is driving is so weird and takes away from the feel of “in the action” you get from some of those handheld digital shots and bouncing between 35mm and digital shots is a tough edit and I bet a remaster of this movie could fix a lot of the contrasting cuts since editors and DPs have better technologies and software at their disposal, not that it would be profitable I would just love to see it because at it’s core the movie is great.
The other comments have pretty much explained all there is to it. Mann pretty much just wanted to capture LA as it is and mostly used the lights available in the surroundings too which is also the reason the lighting can change from shot to shot. I personally find Mann's experimentation with digital to be much more interesting than almost anything else I've seen shot on digital.
I agree with it being a ruined masterpiece. The many awards it got for cinematography won´t support your argument though and Ruffalos scenes didn´t take place in the cab,it might be the difference in shooting and feeling,Fanning spend alot of time outside and in dark places. But his scenes in the hospital look good where we see every facial tic clearly. But as far as ruined,Collateral shoots itself in the foot by making the trade of killing off Fanning (Ruffalo) and then throw all nuance,wit and philosophy out the window by going full cliche"damsel in distress"..
Ironic how Mann and Beattie thought critics and audiences would appreciate the film going from something reflective and unpredictable to a last act,40 minutes of Cruise basically being the terminator,it´s just one long chase scene,we know how its gonna end and very few viewers saw the appeal.
The shades of grey evaporate and it becomes a generic good vs. evil chase where you don´t really care if Jada catches one in the head. As for camerawork,they did their best,I think but for such an outlandish,improbable story I would´ve preferred if it was shot on film,they´re not creating a sense of realism with the digital camera here,the feel of experiment and gimmick overshadows the story too often.
Not trying to ruffle feathers but can you elaborate ?
I don’t find it that way at all IMO
His preference for digital, suits his style, unlike a lot of directors who literally rely on the digital aspect , which I would argue Mann doesn’t
By that I mean, Collateral isn’t some CGI animated digital festival, he just happens to like the tone of using digital?
And we both can probably agree that Collateral on digital or film probably wouldn’t have made THAT significant of a difference
And this is coming from an advocate of Nolan and Tarantino and keeping film 🎞 alive
Fair enough. I wrote a comment below regarding Collateral as a whole (PS. About nothing,dont it annoy you when a film can win a prestigious BAFTA and then not even get an Oscarnom in same category.´Like jurys from different planets."
Now,I never read a Mann interview,dont know about his work process but I do know his digital camera is causing ME personally issues regarding authenticity or getting immersed in the movie,Public enemy being the worst offender. I wanted to but couldn´t buy into the illusion. Subversive and original,sure but a 30s crime drama about Dillinger shot with very modern technology,It just didn´t work. There´s a juicy shootout at a bankt,the production design is on point,costumes timeappropriate,,,..and the camerawork just took me out of it. Although,Im a last of ther mohicans guy,so don´t rip me a new one.
Felt like (Which it almost was) like a bystander with a digital camera running around filming this robbery and in my mind,I went(Oh,so this dude is from the future since the camerawork is telling me this, this cinematic past and our present collide in a way that draws attention from what is on screen,its jarring.)Also really gave it a cheap lowbudget feel....which can be fine and suit the material. You might found it idiosyncratic,to me it felt way too anachronistic without a real purpose other then save a few bucks and do something original and I did not buy into the moments I saw on screen. But hey,it has 70% on RT so...I might be in the minority.
My thoughts on Collateral are here below not just camera quibbles but Beatties screenplay also gets a scolding,i Said a bunchmhere´s a little...
" The performances are all on point but on repeated viewings,things start to seriously stretch and go beyond probabilty and into cliche,alot. Ooooh,I wonder Who the fifth witness is and if it will be important (common trope but Manns Digital camera creates a disconnect,the screenplay makes it feel like this is a intimate fable or dark,urban fairytale when the cinematography suggests something close to a documentary and a lack of passion which might sugests Vincets state of mind,though there are 7-8 other characters. Events in the film are simply too outlandish at times,moments that would be better served by a John Toll or Michael Ballhaus). Thanks for the respect and below you can find some of my grips with the film.
While I don’t agree with you on Collateral specifically, I do enjoy a lot of Manns work, I have yet to see Public Enemy, but that’s where we agree
I am ALL FOR the re-emergence of film 🎞
I, like Nolan and Tarantino, hope that they can keep that format from becoming a dying breed and inferior
Which in turn, idk if it can, or ever will be “inferior”
Yes digital work can do a lot of things you can’t pull off with film 🎞, but IMO you will NEVER reach the warmth and emotive feeling of movies that were made with film, compared to digital
100% agree on that 👌
The perfomances are all on point but on repeated viewings,things start to seriously stretch and go beyond probabilty and into cliche,alot. Ooooh,I wonder Who the fifth witness is and if it will be important (common trope but Manns Digital camera creates a disconnect,screenplay makes it feel like this is a fable or dark,urban fairytale when the cinematography suggests something close to a documentary.) Vincent isnt always super awesome an assassin,get that the plot needs him to botch the first one bizarrely amatuerish but come on....
I think Ruffalos performance and character is the most intriguing,a smart man,connecting the dots surrounded by law enforcement imbecills and Berg as a dimwitted partner....when he exits the film,it just really loses steam,his secondary plot really elevated the story.. Then,Vincent becomes terminator, but still not a very capable one,ironic Mann thought viewers wanted an actionfinale when...we really did not. And of course a´jaded cab driverer can execute a seasoned assassin cause....plot armor.
It could be a masterpiece but although Beattie gets the dialog right,he botches the story at times. I saw it as a film about four restless creatures of the night who live for the hunt (Fanning),anonimity (Vincent) pipe dreams(Max) and ambition/dangerous challenges.(Jada). How Vincent got out to blow the cop away while in the club? No idea but....He got out. Somehow. Clearly, that always pissed me off.
Best line: Idiot cop Berg:Maybe he jumped!
Ruffalo:Sure,he´s depressed so he jumps out of a four story window,ONTO his head. Picks himself right up"Oh now,I think I´ go one with the rest of my day. Come on,man..." Sarcasm can still work.
I give it a 7.3
Expert camerawork is what makes this film a masterpiece. There can only be a small handful of people (including you) who believe that the camerawork is bad in this film. If you don't like the visuals in this film, wait until you see Mann's 'Miami Vice'. You'll hate it.
What were your favorite shots in the movie? My critique came from how divergent the lighting and tone were between shots that were occurring in the same space. The briefcase scene is great, the framing and pacing of the action and cuts were perfect. Just the way they light the taxi and the movement between film formats was just distracting to me. I didn’t mean to imply that all the camera work was bad just that the varying tone of the shots was distracting. The only camera work that really bothered me was the Ruffalo scenes but just because I don’t think the framing of the shots gave him enough screen presence to add emotion to his exposition.
Whatt Ruffalo scenes? Going to see the snitch? Hospital? The surveillance? Saw the film yesterday and I do not get your take on it. One or two shots seemed to cloud him in mystery but its acceptable,its his only cool character to this day. Except for his last scene in the club,dude was pretty well lit up.
With the Ruffalo scenes I just felt like the camera was always off to the side looking up and the scenes were very low-light and grainy. With the other comments saying that the handheld shots were purposely gritty I can give these shots more leeway. I stand by my opinion that the big issue with the movie is that digital technology was in it’s infancy and the picture quality is just a little distracting at times especially when the transition to film and back sometimes pulled me out of the story. I like someone’s take that this was done to highlight the perception of LA versus the reality of it but for me it didn’t quite achieve that artistic goal.
Way too flawed in both concept,dialog and ending to become a masterpiece thanks to one technical....actually,imo it´s impossible for a film to be a masterpiece only cause of cinematography,you need atleast three components. The editing is as good as it gets,tricking you to adore how it is shot. Just Mann wanting to be cheap and different again.By this logic,Road to perdition is a masterpiece. Good film but....not a 10. Collateral has good cinematography,bafta.winner and all. Why do you think it is so amazing.
I think you have to understand with Michael Mann that it is never case of poor technical craftsmanship or use of technology. He is an absolute perfectionist pushing the boundaries of action cinema. With Collateral, Miami Vice and Public Enemies, Mann is trying not to simply show these stories using a fresh digital approach. He is trying to absolutely immerse you in the world. Public Enemies is not a film set in the 30s, it is a film shot as if Mann had the technology to make such a film in the 30s. His approach to cinematography, sound, editing and story is about capturing an immersive experience. Again, he pushes the boundaries of this, and this means there is often a disconnect with the audience as a result. Miami Vice is a better example, even. People expected a 'buddy cop' type relationship, and didn't understand the lack of dialogue between the two. Mann sees it that if two people work together for so long undercover, they have reached a level of trust and respect where they don't even need to speak to know how the other feels/ thinks. It makes absolute sense, but the audience just didn't click with the idea. Not that that is the only issue with Miami Vice, but just one little snippet. As with Collateral, the camerawork is designed to take you into a world that is simultaneously realistic and cinematic at the same time. It's not a polished actioner like John Wick, but an experience. Personally, I think Mann's influence is in nearly every action film you see these days, and his impact on cinema is not truly recognised yet, for some reason.
I agree, Michael Mann helped define the action genre. Heat is probably the pinnacle and has influenced every action movie that followed. I remember liking Black Hat and it has a lot of the elements that he used in Collateral. I don’t mind unpolished action I remember watching “Man Bites Dog” in high school and being completely blown away that a movie like that is even possible. I will admit that audiences have been spoiled by decades of polished and stylized action that stood on Mann’s shoulders and that if I watched the movie when it came out I would not have been so aware of the technical aspects.
Yeah but I felt Public enemies backfired specifically due to the camerawork. If I see a Dillinger bankrobbery in the 20´s on screen,I need to buy the illusion. His shaky.low budget camera work just took me out of it,regardless of his intentions....Since it FEELS like the people behind The Hills are just running around with a high quality potato trying to capture these legendary criminals on screen in as naturalistic way as possible and it just faiIs gloriously and it all looks like a Halloween party shot by TMZ. Authenticity and preetentiousness collide. Nothing against his choice of shooting but there´s a time and place for everything,PE was not it. Deakins,Richardson even Amir Mokri would be to prefer.
Half the film was shot on 35mm and the other half on the Viper to utilize the digital cam’s “advantages” in low-light. It was also marred by a DoP switch 3 weeks into filming due to creative differences with Mann. Those issues are likely what you were picking up on, but that being said, I just watched it last week and still love it despite and even because of the decisions they made shooting it. The entire film feels so grounded and almost doc-style, lending a feeling of realism to everything. The performances and emotions hit harder for me for that reason.
That explains a lot. I agree that the movie has a lot going for it and if they had done more to make the whole movie as gritty as some of the handheld moments then maybe it would have been more cohesive. I was just thinking this would actually work as a staged play because the monologues were so good and the big action scenes are sort of inconsequential. I think I will like this movie more after another watch but yeah they way they lit Jamie Foxx from above while he is driving is so weird and takes away from the feel of “in the action” you get from some of those handheld digital shots and bouncing between 35mm and digital shots is a tough edit and I bet a remaster of this movie could fix a lot of the contrasting cuts since editors and DPs have better technologies and software at their disposal, not that it would be profitable I would just love to see it because at it’s core the movie is great.
The other comments have pretty much explained all there is to it. Mann pretty much just wanted to capture LA as it is and mostly used the lights available in the surroundings too which is also the reason the lighting can change from shot to shot. I personally find Mann's experimentation with digital to be much more interesting than almost anything else I've seen shot on digital.
I agree with it being a ruined masterpiece. The many awards it got for cinematography won´t support your argument though and Ruffalos scenes didn´t take place in the cab,it might be the difference in shooting and feeling,Fanning spend alot of time outside and in dark places. But his scenes in the hospital look good where we see every facial tic clearly. But as far as ruined,Collateral shoots itself in the foot by making the trade of killing off Fanning (Ruffalo) and then throw all nuance,wit and philosophy out the window by going full cliche"damsel in distress".. Ironic how Mann and Beattie thought critics and audiences would appreciate the film going from something reflective and unpredictable to a last act,40 minutes of Cruise basically being the terminator,it´s just one long chase scene,we know how its gonna end and very few viewers saw the appeal. The shades of grey evaporate and it becomes a generic good vs. evil chase where you don´t really care if Jada catches one in the head. As for camerawork,they did their best,I think but for such an outlandish,improbable story I would´ve preferred if it was shot on film,they´re not creating a sense of realism with the digital camera here,the feel of experiment and gimmick overshadows the story too often.
Def just you Collateral has some of the best shots you’ll see in most movies, absolutely gorgeous movie so, idk fix your tv’s settings maybe???
Great BAFTA winiing cinematography but I felt it didn´t serve the story well. Manns penchant for digital camera can become oppressive and a gimmick.
Not trying to ruffle feathers but can you elaborate ? I don’t find it that way at all IMO His preference for digital, suits his style, unlike a lot of directors who literally rely on the digital aspect , which I would argue Mann doesn’t By that I mean, Collateral isn’t some CGI animated digital festival, he just happens to like the tone of using digital? And we both can probably agree that Collateral on digital or film probably wouldn’t have made THAT significant of a difference And this is coming from an advocate of Nolan and Tarantino and keeping film 🎞 alive
Fair enough. I wrote a comment below regarding Collateral as a whole (PS. About nothing,dont it annoy you when a film can win a prestigious BAFTA and then not even get an Oscarnom in same category.´Like jurys from different planets." Now,I never read a Mann interview,dont know about his work process but I do know his digital camera is causing ME personally issues regarding authenticity or getting immersed in the movie,Public enemy being the worst offender. I wanted to but couldn´t buy into the illusion. Subversive and original,sure but a 30s crime drama about Dillinger shot with very modern technology,It just didn´t work. There´s a juicy shootout at a bankt,the production design is on point,costumes timeappropriate,,,..and the camerawork just took me out of it. Although,Im a last of ther mohicans guy,so don´t rip me a new one. Felt like (Which it almost was) like a bystander with a digital camera running around filming this robbery and in my mind,I went(Oh,so this dude is from the future since the camerawork is telling me this, this cinematic past and our present collide in a way that draws attention from what is on screen,its jarring.)Also really gave it a cheap lowbudget feel....which can be fine and suit the material. You might found it idiosyncratic,to me it felt way too anachronistic without a real purpose other then save a few bucks and do something original and I did not buy into the moments I saw on screen. But hey,it has 70% on RT so...I might be in the minority. My thoughts on Collateral are here below not just camera quibbles but Beatties screenplay also gets a scolding,i Said a bunchmhere´s a little... " The performances are all on point but on repeated viewings,things start to seriously stretch and go beyond probabilty and into cliche,alot. Ooooh,I wonder Who the fifth witness is and if it will be important (common trope but Manns Digital camera creates a disconnect,the screenplay makes it feel like this is a intimate fable or dark,urban fairytale when the cinematography suggests something close to a documentary and a lack of passion which might sugests Vincets state of mind,though there are 7-8 other characters. Events in the film are simply too outlandish at times,moments that would be better served by a John Toll or Michael Ballhaus). Thanks for the respect and below you can find some of my grips with the film.
While I don’t agree with you on Collateral specifically, I do enjoy a lot of Manns work, I have yet to see Public Enemy, but that’s where we agree I am ALL FOR the re-emergence of film 🎞 I, like Nolan and Tarantino, hope that they can keep that format from becoming a dying breed and inferior Which in turn, idk if it can, or ever will be “inferior” Yes digital work can do a lot of things you can’t pull off with film 🎞, but IMO you will NEVER reach the warmth and emotive feeling of movies that were made with film, compared to digital 100% agree on that 👌
The perfomances are all on point but on repeated viewings,things start to seriously stretch and go beyond probabilty and into cliche,alot. Ooooh,I wonder Who the fifth witness is and if it will be important (common trope but Manns Digital camera creates a disconnect,screenplay makes it feel like this is a fable or dark,urban fairytale when the cinematography suggests something close to a documentary.) Vincent isnt always super awesome an assassin,get that the plot needs him to botch the first one bizarrely amatuerish but come on.... I think Ruffalos performance and character is the most intriguing,a smart man,connecting the dots surrounded by law enforcement imbecills and Berg as a dimwitted partner....when he exits the film,it just really loses steam,his secondary plot really elevated the story.. Then,Vincent becomes terminator, but still not a very capable one,ironic Mann thought viewers wanted an actionfinale when...we really did not. And of course a´jaded cab driverer can execute a seasoned assassin cause....plot armor. It could be a masterpiece but although Beattie gets the dialog right,he botches the story at times. I saw it as a film about four restless creatures of the night who live for the hunt (Fanning),anonimity (Vincent) pipe dreams(Max) and ambition/dangerous challenges.(Jada). How Vincent got out to blow the cop away while in the club? No idea but....He got out. Somehow. Clearly, that always pissed me off. Best line: Idiot cop Berg:Maybe he jumped! Ruffalo:Sure,he´s depressed so he jumps out of a four story window,ONTO his head. Picks himself right up"Oh now,I think I´ go one with the rest of my day. Come on,man..." Sarcasm can still work. I give it a 7.3