Movie Recommendation - "Ida"

Argenticien said:
John, thanks for that recommendation all those months ago. After Ida languished in my queue for half a year, I finally watched it tonight and must add my praise to that above. Everything was wonderfully shot, except I'm slightly on the fence about the cinematographer's repeated use of that composition with a bodyless head or two at the very bottom (frequently bottom-right) of the screen. No matter; it was in any case thoroughly enjoyable to look at, although quite the melancholy storyline.
Click to expand...

Lenczewski left the production after a couple of days or so. Officially he had to go because he was ill but Pawlikowski is on the record saying that Lenczewski wasn't happy with where the film was going (or words to that effect). It's hard to fathom in hindsight but shooting was fraught with almost insuperable difficulties, some financial but also to do with the script, and perhaps that played a role in Lenczewski's departure. Anyway, Pawlikowski ended up shooting the film with camera operator Lukasz Zal as DP, someone who (we now know) was very talented and with all the enthusiasm, positive energy and freshness of a newcomer but, crucially, brave enough to try new stuff other more experienced DPs might have balked at doing in fear of losing face/reputation.

I must say the cinematographer's work was made a bit easier by the fact that Agata Trzebuchowska is achingly, breathtakingly beautiful. ...
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with that. She also brought intelligence and childlike curiosity to a role that would have been too heavily anchoritic otherwise.


.
 
Strange. I saw the film as well, and BTW although it has its merits, I did not particularly enjoy the conclusion.
On the part of visual experience, I have been constantly in pain because of horrible digital rendering of B&W. It seems like I am in an ever shrinking minority of people who are used to B&W film standards. The photography was very good, as often happens with Polish cameramen.
 
I'll check this out, thanks!

I recently watched Noah Baumbach's movie Frances Ha, starring Greta Gerwig. It's a pretty good movie, and Gerwig is terrific, but it's filmed in black and white on a Canon DSLR. It struck me as really well rendered digital B&W. Might be worth a look.
 
Argenticien said:
John, thanks for that recommendation all those months ago. After Ida languished in my queue for half a year, I finally watched it tonight and must add my praise to that above. Everything was wonderfully shot, except I'm slightly on the fence about the cinematographer's repeated use of that composition with a bodyless head or two at the very bottom (frequently bottom-right) of the screen. No matter; it was in any case thoroughly enjoyable to look at, although quite the melancholy storyline.

I must say the cinematographer's work was made a bit easier by the fact that Agata Trzebuchowska is achingly, breathtakingly beautiful. Her look reminds me quite a bit of Claire Danes when she first appeared on the scene in 1994ish. Lenczewski has certainly done her justice.

--Dave
Click to expand...

Sure thing, Dave. Glad you finally got to see it. I agree some of the compositions were extreme and repetitious, especially the one you cite. Your Claire Danes comparison never occurred to me, but I've always had a crush on her, so maybe that explains the appeal of this character for me. Some of the compositions have stuck with me just like a few photographs have. I'm thinking of the nuns carrying the cross through the snow and the roadside scene where Ida is kneeling at the shrine.

As far as story, it's a bit hard to watch and not a particularly pleasing ending. But it's that typical Eastern European confrontation between faith and post-war nihilism. I read some of the Polish poets from that era, particularly Milosz and Symborska, so it was a familiar theme to me.

An incredible period in history that produced some great artists. We can only imagine what it was like for those who lived through it. I think the film does a great job of personalizing the repercussions of that history.

John
 
You have the very same comment to any thread that is involving the word "digital" no matter of the content.
Perhaps if you start thread "I hate digital, film is the best" and make it sticky and not to spill your hate in any thread mentioning that dirty word?

mfogiel said:
Strange. I saw the film as well, and BTW although it has its merits, I did not particularly enjoy the conclusion.
On the part of visual experience, I have been constantly in pain because of horrible digital rendering of B&W. It seems like I am in an ever shrinking minority of people who are used to B&W film standards. The photography was very good, as often happens with Polish cameramen.
Click to expand...
 
Haha, I am just trying to make my point of view vis a vis what I perceive to be largely a combination of two factors:
- lack of previous knowledge
- endowment effect
It is clear, that people who never tasted good wine, truffles, or for that matter an orange or a potato, will not have a good benchmark against which to judge a "synthetic wine or potato".
But, more surprisingly, many people who end up buying synthetic potatos for reasons of convenience actually become convinced, that their potatos are as good or better than the real ones. This is a well established psychological process, you can google it up easily:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

I am not pretending a one fit all taste in anything, including art or photography, but given that my personal pleasure from viewing this film has been heavily damaged by the digital cinematography employed, I thought legitimate voicing my opinion.

I would never imagine that sticking to what I like in photography would make a whistleblower out of me, but here I am, even if most people on this forum don't like to be whistled at.

Having said this, the guy or guys who shot this film clearly have talent in framing the scenes, which has nothing to do with B&W rendering.
 
Ned, you tend to use extreme rhetoric in cases where a milder delivery of your opinions is called for. "It is clear that digital BW is quite horrendous." Well, no. To some of us, it appears to be a useful and flexible medium for photography and movies. How about, "I still prefer the look of film"? That has the advantage of being true. Similarly, somebody criticizes you and you respond by suggesting you've been compared to Hitler.

As for the film/digital debate, I mean, Salgado is shooting digital. I saw an exhibition of his recent landscape and ethnographic prints at the ICP last year and it was spectacular. Clearly some people can do great things with the medium. Honestly, that debate is kind of over. Great artists will make great art with whatever materials are at their disposal. Increasingly, in photography, that means digital. It's fine. Their art may be different, but it won't be worse.

It's fine to be a contrarian; indeed, that's the kind of positioning that makes debating on the internet fun. But when you state your opinions in terms of absolutes, or using unnuanced language, you end up shutting off avenues of discussion instead of inviting more detailed analysis. It's not the opinions that's the problem, it's the tone. You seem determined to put people down and cut off the conversation.
 
You know Ned, I have never seen great value in receiving pats on the back. More value comes from criticism.
The issue really is to make it relevant and where possible backed by rational arguments. There is no such thing as "best art" or even "best photographic print", so it is useless to argue in this field.
This does not preclude me from stating my preferences, and I am not going to be scared by criticism of others, or by their idea of me being "a broken record".

I place however the burden of proof on who thinks that miracles exist, that digital B&W has beautiful highlights or that Rap music trumps Jazz. Let's wait and see.
 
mfogiel said:
You know Ned, I have never seen great value in receiving pats on the back. More value comes from criticism.
The issue really is to make it relevant and where possible backed by rational arguments. There is no such thing as "best art" or even "best photographic print", so it is useless to argue in this field.
This does not preclude me from stating my preferences, and I am not going to be scared by criticism of others, or by their idea of me being "a broken record".

I place however the burden of proof on who thinks that miracles exist, that digital B&W has beautiful highlights or that Rap music trumps Jazz. Let's wait and see.
Click to expand...


these things are all different from each other and to compare them is a losing proposition...they all have the possibility to hold both truth and deceit.
 
"they all have the possibility to hold both truth and deceit."
- Interesting, you might elaborate if you wish, but maybe better over a glass of wine when you pass by the south of France, haha...
 
Ned Bojic said:
Helen, I shoot around 200,000 digital images a year. And I print at least 2000 fb prints a year. I'm comfortable with my assertion that BW film looks much better. Shooting so much digital must mean that I do not hate it. As I said, it has its pluses and its minuses. Anyone else shoots 200,000 digital files a year and properly prints 2000 fb prints every year in this forum? I don't think I'm just the usual guy talking about film vs. digital.
Click to expand...
That's nearly 550 digital images on average per day. How much film do you shoot? For that matter.... How do you have time for us "usual guys"?
 
Ida looks good enough to me, like most modern B/W film digital or analogue it lacks the texture of real B/W which would have suited the movie quiet well but the DP did good work better than some other examples of converted B/W the Good German comes to mind which was shot on film but looks not even halfway as good as this movie.

For those interested in the lighting of the movie http://www.theasc.com/asc_blog/thefilmbook/2014/05/13/lighting-scenes-ida-with-lukasz-zal/

Digital B/W in movies looks no worse than desaturated color film both lack the quality of a good B/W film released on B/W print stock. But since it is very unlikely that any major or minor movie production will use B/W film because the paying public and cinemas in certain markets only accept color (unfortunately) I congratulate any cinematographer, director and producer who has the balls to shoot and release a movie in B/W (digital, color converted, native B/W).
 
jsrockit said:
You're wrong... no you're wrong. Good ol' RFF!
Click to expand...

Well it is the internet after all.

In real life I would just find this this kind of flat discussion so useless I would simply avoid the participants, in future. One only puts up with this kind of thing from siblings. 🙂

Just fun I guess? But no one could possibly confuse it with an actual discussion.

Although;
The artistic compromise on a grand scale, referenced repeatedly, is enlightening.
 
I'm truly sorry that I reanimated this months-old thread. I thought I was graciously thanking someone for a recommendation of something that I turned out to enjoy. I didn't mean to invite a film vs. digital flame war, FFS.

<skulks away, chastened>

--Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 2: How the Colossus of Film was broken by a disruptive technology
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
Muggins
Muggins
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
The Mercury 35s: American Classics that challenged the Germans in WWII
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
KoNickon
K
J
  • Article Article
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
Tincup
T
Back
Top Bottom