He didn't trash the avengers as a movie. He just said that the cinematography wasn't upto standards (which let's face it was one of it's weaknesses). In fact, if anything he put his own Batman films under the microscope calling them movies about "a guy in a rubber suit". There's no Marvel/DC war going on here.
But he’s right, Seamus McGarvey is much better than he shows in The Avengers. But that’s also because they were told they’d need to light a certain way for the 3D. Look at what he’s done with Godzilla or Bad Times at the El Royale. Both amazing looking, completely different feeling films.
I've had the pleasure to work with Wally a couple of times and it's pretty surreal watching someone who's so good at what they do, actually do it. In terms of great DPs, Wally's gotta be up there with Deakins, Janusz Kaminski and Matt Libatique.
What makes Nolan special is that he is able to work with skilled and talented people in such a way that they are able to bring their best to the picture. He is a "director", a manager and leader. I think that it is in this he succeeds. There are equally good directors (and better) out there, but Nolan has been able to achieve similar quality in movies with arguably a lot less experience than the masters. His cinematographer is just one of the many skilled and talented people he works with.
THIS GUY was the cinematographer for the second best movie I have seen in 38 years. Inception is topped only by Star Wars of course. This guy deserves some PROPS!!!!!! AND KUDOS!!!!!!!
It's exciting to see a time in modern film where certain filmmakers are doing their best to show studios that if allowed one can make a bigger budget movie with commercial appeal that DOES NOT have to be dumbed down to be successful. That a portion of the audience are desperate for challenging and authentic storytelling on a grand scale. 2022 being a phenomenal year for "mainstream movies"
This guy's like the Jack Bauer of cinematographers. They need to shoot a scene quick so he starts setting lights and says "I don't have time to explain!" but then the dailies look sick and chris nolan hires him. much love Wally.
When I read the title and saw the tiny little picture preview, I asked myself "why are they interviewing Kiefer Sutherland to talk about Wally Pfister?" It's crazy how much those two look alike.
I appreciate the comment that Pfister made about the lighting being "invisible" to the audience. So, I've always wanted to know whether DP's look at how a scene is lit, when they watch someone else's movie in the theater, or whether they just watch the movie. (I have to watch a movie twice because the first time watching it, I'm looking at the lighting and not really paying attention to the dialog or plot.)
it doesnt bother me. and everyone is complaining about dumb things when all im trying to get out of this is knowledge about a great cinematographer. i think the questions that hes asking are good and he did a good job for getting a solid interview.
@factthanolder I have seen NOTHING that looks like 'Inception'. I think, just like 'Citizen Kane' is the 'Citizen Kane' of black and white cinematography, 'Inception' is the 'Citizen Kane' of colour cinematography.
Great interview. It's bits and pieces like this that help us build the character of the Nolan family and how they operate. Am I the only who thinks it's kind of ridiculous to get an entire hotel suite and trick it out like a conference room just for a one man interview? lol
Okay, while The Prestige may be "stylized" in its cinematography as a whole, I feel that film doesn't have a very stylized lighting. It's actually made to look like it's shot in natural or practical light most of the time. It's pretty subtle.
That's cool, it's still my favorite film of his, The substance is definitely there though, it's so deeply layered and fine tuned and not pretentious because it's full of everything needed and everything is stated just enough just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it's style over substance or the emperor has no clothes, it's not a one watch film, it's carefully crafted and executed film that can be dissected and hold up under scrutiny.
So many of you hating on the interviewer, or the camerawork. Guess what, look past all that and there's a great interview with a great cinematographer.
It kinda bugs me when people say they don't understand a film... The content isn't hard to understand at all if you pay attention. From a production point of view, you have to admire it. The fact that Nolan only used 500 visual effects shots whereas films of the same genre will use 4 times that is impressive. It stays true to film making, if anything. No cheating. One of my favourite things about Christopher Nolan.
I can't wait to see how Transcendence will turn out! If it's a success then Maybe he could make a spin-off Dark Knight trilogy if Nolan doesn't return as the director!
@letusdrinkmilk he really is. Back in 2008, I went on his site which was still in development at the time and had only his email... I emailed him at that address and a day later got a response, albeit short but the fact he responded was awesome. I love it when it fame doesn't get to people's heads
I've no real problems with the interview. I just find myself wishing for better lighting and editing. STILL. The interviews are phenomenal. And I love them.
You know, it's interesting. The cinematography interviews get a lot of complaints about the zooming. The basic idea, obviously, is to break things up during a half-hour talking head conversation. But I hear the positive part of the frustration. All politics are local. I am not dismissing the complaint. But we can't satisfy everyone's idea of perfection. I hope there are other values in these chats that make the pain bearable.
Yea I guess you're right. I was just too hung up in listening to Pfister at the time. Now I see its more of a conversation going on. And with that in mind, its not really that bad as I put it.
@r3i6nm8n I was looking at the trailer for 'Moneyball' and thinking how lucky Bennett Miller was to get him for that movie because it looks amazing. He still operates on films he photographs doesn't he?
I have no idea who you are as a person, what your religious ideology is, what your political ideology is, what gender, age or culture. All I know is I relate to you because I totally share your love of film, and that's fucking awesome.
I just don't understand how it's a mess? Like it's not even complicated. It's widely regarded as a masterpiece and was praised for it's originality. Not to mention the fact it's one of the highest grossing films of all time! I don't want to sound argumentative but I literally have no idea how you think that it's a mess haha. Each to their own though and all that!
If you didn't like Inception even after multiple viewings,you should check out Inception and Philisophy (which is on youtube).Even if you don't like the movie after that you'll know it makes sense.
Weird, two top comments saying how "amateurish" the interviewer is, even though a) I doubt they've ever interviewed themselves in the mirror, let alone Academy Award winners on a regular basis, b) they obviously haven't watched the channel enough to know that the format for these videos is a friendly conversation rather than an out-right interview, and c) the video has only 1 dislike, *so obviously they wholeheartedly mean what they say. *sarcasm
yep i'm jumping on that wagon: STOP INTERRUPTING THE MAN! what the fuck is so hard about it! what' your problem? but then again TheHotButton has the most comprehensive video with Wally Pfister! it happens sometimes that annoying interviewers get in touch with really talented people but can't fucking handle it properly & everybody gets pissed off. guess we have to wait till someone cool does it...we do could get our lazy asses up & do it ourselves! until then, STOP FUCKING INTERRUPTING THE MAN!!
some really stupid comments here on what is basically an interview! just listen to it and be happy that you get to hear a great DP give you some insight.
It's totally fine to not like this movie. I know many who don't. The problem I have with your statements is when you try to sell your opinion as fact specifically when you say "this movie makes no sense, and 45mins into it I was lost." You got lost, period. But the movie makes sense. If someone asked me 45 mins in what was going on, I'd be able to explain exactly what's happening. So, maybe it's not as much of a mess as you claim it is.
@tykjen76 Eeeeeeyeah, I think he comes off as more eager and over interested, than inconsiderate - notice that he'd interrupt Pfister with questions in the context of what is being said at that point. It's not quite aimless "answer all the questions I have set out before me so that I may meet my criteria and not lose my job" conduct you see a lot from media moguls.
If you were really interested in preserving oral history you'd re upload this in HD, because you taped it at least 720p I bet. Even if it nulls your clicks.
He's a commercial director now. Probably better money, and more creative freedom. Short projects means he isn't tied down for a couple years on one thing.
