JP

Well, I have not seen Les Mis, so I can’t say anything to that. But I think it is wrong to judge a film – especially a predecessor – based on its director’s other films. Maybe Hooper was happy with the cinematography and thought he would try it again in Les Mis, but it didn’t translate the way he wanted it to. Regardless, I think it was successful in The King’s Speech, and whether or not he used it over-zealously in other films shouldn’t matter to its effectiveness in that film.

Josh

And I disagree. I think that its failure in Les Mis serves to prove that it was a failure in The King’s Speech. The fact that he used it again in a film that is different in almost every way from King’s Speech kind of proves that he wasn’t trying to make any thematic statements with it in that film. It’s just an affectation, and one that he doesn’t use to illuminate his films.

Søren

So I just got through the Hulk article – it is well-argued, even if he/she makes a few leaps (like the assumption that Hooper is specifically aping Kubrick). However, it mostly refers to Les Mis and not The King’s Speech. I still think the unsettling and awkward feel the Dutch angles produce work well for a movie about a man who feels uncomfortable speaking in public or representing his country/family. That Hooper had no other ideas after that, or that he felt he could just do the same thing again in Les Mis because it worked in The King’s Speech, that’s another issue.

Josh

I don’t think the Kubrick comparison is too much of a leap. When Hooper apparently drove it home in the press how much he loved him, and when you realize how many of Kubrick’s techniques are at play (inappropriately) in Hooper’s films, it becomes pretty obvious. And if not, it’s still a really good point of comparison. Yeah, it focuses on Les Mis, but most of the points he makes about it are applicable to The King’s Speech. Hooper completely misuses basic cinematic language for the purpose of appearing as though he understands it. It’s like claiming to speak German, and then shouting a string of random German words to prove it.

Søren

I’d still say the connection is supposition at best, but perhaps it does work for comparison regardless of what Hooper’s inspiration was for his cinematography. Again, I don’t think that as far as The King’s Speech is concerned Hooper is really betraying the cinematic form with his aesthetic choices… Mostly because I’m not convinced anything he did in Speech was radical or different enough to really operate on the viewer in any meaningful way. And even if it does on some subconscious level, I think it works to somewhat bolster the narrative of a man who is uncomfortable in his own skin.

Josh

I really can’t get on that train. By whatever metric by which we choose to judge cinematography, The King’s Speech‘s is terrible. It just… is. I don’t know how I can explain it further than I have. He takes techniques which have established purposes and throws them in willy-nilly. Even if he accidentally hit something, we shouldn’t give him credit for it because it’s still terrible direction.

Søren

Well then I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree. From what I’ve seen of Les Mis, his style seems very at odds with the story and content of that particular film. But I own Speech on Blu-ray, and the cinematography in that movie has just never really entered into my train of thought one way or the other. *Laughs* I guess Refn and Hooper are as much of a trigger for us as Nolan and Moffat.

Josh

Funny thing is, I’m not super passionate about Refn. I really like Drive, but that’s about it.

Søren

And I’m not all that passionate about Hooper. As for Refn, I’ve only seen two of his pieces – but both have suffered from the same fundamental issues. In any case, I just love how we can disagree on these subjects so much. Art is a beautiful thing.

So does Hooper really not know his way around a camera? Are Refn’s long takes misplaced? Let us know in the comments!

~ Josh