Søren

But here’s my question. Let’s assume for a moment that you are right and that these choices really are as egregious as you’re making them out to be. You’re cognizant of these things because you’re a film student (and bear in mind that as someone who has some background in film studies, it didn’t really bother me at all).

What is it that’s “wrong” about these camera angles and shots? How does that affect the viewer? What’s the effect on the audience that somehow takes away from the movie? Quite simply, I’m having a hard time understanding what the issue is. If these shots somehow confused continuity or broke some other cardinal rule of the form, I’d understand… Like the 180 degree rule. But simply framing it the way he has, or overusing Dutch angles, doesn’t seem too bad.

Josh

Like I said, it’s a distracting and drastic visual affectation that has no bearing on the story the film is trying to tell and isn’t informed by the story in any way. If it was a more minor thing, I’d be a little more forgiving. But when you have shots that are so radically changed, you can’t get away with it without having a valid reason. And if he had done it once or twice, in one movie, it might have been possible to find a justification.

But he does it so often, in totally different movies, that there’s no excuse. In other words, I think that having a distinctly non-traditional style is okay if you’re using it to tell the story. Hooper only uses it to appear “artsy.” That’s my beef.

Søren

I gotcha. And yet you have no problem with Nicolas Winding Refn… Odd. Hooper’s visual style just never got in the way for me. I like his composition well-enough in The King’s Speech, mostly because it’s relatively nondescript and doesn’t get in the way of his storytelling.

Josh

Refn’s visuals help tell the story! In Drive, anyway. And when they didn’t, like in Only God Forgives, I strongly objected to them.

Søren

I guess I was referring to how incredibly pretentious his cinematography felt in both Drive and Valhalla Rising… It was irritating beyond belief, largely because he brought attention to his long, boring takes every chance he got. Anyway, I guess it’s a matter of preference. I found the story of The King’s Speech to be funny, sweet, and engrossing, so cinematography was the last thing on my mind.

Josh

I guess you and I must have different definitions of “pretentious,” because that’s exactly how I feel about The King’s Speech. Pretentious visual style that is always drawing attention to itself. At least Refn’s movies are appealing to look at. Hooper’s movies are ugly as sin.

Søren

Oh man. See look… For me, the cinematography in The King’s Speech is as secondary as the cinematography in any Judd Apatow or Farrelly Brothers comedy. In other words, it’s something I never gave a second thought to because it was neither particularly good, nor particularly bad.

It just was what it was, and served its purpose accordingly. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s Refn who makes you stare at one particular shot for exorbitant amounts of time, forcing you to think about things like his cinematographic choices, as well as how incredibly boring Ryan Gosling’s face is.

Josh

I totally disagree. Some random studio comedy is shot like a tv show. Flat lighting, basic setups, and a lot of shot/reverse shot. Very simple stuff. But The King’s Speech so isn’t like that. It has these constant, weird, distracting dutch angles and bizarre framing issues. It’s so apparent that Hooper is trying to get you to think that he’s a stylish filmmaker with a great eye for visuals, but all he does is convince you that he’s a talentless hack. Refn doesn’t have to convince anyone of his style. It’s right there on the screen. His movies are gorgeous, say what you will about them.