Sicario : Roger Deakins least visually appealing film?

At no point did I think 'wow, this looks good', and in some places it looked rather mediocre, so I was surprised to see RD's name in the credits

I have a feeling it was the Directors choice, to make it look and feel natural. It had a Michael Mann feel to it. I'm sure there was discussions about not making it artsy because real life isn't artsy people are!

You will find all of your answers here. :D

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/cinematographers-job-not-to-create-amazing-images-roger-deakins-sicario

I take pride as the king of illiterature

I completely disagree. The look was dry and often times claustrophobic and felt like NCFOM (his best film). The finale (which is always Deakins' visual highlight of any film) is so clever and shocking in night vision- it perfectly captures the emotion of the confusion- black is white and white is black.

I was really impressed by the visuals actually. It was some stunning photography artistically even if not beautiful in the traditional sense. It's a movie about the bleak war on drugs after all.

The scene as they rode to and from the border was fantastic.

And beyond that there was some good photography, but I wasn't sitting there analyzing.

But on my immediate impression from one viewing I'm going to say 'wrong'.

I hope you absolutely blasted American Sniper. That looked like a tv movie for the most part.

---

The scene as they rode to and from the border was fantastic.

---

+1

I put that down the absence of Jake Gyllenhaal's face.

I think there were quite a few aerial shots that were pretty cool and had me wondering who the DoP was (didn't know until the end).

As for the film in general, I would be willing to bet that Deakins and crew were likely given the charter/mandate from the director to make it gritty, do lot's of hand-held (but not too shaky) cam work to help place the audience in the action, etc.

It was still well done, even if not the kind of gosh-wow cinephotography that Deakin's is better known for.

The only thing I wondered about, not that it bothered me, was what the black and white photography was supposed to represent during the dark raid on the tunnel, which came here and there in between the grainy green footage from the night-scopes. It was certainly of a higher resolution / fidelity than the night-scopes

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

---

The only thing I wondered about, not that it bothered me, was what the black and white photography was supposed to represent during the dark raid on the tunnel, which came here and there in between the grainy green footage from the night-scopes. It was certainly of a higher resolution / fidelity than the night-scopes

---

Do you mean the thermal cam shots showed from ego perspective as well as aerial drone recording?
Lighter = warmer, darker = colder.


Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

---

Do you mean the thermal cam shots showed from ego perspective as well as aerial drone recording?
Lighter = warmer, darker = colder.

---

No, I mean both types of photography on the ground, first-person POV. Most shots on the ground were the standard green thermal cam shots, but some were B&W. There were some aerial shots in this same B&W, but I'm referring to those on the ground:

By B&W, I really mean high-quality gray scale, negative, none of the noise that you see on the green thermals.

Here are some time indexes, ground shots only:
- : 1:25:00, green thermal shots begin as they approach the tunnel entrance
- : 1:25:18, B&W, as are the following indexes
- : 1:26:12
- : 1:26:47
- : 1:27:22, I stopped here, there may be more.

I at first thought "new military/LE tech, low noise, higher fidelity", but then wondered why they wouldn't all be that higher grade.

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

Black and white part:
- Filmed with infrared technology - representing pov. of Alejandro (Benicio del Toro)

Green part:
- Made with use of a thermal imaging camera - representing pov. of everyone else.

Cool. That will help on the next viewing, thanks.

Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

I go with those who think the opposite of what you experienced.
Some scenery shots I was like 'wow, how pretty' esp the skies, obviously enhanced, looked often great, with a dynamic clouding (in a too saturated blue).

Personally I like to take such pictures too. While I enhance the dynamics and contrast of such clouding to point out the texture and lighting better, I rarely over-saturate them.

I also like the aerial shots from the mission in Mexico and the border.

Et cetera



Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

LEAST appealing? Are you kidding? Why? Because it's devoid of CGI nonsense and sparkly "magic"? During the major scene/stage changes (all 11 of'em) I started to think of Edward Weston's haunting black and white landscape masterpieces of Point Lobos, California, still shots he took 78 years ago. They're quiet and composed, alternately providing a much-needed breather or driving an already disturbing idea home like a sledgehammer hitting a railroad tie. Most with nothing more than a sweeping birdseye view of the barren desert terrain that used to be a border, a divider of safety that has never been there. I can't remember the last movie that branded my brain with a cherry-red hot poker. See Arrival, released a week ago; he keeps getting better.

I'm happy to know that somebody remembers and admires Weston. My first light meter was a Weston Master II. As for the look of this film, it's completely appropriate. In the "Did You Know" section, Villeneuve says this is a "dark poem." Shakespeare wrote, "suit the action to the word." Or, in this case, the visual impact of the film suits the subject. How would this look if it were "appealing" (OP's word)? As we slowly drill down to the CIA's real motive, it is to empower the Medelln Cartel, with whom we could work. Chaos and anarchy reign in the land of wolves. The direction and cinematography reflect this reality.

JH, thanks for sharing your fascinating info. I did not know that. I was given a Weston print from an anonymous friend who read my reply for Christmas. THAT was a stunner.
My next, most anticipated project from this director/cinematographer team? Blade Runner, Baby! That sounds like it's got some great potential since the original set a high bar to work upon.
If you've never been to a Weston retrospective in a major museum, there's usually one at any point in the USA at any time. HIGHLY recommended.
Peace,
AONEMADMANSHOW IN NYC

I was, and am, a big Ansel Adams fan. His prints seem to be sources of light. Oddly, I never saw much Edward Weston. But I did see a lot of his son Brett. He influenced my own photographic style.

I didn't know V. was remaking Blade Runner. It takes nerve to try again with a masterpiece. He'll have to go some to improve on or substitute for Scott's bluesy, smoggy atmosphere. Should be interesting.

there were many iconic shots in the movie