A huge huge content notice for sexual violence should be noted for Dogville! One of the hardest scenes I've ever watched in a movie. Maybe even put it in the video (if that is still possible)
So, this very same movie popped up in my recommendations yesterday. Different title, different thumbnail. Changing a video's identifyable attributes makes it harder for people to keep track of whether they've seen something or not. So I click the three dots on your video in my recommendation feed and select "don't recommend channel". That's how I deal with that sort of nonsense.
The secret of Spielberg is that his shots imply meaning, almost like a second script. That's what makes his movies so compelling , this implied meaning by the way the shots are filmed it feels like it has meaning.
The shot where Indy is chasing after Marion who's in the basket, and he stops dead, perplexed at the myriad of people carrying baskets, any other director would have cut from the close-up of his eyes to what he's seeing. Speilburg didn't cut, just stayed on his eyes, then swung the camera around as Indy starts tipping the baskets over. Genius.
TOtally. I didn’t have time to include that in this video, but I was thinking the same thing. The end of that shot also has a great example of invisible editing when he cuts to a slightly wider angle of the same shot to maintain the continuity of the scene.
@@CinemaStix Totally. It feels like a cut, and a whole new shot, but it's all one shot. The genius of the shot of Indy looking at the myriad of baskets is that, as the audience, we actually KNOW what he's seeing before Speilburg shows it, because we've seen it before in films. After a second of Indy's eyes looking worried, they start to look left and right, and we, the audience, are waiting for the shot showing dozens of similar baskets. The fact that Speilburg sidesteps that POV shot entirely is the most ingenious decision in editing I've ever seen.
@@emmagrove6491 I think the only reason you say we "know" what he's seeing, is specifically because of movies like Indiana Jones. You put the cart before the horse.
I actually used to desaturate various movies from time to time just to appreciate the lighting and composition more. Sometimes color isn't that strong of a character in a movie anyway. Most modern movies are in color mainly because it's the thing to do, but the underlying lighting and composition is oftentimes the fundamental anchor that the cinematographer's decisions were based on.
@@pipster1891 that's the whole point, but just like this video pointed out more of your attention is on those aspects of the image when the color's been stripped. Especially with the lighting since color can oftentimes kinda clutter the image by comparison. Jaws is an even better example of this that Indy is
His compositions reduces the need for cutting and close ups. Makes the audience feel like they're in the room with the actors. Makes the audience feel like they're a part of the action. Spielberg puts his audience in the movie.
This is similar to what George Lucas had in mind for his visual style in shooting the original Star Wars. He aimed to shoot it like a typical documentary, to visually guide the audience into feeling like it was watching something that had actually happened. Between that and the myriad ways that Star Wars took classic elements of cinema and applied it to a new, fantastical setting and you had the most familiar, real-feeling fantasy world ever put on film! It's no surprise that the two men were buddies who loved to dive into the minds of the other.
Schindler's List has that same quality, which makes it all the more disturbing and poignant. Also another black and white masterpiece, bringing out the effects of light and shadows without the mental interference of colors.
I also like the desaturation, because it's a tribute to the films that inspired Indian Jones. All of those were in B&W, too, so it makes huge sense that you want to watch Indy in that tone, to see how well it holds to the ideals. This is very clever.
It isn't a tribute to THE film that inspired Indy. Secret of the Incas is a colour film.........its a straight copy of character and more that many people on the crew have said they were made to watch. Sort of sad Lucas and Spielberg never just said it but it does lessen its impact as a film when you know this.
I didn’t know that this version of Raiders existed, or really that Soderbergh did this stuff but it’s a really cool insight (and great technique) into how directors study and learn from each other.
Totally. And something I really didn’t have the opportunity to fully show here was just how oddly well a lot of the Fincher scores lined up with action beats in Raiders, the way Soderbergh laid them out. It’s almost bizarre. -Danny
When watching these film analyses I often wonder if these directors actually put near as much thought into framing these scenes or if they just naturally do it the way they do because it’s a natural gift, and the scene plays out in such a way that it’s great because it seems natural, not because they dotted the i’s and crossed the T’s on every little thing.
In the case of Spielberg he often storyboards obsessively, similar to Ridley Scott who will plot out even the most basic dialogue exchanges extensively with storyboards. The difference between them is Ridley's a bit more of slave to his original vision whilst Spielberg tends to use all that planning as a jumping off point to improvise on the day.
When you see anything on the screen while watching a professional-level movie, you can be sure that somebody put thought into placing it there (sometimes a lot of thought before arriving at the final image). With experience and learning from other filmmakers a lot comes more easily to mind because you spend so much time thinking about things like framing and blocking, and by seeing what works in practice. But none of it is by accident or done without thought, especially when it looks natural (which means it's successful). As the saying goes, the greats make it *look* easy.
I don't now if I'm wrong, but I like to think of the concept of the skill of a director showing when you turn off the sound; now, I don't know how much the score impacts in this take, as _music is the len which the director wants us to see a scene through_ but I think a good directing work still ahould let you follow the thread of a scene just with the visuals.
It also works in reverse. If you want to know if the sound engineering is good. Turn off the picture, and just listen to the sound and dialogue. You should be able to get a good picture of what is happening in the movie.
As a casual audience member, we don't know WHY we are so amazed by Spielberg's work - until you make a great video explaining WHY we are so amazed by Spielberg's work. Thank you
@@jp3813 It's the effect of deus ex machina. This often involves Indy's realization of the object of his quest being bigger than himself. The only Indy film that doesn't have this is Temple of Doom, in which Indy utilizes the object to thwart the main bad guy.
@@commandercaptain4664 I wouldn't categorize it as a deus ex machina since the film has warned the viewer repeatedly of the Ark's power. Indy utilizes the Holy Grail to save his father after Elsa used a false cup to destroy the main villain. In any case, people tend to forget that the Ark ends up in America's hands b/c of Indy.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how masterful Douglas Slocombe's cinematography is? It's even more apparent in the desaturated footage. Perfect light/dark composition.
@neinnonon It's as if the OP didn't even listen to the video narration. Taking a moment to appreciate Slocombe's work is precisely what Cinema Stix did, at 7:32.
I love Steven Soderbergh, but every time I saw his name I found it a bit funny because you see “Steven S” and your mind immediately goes to Spielberg. But oh, nevermind, it’s just Soderbergh.
I've always noticed the blocking in Raiders, the Casablanca nods, especially with the Belloq and Indy cafe convo. But my all time favourite blocking scene of his is from Jaws. After the 'mother's slap' scene, where the chief, wife, and youngest son are at home. No words. Just dad exhausted. The son following every move until dad picks up on it. And the beauty of the mom looking on, so tiny in the shot, yet ever watching her two boys bonding. Every time I see that scene I think, even then, he was putting in moments and shots that had no right being in what others were just considering a get-it-in-the-can b-flick. Hence my name. - chef's kiss
The commentary around Spielberg these days is fascinating. Oddly underrated and criticised given how scrutinising modern viewers like to think they are. But there is simply no one close to the consistent brilliance Spielberg has delivered for the last 40+ years. The output is extraordinary.
@@pipster1891 It seems to me that the more skill Spielberg developed, the more mastery over the medium he achieved, the less interesting his films became. I'm beginning to think this is a very common problem that great artists face. In the beginning, when they're running on pure intuitive skill, their work tends to feature something magical, a sort of intuitive depth. Spielberg's earliest films are also his most thematically complex. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a perfect example. The complaint people have about it, that the "plot" isn't actually affected by Indiana Jones, and that the ending would have happened the same way without him, actually conveys the dramatic irony of the story. Belloq expresses the theme perfectly. Indy is just passing through history. The ark is history. So while it's a great heroic tale, it's also about the grandiosity of the Hollywood "hero" figure, and the humbling of that grandiosity. But did Spielberg intend that consciously? Based on what he's done since, I would say maybe not. Yet that duality, that ending, puts Raiders far above its sequels. Only Raiders is a true masterwork. The rest have one simple thing to say, and even the best of them is very on-the-nose compared to Raiders' complex, ambiguous ending. The movie makes us wonder if this was even a triumph, and for whom, and how. And it offers no answers. I think the more Spielberg mastered the craft of filmmaking, the more emphasis he put on saying just one simple thing, and saying it with perfect clarity. But the problem with that is that there's no conversation to be had after. Italo Calvino once said that a classic is a book that never finishes telling its story. Take Mary W. Shelley's Frankenstein. There's a reason the creator and the monster are conflated. The story is that Frankenstein is the scientist who created a monster, and that Frankenstein is the monster. Both are true readings, yet contradict one another. So the thematic complexity can never be unraveled to a simple truth. That element of ironic complexity is present in early Spielberg films, and absent from his latter career. The better he gets, the less his work has to say.
@@Badbentham As a fellow simpleton, I concur. I think there's so much emphasis on great cinema, people don't notice that the greatest cinema in the world can't make up for mediocre storytelling.
In his inside the actor’s studio interview, Spielberg says that he always tries to block his scenes with these long, moving, medium frame shots because it gives his actors room to work. They have to hit their marks, but they can gesture, they can move, they don’t have to stay perfectly still to stay in the shot, in short they can act. It’s one of the reasons that Spielberg both gets consistently great performances from actors that go on to be in nothing else, but actors love working with him.
As a painter, these techniques are used often to make an image look right within the frame. One technique is to view the image in a mirror to remove familiarity, this makes any mistakes glaringly obvious and helps the artist to correctly balance the composition. Another is to squint at the image, which reveals contrast, and another still is to look at it slightly cross eyed to make colour differentiation pop. Try it, it works. Removing colour and sound is like forcing deafness and blindness onto the viewer to make their perception of composition primary. Spielberg is a visual artist and has undoubtedly used all these techniques to frame his scenes in Jaws, Raiders, etc. Though not so much the sequels.
I have used the squinting to decide which product is more visually aesthetic than another similar product. For example, when looking at several images of watches. It's easy for them to become just a blur because most watches are pretty similar in shape and style and materials. But if I squint at the same images, I become more aware of the colors and overall style. I don't get as distracted by little things like the hour and minute hand or the font used on the watch dial. I can decide more easily which watch fits my style.
This reminds me of the Criterion Collection release of THX-1138. There's an option in the special features to watch the film with only the sound effects turned on. The sound design is so amazing you don't even notice the music and dialogue are missing.
I was just commenting to my wife last night about how Spielberg’s blocking and Mis en scene is unparalleled. It is a lost art. You perfectly illustrated his superior craftsmanship in your video with the scene of Indiana and Marcus in the classroom. Spielberg blocks his actors more like a stage play, unlike modern pop cinema, which focuses on fast cuts and inserts which detract from the intimacy and cohesion of the scene and story. You have a great eye for cinema. It’s a pleasure to watch your videos.
I don’t know about unparalleled. There are other directors that are on the same level with Spielberg, like Wes Anderson, Scorcese, DePalma, and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Finally someone talks about this hidden gem! When I tell people about this Raiders cut, no one believes me that Soderbergh would do something like that, but it’s a super valuable piece of exercise. I wish my film courses when I was studying were built around these experiments, there is so much to study here.
Couldn’t agree more. Doesn’t matter how many times I’ve seen the movie-make these changes and it’s like seeing everything for the first time. Noticing stuff I never would’ve even considered paying attention to.
One of my favorite moments from Raiders is when Toht comes into the tent and opens up a coat hanger with more suspense than you could possibly imagine. Such mastery in film making there.
According to The Fabelmans, Spielberg spent a lot of his childhood/formative years making silent movies. That explains volumes about how he evolved into a filmmaker we can still enjoy even with the sound and colour taken out.
you can also see how dynamic the shots are. every shot is full of energy and gives the viewer something interesting to look at. spielberg finds a way to make no shot boring. truly the goat
@@Dommbuscus nah. when you do it like that it sorta looses depth? I don't know the correct terminology. It looks better when the entire movie has been tweaked by editors to be black and white without loosing that depth.
It actually puts in light what Spielberg very often said. One of the most efficient way to learn how to make movies is actually watching a (good) movie without the sound, because all that's left to tell the story is blocking and staging. And that's what a director does on a set.
Holy hell, Raiders looks insanely good in B&W!! I like to think it was purely drained of colour without any further tweaks to contrast or such like, proving just how much of a straight-out master of cinematography Douglas Slocombe was. Of course, it massively hi-lights Spielberg's genius too, in a way I've never fully appreciated watching it in colour. I bet after watching this version, Spielberg himself was like , "Damn, I'm good!!"
@@joshlee7935 Noted, but if I do say so myself, considering how well the rest of it is composed, I don't feel the urge, or need, to download Grammarly just yet.
I admit to doing something similar to this while on LSD (but not for the noble purpose of understanding Spielberg). NIN’s double album The Fragile can make a new movie out of anything when replacing the dialogue and score. Also, move over, Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz (lol). I tried mixing the weird heavy metal supergroup Fantômas, led by Mike Patton (Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, Tomahawk, etc.), Dave Lombardo (Slayer), Buzz Osborne (The Melvins) and his Mr. Bungle and Tomahawk cohort Trevor Dunn…. Take their debut self-titled album Fantômas in ‘99 (named after the supervillain in a French series of novels from the ‘60s) and hit play the exact moment Disney’s dark horse PG13 animated ‘85 film The Black Cauldron begins playing. Fantômas was created with 30 tracks, the shortest lasting only 27 seconds and the longest at 5:06, with liner notes taken from an Italian comic, and was reportedly designed to be a soundtrack to a fictional comic book. That’s why it works so perfectly with The Black Cauldron, where surprisingly it fit so fantastically that characters would appear on screen and have recurring themes, it would cut exactly with the scenes, when it was meant to be scary it *sounded* scary and so on. Don’t ask me why I chose those two but I would go so far as to say that Mike Patton could have theoretically scored a whole album to that as an inside joke because that’s something he’d do and it fits PERFECTLY. Also re: Fantômas, they’re credited with inspiring TOOL’s 10,000 Days album, Slipknot listed them as a major influence (their drummer said that Lombardo’s work should be heard by every drummer), Mastodon also listed them, as did members of bands like the frontman of Mushroomhead, and The CKY, Lotus, and Car Bomb, as well as Danny DeVito (who appeared in a video for another Patton project called Peeping Tom) and Moby. They’re not a band that you can sing along to (particularly on the first album) and you’ll get some weird looks playing it in your car, but somehow making it the soundtrack to an animated film is perfect and I’m here to recommend it. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk lol.
It's amazing how black and white makes you see the film in a totally different way. The composition of the shots, the lights and shadows really stand out.
Reminds me of a movie (the title escapes me) about a struggling student aspiring to become a great cinematographer. In one scene he sits at a bar and watches (what he thinks is) a black and white "masterpiece" on the TV in awe... until the barkeep gives the ancient TV a good whack... and the colors pop back in.
ปีที่แล้ว +3
I think the Map Room scene is a masterpiece. There is no dialogue but you understand everything that is happening because of the direction, the AMAZING score and because Spielberg made such a good job telling us about the map room in that earlier scene.
Spielberg and Lucas were both huge fans of and students of old movies. They were trying to make an homage to the wonderful old serials they loved as kids (both Star Wars and Indy were this concept), so its no surprise their work translates extremely well to black and white. Someone smart could release a special edition with the b/w available in the set with the regular cut
In Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg has an over 90-second continuous shot. It is the “halftrack cover” scene, which starts with the men taking cover in a field, an attack on a German halftrack including two bazooka hits, the mowing down of the escaping Germans, and finally, Private Ryan emerges. That is a ship ton of stuff to pack into one, continuous shot. It wasn’t until about the sixth time I saw the film that I realized it’s continuous. Think of the complexity. I find that style far more impressive, entertaining, and engaging than “edgy” cinematography that involves cuts every 3/4s of a second.
Spielberg makes this 'dance of blocking' look so effortless, that I've been enjoying the dance for decades without even knowing it was happening. Bravo.
Much of what we are all lauding is all about economy. That Spielberg executes it with such finesse shows his competency in achieving this. The thing which takes up so much time ergo money when shooting is setting up each scene. The scenes where Spielberg and Slocombe swing the camera around instead of cutting to a different POV has probably saved them a day of filming. Spending a little more time in working out the blocking, lighting and focus pulling to combine scenes is an efficient way of working - and if you happen to be able to create artistic flourishes when doing so then all the better. Spielberg was determined that unlike his previous films which were all over budget and wrapped late, Raiders would be the opposite. By using Douggie Slocombe Spielberg was working with someone who knew how to work under those conditions (Slocombes early work with Ealing Studios was done on a shoestring and tight turnarounds) and having filmed extensively in the 1940's and 1950's understood how to achieve the look that Spielberg and Lucas wanted. Also don't forget - apart from the obvious location shots - almost every interior was shot in England including the Peruvian Temple (Hawaii standing in for the exterior) and Cairo (with Tunisia standing in for the exterior!) - the technicians at Elstree Studios were all masters of their craft developed over decades and which Spielberg, Lucas and indeed Kubrick happily employed to create the magic we now arguably call art.
An Utterly brilliant n fascinating insight into Spielberg’s blocking n composition. I just hadn’t appreciated how his shots tell so much of the story without colour or dialogue and the stunning beauty of resultant B&W images. Inspirational.
Watching this video couldn't have come at any more perfect timing - I've been doing a bit of hardcore research of making a new genre of noir, and Raiders being classified as Neo-Noir in academic articles AND now this black-and-white cut of the film REALLY cements it for me. Well done on a solid, informative vid!
Many people love last crusade and say that its the best indiana jones movie but in my opinion Raiders takes the cake for me. Its a perfect movie in my opinion because everyone knew what they wanted and did it incredibly well. The acting, directing, score, cinematography everything is done so well that you cant take your eyes off the movie and thats exactly what Raiders did. Sadly nowadays audiences dont have the attention spams that older movies required so most of my friends said the movie was boring and it made me realize how far the movie industry has fallen but at least we still have these old masterpieces that we can enjoy.
RAIDERS is the best ! LC was good for a "third installment of a trilogy", but for me it was too much family-entertainment. RAIDERS is a cinematic masterpiece !
Just did this as well with it recently being added to D+. So few people got to make films back then compared to today. You really had to do a great job. Steven clearly has an amazing eye and he cared about honoring the old serials of his youth. Inspiration meets opportunity, as the movie audiences were so ready to see a 'modern' take on an older genre. It's a flawless film.
I love that Saving Private Ryan has a Where's Wally/Waldo shot when Hanks & Sizemore are talking about their new mission for the first time. They start off in the background at the right side of the screen then make their way left and towards the foreground while all the activity in Omaha are being shown.
I always thought that Spielberg's movies were sort of an homage to older classic films, especially when someone gets killed off camera and you only see the shadow and hear the sounds. His style is truly sorely missed with modern films filmed with frantic chopping and editing and multiple confusing closeups of blurry action.
@@sulivanmagnum I don't know. The reason ROCKY is so beautiful in black and white is because of all the green in the backgrounds. In color the film has a green hue. I don't know why,, but it transfers to Black and White beautifully. Watch it. You'll be amazed.
The scene after Marie Ann "dies" is my favorite. The villain is talking to indie, but indies face takes up 3/4 of the screen, all the while he never makes eye contact. It was such a great way to establish anger toward the villain.
Spielberg will rightly be remembered as the greatest director in movie history. Yes, he made some clunkers (....1941) but the breadth of his repertoire is astonishing (from Duel to Schindler's List and beyond)....and he likely has a couple more masterworks left in him. He is "approachable" in the best possible way, fortunately lacking the misguided "mystic" surrounding other auteurs like Kubrick. And consider his collaborations with many others in Film and TV. Sadly, too many critics (shamefully) poop on his work because of its "popularity" and box office success.
thing is the fact that he's made SO many films and there's so few bad movies to point out in comparison to good ones, and even the ones we do immediately remember are hardly bad nowadays, and hardly bad across cinema. I mean Lost World, 1941, Ready Player One, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, AI; some of these movies are fascinatingly bad for sure, but many of those have even more fascinating backstories that explain it. I mean you look at a 'worst of Spielberg list' and most of them are fine films, that's how consistent he was. And most of them are still well-shot. I mean Lost World is still a favourite among many, because compared to Jurassic World, its brilliant, and by itself its still extremely competently shot and produced in terms of production value and set-pieces, that are iconic still. Its a shame that people dismiss him now simply because he is so famous, so he's become so big that people kind of dismiss him. Praising him seems to annoy people because he gets 'too much' praise. And it's not 'cool' to praise Spielberg, it's not alternative or non-mainstream, saying you like Scorcese sounds cool and hip more than Spielberg (not dissing Scorcese lol). The dude single-handedly changed cinema on multiple occasions, with movies that inspired the world, I mean the way Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park and Jaws changed pop-culture across the world is hard to measure. Except that its one of those few films everyone knows regardless of seeing it.
@@GuineaPigEveryday A.I is a great film and one of Spielberg's best and Crystal Skull is good. I wouldn't call either of them bad films of his, he's did *much* worse. Let people praise lesser filmmakers because it's "cool" and you praise who deserves it. Like you said even his lesser films are beautifully shot and have great set pieces, he's obviously the greatest director of blockbusters of all time. If only James Cameron hadn't went with Avatar and made movies (like T2 and Aliens) more frequently he could have compared.
@@GuineaPigEveryday I always loved lost world. Some of that might be just my fascination with the universe that the first movie created, but it still has some highlights. The scene where the RV gets pushed over the clip is probably my favourite out of all the films. And it is also incredibly well shot.
You should do one on SPEED by Jan De Bont. Do it in SILENCE, and watch the same type of framing, movement and editing. It's amazing the amount of work that went into what seems like a simple action movie, there's so much more to it with the movement and editing.
Watching existing color films in black&white has long been a favorite past time of mine but I couldn't explain why I enjoyed it. Now I see how it ephasizes some of the most important qualities of a film.
If you admire Steve's blocking and framing, there's a masterful tracking shot in Jaws as Chief Brody meets the Mayor - their entire discussion lasts way beyond a normal scene but with a shifting backdrop, even joining them as they board a walk on ferry 👏
This was fantastic. And thank you for reminding me to check out what Soderbergh is up to. His repertoire is off the chain, and his willingness to just try something for the sake of it has always made me respect him massively. Even if he makes what for me is a dud (I'd say I'm 50/50 love/hate with his films, and The Knick was incredible), it's still totally valuable, because I always eventually love what becomes of his experimentation.
@@CinemaStix Sweet! Still makes my head spin that the same director did King of the Hill, Schizopolis, Traffic, Ocean's 11, and then ... Bubble? etc. And on the DVD behind the scenes for Out Of Sight talking about how it took two days of who-knows-how-many-takes (well into double digits) just to get the scene of them talking in the trunk til it was just right - yet the whole movie is one of those that's so utterly watchable no matter where you start watching, dips seamlessly in and out of heavy drama and deadpan comedy, and plays out sooo smoothly it's like the perfect musical album that you want to listen to all over again as soon as it's over. It's like he's making these choices from a deeply nerdy encyclopaedic cinematic knowledge base, yet has the discipline to step back and let his actors feel out the moment. What a treat. Really enjoying your channel mate. Keep up the great work.
Removing the color makes the image look sharper, and also highlights the masterful lighting. I imagine you can pull the same process on Star Wars: A New Hope, which also has underrated lighting.
Well, George Lucas said that you can watch Star Wars: ANH as a black and white silent film, put the volume off and you could still understand the plot (though I wouldn't remove Williams' score), I'm surprised nobody has done yet a silent cut of Star Wars, now imagine if Star Wars or the Indy films were released decades earlier, I think Star Wars would have worked in the 50s or 60s, also Lucas said that the acting and dialogue in ANH is like the one from 1930s films in contrast to method acting from the 50s, now I want to see an "old Hollywood style" cut.
@@jesustovar2549The light sabres would still be clearly sci-fi even in black and white and I supposed Vader would had been SUFFICIENTLY established as being an evil warrior by the time he shows he has a red blade. (It doesn’t HAVE to be clearly different looking blades for the dichotomy to work.)
Color somehow flattens the image; B&W relies solely on light and dark, therefore shaping objects and their spacing and giving a more stereoscopic look. And the gradations of black are so beautiful.
I never noticed, and probably shouldn't, the scene with the book. Where he shows them separated and then brings them together with the book. Took a deep breath after that explanation.
They should release Raiders Of The Lost Ark in Black and White, keeping everything else as it was! Raiders in B&W really shows the talent used to light the scenes you don't notice as much in color. This is what is missing from so many movies today...Talent and proper lighting.
This is bloody amazing - and BIG props to Douglas Slocombe, the DoP and head of camera dept that came up through the ranks old-school from the electrical and grip crews of the old British industry. Truly eye-opening to think how "smashed together" modern summer blockbusters feel now, everything is smeared with VFX fixes and smoothed camera work to where its like a video game. I'll take Spielbocombe-cam over "docu-shakycam" all day long. Props to CinemaStix!
It makes me wonder how The Sound of Music would look desaturated. I rewatched it a few years ago and was blown away by how intricate the cinematography was. I certainly didn’t appreciate it enough as a kid! And for that matter, any of Roger Deakins’ works. I did an ink drawing study of my favorite shots of his; they truly leave an imprint in the mind.
Wow. Deeply impressed. Learned massive insights. Thank you. The last time I enjoyed an analytical film discussion so much was Every Frame a Painting, who, unfortunately, have ceased posting videos. That's a big compliment. Thank you.
I really like the way Indy and his small team of workers become shadows themselves. At in front of a backdrop of the setting sun, they hide their work in plain sight. Almost. Like like piggybacking of the workers in the whole area. I just love the way that scene looks and feels. This video made me appreciate that movie even more. And I learned something new. Good work here
Really enjoyed this, thank you. Two things sprung to mind: - Stanley Kubrick would do a similar exercise. He'd watch films with the audio on mute, to see if could still understand the story, character relationships etc. - You mention Dogville briefly. The Dogme 95 Manifesto is worth checking out. It ran from 1995-2005 and was thought up by that film's director (Lars Von Trier) and Thomas Vinterburg. It involved applying 10 'rules' to shooting/making a film (diagetic sound only, hand-held camera, no optical filters allowed etc).
When I was 13, I bought The Evil Dead on VHS and preferred to watch it without colour. The film took on an homage kind of quality. The set pieces became reminiscent of old creature features and the overall tone more akin to something like Night of the Living Dead.
This is gonna sound strange but I feel like Steven Spielberg is the most underrated Hollywood director in film schools around the world. When I went to film school, I learned to appreciate Tarkovsky, Godard, De Sica, etc... but we were never shown a single Spielberg film in any class, not even once. Thanks for this video.
Spielberg's framing is what made Jurassic Park feel so huge and epic. The newer films are filmed on an entirely different ratio and it screws up all the framing
I love this. I know very little about how film is made; this was entirely new to me and gave me a new lens (so to speak). I'm going to watch movies a bit differently now, and enjoy them all the more. Thank you!
Star Wars prequels. Find a bootleg VHS copy that was filmed in a movie theatre right off the screen. Take that VHS copy, put it in a VCR, and make it black & white on your display. Sit back and enjoy a masterpiece.
This is fascinating, and that no sound, no colors edit by Soderbergh is a brilliant idea! The long cuts are really pieces of art, and I love how Soderbergh makes that more visible.
The main reason why this works so well, is the artistic decision within the cinematography to focus on shadows. The switch to black and white just heightens that contrast.
I'm currently learning to draw comics at uni and we have a total of 20 panels to show a story. I'm learning just how valuable space is on the page, and how to balance story and space efficiently by combining shots. The phrase "why show in two what can be implied in one" really resonated with me.
I recently listened to the Rewatchables Raiders podcast and it's such a guys movie and a fun adventure movie for anyone young at heart, but all that incredible camera work and framing and (I'm not a film major) positioning just flies right over your head. He gave the world such a treat. And you just picture nerdy little Steven sitting in his chair with his cap on looking so happy haha your never expect it! And I love you pointed out Steven has been flexing his skills and style since the start. Great video I shared it with my older brother who we bonded growing up over Indy.
This looks rad. It’s very reminiscent of the old high adventure movies and serial series of the 40s and 50s when it’s in black and white. Spielberg did a great job shooting for this ascetic.
it really does have an old hollywood feel in black and white. as you pointed out the camera movements, blocking and staging are all the best of old hollywood and it stands out in this version.
Thank you! Ah, the intro comes and goes depending on the video. Sometimes it helps me kick things off and sometimes I like to dive right in. But it’s definitely not gone forever :) -Danny
The greatest moving shot in movie history is in Spielberg’s Munich, when a camera moves around inside a car showing absolutely everything needed to be seen. It’s amazing and no-one talks about it.
No wonder why these Indiana Jones movies where so exciting to me as a child, look at this visual language! Thanks again for your work, it's really inspiring.
As a Soderburgh fan I thank you for bringing these versions to attention. Excellent work. It's a real shame he didn't do a B&W cut with just the original dialogue and different incidental music.
Visual storytelling is just as important as are dialogue, music, costuming, props, VOICES (vocal tones), sets, lighting, etc. Spielberg and Lucas made *THE* best film in this type of genre, mood, feel, spirit, etc. ❤️⚔️❤️ 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
thanks for sharing this, raiders has been my all time favorite movie since i was a kid, and after watching soderberghs cut of the movie i have even more appreciation of this film
Check out Dogville (2003) or anything else streaming on MUBI for FREE with an extended 30-day trial: mubi.com/cinemastix
none of this is clear. it's poorly done. (do better)
A huge huge content notice for sexual violence should be noted for Dogville! One of the hardest scenes I've ever watched in a movie. Maybe even put it in the video (if that is still possible)
So, this very same movie popped up in my recommendations yesterday. Different title, different thumbnail. Changing a video's identifyable attributes makes it harder for people to keep track of whether they've seen something or not. So I click the three dots on your video in my recommendation feed and select "don't recommend channel". That's how I deal with that sort of nonsense.
@@JupiterMan98 Yeah - it's an amazing movie - but god it traumatised me for a loooong time. Hard viewing.
The secret of Spielberg is that his shots imply meaning, almost like a second script. That's what makes his movies so compelling , this implied meaning by the way the shots are filmed it feels like it has meaning.
The shot where Indy is chasing after Marion who's in the basket, and he stops dead, perplexed at the myriad of people carrying baskets, any other director would have cut from the close-up of his eyes to what he's seeing. Speilburg didn't cut, just stayed on his eyes, then swung the camera around as Indy starts tipping the baskets over. Genius.
TOtally. I didn’t have time to include that in this video, but I was thinking the same thing. The end of that shot also has a great example of invisible editing when he cuts to a slightly wider angle of the same shot to maintain the continuity of the scene.
@@CinemaStix Totally. It feels like a cut, and a whole new shot, but it's all one shot. The genius of the shot of Indy looking at the myriad of baskets is that, as the audience, we actually KNOW what he's seeing before Speilburg shows it, because we've seen it before in films. After a second of Indy's eyes looking worried, they start to look left and right, and we, the audience, are waiting for the shot showing dozens of similar baskets. The fact that Speilburg sidesteps that POV shot entirely is the most ingenious decision in editing I've ever seen.
Jorge Lukus
@@emmagrove6491 I think the only reason you say we "know" what he's seeing, is specifically because of movies like Indiana Jones. You put the cart before the horse.
Edgar Wright paid homage to that exact shot in Hot Fuzz.
It’s actually crazy how precisely composed every shot is and I didn’t even notice until seeing the black and white versions!
But some shots impressed me even as a kid (who thought Indy was a real person) like how his eye is so precisely framed in the light here 7:46
I actually used to desaturate various movies from time to time just to appreciate the lighting and composition more.
Sometimes color isn't that strong of a character in a movie anyway. Most modern movies are in color mainly because it's the thing to do, but the underlying lighting and composition is oftentimes the fundamental anchor that the cinematographer's decisions were based on.
@@chrisjfox8715 Composition is the same whether it's color or monochrome.
@@pipster1891 that's the whole point, but just like this video pointed out more of your attention is on those aspects of the image when the color's been stripped. Especially with the lighting since color can oftentimes kinda clutter the image by comparison. Jaws is an even better example of this that Indy is
Yeah and until someone pointed it out to you.
His compositions reduces the need for cutting and close ups. Makes the audience feel like they're in the room with the actors. Makes the audience feel like they're a part of the action. Spielberg puts his audience in the movie.
That’s a super cool insight
Master of the master shot
This is similar to what George Lucas had in mind for his visual style in shooting the original Star Wars. He aimed to shoot it like a typical documentary, to visually guide the audience into feeling like it was watching something that had actually happened. Between that and the myriad ways that Star Wars took classic elements of cinema and applied it to a new, fantastical setting and you had the most familiar, real-feeling fantasy world ever put on film! It's no surprise that the two men were buddies who loved to dive into the minds of the other.
Schindler's List has that same quality, which makes it all the more disturbing and poignant. Also another black and white masterpiece, bringing out the effects of light and shadows without the mental interference of colors.
He also realizes the side benefit of thwarting any overzealous editors from potentially *re-imagining* his carefully planned scene.
I also like the desaturation, because it's a tribute to the films that inspired Indian Jones. All of those were in B&W, too, so it makes huge sense that you want to watch Indy in that tone, to see how well it holds to the ideals. This is very clever.
It isn't a tribute to THE film that inspired Indy. Secret of the Incas is a colour film.........its a straight copy of character and more that many people on the crew have said they were made to watch. Sort of sad Lucas and Spielberg never just said it but it does lessen its impact as a film when you know this.
Indiana Jones: Golden Era Hollywood; but it's a modern-day Action Blockbuster. 😉
@@Badbenthammodern day? raiders came out over 40 years ago, now.
When I watch Casablanca, the beginning scenes feel so much like the world Raiders takes place in it just makes sense to make Raiders B&W.
What are some of those films?
I love Spielberg's composed, unflashy oners. That sequence in Indy's apartment with Marcus is one of my all-time favorites.
Sooo good. Completely elevated the scene and you don’t even know it’s happening.
He does it all the time and so well. And it's a very old (1930s/40s technique). Hardly anyone does it anymore.
Are you White?
@@Siegfried5846 What? What does that have anything to do with anything?
*Trimming Heaven's Gate to 2 hours is easy. Take out the party. Done.* Now let's see what he can trim 1972's Solaris.
Dude turned it into an “indie” film
This comment needs WAY more likes!
I agree.
@@CinemaStix has validated me I can die happy
eyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Came to say looks like an indie but this is better. 😂😂😂
I didn’t know that this version of Raiders existed, or really that Soderbergh did this stuff but it’s a really cool insight (and great technique) into how directors study and learn from each other.
Totally. And something I really didn’t have the opportunity to fully show here was just how oddly well a lot of the Fincher scores lined up with action beats in Raiders, the way Soderbergh laid them out. It’s almost bizarre.
-Danny
When watching these film analyses I often wonder if these directors actually put near as much thought into framing these scenes or if they just naturally do it the way they do because it’s a natural gift, and the scene plays out in such a way that it’s great because it seems natural, not because they dotted the i’s and crossed the T’s on every little thing.
In the case of Spielberg he often storyboards obsessively, similar to Ridley Scott who will plot out even the most basic dialogue exchanges extensively with storyboards. The difference between them is Ridley's a bit more of slave to his original vision whilst Spielberg tends to use all that planning as a jumping off point to improvise on the day.
Your correct
@@mainmanmainlining7575 *you're
@@pipster1891 "Grammar Nazis. I hate these guys." -Indiana Jones
When you see anything on the screen while watching a professional-level movie, you can be sure that somebody put thought into placing it there (sometimes a lot of thought before arriving at the final image). With experience and learning from other filmmakers a lot comes more easily to mind because you spend so much time thinking about things like framing and blocking, and by seeing what works in practice. But none of it is by accident or done without thought, especially when it looks natural (which means it's successful). As the saying goes, the greats make it *look* easy.
I would love to see a black & white version of Raiders with the dialogue and score intact. This is visually gorgeous.
Turn the colour off on the tv settings.
@@scobitronmcscobie9965 having each scene tweaked for a black and white presentation would be better than simply turning color off on a tv
@@scobitronmcscobie9965 how? my sony bravia doesnt seem to have that option
I did this years ago. It works great.
@@rileydd08it's probably done by turning color all the way down instead of a straight off switch
I think Spielberg once advised “if you want to learn about shooting just watch with the sound turned off”.
ja brah; watch a movie first with the sound on then off and its like two completely different movies
I don't now if I'm wrong, but I like to think of the concept of the skill of a director showing when you turn off the sound; now, I don't know how much the score impacts in this take, as _music is the len which the director wants us to see a scene through_ but I think a good directing work still ahould let you follow the thread of a scene just with the visuals.
It also works in reverse. If you want to know if the sound engineering is good. Turn off the picture, and just listen to the sound and dialogue. You should be able to get a good picture of what is happening in the movie.
Scorsese says he likes to do this to “turn the sound off so I can focus on the pictures”
As a casual audience member, we don't know WHY we are so amazed by Spielberg's work - until you make a great video explaining WHY we are so amazed by Spielberg's work. Thank you
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. _Raiders_ is the zenith of action/adventure films and a damn near perfect picture.
People often get hung up on the criticism that Indy is mostly unneeded in the film b/c the Nazis are defeated by the Ark itself.
I'm definitely going to rewatch this. I never took it seriously.
It is such a cinematic experience.
@@jp3813 It's the effect of deus ex machina. This often involves Indy's realization of the object of his quest being bigger than himself. The only Indy film that doesn't have this is Temple of Doom, in which Indy utilizes the object to thwart the main bad guy.
@@commandercaptain4664 I wouldn't categorize it as a deus ex machina since the film has warned the viewer repeatedly of the Ark's power. Indy utilizes the Holy Grail to save his father after Elsa used a false cup to destroy the main villain. In any case, people tend to forget that the Ark ends up in America's hands b/c of Indy.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate how masterful Douglas Slocombe's cinematography is? It's even more apparent in the desaturated footage. Perfect light/dark composition.
We sure can! It's sublime. But the video beat you to it.
I get so frustrated when cinematographers aren’t mentioned and all their work is credited to directors, thank you for bringing Slocombe up!
his cinematography for the servant is still one of the best ever.
Absolutely !! His creatively in service to the film & Spielberg is mesmerising, and he was - as the video says - 75 at the time !!
@neinnonon It's as if the OP didn't even listen to the video narration. Taking a moment to appreciate Slocombe's work is precisely what Cinema Stix did, at 7:32.
I love Steven Soderbergh, but every time I saw his name I found it a bit funny because you see “Steven S” and your mind immediately goes to Spielberg. But oh, nevermind, it’s just Soderbergh.
Haha, right? I was worried when writing the intro to this video that folks might think I was confusing the two. Steven Soder/Spiel-Berg(h).
Solaris was great
Steven Sodabread
Just be thankful it's not Steven Seagal
@@CinemaStix At first I thought it was some kind of a troll or joke - that you replaced Spielberg with Soderberg or something like that
I've always noticed the blocking in Raiders, the Casablanca nods, especially with the Belloq and Indy cafe convo. But my all time favourite blocking scene of his is from Jaws. After the 'mother's slap' scene, where the chief, wife, and youngest son are at home. No words. Just dad exhausted. The son following every move until dad picks up on it. And the beauty of the mom looking on, so tiny in the shot, yet ever watching her two boys bonding. Every time I see that scene I think, even then, he was putting in moments and shots that had no right being in what others were just considering a get-it-in-the-can b-flick. Hence my name.
- chef's kiss
The commentary around Spielberg these days is fascinating. Oddly underrated and criticised given how scrutinising modern viewers like to think they are. But there is simply no one close to the consistent brilliance Spielberg has delivered for the last 40+ years. The output is extraordinary.
I don't think Spielberg is criticized for his technique, he's criticized for the message in his films - the conservatism, the lack of thematic depth.
@@pipster1891 It seems to me that the more skill Spielberg developed, the more mastery over the medium he achieved, the less interesting his films became. I'm beginning to think this is a very common problem that great artists face. In the beginning, when they're running on pure intuitive skill, their work tends to feature something magical, a sort of intuitive depth. Spielberg's earliest films are also his most thematically complex.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a perfect example. The complaint people have about it, that the "plot" isn't actually affected by Indiana Jones, and that the ending would have happened the same way without him, actually conveys the dramatic irony of the story. Belloq expresses the theme perfectly. Indy is just passing through history. The ark is history. So while it's a great heroic tale, it's also about the grandiosity of the Hollywood "hero" figure, and the humbling of that grandiosity. But did Spielberg intend that consciously? Based on what he's done since, I would say maybe not. Yet that duality, that ending, puts Raiders far above its sequels. Only Raiders is a true masterwork. The rest have one simple thing to say, and even the best of them is very on-the-nose compared to Raiders' complex, ambiguous ending. The movie makes us wonder if this was even a triumph, and for whom, and how. And it offers no answers.
I think the more Spielberg mastered the craft of filmmaking, the more emphasis he put on saying just one simple thing, and saying it with perfect clarity. But the problem with that is that there's no conversation to be had after. Italo Calvino once said that a classic is a book that never finishes telling its story. Take Mary W. Shelley's Frankenstein. There's a reason the creator and the monster are conflated. The story is that Frankenstein is the scientist who created a monster, and that Frankenstein is the monster. Both are true readings, yet contradict one another. So the thematic complexity can never be unraveled to a simple truth. That element of ironic complexity is present in early Spielberg films, and absent from his latter career. The better he gets, the less his work has to say.
Great post,
@@rottensquid Both Raiders and Frankenstein are fantastic points! - As a simpleton, I would like to add : Kubrick. He is not. 😉
@@Badbentham As a fellow simpleton, I concur. I think there's so much emphasis on great cinema, people don't notice that the greatest cinema in the world can't make up for mediocre storytelling.
In his inside the actor’s studio interview, Spielberg says that he always tries to block his scenes with these long, moving, medium frame shots because it gives his actors room to work. They have to hit their marks, but they can gesture, they can move, they don’t have to stay perfectly still to stay in the shot, in short they can act. It’s one of the reasons that Spielberg both gets consistently great performances from actors that go on to be in nothing else, but actors love working with him.
Brilliant - never thought of that - it makes complete sense because it's real! Thanks.
As a painter, these techniques are used often to make an image look right within the frame. One technique is to view the image in a mirror to remove familiarity, this makes any mistakes glaringly obvious and helps the artist to correctly balance the composition. Another is to squint at the image, which reveals contrast, and another still is to look at it slightly cross eyed to make colour differentiation pop. Try it, it works. Removing colour and sound is like forcing deafness and blindness onto the viewer to make their perception of composition primary. Spielberg is a visual artist and has undoubtedly used all these techniques to frame his scenes in Jaws, Raiders, etc. Though not so much the sequels.
I have used the squinting to decide which product is more visually aesthetic than another similar product. For example, when looking at several images of watches. It's easy for them to become just a blur because most watches are pretty similar in shape and style and materials. But if I squint at the same images, I become more aware of the colors and overall style. I don't get as distracted by little things like the hour and minute hand or the font used on the watch dial. I can decide more easily which watch fits my style.
This reminds me of the Criterion Collection release of THX-1138. There's an option in the special features to watch the film with only the sound effects turned on. The sound design is so amazing you don't even notice the music and dialogue are missing.
I was just commenting to my wife last night about how Spielberg’s blocking and Mis en scene is unparalleled. It is a lost art. You perfectly illustrated his superior craftsmanship in your video with the scene of Indiana and Marcus in the classroom. Spielberg blocks his actors more like a stage play, unlike modern pop cinema, which focuses on fast cuts and inserts which detract from the intimacy and cohesion of the scene and story. You have a great eye for cinema. It’s a pleasure to watch your videos.
I don’t know about unparalleled. There are other directors that are on the same level with Spielberg, like Wes Anderson, Scorcese, DePalma, and Paul Thomas Anderson.
@@eyespy3001Kurosawa did it best.
@@georgemorley1029 I think he was the biggest influence. A true genius.
Fast cuts aren't necessarily bad. I would argue they are a tool that isn't used properly.
@@eyespy3001 None of the directors you just mentioned would be considered "modern pop cinema"... so I'm not sure what you're on about.
Finally someone talks about this hidden gem! When I tell people about this Raiders cut, no one believes me that Soderbergh would do something like that, but it’s a super valuable piece of exercise. I wish my film courses when I was studying were built around these experiments, there is so much to study here.
Couldn’t agree more. Doesn’t matter how many times I’ve seen the movie-make these changes and it’s like seeing everything for the first time. Noticing stuff I never would’ve even considered paying attention to.
I feel like I learned more about filmmaking in a few minutes watching this than in the rest of my life.
Well said - agreed!
One of my favorite moments from Raiders is when Toht comes into the tent and opens up a coat hanger with more suspense than you could possibly imagine. Such mastery in film making there.
According to The Fabelmans, Spielberg spent a lot of his childhood/formative years making silent movies. That explains volumes about how he evolved into a filmmaker we can still enjoy even with the sound and colour taken out.
you can also see how dynamic the shots are. every shot is full of energy and gives the viewer something interesting to look at. spielberg finds a way to make no shot boring. truly the goat
I don't know about changing the soundtrack but I'm suddenly very interested in a B&W Raiders. That's a movie I want to see.
Well, just simply turn the saturation/color off on your display, and enjoy
You can change the saturation in VLC
@@Dommbuscus nah. when you do it like that it sorta looses depth? I don't know the correct terminology. It looks better when the entire movie has been tweaked by editors to be black and white without loosing that depth.
@@ye11owman29 True, it's not as good. But it does the job okay
@@ye11owman29exactly, the values that Soderberg created are perfect.
It actually puts in light what Spielberg very often said. One of the most efficient way to learn how to make movies is actually watching a (good) movie without the sound, because all that's left to tell the story is blocking and staging. And that's what a director does on a set.
Holy hell, Raiders looks insanely good in B&W!! I like to think it was purely drained of colour without any further tweaks to contrast or such like, proving just how much of a straight-out master of cinematography Douglas Slocombe was.
Of course, it massively hi-lights Spielberg's genius too, in a way I've never fully appreciated watching it in colour.
I bet after watching this version, Spielberg himself was like , "Damn, I'm good!!"
Highlights is one word. No hyphen needed
@joshlee7935 🤓👆
No need to edumacate some-person on the internets, this is a U-Toob comment section.
@@joshlee7935 Noted, but if I do say so myself, considering how well the rest of it is composed, I don't feel the urge, or need, to download Grammarly just yet.
I’m not 2 minutes into the video and I’m floored looking at these shots
Right? Completely transformative, almost as if it was made the year it was set.
There should be a theater where all films are played in black in white.
I admit to doing something similar to this while on LSD (but not for the noble purpose of understanding Spielberg). NIN’s double album The Fragile can make a new movie out of anything when replacing the dialogue and score.
Also, move over, Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz (lol). I tried mixing the weird heavy metal supergroup Fantômas, led by Mike Patton (Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, Tomahawk, etc.), Dave Lombardo (Slayer), Buzz Osborne (The Melvins) and his Mr. Bungle and Tomahawk cohort Trevor Dunn…. Take their debut self-titled album Fantômas in ‘99 (named after the supervillain in a French series of novels from the ‘60s) and hit play the exact moment Disney’s dark horse PG13 animated ‘85 film The Black Cauldron begins playing. Fantômas was created with 30 tracks, the shortest lasting only 27 seconds and the longest at 5:06, with liner notes taken from an Italian comic, and was reportedly designed to be a soundtrack to a fictional comic book.
That’s why it works so perfectly with The Black Cauldron, where surprisingly it fit so fantastically that characters would appear on screen and have recurring themes, it would cut exactly with the scenes, when it was meant to be scary it *sounded* scary and so on. Don’t ask me why I chose those two but I would go so far as to say that Mike Patton could have theoretically scored a whole album to that as an inside joke because that’s something he’d do and it fits PERFECTLY.
Also re: Fantômas, they’re credited with inspiring TOOL’s 10,000 Days album, Slipknot listed them as a major influence (their drummer said that Lombardo’s work should be heard by every drummer), Mastodon also listed them, as did members of bands like the frontman of Mushroomhead, and The CKY, Lotus, and Car Bomb, as well as Danny DeVito (who appeared in a video for another Patton project called Peeping Tom) and Moby. They’re not a band that you can sing along to (particularly on the first album) and you’ll get some weird looks playing it in your car, but somehow making it the soundtrack to an animated film is perfect and I’m here to recommend it. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk lol.
It's amazing how black and white makes you see the film in a totally different way. The composition of the shots, the lights and shadows really stand out.
Reminds me of a movie (the title escapes me) about a struggling student aspiring to become a great cinematographer. In one scene he sits at a bar and watches (what he thinks is) a black and white "masterpiece" on the TV in awe... until the barkeep gives the ancient TV a good whack... and the colors pop back in.
I think the Map Room scene is a masterpiece. There is no dialogue but you understand everything that is happening because of the direction, the AMAZING score and because Spielberg made such a good job telling us about the map room in that earlier scene.
Spielberg and Lucas were both huge fans of and students of old movies. They were trying to make an homage to the wonderful old serials they loved as kids (both Star Wars and Indy were this concept), so its no surprise their work translates extremely well to black and white. Someone smart could release a special edition with the b/w available in the set with the regular cut
In Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg has an over 90-second continuous shot. It is the “halftrack cover” scene, which starts with the men taking cover in a field, an attack on a German halftrack including two bazooka hits, the mowing down of the escaping Germans, and finally, Private Ryan emerges. That is a ship ton of stuff to pack into one, continuous shot. It wasn’t until about the sixth time I saw the film that I realized it’s continuous. Think of the complexity. I find that style far more impressive, entertaining, and engaging than “edgy” cinematography that involves cuts every 3/4s of a second.
Spielberg makes this 'dance of blocking' look so effortless, that I've been enjoying the dance for decades without even knowing it was happening.
Bravo.
Much of what we are all lauding is all about economy. That Spielberg executes it with such finesse shows his competency in achieving this. The thing which takes up so much time ergo money when shooting is setting up each scene. The scenes where Spielberg and Slocombe swing the camera around instead of cutting to a different POV has probably saved them a day of filming. Spending a little more time in working out the blocking, lighting and focus pulling to combine scenes is an efficient way of working - and if you happen to be able to create artistic flourishes when doing so then all the better.
Spielberg was determined that unlike his previous films which were all over budget and wrapped late, Raiders would be the opposite. By using Douggie Slocombe Spielberg was working with someone who knew how to work under those conditions (Slocombes early work with Ealing Studios was done on a shoestring and tight turnarounds) and having filmed extensively in the 1940's and 1950's understood how to achieve the look that Spielberg and Lucas wanted. Also don't forget - apart from the obvious location shots - almost every interior was shot in England including the Peruvian Temple (Hawaii standing in for the exterior) and Cairo (with Tunisia standing in for the exterior!) - the technicians at Elstree Studios were all masters of their craft developed over decades and which Spielberg, Lucas and indeed Kubrick happily employed to create the magic we now arguably call art.
An Utterly brilliant n fascinating insight into Spielberg’s blocking n composition. I just hadn’t appreciated how his shots tell so much of the story without colour or dialogue and the stunning beauty of resultant B&W images. Inspirational.
Watching this video couldn't have come at any more perfect timing - I've been doing a bit of hardcore research of making a new genre of noir, and Raiders being classified as Neo-Noir in academic articles AND now this black-and-white cut of the film REALLY cements it for me. Well done on a solid, informative vid!
It also shows how fantastic the lightning is, the light colors/dark colors contrast, and of course, how to tell a story even without dialogue.
Many people love last crusade and say that its the best indiana jones movie but in my opinion Raiders takes the cake for me. Its a perfect movie in my opinion because everyone knew what they wanted and did it incredibly well. The acting, directing, score, cinematography everything is done so well that you cant take your eyes off the movie and thats exactly what Raiders did. Sadly nowadays audiences dont have the attention spams that older movies required so most of my friends said the movie was boring and it made me realize how far the movie industry has fallen but at least we still have these old masterpieces that we can enjoy.
RAIDERS is the best ! LC was good for a "third installment of a trilogy", but for me it was too much family-entertainment. RAIDERS is a cinematic masterpiece !
Just did this as well with it recently being added to D+. So few people got to make films back then compared to today. You really had to do a great job. Steven clearly has an amazing eye and he cared about honoring the old serials of his youth. Inspiration meets opportunity, as the movie audiences were so ready to see a 'modern' take on an older genre. It's a flawless film.
I love that Saving Private Ryan has a Where's Wally/Waldo shot when Hanks & Sizemore are talking about their new mission for the first time. They start off in the background at the right side of the screen then make their way left and towards the foreground while all the activity in Omaha are being shown.
7:29 this shot is so under rated. I automatically know what movie this is from even without any character being visible
A great video called How Spielberg Directs Your Attention talks a lot about his awesome staging and blocking, anyone will love checking it out.
I always thought that Spielberg's movies were sort of an homage to older classic films, especially when someone gets killed off camera and you only see the shadow and hear the sounds. His style is truly sorely missed with modern films filmed with frantic chopping and editing and multiple confusing closeups of blurry action.
ROCKY is the film to watch in black and white. It not only looks great but also elevates Stallone's performance to the level of Brando.
Is First Blood as good in B/W?
Rocky was a contender.
I also suggest the original "Alien" movie for the B+W treatment. Really adds to the dark intensity of the picture.
@@sulivanmagnum I don't know. The reason ROCKY is so beautiful in black and white is because of all the green in the backgrounds. In color the film has a green hue. I don't know why,, but it transfers to Black and White beautifully. Watch it. You'll be amazed.
The scene after Marie Ann "dies" is my favorite. The villain is talking to indie, but indies face takes up 3/4 of the screen, all the while he never makes eye contact. It was such a great way to establish anger toward the villain.
Spielberg will rightly be remembered as the greatest director in movie history. Yes, he made some clunkers (....1941) but the breadth of his repertoire is astonishing (from Duel to Schindler's List and beyond)....and he likely has a couple more masterworks left in him. He is "approachable" in the best possible way, fortunately lacking the misguided "mystic" surrounding other auteurs like Kubrick. And consider his collaborations with many others in Film and TV. Sadly, too many critics (shamefully) poop on his work because of its "popularity" and box office success.
thing is the fact that he's made SO many films and there's so few bad movies to point out in comparison to good ones, and even the ones we do immediately remember are hardly bad nowadays, and hardly bad across cinema. I mean Lost World, 1941, Ready Player One, Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, AI; some of these movies are fascinatingly bad for sure, but many of those have even more fascinating backstories that explain it. I mean you look at a 'worst of Spielberg list' and most of them are fine films, that's how consistent he was. And most of them are still well-shot. I mean Lost World is still a favourite among many, because compared to Jurassic World, its brilliant, and by itself its still extremely competently shot and produced in terms of production value and set-pieces, that are iconic still.
Its a shame that people dismiss him now simply because he is so famous, so he's become so big that people kind of dismiss him. Praising him seems to annoy people because he gets 'too much' praise. And it's not 'cool' to praise Spielberg, it's not alternative or non-mainstream, saying you like Scorcese sounds cool and hip more than Spielberg (not dissing Scorcese lol). The dude single-handedly changed cinema on multiple occasions, with movies that inspired the world, I mean the way Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park and Jaws changed pop-culture across the world is hard to measure. Except that its one of those few films everyone knows regardless of seeing it.
He'll be remembered as a child rapist
@@GuineaPigEveryday A.I is a great film and one of Spielberg's best and Crystal Skull is good. I wouldn't call either of them bad films of his, he's did *much* worse. Let people praise lesser filmmakers because it's "cool" and you praise who deserves it.
Like you said even his lesser films are beautifully shot and have great set pieces, he's obviously the greatest director of blockbusters of all time. If only James Cameron hadn't went with Avatar and made movies (like T2 and Aliens) more frequently he could have compared.
@@GuineaPigEveryday I always loved lost world. Some of that might be just my fascination with the universe that the first movie created, but it still has some highlights. The scene where the RV gets pushed over the clip is probably my favourite out of all the films. And it is also incredibly well shot.
@@GuineaPigEveryday To me Raiders and Jurassic Park are two absolutely perfect films.
You should do one on SPEED by Jan De Bont. Do it in SILENCE, and watch the same type of framing, movement and editing.
It's amazing the amount of work that went into what seems like a simple action movie, there's so much more to it with the movement and editing.
Watching existing color films in black&white has long been a favorite past time of mine but I couldn't explain why I enjoyed it. Now I see how it ephasizes some of the most important qualities of a film.
How do you change them into B&W is it just altering one "bar" on your TV?
Just turn your color down to zero on your tv I do it a lot
@@BernardJMorgan That's assuming I even have colour as an option.
If you admire Steve's blocking and framing, there's a masterful tracking shot in Jaws as Chief Brody meets the Mayor - their entire discussion lasts way beyond a normal scene but with a shifting backdrop, even joining them as they board a walk on ferry 👏
This was fantastic. And thank you for reminding me to check out what Soderbergh is up to. His repertoire is off the chain, and his willingness to just try something for the sake of it has always made me respect him massively. Even if he makes what for me is a dud (I'd say I'm 50/50 love/hate with his films, and The Knick was incredible), it's still totally valuable, because I always eventually love what becomes of his experimentation.
So glad! Not this next video, but the one after it is going to be on Soderbergh. And it definitely won’t be the last time.
:)
-Danny
@@CinemaStix Sweet! Still makes my head spin that the same director did King of the Hill, Schizopolis, Traffic, Ocean's 11, and then ... Bubble? etc.
And on the DVD behind the scenes for Out Of Sight talking about how it took two days of who-knows-how-many-takes (well into double digits) just to get the scene of them talking in the trunk til it was just right - yet the whole movie is one of those that's so utterly watchable no matter where you start watching, dips seamlessly in and out of heavy drama and deadpan comedy, and plays out sooo smoothly it's like the perfect musical album that you want to listen to all over again as soon as it's over. It's like he's making these choices from a deeply nerdy encyclopaedic cinematic knowledge base, yet has the discipline to step back and let his actors feel out the moment. What a treat.
Really enjoying your channel mate. Keep up the great work.
This feels like a spiritual successor to Tony’s video on the Spielberg oner, and I am totally here for it.
One of my fav scenes in Indiana Jones RotLA is his house. His house feels/looks very lived in without being stupidly disorganized.
Spielberg did a lot of these shots very quickly because he didn't want to go over budget like with Jaws and Close Encounters, a genius.
Removing the color makes the image look sharper, and also highlights the masterful lighting. I imagine you can pull the same process on Star Wars: A New Hope, which also has underrated lighting.
Well, George Lucas said that you can watch Star Wars: ANH as a black and white silent film, put the volume off and you could still understand the plot (though I wouldn't remove Williams' score), I'm surprised nobody has done yet a silent cut of Star Wars, now imagine if Star Wars or the Indy films were released decades earlier, I think Star Wars would have worked in the 50s or 60s, also Lucas said that the acting and dialogue in ANH is like the one from 1930s films in contrast to method acting from the 50s, now I want to see an "old Hollywood style" cut.
@@jesustovar2549The light sabres would still be clearly sci-fi even in black and white and I supposed Vader would had been SUFFICIENTLY established as being an evil warrior by the time he shows he has a red blade. (It doesn’t HAVE to be clearly different looking blades for the dichotomy to work.)
Color somehow flattens the image; B&W relies solely on light and dark, therefore shaping objects and their spacing and giving a more stereoscopic look. And the gradations of black are so beautiful.
I never noticed, and probably shouldn't, the scene with the book. Where he shows them separated and then brings them together with the book. Took a deep breath after that explanation.
They should release Raiders Of The Lost Ark in Black and White, keeping everything else as it was!
Raiders in B&W really shows the talent used to light the scenes you don't notice as much in color.
This is what is missing from so many movies today...Talent and proper lighting.
This is bloody amazing - and BIG props to Douglas Slocombe, the DoP and head of camera dept that came up through the ranks old-school from the electrical and grip crews of the old British industry. Truly eye-opening to think how "smashed together" modern summer blockbusters feel now, everything is smeared with VFX fixes and smoothed camera work to where its like a video game. I'll take Spielbocombe-cam over "docu-shakycam" all day long. Props to CinemaStix!
It makes me wonder how The Sound of Music would look desaturated. I rewatched it a few years ago and was blown away by how intricate the cinematography was. I certainly didn’t appreciate it enough as a kid!
And for that matter, any of Roger Deakins’ works. I did an ink drawing study of my favorite shots of his; they truly leave an imprint in the mind.
Spielberg and his collaborators really understand the language of Cinema and are fluent in it.
Now we gotta watch Schindler's List in color
Wow. Deeply impressed. Learned massive insights. Thank you. The last time I enjoyed an analytical film discussion so much was Every Frame a Painting, who, unfortunately, have ceased posting videos. That's a big compliment. Thank you.
The Others in black and white is essential viewing. I swear that movie was made for it
Oh, that’s a great idea!
I really like the way Indy and his small team of workers become shadows themselves. At in front of a backdrop of the setting sun, they hide their work in plain sight. Almost. Like like piggybacking of the workers in the whole area. I just love the way that scene looks and feels. This video made me appreciate that movie even more. And I learned something new.
Good work here
Brilliant shots and genius of you to edit this for us to see and learn. Well done sir, very well done!
Really enjoyed this, thank you. Two things sprung to mind:
- Stanley Kubrick would do a similar exercise. He'd watch films with the audio on mute, to see if could still understand the story, character relationships etc.
- You mention Dogville briefly. The Dogme 95 Manifesto is worth checking out. It ran from 1995-2005 and was thought up by that film's director (Lars Von Trier) and Thomas Vinterburg. It involved applying 10 'rules' to shooting/making a film (diagetic sound only, hand-held camera, no optical filters allowed etc).
When I was 13, I bought The Evil Dead on VHS and preferred to watch it without colour. The film took on an homage kind of quality. The set pieces became reminiscent of old creature features and the overall tone more akin to something like Night of the Living Dead.
This is gonna sound strange but I feel like Steven Spielberg is the most underrated Hollywood director in film schools around the world. When I went to film school, I learned to appreciate Tarkovsky, Godard, De Sica, etc... but we were never shown a single Spielberg film in any class, not even once. Thanks for this video.
Spielberg's framing is what made Jurassic Park feel so huge and epic. The newer films are filmed on an entirely different ratio and it screws up all the framing
I had no idea he did these recuts…I will definitely search them out!
Amazing Video! I am going to watch the "Soderbergh" version when I get a chance
Thanks! Yeah, I definitely recommend it for the experience. It’s on his website, EXT 765 as “Raiders”.
Blown away. Didn't think I could be more impressed by Spielberg
I love this. I know very little about how film is made; this was entirely new to me and gave me a new lens (so to speak). I'm going to watch movies a bit differently now, and enjoy them all the more. Thank you!
:D
Star Wars prequels. Find a bootleg VHS copy that was filmed in a movie theatre right off the screen. Take that VHS copy, put it in a VCR, and make it black & white on your display. Sit back and enjoy a masterpiece.
This is fascinating, and that no sound, no colors edit by Soderbergh is a brilliant idea!
The long cuts are really pieces of art, and I love how Soderbergh makes that more visible.
I’m convinced every home release of a film should have a B&W option.
The main reason why this works so well, is the artistic decision within the cinematography to focus on shadows. The switch to black and white just heightens that contrast.
Spielberg is such a good director he just makes all other film seem pointless, the competitors seem so much smaller and less significant.
We used to watch movies in black and white by adjusting the color on our T.V. to Black and White.
ok
Fantastic
Thoroughly enjoyed this, appreciate Spielberg even more 👏
I'm currently learning to draw comics at uni and we have a total of 20 panels to show a story. I'm learning just how valuable space is on the page, and how to balance story and space efficiently by combining shots. The phrase "why show in two what can be implied in one" really resonated with me.
Holy cow. I never ever paid attention to the camera work and directing, very cool
Right? I mean you’re not really meant to. That’s the genius of it. But every decision is just brilliant.
-Danny
I recently listened to the Rewatchables Raiders podcast and it's such a guys movie and a fun adventure movie for anyone young at heart, but all that incredible camera work and framing and (I'm not a film major) positioning just flies right over your head. He gave the world such a treat. And you just picture nerdy little Steven sitting in his chair with his cap on looking so happy haha your never expect it! And I love you pointed out Steven has been flexing his skills and style since the start. Great video I shared it with my older brother who we bonded growing up over Indy.
This looks rad. It’s very reminiscent of the old high adventure movies and serial series of the 40s and 50s when it’s in black and white. Spielberg did a great job shooting for this ascetic.
absolutely fantastic. What a brilliant discussion - thank you!!
Thank YOU :)
it really does have an old hollywood feel in black and white. as you pointed out the camera movements, blocking and staging are all the best of old hollywood and it stands out in this version.
Miss the your intro "hi im danny and this is cinemastix"
Loved the video!
Thank you!
Ah, the intro comes and goes depending on the video. Sometimes it helps me kick things off and sometimes I like to dive right in. But it’s definitely not gone forever :)
-Danny
The greatest moving shot in movie history is in Spielberg’s Munich, when a camera moves around inside a car showing absolutely everything needed to be seen. It’s amazing and no-one talks about it.
Sodenberg is 100% dedicated to the Art of Cinema
And the art his ego. Not that it’s always bad
And yet he made the Ocean's trilogy.
@@pipster1891 ocean 1 is pretty great. Shots, blocking, transitions, it's very creative
No wonder why these Indiana Jones movies where so exciting to me as a child, look at this visual language! Thanks again for your work, it's really inspiring.
I tried so much to find video where soderbergh edited india jones to social network music
One of those shots in Indy’s lecture also has us, the audience, basically join his class, sitting with his students as he explains it all.
It now feel much more like a graphic novel.
As a Soderburgh fan I thank you for bringing these versions to attention. Excellent work. It's a real shame he didn't do a B&W cut with just the original dialogue and different incidental music.
Visual storytelling is just as important as are dialogue, music, costuming, props, VOICES (vocal tones), sets, lighting, etc.
Spielberg and Lucas made *THE* best film in this type of genre, mood, feel, spirit, etc. ❤️⚔️❤️
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
thanks for sharing this, raiders has been my all time favorite movie since i was a kid, and after watching soderberghs cut of the movie i have even more appreciation of this film
I want an interview with Spielberg himself discussing this.
Or a commentary.
I stood in a line that went around the block in NYC when the film came out. Never seen anything like it.