Whoops, one little 4-second glitch got through. Luckily on Nebula I can swap out the video file and fix that. So if you want to see more glitch-free AND ad-free videos, check out Nebula! curiositystream.com/patrickhwillems
Yes, finally got Nebula! Looking forward to your film, just like I always look forward to your great essays. Thanks for making these tough times a little better!
Funny thing I remember about Soderberg is that he talked about being so absolutely blown away by George Miller's seamless storyboarding and editting of action sequences in Mad Max Fury Road to the point that he even denigrated himself as a director. He even implied that his signature style was more or less a series of distractions to trick you into thinking its all seamless. Imposter syndrome for sure but it just really spelled out for me how many different ways directors can approach their tool kits to film a scene.
Soderbergh is the best director of all time,... according to me😂. Love so much about that guy. He and Michael Bay and Adam Sandler aren't quite that different. But he adapts so well even within his personal limits.
The main thing I feel that makes Fury Road work so well is that Miller has that medical background. He knows very well the limits of how eyes work. So when he set out to do a movie he knew would need wild quick editing he made goddamn sure the eyes of the audience always knows where to look. If that means all action shots are center framed at all times... Then so be it. In all the insanity there is never confusion about who is where and doing what. But I feel Soderbergh should cut himself some slack. He isn't one of those who struggle with directing the eyes of audience members either. I have my issues with the Oceans movies. But the audiovisuals isn't one of them. And I've seen enough outside that franchise to know I want to see whatever he does in the future.
@@jmalmsten Yeah, this is the thing that gets me about all the praise for Miller's style: why isn't this just considered basic good filmmaking? Know what your audience should be looking at, and put it in front of their eyes. I'm not saying this to slight Miller, just, it seems like something that should be common sense. Yet it's not.
Seeing moments as “cinematic” reminds me of being a bookish kid and solemnly pointing out things like old falling-down barns or wailing sirens in the distance as “metaphors”. If I had been a kid before novels, I would have been the creepy kid pointing out inauspicious omens.
I look forward to the day when the canon becomes so convoluted that a newcomer- friendly, hip update is necessary. Give me Ultimate Patrick, who wears vertical stripes and says “fuck” a lot.
It's funny how expectations play into what you consider 'cinematic'. I recently moved from a place with an old TV to a place with an newer TV. I was immediately confused by why high-budget movies suddenly looked like cheap soap operas. My roommate explained that this was simply what movies were supposed to look like in HD. I had my doubts about this and kept bringing up the issue, until it transpired that he had always had the 'motion smoothing' feature enabled. To me, it was very obvious that something was off, but he just convinced himself that the movies looked good because he expected them to.
Can we talk about the shot of Chloe up on his computer? The composition is fantastic. The treetops form a clean diagonal line from lower left to upper right, leaving a good amount of negative space to frame her head. The contrast in color between the light flowers and her dark clothing really helps the flowers and also her hand pop. Not to mention how the flowers form this golden spiral sort of shape that leads the eye to her hand and up to her face. Also the use of color-forest green, dark blue, and her skin tone form a triadic harmony on the color wheel. They either got really lucky with this shot, or they really are going the extra mile to practice what Patrick is preaching here. Cinematic indeed. Hats off.
Patrick: So you don't have to point it out in the comments Me, watching on Nebula: Heh, lucky for you Nebula doesn't HAVE comments! **scrolls down to type this into the Nebula comment section** ...oh.
This is actually a great tutorial! This is like 2 years of film school philosophy in however minutes it is! Showed it to my teacher and he literally said if you do that everything else will be icing!
I was thinking the same thing. Of all the shots at the end of the video, that looked the most cinematic to me. I think it’s a combination of the Ra k focus and the lighting, but I can’t figure out why past that.
You've outdone yourself. Brilliant video and really good attempt at a well reasoned definition for what is 'cinematic'. I think when you desribed your own reasoning to make your finale more cinematic you summed it up the best: its about preparing with great care, to make deliberate and selective choices, to do so with the eventual presentation and exhibition in mind, and try to master all the key ingredients and technical aspects of moving image making. and in that sense even TV or other things like youtube videos can be cinematic if planned, executed and presented in that manner.
One thing not mentioned is music. Most RUclips video's / small film type projects will have custom music and professional mixing. Perhaps this makes a large difference, especially in things like scene transitionsb and in the background of scenes. It's easy to stick in a rolling stones song to a scene, but what about when it ends, diagetic audio during, and little inflections in the music reflecting the action. Hot Fuzz and Oceans 11 come to mind as films that have a lot of light bits of music that help the flow of the scenes. Also things like acting costumes and set design play a large roll it's just difficult to tell because if they're good it's hard to notice. For instance see the costumes in Justice League, they stand out as being pretty terrible at least in the context of the set design and cinematography, in parts the movie looks more like a TV show. Keep detracting other aspects from that movie and maybe it would look un-cinematic?
@@edentyler-moss1157 yea absolutely where most of the youtuber attempts at what is cinematic fail is their overt focus on visuals and all too often forgetting about audio, music and sound effects/mastering altogether. I would certainly include that in my summary above under 'mastering the key ingredients and technical aspects of moving image making' and doing so with great care and making deliberate choices.
@@sycastells1212 yeah i get what you mean.. But look around on social media how people use some words. Meanings have become subjective and how one defines it. Everybody's a goddamn poet now
The line about true cinema being best served by a theatrical viewing really resonates with me now. Over the few years, my local indie started playing old movies and I've been struck by how Lost in Translation, Pulp Fiction and Rashomon benefit from that just as much as Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park and Blade Runner.
By Charl, I think you've got it. The little teaser of your finale looks great. As for cinematic... yeah, that sounds right. There's the visual esthetic: the shallow depth of field, smooth professional looking camera movements, and sweet sweet color grading in a cinematic experience. But there's also the artistic part too, where each shot has deliberate purpose. I love your Steven Soderbergh example because I haven't seen any of the Ocean's movies and this is a good excuse to watch them. Got to check out how he uses the camera intentionally. Thanks for the new video, Patrick (H) Willems!
I don't know much, but I'm a little surprised Stanley Kubrick wasn't mentioned when you talked about making deliberate choices with each shot. He was obsessive to the point of abuse, but he was definitely a director who knew why every choice in his film was made
As someone who learned photography and video entirely through youtube, this idea has been buzzing around in my head for years. You're bang on that the RUclips filmmaker space is just obsessed with aesthetic, specifically aesthetic that separates them from the 'normies'. With how powerful phone cameras are now, it's no surprise that the elements RUclips filmmakers have latched onto are depth of field, gimbals, aerial shots and colour grading, all elements that distance themselves from someone with an iPhone 13 Pro. 'Cinematic' is ultimately impossible to define neatly, but I have come to think as you do, that deliberateness is at the core of the concept. A feeling that thought and care has gone into every element of what we are seeing.
I enjoyed this. I've always thought of the cinematic as simply being larger than life. I love your definition, but there are moments in life that are cinematic; the word refers to real-world experiences as well as film experiences.
To me... cinematic is like being romantic. You are chasing that feeling you felt when an incredible film spoke to you, showed you things you never expected to inspire you, and touch your soul in a way that stayed with you out of theater. It’s like falling in love and you are aspiring to find that feeling again.. finding someone to share that experience with.. express a language you aren’t perfectly fluid in but try relentlessly to speak to others who can’t see what you see. And even though you won’t perfectly copy the traits that fit your favorite film of all time, you give your own attempts your own personal spin with the hopes that someone will fall in love with what you’ve made. And oddly enough, that pursuit in on itself.. is cinematic.
This all has me thinking why I enjoy Wes Anderson’s filmmaking choices. He doesn’t do many dynamic tricks like diagonal shots or something. His camera moves left, right, up, or down. It makes me think he could do stage very well. But then he also has these great close ups of characters and overhead shots of props. I don’t know whether to call it cinematic or not, but when you see it you know it’s Wes.
Really like this. More like this please! Reminded me a bit of the Gary Winnograd quote: "I photograph to see what the world looks like photographed." Meaning photographs aren't real - they have a quality / language / etc unique to them that is interesting to explore. Similarly Ansel Adams' photos of Yosemite are not realistic - their power comes from taking what the camera and the print can uniquely reveal. I think your definition of cinematic is enough - that which can only be done in cinema. (Now go and define cinema. We have all day...)
I know this is an old video, but just a note on the job posting at the beginning; if it was for a video game company, a “cinematic” is another word for cutscenes. So it was a director of cutscenes, and they were looking for people with cutscene experience. So not the best example to use for the intro. Doesn’t negate the rest of the video, obviously, but I just thought I would point that out.
So happy you really get to flex your cineamtic muscles on the season finale. You and the team have worked so long and so hard at this. You deserve to go big. Sidenote: Nothing frustrates me more in movies than too many close ups. I never understood why directors kept making than mistake, but now I realise it is often from being too used to working for TV.
I think Cinematic = Emotional. I believe Cinematic is the quality of convey emotion into the narrative. Something that touch you or move you in an Emotional level. I think Emotion is the Key to Cinematic Aesthetic.
I think a lot of these guys obviously understand that professional quality photography is an element of what makes something "cinematic" but I also think the factor most don't talk about is intention. What makes something cinematic is when the images on the screen, the composition, the movement, the editing, have artistic intention. I always kind of scoff at a lot of the "look at my one take fight scene on a gimbal where I just kind of move the camera everywhere constantly like a dance video instead of creating any kind of story" videos because they feel like dangling shiny keys in front of your eyes. Cinematic isn't just technical it's artistic as well.
Possibly this dovetails with the Malick video from a couple of years back. I recently saw The Thin Red Line and it's probably the most beautiful film I've ever seen... but that beauty isn't just there for its own sake and feeds into the emotions of the film in incredibly powerful ways.
okay fine i'll get nebula. commenting before the video to see how well my take lines up. i can define what makes something "cinematic", but when it comes together, it's something that feels like it should be watched on a movie screen. like it's at home there, and not just "bigger". this is partially visible, partially thematic. "something that fits in the medium of theatrical film, better than it would fit in a different medium"
I think the Keeling quote is really true. I've had moments reading books recently where I think about how cinematic the description or action is. How can a book be cinematic? I'm honestly not sure, but some authors make it happen!
Well if cinematic is "use something other than the dialogue to convey the story", then if a book makes you feel something without dialogue or telling you what to feel, there you go.
I wish that HFR had more opportunities to be seen in the theater with films that people would consider *good* regardless of the frame rate. People are iffy about the Hobbit trilogy, Gemini Man didn’t win many people over, and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is a film I’ve never heard anyone say the title of out loud. So it’s pretty much just Peter Jackson and Ang Lee so far. I got to see the first Hobbit film in the theater, and after getting used to the 60fps, I really enjoyed it. I also caught Gemini Man (twice) in HFR in the theater - only at 60fps (and once in 60fps and 3D which was awesome, even if the movie wasn’t that great). I own BLLHW on a 4K60fps BluRay, but it was filmed in 120fps and I would have liked to have seen that. Ang Lee did that as well as Gemini Man and I think that he has the right idea with not needing to show the entire film in HFR, but rather by doing a more conventional frame rate in some sequences and HFR in others. The turret gun scene in Gemini Man is a great example of how amazing it looks when you film at a high frame rate and then also in slow motion, and can take your time with every frame on the screen. But conversations don’t need all of that. I know a lot of people will find it blasphemous, but I use my LG OLED’s TruMotion set to “Smooth” while watching TV and films quite often now. I think partially because I’m a gamer and have become accustomed to 60fps, but also there are some sequences like the long camera pan in Doctor Sleep (that goes from the chalkboard to the bathroom door and back to the chalkboard over probably a full minute) and that camera judder just makes me so uncomfortable. I’m hoping that James Cameron pulls off the unexpected, and gives us all a reason to give a shit about another three or four Avatar movies. I’ve heard that they might be in HFR (and I assume 3D) and maybe theaters will plan on upgrading their protectors in order to properly display whatever format he ends up with, similar to how many did with the first Avatar, or with sound systems when Jurassic Park came out. HFR does make it harder to film a good fight sequence as you can’t hide the fact that you’re not punching someone as easily, but it really does have a fantastic and smooth quality to it that I find to be quite cinematic. And I hope that HFR gets a film worth seeing in the theater that will cause audiences to give it a real chance and see if they aren’t more excited about it.
I agree with you on the shift from aesthetic to visual literracy, but I think there is two kind of "cinematic piece of art". The first one focus on choosing for each story beat / feeling the right artistic combinaison (light, focal lenght, camera movement, composition, focus, editing etc.). The second kind of "cinematic piece of art" try to choose ONE decisive element to apply to the whole, in order to make its meaning more relevant. Si if each cinematic movie ask "what do my choices mean ?" they are not answering the same way. On my channel I try by short movies and video essays the second way of the cinematic language.
I think you've pretty much nailed it Patrick, but one thing you didn't mention that I feel is important about the "cinematic" thing is the whole idea of "directed focus". Most of the "RUclips cinematic" techniques you mention "pull" the audience's attention to some part of the frame, as well as some of the others you mentioned (eg back lighting, which also draws attention to a particular character). The anamorphic ratio is more of a general focus pulling tool (eyes scan left and right more easily than up and down), while drones are the exception that prove the rule, asking us to focus on and understand a shot's setting (or less commonly, juxtaposing a single element against that setting - typically to demonstrate how it is out of place). Things like strong character movement and head turns serve the same purpose of getting us to look in the right spot. Documentaries, on the other hand, are often shot to avoid manipulating the viewer's focus in a single way. They encourage experiential viewing rather than directed viewing, with our eyes roving across the frame freely. I feel this is why Hitchcock was lukewarm on Rope, because he struggled to control audience focus through the extended shots. The "Spielberg Oner", on the other hand, shows that it can be done effectively with multiple framing devices used through the shots.
Here’s a bit of trivia from the filming of Jurassic World that is relevant and quite revealing is why it’s filmed in the 2:1 aspect ratio. During pre-production there was a bit of back-and-forth about what aspect ratio it should be shot in. Spielberg argued for staying with 1.85.1 because the increased height allows for a better perspective of the dinosaurs, while Colin Trevorrow and his cinematographer wanted to go wider because, allegedly, he was worried 1.85.1 would look too much like a TV show.
I started shooting video in 1991. I worked on more documentary / news reporting style projects as well as weddings. Working alone, I sometimes found myself right next to "Professional" crews when covering an International Boxing Hall of Fame weekend. I coveted the more expensive equipment used by the pros, but I also received 'at-a-boys' from those crews when they saw me in the right spot, to get the right shot during a live, unstoppable event. They asked to see the footage and agreed that I had captured something great. Fast forward to 2010 when I purchased a DSLR for video. This would be the first time I owned a proper stills camera. What dawned on me then was that I had been designing my video shots all along as interesting still shots. What I think most teaching RUclipsrs are showing is "Composition". The saying goes, "A picture is worth a 1000 words." Many people will just document a moment in time instead of telling the story with the frame. Everything in the frame from lighting, to people, to blur is all the same things we find esthetically pleasing in a still shot. In my opinion, "Cinematic = Moving Pictures."
That was great Patrick. I think your definition is pretty spot-on. As someone who did film studies in the 1980s with -- hold on, wait for it -- Super 8 mm Film (moment of silence for the demise of Kodachrome), we, of course, had to shoot our stuff all MOS. So for me, “Cinematic” means telling a story just by the pictures seen on screen - which would also include framing, depth-of-field, contrast and composition - but essentially telling a story with images and NOT dialogue and/or exposition. Masters of this are our two favourites - Hitchcock and Kubrick. I could be wrong but that’s my take on it.
Not related to the video but I was wondering if you could make a video with all the story segments from the previous videos ? I skipped some of them and I'd like to get caught up before the end
Well duh, Cinematic always meant to me that artistry was involved and choices were made. Each scene and each frame had to be an art piece in and of itself. Not just the visual, but the blocking, the sound, the score, the movement of camera, the zoom in or out, what to focus on, what to show or not show, where to cut the film, when to leave it play out. Most YT vids are static 1 camera angle, most sitcoms are 3 camera angles, and most tv shows are lots of closeup angles. Theres no art or beauty in it. Its efficient. It needs to be bold.
I applied for a full-time job at Warner Bros. and it was the most humiliating experience of my life. They made me take a Windows 10 test to be a *script reader* in the hope that I would fail and reportedly passed my results around for a laugh. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the job posting for a "cinematic director" was some kind of prank and/or scam.
Patrick has added in little bits of a story into his videos, spoon feeding us little bits of something many of us didnt know we wanted, like hiding Driving our engagement So he could finally make that film
Great video here. Speaking as a photographer, the term cinematic is used quite regularly as a descriptor of photos, on social media at least. In this context I think it is generally referring to the mood created. This will often be down to one of the many aspects you talk about in this video, a certain frame or lighting etc. But mostly I think it is used as shorthand for the overall experience and could be as simple as the feeling that the image suggests a broader story being told beyond just the frame being presented, with a focus on narrative story telling. Interestingly, I've noticed that although the use of things like zoom lenses or shallow depth of fields will often elicit the term, it doesn't require that sort of visual similarity. Plenty of square images also get the moniker, which brings me back to thinking for the most part it is about the overall mood of an image. Whilst this is obviously different than in the context from the video which is more exclusively about moving images, I think it is probably useful to consider the way the term is used in stills photography when considering what people mean by the term in other mediums as well. Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful video as always.
I think these "cinematic" tutorial videos go into the same direction of others where they tell people starting out to "buy a Red camera" and all that. They think the tools make it better - while people made really good and celebrated movies without much of anything. Also I hope the season finale will teach us the importance of Family.
11:25 made me cheer and clap my hands. Perfect timing. I've actually been listening to it multiple times over the past few weeks, I hadn't listened to it in a while and I've rediscovered how amazing it is. No, btw, not going through a break up. It's just a REALLY AWESOME song! Coldplay truly are our "our greatest modern poets".
Patrick, this an excellent exploration of an idea, that when I honestly thought about it (watching your video outdoors, on my iPhone), is not so easy to define. I’d taken the word for granted. So once I got back to my desk, and to a larger screen, I raced to the dictionary to see if what it said would be helpful… “Cinematic |phoneticatious gobbledygook| ADJECTIVE. Relating to the cinema. •having qualities characteristic of films.” Okay, that helps. The one characteristic of a cinematic experience no one is talking about enough (or not at all with some folk) *is not on the screen* and it’s not coming from the sound system. A truly cinematic film *must include an audience in a communal experience *, else what are those hundreds of seats for? Let’s put aside aspect ratio, and frame rates and film grain and depth of field. Let’s put the Steadicam back on its stand. They’re all valid narrative tools, but *please remember the cinematic experience and energy of 600 people enraptured in a moving story* It is our job to make the audience forget the filmmaking tools, render them invisible so they can feel like they’re *in the story* *Cinematic is who we’re making this for*
17:17 Yes!! This is inspirational stuff to hear. I think it was during a McQuarrie Mission: Impossible commentary, that I realized how every single shot is just as important as every other shot, because -- money shot or second-unit insert -- it all ends up on screen together. I'm rusty with the technicals of cinematography but I'm pretty good at grasping what an image's conveyed meaning can be, and that's a skill I hope I can be mindful of employing in my own works.
Yeah a big thing is having wider shots, not only to show the world (ie not just an actor, an action, or a thing) but so when you use the tighter shots they have more weight to it. That's harder than one would think, because during the shoot everything is watched on tiny screens so you just have to fight that urge to get too close.... weirdly enough the opposite of what a lot of people have problem with when it comes to still photography... but I digress. And filling such a wide shot is expensive, you need people in frame, it has to be lit properly, so you have to figuratively paint the frame(shout out every frame is a painting) and it all has to work together to tell the story of the movie. It is a conscious decision on every level. That's what makes something feel cinematic to me.
I think you nailed it. Something that is cinematic is a work that uses film language and techniques to tell a story. All these RUclips sites that attempt to teach how to be "cinematic" are merely teaching the fundamentals of film language. But it takes an artist to use these to tell the story visually. Like, why is there a drone shot showing a lone car on a highway? Why do we zoom into an actor's reaction? Why is the camera moving in a dolly shot? Why use shaky camera and video verite? A director I can think of that knows the words and makes pretty shots that have no cohesive meaning is Michael Bay. He knows the words but he doesn't put them together to make the work have any meaning.
I like your definition. It’s the reason movies like The Room or Danzig’s Verotika, despite both being shot with pricey cameras, still look like cheap garbage.
Hey great video as always Patrick. Just wanted to add some info on widescreen that people might find interesting. On a typical film camera the 35mm film film stock would move vertically through the image gate (sensor in digital parlance) and with a spherical lens attached it produced the 4:3 academy ratio of early cinema. When widescreen ratio’s we’re Introduced not all of them actually gave the image any more width. The 1.661 - 1.85.1 ratio’s effectively just had the top and bottom cropped (slightly more complicated, the number of perforation used on the stock played a part) which is the same as adding black bars. The 1.85.1 Vista Vision did have a wider image as the film passed horizontally passed the image gate. The wider aspect ratios like 2.35.1 and beyond were largely archived using anamorphic lenses on vertical fed cameras. I believe even on today’s digital super 35mm cameras the 16:9 ratio doesn’t actually translate to a wider image than say a traditional camera with the same lens.
Cinematic has a different connotation in game development. Often, the term “cinematic” is synonymous with “cut-scene”-you know…the fully-rendered narrative bits everyone skips.
Yeah, this. Game Dev does this a lot, where we'll take a term that other people use, and just use it in a completely alien way. Some cinematics are cinematic - but not all off them.
Yah just had to say this example is , I guess an exception that proves the rule? Cinematics in video games specifically refer to the in game cut scenes, so being a cinematic director is someone who directs those sequences. Sure they are designs to look and feel like scenes from a film to act as an interlude to the main gameplay often attempting to be presented in a manner similar to a film and therefore attempting a "cinematic" look, I guess. But it's really a different thing al together.
That's "cinematic" as a noun and not an adjective, so it's kind of a different word. Short for "cinematic scene" to indicate that it isn't gameplay. And it used to be that proper cinematics were pre-rendered outside of the game engine, so they looked noticeably better and could use more conventional elements of cinematography, but I think that may no longer be necessary, since that line isn't as clearly defined.
I did actually have a "this feels more cinematic" moment when I got into Horizon: Zero Dawn's "Frozen Wilds" expansion. Not so much in a graphical sense, though - the shots in general felt more expressive to me.
Thanks for providing a better working definition of "cinematic". I remember years ago trying to explain my dislike for the aforementioned 60fps Hobbit films. I was trying to explain it in terms of "film language", but the discussion got bogged down because the other person misunderstood that as me being a "purist" for actual *film*. It was hard to convey that my objection wasn't to the medium, but rather that it seemed to be deployed differently for no apparent reason. Kinda hoping some day some film maker deploys the tech for artistic effect... I'd be curious to see it.
Watched this on Nebula last night, but came here to make sure you got the views here as well. Really enjoyed this and can't wait for the Charle finale!
This is a relatively small detail but in the games industry, "cinematic" generally refers to cutscenes as opposed to gameplay, which is why Monolith was looking for a "cinematic director"
I’m so genuinely happy that this video came out but was actually sad that it was “only” 20ish minutes long haha. I realized just how invested I am that I’m going to subscribe to Curiosity stream to see the finale. Keep it up Patrick!
I could watch you for a lifetime. You're my favorite movie. A thousand endings. You mean everything to me. I never know what's coming. Forever fascinating. Hope you don't stop running. For me, cause I'll always be waiting. You are...my cinema!!
Totally The definition of cinematic is like the definition of Film Noir, it is more than just a collection of signifiers that carry some cultural meaning, it's not really a style nor an aesthetic, it's a feeling an attitude .
Cinematics in games are just cut scenes, where the main bulk of the story is told. It goes from third person or any other perspective(fps/assimetrical/2d) in which the game is played, to a free câmera where there is no gameplay. There is only storytelling, they even change the aspect ratio and sometimes have the scenes be pre-rendered instead of real time, so they can really hammer home that movie feel, aka CINEMATIC.
*Waves* HI RYAN!!!! I think your definition of Cinematic is the same as mine. Jasper Fforde is a SFF writer and oftentimes, he'll make certain jokes that can only make sense in book form. For me, that's the fun of certain media, seeing how it uses everything to stick out from other forms.
I 100% love this video because I hate the term "cinematic"so fucking much thank you. The things people say are inherently "cinematic" are just basic filmic storytelling tools, and none of them are inherently "cinematic" divorced from the filmic meaning/emotion/pov those tools are trying to convey
The way I rationalize the term "cinematic" is by the idea of aligning the idea of an illusion of story, with the illusion of imagery. If you can align your images that validate the idea you're telling a story (with professionalism) then you've achieved something *Cinematic*
I think of it in terms of Christopher Nolan movies. His worst work tends to convey plot information in a very non-cinematic way. It's just people standing or walking around talking. There's nothing in the atmosphere or feeling of the scene that helps lock the audience into the moment, and therefore those scenes feel like work to watch. But his best work actually conveys information cinematically. Dunkirk is a great example of a movie where he lets the sights and sounds do the storytelling, and because of that there's very little dialogue. Now, of course, being cinematic is not about having less dialogue. Tarantino movies are cinematic as hell and they're often little BUT dialogue. But I think the key is the intentionality that the audience can feel behind everything. Is there a sense of vision to it--what ever it might be? Does it feel like you're watching something that was meticulously crafted? Or does it feel like you're just watching people talk.
Cinematic as a term for video games, like the cinematic director at Monolith Studios, is a synonym for cutscene. Just a part of the story where the player does not control the character. The skills they are looking for are technical as well as artistic.
Whoops, one little 4-second glitch got through. Luckily on Nebula I can swap out the video file and fix that. So if you want to see more glitch-free AND ad-free videos, check out Nebula! curiositystream.com/patrickhwillems
Nebula doesn't send spam and has the best revenue model for creators.
Was it where you showed Anthony Kennedy instead of Potter Stewart?
Yes, finally got Nebula! Looking forward to your film, just like I always look forward to your great essays. Thanks for making these tough times a little better!
@@axellukkien so how much is Nebula exactly?
@@merriammerkabah408 It's 15USD for a year, in combination with Curiosity Stream, if you follow the links under Patricks video's.
Funny thing I remember about Soderberg is that he talked about being so absolutely blown away by George Miller's seamless storyboarding and editting of action sequences in Mad Max Fury Road to the point that he even denigrated himself as a director. He even implied that his signature style was more or less a series of distractions to trick you into thinking its all seamless. Imposter syndrome for sure but it just really spelled out for me how many different ways directors can approach their tool kits to film a scene.
Most directors must have felt like shit watching that movie. Miller is just on another level.
Soderbergh is the best director of all time,... according to me😂.
Love so much about that guy. He and Michael Bay and Adam Sandler aren't quite that different. But he adapts so well even within his personal limits.
The main thing I feel that makes Fury Road work so well is that Miller has that medical background. He knows very well the limits of how eyes work. So when he set out to do a movie he knew would need wild quick editing he made goddamn sure the eyes of the audience always knows where to look. If that means all action shots are center framed at all times... Then so be it. In all the insanity there is never confusion about who is where and doing what.
But I feel Soderbergh should cut himself some slack. He isn't one of those who struggle with directing the eyes of audience members either. I have my issues with the Oceans movies. But the audiovisuals isn't one of them. And I've seen enough outside that franchise to know I want to see whatever he does in the future.
@@jmalmsten Yeah, this is the thing that gets me about all the praise for Miller's style: why isn't this just considered basic good filmmaking? Know what your audience should be looking at, and put it in front of their eyes. I'm not saying this to slight Miller, just, it seems like something that should be common sense. Yet it's not.
@@a.KniteOwl he’s awesome, creatives do their best work when they work with constraints
Seeing moments as “cinematic” reminds me of being a bookish kid and solemnly pointing out things like old falling-down barns or wailing sirens in the distance as “metaphors”. If I had been a kid before novels, I would have been the creepy kid pointing out inauspicious omens.
:-) You wrote this in a very cuniform way, and that is a compliment. ;-)
I look forward to the day when the canon becomes so convoluted that a newcomer- friendly, hip update is necessary. Give me Ultimate Patrick, who wears vertical stripes and says “fuck” a lot.
All-New All-Different Patrick
Patrick NOW!
It's funny how expectations play into what you consider 'cinematic'. I recently moved from a place with an old TV to a place with an newer TV. I was immediately confused by why high-budget movies suddenly looked like cheap soap operas. My roommate explained that this was simply what movies were supposed to look like in HD. I had my doubts about this and kept bringing up the issue, until it transpired that he had always had the 'motion smoothing' feature enabled. To me, it was very obvious that something was off, but he just convinced himself that the movies looked good because he expected them to.
I had a very similar experience myself. Only I didn't have a roommate to talk to about this and so I slowly went mad.
@@brennonbrunet6330 I know so many people who can't even tell the difference and it drives me nuts
that's called "the unwashed masses", that some of us talk about, lol.
@@gopolarisstudio sheesh... talk about punching down dude.
I wonder when the non-canonical beach episode is dropping
Charl’s beach bod will literally break RUclips
I'll wait for the onsen episode instead.
Maybe it’s actually apart of the finale since the season began on a tropical beach
Patrick: "I don't want this to feel like a RUclips video."
Doug Walker: *chuckles nervously, whistles innocently*
We don't mention those who shall not be named
let's be honest, his stuff is below youtube tier
even for youtube, Doug walker videos look bad
Doesn't help that Walker's a notoriously below average filmmaker on a technical level.
Doug is youtube's Tommy Wiseau
Finally, an explanation of what "last night was a movie" means.
So “Cinematic” means using the film medium to tell a story in a way film can only do. Makes sense.
Rhymes with automatic ( a hint)
"Don't worry. It's not canon.
But, this is."
:::rolls out a big cannon::::
Canon DSLR?
"Steven Universe" reference?
@@CrashJakFan1994 definitely
when the editor typed "hi" in the corner, i waved at my screen. apparently i'm a small child lol
Never let that part of you die. It will preserve your ability to feel joy
hahaha
Can we talk about the shot of Chloe up on his computer? The composition is fantastic. The treetops form a clean diagonal line from lower left to upper right, leaving a good amount of negative space to frame her head. The contrast in color between the light flowers and her dark clothing really helps the flowers and also her hand pop. Not to mention how the flowers form this golden spiral sort of shape that leads the eye to her hand and up to her face. Also the use of color-forest green, dark blue, and her skin tone form a triadic harmony on the color wheel. They either got really lucky with this shot, or they really are going the extra mile to practice what Patrick is preaching here. Cinematic indeed. Hats off.
Patrick: So you don't have to point it out in the comments
Me, watching on Nebula: Heh, lucky for you Nebula doesn't HAVE comments!
**scrolls down to type this into the Nebula comment section**
...oh.
Yes, I DID come to the RUclips version just to say that.
Thankyou! I laughed.
This is actually a great tutorial! This is like 2 years of film school philosophy in however minutes it is! Showed it to my teacher and he literally said if you do that everything else will be icing!
16:36 Now THAT shot is most definitely "cinematic"
I was thinking the same thing. Of all the shots at the end of the video, that looked the most cinematic to me. I think it’s a combination of the Ra k focus and the lighting, but I can’t figure out why past that.
Kannan Chandra also the color correction
As a film hobbyist at best, I still found the essay thoroughly informative and engaging.
I love that you cite actual cinema literature to illustrate your points. More movie RUclips essays should do this
You've outdone yourself. Brilliant video and really good attempt at a well reasoned definition for what is 'cinematic'. I think when you desribed your own reasoning to make your finale more cinematic you summed it up the best: its about preparing with great care, to make deliberate and selective choices, to do so with the eventual presentation and exhibition in mind, and try to master all the key ingredients and technical aspects of moving image making. and in that sense even TV or other things like youtube videos can be cinematic if planned, executed and presented in that manner.
One thing not mentioned is music. Most RUclips video's / small film type projects will have custom music and professional mixing. Perhaps this makes a large difference, especially in things like scene transitionsb and in the background of scenes.
It's easy to stick in a rolling stones song to a scene, but what about when it ends, diagetic audio during, and little inflections in the music reflecting the action.
Hot Fuzz and Oceans 11 come to mind as films that have a lot of light bits of music that help the flow of the scenes.
Also things like acting costumes and set design play a large roll it's just difficult to tell because if they're good it's hard to notice. For instance see the costumes in Justice League, they stand out as being pretty terrible at least in the context of the set design and cinematography, in parts the movie looks more like a TV show. Keep detracting other aspects from that movie and maybe it would look un-cinematic?
@@edentyler-moss1157 yea absolutely where most of the youtuber attempts at what is cinematic fail is their overt focus on visuals and all too often forgetting about audio, music and sound effects/mastering altogether. I would certainly include that in my summary above under 'mastering the key ingredients and technical aspects of moving image making' and doing so with great care and making deliberate choices.
The way john c Kelly describes 'cinematic' is how I feel now most people use any trendy word now. Everyone's on a different page
I'd ask you to give an example but... I really wouldn't wish that can of worms on anyone.
@@sycastells1212 yeah i get what you mean.. But look around on social media how people use some words. Meanings have become subjective and how one defines it. Everybody's a goddamn poet now
The histort of the question of "What is art?" is essentially the same
I don't know, but once you tell me I'll sure spread the definition around like I did
Now this is cinnamon verde.
The line about true cinema being best served by a theatrical viewing really resonates with me now. Over the few years, my local indie started playing old movies and I've been struck by how Lost in Translation, Pulp Fiction and Rashomon benefit from that just as much as Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park and Blade Runner.
By Charl, I think you've got it. The little teaser of your finale looks great.
As for cinematic... yeah, that sounds right. There's the visual esthetic: the shallow depth of field, smooth professional looking camera movements, and sweet sweet color grading in a cinematic experience. But there's also the artistic part too, where each shot has deliberate purpose. I love your Steven Soderbergh example because I haven't seen any of the Ocean's movies and this is a good excuse to watch them. Got to check out how he uses the camera intentionally. Thanks for the new video, Patrick (H) Willems!
I don't know much, but I'm a little surprised Stanley Kubrick wasn't mentioned when you talked about making deliberate choices with each shot. He was obsessive to the point of abuse, but he was definitely a director who knew why every choice in his film was made
As someone who learned photography and video entirely through youtube, this idea has been buzzing around in my head for years. You're bang on that the RUclips filmmaker space is just obsessed with aesthetic, specifically aesthetic that separates them from the 'normies'. With how powerful phone cameras are now, it's no surprise that the elements RUclips filmmakers have latched onto are depth of field, gimbals, aerial shots and colour grading, all elements that distance themselves from someone with an iPhone 13 Pro.
'Cinematic' is ultimately impossible to define neatly, but I have come to think as you do, that deliberateness is at the core of the concept. A feeling that thought and care has gone into every element of what we are seeing.
I enjoyed this. I've always thought of the cinematic as simply being larger than life. I love your definition, but there are moments in life that are cinematic; the word refers to real-world experiences as well as film experiences.
This was an awesome discussion. I'm so stoked for the finale!
To me... cinematic is like being romantic.
You are chasing that feeling you felt when an incredible film spoke to you, showed you things you never expected to inspire you, and touch your soul in a way that stayed with you out of theater.
It’s like falling in love and you are aspiring to find that feeling again.. finding someone to share that experience with.. express a language you aren’t perfectly fluid in but try relentlessly to speak to others who can’t see what you see. And even though you won’t perfectly copy the traits that fit your favorite film of all time, you give your own attempts your own personal spin with the hopes that someone will fall in love with what you’ve made. And oddly enough, that pursuit in on itself.. is cinematic.
This all has me thinking why I enjoy Wes Anderson’s filmmaking choices. He doesn’t do many dynamic tricks like diagonal shots or something. His camera moves left, right, up, or down. It makes me think he could do stage very well. But then he also has these great close ups of characters and overhead shots of props. I don’t know whether to call it cinematic or not, but when you see it you know it’s Wes.
This is such a genius, generous question and process to talk us through. Thanks!
Charl is on that desk looking directly at you and I couldn't pay attention to anything else for the entire video
4:55 So no one's gonna point out that that's Anthony Kennedy? I know him when I see him.
"cinematic is when you put black bars on the screen" - video games or something
Really like this. More like this please! Reminded me a bit of the Gary Winnograd quote: "I photograph to see what the world looks like photographed." Meaning photographs aren't real - they have a quality / language / etc unique to them that is interesting to explore. Similarly Ansel Adams' photos of Yosemite are not realistic - their power comes from taking what the camera and the print can uniquely reveal. I think your definition of cinematic is enough - that which can only be done in cinema. (Now go and define cinema. We have all day...)
I know this is an old video, but just a note on the job posting at the beginning; if it was for a video game company, a “cinematic” is another word for cutscenes. So it was a director of cutscenes, and they were looking for people with cutscene experience. So not the best example to use for the intro.
Doesn’t negate the rest of the video, obviously, but I just thought I would point that out.
Yeah, it's wild that there aren't more comments pointing this out. Willems kind of goofed there.
So happy you really get to flex your cineamtic muscles on the season finale. You and the team have worked so long and so hard at this. You deserve to go big. Sidenote: Nothing frustrates me more in movies than too many close ups. I never understood why directors kept making than mistake, but now I realise it is often from being too used to working for TV.
I think Cinematic = Emotional.
I believe Cinematic is the quality of convey emotion into the narrative. Something that touch you or move you in an Emotional level.
I think Emotion is the Key to Cinematic Aesthetic.
I think a lot of these guys obviously understand that professional quality photography is an element of what makes something "cinematic" but I also think the factor most don't talk about is intention. What makes something cinematic is when the images on the screen, the composition, the movement, the editing, have artistic intention. I always kind of scoff at a lot of the "look at my one take fight scene on a gimbal where I just kind of move the camera everywhere constantly like a dance video instead of creating any kind of story" videos because they feel like dangling shiny keys in front of your eyes. Cinematic isn't just technical it's artistic as well.
Possibly this dovetails with the Malick video from a couple of years back. I recently saw The Thin Red Line and it's probably the most beautiful film I've ever seen... but that beauty isn't just there for its own sake and feeds into the emotions of the film in incredibly powerful ways.
okay fine i'll get nebula.
commenting before the video to see how well my take lines up. i can define what makes something "cinematic", but when it comes together, it's something that feels like it should be watched on a movie screen. like it's at home there, and not just "bigger". this is partially visible, partially thematic.
"something that fits in the medium of theatrical film, better than it would fit in a different medium"
I think the Keeling quote is really true. I've had moments reading books recently where I think about how cinematic the description or action is. How can a book be cinematic? I'm honestly not sure, but some authors make it happen!
Well if cinematic is "use something other than the dialogue to convey the story", then if a book makes you feel something without dialogue or telling you what to feel, there you go.
I wish that HFR had more opportunities to be seen in the theater with films that people would consider *good* regardless of the frame rate. People are iffy about the Hobbit trilogy, Gemini Man didn’t win many people over, and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is a film I’ve never heard anyone say the title of out loud. So it’s pretty much just Peter Jackson and Ang Lee so far.
I got to see the first Hobbit film in the theater, and after getting used to the 60fps, I really enjoyed it. I also caught Gemini Man (twice) in HFR in the theater - only at 60fps (and once in 60fps and 3D which was awesome, even if the movie wasn’t that great). I own BLLHW on a 4K60fps BluRay, but it was filmed in 120fps and I would have liked to have seen that. Ang Lee did that as well as Gemini Man and I think that he has the right idea with not needing to show the entire film in HFR, but rather by doing a more conventional frame rate in some sequences and HFR in others.
The turret gun scene in Gemini Man is a great example of how amazing it looks when you film at a high frame rate and then also in slow motion, and can take your time with every frame on the screen. But conversations don’t need all of that. I know a lot of people will find it blasphemous, but I use my LG OLED’s TruMotion set to “Smooth” while watching TV and films quite often now. I think partially because I’m a gamer and have become accustomed to 60fps, but also there are some sequences like the long camera pan in Doctor Sleep (that goes from the chalkboard to the bathroom door and back to the chalkboard over probably a full minute) and that camera judder just makes me so uncomfortable.
I’m hoping that James Cameron pulls off the unexpected, and gives us all a reason to give a shit about another three or four Avatar movies. I’ve heard that they might be in HFR (and I assume 3D) and maybe theaters will plan on upgrading their protectors in order to properly display whatever format he ends up with, similar to how many did with the first Avatar, or with sound systems when Jurassic Park came out. HFR does make it harder to film a good fight sequence as you can’t hide the fact that you’re not punching someone as easily, but it really does have a fantastic and smooth quality to it that I find to be quite cinematic. And I hope that HFR gets a film worth seeing in the theater that will cause audiences to give it a real chance and see if they aren’t more excited about it.
My favorite part of this is recalling all the discussions about how to make tabletop roleplaying games feel cinematic.
I agree with you on the shift from aesthetic to visual literracy, but I think there is two kind of "cinematic piece of art". The first one focus on choosing for each story beat / feeling the right artistic combinaison (light, focal lenght, camera movement, composition, focus, editing etc.). The second kind of "cinematic piece of art" try to choose ONE decisive element to apply to the whole, in order to make its meaning more relevant. Si if each cinematic movie ask "what do my choices mean ?" they are not answering the same way. On my channel I try by short movies and video essays the second way of the cinematic language.
As The Grand Archpriest of The Church of the Algorithm, I bless this video with a comment.
All hail the Algorithm. May it's glory and mercy fall upon this video.
amen, and also with you.
cringe
As Grand Cardinal of the Orthodox Church of the Algorithm, I consider you and your church damnable heresies.
BLASPHEMOUS!!!!!
I think you've pretty much nailed it Patrick, but one thing you didn't mention that I feel is important about the "cinematic" thing is the whole idea of "directed focus".
Most of the "RUclips cinematic" techniques you mention "pull" the audience's attention to some part of the frame, as well as some of the others you mentioned (eg back lighting, which also draws attention to a particular character). The anamorphic ratio is more of a general focus pulling tool (eyes scan left and right more easily than up and down), while drones are the exception that prove the rule, asking us to focus on and understand a shot's setting (or less commonly, juxtaposing a single element against that setting - typically to demonstrate how it is out of place). Things like strong character movement and head turns serve the same purpose of getting us to look in the right spot.
Documentaries, on the other hand, are often shot to avoid manipulating the viewer's focus in a single way. They encourage experiential viewing rather than directed viewing, with our eyes roving across the frame freely.
I feel this is why Hitchcock was lukewarm on Rope, because he struggled to control audience focus through the extended shots. The "Spielberg Oner", on the other hand, shows that it can be done effectively with multiple framing devices used through the shots.
Here’s a bit of trivia from the filming of Jurassic World that is relevant and quite revealing is why it’s filmed in the 2:1 aspect ratio. During pre-production there was a bit of back-and-forth about what aspect ratio it should be shot in. Spielberg argued for staying with 1.85.1 because the increased height allows for a better perspective of the dinosaurs, while Colin Trevorrow and his cinematographer wanted to go wider because, allegedly, he was worried 1.85.1 would look too much like a TV show.
I started shooting video in 1991. I worked on more documentary / news reporting style projects as well as weddings. Working alone, I sometimes found myself right next to "Professional" crews when covering an International Boxing Hall of Fame weekend. I coveted the more expensive equipment used by the pros, but I also received 'at-a-boys' from those crews when they saw me in the right spot, to get the right shot during a live, unstoppable event. They asked to see the footage and agreed that I had captured something great. Fast forward to 2010 when I purchased a DSLR for video. This would be the first time I owned a proper stills camera. What dawned on me then was that I had been designing my video shots all along as interesting still shots. What I think most teaching RUclipsrs are showing is "Composition". The saying goes, "A picture is worth a 1000 words." Many people will just document a moment in time instead of telling the story with the frame. Everything in the frame from lighting, to people, to blur is all the same things we find esthetically pleasing in a still shot. In my opinion, "Cinematic = Moving Pictures."
That was great Patrick. I think your definition is pretty spot-on. As someone who did film studies in the 1980s with -- hold on, wait for it -- Super 8 mm Film (moment of silence for the demise of Kodachrome), we, of course, had to shoot our stuff all MOS. So for me, “Cinematic” means telling a story just by the pictures seen on screen - which would also include framing, depth-of-field, contrast and composition - but essentially telling a story with images and NOT dialogue and/or exposition. Masters of this are our two favourites - Hitchcock and Kubrick.
I could be wrong but that’s my take on it.
Not related to the video but I was wondering if you could make a video with all the story segments from the previous videos ? I skipped some of them and I'd like to get caught up before the end
Well duh, Cinematic always meant to me that artistry was involved and choices were made. Each scene and each frame had to be an art piece in and of itself. Not just the visual, but the blocking, the sound, the score, the movement of camera, the zoom in or out, what to focus on, what to show or not show, where to cut the film, when to leave it play out. Most YT vids are static 1 camera angle, most sitcoms are 3 camera angles, and most tv shows are lots of closeup angles. Theres no art or beauty in it. Its efficient. It needs to be bold.
Succinct and clear answer. Thanks!
I applied for a full-time job at Warner Bros. and it was the most humiliating experience of my life. They made me take a Windows 10 test to be a *script reader* in the hope that I would fail and reportedly passed my results around for a laugh. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the job posting for a "cinematic director" was some kind of prank and/or scam.
Funny how you made a video essay/trailer for the finale. Congrats.
Patrick has added in little bits of a story into his videos, spoon feeding us little bits of something many of us didnt know we wanted, like hiding
Driving our engagement
So he could finally make that film
"And next time we'll go further"
Always excited to see what you make next Patrick ☺️
Cinematic is an expectation which is delivered upon.
Hearing “cinematic” so many times is giving me vibes of that “99 Beef, 1 chicken RSVP” commercial from the ‘90s.
Great video here. Speaking as a photographer, the term cinematic is used quite regularly as a descriptor of photos, on social media at least. In this context I think it is generally referring to the mood created. This will often be down to one of the many aspects you talk about in this video, a certain frame or lighting etc. But mostly I think it is used as shorthand for the overall experience and could be as simple as the feeling that the image suggests a broader story being told beyond just the frame being presented, with a focus on narrative story telling. Interestingly, I've noticed that although the use of things like zoom lenses or shallow depth of fields will often elicit the term, it doesn't require that sort of visual similarity. Plenty of square images also get the moniker, which brings me back to thinking for the most part it is about the overall mood of an image. Whilst this is obviously different than in the context from the video which is more exclusively about moving images, I think it is probably useful to consider the way the term is used in stills photography when considering what people mean by the term in other mediums as well. Anyhow, thanks for the thoughtful video as always.
Simple and entertaining!
Well done Mate!
I think these "cinematic" tutorial videos go into the same direction of others where they tell people starting out to "buy a Red camera" and all that. They think the tools make it better - while people made really good and celebrated movies without much of anything.
Also I hope the season finale will teach us the importance of Family.
11:25 made me cheer and clap my hands. Perfect timing. I've actually been listening to it multiple times over the past few weeks, I hadn't listened to it in a while and I've rediscovered how amazing it is. No, btw, not going through a break up. It's just a REALLY AWESOME song!
Coldplay truly are our "our greatest modern poets".
Patrick: "Nebula was nominated for a Streamy Award, so you know it's good!"
Me: "Yeah!" * surreptitiously googles what a Streamy Award is *
Better turn SafeSearch ON, just in case you make a typo.
when game studio want "cinematic" person it basically means a film-maker that knows 3D software and game engines more than adobe premiere.
9:51 Jean Baudrillard has entered the chat
Well this took me straight back 10 years to my uni film studies 😂👍🏻
I think about stuff like this all the time. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, I love these type of videos! Keep up the great work man.
Patrick, this an excellent exploration of an idea, that when I honestly thought about it (watching your video outdoors, on my iPhone), is not so easy to define. I’d taken the word for granted.
So once I got back to my desk, and to a larger screen, I raced to the dictionary to see if what it said would be helpful…
“Cinematic
|phoneticatious gobbledygook|
ADJECTIVE.
Relating to the cinema.
•having qualities characteristic of films.”
Okay, that helps.
The one characteristic of a cinematic experience no one is talking about enough (or not at all with some folk) *is not on the screen* and it’s not coming from the sound system.
A truly cinematic film *must include an audience in a communal experience *, else what are those hundreds of seats for?
Let’s put aside aspect ratio, and frame rates and film grain and depth of field. Let’s put the Steadicam back on its stand.
They’re all valid narrative tools, but *please remember the cinematic experience and energy of 600 people enraptured in a moving story*
It is our job to make the audience forget the filmmaking tools, render them invisible so they can feel like they’re *in the story*
*Cinematic is who we’re making this for*
17:17 Yes!! This is inspirational stuff to hear. I think it was during a McQuarrie Mission: Impossible commentary, that I realized how every single shot is just as important as every other shot, because -- money shot or second-unit insert -- it all ends up on screen together. I'm rusty with the technicals of cinematography but I'm pretty good at grasping what an image's conveyed meaning can be, and that's a skill I hope I can be mindful of employing in my own works.
Yeah a big thing is having wider shots, not only to show the world (ie not just an actor, an action, or a thing) but so when you use the tighter shots they have more weight to it. That's harder than one would think, because during the shoot everything is watched on tiny screens so you just have to fight that urge to get too close.... weirdly enough the opposite of what a lot of people have problem with when it comes to still photography... but I digress.
And filling such a wide shot is expensive, you need people in frame, it has to be lit properly, so you have to figuratively paint the frame(shout out every frame is a painting) and it all has to work together to tell the story of the movie. It is a conscious decision on every level. That's what makes something feel cinematic to me.
PATRICK HAS UPLOADED !!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL
I think you nailed it. Something that is cinematic is a work that uses film language and techniques to tell a story. All these RUclips sites that attempt to teach how to be "cinematic" are merely teaching the fundamentals of film language. But it takes an artist to use these to tell the story visually. Like, why is there a drone shot showing a lone car on a highway? Why do we zoom into an actor's reaction? Why is the camera moving in a dolly shot? Why use shaky camera and video verite? A director I can think of that knows the words and makes pretty shots that have no cohesive meaning is Michael Bay. He knows the words but he doesn't put them together to make the work have any meaning.
Your definition is basically the one I got in film school. Wonderfully said!
I like your definition. It’s the reason movies like The Room or Danzig’s Verotika, despite both being shot with pricey cameras, still look like cheap garbage.
I didn't call maintenance
Hey great video as always Patrick. Just wanted to add some info on widescreen that people might find interesting. On a typical film camera the 35mm film film stock would move vertically through the image gate (sensor in digital parlance) and with a spherical lens attached it produced the 4:3 academy ratio of early cinema. When widescreen ratio’s we’re Introduced not all of them actually gave the image any more width. The 1.661 - 1.85.1 ratio’s effectively just had the top and bottom cropped (slightly more complicated, the number of perforation used on the stock played a part) which is the same as adding black bars. The 1.85.1 Vista Vision did have a wider image as the film passed horizontally passed the image gate. The wider aspect ratios like 2.35.1 and beyond were largely archived using anamorphic lenses on vertical fed cameras. I believe even on today’s digital super 35mm cameras the 16:9 ratio doesn’t actually translate to a wider image than say a traditional camera with the same lens.
This is one of your best videos Patrick! Nice work
Cinematic has a different connotation in game development. Often, the term “cinematic” is synonymous with “cut-scene”-you know…the fully-rendered narrative bits everyone skips.
Yeah, this. Game Dev does this a lot, where we'll take a term that other people use, and just use it in a completely alien way. Some cinematics are cinematic - but not all off them.
Yah just had to say this example is , I guess an exception that proves the rule? Cinematics in video games specifically refer to the in game cut scenes, so being a cinematic director is someone who directs those sequences. Sure they are designs to look and feel like scenes from a film to act as an interlude to the main gameplay often attempting to be presented in a manner similar to a film and therefore attempting a "cinematic" look, I guess. But it's really a different thing al together.
That's "cinematic" as a noun and not an adjective, so it's kind of a different word. Short for "cinematic scene" to indicate that it isn't gameplay. And it used to be that proper cinematics were pre-rendered outside of the game engine, so they looked noticeably better and could use more conventional elements of cinematography, but I think that may no longer be necessary, since that line isn't as clearly defined.
I did actually have a "this feels more cinematic" moment when I got into Horizon: Zero Dawn's "Frozen Wilds" expansion. Not so much in a graphical sense, though - the shots in general felt more expressive to me.
Speak for yourself I love narrative video games
Smashing video as always
Thanks for providing a better working definition of "cinematic".
I remember years ago trying to explain my dislike for the aforementioned 60fps Hobbit films. I was trying to explain it in terms of "film language", but the discussion got bogged down because the other person misunderstood that as me being a "purist" for actual *film*. It was hard to convey that my objection wasn't to the medium, but rather that it seemed to be deployed differently for no apparent reason. Kinda hoping some day some film maker deploys the tech for artistic effect... I'd be curious to see it.
Watched this on Nebula last night, but came here to make sure you got the views here as well. Really enjoyed this and can't wait for the Charle finale!
Really loving the use of the Mice & Murder theme at the beginning :P
(An excellent essay as always, my guy!)
“Really just imitating Peter McKinnon videos”. Sir, you have won my heart
This is a relatively small detail but in the games industry, "cinematic" generally refers to cutscenes as opposed to gameplay, which is why Monolith was looking for a "cinematic director"
I’m so genuinely happy that this video came out but was actually sad that it was “only” 20ish minutes long haha. I realized just how invested I am that I’m going to subscribe to Curiosity stream to see the finale. Keep it up Patrick!
Fascinating and true- I had a cinematic moment this morning standing in a meadow by a horse… and I am super excited for your finale finally
this was such a wonderful and well-thought-out answer to the question. I'm not surprised, just impressed as usual!
I could watch you for a lifetime.
You're my favorite movie.
A thousand endings.
You mean everything to me.
I never know what's coming.
Forever fascinating.
Hope you don't stop running.
For me, cause I'll always be waiting.
You are...my cinema!!
Totally The definition of cinematic is like the definition of Film Noir, it is more than just a collection of signifiers that carry some cultural meaning, it's not really a style nor an aesthetic, it's a feeling an attitude .
The footage looks great! So excited for you!
Love what you do Patrick. Glad to see you making things that you want to make.
Cinematics in games are just cut scenes, where the main bulk of the story is told.
It goes from third person or any other perspective(fps/assimetrical/2d) in which the game is played, to a free câmera where there is no gameplay.
There is only storytelling, they even change the aspect ratio and sometimes have the scenes be pre-rendered instead of real time, so they can really hammer home that movie feel, aka CINEMATIC.
This is cinema
Also, this shot at 20:17. This is some god damn unfiltered cinema.
A non storyline Patrick Willems vid , IMPOSSIBLE!!!
*Waves* HI RYAN!!!!
I think your definition of Cinematic is the same as mine. Jasper Fforde is a SFF writer and oftentimes, he'll make certain jokes that can only make sense in book form. For me, that's the fun of certain media, seeing how it uses everything to stick out from other forms.
I still think about his "screech of tyre" joke from The Fourth Bear (and chuckle) quite often.
Marvel's cinematography is cinematic.
GOTG vol.2 chef's kiss.
I 100% love this video because I hate the term "cinematic"so fucking much thank you. The things people say are inherently "cinematic" are just basic filmic storytelling tools, and none of them are inherently "cinematic" divorced from the filmic meaning/emotion/pov those tools are trying to convey
The way I rationalize the term "cinematic" is by the idea of aligning the idea of an illusion of story, with the illusion of imagery. If you can align your images that validate the idea you're telling a story (with professionalism) then you've achieved something *Cinematic*
Long time, no see, Dr. Willems. Glad to have you back 👍
4:11 I interpret “cinematic” as visually appealing, making use of visual elements in the story… thoughtful style in camera techniques.
I think of it in terms of Christopher Nolan movies. His worst work tends to convey plot information in a very non-cinematic way. It's just people standing or walking around talking. There's nothing in the atmosphere or feeling of the scene that helps lock the audience into the moment, and therefore those scenes feel like work to watch.
But his best work actually conveys information cinematically. Dunkirk is a great example of a movie where he lets the sights and sounds do the storytelling, and because of that there's very little dialogue. Now, of course, being cinematic is not about having less dialogue. Tarantino movies are cinematic as hell and they're often little BUT dialogue. But I think the key is the intentionality that the audience can feel behind everything. Is there a sense of vision to it--what ever it might be? Does it feel like you're watching something that was meticulously crafted? Or does it feel like you're just watching people talk.
Cinematic as a term for video games, like the cinematic director at Monolith Studios, is a synonym for cutscene. Just a part of the story where the player does not control the character. The skills they are looking for are technical as well as artistic.
Would love your take on Hollywood remaking international releases and butchering them (ex. Old Boy and now planning to with Druk).