Ridley Scott's BODY OF LIES: Comment and Technical Question for Cinematographers

[Mike 03]

Over the past two days I've watched BODY OF LIES twice. It is about CIA operations in the Middle East and how close we have come to, and most likely surpassed, becomming the thing we hate. Without claiming it is a great film, I have to say it is a smart, observant and perceptive action thriller.

One thing about the artistic reaction to the Iraq War, at least in the film community: Understandably, it took quite a few years for there to be a concerted, angry cinematic reaction to the Viet Nam War, but when it came, it came very firmly: COMING HOME, DEER HUNTER, APOCALYPSE NOW, right up through CASUALTIES OF WAR and FULL METAL JACKET and beyond.

But the response to the Iraq war has been even faster and it does hearten me. You can't get much more blunt than De Palma's REDACTED or less direct but equally pointed films like SYRIANA (which was almost ahead of its time) and BODY OF LIES. (GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK is even worth mentioning; it's not about the war but it's definitely about the witch hunt against patriots who doubted our so-called "mission.)

Now the technical question for any cinematographers or film-savvy DUers who happen to read this post:

Ridley Scott, lately, has been using some sort of effect during some of his action sequences--particularly in BODY OF LIES and AMERICAN GANGSTER--and I'm trying to figure out what he (or his DOP) is doing.

Maybe somebody here knows what I'm talking about; it's sort of a strobing effect where the crispness of the image sharpens and intensifies but it seems like every other frame is missing or something. The action is accented, visually, and sped up. It's very strange. I wish I could describe it better. But when it happens, the viewer knows something has changed.

I've seen this sort of technique in films before, including some of Hitchcock's works (REAR WINDOW), but it has not been as disconcerting as it is in Scott's work.

I'm curious if anyone else has noticed this and what, if any, term or name this technique has.

Does anyone know how it is achieved? It must be a processed effect as opposed to "in camera," although it appears to have been used back in the 50s. Anyway, I'd be interested to know if anyone recognizes it and how it is accomplished.

He uses it in GLADIATOR as well, if I recall, during the scenes involving the tiger. He probably used in in BLACKHAWK DOWN, but I can't pinpoint some specific scene. Paul Thomas Anderson may also have used it too in particular sequences in THERE WILL BE BLOOD (the discovery of oil and subsequent explosion).

ON EDIT: The technical question is actually x-posted from the Lounge. Nobody seemed to know.

[Astrad]

1. I think what you're talking about are post-production effects.

Time manipulations are almost exclusively done in post. It gives way more flexibility. Anything you do in camera, you're stuck with. Scott also uses 'bleach bypass' effects in his films lately (as do many filmmakers.) The opening of Gladiator for example. It desaturates the colour and gives it an 'otherworldly' feel. In terms of in camera techniques he does employ split focus lenses from time to time. These became hugely popular in advertising and music videos and have now migrated to feature films. Split focus lenses, as their name suggests, have different focal lengths for different regions of the lens allowing for one area to be sharp and another to be completely out of focus even though the subjects are at the same distance from the camera.

[CJCRANE]

2. I don't know exactly what it is

but I've always thought of that effect as a "sports lens", used for filming very fast moving events...maybe the focus is sharper and the frames per second is more than the usual 24...?

:shrug: