Posted by Vincent at bg-tc-ppp1512.monmouth.com on January 13, 2003 at 21:52:19:
In Reply to: Vincent--the cinematography of "Jersey Girl" posted by Brunetta--aka Badassfuckinetta on January 13, 2003 at 21:36:12:
As far as camera movement, it's not like Kevin suddenly became Scorsese. The film definitely looks better than any of his other films, but the look is subtle and subdued. The camera does move a lot more, but we're not talking Argento-esque camera acrobatics, we're talking slow crane shots and steadicam shots and pans, etc. There are also a lot of dissolves as opposed to straight cuts.
I guess the short answer is JERSEY GIRL looks really, really good but it doesn't call attention to itself. Kevin is still Kevin, and frankly I think an overly aggressive visual style would be out of place with his writing.
Vincent
: I know you saw it on an Avid and all but I was wondering what you thought of the look of "Jersey Girl"? In just terms of framing and camera movement is there really a huge difference compared to Kevin's other 2.35:1 films?