Girls in pink and boys in blue - quite a lovely image

Note: The second entry in my “Observations on a Shot” series for TMP covered this shot from 2009′s UP.  You can read the full article by clicking here.

Up was one of my favorite pictures from 2009, so when the chance to write about the film presented itself, I naturally jumped at the opportunity.  I chose the above shot (or more accurately, if strictly sticking to proper film term use, the capture or re-rendering – more on that in a bit.) for a couple of particular reasons.  One, it was readily available on the net as a frame still; so no hardcore searching for a high quality resolution was needed.  There’s nothing more frustrating (other than trying to convince an adult that Justin Bieber is in fact a teenage boy and not a lesbian) than picking a shot from memory and not being able to find or create a good enough reproduction.

Secondly, I knew I wanted to choose a current film that was in color, so as to not limit my analyses to only black and white cinematography from the twentieth century. While I am of the vaguely general belief that black and white movies are more stunning to look at than color ones (I see color in real life; black and white only exists in the abstract.), the point of my column is to shed light on the often overlooked and painstaking craft of cinematic photography (cinematography - Ooh, you see what I did there?) in all varieties of film. (The saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” is true, perhaps even more so, when applied to movie stills.)

Moreover, picking a still from a CG animated movie would further distinguish this selection from my previous entry and subtly hint at my view on the debate over “real” cinematography versus AVATAR (see Jim Emerson’s scanners first post and, I think, his more accessible second post on the subject for a good starting point).  In all honesty, Up has no cinematography – the photographic process that involves capturing light through a lens – in the accurate definition of the word.  The argument stems from the misuse of the word cinematography by the Association of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and how that misuse over the years (decades, centuries) has led to a broader, more generalized (mis-)understanding of the term.  By giving Avatar eligibility approval (and the ultimate win) in the Best Cinematography category at this year’s Academy Awards, it is clear that AMPAS’ definition of cinematography needs to be more clearly defined.  Or, perhaps even better, eligibility rules need to be modified and new categories need to be introduced in order to make sense outta the mess.  All in all, whoever decides on the “official” definition of terms, needs to look into redefining cinematography (and, as a direct effect, photography) in light of new technology in the modern millennium.


Award winning cinematography - err, visual effects (or is it animation...?) from Avatar

Taking a cue from that issue, the very name of my column (“Observations on a Shot”) needs to be addressed.  A shot in film vernacular, according to Wikipedia, is a continuous strip of motion picture film, created of a series of frames, that runs for an uninterrupted period of time.  A frame is one of the many single photographic images in a motion picture.  So, “Observations on a Frame,” would be correct.  Right?  Not necessarily.

When it comes to animation, frames are referred to as cels.  Cels can then be photographed to produce a still. However, cels are not used in computer animation.  The act of “photographing” a single frame from a computer animation does not produce a cel, but rather a re-rendering of the original rendering from the 3D model.  And when the source material can’t be accessed, an image can be captured from a recording, resulting in – well, a capture.


A tradional hand-drawn cel from Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away

So, for this particular entry from Up, the accurate title would be “Observations on a Re-Rendering,” which doesn’t read or sound as good.  And taking into account all my past and future entries, I would have to call my column “Observations on Either a Shot, Frame, Still, Cel, Rendering, Re-Rendering, or Capture (just depends)” and that just won’t do.

So, for the sake of sanity and time consumption, I’m sticking to Shot.  It gives the series title a bit of a rhyming scheme and flow, plus it simplifies and broadens my material for future use.  And if you’re curious about the actual 1.5 seconds long shot itself, a low quality version can be seen below starting right after 58 seconds in.

…and that’s a wrap!