Nowadays media goes gaga over the cinematography , art direction of a particular movie in their review columns. The movie may as such be mediocre but art directors and cameramen get the credit to such an extent that we start to think if they operated independently from the course of the film.
The press betrays a complete lack of undertsanding abt the supposed roles and responsibilities of these technicians.
Too often i find reviews like “Ravi K Chandran’s cinematography is pleasing ” and invariably talk about a particular song sequence.
Hey will someone tell these press fiolks that the role of the camera man is to be a witness to the events that are part of the screenplay enacted before the camera? Add to that the tone of the film, the color balance, the theme of the film etc.
Its not that PC Sriram’s s cinematography was brilliant in agni natchathiram and very subdued in thevar magan. The tone of agni natchatiram is very much different from thevar magan.The tone is fixed based on the backdrop on which the story unfolds, the theme of the story, what it tries to convey etc…
Janusz Kaminsky’s work in Saving Private Ryan was nowhere near pleasing.yet it was nevertheless a pioneering work. Infact it should never have been pleasing – he’s after all shooting a war film. The color scheme of the film should reflect the tragedy, fatality of war.
Also i somehow feel we indians - the worlds biggest cinema consumers should try to understand the medium and grammar of cinema. Only then will we be saved from unscrupulous businessmen masquerading as directors and producers.