As a long-time admirer of Ridley Scott‘s work, it’s disheartening to hear such criticism from someone as respected as John Mathieson. Having grown up watching his masterpieces like Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator, I never imagined the director would be labeled as “lazy.
In the thrilling continuation of ‘Gladiator II’, conflicts aren’t limited to the Coliseum alone. A long-time collaborator of renowned filmmaker Ridley Scott, John Mathieson, has publicly called Scott a “lazy” director after their collaboration on the much-anticipated sequel. Known for his cinematography work on six of Scott’s movies, including this new legacy sequel, Mathieson’s comments may surprise many who view Scott as one of cinema’s great active directors. However, from Mathieson’s perspective, Scott has allegedly become a challenging figure to work with. In an interview for the DocFix podcast, Mathieson criticized Scott’s approach to filmmaking and claimed that the director has now adopted a “lazy” editing style that can be every editor’s worst nightmare.
As a film enthusiast, I find it incredibly sloppy when CGI is carelessly used for tidying up scenes, leaving equipment like cameras and microphones visible, not to mention props like pieces of set or shadows from boom poles. It’s as if the filmmakers are saying, “We don’t really care about the details.
Mathieson stated that Ridley Scott’s approach to fixing errors during the filming of Gladiator II was straightforward – “Well, fix it later.” Directors like Scott employ a method known as coverage, which involves setting up numerous cameras from various angles and letting the actors perform the entire scene. While this technique benefits the actors, it restricts the options available for cinematographers significantly. As Mathieson explained, “He’s quite impatient, so he likes to capture as much as possible at once.” This method, however, isn’t beneficial for cinematography since lighting can only be adjusted from a single angle. In contrast, Scott’s earlier films were noted for his careful attention to detail in terms of lighting and angles, which Gladiator II reportedly lacked compared to those productions.
In his earlier works, creating depth through lighting was an essential aspect. Many modern cameras may not allow for this level of manipulation, yet he strives to achieve comprehensive results in his work.
Ridley Scott “Rushed” ‘Gladiator II’, According to John Mathieson
John Mathieson, the cinematographer, expressed that having numerous cameras didn’t necessarily improve the films, as they seemed too hurried and frantic. In other words, there was a sense of haste during Ridley Scott’s filmmaking process, compared to his earlier focus on creating visually stunning pieces like a chef preparing a delightful meal in their kitchen. Despite John Mathieson’s critiques, Gladiator II was still a triumph, earning praise from both critics and audiences, and raking in impressive box office numbers. However, Mathieson feels that Scott may not prioritize quality cinematography as he once did.
Instead, “Why don’t you head to the supermarket, grab a large shopping cart, load up everything onto the shelves as you go along, and we can organize it later when we get home.
Although John Mathieson may not appreciate Ridley Scott’s directing approach, the public remains enamored with his movies. Despite a few missteps like the film “Napoleon”, Scott’s reputation as a director is hard to damage by a handful of less-than-stellar (or poorly executed) productions. In essence, Mathieson commented, “He chooses to direct in a way that I don’t care for and many others might not either, but people adore his films, he’s Ridley Scott, and he has the freedom to make choices as he sees fit.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-11-28 16:31