Thread by @hradzka

I always complain that movie & TV sets these days are too aspirational lifestyle

e.g. RED DRAGON (2002) vs. MANHUNTER (1986) — Ed Norton & William Petersen as same dude w/ same job in same story; compare their houses (MH left, RD right) — but I rewatched & it's more than that

RED DRAGON doesn’t just have sets that are bigger or fancier or more expensive: even its spaces with few people are deeper

for example, this police briefing scene, with shots of the speakers and of the crowd (MANHUNTER left, RED DRAGON right)

here is another: the bad guy’s living room (MANHUNTER left, RED DRAGON right)

and another: these next two are literally the same character looking at the same crime scene in flipped versions of the same shot… (here's MANHUNTER)

...but RED DRAGON’s set is bigger, and feels even bigger because it shoots into the corner while MANHUNTER shoots into the far wall. (Note the fancier furniture and curtains.)

MANHUNTER uses deeper shots on occasion, usually for uncomfortable effect, to highlight the isolation of a subject

for example: William Petersen recreating a serial killer’s entrance to a murder scene

or laying a trap by placing false information with a tabloid reporter, which will shortly get the reporter killed

The blocking here is literally killer: note how the men in the room form an X, with the lines crossing at the doomed reporter

Here’s the same scene in RED DRAGON — atypically, played shallower… but the result is it’s much busier; the focal point is Edward Norton, mostly because he’s the only one standing

which brings up a point: it’s not just the sets, but how they’re filmed

Every shot in MANHUNTER is considered for its emotional effect

Every shot in RED DRAGON is considered for its coverage

For example: the scene where Will Graham is recruited by his boss Jack Crawford to catch a killer

here are William Petersen and Dennis Farina in MANHUNTER

notice that you do not need one bit of dialogue to understand the closeness and the tension of that relationship

or the love for family that motivates them

here are Ed Norton and Harvey Keitel in RED DRAGON

for all you can tell about their relationship, these dudes might as well be talking about barbecue

take special note how the Jacks Crawford hand over the pictures

Dennis Farina, MANHUNTER:

Harvey Keitel, RED DRAGON:

Farina’s Crawford uses his left hand. With his wedding ring.

You see Keitel's ring, too.

But he uses his right.

One of the most memorable scenes is when the bad guy takes his love interest, who is blind, to the zoo so that she can touch a sedated-for-dental-work tiger.

RED DRAGON’s blue grading loses the intensity of the tiger. Its cluttered set and scattered people divide attention.

MANHUNTER: boom.

Another example: the scene where watching the victims’ home movies leads to Will Graham figuring out how the killer is operating, where to find him. In MANHUNTER, all the information is on one diagonal line. You can’t see the screen, so it’s not distracting. You see the men.

In RED DRAGON… hell if I know where you’re supposed to be looking.

Another interesting thing MANHUNTER does is repeatedly playing with and combining two visual motifs: whitespace and straight lines (vertical and horizontal).

one really fun use of whitespace & lines: when Petersen’s Will Graham, in an office with Dennis Farina’s Jack Crawford, gets the crucial insight that solves the case

Will’s puzzled: filming left, to the wall of file drawers. Whitespace broken by vertical and horizontal lines.

Will’s solved it: film right, out the window. Only vertical lines, large, evenly spaced: the windows, the building outside. Clean. Smooth. Reassuring.

(Even a lightbulb over Will’s head -- or, if you like, a halo of enlightenment -- courtesy of the building in the distance.)

It’s fair to say sets & props are pricier in RED DRAGON than MANHUNTER. Just compare Will’s boats (circled at left).

But the biggest difference between MANHUNTER and RED DRAGON’s sets isn’t just their size. It’s the intent with which they’re shot.

/fin

addendum: this is taking off so I had a couple of comments that I wanted to highlight

one is that, as @DrewMcWeeny notes, *both films had the same director of photography,* which is wild

other folks have noted that RED DRAGON is 22 years old as I type this, but it’s in the early part of a trend that started in the late 90s or early 2000s and persists to this day

which film’s approach to sets looks like movies today? RED DRAGON’s

it’s not just journeyman Rattner vs artistic Mann (though there is that), it’s the amount & level of stuff

in the shots where Crawford recruits Graham, RED DRAGON uses as set decoration a house, a dock, two chairs, a table, foliage, a boat

MANHUNTER uses one piece of driftwood

if you look at (say) THE FIRM (1993), which has Tom Cruise’s struggling law student go to The Good Life at a crooked firm, you will see both struggle and opulence reflected at a relatable, realistic level

by CHEF (2014), Hollywood has forgotten what a shitty apartment looks like

I haven’t figured out the dividing point for Hollywood’s approach to sets, but as a story that was made and remade close to either side of it, MANHUNTER and RED DRAGON offer a great chance to see it in action.

/addendum

addendum 2: I am gratified by the response, ESPECIALLY for everyone saying it's motivated them to watch or rewatch MANHUNTER

there are too many responses to reply to all but I want to address another one I've seen a few people make

some folks have said, tongue in cheek or not, that the difference we’re seeing can be explained by “Brett Ratner sucks”

IMHO it's falsely comforting to take "this guy sucks" as an explanation: WE don’t suck, do we, folks? so (if we're creative) WE don’t have to worry

it is less comforting but likewise unhelpful to say that somebody else succeeds because he is great

because we want to learn from success and “be great” is not an action item

if you asked me to sum up why Brett Ratner’s choices don’t work out as well as Michael Mann’s I would say this:

Brett Ratner is leaning too heavily on the environment to sell his story.

In the scene where Will Graham figures out the mystery, two things matter: Will Graham’s mind working, and Jack Crawford (reacting audience surrogate) watching him do it.

All that other shit is extraneous.

We don’t need to see what’s on the TV, on the desk, on the shelves, through the window on the door.

It's there make the movie feel bigger, more like an actual world, more realistic.

But that’s not what convinces the audience this is emotionally real.

Here’s Michael Mann for the same scene. Look how small that set is -- and how UNrealistic! Those filing cabinets are INSANE! They’re unlabeled! They take up a whole wall! How would you even access half of them?!

Doesn't matter.

You’re looking at Will & Jack. You believe THEM.

Rather than asking, “How do we make this look detailed and realistic?” Mann asks, “What matters in this scene?”

And then visually reinforces that, with *as little distraction from his focus as he can get away with.*

This is the wildest example: Dr. Chilton's office. Big-ass white wall. The edge of a desk. A bright lamp. Diplomas too far away to read. Half the visual interest on the wall is light reflection! *This is barely even a set!* It is INSANE that this works! But it does!

The audience is not convinced by your environment.

The audience is convinced by your story.

/fin addendum 2