What is good cinematography?

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

Most of the people here seem to have good grip on the technical issues concerning cinematography but what about the aesthetics of lighting? Is good cinematography hitting the exposure, having a dense nagative, rich blacks or is there something that's more essential?

 

Over the years filmmakers have identified themselves with certain ways of lihting, composition and movement to create certain moods. These approaches created conventions and caused stereotypes and repetitions. i.e. horror films should be dark or extremely low key to be technical (generally speaking). But some films have challenged this. I know it is a cliche example but I'll give it anyway because it perfectly fits the topic; The hot, white windows as backlight in The Shining. In my oppinion what makes such cinematography good is the way it supports the story and not draw attention to itself and yet it's not that simple to get one's head around it. The way those high, burning windows is a comment on "darkness" it self. Abundance of light is just like darkness. It feels like sitting in an interrogation room and all the lights are shot in your iris. And you're being interrogated by Nicholson's character. It's ironical cinematography all over just like the story is ironical; my notion of good cinematography... I'm really curious about what you guys think on this?

 

Ali

[David Mullen ASC]

There are good reasons for visual cliches in that they work -- a very dark, shadowy room is generally more frightening than a high-key white room. That doesn't mean you can't make a scene in a white room frightening but in a sense, you are working with a visual counterpoint.

 

Hitchcock generally believed in going against type and setting murders in beautiful settings on a sunny day. Yet his most frightening movie is probably "Pyscho", the one film where he used the cliche of a the creepy gothic house on the hill. All his other films around that time are sunny and colorful.

 

I don't believe in doing something in the opposite way of tradition just for the sake of being different. You risk simply confusing the audience or not generating the emotional effect you want by trying to be too clever. Ultimately we are visual storytellers and that means that we use commonly understood visual symbols that generate a collective response that may even transcend culture. If we spend too much time subverting the visual grammar of film lighting and we may end up winning awards but no one really gets involved in your movie emotionally. However, it is always a useful exercise when setting up a scene to ask yourself what the opposite, non-traditional way of shooting it would be -- and go that route IF it makes the scene stronger. But if it merely deflates the scene dramatically, then I'd avoid it.

 

And "The Shining" also incorporates some horror film visual cliches -- i.e. the moonlit lobby with corpses. Although you are right in that the scariest scenes are not in dark lighting (unless you consider the maze at the end to be a dark setting.)

 

I'm all for irony -- and Kubrick has always been one of my favorite directors -- but it works best for stories that need some irony.

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

The thing I praise in the lighting of The Shining is not that it does the opposite but the way it supports the story and the way the decissions taken of lighting remain anonymous. I agree with you on doing opposite for the sake of just doing it. Another example would be "Eyes wide shut" (I think I have given away that I'm a Kubrick fan). The blue light on windows at night... but the films night exteriors are not blue and the dual harmony it creates with that warm tungsten coziness in the couple's bedroom, could talk about Kubrick's take on lighting for hours but I'll stop for now...

[Mitch Gross]

I'd have to say that 90% of my work as a cinematographer is lighting. I'm glad you brought this up because in forums such as this and in classes that I occassionally teach I find that people have little to no understanding of this. They always ask about which lens to use and special processing. I try to point out that the vast majority of movies they see are all shot using pretty much the same or equivalent camera equipment, film stocks, and lighting gear, it is simply how they use the gear to create an effect that is important.

 

If you want to see what lighting can do have a person sit down in a chair and try lighting them different ways. Try a female because it's a sexist thing to say but we're all more sensitive to the way a woman looks that to a man. Move a light around the person's face to see how it changes shape. Try taking a white card and bounce light into her face. Move this around and you'll see amazing changes in her look. Now try adding a backlight and do it again. See what happens with some fill, or an edge light. Now try the same thing with having her move from one spot to another.

 

This is why I get so fed up with people asking "How much light do you need for this location?" when I still don't know anything about the scene to be played there. I could ligt a given location 100 different ways to achieve 100 different looks for 100 different types of scenes. Lighting is not about illumination, it's about shaping the light to get the look and feel that you want. People who talk about shooting on 500 speed stock so that they don't need to light are missing so much of the opportunity to use the tools of their craft.

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

In other forums I wouldn't dare bring this up, this one I have seen potential that some people would be interested in topics as such... Technical and conceptual; ideal combination for a platform of cinematography.

[Filip Plesha]

I think good cinematography means one that serves the story.

 

But i think there is allso one aspect of cinematography that is very

important. And that is bringing eye pleasing images.This comes from knowing

how to compose images so that lines in the image are accepted by your brain

and that you feel confortable waching the image,allso knowing how to bring out the best out of every material and shape in the scene.I think this is something

that you just have to have an eye for,and test and test more.

And this is something i respect even more than the first thing when i wach films.

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

But i think there is allso one aspect of cinematography that is very

important. And that is bringing eye pleasing images.This comes from knowing

how to compose images so that lines in the image are accepted by your brain

and that you feel confortable waching the image...

Slowly whole thing melts down to relativity and double-faces of "beauty"?

 

What if I want to create discomfort; I could also try to arrange lines so that audience's brain would have a hard time accepting the image, they would be irritated... The cinematography wouldn't necessarily be beautiful in a traditional sense but it would also be beautiful in a sense that the sequence or even the entire film would work perfectly...

 

I may sound demagogic but honestly I just ask questions to understand and these are very hypothetical issues... This is my modus operandi

[Filip Plesha]

Well ,sometimes vierd angles or shots that leave the audience with

absolutley no idea of the shape and size of the space work very good,

but then again,there are kinds of shots that do give you a perfectly

clear idea of the space,but have just plain wrong angles that don't really

bother the brain,nor do they please the brain,but just make the film look dull.

 

I think that even if you want to make a contrast to pleasing angles

and composition you need a feeling for that too,it's not just taking a camera

and shooting vierd. So again it all comes down to having good sense of composition. One way or the other.

[David Mullen ASC]

Gordon Willis used to say that you could teach everything but good taste...

 

I don't think "pleasing" is always the end goal of cinematography, nor visual harmony. Certainly harmony was not a big issue with the punk rock movement - and there are films that are "punk" to some degree in their nature. "The Celebration" has that quality -- very raw.

 

There are projects where you try and subvert people's visual expectations. Although what's "pleasing" is different for different people -- many of us find a gritty b&w image of a junk yard in overcast weather, or a crumbling ghetto, visually "beautiful" in some way. Probably the b&w has something to do with it, reducing everything to texture and contrast. Color photos of poverty and decay are generally less aesthetically interesting since we live in a garish world of uncoordinated colors. But we can find quite disturbing subject matter visually compelling, even beautiful.

 

Art is often about shaping reality through the process of elimination, to get down to a few key visual elements. This is even MORE important in some ways with cinematography in the sense that the image is on display for such a short time, requiring that we "read" it more quickly than a painting in a gallery. It's the same thing with film music -- if it's too complex, subtle, and takes a long time to get to the point, it doesn't give the audience the right emotional impact in time.

 

Often I find that first time directors and DP's get carried away in complex visual ideas that will have little effect on the viewer because the visual intent won't read. Movie compositions have to quickly direct the eye and make a point -- you won't have several minutes to scan the frame looking for what's significant.

 

The horror film is always an interesting photographic challenge because you often take two completely opposite attacks on the material -- i.e. the more realistic the movie seems, the more the horrific moments will scare you VERSUS the idea that the movie should be stylized in an Expressionistic manner, where the visual style reflects the INNER life of the characters, more psychologically real than physically real. Most horror films move from realism to expressionism as the story builds. We begin in the light and make a journey into darkness. Even "The Shining" does this to some degree. "The Exorcist" is another example, like "The Shining", of the generally naturalistic style that only occasionally swings into Expressionism.

 

All of this was easier in some ways in the b&w days because b&w is already an abstraction of reality, so it is easier to swing between a realistic style and a theatrical style.

 

One of the more interesting horror films recently was "Cube" simply because the space was lit-up and empty, yet you were terrified as to what was going to happen in that room to kill you.

[Filip Plesha]

David,you have misunderstood my concept of eye pleasing.

 

I do not mean eye pleasing in a classical way,you know nature,

sunny days,soft light etc.

 

I perfectly understand what you mean by saying how junk jards can be

beautifull.

This grittyness and texture is allso something that i consider to go under

the category of eye pleasing.

 

I didn't mean that in order to get eye pleasing images you need to use

soft atmospheric light or something like that. I think every kind of photography,

including,soft light,low key,high key,contrasty,grainy,whatever requires

a taste. And this is what i mean by making images that please your brain.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

It's even simpler than that: the film Klute is good cinematography, everything else is bad. :D

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

Recently shot a music video where we were looking for a good way of presenting the artist in a way that was making us feel "that something was wrong", despite the picture it self looking nice.

So, I came about framing the person just off where one would normally place him in shot. The end result was a nicely lit image but troublesome to the mind subconsciously. Worked very well.

 

I would say that cinematography -to me- is something dealing with carrying forth emotions on an subconscious level to the audience. Like the way an actor would look in him/her self for a moment in his or her life that recembles the moment to be played.

I believe that anemotion on film is more poignant if the audience in some way can connect to it, through having lived a similar such. Therefor, a scene in say, a horror film becomes more effective if the atmosphere in which it is played has the notion of reality through cinematography. In the midst of all this believable comes the horror and, oops, we belive it!

Ofcourse all the other elements; acting music and so on share in this.

 

Bottom line, I find that cinematography should start at the heart of the script and vision of the director. Be a means of transport an amplification of emotions and story. Therefor, I can not say that anything can be called right or wrong in specific as all films are in deed different entitys that have different needs to function in the right -or mind you- wrong way.

 

Hope I make sense :D Fredrik Backar.

[Marty Hamrick]

Try a female because it's a sexist thing to say but we're all more sensitive to the way a woman looks that to a man. Move a light around the person's face to see how it changes shape.

I'm glad you touched on this, Mitch.I believe too, that all aspects of cinematography should support the story regardless of cliche, anit cliche or whether or not the lighting is flattering to the person.

I remember a film, can't recall the title, but it starred Demi Moore and Bruce Willis.Every shot of Demi Moore was lit to make her look as glamorous as possible.She looked gorgeous in every shot.Her character was a trailer trash woman who eventually ends up muredering her abusive alcoholic husband (Bruce Willis).Moreover, every thing in the film looked too clean and pretty,even the van they used to haul away Willis's body.I thought the look was all wrong for the story.

Anyone else see thei film?

Marty

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

Did see something recembling that and didn´t like it at all... Probably why i´ve supressed those memories :D

Haven´t seen an appropriatly lit horrorfilm since the exorcist I feel. However I loved the film "Dark Water".

 

Fredrik.

[Mitch Gross]

"Mortal Thoughts" directed by Alan Rudolph. Lousy movie.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I fear that I strive for cliche. I do completely identify with Mr. Mullen's thoughts about being obliged to do a professional job. It's entirely reactionary but I tend to spend a lot of time working for people who desperately WANT to be big movie directors, so I do my best to try and make their movie look big. This may be the wrong way to go, though, as it often simply isn't possible to do so, and I end up with a mess. Life, to borrow a colloquialism, sucks.

 

Phil

[Jo Laurits Aksdal]

Thanks, I love disussions like this.

 

Just another thought I have: If you had a trillion bucks and where to direct a biiig triology, wouldn't it be a good idea to use three different DoP's to get a different look on each film so that they each are more individual and therefore actually would strengthen the triology as a whole???????

[Mitch Gross]

No, I think that either the trilogy might be nice as three chapters of a whole single work (like LOTR) or I would choose to have a single DP and director plan the three different looks together so that it was controlled and designed to have the specific looks and styles that were appropriate.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sort of depends on the trilogy, although I'd rather have a couple of good ones mixed with the poor ones than have a consistent-looking but bad trilogy (am I thinking of the "Star Wars" prequels?).

 

Certainly the mismatches in style over the various "Star Trek", "Star Wars" (Episodes 4,5,6), and James Bond movies are interesting for us film students, but I'm not sure it is a good thing that they don't match each other - it's just a byproduct of being done over time by different people. But I prefer the inconsistent mess of the "Star Trek" movies with the original cast than the visual blandness of the Rick Berman produced "Star Trek: The Next Generation" films, although "Nemesis" had some potential to be better than it turned out.

 

I think it was important that the LOTR trilogy was made as one long film by the same filmmakers rather than as three movies by different directors and DP's. It's really ONE movie. And it varies its own style consistent with the story developments.

 

Some trilogies are looser than others. Look at the "Dollars" trilogy by Sergio Leone...

[Ozgur Baltaoglu]

Tarantino considered hiring several Dps for Kill Bill because he wanted every chapter to have a different look, but he ruled that out at the end for "practical" as opposed to artistic reasons. Had he worked with 3 different dps would the film benefit from it and have more distinctive visual styles?

 

One of my favorite trilogies is Three Colors: Blue, White, Red. Dir. Kieslowski... All have a very different look and DP: Slawomir Idziak, Zbigniev Preisner and Piotr Sobocinski respectively. Idziak's cinematography is exceptional!

[David Mullen ASC]

Considering that Robert Richardson practically invented the mixed-media approach for mainstream features (on "JFK"), he's the guy to hire if you want twenty styles in one movie.

 

Most good DP's are excellent copycats and could create a different look for different segments.

[Luke Prendergast]

Thre Colours DPs: Blue - Slawomir Idziak, White - Edward Klosinski, Red - Piotr Sobockinski. Zbigniew Preisner composed the beautiful music.