symbolic meanings

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hello all

i wonder what is the part of symbols you try or not, to put in your work to enhance,

the ambiance, the point of the director, the understanding of a scene.

colors, contrast, perspectives, movments, what you hide or reveal...

[Jon Allen]

I had this professor in college, she was totally caught up in "Un Chien Andelu"(sp?)

Alright, so it was a dream sequence, but she made it seem like it was all about sex, "even this girl's eye, it's like a vagina turned on the side"

I don't know, when I'm shooting stuff, I'm not thinking, "oh, that flag in the background, it looks like a phallic symbol. good."

Long pans and zooms are a great way of revealing -don't get carried away though, it might start looking like a goofy tv show from the 70s. "Here, we can make the video cooler if we zoom in and out real fast!"

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

That's just an incredibly vague question - it pretty much covers the entire field of cinematography at a stroke! Did you have anything specific in mind?

 

Phil

[oscar jimenez]

I think maybe it comes a lot with experience. It's very subjective, since everyones perception of reality is very different. Reading all the books you can, as matter of achieving knowledge will make your mind prepared for that time. Depending on the mood of story, then you decide how to engage it visually, with a previous meeting with client, director and art director. That's how it works in my media which is tv commercials / advertising stuff. Good luck.

Oscar

[Bill Totolo]

I think this is where I spend a good deal of my time. I think if I'm merely shooting the text on the surface I'm not servicing the film. However there are always scenes which are merely exposition or walk and talks that need to get you from point A to point B.

[Michael Nash]

I think every visual element becomes part of the visual language you use to tell the story; lighting, framing, composition, colors, art direction, etc. As a cinematographer you're conveying your ideas by the way you show the material.

 

But I think what you show is up to the director. For instance, using a flagpole to symbolize a phallus or an empty chair to symbolize a character who has died gets away from the form, and into the territory of content. I think that's the director's domain, although the cinematographer and the director need to work closely to make sure the right ideas come across.

 

I like to think of filmmaking as a visual equivalent to poetry; you're putting images together in a pattern to express something. The language you use might be very literal and straightforward, or very expressionistic and abstract. You consider the material's themes, concepts, and structure and try to come up with an appropriate language that helps get those things across and not get in the way.

 

It does help to have a healthy understanding and appreciation of many works of art, so that you can understand the director's interpretation of the material.

[Bill Totolo]

I think every visual element becomes part of the visual language you use to tell the story; lighting, framing, composition, colors, art direction, etc. As a cinematographer you're conveying your ideas by the way you show the material.

 

But I think what you show is up to the director. For instance, using a flagpole to symbolize a phallus or an empty chair to symbolize a character who has died gets away from the form, and into the territory of content. I think that's the director's domain, although the cinematographer and the director need to work closely to make sure the right ideas come across.

 

I like to think of filmmaking as a visual equivalent to poetry; you're putting images together in a pattern to express something. The language you use might be very literal and straightforward, or very expressionistic and abstract. You consider the material's themes, concepts, and structure and try to come up with an appropriate language that helps get those things across and not get in the way.

 

It does help to have a healthy understanding and appreciation of many works of art, so that you can understand the director's interpretation of the material.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Stephen Lighthill discusses the idea of fashioning a "Style Manual" for his films, which I think is a practical idea. It refines, with the cooperation of the director, the visual language you're going to use in your film. Of course each film can have its own language.

 

Michael suggested a visual poetry whereas I like to analyze a film and ask how it may be interpreted as a dream. I like Michael's examples of the flag pole as phallus and empty chair representing loss. I would take the concept to express inner character, ie. having a character relate truth to you sans make-up with nothing to hide behind etc... That's not neccesarily cinematography but it relates to our jobs in filmmaking as a whole.

 

Any way you can visually substantiate the inner life of character or theme, any way you can externalize the internal is a good start to adding life to scenes.

 

I would like to ask Michael what his mindset is on more commercial/non-narrative work though. I know I try to enter an NPPA mindset where you think like a photojournalist. Tell the story in pictures but Michael's been doing a lot more of this in the field than I have. I wonder what the director/producer contributes?

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

it's true i'm not very precise on my wonders.

i was comparing lighting and painting and painters were directors and dp of theire craft.

but for exemple when a Rubens is painting red shades of water drops on a women skin that was to enhanced the idea of life and it could be dp choice not bothering the director whith this kind of detail?.

my purpose was not much about fashion effects as zoom in and out "cool" manga look.

if every representation of life has a meaning how deep do you go in your choices of "image solution" for the director?

i'm verry surprised to see many diferent films with the same look and totaly different stories.

when contrast, bleach-pass, desaturated colors, green moon shades are more the fact of a fashion rather than an "image solution" meaning something.

 

am i way far from reality of dp's concerns or directors and producers are asking for the same look as other movies?

is theire a studio way of lighting an a cinematographical one?

this discution seems to be open for features as well as for comercials, video clip...stills

is it more a student concern?i hope not

[oscar jimenez]

Have you thought of "tendencies in style" maybe, each decade has it's own trends and tendencies, such as cloth design, car design, and why not cinematographic style?

[Sam Wells]

"am i way far from reality of dp's concerns or directors and producers are asking for the same look as other movies?

is theire a studio way of lighting an a cinematographical one?

this discution seems to be open for features as well as for comercials, video clip...stills

is it more a student concern?i hope not "

 

No I don't think you are off the mark with your question, altho as Phil implies, this engages every aspect of cinema.

 

I think it really is a question of which director.

 

Obviously, Storaro (to state a most obvious example) for instance seems to be working with symbolic color 'systems' which are presumably not neccesarily the Director's invention

(Bertolucci probably on the same page, others to lesser degrees maybe)

 

Compare Kandinsky's "On The Spiritual in Art" with Storaro's writing....

 

-Sam

[Ram Shani]

hi

 

i think that cinematography shuold creat the film subtext (like sound/ edit/ acting)

 

that zone is the director zone there he lay his vision his saying thats what makes

 

the differnt for me between film as intertiment and a film as art as potry.

 

as a cinematographer you try to use your best tools to do that. same time you conscious about it and same times you don't.

 

ram

[Matt Pacini]

Methods of lighting for effect, I agree can cause certain things in audiences, but I think a lot of this stuff's greatest result, is to be fodder for lecture filler, as film school professors pontificate endlessly about the fraudian symbols present...

A pole representing a phallic symbol?

An eyeball being a vagina?

Come on, be serious.

I mean, sure, upon analysis, you could point at any shape in the frame and say that, but do you really think things like this have any effect whatsoever on the audience, and if so, what exactly?

Is it supposed to make the audience horny? Repulsed?

just saying "oh, that blanket arranged like that looks like a woman's breast" is meaningless over-analysis.

What's it supposed to DO to the audience?

Even Freud once said "sometimes a banana is just a banana".

 

I watched Sixth Sense twice, before I read that Shyamalan used the color red to symbolize death.

A red dress. Red doorknob to the basement, etc.

 

Sorry, it's interesting in conversations, but I don't see that this has any effect at all, if the audience doesn't actually SEE it, and act upon it, but that of course, gets into the whole "subliminal effect", which has been shown to be non-existant in all studies, even though I'm sure many are going to claim it's true, like most urban legends.

 

Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

I disagree that visual symbols have no effect on audiences. They are like anything else in a movie; if you use a reoccuring visual motif that can be identified as being part of a certain theme of the story, then the visual symbol is part of the storytelling process. Otherwise, why bother to chose any colors when designing a movie? Just let it be random. But obviously we don't do that because we're artists and artists make choices. You can't say that it matters how wide or tight the frame is, or where we cut, but it doesn't matter if the scene is dressed in blue or red.

 

It does matter... but as to what it MEANS, it depends on the clues left by the filmmaker -- in one movie, blue can suggest coldness or high technology but in another, relaxation and reflection. It all depends on context. It should all be part of making the presentation of the story more involving and meaningful.

 

Speaking of color, for example, my second film was a thriller about a young woman who wants to be a hot-shot video shooter for news but accidentally videotapes her boss and mentor murdering a woman. I used blue to suggest the video technology that she found so alluring and the movie gets progressively bluer the more she dives into this world until she is nearly killed; then the epilogue is shot in warm colors to contrast with what's gone before that.

 

Colors can also be used to suggest one character so that even after they are gone (let's say, they die in the story) there is a visual reminder left behind. Colors can also suggest a state of mind of the character, that they are so wrapped up in a certain feeling that they cannot perceive all the colors of the world. The Kieslowski trilogy Three Colors suggest this, epecially "Blue".

 

Green light is used liberally in "Excalibur" to suggest the magic of Nature ("the Dragon") that the sword comes from. So even in day exteriors, you can see green light reflected on the sword and on armor to suggest the magical power of nature all around them. Without little touches like this, the setting would seem less mythical and more realistic and ordinary. It's not really important whether the average audience can intellectually analyze and articulate what's on the screen; they just have to enjoy the movie and let whatever cinematic tricks the filmmakers want to use work upon them.

[Michael Nash]

It does matter... but as to what it MEANS, it depends on the clues left by the filmmaker ...  It all depends on context.  It should all be part of making the presentation of the story more involving and meaningful.

 

It's not really important whether the average audience can intellectually analyze and articulate what's on the screen; they just have to enjoy the movie and let whatever cinematic tricks the filmmakers want to use work upon them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you David, for articulating the point I've tried to make in some of my posts about "visual language." The language gets redefined with every single film, although there are also conventions or trends that filmmakers know audiences will understand.

 

The effectiveness of such symbols or language upon the audience depends on the filmmaker's skill at dropping the right clues, and applying it consistently. As David says, the symbols or language don't have to be intellectually understood by the audience to be effective; I actually think art is usually more compelling and engaging when the audience is not conciously aware of the language. But in either case, the filmmaker(s) still need to judiciously apply the language in order for the audience to "get it."

 

So regarding Matt's concern about symbols being ineffective or arbitrary, I'd say that's completely dependent upon how well the filmmaker applied their language, and how perceptive is the audience member. This is the big gray area of art; the discrepancy between the clarity of the message and the audience's ability to perceive it. I think art is fundamentally a language that communicates on an emotional level, so when the language becomes too literal or intellectual the emotional meaning gets lost -- and vice versa, when the language becomes too abstract a literal-minded person may not pick up on the message. And if an artist throws in an element that's not established or out of context with the rest of the piece, then the meaning of that element (symbol, etc.) gets lost.

 

This is usually what gets my attention when working with directors; making sure that the language of the film is consistent and that they don't try to throw in an oddball "phrase" (shot, camera move, whatever) that looks cool but undermines the effectiveness of the language we're trying to create.

[Michael Nash]

I would like to ask Michael what his mindset is on more commercial/non-narrative work though. I know I try to enter an NPPA mindset where you think like a photojournalist. Tell the story in pictures but Michael's been doing a lot more of this in the field than I have. I wonder what the director/producer contributes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The contributions of the producer/directors depends on the show. I've been working on a couple reality shows, and I also shoot a fair amount of ENG "packages" and short-form documentaries. In these we're trying to tell a story in either a three-minute piece or a full 1/2 hour segment. The producers will usually tell you what the story is about and give you a basic shot list and things to watch out for. Beyond that, they pretty much give you free reign to shoot it any way you want to.

 

The one thing that's consistent among these pieces though is that content becomes much more important than form. For one thing, as you shoot you never know how it's going to be edited, so it becomes much harder to tell the story through the relationship of shots. So you end up giving the producer (who sometimes is also the editor) the basic coverage of wide-medium-tight, person A and person B, the relevant action and so on. Beyond that you can attempt to shoot some "flavor" or "color" with more interpretive shots and cutaways. Edit experience definitely helps here, since you know what kinds of shots an editor will look for to tell the story.

 

But more and more in these documentary situations I try to think more like a still photographer and put the relevant information into a single shot -- subject and context. The subject is usually the person and what they're doing (the action), and the context is usually the environment they're in. There are a million ways to frame this type of thing, and this is part of the fun of ENG shooting -- it keeps your mind open to new ways to express something visually. Similarly you learn to look for subjects as point and counterpoint, and how and when to illustrate a group of subjects as single mass unit in the frame for visual clarity.

 

This could spawn a whole separate thread; ways to include subject and context in a single shot. In film and video you can do simple moves or rack-focus shots from one subject to another as a way of relating things, but I look for ways to get both subject and context in the same frame. I've observed some photojournalists going for what I call the "twofer" shot, by putting a "context" object in the foreground and shooting past to the subject. Like shooting low angle over a pile of burned rubble while focusing on the homeowner in the background combing through the remnants of their belongings. I like to shoot this type of stuff with a wide lens, where I can get close enough to the subject to give it some 3-dimensional form and physical presence, a you-are-there aesthetic that seems appropriate for documentaries. The wide lens then also includes a lot of background for context.

 

But now whenever possible (probably just in an effort to grow) I'm looking for new interpretations of "context" when the subject is fairly obvious. That might become something abstract like a trick of light from a certain angle, or a less-obvious subject to use as a counterpoint to the main subject.

[Guest fstop]

Green light is used liberally in "Excalibur" to suggest the magic of Nature ("the Dragon") that the sword comes from.  So even in day exteriors, you can see green light reflected on the sword and on armor to suggest the magical power of nature all around them.  Without little touches like this, the setting would seem less mythical and more realistic and ordinary.  It's not really important whether the average audience can intellectually analyze and articulate what's on the screen; they just have to enjoy the movie and let whatever cinematic tricks the filmmakers want to use work upon them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I must admit, this observation makes me laugh considering the green light throughout Excalibur was (alledgedly) merely a design compromise on Alex Thomson's part. Anthony Pratt the designer had actually coordinated the colour schemes before the move to Ireland and on a recce Pratt, Alex Thomson and Boorman found the grass and scenery of Ireland to be very distinct, very characteristic and much unlike what you'd find in Arthurian legend. Thomson has revealed since making the film that he decided as the distinct colour green proved to be the biggest visual hurdle on the production, he actually opted to go WITH the colour as oppose to disguising it with filters and lighting- Thomson actually used a lot of direct and indirect GREEN fill on the actors too, as well as 10-20Ks bounced off the grassy locations to make it reflect halated green highlights over the armour (helped considerably by the soft star filters on the camera) and skin of the actors. Thomson had his biggest hurdle literally WOVEN into the design of the film and solved a zillion problems through grand compromise, Boorman advocated the boldness.

 

It's really funny, but that characterisitcally Irish visual tinge to the Arthurian legend has become imbedded in modern representations of the myth, even Jerry Bruckheimers alledgedly "raw and gritty" filmed variation of the legend was eager to tell us it was shot in Ireland to stay true to popular fantasy- and all because Alex Thomson made an exciting compromise on a filmed version of a well known ENGLISH legend.

 

THAT said, I agree VERY MUCH with David's textural analysis, and feel there must clearly be a modesty involved with Thomson's assessment of his work on that film BEYOND the superficial production compromise, enough so to convince director Boorman and the studio to say "Hell yes, make our well recognised budget location obvious in a film set in a very familiar landscape!"

 

CONSISTENCY is something I banged on about in the Die Another Day thread, and I feel that's a really fine line- be consistent without being monotone, evolve the pallette and be exciting without making a tonal jump or exiting the pallette. I personally am in the process of researching books on music and art theory, rules on musical composition, themes, motifs as well as texture and colour schemes throughout the ages. I have got a huge list of questions I made myself and now's the time to find the answers on the most BASIC level, engaging instincts with unity and how this reflects in viewer/listener interpretation? You can't do cinematography WELL without the theory, IMO. I know know why that great Russian film school has oil painting classes on the curiculum.

 

I think the best compliment any cinematographer can have is when someone looks at a still or a sequence from your work and says that what they are seeing is unmistakably an image from that ONE film, citing or subconciously acknowledging colour pallete, framing, lighting, etc.

 

On the last short I did I used an unmotivated light source (it just didn't look right without it) in some key sequences, and after shooting I actually thought about it and how it might be inconsistent or stick out in the audiences mind subconciously. However, I used that same light source, it's colour temperature and direction as the key in the other sequences- now all of a sudden we have a direct consistency that links the supernatural element of the storyline! Another instance was exposing brighter on one key day for night sequence- something instinctively made me do it to make things look more visually appealing, and for that one moment I couldn't help myself but let in more light. It looked and felt right when I did it. I didn't know why- I then beat myself up because it was inconsistent with the rest of the film. Slowly since, the editor says it cuts better and lays out geography better and has made the film more effective to tell! i've gone away and done all this theory analysis and now I have a better understanding of what to address on a theoretical level on my next project.

 

Anyone who says you turn up on set and say "is this a day or a night shot", light it and go home is going to produce the kind of work this artform can do without, and that's applicable to both directors and DOPs.

[Matt Pacini]

".... if you use a reoccuring visual motif that can be identified ..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED.

That's the key, IMO.

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but sometimes these observations just get wacky, like the people who tried to find hidden meanings in Beatles songs, for instance (Charles Manson being the most notorious!).

 

I agree that if you use elements that are readily recognizable, like the cold blue images you mentioned, that makes perfect sense.

It's intentional, and there was a specific reason for being intentional, unlike the references I was commenting on.

The "eyeball represents a vagina" stuff, is just ludicrous.

I mean, why doesn't a vagina represent an eyeball then?

A person could go into this whole thing about how people who watch porn movies, are really just seeing analogies of eyeballs, so that shows they have a need to look into that persons soul, blah blah.

I'm being silly, but I think to go THAT far, is in fact silly.

But using colors, set designs, lighting that is familiar in other scenarios, etc., obviously makes sense.

 

matt pacini

[Bill Totolo]

The "eyeball represents a vagina" stuff, is just ludicrous.

I mean, why doesn't a vagina represent an eyeball then?

 

matt pacini

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is an image from "Un chien andalou", quite frankly, does anybody know what Bunuel and Dahli were up to? Maybe it would be more on point to discuss the visual motifs of Bergman or Dreyer.

[Guest fstop]

I can't edit, so I'd also like to add:

 

You obviously don't have to be Vittorio Storaro on the matter and say "this red sun I grad filtered is special, because it is her, the day begins as does her life when the sun rises, and when it sets and we shoot with blue grads she becomes a new woman, and her day is complete and those are these symbols one and only crucial function. Period" only to contradict that with reocurring colours used to highlight different story points later on, but I do think and I have certainly learned that sometimes it is VERY important for the director, editor, the audience and the story to NOT go with what's easiest and practical and if it's justified add expenses if they are crucial to telling the story as effectively as possible. For instance, it may be cheaper and easier to shoot a night car chase dark at night, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make all the headlamps destinct, or if the designer opts for colour crucial to the story you shouldn't not explain to the director what the difference between lighting the shots and filming headlamps only will be (and yes I'm talking cheap lower end stuff or an instance in which it's a compromise). Maybe film in the dark, but colour coordinate them with different filters for the headlamps? If you are gonna shoot dialogue in a car interior front seat shot reverse shot, tell the director it can be done standard in close up only or distorted wide angle to show more of the pasenger/driver, and give them that technical AND connatative option that will ultimately drive the coverage for the direction and the edit too.

 

This all may sound very obvious, perhaps basic and my own words are making me cringe not knwoing how to put my finger on it explaining with satisfaction, but it's been on my mind for a while and it's definitely helped me develop as a filmmaker more than any other lesson I've learned so far- PRICELESS combination of practical and theory.

 

It's knowing entirely what's within your boundary that allows you to push your art as close to that limit as possible, perhaps even past it if it evolves the design. it's important that this creativity is preserved as we move into an era of "capturing" images- we have to make sure that design isn't something that ends up happening after the shoot on the computer.

[David Mullen ASC]

The flip-side to not taking the easiest route is to not take the hardest one either that is fighting against how the location or scene naturally wants to be filmed. You don't want a visual game plan that is so dogmatic that you are unable to take advantage of lucky accidents or what flows out naturally from the blocking or setting.

 

Whether or not the green light in "Excalibur" was a compromise doesn't ultimately matter -- it WORKS. They could have opted to take the easy way (shoot just in natural light) or the hardest way (recreate every exterior on a soundstage) but instead they found a halfway approach (stylized real nature) that worked with their budget yet was artistic -- that's one reason why the movie looks more big-budgeted than it really was.

 

A script or location or actors blocking a scene will have a sense of how it wants to be filmed when you read it, see it, etc. Your job, to some extent, is to decide if those natural inclinations are correct for the OVERALL work and can be incorporated into that design, or if you'll have to make changes, stylize, relight, reblock, etc. Sometimes you find a fantastic location for the story but it has the opposite color scheme than the one you imagined, and if you can't repaint, redesign the location, etc. you may want to rethink your color schemes to make the location's natural colors part of the design of the film, so it seems deliberate.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

A script or location or actors blocking a scene will have a sense of how it wants to be filmed when you read it, see it, etc.  Your job, to some extent, is to decide if those natural inclinations are correct for the OVERALL work and can be incorporated into that design, or if you'll have to make changes, stylize, relight, reblock, etc.  Sometimes you find a fantastic location for the story but it has the opposite color scheme than the one you imagined, and if you can't repaint, redesign the location, etc. you may want to rethink your color schemes to make the location's natural colors part of the design of the film, so it seems deliberate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That paragraph really describes what the art of filmmaking is all about. It's all about the many decisions made that service the story. Sometimes you may find that going a different way than what was planned might not even be a compromise. It may lead you down a path that was better than the one you conceived in the first place. Of course sometimes compromises are just that and you have to live with them.

[Guest fstop]

The flip-side to not taking the easiest route is to not take the hardest one either that is fighting against how the location or scene naturally wants to be filmed.  You don't want a visual game plan that is so dogmatic that you are unable to take advantage of lucky accidents or what flows out naturally from the blocking or setting.

 

Whether or not the green light in "Excalibur" was a compromise doesn't ultimately matter -- it WORKS.  They could have opted to take the easy way (shoot just in natural light) or the hardest way (recreate every exterior on a soundstage) but instead they found a halfway approach (stylized real nature) that worked with their budget yet was artistic -- that's one reason why the movie looks more big-budgeted than it really was.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, 110% agree with you- I thought I'd gone crazy in this thread with my above static but your reassurance has happily proven that theory wrong! :D