painterly movies

[Bob Hayes]

How about 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T done in the style of Dr. Suess. The German film "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" which was not only done in an Expressionist style but help to define that style. It is interesting how much art direction must be in sync with cinematography to achieve this ?Painterly? result.

[Tim Tyler]

My Star Trek reference had more to do with wardrobe and set design than with the lighting I think. But if you look hard enough, that looks like Kirk, Spock, and Sulu at the table ;)

 

But seriously...

 

The most 'painterly movie' that comes to my mind is Storaro's 'Goya in Bordeaux'.

 

 

 

[Boone Hudgins]

I thought I'd take this opportunity to join and say, Paths of Glory had a lot of multiple shadows, and it wasn't lit flat.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

"""Also,

Is it really a big creative leap to shoot a movie about Vermeer so that it looks like a Vermeer painting?"""

 

I'm sure it's not as easy as you make it out to be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm not saying the technical execution is easy, or isn't well done. I loved looking at the film (a bit grainy, though.), but, as it is, the film diminishes the artists vision. Surely, 17th century Delft didn't look strictly like a bunch of Vermeer paintings. In such a "pro-art" film, I think it would have added a layer of wonder, over the usual "artist as rock-star" melodrama, to photographically dramatise that (if not how) Vermeer was able to fashion his painted vision of the world from (lesser) reality. How about a film about Turner? Would you actually shoot it to look like a bunch of Turner paintings?

 

What makes these frames qualify as "painterly?" (I have to object to the "Goya" frames; they look entirely lit for film.) Aside from the costumes and production design, I'll hazard to say the lighting is very naturalistic; no unmotivated sources in Barry Lyndon. Also, these are all very three dimensional frames, w/ some pretty deep focus. Any other ideas?

[Matt Pacini]

I'm somewhre between Phil & David on how I feel about a lot of old films.

 

As for that photo above, I wonder how much of the green is set design, and how much is lighting?

Look at the floor on the right side of the frame.

It gradiates into green, so I think a lot of the set is lit green.

 

Yeah, the stagey acting in some of the old films is way overdone, but I don't particularly like Shakespeare plays anyway (I'm referring to the performances of the plays, not the reading).

It's an orgy of celebrating bad acting style.

Which leads me to a question:

 

Why is it in all films about Rome, everyone is speaking in a British accent?

Wouldn't it make more sense if they spoke in an Italian accent?

That's one thing good about "The Passion".

Gibson managed to not subject us to this sillyness, because ever since I've realized this, I just giggle when I'm watching a movie like Troy, where everyone has to put on these accents that make no sense whatsoever.

 

Matt Pacini

[Tim Tyler]

I have to object to the "Goya" frames; they look entirely lit for film

 

I see those images as a sort of 'filmified' renditions of paintings. I'll see if I can find some better examples from that film though.

[Gordon Highland]

By the way, "Barry Lyndon" is on HDNet this week if you want to try to catch it in most of its glory. . . nice transfer; certainly doesn't look like most films from the '70s.

 

For some reason the dialogue sync was waaaaay off in spots. At first, I'd chalked it up to some kind of compression choke, but it never "broke up" and then other lines in the same scene would be correct, against what I'm pretty sure was a continuous music track, as if it were in the original edit. I hadn't seen it in about 10 years. . . anyone else recall it being that bad?

 

Pretty pictures, and great low-light shots, though.

[David Mullen ASC]

The light in paintings is not always naturalistic -- look at some Post-Impressionism or Modern art and its flatness of light in favor of color, as if a flash photo was taken. And neither are all paintings three-dimensional -- look at pre-Renaissance art or Japanese art, etc.

 

And of course everything is "lit for film" unless it uses available light. In an unrealistic image, I don't see why the lighting always has to be realistic.

 

As for accented English in movies set in the past in non-English lands, it's by nature unrealistic. The gimmick that "The Passion" used is not very repeatable, nor to we even know if the accents in Aramaic were accurate or not. The goal is to make the accents seem less distracting; if that means all Romans speak with an British accent but all Jews with an American accent as in "Ben Hur" for some semblence of consistency, then fine. As long as the story and performances are good.

 

Especially with Shakespeare, who wasn't portraying these distant lands and locations and histories accurately anyway, so why can't they speak with an English accent? Should all of "The Mikado" only be sung in Japanese? I don't see why historical accurancy and realism are all that important in adapting a Shakespeare play. Remember that paintings in the Renaissance of the Virgin Mary, etc. were done mostly in what was contemporary clothing of the day.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

By the way, "Barry Lyndon" is on HDNet this week if you want to try to catch it in most of its glory. . .  nice transfer; certainly doesn't look like most films from the '70s.

Pretty pictures, and great low-light shots, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Let's veer into "Barry Lyndon." I often think of this film when reading technical discussions about lenses, camera options, telecine options - 2k or 4k, etc. "Barry Lyndon" was made w/ technology that is now 30 years old (ancient in our biz.) and it is still the most beautiful film you will ever see. I see this movie every few years. Every time I see it I think, "Yeah, I thought it's the most beautiful movie ever, but my memory must just be embellished." And then I see it, and God-damn if that is not the most beautifuly shot film I've ever seen. Some people always bring up how over budget or behind schedule the shoot was, or how indulgent Kubrick was. But, BL was shot before digital intermediates. The landscapes are precisely framed, the actors are exactly on their marks, even the clouds hang perfectly in the compositions (Watch the scene near the beginning where Molly dances w/ the Captain w/ whom Raymond will duel). Is it possible they matted in the clouds? If not, then they would just have to wait for the clouds to be perfect, even if this meant getting everyone in costume, setting up all the equipment, and then sending everyone home to come back and try again the next day. I suppose if you're a bean-counter, then it's an indulgent approach. But, it wasn't my money; I just get to enjoy the result.

[Sam Wells]

"How about a film about Turner? Would you actually shoot it to look like a bunch of Turner paintings?"

 

I knew a writer/director with a script about Thomas Eakins. I proposed to him that I shoot it;

I had something in mind that actually would have suggested Eakins, not in an in-your-face way, but would have, a flavor let's say...

 

He was curious although dropped the name of a somewhat famous DP as his first choice..

 

he never made the film though...

 

-Sam

[F Bulgarelli]

I think Caleb Deschanel did some amazing work on "The Patriot", some of those battle scenes on super35, grainy and desaturated, looked like an old painting. I wish I had some stills.

 

As far as Barry Lyndon, the famous candlelit scenes are as magical as it gets when it comes to the art of filmmaking.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

"The light in paintings is not always naturalistic -- look at some Post-Impressionism or Modern art and its flatness of light in favor of color, as if a flash photo was taken. And neither are all paintings three-dimensional -- look at pre-Renaissance art or Japanese art, etc."

 

Of course. I was referring to only the frames posted in this discussion.

I'm curious how you define "painterly," and how does that definition inform your photography? The frames from "The Duelists" look almost like they could be paintings, and none of the shots from the latest episode of "Law & Order" will ever be called "painterly." So, what does one have that the other doesn't?

 

Lastly, can the footage I shot w/ the lense cap on be called "Rothko-esque?"

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously the term "painterly" is not a precise one when describing moving images, but we seem to know when certain images remind us of paintings or have elements of paintings in them that we can recognize. You could also describe elements in some paintings as "photographic" as well.

 

I have here some art that was an inspiration when making "Northfork" although we never attempted to copy a specific painting. The first two are early 20th century photographs in the Autochrome process and the last is a painting by Andrew Wyeth (who coincidentally seemed to chose CinemaScope-like proportions in many of his paintings...)