Tess

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Yesterday I saw Roman Polanski's Tess. I had only seen it once, a long time ago.

 

As we all know, british cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth died during the shooting and was replaced by Ghislain Cloquet.

 

Anyone (perhaps Mr. Mullen?) knows if Unsworth was using his traditional Harrison Fog Filter #2 or it was a lighter one?

 

Most exterior scenes during the first half of the movie were clearly shot with heavy diffusion, propably by Unsworth. But almost none of the interior scenes (I only remember one or two) show it. That's why I would like to know if Unsworth was varying his approach or if those scenes were shot by Cloquet.

 

From what I saw, Cloquet did most of the interiors and the cloudy exteriors of the second half of the film with no diffusion at all.

Edited January 20, 2005 by Ignacio Aguilar

[David Mullen ASC]

I've been thinking about this too because there are scenes shot by Unsworth that are definitely not as heavily diffused as his past work.

 

I suspect either Polanski (not a fan of diffusion) got him to back off a little on the level of Fog Filtering, or Unsworth was in the process of a stylistic change towards using less diffusion at the time he died.

 

There is definitely some Fog Filters being used in some exterior scenes (Angel carrying the girls across the stream for example) but nothing seems too heavily diffused other than that odd cutaway to the wide shot of the minister on horseback, which is shot earlier in the day and his more filtered than the surrounding sunset footage. It's something like the third shot of the movie.

 

From what I can guess by looking at the behind the scenes doc on the DVD, Unsworth shot the foggy day-for-night seduction scene in the woods, the tent and strawberries scene when Tess arrives at the Derberville mansion, the large barn of cows being milked. I suspect, from the Fog Filters, that he also shot the girls seeing Angel at sunrise (and now I suspect the rising sun itself is a trick shot, reflecting a light in the glass pane of the window) and the scene where Angel carries the girls over the stream. But Unsworth died I think during the third week of production, so most of the movie must have been shot by Cloquet.

(EDIT: Unsworth worked over three months on the film, not three weeks, from the summer of 1978 until the end of October.)

[David Mullen ASC]

Some shots from "Tess" that I believe Unsworth shot, guessing partly by the use of Fog Filters. To some degree, these also show you the value of having an attractive face to light!

 

The first one was one that I had read was shot with Kinski in front of a big mirror to reflect the sunset but somehow darken it so it was easier to balance the lighting on her face -- but it does not look like such a bright sunset that you'd need much light even if you shot her directly against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the one where I think the "sun" is actually a light inside the room reflected in the glass:

 

 

The last one (which I believe Cloquet shot) is where they tried the "light reflected in glass gag" to create the rising sun but it didn't work, so Polanski had them make a flat painted to match the horizon between two pillars and put a lamp behind it, rising slowly on a crank-stand, probably a 10K:

 

 

What I find interesting about Unsworth are his contradictions to some degree. Here was a guy trained in classic studio lighting (which is sort of obvious by the old-fashioned use of a diffused arc lamp for fill outdoors, creating the shadow of hat brims) but who had a strong desire to "degrade" the image with smoke and fog filters so that it didn't look too glossy and slick, but softer in colors, contrast, and detail, sort of like an impressionist painter. Of course, other people in the 1970's were doing this, like Vilmos Zsigmond in "McCabe and Mrs. Miller", but Unsworth still had one foot in the more classic studio lighting of a previous era, while attempting to move forward in a new direction in color that he felt was more natural, less Technicolor-ish. In some ways, it worked well because combining diffusion with stronger studio lighting helps maintain some dimensionality, whereas if he was completely modern in the use of soft practical lighting, the fog filters would have been even heavier-looking and mushed-up the image too much.

 

For example, in the daytime shot of her up against the hedge branches, there is more frontal fill than would be used in modern cinematography, which is overpowering what was probably a dimmer overhead soft blue-ish ambient skylight fill. But a modern cinematographer probably would have used faster film, less fill, and exposed more for the shadows, causing the pieces of sky peaking through to blow-out even more, which in turn would have made the diffusion look even heavier.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Thank you, David.

 

but nothing seems too heavily diffused other than that odd cutaway to the wide shot of the minister on horseback, which is shot earlier in the day and his more filtered than the surrounding sunset footage. It's something like the third shot of the movie.

 

I think you're talking about this shots:

 

 

This frame belongs to the long opening shot of the film.

 

It intercuts with:

 

 

Both shots look unfiltered to my eye. But then the minister appers in a very foggy shot:

 

 

 

I guess the following frame was shot by Unsworth, too. It's when Tess leaves home for the first time tp Durberville's house. Notice the Fog Filter and the resemblance with Mrs. Kent shot in Superman.

 

 

 

Unsworth shot the foggy day-for-night seduction scene in the woods, the tent and strawberries scene when Tess arrives at the Derberville mansion, the large barn of cows being milked.

 

 

 

One thing that surprised me is that some shots used the zoom lens (the seduction scene for example). Wasn't it too risky to use an anamorphic zoom lens with a fog filter for day-for-night scene?

 

Unsworth still had one foot in the more classic studio lighting of a previous era, while attempting to move forward in a new direction in color that he felt was more natural, less Technicolor-ish.

 

It's a pity that Unsworth couldn't complete this film. While his approach was very different from what Kubrick and Alcott did on Barry Lyndon, it would have been interesting to see how he would have done the interiors. Probably he would have used less fill light and more contrast than Cloquet, whose scenes look more high-key than Unsworth's in his previous films, and he probably would have relied more on the natural light sources of the sets.

 

Anyway, the way Cloquet shot his exterior scenes for the second half of the film fit the story as well as Unsworth and his fog filters did for the earlier, "happier" scenes.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Unsworth died I think during the third week of production, so most of the movie must have been shot by Cloquet.

 

According to IMDB, Unsworth died on October 28, 1978. If the shot for three weeks, the production must have started around the first days of October. But remember France is a country with a very inconsistent weather (R. Scott claims during the audiocomentary on The Duellists that it rained about 59 days of 61 of the shooting), so it's very surprising that they found such a good weather during that month (most scenes shot by Unsworth are very sunny).

 

The other option is that they started production earlier so they could shoot the first scenes around september and then, as the story progresses, keep shooting into the winter (which I believe they did). If this is true, maybe Unsworth shot for more than three weeks, but how knows...

[Sam Wells]

There was a softer contrast in the prints than what these DVD frame grabs would suggest.

 

I haven't seen the DVD - I hope that quality was preserved.

 

Based on my memory, it would probably help to asses the use of diffusion etc in that context.

 

"Tess" is my favorite Polanski, actually.

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I actually got to see "Tess" projected in a 35mm scope print at the International House in Philadelphia when I was there last spring shooting "Shadowboxer." Overall, it was less diffused than Unsworth's earlier movies from the 1970's -- I don't think he used his normal #2 Fog, maybe more like a #1 Fog.

 

The DVD is pretty accurate although a bit sharper-looking because of the smaller image, and the colors are not as pastel as they are in the print.

 

When I see a movie from the late 1970's, what it reminds me of is how great 5247 looked, just before the age of high-speed film. I don't think you could get away with all that diffusion with fast films and not have it look too grainy.

 

Actually, they had some terrible rain storms while trying to shoot; Polanski has mentioned in the past that the tent scenes when Tess visits the Derberville estate looked beautiful and sunny despite it pouring rain outside, thanks to Unsworth. But yes, perhaps production started more in September and Unsworth did more than three weeks because certainly the locations he covered before he died were quite varied.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I have never seen Tess. But that shot when she's lying in the bed there is beautifully lit. I love that cut, old school lighting that you simply don't see much of today. Those low intensity, hard sources give such nice reflections in the white of the eye.

[Guest fstop]

I have also never seen this movie- never seen it in a video store and it's rarely ever on TV. I have heard all the stories however, and this has been a fascinating thread so far!

 

Interesting observations made about Unsworth using Arcs as fill on location the old fashioned way- actually, many sequences in Unsworth's 70s projects had a great amount of available light and bounce fill- take the shot from Superman of young Clark Kent and Jonathan Kent with their arms around each others shoulders walking towards the camera- this was actually lit with nothing more than backlighting from the sun and Unsworth holding a large piece of white card in front of the talent's faces. This is exactly the kind of thing Owen Roizman, Menges, Wexler or Watkin would also be up to at the same time, unlike say Unsworth's contemporaries like Ossie Morris on Equus and The Whiz, Cardiff on Death on the Nile as well as even older cameramen like Freddie Young. This is probably the reason why Unsworth was so popular with the young American (and other) hotshots from the time.

 

Have you guys seen Michael Chrichton's Great Train Robbery? Interesting that Train Robbery, Tess AND Superman all have IN MEMORY OF GEOFF UNSWORTH at some point in the credits- interesting as Superman (and Donner's portions of Superman 2) was third to last film Unsworth shot, Train Robbery second (followed by more Superman inserts) and Tess the final movie.

[David Mullen ASC]

Interesting observations made about Unsworth using Arcs as fill on location the old fashioned way- actually, many sequences in Unsworth's 70s projects had a great amount of available light and bounce fill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I was referring to when I mentioned the contradictions in Unsworth as he melded some sort of classical studio lighting aesthetic with modern naturalistic ones. Because I can find plenty of Unsworth outdoor shots obviously filled-in with arcs, and I can find some filled in with bounce cards. Even in the frame grabs above you can find both approaches being used.

 

In the AC article on the Pink Panther movie he shot, there's a photo of some dozen arcs lined up on an airport tarmac to provide daytime fill and Unsworth mentions that arcs were the most effective way of filling in the harsh desert light he was encountering. But in the same article, he mentions the white buildings in Casablanca providing a nice soft fill light outdoors.

 

"The Great Train Robbery" is another nice job by Unsworth, particularly in the train station scenes (he was good with trains!) It's more fog-filtered than "Tess", more like his work on "Superman", "Bridge Too Far", etc. (mainly the #2 Fog, by Harrison & Harrison I believe).

 

You can see here some frontal fill from a light, although it's not something you still don't do today:

 

 

Here's a rather frontal hardish key light. On the other hand, it's also the most flattering way to light most women:

 

 

Here's something just lit with bounce fill (necessary also because it's a moving boat on a river.)

 

[Guest fstop]

There's also way more depth and particularly sky detail in these lit fill shots too often allowing a higher F-number. I LOVE the mixing of lit with bounced fill on exteriors or shots involving an exterior- I love that variety, and like you said in many of your other posts too David, I to love it when all these styles get mixed together so you've got soft and hardlight in the same scene, borderline "cheating". A FEAST for the eyes but NEVER intrusive!

 

 

Here's a rather frontal hardish key light.  On the other hand, it's also the most flattering way to light most women:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Says Faye Dunaway ;)

[Ignacio Aguilar]

More shots by Unsworth:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Unsworth might have shot this early scene too, since it uses less light than other interiors by Cloquet:

 

 

 

And now, some shots by Ghislain Cloquet:

 

 

 

 

[Guest fstop]

That last Unsworth one of the old man in the chair looks just like the Lex Luthor lair sections of Superman.

 

I really like the clean Cloquet work demonstrated here too- I love the soft portraits.

 

David, have you got any examples of your own work you could show us where you've used a hard frontal key on female talent?

[David Mullen ASC]

 

I just watched the new blu-ray of "Tess" from Criterion, 1080P made from a 4K restoration, looks great, though some scenes are timed a bit warmer under Polanski's supervision than earlier versions.

 

It's interesting to me how the contrast between Cloquet's work in the film (a bit less diffused, more soft lit but at times, underexposed) and Unsworth's more sunny romanticism works for the story arc as Tess' life becomes harsher and scenes move into winter. I assume that Unsworth, had he lived, would have created a similar visual arc to match the story but we'll never how exactly how Unsworth would have approached these later scenes.

 

I felt that both cinematographers nailed a certain poetic painterly look for some scenes but over-lit a few other scenes -- again, it shows how Unsworth was sort of a transitional figure in cinematographic style, alternating between the soft pastel naturalism of the 1970's and the glossy studio style of the 1950's. But I'm sure that Polanski also had something to do with the more theatrical touches to the lighting, being very hands on. And I suspect that Cloquet might have been attempting to light interiors in more of a studio style to match Unsworth, but perhaps not quite doing it like Unsworth would have.

[David Mullen ASC]

Been on a recent Unsworth binge-watching since besides "Tess", I bought the blu-rays to "The Great Train Robbery" and "Murder on the Orient Express"...

 

What's interesting to me is that even though "Great Train Robbery" was made a few years later, his last film before "Tess" and right after "Superman", he uses old-fashioned hard lighting more often here than he does in "Murder on the Orient Express", the earlier film. It may be partly because "Great Train Robbery" was a lower-budgeted film with a faster schedule, but it also may have been due to the fact that Sidney Lumet insisted that the train car set in "Murder on the Orient Express" be accurate to the real train, not enlarged for shooting (though walls were pulled when necessary). This, and the generally overcast winter landscape backgrounds, pushed Unsworth to adopt a more soft-light style. In wide shots, the low ceiling of the train cars are in the shot so the only overhead lighting comes from the practicals built in. In the main lounge car, the ceiling is white so the sconces act as a source to bounce light off of the ceiling:

 

 

Unsworth's love of beauty lighting for actresses is particularly noticeable in Jacqueline Bisset's stunning close-ups (I had forgotten how beautiful she was):

 

 

 

It was interesting listening to director Michael Crichton's commentary track on "Great Train Robbery". He praises Unsworth's professionalism and kindness, and how Unsworth got the British crew to treat him, a young American director, with respect (by screening "Coma" for the crew -- Crichton didn't see the point since it had nothing to do with the style of "Great Train Robbery" but Unsworth knew that once the crew saw that Crichton had directed a real movie with movie stars, they would take him seriously). Crichton talks about how he and Unsworth felt that color in a period movie had to be muted in order to not feel like it was shot today, and said that Unsworth used a lot of smoke to obtain this effect. But then he said "I don't think Geoffrey used anything on the camera" (i.e. filters) just as a particularly fog-filtered shot was coming up:

 

 

Truth is that only about half the movie had smoke on the sets, but everything was shot with the fog filters. (Excuse the heavy jpeg compression of the stills but I'm trying to not run out of storage...)

[Alissa Alexina]

I saw Tess as a kid, rewatched yesterday, and now cannot stop thinking about it, and reading this fascinating discussion at 5 a.m. ? 

The movie is a masterpiece on every level. It is not like just seeing beautiful images, but rather feeling slipping into this world, walking the muddy roads and breathing heavy fogs. It's magic.

Besides other scenes already mentioned, I felt the most staggering effect from the sudden handheld camera (I believe) when Tess is changing shoes and walking to the church in the rain, and when she found the unread letter and was covered by a blinding light. The most powerful creative use of a lens flare, ever.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, one of the best flares for dramatic enhancement ever!