The "Look"

[Marty Hamrick]

Many films have a "signature" look to them,yet it's often unclear who is really responsible.I'm sure it all depends on a number of variables,styles of certain directors,DP?director relationships,etc.,but I would like to hear from you working DP's out there on how much of a "signature" are you able to put in and how much "signature" is the director's input.Hitchcock was supposed to be known for having alot of control over what his DP did and it's always easy to spot a Kubrick film by the cinematography.When I caught "Eyes Wide Shut" in the middle on Cinemax one night,I didn't need to see Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman to know I was watching one of Kubrick's later films.

 

Marty

[J. Michael Whalen]

Marty,

 

I have to say that I can pick out who the Director of Photography was on a film and sometimes a Music Video, faster than I can on who directed it! Many of the directors I work with have been much more interested in working with the actors than figuring out where to place the camera. Thank god! When it comes to filters I more than likely don't tell them that I am using one. They just look at the monitor and I ask if they like what they see. I they don't, then I fix it. I was watching a rough cut of a film that I shot the majority of the other night with my girlfriend and she instantly knew what scenes I shot and what scenes the 2nd unit shot. I personally was shocked that she could tell, and when I asked how she knew she said that it was the way I had the light hit the actors and most importantly the framing and composition. She went on to say that the film was like looking at two different painting with the same subject by two different painters. That was probably the greatest summery of the difference between DP's that I ever heard. It really comes down to how you see things, or more importantly how you wish things looked. We all have a different way of looking at things and it is very noticable.

 

Thanks for letting me ramble!