Jump to content

The meaning of light


Recommended Posts

Maybe your just reading too much into it to be honest .. just enjoy the film :)

 

But aren´t there different ways of enjoying a movie? When you know more about a certain aspect of filmmaking (like sounddesign, lenses and focal lenght, aspect ratio, lighting, etc.) then you probably will have more fun and appreciate the images more.

 

An example: acting.

 

Recently I saw a very good acting masterclass from Michael Caine from 1987. In it, he tells his students about small things like blinking. When you speak and you don´t blink you appear stronger, when you blink more often, you appear weaker. And he demonstrates the difference. That´s really a small thing, a little detail, but since I know this, I notice when actors blink more or less, I notice their appearance. Sometimes when a character doesn´t blink it´s more interesting to watch him or her now. Even Siskel and Ebert, who reviewed that masterclass of M. Caine, said, that after watching it they will never see a movie with the same eyes again.

 

You can compare that with classical music too. There are many small aspects you can turn your attention to. When you learn about a small thing, for example instrumentation or music theory, then you will hear a musical piece with other ears, because of your new knowledge. Another example: when the strings play con sordino, with a muffler. When you know what that is, and when you read the score (maybe along with a record), you will pay more attention to the beautiful sound of muted strings, and you will appreciate the creativity of the composer more then before and have more fun listening to the music. You can study a score for an opera for decades and still find new details that let you expercience a record in a new way.

 

Or paintings. There are good TV shows where they show you a famous painting for 20 minutes and explain nearly every detail, they draw your attention to the way the painter uses light, color, perspective, depth of field etc., and other details, and you have more fun with it. Of course you don´t need to know all that stuff to like a picture, but the more you know the more you can enjoy it.

 

What I´m trying to say is that there are so many details, and when you know some of them, you see the richness of a piece of art (film or music or paintings or whatever) and you have more fun with it.

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure ..of course.. I was being flippant .. but its possible to "over think" things.. there are lots of articles about the making of certain films.. its quite eye opening how many things were done on the spur of the moment .. or just due to un foreseen circumstances.. or even mistakes..

 

There is a Black and White scene in I think it was Chunking Express .. gangsters smashing up a restaurant .. its the only BW scene in the film ,DP Chris Doyle.. and there were all sorts of analysis and reviews going on about the masterful use of BW .. how it was a juxtaposition to Blah blah blah .. and then Doyle in an interview said it was just the film loader had put in the wrong film.. and to print it BW was the best way to safe it.. and they couldn't afford to reshoot .. actually in the article, his main point was that the guy wasn't fired .. as would have happened in a "Hollywood' film..

 

Just an example where a mistake was made into some big genius artistic decision .. by reviewers reading too much into it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lindsay Anderson's "If..." is an example of reading into the selection of B&W and Colour, once out the the world a film has a life of it's own, with people reading various things into aspects that weren't in filmmaker's mind. In the case of "If.." they shot B&W when they couldn't afford colour.

 

In a narrative film there are many elements that go together to serve the story and its world, when they work together it's wonderful, but if one or two jar everything may fall apart. However, a well cast, but less perfect film in other respects, will often hold up better than an otherwise perfect film with a poor cast. In that case, the audience invests in the characters, so holding things together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cinematographer in my opinion is one of the most integral players in the making of the film, quite simply, because light is everything. All life could not exists without light, and everything that a cinematographer knows about light he draws from nature, even the famous paintings of centuries past were inspired by nature, they tried to emulate the way light actually behaved, but when photography was born, artists took a more impressionistic approach like Vincent Van Gogh, because photography itself became an independent art. What I've noticed in cinematography, is that it's important for the light to have dimension, you will notice in everyday life that light doesn't look anything like it does in the movies. Of course there is no better light, than that of the sun, but because of the weather's inconsistency/clouds, etc, cinematographers have to rely on artificial sources that have a rich CRI. All light is comprised of a multiple wavelength of colors, ROYGBIV; everything that you need to know about light is in the color spectrum that Isaac Newton decoded with a prism. The sun is actually white, believe it or not, and imagine you're looking at a red apple, why is it red? What's happening is that the apple is absorbing ALL the colors of the spectrum, except red. Scientists are able to understand the universe by understanding the energy of the photon, by measuring wavelengths, and likewise, I feel cinematographers have a unique understanding of light by observing and interpreting the way nature works, I don't think they're thinking about what works best for the story, because if you think about a film noir, why is it so dark and moody?

 

Well, the logic is in a film noir, a private detective would operate in the shadows, he's methodical and covert about his operations, he might "shadow" someone at night, and most film noirs take place in big cities like New York. So, the cinematographer can have an idea about the mood of the picture just by understanding the setting, and the life in which that certain character operates, day or night, does he sleep in the dark? etc.

 

By merely observing the way light naturally works, you begin to understand it more, if you look at the lightbulb above you, it will most likely appear "yellow" and distorted, it looks nothing like the way the sunlight looks, white and pure, that is because of the wavelength in the color spectrum, and tungsten balance sources have more red. So, in cinematography light is the imagining of the way nature works, but nowadays there are more noticeable distortions, such as when the cinematographer changes the color temperature in the camera, and we see the entire frame tinted in a certain color, like in The Matrix. Color is also a way to convey information to the viewer, they used to do it in silent films too, night scenes were tinted with a blueish tint, etc.

Edited by joshua gallegos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel cinematographers have a unique understanding of light by observing and interpreting the way nature works, I don't think they're thinking about what works best for the story, because if you think about a film noir, why is it so dark and moody?

 

Well, I guess it depends on the director and his understanding of art. There will be directors who are not very interested in this topic, others are very interested, etc.

Some of them may be fans of Rembrandt and da Vinci, others are not.

 

But I do think that light works for a story! In a documentary I heard a good quote: Every frame of a movie is like a photograph, like a photo. The way you would arrange arrange everything for this one shot, you will do that for a movie too, usually.

 

I agree that not every light setting has a deeper meaning, not every light is "intellectual". Some of them are really just motivated (like the sunlight, lamps etc.), others are only there to look beautiful.

 

But of course you can for example give the audience hints about a character or the way he/she feels with the way you light a scene. Is a character nice? Then you would probably not use hard shadows, more soft light maybe. You wouldn´t want to have a dark shadow over his eyes, making them disappear in the darkness, because that would look more dangerous.

With the light you can draw the attention of the audience to a certain part of the picture, maybe the eyes of a character, or an object in the set.

 

In "Dracula", Coppola wanted the rooms in the castle to disappear in the shadows, the ceilings and other parts, so the viewer would not know where the room ends or what is there in the shadow. Also a way of telling a story.

 

 

So, in cinematography light is the imagining of the way nature works, but nowadays there are more noticeable distortions, such as when the cinematographer changes the color temperature in the camera, and we see the entire frame tinted in a certain color, like in The Matrix. Color is also a way to convey information to the viewer, they used to do it in silent films too, night scenes were tinted with a blueish tint, etc.

 

Absolutely, that´s one of the things you can do! But also other things, like the angle of the camera. For example, in the old Batman-series (with the late Adam West), everytime they filmed a hide-out of the villain, the camera would turn a little bit so that the image is crooked. That way they show the audience, that the world of the villains here is crazy, not "normal", that creates an unnatural feeling if you watch it.

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, I guess it depends on the director and his understanding of art. There will be directors who are not very interested in this topic, others are very interested, etc.

Some of them may be fans of Rembrandt and da Vinci, others are not.

I disagree, a director hires a cinematographer for his expertise in a field that a director would know nothing about. DO you think some dumb cluck like Ben Affleck knows a thing about blocking or lighting, I bet the cinematographer holds his hand through the entire process. A cinematographer is the wizard of moviemaking, a GREAT director will concentrate on his actors, and trust everyone around him to do their job, because they were hired for their incredible abilities to do whatever it is they were hired to do, unless they are a special exception like Stanley Kubrick who was a great master of photography.

 

A great example is Gordon Willis, Francis had very conventional ideas about how the scenes should be lit and Gordon realized his ideas were not very good, so he took control and gave Godfather the look we see today, with the overhead lighting he used, everyone was complaining that you couldn't see the image, because of how he underexposed them. Gordon had such a special way of seeing, and controlling light and shadow to the best of the camera's ability, and not just that but his framing and understanding how films are composed. Whenever you see something shot by Gordon Willis you experience his indelible mark, and the director takes ALL the credit, it becomes his film, simply because he "directed" it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Scientists are able to understand the universe by understanding the energy of the photon, by measuring wavelengths, and likewise, I feel cinematographers have a unique understanding of light by observing and interpreting the way nature works, I don't think they're thinking about what works best for the story, because if you think about a film noir, why is it so dark and moody?

 

Well, the logic is in a film noir, a private detective would operate in the shadows, he's methodical and covert about his operations, he might "shadow" someone at night, and most film noirs take place in big cities like New York. So, the cinematographer can have an idea about the mood of the picture just by understanding the setting, and the life in which that certain character operates, day or night, does he sleep in the dark? etc.

 

Making a crime drama dark and moody IS thinking about what works best for the story, so I don't get this notion that cinematographers don't think about what works best for the story. There are a million ways to approach a scene and in order to narrow down your choices, one of the things you have to do as a cinematographer is decide what the story needs at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

DO you think some dumb cluck like Ben Affleck knows a thing about blocking or lighting, I bet the cinematographer holds his hand through the entire process.

 

That 'dumb cluck' has an Oscar for best original screenplay, and has also worked with a ton of great directors over nearly 30 years. I'm sure he's picked up a few things in that time. Just sayin'...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That 'dumb cluck' has an Oscar for best original screenplay, and has also worked with a ton of great directors over nearly 30 years. I'm sure he's picked up a few things in that time. Just sayin'...

The guy's a terrible director and actor, Oscars don't mean a thing, it proves absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, a director hires a cinematographer for his expertise in a field that a director would know nothing about.

What I meant was, that some directors are more intererested in certain parts of movie making, others in other parts. Maybe one director is more interested in the STORY of the film, not in creative camera angles or other technical stuff.

 

Oscars don't mean a thing, it proves absolutely nothing.

Here I agree with you. I read Woody Allen didn´t go to the Oscars when he won for "Annie Hall", and later he didn´t allow that this movie gets promoted with the mention of winning an Oscar. Hitchcock never got an Oscar.

 

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Making a crime drama dark and moody IS thinking about what works best for the story, so I don't get this notion that cinematographers don't think about what works best for the story. There are a million ways to approach a scene and in order to narrow down your choices, one of the things you have to do as a cinematographer is decide what the story needs at that point.

But doesn't the setting of the story influence the overall lighting before anything else? When you say "story", do you mean you force the light to appear in a certain way, even if it's unnatural? Because, when I see Carol Reed's 'The Third Man' you remember certain scenes when light does something magical, but it purely comes from the setting of the picture. For instance, when Orson Welles makes his memorable intro, we see him unearthed from the dark shadows by the light coming from an apartment window. Light in itself is motivated by the setting, and how a character interacts with the light is purely incidental. The setting dictates how light behaves, not the story. I think camera movement, lens choice, etc is what is most integral to the storytelling process. At lest that's my own observation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you light a setting can change it's appearance. I know one director I worked for who hated white walls, so most of the lighting effect went into ensuring that the minimum amounts of light fell on the walls. The rooms didn't look anything like they do normally.

 

The Bradbury Building as used in Blade Runner, doesn't look anything like the way it appears in real life or many of the TV dramas that used it as a location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There are a variety of things you think about in addition to story but that doesn't mean a cinematographer doesn't think about story. And story determines setting and time of day.

 

If we DIDN'T think about story, that's when we do things that stick out and are out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but as a cinematographer, you would want it to appear "incidental" so that it has a natural feeling and not appear to be too "designed"? I thought cinematographers attempted to avoid cliche, for instance the way comedies are lit is completely boring. In 'Some Like It Hot' Billy Wilder broke the convention of overlighting a comedy, and it has the feel and look of a noir. Isnt there a difference between setting and story? I mean a creepy old castle would appear the same in a dark stormy night regardless of genre, wouldn't it? Regardless of whatever story the filmmaker was telling, the setting would still look the same.

 

But I won't question you, since this is your profession, I'm just in the sidelines observing and trying to learn a thing or two. I thought most of the design was in the image size, how it all cuts together, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but as a cinematographer, you would want it to appear "incidental" so that it has a natural feeling and not appear to be too "designed"? I thought cinematographers attempted to avoid cliche, for instance the way comedies are lit is completely boring. In 'Some Like It Hot' Billy Wilder broke the convention of overlighting a comedy, and it has the feel and look of a noir. Isnt there a difference between setting and story? I mean a creepy old castle would appear the same in a dark stormy night regardless of genre, wouldn't it? Regardless of whatever story the filmmaker was telling, the setting would still look the same.

 

You're right, Josh, that the cinematography should feel natural, but what is natural is relative to the content, style, and mise en scene of the movie. I agree with David that everything is intentionally placed in cinematography; nothing accidental goes on screen without the DP approving it. Sure there's happy accidents on set (see Conrad Hall's In Cold Blood), but those accidents become decisions because the DP uses them. Ultimately, cinematography adds layers to the film through performance, mood, perspective, or plot.

 

Cinematography should be an invisible craft in my opinion. When it takes center stage during a film, we lose focus on the story itself. As such, I believe most DP's design cinematography to be subtle relative to the story. Chicago for example uses theatrical style lighting during the musical numbers...which makes sense and naturally fits in a world where people break out into song or dance. Sicario, however, utilizes a more realistic lighting approach to make the story feel real. Would Dion Beebe shoot Sicario the same way he shot Chicago? Would Deakins shoot Chicago like how he shot Sicario? They light what best supported the story and what would yield the best catharsis for the viewer.

 

Lighting is just one aspect of cinematography; camera movement, composition, color, etc etc are all factors the DP takes into consideration and all are based on story and how they propel the empathy or sympathy from the audience.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, but as a cinematographer, you would want it to appear "incidental" so that it has a natural feeling and not appear to be too "designed"? I thought cinematographers attempted to avoid cliche, for instance the way comedies are lit is completely boring. In 'Some Like It Hot' Billy Wilder broke the convention of overlighting a comedy, and it has the feel and look of a noir. Isnt there a difference between setting and story? I mean a creepy old castle would appear the same in a dark stormy night regardless of genre, wouldn't it? Regardless of whatever story the filmmaker was telling, the setting would still look the same.

 

But I won't question you, since this is your profession, I'm just in the sidelines observing and trying to learn a thing or two. I thought most of the design was in the image size, how it all cuts together, etc.

 

 

But how is making lighting seem logically motivated an example of cinematographers not thinking about story? We can't do both? We can't chew gum and walk at the same time?

 

There are many ways to motivate lighting in a scene, particularly an urban night scene, so how do you think we begin to break down all our choices? We look at the script and read what the scene needs to effectively tell the story, just as the director does, but we specifically think in terms of light, composition, color, movement, etc. I could find a way to logically motivate the characters falling into silhouette against a lit wall, or I can do the opposite, find a way to have light fall on them and not the wall. Which I choose depends a lot of what the scene is trying to accomplish dramatically and plot-wise. If I need to read a character's decision to do something, then I probably cannot get away with a total silhouette effect. On the other hand, if the audience is not supposed to know who is in the space, just that someone is there, then probably I cannot have light on the actor, and instead find a way to obscure them with shadows. Finding a way for the lighting to seem logical to the space is just what you figure out after you've figured out what you need to accomplish story-wise.

 

Even in a room, I can decide to open or close the curtains, turn on or off certain practicals -- I have all those options, so what is the deciding factor into which choice I make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

You're right, Josh, that the cinematography should feel natural, but what is natural is relative to the content, style, and mise en scene of the movie. I agree with David that everything is intentionally placed in cinematography; nothing accidental goes on screen without the DP approving it.

 

 

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that nothing is unintentional; cinematographers aren't gods, we don't control the weather! As the saying goes, some days you eat the bear and other days, the bear eats you. Filmmaking is the attempt to exert control over real-world elements and some things can be beyond your control.

 

Also, we don't edit what we shoot usually so things can go on the screen that we don't necessarily approve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But how is making lighting seem logically motivated an example of cinematographers not thinking about story? We can't do both? We can't chew gum and walk at the same time?

 

There are many ways to motivate lighting in a scene, particularly an urban night scene, so how do you think we begin to break down all our choices? We look at the script and read what the scene needs to effectively tell the story, just as the director does, but we specifically think in terms of light, composition, color, movement, etc. I could find a way to logically motivate the characters falling into silhouette against a lit wall, or I can do the opposite, find a way to have light fall on them and not the wall. Which I choose depends a lot of what the scene is trying to accomplish dramatically and plot-wise. If I need to read a character's decision to do something, then I probably cannot get away with a total silhouette effect. On the other hand, if the audience is not supposed to know who is in the space, just that someone is there, then probably I cannot have light on the actor, and instead find a way to obscure them with shadows. Finding a way for the lighting to seem logical to the space is just what you figure out after you've figured out what you need to accomplish story-wise.

 

Even in a room, I can decide to open or close the curtains, turn on or off certain practicals -- I have all those options, so what is the deciding factor into which choice I make?

But I was referring to the inherent style of a cinematographer that distinguishes him. Yes, I know a cinematographer is subservient to the story the director wants to tell, but surely there are external influences that have got nothing to do with the story's plot in terms of how the cinematographer uses light. For instance, the style that Jordan Cronenweth invented for Blade Runner has become a cliche in modern sci-fi films, it has become the "standard" for lighting sci-fi movies, yes the story calls for the light to do this and that for dramatic purposes, but the style didn't emerge from the story, it came from Jordan's vision of HOW light would work in such a futuristic world. But yes, I don't know why I wrote that a cinematographer doesn't think about the story, because that's their function when they are hired, but I meant to refer to their overall style and influences that have shaped their understanding of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, ok then. Takes one to know one? ;)

Well I'm neither an actor or director, so...

 

But I guess you're a huge Ben Affleck fan, I personally think he makes films for self-aggrandizing reasons, he just wants to be important, and it shows. The best filmmakers don't make movies to win awards, and some filmmakers you can tell desperately make movies just so they can win awards. Ben Affleck is one of those "directors".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I saw a photo of one of my favourite opera singers, Graziella Sciutti, and of course I also payed attention to the lighting.

 

post-72805-0-14389600-1497669760_thumb.jpg

 

I guess this is a Rembrandt lighting (triangle under the eye). Soft keylight from the left, very soft fill light from the right. But the nose shadow throws a very long shadow down, so I guess there is another light coming from the upper left corner like here?

 

post-72805-0-90187600-1497669950_thumb.jpg

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one key light. It's also set on quite normal height/angle, it's just her leaning towards the lens that mekes the nose shadow do further down to her upper lip.

Key's not quite soft. Could be a big-eye fresnel with very thin diffusion like Hampshire frost - or it could be bare and it's makeup which prevents skin from looking more specular.

Fill likely comes from the key side. Then she's cross backlit by 2 softlights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t really understand it :(

You mean, there is one keylight in front of her, maybe a little higher then the eyes, and the shadow comes from her leaning towards the camera? If this is correct, I understand it.

 

But what else did they do? Which light comes from which direction (from our POV)? I think there is some light from the left, because her left cheek looks not so dark as her right does.

 

 

Greetings,

Sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...