Joseph Nunez

Thanks immensely, David. I've been studying the work of Andrzej Sekula and am quite excited about it. Check out his work if you want to see modern examples, Marcus - here's a frame from "Vacancy" from 2007:

some pics....

Ive always had an interest in expressionistic/stylilzed lighting, and found myself prefering the boldness of hard light while practicing setups (I'm a total beginner). Now, I found an textbook that outlines a technique for what the author refers to as an atmospheric (rather than a motivated) approach, where (largely unmotivated) pools of hard light are used to selectively light areas of the set. I am noticing the style in my favorite 70's movies, and most notably in Pulp Fiction. I love this look, and am wondering if it would be a waste of time to pursue; I know audiences today respond best to softer more apparently natural light. Am i just going to circle back after practicing this technique, and realize that noone "buys" this look anymore?

Naturalistic light used to mean soft and usually not too contrasty, and basically looks like NATURE did it and not a person. Look up Nestor Almendros, maybe go on youtube and watch the trailers to Days Of Heaven, Sophies Choice, Badlands... Maybe now the term means almost nothing- even superhero movies like Dark Knight are lit in a supposedly realistic way, although I know Zodiac was meant to look very naturalistic. If you look at something like Where The Wild Things Are which is a fantasy story, with its earth tones and soft light, you see what I mean about everyone insisting everything must be naturalistic. naturalistic= like NATURE did it expressionistic= trying to EXPRESS something even if its not realistic

I have a horror short to shoot in an all white walled room with nothing on the walls. I'm playing with the theory that the walls don't need to be darker than the talent- they need to be a different tone. In other words- silhouette. Light the background, with perhaps some colored light (practicals allowed to fall a bit yellow?), let the actors fall into shadow, then pick them up with a soft fill light, perhaps coming from the side for some modelling. That's what I'm trying anyway...using blue phony moonlight (I'm also breaking up the walls a bit with some props too). I'm no experienced pro so take that with a grain of salt, but you can watch the Girlfriend Experience trailer if you want to see what I mean. Is it possible those walls on the couch scene were white? Someone chime in tell me if I'm misguided...

don't make the mistake of thinking three-point lighting is some kind of formula and then ignoring it out of rebelliousness. Everyone does this (I did), and then you go around in a big circle and end up doing three-point lighting anyway. Even People that SAY they dont use it, are using it, whether they call it three-point or not. WHy? Cause its common sense: You need a light in order to light something. You know, so you can see it. That's your main light. Your "key" light. Maybe the shadows made by your light are too dark for the look what you want? Gee, maybe Ill add another light to lighten them up. Fill. Wow, The guys hair is dark and the background is dark and hes getting lost in the scene? Gee. If I hit em from behind with a light he'll pop out. Backlight. Sometimes you'll use only a key. Some you won't use a backlight. Sometimes you'll use only a key and backlight. Some DPs get all philosophical and never use backlight cause they say it's fake (movies are fake, btw). Learn three point lighting- think of it as a way to -explain- light sources not so much a technique...

Awesome book: http://www.amazon.com/Lighting-Third-Gerald-Millerson-MSMPTE/dp/024051582X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1286124222&sr=8-5#reader_024051582X also very good: http://www.amazon.com/Lighting-Digital-Video-Television-Third/dp/0240812271/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286124804&sr=1-1 :)

I think it's a hard thing for alot of cinematographers to accept: LIGHTING NEED NOT BE MOTIVATED. MOVIES ARE FAKE!!!!! Lighting continuity is mostly about keeping the same general key (low key/high key) than it is anything else. Classic movies were shot with the starlet in perfect butterfly light even she was adrift on a log at sea. And they were awesome. MOVIES ARE FAKE! sorry to get all passionate but I think the trend towards naturalism in movies in general is so silly. They even tried to shoot Nightmare On Elm street, a story about a guy who kills your in your dreams, in the same style as a slasher film. WHERES MY WIERD COLORED ARGENTO STYLE LIGHT? HUH??????????? Sorry Im mad. Two broad filmic philosophies: NATURALISM (its good if it looks real)- bull--ahem--cough--poop! EXPRESSIONISM (if it communicates emotion, it is good) Pick one. Trust me the second one is better. Praise the gods for Sam Raimi. Watch Drag Me To Hell then watch Saw. Ask me which was more fun. MOVIES ARE FAKE!!!!!!!

no offense to anyone but I find even the idea of a "phony trailer" very backwards and weird. I don't understand the trend one bit. That the Coens did it doesn't change my opinion (and I deify them). Get multiple locations and pretty shots to make it look like portions taken from a full-length movie? I'm no industry guy but i hear all the time about 1-3 minute shorts opening doors, provided they have high production value. Look up "Panic Attack!", and the story behind Andy and Barbara Muschietti's Mama (I can't find Mama online anywhere anymore, but I saw it and it was way creepy good). You're gonna waste money/production value on a....fake trailer for a pretend movie? Wouldn't you rather make a movie?

The objective of the scene is what the character is trying to get, and the beats are TACTICS to try and get that thing. Each beat lasts a few lines before the character tries a new tactic. beat- asking directly A: gimme ten dollars. B" why? A: Just do it. B: Not till you tell me. beat- explaining A: I owe someone money. B: Who? A: Joey. B: hows that my problem? beat- guilt tripping. A: Was it my problem when I saved your ass from so and so blah blah B: That's not fair etc etc Get "Practical Handbook for The Actor".

Some of your work will be good, some of it might suck, some of it will be mediocre, none of it has to do with age or some mythical hot spot. Tarantino says its a "young persons game" and that he'll quit at a certain point (yeah, right), but Kurasawa directed Ran at like, 80 or something. In between Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards Tarantino made one "pretty-good " movie (Jackie Brown), and a certainly "not that great" one, Deathproof. Kubricks "streak" is full of films with their own warts and misteps- the on-the-nose casting of The Shining, the slowness of Barry Lyndon (hey, I love it), the two-seperate-movies feel of Full Metal Jacket. Kubricks movies for all their genius, take time to warm up to. As for Cameron, don't even get me started. No waaaay Avatar displays the same command of craft as Aliens or Terminator. Art is hard, moviemaking is complex, creators are human, and there's a random x-factor that goes into it all; no matter how talented you are, sometimes, it simply doesn't work out. Or you get really lucky and your talents and the material and everything else line up perfectly (Sixth Sense anyone?).