Lighting continuity

[Morgan Peline]

Hi,

 

Recently I shot a night time interior in a Bingo hall and basically had to keep moving lights to achieve the looks I wanted...as you do being a lighting person. It looked nice but I keep thinking that in reality the looks that I achieved could never have happened. I know this probably sounds very obvious to the more experienced amongst us!

 

Having recently watched loads of big budget films looking out specifically for lighting continuity - I've realised that experienced DPs don't actually worry about lighting continuity they worry more about the mood of the shot therefore my conclusion is that 'lighting' continuity doesn't actually exist and that only 'mood' continuity exists.

 

The perfect example is the backlit moonlit scene e.g. in Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter 3 - sometimes the 'moon' changes position from one reverse to another to make consecutive shots backlit. In Van Helsing, (yes, I do like fantasy films!...though this one definitely didn't live up to its potential, though it looked great) during a night interior in a castle Van Helsing's side kick walks into a large hall in a wide shot where he's heavily backlit by a bright, hard moonbeam, however, throughout the scene the moon has been established from completely the other side. The mood stays the same (and the fact that you can see the characters) but not the lighting continuity. In fact on many features key lights are constantly moving all over the place even on day exteriors where the sun moves from shot to shot, but it only ever seems to be me that notices, no one else even seems to care (not that I make it point of bringing up such things...tends to ruin the story!).

 

So here's the question: Does lighting continuity actually exist or matter?...or is it just as easy as this:

 

'Just light for the mood you want to create regardless of lighting continuity.'

 

Any thoughts?

 

Morgan

[Laurent Andrieux]

I think there are different "schools" about that. I refer to the well known question : does the light has to be realistic, or should I care only for its own esthetics, even though it's no credible.

 

The french director Y. Angelo won a light cesar for a film (tous les matins du monde) in which there was a scene where the light was coming from the exact opposite direction from where the windows were and there was no matter how light could come from the direction he lit. He said he didn't care how realistic his light was, that he was much into the esthetics it self.

 

I think continuity doesn't do any arm, if you have time to assume it.

 

Sometimes we see things that "normal" people won't see but I think that somehow, caring for this continuity helps them to "feel" and believe in what they see, just like respecting the 180° rule for camera cuts. It's not necessarly conscious for the spectator, but it makes the film better somehow, definetly.

 

Another point is that it reassures the director and producers when they see the dailies. It's important too that they feel confident for the dop.

 

I remember a scene on a feature lenght, we where shooting a day scene, inside, but the night had fall and the director decided to shoot anyway. There were only small windows, and we could manage not to see them.

 

So we shot, and at one point, we totatly forgot about a window that was only a black square in the frame in the foreground.

 

At the dailys, the director got mad about that though I'm sure 99 % of the people wouldn't have noticed, because of the drama and so...

 

Of course the "mood" is important, but assuming continuity makes the mood stronger again. I thinks the script and the talent always deserve it.

 

You can sometimes take risks, but as long as you can assume a continuity, do it.

 

It actually is such a nice game to play..

 

Sometimes you just don't have time to make it perfect. Makes choices and hope you've done the good ones.

[David Mullen ASC]

Movies are all about illusion, even the illusion of realism. Lawrence Olivier said about acting that the most important element was sincerity -- if you can fake that, you can fake anything. Same goes for lighting. Realism is just another form of artifice that may or may not be appropriate for the film. The truth is that light changes all the time and that people are not always standing in good light. Sometimes the real lighting on a location is worse than the worst bad student lighting -- overlit, multiple shadows, etc.

 

You're always trying the master the art of invisible cheating in lighting when going from shot to shot in a sequence. Sometimes you maintain the continuity of the light sources established in the master, sometimes you don't. When I have someone sitting in a chair heavily backlit by "sunlight" coming from a high window, let's say, when I do the reverse over the shoulder shots, do I let the back of their head, now facing camera, be very hot and front lit? Do I flip the backlight? Do I keep the light on the head but bring it down so it is less distracting? To I move it to one side more so it is less frontal? It just depends on what feels right, what you think might cut together better.

 

Wouldn't it have been Yves Angelo, the DP, who made that choice in "Tous Les Matins du Monde"?

[Laurent Andrieux]

You're right, - he worked as a director after that - I've edit the post, thanks.

[oscar jimenez]

In my opinion, lightning should be consistent, all the times, ( from shots within a secene and on the same location at a certain hour ) maybe you can try some Nestor Almendros realistic look and don't imagine anything, just research or maybe you can try some Robert Elswitt and do magic unrealistic things, as far as Im concerned as long as you are happy with the results, that is what matters, keeping in mind that there should be some logic and common sense for the rest of human beings to understand the "mood " you are trying to create or emulate, whatever it is. Has anybody seen "Four Feathers" a feature lit by master Robert Richardson? Just love the way actors come in and out of key reading and they have their dialog with their faces very low on light on interiors, was great lighning.