Vittorio Storaro isn't a DP

[Chris Keth]

The title just comes down to pompousness in my opinion, its the same fu*king thing - You run the camera, grip and electric departments, all with the goal of achieving what the DP/ cinematographer desires. The art is in what the desire is. All this critical analysis of the art doesn't seem to exist on set, it exists in interviews and preproduction.

 

ABsolutely! I admire Storaro's work very much. I don't admire his pompous attitude at all. :angry:

[David Mullen ASC]

ABsolutely! I admire Storaro's work very much. I don't admire his pompous attitude at all. :angry:

 

He's not being pompous, just passionate and opinionated about his chosen field. Pretensious, perhaps, but not pompous. That would imply his ego was bigger than his talent, which it isn't.

[Tobias Marshall]

I believe the term 'Cinematographers' to only be viable to the top echelon of Camermen in regard to format and distribution. Basically shot on film and shown in theatres. I would argue a DoP lights for television where as a Cinematographer lights for Features.

[Kevin Zanit]

Care to elaborate on why you think this way? What happens when a "top" cinematographer shoots a TV pilot, or a high end commercial? Is he now not a cinematographer?

[Angeliki Makraki]

He's not being pompous, just passionate and opinionated about his chosen field. Pretensious, perhaps, but not pompous. That would imply his ego was bigger than his talent, which it isn't.

 

 

I don't think that he is pretentious. He is more cultured and talented than most cinematographers.

It would be more interesting to talk about his colour theories than his titles.

[John Allardice]

I believe the term 'Cinematographers' to only be viable to the top echelon of Camermen in regard to format and distribution. Basically shot on film and shown in theatres. I would argue a DoP lights for television where as a Cinematographer lights for Features.

 

Now there's some goddamn pretension & pomposity for you.

[Tobias Marshall]

Care to elaborate on why you think this way? What happens when a "top" cinematographer shoots a TV pilot, or a high end commercial? Is he now not a cinematographer?

 

Exactly, his title relates to the project, however a person has the right to label themselves as a Cinematographer but only if they have shot something in the 'top' (I do not relate this to budget or gravitas)form of the visual arts - Cinema. Some title/honor has to be reserved for this. Short Films with this in mind included.

 

But also the role encompasses a tight visual collaboration between costume and production designers, also maintaining a style of shooting with the Director whilst lighting (the crux). He is the artistic chief of the technicians, who the director relies on to help get his vision on screen. If the Director doesn't know the answer the Cinematrographer should. (yes DP's do the same)

 

Right this could be the 'pompos' bit, I feel Cinematrograher has to be someone who is able to work with film, but not necessarily uses it at every given moment, but atleast as experience. Film or exposing a latent image is the greatest test for any photographer (Ansel Adams would agree), once you set that stop you have to know without actually seeing what is on that negative for the perfect exposure. For me this is photography. We are moving away from the art in this digital age.

 

However if A Cinematographer works on for example: a outside boardcast, he is a Lighting Camerman (he hasn't lost his above status) for that project. It would be ridiculous for him to be credited as Cinematographer.

 

Here come the tricky part for my argument!,

I feel those who shot the Dekalog and Band of Brothers were Cinematographers for that project, although made for TV. I could argue that they are both 10 hour features, but thats a whole new discussion!

[David Mullen ASC]

This is why these distinctions & definitions start to get silly. Personally, if I get to shoot something and get credit for it, I'm happy whether the title says "photographed by", "cinematography by", "Director of Photography", etc. All that matters is that anough people agree upon the definition of a term. In fifty years, fashion may change and we'll see a whole new term. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

We (here) all know who Gregg Toland was and his important contribution to the history of cinematography... but I couldn't tell you exactly how he is credited in all his movies.

 

This is issue (DP vs. Cinematographer) is nothing compared to how screenwriters feel about the "A Film By" credit that directors get.

[Matthew Buick]

Storaro basically doesn't like the word "director", he feels that a movie has one director -- he considers himself a "writer of light"

 

If you ask me "Writer of Light" sound self-glorifying and egotistical, I'm fine with 'Photography by'.

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

If you ask me "Writer of Light" sound self-glorifying and egotistical, I'm fine with 'Photography by'.

 

It's not as if he's saying he's THE Writer of Light, but that's what a "cinematographer" is.

 

And of course somebody with as much knowledge as he has is going to come across as egotistical on paper. I hear he's quite the charismatic and approachable character in person though, which overrides any claim of being egotistical to a fault.

[Matthew Buick]

Hmm...that's good then. :)

 

I'm surprised about how many famous cinematographers seem totally uncorrupted by their incredible skill.

[Chad Stockfleth]

We are moving away from the art in this digital age.

 

How so? This kind of bothers me. The art is not the educated guessing game of negative film exposure. The art is the crafting of an image. The final product. How does seeing what you are getting remove the art from the process?

 

Also, Cinematography is defined as: The art of making motion pictures.

 

This is not exclusive to film or theatrically projected movies.

 

I'm pretty sick of this argument that people who shoot film are more special. Mostly it seems to come from people with little experience who idolize others, or persons with an inflated sense of self-importance.

[Kevin Zanit]

I second Chad's comment completly.

[Keith Mottram]

Here come the tricky part for my argument!,

I feel those who shot the Dekalog and Band of Brothers were Cinematographers for that project, although made for TV. I could argue that they are both 10 hour features, but thats a whole new discussion!

 

and i could argue that an apple is an orange, but this site is dedicated to cinematography not philosophy...

[Tobias Marshall]

How so? This kind of bothers me. The art is not the educated guessing game of negative film exposure. The art is the crafting of an image. The final product. How does seeing what you are getting remove the art from the process?

 

You make a good point because a beautiful image is simply that, no matter how you came to it. However for me what grabs me about Photography, is the craft, and I hate to see the craft lost. Why have a darkroom when you can have photoshop? simply because I respect craft more than shortcuts, maybe I'm just a romantic.

 

Also, Cinematography is defined as: The art of making motion pictures.

 

This is not exclusive to film or theatrically projected movies.

 

As in every word on any post-board its just opinion, I'm sure alot of people who shoot on miniDV consider themselves Cinematographers, I don't criticize them for thinking this, I just don't consider them Cinematographers. I as stated earlier I feel the term should be reserved for those who use Photography in its purest form whilst bringing us to theatres.

[Chad Stockfleth]

I think of the craft more as a means to an end. Photo-chemical printing is great, Photoshop is also great, and more versatile, and more accessible. Not to mention that when you are being PAYED to create things, a shortcut is your friend. I'm not championing lesser quality, but if you can do it quicker, then it's better.

 

Photography in it's purest form? A Daguerrotype? Where does the line get drawn? Some great cinematographers shoot on mini-dv. I quoted from the dictionary, not my opinion. Cinematography is the art of making motion pictures.

 

If you want to argue that "cinematographer" should be a title reserved for people who get paid to do what they do, that is a different and more interesting argument to me.

 

Ultimately, who cares. Titles are kind of silly. Make up whatever you want to be called, be judged by the work.

[Guest Roman Latkovic]

Anyone venture a guess on why Storaro is so adamant that he is a cinematographer, and not a director of photography?

 

 

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

 

This great artist / cinematographer / DP / writer of light gave us so many great images to enjoy and envy. While I would be the last person to suggest which title Mr. Storaro should use for his title I honestly believe Shakespeare said it all (quoted above).

Edited February 19, 2007 by Roman Latkovic

[Alexander Browne]

One thing that occurs to me is that from time to time I will watch a film and it really strikes me that I haven't been watching "cinematography" but merely "photography". Clearly there is a grey area between the roles of the DP and the director here... I'm talking about when the camera doesn't seem to recognise the forth dimension or perhaps interact with the third. Sure, there's camera movement but not in any studied way (ie some sort of TV style "spice up some boring stuff" dolly). The passing of time in any shot seems to be almost insignificant in camera. I seem to remember The Weather Man (2005) was like this, which I thought was pretty well photographed. I don't know if that adds anything?

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble with that kind of thinking is that it will lead you to believe that the more the camera moves, the greater the cinematography. Gordon Willis is one of the greatest cinematographers in history, and he hardly moved the camera. Cinematography may literally mean "writing with movement" in Greek but what it actually means is "motion picture (cinema) photography" -- which includes static shots.

[Tobias Marshall]

Or as Eisenstein said about Dziga Vertov, "Unmotivated Camera Mischief"!

[Alexander Browne]

Trouble with that kind of thinking is that it will lead you to believe that the more the camera moves, the greater the cinematography. Gordon Willis is one of the greatest cinematographers in history, and he hardly moved the camera. Cinematography may literally mean "writing with movement" in Greek but what it actually means is "motion picture (cinema) photography" -- which includes static shots.

 

I agree completely. I pretty new to this game and I haven't studied in a proper school so I find it a little hard to explain myself clearly in the kind of language you guys would be fluent with. I really enjoy Ozu's work or more modern films like "Miller's Crossing"; the films of Hsiao-hsien Hou... One of my favourite films in terms of cinematography is Kurosawa's "high and low". All of these have very minimal camera movement but it seems motivated. You can tell the director and cinematographers think in the third and forth dimensions, even though the camera remains stationary most of the time. This is generally appreciable in the times when the camera does move, or the precise angle and position of the camera and lights relative to the blocking of the action when using a tripod. An non-specific example that comes to mind would be the later films of Kieslowski when you'll frequently find the talent interacting with the light over the course of time - eg. stepping into/ out of it.... This is cinematography and not just photography to me.

 

The difference is perhaps if you gave a cinematographer a still camera and asked him - how would you photograph this scene? Then threw him a bolex and said this is what's happening in the scene, how would you shoot it now? His two answers might be different. You would know better than me though! A photographer would give the same answer twice, essentially. Do you think thats a fair comment?

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously we deal with movement (and thus time) in cinematography -- rarely is everything in the frame perfectly still.

 

But when it is -- like a shot of a building, let's say -- then classic notions applied from still photography are more readily applicable, as are notions from paintings. But even paintings and still photography deal with movement, they just freeze it or suggest it, whereas cinematography can have real movement in it.

 

For me, the primary difference between a still photograph or a painting and a movie is the amount of time allotted to "read" the image. With a work of still art, the viewer has as much time as they need or want to look at the image and analyze its components, absorb its meaning, derive pleasure, etc.

 

A film image is only on-screen briefly, the minimal amount of time necessary to "get it" -- and the viewer doesn't get to decide how much time that is. Therefore lighting, composition, movement, etc. all have to communicate intent much more quickly, and direct the eye more quickly. This encourages more dynamism in lighting, angle, movement, etc. -- broader brushstrokes if you will. An overly subtle composition on display for a second or so will be hard to interpret.

[Matthew Buick]

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

 

I honestly believe Shakespeare said it all.

 

That wasn't Shakespeare, that was Juliet. Fool. :angry:

[Matthew Buick]

Sorry about the above post, bad joke, could a moderator kindly erase it.

[Paul Bruening]

I don't like to be called a Cinematograher, Director of Photography or Lighting Cameraman. I prefer to be called Shirley.