Jump to content

"Hollywood Lighting" by Patrick Keating


Recommended Posts

Yes and actors are commodities too, and most filmmakers are male, and sexism and objectification are just as bad as they ever were, and just because women are lit to look less glamorous that changes nothing. If you like sports, should that be questioned? No, and neither should a woman liking glamour (or sports). Blackness and darkness are not intrinsically male, but males are the ones who seem obsessed with creating darkness in cinema (and all conventions in cinema). I'm going to engage in a stereotype and a bit of essentialism here: if women like to be lit and like to make movies where others are lit, it's because women respond to faces. That's not sexist, it's biological and has to do with a woman needing to read the expressions on her baby's face. A love of NOT seeing another person's face excites the limbic part of a man's brain that responds to the possibility of enemies or prey hiding in the shadows that he can overpower and kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also you can take this "everything is constructed" thing too far. If you're going to question why a woman does anything, you have to question why men do anything, and that doesn't solve the problem either. Radical feminists try to even the score by insisting that gender is SO highly constructed that they actually believe that men wouldn't like looking at naked women unless they were shown pictures of naked women from childhood. So they discredit biology totally, and suggest that we don't share survival mechanisms intrinsic to very other species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an interest in sports should be questioned.....male aggression and interest in sports is also a marketing game. I think the Bio stuff is really interesting and I'm looking forward to learning more about that. From what I have read of evolutionary theory though alot of this stuff is very prelim ....alot was founded by men and just rreinforces stereotype so it all seems a little iffy... I'm in know means well read enough to say much more though. As for the "radical feminists" I understand that you disagree with much of these ideas but not all "radical feminists" believe men are trained to like naked female bodies.... Getting back to movies though I think you can make a nice argument the thriller stuff and the crime films etc are a male thing of course ....but just the act of using darkness as a tool ....I donno about that.

 

As for glamour I think there is nothing intrinsically shallow or wrong about going after that and using it in films ...but you should be aware of all the baggage it comes with in using it I think. Which is why I personally like to try to redefine it a little hence the interest in the work of lubezki or someone who is trying to approach it differently then the status quo..... As someone who has shot commericals you gotta understand its a pretty big turn off to hear someone over your shoulder with no creative understanding of whats going on say "we really need more light on her face". I couldn't imagine lighting some scene with the script and collaberation with the director perfectly in line and then have to know that you need to make a womens face look a certain way for no reason other then that she is famous and has an image to uphold. Is that not a little silly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I understand the need to flatter an actress -- after all, it's not my face up there on the big screen (the audience should be thankful) -- I only object when I feel it is unnecessary.

 

I recall having to light one actress in her 50's with a frontal key light to be flattering, and story and character-wise, it was justified too, her character had to be somewhat glamorous... only to have another actress in the same movie who was in her early 20's and had flawless skin and a beautiful face complain (mildly) that she wasn't getting the same lighting treatment as the older actress, which was a bit silly. She could have held a flashlight under her chin for lighting and she still would have been gorgeous! Her beauty allowed me to take a more naturalistic approach, which was also in keeping with the character and story, because she was meant to have that "girl-next-door" kind of attractiveness, not look like a model in a magazine.

 

Lighting women is a pleasant challenge and really the bread-and-butter work of the cinematographer, so I don't resent it, I enjoy it, as long as I feel that the lighting isn't working against the intent of the scene or that it doesn't feel completely illogical. You see in movies all the time how cinematographers are flattering certain actresses with their lighting while still maintaining a natural look, it's only clear what they are doing to someone who knows what to look for. Even Lubezki will use a soft frontal key light on an actress -- look at "Gravity", Sandra Bullock seems to be in rather soft frontal lighting more often than not, whether she is in space, in the space station while it explodes around her, or in a tiny capsule. The skill comes in making that lighting seem logical and natural for the setting, but the general rules have always applied for lighting faces, raking light emphasizes skin texture, frontal light minimizes it, different directions of key light change the shape of the face, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch A LOT of old movies, and the best roles ever made for women were in the 1930s. Those movies were glamorous, and they held those women up as goddesses - not in an icky way, but in the most respectful way. Those actresses were not only glamorous and beautiful, they were strong, proud, clever, resourceful, human, funny, and deeply good even when they were also wicked. Because of those movies I have come to associate glamour with everything a woman could ever want. Glamour was like a fantasy for women, where they could escape their difficult lives and watch these girls get to dress in satin and meet impossibly handsome men and outwit and charm everyone and go to the best places and eat the best food and learn hard life lessons at the same time. Those scripts were written by the best writers with great humanity, and the best lighting directors lit them and the best directors molded their acting, and they became something that no one ever gets to be except in a high glamour Hollywood movie. I think the world lost something when women were toppled from their throne of glamour sometime in the 1960s. Of course I'm generalizing when I say that men are more aroused by darkness, but it's a terribly silly thing to say that glamour must be questioned as if there's something wrong with it, when glamour is an art, and art is all that's worth living for. But I just wanted to point out that some things are more visceral than cultural, and that to me a woman in white satin, beautifully lit in black in white nitrate film is one of the most beautiful images in the world. I don't think that because of trendy politically correct notions that I should have to question that. Those women were like beautiful mothers to me, ideal mothers. Then when I grew up they were like ideal sisters. There are no female role models like that anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the status quo in all industries is to make women look beautiful in a classical sense. The most hilarious example is doves "real beauty" campagin which focus's attention on more "regular" looking people who are 1. still classically pretty just not glamorous models and 2. still emphasising a need to use beauty products. Do you not see what I mean by understanding the baggage that comes with "glamour" ....I mean you have to admit the industry as awhole (movies, fashion, beauty) is pretty **(obscenity removed)**ed up right now no? ....and creating idealzed images in cinema of beautfiful women only goes to support that right now. Your in a sense setting up this world where we value the beautfiul actress more then other's just because her body is such a way. What do you say to someone who is born looking "ugly" ....are they automatically a step behind? I mean that is terribly **(obscenity removed)**ed up. Sure I think some level of this is part of our world....if your a handsome guy you have a leg up....but men are valued very differently the level that exists of this for women is crazy. I do some documentary work and I have heard these stories from women with ED I mean something is just a little off in our society right now and I think some of this glamour stuff needs to be knocked down because it is harmful.

 

back to the deconstructionist thought...

The very concept of beauty and glamour is not one that can be locked down. that is to say people have been trying to define beauty since the begining of time and it is not a concept that can really be defined. Therefore it is very much worth questioning why we think certain things are beautiful today because much of the reason we think certain women are beautfiful has no biological end ....it is simply because society has taught us. For example in the 50s 60s women were much larger and today are much more skiny. So to say this kinda light that removes skin texture, this kinda women who looks like way, etc is beautful ....that is problematic and very exclusive .....only a certain group of skinny, mostly white, probably rich, etc, etc women are "glamorous" and that is very very problematic....and to be straightforward ....bad for the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the beauty industry is an industry. Blame capitalism for it. I'm not too concerned with it though and I don't think it promotes too much harm. Taking away the beauty industry does not take away peoples' judgments about women and what they think they should look like. If you want to talk about harm, talk about the sex industry. My problem is in people making a big deal about glamorous images of women when there are so many images out there of women being raped and mutilated, that no one complains about.

 

I don't know where you get your statistics about women in the '50s and '60s. Women in the past were much thinner than today, as was the entire population. That was before the obesity epidemic. The average size of women has gone from a size 8 to a size 14. People are bigger now because of another harmful industry, the fast food industry. That's also an industry that's much more harmful than the beauty industry.

 

Most people like to look their best in a photograph - young, old, male, female, smooth, rough, white, black. That's not problematic. That's not sexist, racist, classist. That's just people wanting to be captured in the best possible way. If you're going to blame anyone, blame casting directors for their narrow choice of actresses and advertisers for their narrow choice of models.

 

You go on and on with your deconstructionist thought, having no idea what the real issues for women are. Most women have no problem with glamour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this thread is getting weighted down with anti-classical lighting approaches, when really it is a thread attempting to honor the diverse work of the greatest masters of cinema lighting that are detailed in Patrick Keating's wonderful book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I tend to think of "glamour" as a specific form of beauty lighting, or flattering lighting, more slick & glossy.

 

Flattering light for actors is very commonplace today, more in TV shows than features, and more with big name talent with power than average actors, so I'd agree that pretty people on the screen is and has always been the status quo, even in art films. It's not like Terrence Malick cast average or ugly people to be his leads in "Tree of Life" or "To The Wonder" and he certainly put them often in very flattering light, albeit natural. Or look at 1960's Swedish, French or Italian art movies, plenty of pretty faces there. Audiences have always liked looking at attractive people, and there are many tricks to make them look more attractive that don't require all-out glamorization techniques.

 

It's sometimes annoying, contrary or distracting to the narrative, but for the most part, taking pleasure in viewing beauty has always been an aspect of art, whether it is a beautiful landscape, sunset, costume, or human face.

 

However, old-fashioned glamour is not the status quo in movies, not like in the classic studio system at least, because audience tastes & expectations require a slightly more realistic approach for many stories, you have to be a lot more subtle in how you are prettifying things. If anything it has put even more pressure to hire attractive young actresses for things like historical dramas because you can't get away with always putting a strong key light over the lens, nor heavy diffusion.

 

Take a look at how a historical drama like "El Cid" was shot in the early 1960's by Robery Krasker ("The Third Man") -- Sophie Loren is almost consistently lit the same way throughout the film:

 

In a dungeon:

elcid4.jpg

 

In a crypt:

elcid5.jpg

 

Outdoors in sunlight:

elcid6.jpg

 

In a barn:

elcid7.jpg

 

At least there wasn't much diffusion applied, if any, unlike Jean Simmon's close-ups in "Spartacus".

 

Now we can argue over definitions and either say that that type of glamorization is no longer the status quo, or we can say that it merely has been modified to appear more believable but the goals are the same, to present actors in a manner that makes them more attractive than in real life or compared to other people. I suspect that Anna would say the first and Albion would say the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that only skinny white women can be glamorous. ANYONE can be glamorous if dressed and lit properly, and everyone has the right to be glamorous if they desire. People also have the right to choose not to be glamorous, and in today's world that is a woman's choice, whereas it used to be a mandate. In the '50s a woman without makeup would be seen as crazy, but over half of the women I see on the streets are not wearing makeup and no one judges them for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No David, I agree that the second is more accurate. It's just that I myself prefer more overt glamour lighting techniques. But it's not just because the older techniques made women more beautiful - it's because they made objects more beautiful. In an old movie, a chair was glamorous. A frying pan was glamorous. And certainly a handbag was glamorous (look at Tippi Hedren's handbag a the beginning of MARNIE). This above all excites me, that interiors and objects can be glamorous too. Yay! Glamour for all people and objects! Glamour for walls and architectural details! Glamour for windows and window dressings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the movie THE BIG KNIFE the other day, and I almost cried when I saw the pattern the windowpanes were creating on the floor, and the other shadows created by the furniture and objects. The couch had its own special personality, with each edge a different shade of grey. That sort of organization in an image is so powerful emotionally and aesthetically. The clean lines of the perfect set design and the subtle shadings of the set made it so the eye never got tired watching that same set for an hour and a half. There was always something new to look at. It's maximal visual pleasure just through design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Great conversation here. I read the book as well, as well as Alton's, and Freddie Young's "Work of the Motion Picture Cameraman". There is a lot to be learned from the grand masters. Painters study the work of those that came centuries before them. Playwrights read Shakespeare. So it does seem odd that sometimes people who want to shoot films don't take stock in the wonderful work done by the great cinematographer's of the past. While the units and capture mediums have changed the concepts and ideas behind the work hasn't. What the audiences, directors and producers will accept has. What is also interesting is how far TV has come in its lighting and cinematography. I've been watching reruns of Columbo, and they aren't really lit that well compared to more modern shows like "Newsroom", "Breaking Bad", "Fargo" and of course David's wonderful work on "Smash". These are all different, but all have the feature film quality that old TV wasn't able to achieve. However, there have been a number of successful feature films that look almost more TV than they do movie in recent times. One can also see the influences of the old masters in movies such as "Hugo" and "War Horse". While digital capture has come a long way, it has reverted back to the way film was treated. We change lenses so we have to keep the "gate" clean and clean the lenses. The footage is raw and sent to a "lab". Everything old is new again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea Actually I don't agree with either David, I don't think the goal is to:

 

" present actors in a manner that makes them more attractive than in real life or compared to other people"

 

 

I think this is a very interesting area to bring up though.... I think most people would agree that is the goal of mise en scene in general....But I think I like the idea that the goal is instead to get closer to some sort of truth. Sometimes that truth is found through a more "realistic" depiction and sometimes that is found through creating a fantastic world where things are glamorous or funny or w/e.....but I think in general I question the notion of film as entertainment first and I feel that there is something problematic in general with the Idea of making actors more attratcive or even more interesting then people in everyday life. I was just listening to something and heard David Byrne say something like "the goal of art is to raise the banality of everyday life to the sublime" ....I think in the past the approach in cinema was more direct and based on older beauty standards .....the idea being we will cast beautfiful people into films and make everything look really special and impressive.....now I think that is coming into question more...and we are often finding the way we make things look can be offensive or shallow...For example the idea of hollywood making films about foregin issues where pretty actors are cast into a situation real people have faced....often these films can be distasteful and ignorant.

 

I think your example of Terrance Malik as and Art Filmmaker might not be the best example, Terrance Malik although has an image of an "art house" guy comes from the studio system and has always used big name talent in his films. I only really brought him up because of lubzekis work. I think if you look at some of the most interesting work being done today you will find many directors using "normal" looking people in their films as its more relatable and honest and cuts through some of the problematic nature of commerical cinema. I just watch Urlich Seidl's "Pardise Love" which has lighting work by Edward Lachman and is a beautfiul film with very real looking people.

 

 

Again I think its important to consider why we think these people are more pretty and why it helps tell a story.... and if there is anything problematic about that. Personally I feel like the answer is yes it is often problematic and why should I have to look at pretty face to be engrossed in a film. I walk down the street everyday and everybody looks pretty damn interesting to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You must admit that a lot of people don't share your preference for looking at more ordinary people over more attractive people... There's a reason why the word is "attractive"!

 

Also, a big close-up in HD, 2K, 4K on a big monitor or movie theater screen can have a level of detail that can magnify the flaws of someone who looks fine standing in the room next to you.

 

Now I would agree that standards of beauty should be more complex and in truth, many famous movie stars who are considered attractive do not have the blandly perfect features of a fashion model (and even the top fashion models often bring something unique to the picture, so to speak.) But that doesn't mean that the majority of viewers out there would prefer to see more ordinary faces on magazine covers and in movies and TV shows. In fact, I am often appalled by the negative comments I see online about the appearance of generally beautiful people of all ages. So even if you have an open mind about what constitutes an attractive face, not everyone is so enlightened.

 

We've had over 100 years of cinema and while standards of beauty have changed and we've had some movie stars with more ordinary or "real" faces, in general, there has been no sign that audiences have stopped wanting to see pretty people (or pretty landscapes, costumes, etc.) on the big screen or on their TV sets. We "consume" beauty and we derive aesthetic pleasure from the right combinations of elements, whether in design, composition, color coordination, or in the human form. That sort of glamorous beauty might not hold your interest, but that's you.

 

The pressure to make places and people "look good" is not just a top down phenomenon, it comes from all directions and sometimes from oneself.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ David Landau: it's all a matter of taste and what you are trying to accomplish with the lighting. I for instance think the lighting in Columbo is very good. It's good because it accomplishes what it's setting out to accomplish - it shows the actors, the action, conveys the atmosphere. There is such a persistent idea among today's audiences and crews that darker, moodier lighting is "better" lighting. But in a theatrical drama such as Columbo, which was all about the virtuoso performances, a lot of what was happening on the actors' faces would have been lost if the sets and actors hadn't been so well-lit. I also prefer the way harder lighting separates objects and brings out color than the more modern soft lighting which tends to grey colors down and flatten things out. So it's really a matter of taste, but it's also a matter of what the show is trying to accomplish. I think that moodier lighting would have been distracting in Columbo - would have taken away from the performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Some of that flatter high-key lighting in 1970's TV is technical though -- film chain transfers using prints for TV broadcast did not tolerate moodier, dark, or higher-contrast images very well. It's the same reason why in the 1960's, the studios didn't want low-key lighting for movies because they didn't look good in drive-in theaters. And some of it is just budgetary, it takes more time to set flags and create shadows, and that problem still happens today in TV production.

 

But it's also taste. If you look at books like John Alton's or Mascelli's, you often read things about "masculine" versus "feminine" lighting, that rugged men need rugged lighting (i.e. hard and sometimes raking, cross lit, etc.) To an older cinematographer, THAT was being more "realistic", by having the light reflect the character's nature, so a rich woman got a different light than a male coal miner, for example. Today, we'd say that realism would demand that the lighting be true to the space and time of day and not take the actors or their characters into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albion, there are all sort of goals to making cinema, only one of which is getting closer to what you perceive as the truth. I for one don't believe there is such a thing as objective truth, at least not in art. Subjective experience is all we have - it's what consciousness is made of. Perhaps in your world, getting closer to the truth means no makeup, no glamour lighting. But that's only YOUR truth. Showing only one type of person on the screen - one that you find to be a "normal" person - could entail rejecting people that you find too beautiful to be "real," in which case you are making an aesthetic choice.

 

Besides, which, using "normal" people as actors in films is hardly new. It's been a pretty mainstream practice since the '70s. I would think what types of actors, lighting, and makeup you use or don't use would have to depend on the kind of story you want to tell. For example, if you're making a period film which takes place at a time when all women wore makeup and heels, it would be historically wrong to show them wearing little to no makeup. Yet we see this all the time in modern depiction of past eras. The only time I ever tried to watch Mad Men for instance, the first thing I saw was a woman with ratty, unbrushed hair and very little makeup speaking in a low and whining tone that would have had a woman from that time fired or sent to the loony bin. The same thing with the remake of Mildred Pierce - sloppy makeup, hair, and undergarments, daytime clothes worn in the evening, all sorts of inconsistencies. These depictions of women from the '40s are far from the "truth," but they speak to a moral truth of our time that says that women who are too done-up are fake and maybe even morally bankrupt. Women at that time (not movie stars, just regular women) did their hair every day and used a lot of hairspray to make sure they didn't look untidy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... -- Keating breaks the mannerists further into descriptors like hyper-realists.......

 

 

I am so far behind catching up on these interesting conversations hidden in odd places. A hyper realist who is a mannerist? I always hope that art will inform, usefully modify language. But it seems a chaotic free for all, and words, language seem like victims. Does this mean that Keating is an obligatory read, or something to be avoided...?

 

EDIT: New acronym, BLOL, belly laugh out loud, or SSLOL, slightly sad LOL.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the book is great. But words are words, I've never understood it when people get too hung up arguing over definitions to an impractical degree. Practical agreement on terms, that makes sense to me, but I'd cut some slack for people who have to use words to describe the visual arts, it's always going to be a bit subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with David: the book is great. It's actually not really that wordy - he's an academic but he doesn't write academically. He also studied cinematography, and you can sort of tell; there's such a practical dimension to how he writes the book. It's not only to give you a history, it's also to teach you how to light period films. So if you want to know any period lighting technique, then I would say this book is indispensable. Otherwise, it's an entertaining and highly educative book for anyone who works in movies or is a cinephile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, Anna,

Well, I can't really argue if I haven't read him. But the sense of skeptical wonder and mistrust about the use of language (not particularly by Keating) remains. To be fair, when I read someone who I instinctively believe, say Tarkovsky (I don't read much), I read innocently, without any defences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...