Download PHOTOGRAPHY 1 and more Study notes Photography in PDF only on Docsity!
UnderstandingUnderstanding MOVIESMOVIES 11
People inscribe their histories, beliefs, attitudes,
desires and dreams in the images they make.
Robert Hughes, Art Critic
Recognize the distinctions among
the three principal styles of film
and the three types of movies, and
evaluate how the style affects the
presentation of the story.
List the six basic categories of
film shots and their purpose in
developing the scene.
Describe the five basic angles in
the cinema and what contextual
information the audience derives
from each choice.
Outline the various types of
lighting styles used in film and the
symbolic connotations of each.
Explain the way directors
consciously use colors to
symbolically enhance the film’s
dramatic content.
Identify how lens, filters, and
stocks can intensify given qualities
within a shot, and suppress others.
Evaluate the changes that digital
technologies have had on film
production, editing, presentation,
and distribution.
Assess the role of
cinematographers in the
filmmaking process and identify
how they are able to consolidate
the various elements of film
photography.
Learning Objectives
(Warner Bros.)
Inception (U.S.A., 2010)
PHOTOGRAPHY 1
Understanding MOVIES 2
Realism and Formalism
Even before 1900, movies began to develop in two major directions: the realistic and the for-
malistic. In the mid‑1890s in France, the Lumière brothers delighted audiences with their
short movies dealing with everyday occurrences. Such films as The Arrival of a Train ( 4–4a )
fascinated viewers precisely because they seemed to capture the flux and spontaneity of events
as they were viewed in real life. At about the same time, Georges Méliès (pronounced mel‑yez)
was creating a number of fantasy films that emphasized purely imagined events. Such movies
as A Trip to the Moon ( 4–4b ) were typical mixtures of whimsical narrative and trick photogra‑
phy. In many respects, the Lumières can be regarded as the founders of the realist tradition of
cinema, and Méliès of the formalist tradition.
Realism and formalism are general rather than absolute terms. When used to suggest a
tendency toward either polarity, such labels can be helpful, but in the end they’re just labels.
Few films are exclusively formalist in style, and fewer yet are completely realist. There is also
an important difference between realism and reality, although this distinction is often forgot‑
ten. Realism is a particular style, whereas physical reality is the source of all the raw materials
of film, both realistic and formalistic. Virtually all movie directors go to the photographable
world for their subject matter, but what they do with this material—how they shape and ma‑
nipulate it—is what determines their stylistic emphasis.
Generally speaking, realistic films attempt to reproduce the surface of reality with a mini‑
mum of distortion. In photographing objects and events, the filmmaker tries to suggest the
richness of life itself. Both realist and formalist film directors must select (and hence, empha‑
size) certain details from the chaotic sprawl of reality. But the element of selectivity in realistic
films is less obvious. Realists, in short, try to preserve the illusion that their film world is unma‑
nipulated, an objective mirror of the actual world. Formalists, on the other hand, make no such
pretense. They deliberately stylize and distort their raw materials so that no one would mistake
a manipulated image of an object or event for the real thing. The stylization calls attention to
itself: It’s part of the show.
We rarely notice the style in a realistic movie because the artist tends to be self‑effacing,
invisible. Such filmmakers are more concerned with what’s being shown rather than how it’s
manipulated. The camera is used conservatively. It’s essentially a recording mechanism that
reproduces the surface of tangible objects with as little commentary as possible. Some realists
aim for a rough look in their images, one that doesn’t prettify the materials with a self‑con‑
scious beauty of form. “If it’s too pretty, it’s false,” is an implicit assumption. A high premium is
placed on simplicity, spontaneity, and directness. This is not to suggest that these movies lack
artistry, however, for at its best, the realistic cinema specializes in art that conceals its artistry.
Formalist movies are stylistically flamboyant. Their directors are concerned with express‑
ing their subjective experience of reality, not how other people might see it. Formalists are
often referred to as expressionists , because their self‑expression is at least as important as
the subject matter itself. Expressionists are often concerned with spiritual and psychological
truths, which they feel can be conveyed best by distorting the surface of the material world.
The camera is used as a method of commenting on the subject matter, a way of emphasizing
its essential rather than its objective nature. Formalist movies have a high degree of manipula‑
tion, a stylization of reality.
Most realists would claim that their major concern is with content rather than form or tech‑
nique. The subject matter is always supreme, and anything that distracts from the content is
viewed with suspicion. In its most extreme form, the realistic cinema tends toward documen‑
tary, with its emphasis on photographing actual events and people ( 1–3 ). The formalist cin‑
ema, on the other hand, tends to emphasize technique and expressiveness. The most extreme
example of this style of filmmaking is found in the avant-garde cinema ( 1–7 ). Some of these
movies are totally abstract; pure forms (that is, nonrepresentational colors, lines, and shapes)
Understanding MOVIES 4
Critics and scholars categorize movies according to a variety of criteria. Two of the most common methods of classification are by style and by type. The three principal styles—realism, classicism, and formalism—might be regarded as a continuous spectrum of possibilities, rather than airtight categories. Similarly, the three types of movies—documentaries, fiction, and avant-garde films—are also terms of convenience, for they often overlap. Realistic films like Paradise Now ( 1–4 ) can shade into the documentary. Formalist movies like The Seventh Seal ( 1–6 ) have a personal quality suggesting the traditional domain of the avant-garde. Most fiction films, especially those produced in America, tend to conform to the classicalparadigm. Classical cinema can be viewed as an intermediate style that avoids the extremes of realism and formalism—though most movies in the classical form lean toward one or the other style.
The emotional impact of a documentary image usually derives from its truth rather than its beauty. Davis’s indictment of America’s devastation of Vietnam consists primarily of TV newsreel footage. This photo shows some Vietnamese children running from an accidental bombing raid on their community, their clothes literally burned off their bodies by napalm. “First they bomb as much as they please,” a Vietnamese observes, “then they film it.” It was images such as these that eventually turned the majority of Americans against the war. Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino, Third Cinema filmmakers, have pointed out, “Every image that documents, bears witness to, refutes, or deepens the truth of a situation is something more than a film image or purely artistic fact; it becomes something that the System finds indigestible.” Paradoxically, in no country except the United States would such self-damning footage be allowed on the public airwaves—which are controlled, or at least regulated, by governments. No other country has a First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of expression. (BBS Productions/Rainbow Releasing)
1–2 Classification chart
of styles and types of film.
1–3 HEARTS & MINDS (U.S.A., 1975) directed by Peter Davis.
REALISM
Documentary F I C T I O N Avant-Garde
CLASSICISM FORMALISM
Hearts and Minds Allures
Paradise Now Mr. Deeds Goes to Town The Seventh Seal
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 5
constitute the only content. Most fiction films fall somewhere between these two extremes, in
a mode critics refer to as classical cinema ( 1–5 ).
Even the terms form and content aren’t as clear‑cut as they may sometimes seem. As the film‑
maker and author Vladimir Nilsen pointed out: “A photograph is by no means a complete and
whole reflection of reality: the photographic picture represents only one or another selection
from the sum of physical attributes of the object photographed.” The form of a shot—the way
in which a subject is photographed—is its true content, not necessarily what the subject is per‑
ceived to be in reality. The communications theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out that the
content of one medium is actually another medium. For example, a photograph (visual image)
depicting a man eating an apple (taste) involves two different mediums: Each communicates
information—content—in a different way. A verbal description of the photograph of the man
eating the apple would involve yet another medium (language), which communicates informa‑
tion in yet another manner. In each case, the precise information is determined by the medium,
although superficially all three have the same content.
The great French critic André Bazin noted, “One way of understanding better what a film
is trying to say is to know how it is saying it.” The American critic Herman G. Weinberg ex‑
pressed the matter succinctly: “The way a story is told is part of that story. You can tell the
same story badly or well; you can also tell it well enough or magnificently. It depends on who
is telling the story.”
Like most realistic movies, the motto of this film might well be: “This is the way things really are.” There is a close correspondence of the images to everyday reality. This trait necessarily involves a comparison between the internal world of the movie with the external milieu that the filmmaker has chosen to explore. The realistic cinema tends to deal with people from the lower social echelons and often explores moral issues. The artist rarely intrudes on the materials, however, preferring to let them speak for themselves. Realism tends to emphasize the basic experiences of life. It is a style that excels in making us feel the humanity of others. Beauty of form is often sacrificed to capture the texture of reality as it’s ordinarily perceived. Realistic images often seem unmanipulated, haphazard in their design. They frequently convey an intimate snapshot quality—people caught unawares. Generally, the story materials are loosely organized and include many details that don’t necessarily forward the plot but are offered for their own sake, to heighten the sense of authenticity. Paradise Now is about the final hours of two Palestinian auto mechanics, friends since childhood, who have volunteered to be suicide bombers, commonly referred to as “martyrs” in the Islamic world. Here they are being wired up with explosives before crossing over to their target in Israel. They have their doubts about their mission, though for the sake of solidarity, they keep their worries mostly to themselves. When they ask what happens after the explosions, their guide says, “You will be met by two angels.” “Are you sure?” asks the anxious bomber. “Absolutely,” the guide replies. (Lumen Films/Lama Prods/Eurimages)
1–4 PARADISE NOW (Palestinian Territories, 2005) with Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman, directed by Hany Abu-Assad.
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 7
The formalist cinema is largely a director’s cinema: We’re often aware of the personality of the filmmaker. There is a high degree of manipulation in the narrative materials, and the visual presentation is stylized. The story is exploited as a vehicle for the filmmaker’s personal obsessions. Formalists are not much concerned with how realistic their images are, but with their beauty or power. The most artificial genres—musicals, sci-fi, fantasy films—are generally classified as formalist. Most movies of this sort deal with extraordinary characters and events—such as this mortal game of chess between a medieval knight and the figure of Death. This style of cinema excels in dealing with ideas—political, religious, philosophical—and is often the chosen medium of propagandistic artists. Its texture is densely symbolic: Feelings are expressed through forms, like the dramatic high-contrast lighting of this shot. Most of the great stylists of the cinema are formalists. (Svensk Filmindustri)
In the avant-garde cinema, subject matter is often suppressed in favor of abstraction and an emphasis on formal beauty for its own sake. Like many artists in this idiom, Belson began as a painter and was attracted to film because of its temporal and kinetic dimensions. He was strongly influenced by such European avant-garde artists as Hans Richter, who championed the “absolute film”—a graphic cinema of pure forms divorced from a recognizable subject matter. Belson’s works are inspired by philosophical concepts derived primarily from Asian religions. For example, this image could represent a stylized eyeball, or it could be seen as a Mandala design, the Tibetan Buddhist symbol of the universe. But these are essentially private sources and are rarely presented explicitly in films themselves. Form is the true content of Belson’s movies. His animated images are mostly geometrical shapes, dissolving and contracting circles of light, and kinetic swirls. His patterns expand, congeal, flicker, and split off into other shapes, only to re-form and explode again, like a spectacular fireworks display. It is a cinema of uncompromising self-expression—personal, often inaccessible, and iconoclastic. (Jordan Belson)
1–7 ALLURES (U.S.A., 1961) directed by Jordan Belson.
1–6 THE SEVENTH SEAL (Sweden, 1957) with Bengt Ekerot and Max von Sydow, cinematography by Gunnar Fischer, directed by Ingmar Bergman.
Understanding MOVIES 8
Realism and realistic are much overtaxed terms, both in life and in movies. We use these
terms to express so many different ideas. For example, people often praise the “realism” of
the boxing matches in Raging Bull. What they really mean is that these scenes are powerful,
intense, and vivid. These traits owe very little to realism as a style. In fact, the boxing matches
are extremely stylized. The images are often photographed in dreamy slow motion, with lyrical
crane shots, weird accompanying sound effects (like hissing sounds and jungle screams), stac‑
cato editing in both the images and the sound. True, the subject matter is based on actual life—
the brief boxing career of the American middleweight champion of the 1940s, Jake La Motta.
But the stylistic treatment of these biographical materials is extravagantly subjective ( 1–8a ). At
the opposite extreme, the special effects in Constantine ( 1–8b ) are so uncannily realistic that
we would swear they were real if we didn’t know better.
Form and content are best used as relative terms. They are useful concepts for temporarily
isolating specific aspects of a movie for the purposes of closer examination. Such a separation
is artificial, of course, yet this technique can yield more detailed insights into the work of art
as a whole.
Realism and formalism are best used as stylistic terms rather than terms to describe the nature of the subject matter. For example, although the story of Raging Bull is based on actual events, the boxing matches in the film are stylized. In this photo, the badly bruised Jake La Motta resembles an agonized warrior, crucified against the ropes of the ring. The camera floats toward him in lyrical slow motion while the soft focus obliterates his consciousness of the arena. In Constantine, on the other hand, the special effects are so realistic they almost convince us that the impossible is possible. Based on the comic book Hellblazer, the film contains many scenes of supernatural events. In this scene, for example, the protagonist has traveled to hell, just beneath the landscape of Los Angeles, a place inhabited by demons and angels. In short, it’s quite possible to present fantasy materials in a realistic style. It’s equally possible to present reality-based materials in an expressionistic style.
1–8a RAGING BULL (U.S.A., 1980) with Robert De Niro, directed by Martin Scorsese. (United Artists)
1–8b CONSTANTINE (U.S.A., 2005) with Keanu Reeves, directed by Francis Lawrence. (Warner Bros.)
Understanding MOVIES 10
The extreme long shot is taken from a great distance, sometimes as far as a quarter of a mile
away. It’s almost always an exterior shot and shows much of the locale. Extreme long shots also
serve as spatial frames of reference for the closer shots and for this reason are sometimes called
establishing shots. If people are included in extreme long shots, they usually appear as mere
specks on the screen ( 1–9a ). The most effective use of these shots is often found in epic films,
where locale plays an important role: westerns, war films, samurai films, and historical movies.
The long shot ( 1–9b ) is perhaps the most complex in the cinema, and the term itself one
of the most imprecise. Usually, long‑shot ranges correspond approximately to the distance
between the audience and the stage in the live theater. The closest range within this category is
the full shot, which just barely includes the human body in full, with the head near the top of
the frame and the feet near the bottom.
The medium shot contains a figure from the knees or waist up. A functional shot, it’s use‑
ful for shooting exposition scenes, for carrying movement, and for dialogue. There are several
variations of the medium shot. The two‑shot contains two figures ( 1–10 ). The three-shot con‑
tains three figures; beyond three, the shot tends to become a full shot, unless the other figures
are in the background. The over-the-shoulder shot usually contains two figures, one with
part of his or her back to the camera, the other facing the camera.
The close-up shows very little if any locale and concentrates on a relatively small object—an
animal’s face, for example ( 1–11a ). Because the close‑up magnifies the size of an object, it tends
to elevate the importance of things, often suggesting a symbolic significance. The extreme close-
up is a variation of this shot. Thus, instead of a face, the extreme close‑up might show only a
person’s eyes or mouth ( 1–11b ).
Above all, the medium shot is the shot of the couple, romantic or otherwise. Generally, two-shots have a split focus rather than a single dominant: The bifurcated composition usually emphasizes equality, two people sharing the same intimate space. The medium two-shot reigns supreme in such genres as romantic comedies, love stories, and buddyfilms. (Fox Searchlight. Photo: Doane Gregory)
1–10 JUNO (U.S.A./Canada, 2007) with Ellen Page and Michael Cera, directed by Jason Reitman.
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 11
The deep-focus shot is usually a long shot consisting of a number of focal distances and
photographed in depth ( 1–9b ). Sometimes called a wide-angle shot because it requires a wide-
angle lens to photograph, this type of shot captures objects at close, medium, and long ranges
simultaneously, all of them in sharp focus. The objects in a deep‑focus shot are carefully ar‑
ranged in a succession of planes. By using this layering technique, the director can guide the
viewer’s eye from one distance to another. Generally, the eye travels from a close range to a
medium to a long.
The close-up can seem to force an image into our faces, especially when the subject matter, like this snarling wolf, seems to be on the verge of attacking us. Of course, if the image contained a more alluring subject, the effect would be more appealing, even seductive. (MGM/Lakeshore/Berrick Filmproduktions)
The closer the shot, the more intense the emotion. In this extreme close-up, for example, the terrified protagonist is cornered like a trapped animal. The blurred, throbbing red light in the background is like a molten eruption on the surface of the image, an apt symbol of his emotional meltdown. (Dreamworks/ Paramount. Photo: Andrew Cooper)
1–11a BLOOD & CHOCOLATE (U.S.A., 2006) directed by Katja von Garnier.
1–11b WAR OF THE WORLDS (U.S.A., 2005) with Tom Cruise, directed by Steven Spielberg.
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 13
There are five basic angles in the cinema: (1) the bird’s-eye view , (2) the high angle ,
(3) the eye‑level shot, (4) the low angle , and (5) the oblique angle. As in the case of shot
designations, there are many intermediate kinds of angles. For example, there can be a con‑
siderable difference between a low and extreme low angle—although usually, of course, such
differences tend to be matters of degree. Generally speaking, the more extreme the angle, the
more distracting and conspicuous it is in terms of the subject matter being photographed.
The bird’s-eye view is perhaps the most disorienting angle of all, for it involves photographing
a scene from directly overhead ( 1–12b ). Because we seldom view events from this perspective,
the subject matter of such shots might initially seem unrecognizable and abstract. For this
reason, filmmakers tend to avoid this type of camera setup. In certain contexts, however, this
angle can be highly expressive. In effect, bird’s‑eye shots permit us to hover above a scene like
all‑powerful gods. The people photographed seem vulnerable and insignificant.
Ordinary high-angle shots are not so extreme, and therefore not so disorienting. The camera
is placed on a crane , or some natural high promontory, but the sense of spectator omnipotence
is not overwhelming. High angles give a viewer a sense of a general overview, but not neces‑
sarily one implying destiny or fate. High angles reduce the height of the objects photographed
and usually include the ground or floor as background. Movement is slowed down: This angle
tends to be ineffective for conveying a sense of speed, useful for suggesting tediousness. The
importance of setting or environment is increased: The locale often seems to swallow people.
High angles reduce the importance of a subject. A person seems harmless and insignificant
photographed from above. This angle is also effective for conveying a character’s self‑contempt.
1–12b THE LIVES OF OTHERS (Germany, 2006) with Sebastian Koch and Martina Gedeck, directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmark.
The bird’s-eye angle positions the camera directly above the subject matter, looking downward. This Oscar-winning movie is set in communist East Germany during the 1980s. A surveillance expert spies on the lives of a playwright (Koch) and his actress girlfriend (Sieland) to gather evidence against them as enemies of the state. Note how this angle, with its fatalistic implications, seems to pin the characters down like specimen insects, rending them vulnerable and dominated from above. (Creado Film/BR/Arte/ Wiedemann & Berg Filmproduktion)
Understanding MOVIES 14
Some filmmakers avoid angles because they’re too manipulative and judgmental. In the
movies of the Japanese master Yasujiro Ozu, the camera is usually placed four feet from the
floor—as if an observer were viewing the events seated Japanese style. Ozu treated his char‑
acters as equals; his approach discourages us from viewing them either condescendingly or
sentimentally. For the most part, they are ordinary people, decent and conscientious. But Ozu
lets them reveal themselves. He believed that value judgments are implied through the use of
angles, and he kept his camera neutral and dispassionate. Eye‑level shots permit us to make up
our own minds about what kind of people are being presented.
The photo from Batman Begins is an extreme low-angle shot, taken from the ground floor of a multistoried building. Batman descends from above, like an ebony-winged god from the heavens. As in most extreme angles, the content of the shot is transformed into an almost abstract design, forcing us to adjust our spatial orientation. This shot is deliberately meant to be disorienting. (Warner Bros. /DC Comics. Photo: David James)
Low angles can make characters seem threatening and powerful, for they loom above the camera— and us—like towering giants. We are collapsed in a position of maximum vulnerability—pinned to the ground, dominated. The feeling of menace is reinforced in this shot by the closed form of the composition, the drained color, and the sinister backlighting, throwing the character’s face in shadow. The image might almost be entitled: No Exit. (New Line. Photo: Van Redin)
1–13a THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE:
THE BEGINNING (U.S.A., 2006) with R. Lee Ermey,
directed by Jonathan Liebesman.
1–13b BATMAN BEGINS (U.S.A., 2005) with Christian Bale, directed by Christopher Nolan.
Understanding MOVIES 16
Sidney Lumet was always a director acutely aware of how technique can shape content. He insisted that technique should be the servant of content. Most of this movie takes place in the confined quarters of a jury room, as twelve male jurors try to come to a decision about a murder trial. “As the picture unfolded,” Lumet wrote, “I wanted the room to seem smaller and smaller.” As the conflict between the jurors grows more intense, Lumet shifted to increasingly longer lenses, thus reinforcing the sense of entrapment. His strategy also included a gradual shift in angles:
I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, and then, by lowering the camera, shot the second third at eye level, and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end, the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie.
See also Making Movies , by Sidney Lumet (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), one of the best practical discussions of how big-budget movies are actually made, including the commercial as well as artistic issues involved. (United Artists)
Oblique angles, sometimes called “Dutch tilt” shots, photograph the subject with the camera leaning to the left or right. In this film, about the treacherous world of corporate espionage, dreams and reality are frighteningly intertwined, aptly captured by this disorienting tilt shot. As the main character (Leonardo DiCaprio) points out: “Dreams are real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.” (Warner Bros.)
1–15a 12 ANGRY MEN (U.S.A., 1957) with (standing, left to right) E. G. Marshall, Henry Fonda, and Lee J. Cobb; directed by Sidney Lumet.
1–15b INCEPTION (U.S.A., 2010) directed by Christopher Nolan.
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 17
An oblique angle involves a lateral tilt of the camera ( 1–15b ). When the image is projected,
the horizon is skewed. Characters photographed at an oblique angle will look as though they’re
about to fall to one side. This angle is sometimes used for point-of-view shots —to suggest the
imbalance of a drunk, for example. Psychologically, oblique angles suggest tension, transition,
and impending movement. The natural horizontal and vertical lines of a scene are converted
into unstable diagonals. Oblique angles are not used often, for they can disorient a viewer. In
scenes depicting violence, however, they can be effective in capturing precisely this sense of
visual anxiety.
Light and Dark
Generally speaking, the cinematographer (who is also known as the director of photography,
or D.P.) is responsible for arranging and controlling the lighting of a film and the quality of the
photography. Usually the cinematographer executes the specific or general instructions of the
director. The illumination of most movies is seldom a casual matter, for lights can be used with
pinpoint accuracy. Through the use of spotlights, which are highly selective in their focus and
intensity, a director can guide the viewer’s eyes to any area of the photographed image. Motion
picture lighting is seldom static, for even the slightest movement of the camera or the subject
can cause the lighting to shift. Movies take so long to complete, primarily because of the enor‑
mous complexities involved in lighting each new shot. The cinematographer must make allow‑
ances for every movement within a continuous take. Each different color, shape, and texture
reflects or absorbs differing amounts of light. If an image is photographed in depth, an even
greater complication is involved, for the lighting must also be in depth.
There are a number of different styles of lighting. Usually designated as a lighting key , the
style is geared to the theme and mood of a film, as well as its genre. Comedies and musicals, for
example, tend to be lit in high key , with bright, even illumination and no conspicuous shad‑
ows. Tragedies and melodramas are usually lit in high contrast , with harsh shafts of lights and
dramatic streaks of blackness. Mysteries, thrillers, and gangster films are generally in low key ,
with diffused shadows and atmospheric pools of light ( 1–16a & b ). Each lighting key is only
an approximation, and some images consist of a combination of lighting styles—a low‑key
background with a few high‑contrast elements in the foreground, for example. Movies shot in
studios are generally more stylized and theatrical, whereas location photography tends to use
available illumination, with a more natural style of lighting.
Lights and darks have had symbolic connotations since the dawn of humanity. The Bible
is filled with light–dark symbolism. Rembrandt and Caravaggio used light–dark contrasts
for psychological purposes as well. In general, artists have used darkness to suggest fear, evil,
the unknown. Light usually suggests security, virtue, truth, joy. Because of these conventional
symbolic associations, some filmmakers deliberately reverse light–dark expectations ( 1–12a ).
Hitchcock’s movies attempt to jolt viewers by exposing their shallow sense of security. He
staged many of his most violent scenes in the glaring light.
Lighting can be used realistically or expressionistically. The realist tends to favor avail-
able lighting , at least in exterior scenes. Even out of doors, however, most filmmakers use
some lamps and reflectors, either to augment the natural light or, on bright days, to soften the
harsh contrasts produced by the sun. With the aid of special lenses and more light‑sensitive
film stocks, some directors have managed to dispense with artificial lighting completely. Avail‑
able lighting tends to produce a documentary look in the film image—a grainy texture and
an absence of tonal balance. For interior shots, realists tend to prefer images with an obvious
light source—a window or a lamp. Or they often use a diffused kind of lighting with no arti‑
ficial, strong contrasts. In short, the realist doesn’t use conspicuous lighting unless its source is
dictated by the context.
Formalists use light less literally. They are guided by its symbolic implications and will
often stress these qualities by deliberately distorting natural light patterns. A face lighted from
below almost always appears sinister, even if the actor assumes a totally neutral expression
( 1–16b ). Similarly, an obstruction placed in front of a light source can assume frightening
implications, for it tends to threaten our sense of safety. On the other hand, in some contexts,
especially in exterior shots, a silhouette effect can be soft and romantic.
The source of light can radically alter our response to a character. The low light source of this image, for example, creates a sinister, eerie effect, despite the fact that Kevin Costner is a handsome man. He doesn’t look handsome here, just creepy. (MGM/Relativity/Element. Photo: Ben Glass)
Side lighting can be a useful technique to symbolize a character’s divided nature, plunging half her face in darkness, the other half in light. (Svenska Filminstitutet/Cinematograph AB)
Chapter 1 P H O T O G R A P H Y 19
1–16b MR. BROOKS (U.S.A., 2007) with Kevin Costner, directed by Bruce A. Evans.
1–16c CRIES & WHISPERS (Sweden, 1972) with Liv Ullmann, directed by Ingmar Bergman.
Understanding MOVIES 20
Film noir (literally, black cinema) is a style defined primarily in terms of light—or the lack of it. This style typified a variety of American genres in the 1940s and early 1950s. Noir is a world of night and shadows. Its milieu is almost exclusively urban. The style is profuse in images of dark streets, cigarette smoke swirling in dimly lit cocktail lounges, and symbols of fragility, such as windowpanes, sheer clothing, glasses, and mirrors. Motifs of entrapment abound: alleys, tunnels, subways, elevators, and train cars. Often the settings are locations of transience, like cheap rented rooms, piers, bus terminals, and railroad yards. The images are rich in sensuous textures, like neon-lit streets, windshields streaked with mud, and shafts of light streaming through windows of lonely rooms. Characters are imprisoned behind ornate lattices, grillwork, drifting fog and smoke. Visual designs emphasize harsh lighting contrasts, jagged shapes, and violated surfaces. The tone of film noir is fatalistic and paranoid. It’s suffused with pessimism, emphasizing the darker aspects of the human condition. Its themes characteristically revolve around violence, lust, greed, betrayal, and depravity. (Paramount Pictures)
Film noir has remained popular even up to the present, though often with a revisionist twist. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, for example, contains the requisite noir lighting style, the squalid Los Angeles milieu of crime and deception, the fatalistic voice-over narration, and an occasional corpse that needs to be discreetly disposed of. The revisionist angle is the film’s black comedy, including the private eye Perry van Shrike (Kilmer), AKA “Gay Perry,” who’s ruthless, tough, and—you guessed it—gay. (Warner Bros.)
1–17a DOUBLE INDEMNITY (U.S.A., 1944) with Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray, directed by Billy Wilder.
1–17b KISS KISS BANG BANG (U.S.A., 2005) with Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer, written and directed by Shane Black.
