Results 41 to 49 of 49
07-27-2012 10:13 PM
Bringing it back to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", keep in mind that even when it was released, it subscribed to an intentionally antiquated look in its lighting. Spielberg and Lucas wanted to revive the old serials from their childhoods and the cinematography tips its hat to the more stylized look of classical Hollywood. Douglas Slocombe, the DP of the first 3 Indy films, was shooting movies since the 1940's, and shot some of the classic Ealing Studios comedies like "The Man in the White Suit" and "The Lavender Hill Mob". He was 67 years-old when he shot "Raiders". Not bad!
But it really had a different look to what Hollywood was up to in the 1970's. A more naturalistic, soft light look was becoming quite the norm for many Hollywood movies during that decade, based partly on the influence of such soft-light masters as Sven Nyquist. Some DPs did well with both hard and soft light (Gordon Willis, for one). But look at the work of Nestor Alemendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Haskell Wexler, Conrad Hall and many, many more. Naturalism was huge in the years right before "Raiders". Even Jordan Cronenweth, who shot "Blade Runner" developed "Crony Lights", which were very similar to modern Chimera soft boxes.
However, you're right. I'm a little tired of the soft, flat, Kino-fied world of modern cinema. Watching old, expressionist black-and-white films with jet-black hard shadows brings warmth to my heart.
Let's use both styles for all the right reasons!
07-28-2012 01:45 AM
The nice thing about soft light in the 70s and 80s was that while you wanted to keep it soft and natural, it was still hard when it needed to be. Willis is a perfect example, as he switches from harder sources to softer sources, depending on what the scene requieres (and also what is providing the light). Many modern movies as you say have that super soft and flat light, but some can keep the spirit of that. Robbie Richardson springs to mind, as while he often has soft fills and keys, he uses small spot lights to create gradations or really nice kickers for the characters. It gives everything a very three dimensional space really. Same thing with Wally Pfister and of course Deakins, who's probably the most "realistic" DP there is, but it never looks flat or bland what he does.
07-28-2012 08:03 AM
07-28-2012 09:56 AM
07-30-2012 11:42 AM
- Join Date
- May 2011
Isnt this partly what Anne Foerste is doing with Anonymous? I know she was blasting hmis throuh the windows but a lot of the shots are lovely contrasty... Not jet black but very lovely!
07-30-2012 01:16 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
"I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.
That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you..."
Seriously? This is the discussion?
I have no problem with enhancing the subject, but lighting like the old days? It's not done anymore for good reason. There's a fine line between "romantic" and glaringly fake. Reailty isn't boring, unless the person perceiving it is boring.
I certainly welcome the move toward more natural lighting, and those guys who do it make some of the best stuff out there: Deakins, Wally Pfister, Malick, even Kubrick pioneered natural lighting. You're going to say their films are "boring" because of the natrualistic lighting? I'll take that over that face blasted sound stage stuff from the 50's any day.
07-30-2012 01:36 PM
Matter of taste.
"Naturalistic" lighting has a place. There is subject matter that would look silly done any other way, but that doesn't mean others can't also love the stylized romantic look of those older films. Hard shadows and "beauty" or "hero" lighting. Personally I love it.