Need some explanation on Christopher Doyle cinematography

G

golf_bht

Active member
First of all sorry for my novice sort of question. I dont work in this industry and only use my camera to document the precious moment of my family members. Following the thread by Ryan Patrick O'Hara, I quickly went out to buy some film DP by chris. the film i have watched tonight were Hero, 2046, invisible wave, and in the mood for love. plus some more films coming next week.

can some one explain the reason why those films standout? Through a novice eyes I couldn't distingush this myself. Somehow I feel that the picture look nicer than many films I have watched but couldn't explain.

what are the element in his syory telling technic that worth knowing and will make my otherwise boring home VDO standout?

Thank a lot in advance for all of your guidence and advice
 
Check "Fallen Angels" and "Chungking Express" for more blatant examples of his style. I've watched the first fifteen minutes of "Fallen Angels" about a thousand times.
 
I believe what sets Doyle apart is his artistic philosophy. It's as important to read what he has written (not just said in interviews) as it is to view his work. A great source is his book 'A Cloud in Trousers', unfortunately it's hard to find a copy these days under $125 US. But it should be on every artists list of must reads, not just cinematographers.
 
Here's something from 'A Cloud in Trousers' that had a big impact on my thinking.

Why I'm not a painter
Less is more
Tarkovsky called filmmaking "sculpting in light." I don't know if he coined the term, but it's the best description of what we do: photography is more like sculpture than painting. There's usually more to take away than there is to put in. A sculptor finds the image in the stone or wood. We find the image by blocking out the bathroom windows and turning on the shaving light. The more I light, the less I light.'
 
rsbush said:
Here's something from 'A Cloud in Trousers' that had a big impact on my thinking.

Why I'm not a painter
Less is more
Tarkovsky called filmmaking "sculpting in light." I don't know if he coined the term, but it's the best description of what we do: photography is more like sculpture than painting. There's usually more to take away than there is to put in. A sculptor finds the image in the stone or wood. We find the image by blocking out the bathroom windows and turning on the shaving light. The more I light, the less I light.'
Click to expand...


So actually, instead of trying to put more thing in the shot just frame it in side the foreground till make it look better? are there any book specially teaching framing and composition or the stuff like that you would recommend.

I have been trying to shoot VDO for a year now. but it is like once a month when I have free time. I think philip bloom shoot some of the best VDO I have ever seen. So I try to follow. Now I end up with OK equipment which shoot sucks VDO.

Now I have leica 28/2.8, 35/2, 50.1.4, 90/f, 100APO/2.8, 135/2.8 and canon L three king and letus extreme and sony A1u. Still shooting quite crap VDO. Maybe i need some tutor.
 
It's not his style by itself but also the quality of the director he works with. Beautiful movies don't win awards. It's great films that ALSO look good that do. It's a collaborative effort and only if the directing, acting, editing etc is great that your cinematography is good too.
 
Any decent drawing book will give you the fundamentals of composition. I recommend watching the work of the people who impress you and try to find out how they approach their work.
 
golf_bht said:
can some one explain the reason why those films standout?
Click to expand...

Theres many reasons to list.

But in the case of 2046, from memory the only daytime exteriors (as I recall - might not be 100% accurate), where of the residents of room 2046 on the balcony. Im not 100% sure of the reason, but to me it locked the actors into the world they were part of. Room 2046 was a direct relation to 2046 whereby no one ever came back, I think the directors purpose here was to intimate at the relationship between the two.

Wong Kar-wai seems to develop relationships of characters and objects/time/places in this way quite regularly in all his pieces, theres always meaning. Some more easily discovered than others. Of course then all this is enhanced by Christopher Doyles cinematography.

What seems to be the case is that, Doyle gets Wong and one can communicate things very clearly to the other so everything works in unison.

Doyle is very much a non conformist, and he even stated (not a direct quote here) - something along the lines of - In Hollywood the audience is treated like an idiot and its all laid out neatly, whereas the approach of Wong Kar-wai is to lead you there and let you discover it for yourself.

I think there is in reality two kinds of script writing, the style Wong Kar-wai adopts, where much of the answer to the puzzle in the cinematography. Some things in the script on face value may be hard to decipher. And then the more standard approach of heres everything. Of course if you are Wong Kar-wai and can make your own films theres no issue with doing it that way. Not sure anyone could have picked up the script for 2046 and said OK Im going to produce this project, without thinking wtf is going on here.

What I do love about Doyle is he is a minimalist, I think he prescribes to a fairly common philosophy in China where to create you must take away to reveal whats there. Even Bruce Lee used this philosophy in creating Jeet Kun Do. Whats easily understandable about Doyle IMO is he is a master of controlling light and a master of composition.
 
Not sure anyone could have picked up the script for 2046 and said OK Im going to produce this project, without thinking wtf is going on here.
Click to expand...

I guess the director was asking the same thing. According to Doyle:

"I feel that 2046 is unnecessary, in retrospect. I think probably Wong Kar-Wai realized that somewhere, and that's why it took so long. You do realize that you have basically said what you needed to say, so why say more? I feel that way. I think you have to move on.

Well...;)
 
rsbush said:
Here's something from 'A Cloud in Trousers' that had a big impact on my thinking.

Why I'm not a painter
Less is more
Tarkovsky called filmmaking "sculpting in light." I don't know if he coined the term, but it's the best description of what we do: photography is more like sculpture than painting. There's usually more to take away than there is to put in. A sculptor finds the image in the stone or wood. We find the image by blocking out the bathroom windows and turning on the shaving light. The more I light, the less I light.'
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Tarkovsky called filmmaking "Sculpting in Time" though. :)
 
rsbush said:
There was no script for 2046.
Click to expand...

Probably not in the traditional sense, as well it wouldnt make sense, but they would have had some form of production schedule, scene breakdowns, dialogue etc which in essence would form some type of script.
 
I'm not too sure about that Noel. I'm pretty sure they started shooting some of 2046 while they were shooting In the Mood for Love. I know it was shot off and on for something like 3 years. Wong Kar Wai has a very unconventional way of working. He pretty much makes it up as he goes along. I'd be really surprised if they even had scene breakdowns.
 
If you watch the special features of ITMFL there's a good half an hour of the movie that got left on the cutting room floor.

Wong Knows what idea he's trying to explore in the film and there is an idea of a story arc going in but it sort of evolves on set.
 
rsbush said:
I'm not too sure about that Noel. I'm pretty sure they started shooting some of 2046 while they were shooting In the Mood for Love. I know it was shot off and on for something like 3 years. Wong Kar Wai has a very unconventional way of working. He pretty much makes it up as he goes along. I'd be really surprised if they even had scene breakdowns.
Click to expand...

Well that makes the point about how he and Doyle communicates even more pertinent, they would just have to really get each other.

And how WKW works, well its working, I love the way he paces his scenes. Feels like listening to an adagio with your eyes closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top