Hi, I'm a cinematographer inspired purely by the 1980s: Gremlins / Lost Boys / Short Circuit / Repo Man etc.

[Delorean]

Just saying a quick hello as I am new here. I'm returning to film-making after a very long break.

I began professionally in the 90s in 35mm stills fashion/music analog-photography; then moved into motion-pictures. Soon after, I got mauled by some well-known Hollywood 'vampires', and quit the industry for a long time. Now I'm back.

I'm here to discuss technique: Mainly lighting.

Currently, I am story-boarding a feature in the spirit of the 1980s, when, in my opinion, cinematography, acting, and storytelling was at its peak.

 

[David Jimerson]

Love that stuff too! Welcome aboard, and can't wait to see what you come up with.

I also agree that the '80s was the pinnacle of movies.

 

[CharlesPapert]

One of my favorite cinematographers back in those days was Don Peterman. He didn't get much name recognition, but turned in a great body of work. "Flashdance" kind of came out of nowhere, and had a huge impact on both features and music videos particularly the club dance sequences. At a time when European DP's were being paraded around as the "true artistes", he was a meat and potatoes American who nonetheless delivered the goods. Also from what I have heard anecdotally, a great guy.

 

[NorBro]

Although my love for the 90s - with everything - is strong, I feel like the 80s had more classic movies than any other decade.

I'm always surprised by how good the filmmaking was, especially with what they had and how much more difficult it was.

I don't know much before that except Columbo, which I think was really special.

 

[Delorean]

I also agree that the '80s was the pinnacle of movies.

Completely! Yesterday I was mediating on the non-obvious socio-cultural reasons why the 80s was so good for movies. I came up with:

1. No 'smart'phones in the 80s: Cast and crew were inherently focused on the task-in-hand; in the present moment; thoughtful and clear-minded. And so were the audiences...

2. The mid 80s was 20-years-after the psychedelic-revolution. It's likely that many of the directors of the mid-80s had quietly opened-up their minds, in their twenties, during the 1960s.

3. Storyboarding was held in much higher regard. Looking at the artistry of storyboards for Gremlins (1984) or Empire Strikes Back (1980) etc, it's obvious that the hand-drawn storyboard-artist was taken very, very seriously. Their compositions shine throughout the finished movies.

I'm now thinking about how to re-create some of the creative-circumstances of the 1980s, in the present day.

 

[Delorean]

At a time when European DP's were being paraded around as the "true artistes", [Don Peterman] was a meat and potatoes American who nonetheless delivered the goods. Also from what I have heard anecdotally, a great guy.

I'll have to revisit his work. Sounds intriguing.

I was formally obliged to study 'Transatlantic Cinema' years ago as part of a course. Some 'teachers' gave the impression that 'European cinema' was more sophisticated than American cinema. However, I think this 'parading' of European cinema as 'high art' stemmed from the European idea that something artistically important cannot simultaneously be fun to experience.

Gremlins, as one example, looks like a kids movie, and could be marginalized in this genre by an-'academic' or critic. However, on closer-inspection, like so many enduring movies from the 80s, Gremlins is a very sophisticated and layered story, with lots of social-commentary, and philosophy, to decipher for the keen-eyed viewer.

Gremlins (as just one example) looks simple, but is is deep. This, for me, characterizes the magic of the 80s American classics: These movies are both fun and profound.

That said, 'European Cinema' also had its moments of glory during the 80s: How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989), starring Richard E Grant, is a surreal gem, as is Withnail and I (1987).

 

[Delorean]

Although my love for the 90s - with everything - is strong, I feel like the 80s had more classic movies than any other decade.

The 90s also saw some great movies, undeniably. Also the 70s (Alien, Star Wars: A New Hope; American Graffiti etc). If I plotted it on a graph, my 80s peak would rise up from the late 70s, and fall-off gradually across the 90s.

I'm always surprised by how good the filmmaking was, especially with what they had and how much more difficult it was.

Exactly. These movies had to rely on optical effects. When they got these right (Yoda / Gizmo / Johnny-5 etc) they looked much more real than most computer-graphics today. Plus, the actors could engage with a character that was physically present.

I don't know much before that except Columbo, which I think was really special.

You might enjoy The Player (1992). It's a satirical movie about the Hollywood studio system and Peter Falk (Colombo) is in it. Very funny and quirky.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Completely! Yesterday I was mediating on the non-obvious socio-cultural reasons why the 80s was so good for movies. I came up with:

1. No 'smart'phones in the 80s: Cast and crew were inherently focused on the task-in-hand; in the present moment; thoughtful and clear-minded. And so were the audiences...

Mmm well...there were plenty of other distractions back then like...cocaine, for one?! Quite a lot of drug use in that era. Things were looser on set than they are in these corporate times. I wouldn't put that much emphasis on the cell phone thing. It's not like the early to mid 2000's were some amazing era for films, considering we didn't have smart phones as we know them until late aughts.

3. Storyboarding was held in much higher regard. Looking at the artistry of storyboards for Gremlins (1984) or Empire Strikes Back (1980) etc, it's obvious that the hand-drawn storyboard-artist was taken very, very seriously. Their compositions shine throughout the finished movies.

Storyboards can be very helpful, and many excellent filmmakers use them. That said, I don't personally think they are universally successful in all ways. They are useful for communicating setups to multiple people at once, which makes them useful for complicated action scenes, car chases, additional units and VFX etc. I see a lot of newer filmmakers getting hung up on them, especially now that we have strong previz tools. I feel that they can become a crutch, in some ways limiting ones possibilities vs expanding them. There are always discoveries on set once all the elements are in place, and if one has become too attached to the storyboards, they might not be as open to seeing things in a new way on the day. I've also had countless experiences meeting with inexperienced directors who come armed with storyboards--as we talk through the script and I pitch them on how we can break down the script, the storyboards become slowly irrelevant.

 

[David Jimerson]

Storyboards can be very helpful, and many excellent filmmakers use them. That said, I don't personally think they are universally successful in all ways. They are useful for communicating setups to multiple people at once, which makes them useful for complicated action scenes, car chases, additional units and VFX etc. I see a lot of newer filmmakers getting hung up on them, especially now that we have strong previz tools. I feel that they can become a crutch, in some ways limiting ones possibilities vs expanding them. There are always discoveries on set once all the elements are in place, and if one has become too attached to the storyboards, they might not be as open to seeing things in a new way on the day. I've also had countless experiences meeting with inexperienced directors who come armed with storyboards--as we talk through the script and I pitch them on how we can break down the script, the storyboards become slowly irrelevant.

I fortunately have had the luxury of developing storyboards with the cinematographer for most of my projects.

 

[David Jimerson]

The 90s also saw some great movies, undeniably. Also the 70s (Alien, Star Wars: A New Hope; American Graffiti etc). If I plotted it on a graph, my 80s peak would rise up from the late 70s, and fall-off gradually across the 90s.

The greatest year for movies was 1982.

 

[Erik Olson]

That era, and many of the films we all come back to as 80s favorites were shot on Kodak's 5247 (100 Tungsten) / 5297 (250 Daylight) / 5293 (250 Tungsten) / 5294 / 5295 (400 Tungsten). They had a wonderful tonal quality, in spite of their relatively limited dynamic range (about 13 stops), and rendered skin tones in especially flattering ways.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Love that stuff too! Welcome aboard, and can't wait to see what you come up with.

I also agree that the '80s was the pinnacle of movies.

82

 

[Delorean]

..there were plenty of other distractions back then like...cocaine, for one?! Quite a lot of drug use in that era. Things were looser on set than they are in these corporate times. I wouldn't put that much emphasis on the cell phone thing.

I would rather work with a crew on cocaine than one on 'smart'phones.
Ideally, neither, but we live in strange times.

I see a lot of newer filmmakers getting hung up on [storyboards], especially now that we have strong previz tools. I feel that they can become a crutch, in some ways limiting ones possibilities vs expanding them.

Absolutely. My ethos is to impose my own "Dogma 95" of sorts. A "Dogma 1980". This stipulates only hand-drawn storyboards; and no modern "previz tools".

My ethos here is basically a 'spiritual' one. The idea that inspiration; the ethereal muses; the 'god(s)'; whatever, prefer to share story ideas with humanity when we are using the right tools. Pencil and paper has always worked best for me, as a storyteller.

Although I have worked professionally in parametric, and mesh, 3D modelling, I've long quit that arena and gone back to raw graphite on dead-tree for visualization.

2B pencils are my current favorite. (Hope I'm not starting a flame-war with the HB-pencil users here).

There are always discoveries on set once all the elements are in place, and if one has become too attached to the storyboards, they might not be as open to seeing things in a new way on the day.

Definitely. I'm not a storyboard absolutist.
Hard to be an absolutist these days when everyone on set is either on cocaine or a smartphone.

Have you taken a look at the storyboards for Star Wars (1977) or Gremlins (1984)? In these two cases, the storyboards are extremely close to the final shots. This may partly be because these were effects-heavy movies where significant improvising on set would have been too expensive.

 

[Delorean]

I fortunately have had the luxury of developing storyboards with the cinematographer for most of my projects.

That's great to hear.

I've been brushing-up on my figure-drawing skills for storyboarding. There are a bunch of great books from the 1950s by Andrew Loomis that have served me better than any art class ever did. The books are still highly acclaimed by artists today — in case anyone here is looking for a foundation in drawing

 

[Delorean]

...80s favorites were shot on Kodak's 5247 (100 Tungsten) / 5297 (250 Daylight) / 5293 (250 Tungsten) / 5294 / 5295 (400 Tungsten). They had a wonderful tonal quality.

This is exactly how I feel also. Great stocks.

Probably a topic for a new thread, but I am looking closely at tungsten (as opposed to LED) lighting options and preparing to do some experiments.

The longer-term plan is to shoot on 2-perf 35mm film, also known as "Techniscope". The reduced film-consumption with 2-perf comes close to the same cost as Super 16 film, but looks much cleaner. American Graffiti (1973) was shot on Techniscope.

Before I get there, however, we're going to test a Super 35 CMOS global-shutter sensor camera and see what we can do with tungsten light and careful production design.

I have yet to see a convincing digital-emulation of the 1980s look you describe, and for this reason, I have my sights on shooting a feature on Techniscope. For now, I'm re-training myself using both digital-video, and a 35mm analog stills camera.

 

[CharlesPapert]

This is exactly how I feel also. Great stocks.

Probably a topic for a new thread, but I am looking closely at tungsten (as opposed to LED) lighting options and preparing to do some experiments.

The longer-term plan is to shoot on 2-perf 35mm film, also known as "Techniscope". The reduced film-consumption with 2-perf comes close to the same cost as Super 16 film, but looks much cleaner. American Graffiti (1973) was shot on Techniscope.

That's part of the problem. Modern film stocks don't look like the classic stocks from 40 years ago. There's a recent article with Phedon Papamichael where he says as much, and part of why he's not particularly motivated to shoot film anymore (limitations of the slow ISO another part). I think you'd end up doing a similar amount of hopscotch in post to try to recreate the 80's film look whether you shot film or digital--and digital would be easier and cheaper, so you'd be able to put those resources in other places.

 

[Delorean]

I think you'd end up doing a similar amount of hopscotch in post to try to recreate the 80's film look whether you shot film or digital--and digital would be easier and cheaper, so you'd be able to put those resources in other places.

This is my suspicion too. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Do you have a link to that Phedon Papamichael article?

I will do some tests to compare different workflows and see which ends up closest to what I'm looking for.

 

[David Jimerson]

OK, moving this to Cinematography, because I think it's a great fit there.

 

[CharlesPapert]

This is my suspicion too. Thank you for sharing your perspective. Do you have a link to that Phedon Papamichael article?

Phedon Papamichael interview

 

[Erik Olson]

That's part of the problem. Modern film stocks don't look like the classic stocks from 40 years ago. There's a recent article with Phedon Papamichael where he says as much, and part of why he's not particularly motivated to shoot film anymore (limitations of the slow ISO another part). I think you'd end up doing a similar amount of hopscotch in post to try to recreate the 80's film look whether you shot film or digital--and digital would be easier and cheaper, so you'd be able to put those resources in other places.

Yessir. Things changed with the Vision stocks, for sure. In many good ways, of course, but the mojo of those 80s stocks seemed diminished in the newer T-grain stocks, from 1986 forward.