Michael Carter
Veteran
Me, I'd often choose the gray wall behind Mrs. Whistler vs. a bunch of picture frames - especially if the character is poor and the set is supposed to seem empty/minimalist.
If you look at the painting, the wall behind her is gray with a sense of texture, staining, or light scatter. One could light a set with the idea of keeping a wall from blowing out - might take some big flags (full sheets of black foamcore for instance).
If you are looking for subtext/symbolism in the frame, having a guy in a sparse apartment and "framed" by a blank, lifeless wall could "say" more than three paragraphs of dialogue. If that's what you-the-director desires, you-the-DP will have to sort it out.
I'm fascinated by the use of visual compositions to provide subtext... why do you think in 2001, when we finally see the monolith horizontally, it's almost the exact aspect ratio of Kubrick's frame? Accident, or is the entire underlying theme of the film expressed in that one shot?
If you look at the painting, the wall behind her is gray with a sense of texture, staining, or light scatter. One could light a set with the idea of keeping a wall from blowing out - might take some big flags (full sheets of black foamcore for instance).
If you are looking for subtext/symbolism in the frame, having a guy in a sparse apartment and "framed" by a blank, lifeless wall could "say" more than three paragraphs of dialogue. If that's what you-the-director desires, you-the-DP will have to sort it out.
I'm fascinated by the use of visual compositions to provide subtext... why do you think in 2001, when we finally see the monolith horizontally, it's almost the exact aspect ratio of Kubrick's frame? Accident, or is the entire underlying theme of the film expressed in that one shot?
