Cinematography in a nutshell

P

Paper_bag

Active member
One thing I'm interested in, but know next to nothing about, is the technical choices that define a cinematographer's style. (The actual DVD, "Cinematographer style", was pretty unilluminating in this regard.)


So, I find it interesting to read, for instance, that Roger Deakins is interested in people in their environments, so doesn't like extreme shallow depth of field, and tends to shoot with primes only, and just a single camera, or that Gordon Willis (according to Coppola in ASC) liked to position the camera about a metre and half from the ground (or something like that). Or, for other people, that they like to use mixed lighting, or tend to shoot very wide or very close only, or like zooms for the sake of slow creep ins or reframing during a shot, etc.


Was wondering if I could start a thread on this.


So the idea is -- pick a cinematographer, preferably a well-known one, contemporary or historical, and in one paragraph summarise common technical choices they make, or things they commonly do, with some of their reasoning for that preference.


Anyone willing to start the ball rolling?
 
Gordon Willis used the 40mm lens so much that it was nicknamed the Gordy Forty, because he thought it was the most natural angle of view. He also waxed philosophic about simplicity:

"I spent a lot of time on films taking things out. Art directors would get very cross with me. If something's not going well, my impulse is to minimalize. The impulse of most people when something's not going well is to add --- too many colors, too many items on a screen, too many lights. If you're not careful, you're lighting the lighting. American films are overlit compared to European ones. I like closeups shadowy, in profile --- which they never do these days. . . . What's needed is simple symmetry, but everyone wants massive coverage these days because they don't have enough confidence in their work and there are way too many cooks in the kitchen."

"We're in a world now and in a business where people perceive complexity as good. People don't understand the elegance of simplicity. . . . And don't get Simple mixed up with Simplistic. . . . You know, you hit somebody in the face with a pie. . . . Simple is your choices. One light coming through a window might be quite beautiful. That's all you need. You don't need six other lights, because why are you doing all of this, by habit or by need?"
 
The chicken and the egg

The chicken and the egg

It looks like a cinematographers' typical style, when there is one, starts with aesthetics decisions. The technical details are to serve aesthetics decisions.
 
P.S,

1.
AFAIK, there is no such a thing as "cinematography in nutshell" if that phrase mean a kind of a crash course that will take laymen and quickly turn them into proficient cinematographers.

2.
Often the aesthetic decisions are made by the director, or between the director and DP, or between the producer, director and DP.

3.
It's my view that a cinematographer would better be proficient in very many styles, as well as in arts and movie history, so that one can make the most proper aesthetic decisions, or moods creation, which are better suited certain movies, scenes and shots - either on oneself or together with the director and producer. Sticking to only one style may not serve best all movies, scenes, shots and moods. A certain mood and cinematography style may serve well a horror movie, while it may serve badly a romantic movie, etc.
 
OK, here's a Roger Deakins, copied and pasted from ASC January 2011. More than "one paragraph", but anyway...

It’s diverse work, to be sure, but his résumé has some underlying consistencies that can be traced back to his roots in documentary filmmaking. First and foremost is the fact that he always operates the camera. (To satisfy union requirements, he hires an operator, but he often picks a new member of the local, essentially providing an apprenticeship.) He has repeatedly stated that composition is the most critical part of the cinematographer’s job. “It’s much more important than lighting,” he told AC. “The balance of the frame — the way an actor is relating to the space in the frame — is the most important factor in helping the audience feel what the character is thinking.” [...]


Deakins has also maintained his interest in “people within their environments,” and that documentary leitmotif carries over into his dramatic work in subtle ways. He prefers Super 35mm over anamorphic for widescreen movies because “I like being close to people, and I like to feel somebody’s presence in a space. I don’t like the distortion of anamorphic or the depth-of-field. I don’t like backgrounds being out of focus.”


Because he operates, Deakins tries to pre-rig lighting as much as possible. “I don’t want the lighting to get in the way of operating,” he says. “I want to be able to say, ‘Okay, I’m lit,’ so I can then concentrate on the framing and what the actor is doing. By the time we come to shoot, I’ve got a whole file on every location, and scene breakdowns and lighting diagrams for everything. Not that I necessarily stick to those plans, but they’re a good place to start. I’m one of those people who believe that the more organized you are at the beginning, the more freedom it gives you to play around when you’re on set.” Gaffer Christopher Napolitano recalls that on House of Sand and Fog, “Roger handed me a stack of notes, I rigged everything to his notes, and nothing ever changed, which seemed really unique. He had everything down to exactly how many lights he wanted somewhere, and he used every one of them.”


That kind of precision is possible on a single-camera production, another common thread in Deakins’ work, along with his preference for prime lenses. “[Shooting with primes] forces you to move the camera and think about where the camera needs to be,” he says. Filming only with zooms, he contends, is “a sloppy way of shooting.”
 
marvinhello said:
Philip Bloom - He shoots timelapse, timelapse and timelapse.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're thinking of Tom Lowe?

Bloom is essentially a developing DP with a long background in news, and like any good student does spend some extended time studying various styles and techniques... first it was shallow DOF, then timelapses, now drones, but a look at his work certainly won't turn up only a mess of timelapses. If anything, he's amongst the most willing to stretch out into new areas, systems, and styles. I'm all for folks like him that simultaneously learn and teach, because we all learn more as a result.
 
John Schwartzman says he likes to keep his shadows 3 stops under, and have something in the frame 3 stops over, even if it's a highlight on someone's ear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top