Dallas Buyers Club: When is 'no lighting' really no lighting

starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
Now this is interesting, the team behind the film, 'Dallas Buyers Club' starring Matthew McConaughey claims "no lighting was used to make the film". Turns out however there is a bit more to read between the lines on this one.


Emmy Award-nominated production designer John Paino did bring in practical, working lamps that were germane to scenes and added light
Click to expand...
http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=16894


The director, whose credits include “Young Victoria,” had a no-frills set, including only source lighting to illuminate the scenes
Click to expand...
http://variety.com/2013/film/news/d...c-vallee-talks-dallas-buyers-club-1200910242/


So let let's hear your thoughts guys. When does "no lighting" really mean "no lighting". Does a 'gaffer' need to be onset or is it somehow 'different' if a production designer plugs a few lamps in? What if the DP moves some actors closer to a window or towards a wall that will give more fill - is that not "lighting" anymore? Maybe the DP sneaks in a dimmer or some gels... that's not lighting either?

I call FUD all over this one big time.
 
Last edited:
I just finished a shoot with minimal or "no" light. I kind of insisted on some light for aesthetic reasons in one scene. Without it the characters were too blended into the background and the available light was not that great for the story. Then there was a technical reason. I needed to stop down to 5.6 for DOF and without light it would have been wide open. It was one long take and we wouldn't have gotten it. I think it's a continuum.

We did one scene in a basement with overhead fluorescents. I did a white balance, got good skin tones and we just went. I was concerned about a million things, not the least of which was that we were in short ceilings with tall actors and they were beaming under them. I just couldn't expose for that and get the rest of the scene (again, a oner). I asked the director to limit some of their movement so that they landed in places where it wasn't so bad. In all, I have to admit, that scene looks good. If I were directing I would have chosen to light it. I usually do. I think light and shadow are equal part to composition, framing, lens choice, and movement.

Another scene we did a night exterior on the street. The director chose a street with an apartment house with two sconces out front. We had that and the street light. I balanced and exposed for near those sconces and let the walk and talk up to it drop in exposure which was noisy for me but next to those sconces that scene looked smokin at f2 on a 35mm with the street lights beyond. Hand held, me pulling focus, I could float into those shadows and to my surprise, it looked damn good. Plus we got a little eyelight from them. That was "good" available light but none of that's free. You still have to find it or make it whether by location choice, manipulating practicals, or lighting with elements.

I choose to light but I can see the other side. It is especially useful to the actors to maintain momentum as described in that article. I think of Soderbergh's Girlfriend which was beautiful, with beautiful light and shadow and reflection and I am pretty sure he found most of it.

What I REALLY like, and admire, and aspire to is what Deakins did in Prisoners. Poetic, beautiful, intentional light that calls little to no attention to itself but does a better job of telling the story than available light where it helps to be observant and lucky.
 
Last edited:
I use hardly any light, but light all the time. Position in the room, time of day, whatever.

I think it looks good and believe the basic precept that it was not lit in the HMI control the world manner.

..and I think that is cool.

Did they spend a bunch on post? Well we don't know that.

I noticed one shot, in the trailer, which you might be interested, our man in a car, he was well exposed and they just let the BG fly off the scopes!

I guess a lot is down to the director, etc .. one can do no light if the director is cool to rehearse until magic hour and then just crack through it..

S
 
starcentral said:
Now this is interesting, the team behind the film, 'Dallas Buyers Club' starring Matthew McConaughey claims "no lighting was used to make the film". Turns out however there is a bit more to read between the lines on this one.
...
So let let's hear your thoughts guys. When does "no lighting" really mean "no lighting". Does a 'gaffer' need to be onset or is it somehow 'different' if a production designer plugs a few lamps in? What if the DP moves some actors closer to a window or towards a wall that will give more fill - is that not "lighting" anymore? Maybe the DP sneaks in a dimmer or some gels... that's not lighting either I guess.

I call FUD all over this one big time.
Click to expand...

I do think of "Dallas Buyer's Club"(2013) to be asymptoticly close to 'no lights'... that is no 'usual suspects' for lighting.

I also think the 'aesthetic' goal is to have the set appear that there are 'no standard hollywood lights'... So, when I see a 'clinic' shot, and the light appears to be pretty much 'uncorrected' (that is none of the fluorescents replaced with high CRI/Daylight tubes...), I'd say 'no lights'... now if the production had a few Home Depot 'work' lights to fill, or in a 'work light' setting, used such... I'd still say 'no lights'...

Unless someone has a very special setting where 5K or even 2K lights are 'standard working conditions'... anything bigger would imply 'lights were used'...
 
To me if you setup a table full of candles, then use foam or bead board to help direct some light or provide fill - that is lighting. So adding light, moving it, changing your framing to get a better lit shot is lighting how I see the world.

By the way take a look at the IMDB credits and you'll still see a dozen in crew under Camera and Electrical which lists 2 gaffers, light technician, grips, etc..
 
Does the sun count as lighting? Does it only count if you bounce it?
I think we're splitting hairs here really. The point is that there wasn't a lighting package that completely replaced the existing light that would have already been there in that environment naturally. We can all start making Dogme 96 films, or we can make films that take advantage of a more naturalistic light by exploiting what's there, or we can bring in a whole grip truck to recreate a natural looking scene. What's the difference really as long as it looks good and moves the story forward?
 
It's all kinda misleading. Fact is they used lights. What I mean is...it was all light manipulation whether using "Hollywood Lights" or so called "Natural Light." No matter how the light was obtained...they still bounced it where it needed bouncing,,and set it up where it needed setting up. If they didn't manipulate the light then it would have looked worse than many of the amateur videos we see on Vimeo or the Tube.
 
Ian-T said:
It's all kinda misleading. Fact is they used lights. What I mean is...it was all light manipulation whether using "Hollywood Lights" or so called "Natural Light." No matter how the light was obtained...they still bounced it where it needed bouncing,,and set it up where it needed setting up. If they didn't manipulate the light then it would have looked worse than many of the amateur videos we see on Vimeo or the Tube.
Click to expand...

I interpreted the claim about 'no lights' to mean specifically lighting that is usually and customarily used by professional production crews, and I gave some examples... such as any light over 1KW, or so, unless of course, someone is using one of those highway night work lights that blast the snot out of one's eyes while driving past...

I don't consider 'bounce' or black screening to cut light to be 'lights'... such may be shaping existing light, or such, but it is not a power cable, stand, and bulb.

I expected to find out that 'no lights' really meant 'little/minimal/mostlyNo' additional lights in the usual filmmaking sense.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
I interpreted the claim about 'no lights' to mean specifically lighting that is usually and customarily used by professional production crews, and I gave some examples... such as any light over 1KW, or so, unless of course, someone is using one of those highway night work lights that blast the snot out of one's eyes while driving past...

I don't consider 'bounce' or black screening to cut light to be 'lights'... such may be shaping existing light, or such, but it is not a power cable, stand, and bulb.

I expected to find out that 'no lights' really meant 'little/minimal/mostlyNo' additional lights in the usual filmmaking sense.
Click to expand...

Interesting. But to me modifying light to any capacity is the art of lighting, doesn't matter if its 1K or some mirrored glass bouncing the sun around indoors. That's lighting. You would hire a DP to worry about these bits.


Ian-T said:
It's all kinda misleading. Fact is they used lights. What I mean is...it was all light manipulation whether using "Hollywood Lights" or so called "Natural Light." No matter how the light was obtained...they still bounced it where it needed bouncing,,and set it up where it needed setting up. If they didn't manipulate the light then it would have looked worse than many of the amateur videos we see on Vimeo or the Tube.
Click to expand...

Exactly and it this case we're not even talking about manipulation of natural lighting. (ie. watching the funny looking guy squatting while walking just below the frame carrying a white board sweating his behind off.) We're talking adding lamps to indoor scenes, and who knows what else they did.


Andrius Simutis said:
Does the sun count as lighting? Does it only count if you bounce it?
I think we're splitting hairs here really. The point is that there wasn't a lighting package that completely replaced the existing light that would have already been there in that environment naturally. We can all start making Dogme 96 films, or we can make films that take advantage of a more naturalistic light by exploiting what's there, or we can bring in a whole grip truck to recreate a natural looking scene. What's the difference really as long as it looks good and moves the story forward?
Click to expand...

No one is contemplating if the sun is lighting, provides lighting, or counts as lighting but once you start changing what "naturally" there (ambiguous in itself) by either adding silks, reflector boards, etc.. then that becomes the art of lighting.

Take that indoors and again, you start painting walls white, or hanging some muslin over a dark brown painted wall and shoot at precisely 9am when the sun will come straight into a window and bounce off that muslin raising your ambient level then again to me I see that as the art of lighting.

Now definitely adding several lamps to serve as practical light sources is the art of lighting too, maybe its just me but I just can't see it any other way. If they didn't need the extra lamps for none other than lighting the scenes or subjects, then why were they added? lol

Perhaps the $5 million total budget all went to Matthew McConaughey and because of that all they could afford in the end were some cheap lamps? :cool:
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Interesting. But to me modifying light to any capacity is the art of lighting, doesn't matter if its 1K or some mirrored glass bouncing the sun around indoors. That's lighting. You would hire a DP to worry about these bits.
Click to expand...

If we are to use this sort of 'extreme' definition, there is no such thing as a 'no budget film'... because someone had to have bought the camera, even if it's an iPhone...

So, how about 'extremely low budget film'... a bit wordier, but more accurate...

So, in the present case... 'extremely low use of 'lights''... and I'm using 'lights' to mean the actual fixtures that are customarily used in filmmaking, and not methods of shaping 'existing' light, whether natural or artificial (aka practicals...)...
 
I would agree that using a practical lamp in a location doesn't qualify as "lighting" where backing a lamp with a fresnel or kino or something does. Lighting means lighting with film fixtures.
 
Like someone else said, once you start manipulating light at all, that's lighting.

If you manipulate the scene/actors, it's not.

In other words, using a reflector or changing a bulb for a higher wattage one or bringing lamps to set for the scene is lighting.

Showing up to your location, having your actor stand by the window and hitting "record" is not.

That's not to say there's not talent and skill involved in no lighting. In fact, there's quite a bit.
 
Well, I'd go with that as a definition for lighting for the sake of the discussion. So any manipulation of the available light - scrims, flags, bounces, ND, color correction gels means you lit it. OK
 
Isn't this like somebody saying we don't use camera supports and the 'art' is wobblyvision, standing in for first person reality.

If your subject material and location means illumination can be from the real light sources in the location - then that's fine. Very few conventional movies could be made with no lighting. I'd imagine a movie set it a coal mine could be lit by miners hat lamps - but it's not going to look nice!
 
But even if they used no movie lights, if the idea was to give actors freedom to move around and be free, wouldnt all the giant grip gear required to shape the existing light still be in the way?
 
... or in the shot. You can light with fixtures to enable the actors to move around on set. It depends on what you can rig.
 
This movie might be a good reference for "no lights" lighting: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1595656/
My experience is that once you start adding light to natural light (and that means daylight), it is mostly downhill from there. Starting from scratch (black room) is easier, or course.
 
hscully said:
I would agree that using a practical lamp in a location doesn't qualify as "lighting" where backing a lamp with a fresnel or kino or something does. Lighting means lighting with film fixtures.
Click to expand...

But on set who would you think it is that decides if more practical lamps are needed for the scene, shot, etc.. ?

I'd say its the DP not the art department, so hence the DP oversaw the "lighting" for the film and had crew execute it. I doubt the production designer decided, "hm we could really use more lights in this shot so that it helps the DP with exposure".

Also why does "lighting" only qualify as lighting if brand name lighting fixtures like Kino's or ARRI's are used? I know DP's who've cleverly lit scenes using a lamp base without shade, 100w bulb and some bead board and black wrap, does that somehow not count as "lighting" because it wasn't a fresnel or kino? No way.
 
starcentral said:
Also why does "lighting" only qualify as lighting if brand name lighting fixtures like Kino's or ARRI's are used?
Click to expand...

The phrase that was used in annoucements and interviews, as I recall... was 'no lights'... to me that means fixtures and light sources and in the context of filmmaking that means some set of 'lights' that are usual and customary, whether well known name brands or cheap knockoffs.

I don't interpret 'lights' to mean, general 'lighting'', whether 'natural' aka sun, moon, or forest fire, or artificial lights that are usual and customary for daily (or nightly) living, or taking some care to 'shape' such lights(fixtures, light sources) for aesthetics or dramatic reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top