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

For anyone interested in using this kind of minimalist/naturalist approach, I just saw Kubricks "The Killing", check it out, there were alot of setups lit by practicals right in the frame, really good stuff if you're into that sort of thing.


about DBC :


"No movie LIGHTs" doesn't mean they didn't do lightING. If there was no lightING there'd be no movie, just a black screen.

so yes, they did LIGHT the movie.
 
Last edited:
The film is one of many shot "with no lights" but unlike many of our films, this one a.) has mega stars in it and b.) destroys the "pretty" picture thus enhancing the "realism."

Having mega starts changes your film in a very tangible way. It's not only a famous face on the poster and big name in the credits... it actually changes how the image is interpreted by the viewer. Genuinely cheap image (no lights etc) becomes somehow profound because unconsciously the viewer knows that it was a conscious choice to do away with the lights and make the image "cheap." That in turn starts the viewer on an intellectual journey (whether conscious or not - doesn't matter) that enhances the experience.

Please, don't confuse "no lighting" with "profound." It only occurs if the story asks for it AND you happen to have a way to show that it was a conscious choice (here, the use of mega starts in the film).

Also, i'd like to add, i feel we are slowly getting to this point in filmmaking, where the circumstances of the filmmaking are more interesting than the film itself - so the story: some HIV cowboy who smuggles drugs - is of no real interest and the circumstances of making the film are of much larger importance (and has very little to do that it's cinematography forum). The "boring" film needs to exist only so that we can talk about the circumstances and the circumstances defacto become the essence of the film.
 
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Also, i'd like to add, i feel we are slowly getting to this point in filmmaking, where the circumstances of the filmmaking are more interesting than the film itself - so the story: some HIV cowboy who smuggles drugs - is of no real interest and the circumstances of making the film are of much larger importance (and has very little to do that it's cinematography forum). The "boring" film needs to exist only so that we can talk about the circumstances and the circumstances defacto become the essence of the film.
Click to expand...

I distinguish between 'lights' and 'lighting'. Lights are in essence mechanical fixtures, of which a film maker may or may not have a range available to them.

In the case of DBC, when I read early on, and in the kick off post of this thread that the production used 'no lights', I interpreted that rather narrowly to mean, 'the usual and customary' lights that are used by 'hollywood productions', unless Hollywood productions these days are using under 1K, or even under 500W lights, or 'home depot' work lights.

I think when a significant production uses means that almost everyone who is 'making films', at whatever level, has access to, such as 'existing lights', or 'cheap' additional lights,
and makes the image work for the story, I think it is a benefit.

Obviously some people will use the claim about DBC to then not do any 'lighting', that is shaping the existing lighting, supporting with 'cheap' lights, to make images that have visual 'aesthetics'.

But by the same token, one can now criticize 'low end' film makers for not taking the time to learn/figureout/develop lighting for their films that does match up to aethetics of Film. In other words, they no longer have the 'excuse' they couldn't afford an 18K (or ten...) to get an effect... ok... maybe they still can do that... but definitely for under 5K, there should be no reason not to try for quality lighting setups with 'ordinary' wattages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top