Music Video: How would you light this?

This is only tangentially related, but did you see the Billie Eilish Ocean Eyes video that basically made her famous? It's a master class in simplicity and relies heavily on the sort of genius of her subtle visual performance. I think she was a home-schooled high-schooler at this point


Yeah, you can do 'simple' with her because she's an exceptional artist. My lads, as I said earlier, may need some help.
 
This is only tangentially related, but did you see the Billie Eilish Ocean Eyes video that basically made her famous? It's a master class in simplicity and relies heavily on the sort of genius of her subtle visual performance. I think she was a home-schooled high-schooler at this point


Yeah, you can do 'simple' with her because she's an exceptional artist. My lads, as I said earlier, may need some help.

Yeah. Take her out of it and insert *random no-name singer* and what do you have?
 
Yeah. Take her out of it and insert *random no-name singer* and what do you have?

She was a random no-name singer when this was made. I think her brother and her shot it in her bedroom. This was how she became known.

I guess my point was that what the performers are doing is just as important as hiw they're lit and shot. And their performance/features can inform the shooting choices. sort of like how the video for dancing in the dark starts with close-ups of Springsteen's skinny legs and waist:

 
I normally despise non-narrative music videos, where it is just the band playing (whether it is on stage, or in a practice area, or on a white cyc). If you are going to be in the same environment as a live performance, just show me a live performance. Otherwise, what's the point?

The only time I've enjoyed those type of music videos is when it's played up that they're in a small space (not trying to make it out to be something it isn't) or the grunginess of that space is emphasized, or there is just a ton of interesting visuals within that space.

The NIN music video for March of the Pigs is one of my favorites, because they are emphasizing the starkness and rawness of their environment - and their music - using harsh lighting and a oner (and the fact that they are actually playing live doesn't hurt): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwjLcwbT-xE

As to interesting visuals within the space, you could black out the walls with sheets or duv and try to make something compelling happen within the black void (King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard - Cyboogie): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_un9PYsE1_g
 
Last edited:
I guess my point was that what the performers are doing is just as important as hiw they're lit and shot. And their performance/features can inform the shooting choices. sort of like how the video for dancing in the dark starts with close-ups of Springsteen's skinny legs and waist:

And then he just happens to pull Courtney Cox out of the audience and up on stage. But yes, I agree. But I don't think my guys have any game, which is why how it is shot is vital.
 
I normally despise non-narrative music videos, where it is just the band playing (whether it is on stage, or in a practice area, or on a white cyc). If you are going to be in the same environment as a live performance, just show me a live performance. Otherwise, what's the point?

The only time I've enjoyed those type of music videos is when it's played up that they're in a small space (not trying to make it out to be something it isn't) or the grunginess of that space is emphasized, or there is just a ton of interesting visuals within that space.

Exactly how I feel. At the moment blacking out the space looks the best option. I'd shoot it like Whiplash but they didn't want me to feature the drummer as he's not a permanent member of the band!
 
they didn't want me to feature the drummer as he's not a permanent member of the band!

Sounds like they've given you a lot to work with!

A simple video that comes to mind because I don't think the performance was that impressive or important, and the lighting was sort of a character itself was How Deep is Your Love by the Bee Gees. I always thought it was kind of a corny video. But I suppose my point is that if you storyboard and light a series of close-ups, you can emphasize the lighting and minimize the demands on their performance without needing a ton of time and equipment. Doing a good looking group shot of the whole band playing could be challenging, but maybe you could just composite them together from solo shots -


Then of course there's the lighting effect at the beginning of Bohemian Rhapsody. Queen were amazing performers, but at least that carefully staged and lit part could probably have been performed by anyone IMO. And its a tight shot


So I guess I think that planning out your shots to limit what you need from them and what you need to light may work better than setting up an environment for them to perform in improvisationally. You could make fancy lightings and focus less on what they bring to the table
 
And then he just happens to pull Courtney Cox out of the audience and up on stage. But yes, I agree. But I don't think my guys have any game, which is why how it is shot is vital.

Is the song any good? I've found over the years, with music videos, if the song itself doesn't kick ass, doesn't matter what you do as a filmmaker, the MV will never be any good.
Sounds harsh, but that's why I never work on music videos anymore. The artists who have a kick ass song usually aren't going to hire me, they're going to hire an A list MV director
like Joseph Kahn or someone and the ones who will hire me have weak songs because I am a competent nobody (wouldn't that be a great band name?!),
I also never wanted to try to claw my way to the top of the MV world because, well, they're music videos.

It's just like Indie features, if you have a kick ass script, a lot of lower end production values are forgiven because the story is so good, but if you have great production values but a
weak script and story, you end up with good looking crap. It's still crap, just nicely shot.
 
Is the song any good? I've found over the years, with music videos, if the song itself doesn't kick ass, doesn't matter what you do as a filmmaker, the MV will never be any good.

Probably the exception to this rule is Ok Go, who have decent music but incredibly fun music videos. They became famous for their music videos, the first couple of which were very low budget. But they bring a lot to the table as performers and their videos are remarkably well planned.

The earliest ones that I know of:

The treadmills video is precious:

A simple group dance:

 
She was a random no-name singer when this was made. I think her brother and her shot it in her bedroom. This was how she became known.

I guess my point was that what the performers are doing is just as important as hiw they're lit and shot. And their performance/features can inform the shooting choices. sort of like how the video for dancing in the dark starts with close-ups of Springsteen's skinny legs and waist:


Exactly. She can SING. She carried the video. She mesmerized you with her singing and performance. And then all together it had this kind of spooky, yet entrancing vibe.
 
But I guess you need a Komodo. Do you guys regret years of saying "the rolling shutter ain't that bad" yet? ;)

Last music video I shot was back in the early DSLR era when rolling shutter was far worse, so I used that as a feature rather than a bug. See the shots of the band at 3:32. Jello to the max! (particularly 3:51)

 
Charles - I'd bet most people would see that as a visual effect. I watched it on YouTube direct and I don't think it's actually something I'd pull out as rolling shutter - it's sort of artistically appropriate.
 
Charles - I'd bet most people would see that as a visual effect. I watched it on YouTube direct and I don't think it's actually something I'd pull out as rolling shutter - it's sort of artistically appropriate.

Exactly my point! Knowing what the camera (Canon 1DMKIV) did when you shot handheld, which was normally considered a defect you had to work around, I did a few passes with the band shaking the camera violently to create that effect!

I just remembered we did the same thing a few years prior on this video, see :30 and :37.


It is funny to revisit these DSLR videos now. Glorious 8 bit H264, moire everywhere, mushy and blotchy. But they were cool at the time! I love that we have that little Canon on a Technocrane in this one.
 
The artists who have a kick ass song usually aren't going to hire me, they're going to hire an A list MV director
like Joseph Kahn or someone and the ones who will hire me have weak songs because I am a competent nobody (wouldn't that be a great band name?!)


There are a lot of great bands out there with amazing music that are never going to get popular enough to be able to afford a big budget director.


I also never wanted to try to claw my way to the top of the MV world because, well, they're music videos.


With music videos, you as the director can have more free rein to do whatever you want. Because of that, you can create something that not only elevates the work but almost supersedes it. Michel Gondry and Spike Jones, for instance, created mini masterpieces with a lot of the videos they directed and they are not entirely dependent on the music to succeed.

This is a low fi masterpiece by Spike Jones (Fatlip - What Up Fatlip): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WotkQ6vFuGw

This is a high fi masterpiece by Michel Gondry (bjork - bachelorette): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNJv-Ebi67I

Music videos to me are one of the pinnacles of directing and cinematography, because of how many things are combined into one. You have the highest level of marketing for a product - the artist. It's in a lot of ways much more important than a simple commercial for a business. You're also given more runtime than you would normally have in a commercial to tell a story, but still not that much, so you need to have focused ideas. Then, because bands understand the artistic side of it, you have so much more space to collaborate on something unique. On top of that, you have the ability to make a statement that can have a far reaching cultural impact.

All of that is going to be delivered in a package that is easily digestible and has no barriers of entry to unpack it - music videos are short and free. More people can and are going to watch them more than most individual features or TV series.

I can easily point to the huge cultural significance of music videos like Beyonce's Formation and Sorry or Childish Gambino's This Is America. This music video for Kendrick Lamar's For Free? hits all of the right notes and is so powerful as a combined work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZTYgq4EoRo


Is the song any good? I've found over the years, with music videos, if the song itself doesn't kick ass, doesn't matter what you do as a filmmaker, the MV will never be any good.


Even if the music is not your taste, you can make something great. I don't listen to Die Antwoord, because their music doesn't work for me by itself, but I've seen all of their music videos because they are highly entertaining and artistic. (Although I will note that their videos do have differing levels of culturally problematic content, though).

For more examples, you probably won't like either of the next two artists (even if you are a seasoned metalhead like myself), but you can appreciate that they made something entertaining to watch.

King Diamond - The Family Ghost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGC2iP5ss6E (shutter angles galore!)

Candlemass - Bewitched: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3LNi-aPXuc (skip to 1:20 and watch about 20 seconds if you don't want to watch the whole thing.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top