What happened to the theatrical look?

David Jimerson said:
This is a tangent from the thread, but . . . if you're going to all this effort to make the lighting, production design, etc., as good as you can, then why don't you put as much effort into your performances? Ultimately, it's the actors -- that is, the characters -- the audience watches. The rest is atmosphere. You should get the atmosphere right. But none of that matters without the performances to match.

Anyway, just a thought.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us (especially only a couple years in as I am) is the complete package. In fact most directors (below the elite best in the business) aren't the complete package. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I am a pretty good writer and have some "talent" as far as creating the mise en scene. I have WAY too strong a tendency to just let the actors go with their instincts (unless they are really far afield from what I want) just because the process of guiding them is pretty trying and often unpleasant. I'm working on it. I'm also experimenting with an AD as the conduit between me and the actors.
 
Bringing it back to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", keep in mind that even when it was released, it subscribed to an intentionally antiquated look in its lighting. Spielberg and Lucas wanted to revive the old serials from their childhoods and the cinematography tips its hat to the more stylized look of classical Hollywood. Douglas Slocombe, the DP of the first 3 Indy films, was shooting movies since the 1940's, and shot some of the classic Ealing Studios comedies like "The Man in the White Suit" and "The Lavender Hill Mob". He was 67 years-old when he shot "Raiders". Not bad!

But it really had a different look to what Hollywood was up to in the 1970's. A more naturalistic, soft light look was becoming quite the norm for many Hollywood movies during that decade, based partly on the influence of such soft-light masters as Sven Nyquist. Some DPs did well with both hard and soft light (Gordon Willis, for one). But look at the work of Nestor Alemendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Haskell Wexler, Conrad Hall and many, many more. Naturalism was huge in the years right before "Raiders". Even Jordan Cronenweth, who shot "Blade Runner" developed "Crony Lights", which were very similar to modern Chimera soft boxes.
However, you're right. I'm a little tired of the soft, flat, Kino-fied world of modern cinema. Watching old, expressionist black-and-white films with jet-black hard shadows brings warmth to my heart.
Let's use both styles for all the right reasons!
 
dvbrother said:
Bringing it back to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", keep in mind that even when it was released, it subscribed to an intentionally antiquated look in its lighting. Spielberg and Lucas wanted to revive the old serials from their childhoods and the cinematography tips its hat to the more stylized look of classical Hollywood. Douglas Slocombe, the DP of the first 3 Indy films, was shooting movies since the 1940's, and shot some of the classic Ealing Studios comedies like "The Man in the White Suit" and "The Lavender Hill Mob". He was 67 years-old when he shot "Raiders". Not bad!

But it really had a different look to what Hollywood was up to in the 1970's. A more naturalistic, soft light look was becoming quite the norm for many Hollywood movies during that decade, based partly on the influence of such soft-light masters as Sven Nyquist. Some DPs did well with both hard and soft light (Gordon Willis, for one). But look at the work of Nestor Alemendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Haskell Wexler, Conrad Hall and many, many more. Naturalism was huge in the years right before "Raiders". Even Jordan Cronenweth, who shot "Blade Runner" developed "Crony Lights", which were very similar to modern Chimera soft boxes.
However, you're right. I'm a little tired of the soft, flat, Kino-fied world of modern cinema. Watching old, expressionist black-and-white films with jet-black hard shadows brings warmth to my heart.
Let's use both styles for all the right reasons!
Click to expand...

Very important, Raiders did not look at all like your typical 80s movie (and was one of the last really classically lit films).
The nice thing about soft light in the 70s and 80s was that while you wanted to keep it soft and natural, it was still hard when it needed to be. Willis is a perfect example, as he switches from harder sources to softer sources, depending on what the scene requieres (and also what is providing the light). Many modern movies as you say have that super soft and flat light, but some can keep the spirit of that. Robbie Richardson springs to mind, as while he often has soft fills and keys, he uses small spot lights to create gradations or really nice kickers for the characters. It gives everything a very three dimensional space really. Same thing with Wally Pfister and of course Deakins, who's probably the most "realistic" DP there is, but it never looks flat or bland what he does.
 
Gabel said:
Many modern movies as you say have that super soft and flat light, but some can keep the spirit of that. Robbie Richardson springs to mind, as while he often has soft fills and keys, he uses small spot lights to create gradations or really nice kickers for the characters. It gives everything a very three dimensional space really. Same thing with Wally Pfister and of course Deakins, who's probably the most "realistic" DP there is, but it never looks flat or bland what he does.
Click to expand...

I agree. Look, there are some really great DPs working today doing great work. Deakins, Richardson, as you mentioned. I think, on the more flashy side, Dan Mindel (Abrams' Star Trek) does amazing work, lens flares and all. Too many good cinematographers to mention. I think one of the main differences is use of hard light, which now seems to be reserved for big HMI lights punching though windows or lighting exteriors. The simple small fresnel used for a key or backlight seems to be on the decline, with Kinos or china balls replacing them now. Which is great, it all looks soft and amazing on skin, but that punchy look of hard light needs to be brought back into the mainstream.
 
dvbrother said:
I agree. Look, there are some really great DPs working today doing great work. Deakins, Richardson, as you mentioned. I think, on the more flashy side, Dan Mindel (Abrams' Star Trek) does amazing work, lens flares and all. Too many good cinematographers to mention. I think one of the main differences is use of hard light, which now seems to be reserved for big HMI lights punching though windows or lighting exteriors. The simple small fresnel used for a key or backlight seems to be on the decline, with Kinos or china balls replacing them now. Which is great, it all looks soft and amazing on skin, but that punchy look of hard light needs to be brought back into the mainstream.
Click to expand...

Well said. Mindel is very nice, so if Larry Fong. As you say, the modern soft light look is amazing on skin tones, but's that why I think it can mix so well with smaller harder lights. The big difference now is that we don't need hard light to provide the key or the fill, but instead they can be used to create character, but too many people skip this I'm afraid.
 
Isnt this partly what Anne Foerste is doing with Anonymous? I know she was blasting hmis throuh the windows but a lot of the shots are lovely contrasty... Not jet black but very lovely!
 
"I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.
That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you..."

Seriously? This is the discussion?

I have no problem with enhancing the subject, but lighting like the old days? It's not done anymore for good reason. There's a fine line between "romantic" and glaringly fake. Reailty isn't boring, unless the person perceiving it is boring.

I certainly welcome the move toward more natural lighting, and those guys who do it make some of the best stuff out there: Deakins, Wally Pfister, Malick, even Kubrick pioneered natural lighting. You're going to say their films are "boring" because of the natrualistic lighting? I'll take that over that face blasted sound stage stuff from the 50's any day.
 
Matter of taste.
"Naturalistic" lighting has a place. There is subject matter that would look silly done any other way, but that doesn't mean others can't also love the stylized romantic look of those older films. Hard shadows and "beauty" or "hero" lighting. Personally I love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top