Coming into this studio as someone who has aspirations to become a filmmaker, I quickly realised how naive I had been for ignoring the importance of light. Fellini said it best when he declared “films are light”. It is a crucial element in which a film’s potential is dependant on; it is the difference between good and bad.
Throughout the semester, the emphasis has been on how to use lighting in an expressive manner; that is to create mood and atmosphere. We would often watch clips from a mostly bygone era of cinema, which provided a historical context for the way in which lighting was first used during the birth of cinema (Melies), and then developed along with the medium and its new demands. This, along with discussions centred around the key terms and principles of lighting were the fundamental basis for our practical endeavours.
When shooting, we were often divided into groups and provided with a generic script. The task was never to figure out how we ‘should’ light it, rather we were encouraged to see how we ‘could’. Errors were made, but this type of freedom of experimentation allowed for some truly unique and interesting work to be created.
Robin created an open and creative environment that fast-tracked our understanding of theory, and developed our skills as practitioners. Every class was an opportunity to learn something new and useful, and I myself feel this studio has created a foundation for me to advance my aesthetic.
Over the course of the semester, I haven’t really used many of the lights available when working on a project. Instead I have often relied on using natural or practical lights. My original and sole project for the end of the semester was to further the ideas I developed in the ‘Test’ shoot. This, essentially, was to follow Kerry, Adelle and Andrew wandering around the space and entering different levels and shades of light, while also using the camera to experiment with angles and movement. I thought of it as a pure cinema type of thing, where the emphasis is on motion. As I have mentioned in a previous post, the test shoot was a one-of-a-kind type of thing, not in terms of quality (as even I’m a bit unsure of how ‘good’ it is), but rather that it relied on a kind of freedom from distraction from the actors that would be hard to replicate on second attempt. We had the space for 3 days (Wednesday to Friday), and I became anxious as I wanted to do something else but couldn’t really let an idea sit with me as I was too impatient. On the Thursday, after watching Adelle’s and Kerry’s shoots, I thought of an idea which I followed through with.
The house, which my family and I have just moved from, still has remnants of the past; things we are yet to decide on worth keeping or disposing. This, along with the vast, empty space available in the living room, gave me a foundation for a shot that is essentially watching two people packing and/or deciding on what to keep or not. It’s a static shot, but I wanted movement and directed Andrew to walk across the space, into the kitchen, where he could pick up some bananas and ask Adelle if she wanted any. Needless to say, the shot is not about the content; again, it’s about movement (camera and person).
I don’t really like digital cameras as I don’t like how they look; the EX3 is okay but I usually opt for black and white as it looks a lot nicer. Though, as I wanted to treat this as doing something I haven’t really done before, I shot it in colour. I still don’t really know what I’m doing when grading, but I like how it has a grainy quality to it. This is something I need to pay more attention to and experiment with.
When shooting, the most pressing question was of course how to light it. This was somewhat difficult and required some time for experimentation. We put a 1K with blue gel outside, which hit through the blinds on the lefthand side onto Andrew, giving him a nice key/fill contrast on his face. We had some trouble with shadows on the back wall being too defined, though this was fixed by toying with the blinds inside the kitchen, and also by using a Dedo light which was situated behind the camera and directed upwards onto the roof. We ran the shot through a few times, though when Andrew entered his position in the kitchen, something felt a bit off. The lighting was too flat, dark, and ultimately a distraction. We put another 1K (which is on Andrew’s rightside in his final position) in the kitchen, and while the lighting on Andrew’s face was still a bit flat, I think it worked because he was backlit along with the space.
I had some audio trouble – the sound was all panned to the left so I had to add a few layers of atmosphere to fix it. It’s still a problem and I wish we got it right, though I feel you could watch it on mute and it would still be engaging (if that’s any consolation).
Last year, Kerry and I developed an approach to working which was essentially meeting at a specific location without bringing any ideas about characters/themes/shots there. We would walk around, observe, place the camera in a position that felt right and then come up with a shot that often involved the other person walking, or performing some kind of action. After doing this several times and figuring out what worked and what didn’t (purely by instinct) we would look back at the footage and decide what was worth refining. You can write a script and create a shot list, but I feel it’s equally, if not more important, to be able to be in a position on set where you can actively improvise and execute an idea by using the space around you. Filmmaking (to me) relies a lot on spontaneity and I find this way of working very exciting and liberating.
Kerry has had a short film idea in the works for a while, and a week or so ago we rented the EX3 over the weekend to test a few things out, essentially to ‘find’ the movie. We met at Ruffey Lake park on a Sunday (about 10AM), and the following day (Monday) at 7AM where we were fortunate enough to witness the glorious fog surrounding us. The below shot is one I figured out on the Sunday, and we did about 4 or 5 takes. A lot of ideas come to me subconsciously, and I am fairly certain that the walking scenes in Garrel’s films were the inspiration for this shot. They are loaded with mood and atmosphere, and I wanted to not necessarily re-create, but use this as a template. As for the camera itself, the shot involves a number of slow-zooms, something that I have become obsessed with since seeing Rossellini’s Blaise Pascal (1971), which completely changed my perspective on framing and cinema in general. It is my visual bible. As I have had little experience with operating the camera (I’m more of an ‘ideas’ kind of guy (I want this to change)), the exposure was a bit off, but more importantly, I didn’t use (out of pure ignorance) the auto-zoom button, instead manually doing it. The button was far too sensitive, and while on some occasions I could hold the speed I wanted, it was ultimately too inconsistent.
We looked back at the footage and Kerry and I decided we needed to shoot this again, properly. I asked Robin about the auto-zoom, and he showed me where it was located (doh) and how to adjust the speed level. A few days later we went back (with Andrew), again in the morning, to refine the idea.
We did about 6 takes, and the one below was the last and by far the best. I think the fact that we got an extra (without permission) makes it all the more special, and her entrance into the frame was timed perfectly. It’s funny that so many things that ‘make’ shots are often by mere luck.
Kerry and I have always thought the image from the EX3 looked best in black and white, and I think this is an appropriate shot for that choice. As we weren’t using any lights, we relied on the sky and the distance between the path and the bushes to create a correct exposure. The sky was clear, I would have preferred clouds but at least there was a consistency to work with. Kerry’s hat adds a nice shadow to his eyes, while the shades of his clothes work nicely against the natural backdrop. We had some problems with sound (it was panned only through the left side) so I added some ambient sounds over the top to try and even it all out. Overall, I am very pleased with how this has come out – I’m really not sure what else could have made it better.
Just over two years ago I watched Woody Allen’s Husbands and Wives. I had only seen a few of Allen’s films at that point, Annie Hall, and his more goofy Bananas and Take The Money And Run. Like the case with many films I watch, I forgot most of the story and remembered most of the formal elements. Character and story don’t do a lot for me – filmmaking, at its most pure (movement) is what I emotionally respond to, mostly through excitement. Carlo Di Palma’s cinematography was unlike anything I’d ever seen before, and to this day still remains as such. I have since seen more of his work (as I have with Allen (mostly films in which they collaborated)), and more than anything, the formal elements of Husbands and Wives comfortably make it their most experimental and interesting work. I think the best way to describe the look is documentarian. There are the obvious similarities in the way in which subjects are framed in both this and documentary film, but it’s the way in which the camera improvises that gives it a real-life urgency. Di Palma makes numerous ‘mistakes’ over the course of the film; quick-pans are clunky, framing is often re-adjusted, there is even one moment where the camera tilts down and shows the floor for a few seconds. But, as I have said in a previous posts, ‘mistakes’ (I’m talking in terms of a more traditional context of cinematography) are often riveting, and certainly are in the case of this film. Husbands and Wives represents a complete departure from Allen’s more ‘clean’ aesthetic, and with this I have two wishes: one, that I had an account of/could be able to hear the conversations between Allen & Di Palma prior to shooting (which I find totally fascinating), and two, that Allen made more films (at least one) that went down this idiosyncratic path. Although the fact that he only made 1 film like this, and that there is really nothing else like it (or that I have come across) makes it all the more special.
I’ve been meaning to re-watch Husbands and Wives for at least a year now as I often remind myself of its unique style. Moreso than ever, as I have a more grounded understanding regarding my own ideas of film aesthetics, and a fresh viewing under such clarity could provide new ideas and insights. I have hit somewhat of a crossroads where I have been shooting things a certain way for a while now, and as a result I have wanted to try something totally new.
Kerry and I rented the EX3 to shoot his short film over a few days, and I treated it as a way of figuring out what I was really going to do with the next few weeks. During a day in which Adelle and Andrew offered assistance, I recommended that after shooting we visit my old house (which is empty) and decide if we want to use the space as the location of our individual work. After a few moments there, it was quite clear that we all felt excited by its potential, with none of us really knowing how we were going to utilise it. I noticed Kerry, Adelle and Andrew were locked into conversation, walking into different spaces, interacting (indirectly) with different sources of light. I felt the urge to whip out the EX3 to capture this, and did so for about 10 minutes.
Despite not watching Husbands and Wives for over two years, I had been talking to Kerry about it and the framing was in the back of my mind. When I turned on the camera, I was consciously or subconsciously (I don’t really remember) working in the spirit of the film. I was improvising; zooming, moving, panning, following, stopping, focussing, pausing, changing at 100mph (or so it felt like). As for what I was actually shooting, it was an incredibly rare moment. None of them really focussed on me or just didn’t care, and as a result I was able to document some truly beautiful moments between them.
We had a few houselights on, a few windows available and a few blinds being drawn, all combining to give each space and person a particular look. As the decision to shoot, as well as the shooting itself was completely improvised (and to an extent, rushed), there are clear ‘mistakes’, but not the type you can get away with. For instance, there are some frames out of focus and poorly exposed (the latter being the main problem). In hindsight, I wish I gave myself another 2 minutes prior to shooting to resolve these issues.
When we were looking over the footage of the day’s shoot, Kerry noticed this file and we both had a look. I didn’t expect much out of it, but I was surprised with how immersive it was. I like how there was no sound; it was pure (silent) cinema – bodies floating in across the screen, action, kinetics. Ultimately, this gave me a lot of ideas regarding framing for future work. I want to re-create it, that is shoot under similar circumstances, though I think it will be difficult to replicate.
“The presence of the lake and the mountains is stronger in color than in black and white. It is a film I couldn’t imagine in black and white. The color green seems to me essential in that film…This film would have no value to me in black and white.” – Eric Rohmer on Claire’s Knee
It’s a good thing Rohmer has Almendros as his cinematographer here, because he makes the greens and blues truly pop. Rohmer’s tale of desire is played out against the backdrop of the exquisite Lake Annecy, which Almendros, as a pro, knows how to capture. It would have been easy to treat the lake as a purely ostentatious landscape, shooting it like a clip from Getaway, but Almendros first and foremost uses the locale as a way of enhancing the films mood and atmosphere.
In true signature Almendros style, the character’s are backlit by the sun (perhaps with the help of some bounce boards). Bodies are often shot from the waist up, and when in the shade, there really isn’t any noticeable key light. The shadow takes up the whole of their faces, but isn’t a distraction and detail is still evident.
Unfortunately Adelle was sick, so Kerry, Andrew and I had to present with that in the back of our minds. I think the pitch itself was kind of an exercise in all 3 of us figuring out what we were trying to do. Fundamentally it was about each creating something, but talking aloud and pitching naturally provided a different perspective over our purpose.
What that is exactly, I am still not entirely sure. It’s really about narrowing down to something cohesive between us. I think the same location idea is good, and since the pitch we have agreed that a window must be involved. In theory these are limitations, but I think some kind of parameter is valuable.
Robin liked how we said we will each be behind the camera for our individual works. Deep down, total control is something that I think we each desire. Mistakes may and possibly will be made, and we will be responsible for them. It’s kind of liberating, and the way in which aspects are refined will be crucial.
The other project I found totally fascinating was the group who are adapting a scene from Camus’ The Stranger. I recently discovered that Visconti did an adaptation with Mastroianni as Meursault and Anna Karina as Marie – I need to get around to watching it. It will be interesting to see what direction the group take and it raises some questions; how faithful will they be to the text, how will they light it, where will they shoot it, how long will each shot go for? I am looking forward to the end product.
My pitch to my fellow group members (in our Google Doc):
I think for the project to be ‘iterative’, the ‘rules’ or ‘parameters’ should be focussed on location. A practice that Kerry and I developed last year was to meet at a specific location once or twice a week from about Week 7/8 until the end of the semester. In the beginning it was about finding the shots by experimenting with the space, and as each visit went on it was about refining the shots that we felt most strongly about. This could be a useful practice; to avoid time wasting we probably don’t need to do as much improvisation, but using the same location could develop our work, and give each of us a chance to create a body of work (which felt like a priority for all of us). We could find a script, and each shoot the same scene (at the same location), rotating roles so each member has a chance to shoot the material how they want it (in terms of questions of lighting, blocking and camera placement, etc).
If we were to follow through with this idea, this week should be solely dedicated to planning the remaining weeks out.
Maybe the work that we aim for could be something like:
