Old masters of composition in the direction of film photography

[halfaman]

About this:


[/MEDIA]

Yeah, Wes seems kind of obssesed with centered and symetric composition. Robert Yeoman needs to use measuring tape to align all the elements in the shot to the degree of perfection the director is asking for.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not true. The effect was achieved with not a greater frame rate, which would have looked comical, but a narrower slit of the rotating shutter. Giving much less motion blur per frame than normally. Something you’d usually want to avoid. Instead using aperture, ND filters and lighting to control exposure.

SPR also used drastic bleach bypass to create the ostensibly “realistic atmosphere” for that sequence.

It was instrumental in creating that hellish, ossified, claustrophobic package of sanctioned grading looks we still have to “chose” from, and be content with today, as being “palateable” to the imaginary average mentally lazy idiot-audience by the rats nest of tie nots, that is the real hive mind behind 99% of all movies being made today.

Here's an article where Spielberg discusses how he shot each sequence of the opening Normandy invasion in including many changes to cameras and lenses, partially desaturating color, etc. It seems that he was in control of what he wanted for most of it but Kaminski added his ideas as well. It's really fascinating.
https://www.dga.org/craft/dgaq/all-articles/1103-fall-2011/shot-to-remember-saving-private-ryan.aspx

 

[warden]

You're welcome pal. Feel free to share those cases that you consider striking as well.

I didn't know what a Plaubel Makina was until I saw Wim Wenders using one, and that started an expensive search for me, for a camera I probably didn't need. ;-)

As for visual impact on movies one of my early heroes was Syd Mead, who was initially hired to design the vehicles for Blade Runner, but ended up doing so much more. An incredible talent from the time before CGI.

 

[Algo después]

I have to say I've hardly been thinking of any movie in still sense. Yet, these are great examples of why it helps giving them still kind of consideration. While some may argue it's easier to pick a great composition from hundreds of frames, a lot of times, and these are it, scenes are very static and even with some dynamics involved, they are shot with fixed camera/lens position still style.

a (very subjective) couple of examples of this with experimental films. The creative freedoms of working independently.




La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962). What´s this? a documentary? a low budget sci-fi movie? both at the same time?



One way Boogie Woogie (James Benning, 1977). This clip include his latter version: One way Boggie Woogie (27 years later). BTW, certainly you can see how Benning is influenced by Lewis Baltz probably...

Both, at least for me, master classes of composition.

 

[Algo después]

La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962). What´s this? a documentary? a low budget sci-fi movie? both at the same time?

... another impressive photographer turned film director: Chris Marker (France, 1921-2012).

The last one is a still from "La Sixième Face du Pentagone", 1968. ..A bit hard to find good pics with high res.

 

[Helge]

Here's an article where Spielberg discusses how he shot each sequence of the opening Normandy invasion in including many changes to cameras and lenses, partially desaturating color, etc. It seems that he was in control of what he wanted for most of it but Kaminski added his ideas as well. It's really fascinating.
https://www.dga.org/craft/dgaq/all-articles/1103-fall-2011/shot-to-remember-saving-private-ryan.aspx

Anything Steven Spielberg after 93 with Jurassic Park, and even that is stretching it, is out of the Halcyon days for me.
I don’t care one bit what Spielberg did after that. Hollywood changed dramatically and absolutely in a year or two, and he probably did too.
I’ll still listen to what he has to say. But not through his movies.

I’d rather watch 1941 again, than any of his post 93 movies.

 

[halfaman]

Anything Steven Spielberg after 93 with Jurassic Park, and even that is stretching it, is out of the Halcyon days for me.
I don’t care one bit what Spielberg did after that. Hollywood changed dramatically and absolutely in a year or two, and he probably did too.
I’ll still listen to what he has to say. But not through his movies.

I’d rather watch 1941 again, than any of his post 93 movies.

Glad to see another person that appreciate 1941

My teeh grew with Spielberg classic movies and I consider myself a very die-hard fan of the Indiana Jones trilogy. My love for cinema awakened and developed along with some of that stories. But for me his greatest achievement is The Schindler's List, the most personal movie in the whole sense of the term and a "rare bird" in his filmography.

Even I found the script quite irregular and sometimes even upsetting (a typycal thing in post-1993 Spielberg), the Normandy invasion sequence of Saving Private Ryan is probably the most brutal experience I have ever lived in a movie theater.

I consider also War of the Worlds and Munich two movies that deserve to be watched.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's what Spielberg said about his DP:

"[on Janusz Kaminski] I was watching television and saw his name on a TV movie, Wildflower (1991), that was beautifully photographed, so I called up the head of my TV department and asked him to consider hiring him to do a pilot we produced about the Civil War, Class of '61 (1993). The director agreed to use Janusz and he was great. I think Janusz has brought a lighting style to my movies that I'd never had before. Even Allen Daviau who had done three pictures with me, who I think is the greatest lighting cameraman in town. But Janusz brought more daring, dangerous light into my films. I set the camera. I do all the blocking. I choose the lenses. I compose everything. But Janusz, basically, is my lighting guy. And he's a master painter with light; he's made tremendous contributions to my work through his art."
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/bio

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's why Spielberg says about still using film in his movies:

[on Kodak's new Super 8 camera and film in general] When I watch the news, I expect and want it to look like live television. However, I don't want that in my movies. I want our century-plus medium to keep its filmic look and I like seeing very fine, swimming grain up there on the screen. To me, it's just more alive and it imbues an image with mystery, so it's never literal. I love movies that aren't literally up in my face with images so clear there is nothing left to our imaginations. Had I shot it on a digital camera, the Omaha Beach landings in Saving Private Ryan (1998) would have crossed the line for those that found them almost unbearable. Paintings done on a computer and paintings done on canvas require an artist to make us feel something. To be the curser or the brush, that is the question and certainly both can produce remarkable results. But doesn't the same hold true for the cinematic arts? Digital or celluloid? Vive la difference! Shouldn't both be made available for an artist to choose? [2016]
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/bio

 

[gone]

Kubrick was very good at composition. He was really a photographer that did photography. One thing to mention: when you look at old B&W movies, or even color films up to about the 80's, you see that often a lamp was placed in the frame. I'm not sure what the thinking was on this, it's almost always at the edge of the frame when people were in a room, and it forces your eye to look beyond it and at the characters.

Some of the lamps are truly weird and wonderful, especially the Technicolor ones! Then, this went out of favor, and today's movies often have these horrid steady cam shots where the camera moves all over the room w/ the characters in the center. It looks pretty amateurish. I watch a lot of films, almost all are B&W and all are on film as I dislike the look of digital films.

Today's movies just look bad in terms of image quality. They're often unnecessarily violent, and we don't have the actors that we used to have. We don't have the big directors (who were really artists) that could call the shots, and insist that things be done their way. And we certainly don't have the same caliber cinematographers that existed before film fell essentially was taken away from them when the movie industry removed the projectors from modern theaters and replaced them w/ digital projectors.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kubrick was very good at composition. He was really a photographer that did photography. One thing to mention: when you look at old B&W movies, or even color films up to about the 80's, you see that often a lamp was placed in the frame. I'm not sure what the thinking was on this, it's almost always at the edge of the frame when people were in a room, and it forces your eye to look beyond it and at the characters.

Some of the lamps are truly weird and wonderful, especially the Technicolor ones! Then, this went out of favor, and today's movies often have these horrid steady cam shots where the camera moves all over the room w/ the characters in the center. It looks pretty amateurish. I watch a lot of films, almost all are B&W and all are on film as I dislike the look of digital films.

Today's movies just look bad in terms of image quality. They're often unnecessarily violent, and we don't have the actors that we used to have. We don't have the big directors (who were really artists) that could call the shots, and insist that things be done their way. And we certainly don't have the same caliber cinematographers that existed before film fell essentially was taken away from them when the movie industry removed the projectors from modern theaters and replaced them w/ digital projectors.

Frankly, many movies today are better produced and often better acted. The acting back then often was stilty an too formal, There were also a lot of crummy movies back then and crummy movies made today. But a good many rose to quality in both ages.

My biggest gripe with movies theaters using digital or the old film projectors was when they allow the brightness to reduce so much it looked like the entire movie was shot at night. I would complain to the manager of the theater and nothing ever change. They wouldn't fix it. The rest of the people in the theater didn't notice like me and you might. It's really a shame. Except for size and the theater experience, the movie looks better on my 4K UHD 75" TV.

 

[snusmumriken]

Gordon Willis?

 

[jtk]

Saw Lawrence of Arabia in Sony's minimally announced theatrical digital maiden voyage back in 2012....a pre-release, not the same as today's home TV digital...

I recall reading that only a handful of theatres on earth had showed this version... the only audience in our local gigantic theatre, in addition to my girlfriend and I, was a dozen film students.

I had loved Lawrence in earliest film release in San Francisco and years later again in the then re-release (totally restored and re-printed) film version. Both had been beyond stunning.

Sony bought the film, restored it (a multi-million $ project) and scanned it with newest technology.

The 2012 very limited digital theatrical release was shocking...this historic digital release had reportedly been directly scanned from pre-release film...a majestic project but the digital it certainly did reveal things never seen in the original and that IMO took away from a reality factor.

Perhaps the two earlier film releases (optical prints) had softened the imagery, the way one would expect from film prints, but the digital looked harsh. Too much detail. Certainly not possible to compare on any home TV, which wouldn't begin to make the impression seen on gigantic theatrical screen, projected by then-latest digital theatrical projector.


https://www.sony.com/content/sony/e...re-lawrence-of-arabia-sunday-december-16.html I think this report was on the TV version, not the earlier digital theatre release. Maybe the theatrical release was reported on American Cinematographer or similar.

 

[jtk]

https://www.highdefwatch.com/post/lawrence-of-arabia-sweeps-onto-new-4k-ultra-hd

ASTOUNDING !

 

[Algo después]

The 2012 very limited digital theatrical release was shocking...this historic digital release had reportedly been directly scanned from pre-release film...a majestic project but the digital it certainly did reveal things never seen in the original and that IMO took away from a reality factor.

Perhaps the two earlier film releases (optical prints) had softened the imagery, the way one would expect from film prints, but the digital looked harsh. Too much detail. Certainly not possible to compare on any home TV, which wouldn't begin to make the impression seen on gigantic theatrical screen, projected by then-latest digital theatrical projector.

I suppose that like many of us, we have seen movies on film, others through the TV signal, on VHS tapes, discs (dvds, blu ray) and so on until reaching the most extreme digitization. From there, a variable is presented where what is gained in 24/7 access to high-quality digitized content is lost or at least reset in the classic viewing experience. It is evident that this reception experience has very little to do with the ritual of going to the cinema and savoring the inaccuracies of materiality in more fragile supports such as 35mm, for example, where the distant noise of the projector, the changes of roll and this type of eventualities makes the viewing become something thrilling.

The truth is that, in current times, there is no other option but to negotiate with those original memories if you want to access certain contents considered cinematographic gems. By the way, an example of something that has disappeared in today's cinema: overtures (It was also the extra time you needed if you were late...)


Dr. Zhivago (David Lean, 1965)



East of Eden (Elia Kazan, 1955)

 

[Algo después]

I've seen very few works of this cinematographer (Gerald Hirschfeld, 1921-2017), but I love the light-dark power he uses for Fail Safe (Sidney Lumet, 1964). The contact he establishes between the baroque style, comics and film noir is incredible. The use of close-ups in this one is exquisite. Here below some stills.

https://theasc.com/news/in-memoria-gerald-hirschfeld-asc-1921-2017

(,,,stablished an admired reputation for being a precise, exacting, perfectionist. Among his crew over the years were future ASC greats Owen Roizman (AC and operator) and Gordon Willis (operator).)

 

[halfaman]

https://www.highdefwatch.com/post/lawrence-of-arabia-sweeps-onto-new-4k-ultra-hd

ASTOUNDING !

I have the standard HD blue-ray edition of the this same remastering (I don't expect to pay to extra charge of 4K players in this life) and it is equally impressive. It was scanned from the very original camera 65mm negatives to 8K; then it was meticulously cleaned, graded to match the color and contrast of the projection prints, and downscaled to 4K. The original soundtrack is lost so they took the sound from the best projection print available (I think it was from some premiere).

 

[Algo después]

Deakins dixit:

"We tried to do it with film, and it ended up being like six different chemical processes, and we never got anywhere close." That's when they got the idea to take a page out of the "Pleasantville" book and try out the digital intermediate. Deakins went on to say:

"It took days and days just to do a single shot when we were testing, but we all agreed that the film wouldn't be in post-production until about six to eight months, so we went ahead and took the chance with it ... Eventually, when we did the DI, it took over 11 weeks, so it still wasn't quick. It was all digitized — what we didn't want was a traditional sepia — the guys had told me they wanted the feel of an old, faded postcard and particularly to get rid of the greens. Digitally, you can select different colors, and basically there were a number of selections where you could change any color in the image."

///

...It's so funny how time completely reverses things. 22 years ago, the Coen Brothers were trying out a digital intermediate for "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" because they wanted to achieve a specific style of image for the film. In 2016, Anna Biller had to purposefully avoid the digital intermediate and use the traditional color timing process because of her own visual specificity. What that tells me is everything here is a tool, and filmmakers should be able to have access to all of these tools and use the ones the best suit whatever project they are making. Having an industry standard is limiting to the artistic process, and having different options available helps artists better achieve the vision in their heads, diversifies the looks of movies, and lets a lot more people keep their jobs in industries that have been ruthlessly chipped away at over the years. There is no right way to make a movie. There is just the right way to make your movie."



Read More: https://www.slashfilm.com/840112/th...f-o-brother-where-art-thou/?utm_campaign=clip

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

To a degree yes. But some of these scenes are clearly composed very deliberately. And that goes for just about any movie with any ambition. even a pan, dolly shot or zoom is composed.

I think watching movies helped me compose my own photo shots subconsciously.

 

[Algo después]

...here several stills from Good morning (1959), Yasujiro Ozu. In this film his d.p. was Yūharu Atsuta however it´s visible how Ozu kept the control of composition in almost all his pictures. A few dps who collaborated with him were Kazuo Miyagawa or Asakazu Naka.

Def. some master class of composition, also a particular way to connect Mondrian with Hopper, though.

 

[Algo después]

I think watching movies helped me compose my own photo shots subconsciously.

x2

 

[Algo después]

One way Boogie Woogie (James Benning, 1977). This clip include his latter version: One way Boggie Woogie (27 years later). BTW, certainly you can see how Benning is influenced by Lewis Baltz probably...

Both, at least for me, master classes of composition.

Between Benning and Baltz the bridge is much clearer.

“North Wall, Automated Marine International, 1641 McGaw, Irvine,” 1974 from “The new Industrial Parks near Irvine, California.” Gelatin silver print.

“Tract House no. 17,” 1971 from “The Tract Houses.” Gelatin silver print.

“San Francisco,” 1972 from “The Prototype Works.” Gelatin silver print.

“West Wall, Unoccupied Industrial Structure, 20 Airway Drive, Costa Mesa,” 1974.

(I haven´t found the title of this one. Sorry)

 

[CMoore]

DPs has always been neglected when singing the praises of favorites, even if they together with the scriptwriters are sometimes most of what makes a movies great.
One of the most famous exceptions to this is of course Gregg Toland.



The DP, the scriptwriter through the script, and the editor, can exude a magnetic field that just magically puls the movie together.

Do you really think so.?
To "the masses" ,which is most people i suppose, i guess they are pretty unknown. But among followers of cinema i would think the DP is very well appreciated.?

I am just a "casual" fan of movies............Gregg Toland and Haskell Wexler are a couple of my faves.

 

[KerrKid]

The movie "Octav" contains beautiful cinematography. I could pull a thousand great stills out of it.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I thought someone revived this thread to talk about Joel Coen's recent work to showcase the photography of Lee Friedlander, reported last week in the New York Times, "Filmmaker Joel Coen Puts His Spin on the Photos of Lee Friedlander," May 1, 2023 (paywall). The article talks about how Coen and Friedlander's dealer, Jeffrey Fraenkel, worked to storyboard Friedlander's photographs into a narrative of sorts.

In the article, Coen touches on how "a still photographer and a filmmaker have very different aims." Coen explained: "I take photos with my iPhone like everybody else, but I was looking at a visual form that I have no connection to. The primary thing in cinematography is a narrative, and everything else is secondary. Often the director of photography will set up a shot that is so beautiful but so deficient from a narrative point of view. And the shot is scrapped."