Old masters of composition in the direction of film photography

[Algo después]

I know that this thread may be a bit foreign to the general idea of the forum, but regarding the thread Old cameras in old movies I was thinking of those cinematographers who create a fantastic compositional atmosphere from the cinema and that we often ignore for being secondary roles in the direction of movies. There is probably already a thread that points out this issue, but I still wanted to rescue it by mentioning some cinematographers who seem fantastic to me both for their unique composition criteria, as well as for their use of lighting, color, etc.

So this is Timo Salminen, Aki Kaurismaki's regular contributor. The handling of color is so vivid that it often contrasts with how content the characters are in Kaurismaki's films. There is a lot of Hopper in the environment.

Le Havre, 2011

The man without the past (2002)

Drifting clouds (1996)

Lights in the Dusk (2006)

 

[radiant]

Finland mentioned, yayy!

I've tried to watch Aki Kaurismäki movies in terms of cinematography but I constantly fail because I start to concentrate to on the plot/story.

Aki is still using film and will probably never transition to digital - or so I think.

 

[Helge]

One thing that is often forgotten completely about is the excellent cinematography in early budget cinema.
Especially in those exceptionally many westerns spewed out between 1920 and 1960, and especially from the middle of that span.

These westerns are charming and watchable movies in their own right, but clearly formulaic, run of the mill.
Not talking about Rio Bravo, Stagecoach or The Searchers or other masterpieces, but “dreck” by workmen to fill out the life of the middle class before television.

These films were often shot by very experienced and instinctual photographers.
They would be shot so sparely and tightly, that they would almost be precut, when the editors would receive the film.
Many of the shots bear witness of a photographer very experienced with still and static compositions.

Here is just a few hastily procured examples from one of the better: Winds of the Wasteland shot by the great William Nobles (including a few production photographs, because the YouTube quality stinks. But they mirror the film shots pretty well).

These films where cheap not so much because they where made badly or to exploit a (long) fad, but because they where part of a very well oiled machine. Everything was in place and “already there”, including some superb cinematographers.

 

[Algo después]

've tried to watch Aki Kaurismäki movies in terms of cinematography but I constantly fail because I start to concentrate to on the plot/story.

Aki is still using film and will probably never transition to digital - or so I think.

I agree. This happens a lot with cinema in general. Precisely these various levels of treatments sometimes make us ignore some such as photography, although this latter issue is key to transmitting all the power of the plot.

It should also be said:
Aki, Timo and company are cultural heritage of humanity.

Thank you Finland

( a scene from Le Havre, with Little Bob and his band)

 

[Algo después]

Here is just a few hastily procured examples from one of the better: Winds of the Wasteland shot by the great William Nobles (including a few production photographs, because the YouTube quality stinks. But they mirror the film shots pretty well).

This detail is interesting, because as you point out, both in the pre-star system and at present, this role has almost always remained anonymous. The number of Cinematpgraphers from that time that is barely mentioned or remembered is impressive.

It is also a bit frustrating to see how the standards of relevance have been configured in large industrial productions. First the protagonists, then the director and further back the cinematographer.

 

[Helge]

This detail is interesting, because as you point out, both in the pre-star system and at present, this role has almost always remained anonymous. The number of Cinematpgraphers from that time that is barely mentioned or remembered is impressive.

It is also a bit frustrating to see how the standards of relevance have been configured in large industrial productions. First the protagonists, then the director and further back the cinematographer.

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.

There is only a few well known DPs that always get pulled out when talking about that role. When there is hundreds worth mentioning.

BTW Roger Deakins is a really mediocre and insignificant DP. There is a tremendous hype around him for a number of other reason than his actual talent.

You could take out the director and cast really well among hams and unknowns and still make a masterpiece.

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

 

[faberryman]

Unless it is a static scene, are you not the one making the compositions when you select individual frames out of a movie?

 

[Helge]

Unless it is a static scene, are you not the one making the compositions when you select individual frames out of a movie?

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.

 

[halfaman]

BTW Roger Deakins is a really mediocre and insignificant DP. There is a tremendous hype around him for a number of other reason than his actual talent.

Just for clarification... Are you saying that the Coen brothers (14 movies!!), Denis Villeneuve (4 movies) or Sam Mendes (5 movies) constantly choose project after project a mediocre and insignificant DP?

 

[Helge]

Just for clarification... Are you saying that the Coen brothers (14 movies!!), Denis Villeneuve (4 movies) or Sam Mendes (5 movies) constantly choose project after project a mediocre and insignificant DP?

Pretty much.
He hasn't invented anything or any particular look or style. Just rode on the style de jour and coattails of others, aiming to be as inconspicuous and anonymous as possible.
He developed the relationships (whose directorial work only some the Coens, I hold in any regard) exactly because he has juuust the right mix of vanilla, pliability, technical proficiency and for some reason authenticity.
An analog in another field is Hans Zimmer in music (apart from some of his very early work, which was quite good).
They both give you an absolutely standard, predictable job, with just enough calculated, contrived "edge" to keep most critics at bay.

 

[Algo después]

He hasn't invented anything or any particular look or style. Just rode on the style de jour and coattails of others, aiming to be as inconspicuous and anonymous as possible.
He developed the relationships (whose directorial work only some the Coens, I hold in any regard) exactly because he has juuust the right mix of vanilla, pliability, technical proficiency and for some reason authenticity.
An analog in another field is Hans Zimmer in music (apart from some of his very early work, which was quite good).
They both give you an absolutely standard, predictable job, with just enough calculated, contrived "edge" to keep most critics at bay.

I don't know if I agree with this statement. While it is probable that Roger Deakins is permanently between the conspicuous and the adaptable, there are also works of his where you would believe that his participation offers some authorship guarantee. I'm thinking mostly of movies he made with the Coen Bros where the mid-century setting was constant, like Barton Fink, Hud Sucker Proxy, The man who wasn't there, etc.

It must also be said that Coen themselves always played at the border between commercial and auteur cinema. Lately they seem very comfortable (why not say it, also Deakins himself) doing projects a little flatter in terms of a more unique atmosphere.

In that sense, I also appreciate the Coens' first DP, Barry Sonnenfield. What he did with Miller's Crossing is (at least for me) spectacular.

 

[Helge]

I don't know if I agree with this statement. While it is probable that Roger Deakins is permanently between the conspicuous and the adaptable, there are also works of his where you would believe that his participation offers some authorship guarantee. I'm thinking mostly of movies he made with the Coen Bros where the mid-century setting was constant, like Barton Fink, Hud Sucker Proxy, The man who wasn't there, etc.

It must also be said that Coen themselves always played at the border between commercial and auteur cinema. Lately they seem very comfortable (why not say it, also Deakins himself) doing projects a little flatter in terms of a more unique atmosphere.

In that sense, I also appreciate the Coens' first DP, Barry Sonnenfield. What he did with Miller's Crossing is (at least for me) spectacular.

Barton Fink and Hud Sucker owes their look to storyboarding and set design/location scouting. What's left to and done by the cinematographer is quite standard.

 

[Algo después]

BTW just a few stills (not the most representatives) from Coen movies with Deakins.

It is possible (I cannot assure you with certainty) that rather than concentrating on building a unique style, Deakins has a more postmodern look by concentrating mainly on citing certain specific aesthetics

Barton Fink (1991)

HudSucker Proxy, 1994 (with deliberate winks to Terry Gilliam´s Brazil)

Oh brother, where art thou? (2000)

The man who wasn´t there (2001)

... also the color version.

 

[Algo después]

...about some deliberated quotes:

Oh brother (2001)

Eudora Welty, Carrying Home the Ice, 1936

The man who wasn´t there (2001)

Out of the past (Jack Torneur, 1947) with Nicholas Musuraca as DP, although this one is a production pic.

 

[Helge]

BTW just a few stills (not the most representatives) from Coen movies with Deakins.

It is possible (I cannot assure you with certainty) that rather than concentrating on building a unique style, Deakins has a more postmodern look by concentrating mainly on citing certain specific aesthetics

View attachment 295365

View attachment 295366

Barton Fink (1991)

View attachment 295367

HudSucker Proxy, 1994 (with deliberate winks to Terry Gilliam´s Brazil)

View attachment 295368



Oh brother, where art thou? (2000)

View attachment 295370

The man who wasn´t there (2001)

View attachment 295371

... also the color version.

Those are mostly examples of good set design. Not particularly great composition.
But of course with the quite a few movies he shot there is bound to be a dozen or so good shots to pick out.
The thing is consistency. And Deakins is more consistently boring IMO.

Compare Blade Runner with 2049.
The combo of Cronenweth, Ridley and Trumbull just flat out trounces the bland, derivative and forgettable mess of Deakins work on 2049.

In the original the lighting, the angles the model crane and dolly shots etc. All exceptional, while deeply grokking the Noir inspiration. It’s an homage and celebration of expressionist cinema going back to Fritz Lang up to A Touch of Evil. All the while using colour and the new sensitive stock expertly.

2049 forgot where it was coming from, forgot that it had to be somewhere, and merely was content in naively aping one idea from here and another from there.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

One thing that is often forgotten completely about is the excellent cinematography in early budget cinema.
Especially in those exceptionally many westerns spewed out between 1920 and 1960, and especially from the middle of that span.

These westerns are charming and watchable movies in their own right, but clearly formulaic, run of the mill.
Not talking about Rio Bravo, Stagecoach or The Searchers or other masterpieces, but “dreck” by workmen to fill out the life of the middle class before television.

These films were often shot by very experienced and instinctual photographers.
They would be shot so sparely and tightly, that they would almost be precut, when the editors would receive the film.
Many of the shots bear witness of a photographer very experienced with still and static compositions.

Here is just a few hastily procured examples from one of the better: Winds of the Wasteland shot by the great William Nobles (including a few production photographs, because the YouTube quality stinks. But they mirror the film shots pretty well).
View attachment 295355 View attachment 295356 View attachment 295357 View attachment 295358

These films where cheap not so much because they where made badly or to exploit a (long) fad, but because they where part of a very well oiled machine. Everything was in place and “already there”, including some superb cinematographers.

I watched some of John Wayne's old movies. He was quite a good horseman in reality.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Those are mostly examples of good set design. Not particularly great composition.
But of course with the quite a few movies he shot there is bound to be a dozen or so good shots to pick out.
The thing is consistency. And Deakins is more consistently boring IMO.

Compare Blade Runner with 2049.
The combo of Cronenweth, Ridley and Trumbull just flat out trounces the bland, derivative and forgettable mess of Deakins work on 2049.

In the original the lighting, the angles the model crane and dolly shots etc. All exceptional, while deeply grokking the Noir inspiration. It’s an homage and celebration of expressionist cinema going back to Fritz Lang up to A Touch of Evil. All the while using colour and the new sensitive stock expertly.

2049 forgot where it was coming from, forgot that it had to be somewhere, and merely was content in naively aping one idea from here and another from there.

I always watch cinematographers use of the "rules of photography". What works on stills works in movies too.

 

[Moose22]

I always watch cinematographers use of the "rules of photography". What works on stills works in movies too.

Of course it does, and some of these cinematographers are fantastic. I'm walking through the images in this thread and thinking in my mind exactly where they match my book on photographic composition. Rule of thirds, Golden Ratio, Steelyard, Symmetry, Golden Ratio, Rule of Thirds ... heh. As an aside, I never should have read that composition book, now I walk down the street, see a couple of picnic tables in a park and think "Oh, steelyard!"

Anyway, film is a little different than still as a camera can pan and lead the eye a bit in a way a static image cannot. And it's a wide format. But it is no more different to still photography than still is to painting, and I have examples of composition techniques amongst the renaissance masters that are as illustrative as a photo using the same technique.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Of course it does, and some of these cinematographers are fantastic. I'm walking through the images in this thread and thinking in my mind exactly where they match my book on photographic composition. Rule of thirds, Golden Ratio, Steelyard, Symmetry, Golden Ratio, Rule of Thirds ... heh. As an aside, I never should have read that composition book, now I walk down the street, see a couple of picnic tables in a park and think "Oh, steelyard!"

Anyway, film is a little different than still as a camera can pan and lead the eye a bit in a way a static image cannot. And it's a wide format. But it is no more different to still photography than still is to painting, and I have examples of composition techniques amongst the renaissance masters that are as illustrative as a photo using the same technique.

Because there are no rules. What it is is the brain has certain aesthetic commonalities. The "rules" just reflect what the brain already assembles in a way that it finds pleasing. Music works similarly. If you stick a note in the wrong place, the brain says "tilt".

 

[MattKing]

Because there are no rules. What it is is the brain has certain aesthetic commonalities. The "rules" just reflect what the brain already assembles in a way that it finds pleasing. Music works similarly. If you stick a note in the wrong place, the brain says "tilt".

Which is one of the reasons that, for example, the cinema of Japan is so compelling. As is the cinema of Italy.
The "aesthetic commonalities" are both genetically innate and environmental. They arise from both our inner nature, and what we experience. Different cultures and different environments create different commonalities.
What we see as "unusual" in "foreign" films may very well be everyday and commonplace for the home audience.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Which is one of the reasons that, for example, the cinema of Japan is so compelling. As is the cinema of Italy.
The "aesthetic commonalities" are both genetically innate and environmental. They arise from both our inner nature, and what we experience. Different cultures and different environments create different commonalities.
What we see as "unusual" in "foreign" films may very well be everyday and commonplace for the home audience.

I've considered that point about Japanese Haiku poetry. Not only is the culture different than ours. The language cadence is different as well. Trying to copy Haiku in English seems counterproductive to me.

 

[btaylor]

Wow, all this dumping on Deakins. I haven’t been keeping up with the cinematographer fan boys and the current favs and celebrity backlash, but I think his work with the Coens is pretty great. I also think there is some confusion as to what influence a DP can have on a production. They work within the confines of writers, producers, directors, set designers. They are there to help tell the story- usually not to stamp their own style on it- it’s a collaborative field of work with many cooks.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Wow, all this dumping on Deakins. I haven’t been keeping up with the cinematographer fan boys and the current favs and celebrity backlash, but I think his work with the Coens is pretty great. I also think there is some confusion as to what influence a DP can have on a production. They work within the confines of writers, producers, directors, set designers. They are there to help tell the story- usually not to stamp their own style on it- it’s a collaborative field of work with many cooks.

Yet DPs are chosen because of what they are able to bring into the whole thing. Yes it is collaborative, but DP is called that for a reason. A good one will surely make a notable individual mark on final product, a great one will often "overrule" the rest of the team if he feels strong about a scene ad how to shoot it. In fact a great one is not there to LISTEN but to impose his way of seeing.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I know that this thread may be a bit foreign to the general idea of the forum, but regarding the thread Old cameras in old movies I was thinking of those cinematographers who create a fantastic compositional atmosphere from the cinema and that we often ignore for being secondary roles in the direction of movies. There is probably already a thread that points out this issue, but I still wanted to rescue it by mentioning some cinematographers who seem fantastic to me both for their unique composition criteria, as well as for their use of lighting, color, etc.

So this is Timo Salminen, Aki Kaurismaki's regular contributor. The handling of color is so vivid that it often contrasts with how content the characters are in Kaurismaki's films. There is a lot of Hopper in the environment.

View attachment 295349

Le Havre, 2011


View attachment 295350

The man without the past (2002)

View attachment 295351
Drifting clouds (1996)


View attachment 295352


Lights in the Dusk (2006)

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.

 

[MattKing]

Stanley Kubrick is known for the look of his movies - and he did start out as a still photographer - but how important was he, and how important was his Director of Photography.
For example, should we ignore Kubrick and credit Gilbert Taylor entirely for the look of Dr. Strangelove?