DOF & beauty

[Jeff Coatney]

I really like threads like this one. We should have more discussions about aesthetics to balance the technical focus of this site a bit. We'd probably draw more people in.

[Joe G.]

David:

"In the example posted, the question becomes whether the shot would be more aesthetically pleasing if it had a shallower focus. Again, it mostly comes down to dramatic intent -- a shallow focus shot would isolate her from her surroundings, which may be a good choice in a different context, but in this case, I think Malick wanted to make sure that the surroundings were "present" even in an intimate moment, plus there is always something interesting about an intimate moment between two people who are in a public space, not alone together."

It's the new world, the primitive world that the European is joining. It's clearly a dramatic intent to bring him into her world, the world of the native Americans. I think it's not so much "public" as it is immersing us and him into the world as it was before the Europeans destroyed it.

[David M. Geary]

I really like threads like this one. We should have more discussions about aesthetics to balance the technical focus of this site a bit. We'd probably draw more people in.

Amen

[Jeff Dunant]

I read this thread a few days ago, and really started looking for deep shots. I was surprised to find a lot of great examples of deep focus shots that really tell a story in the movie Troy.


Achilles talking to his mother. The foreground is just a tiny bit out of focus, but the shot has a lot of depth, following the dark cave into the sunlight. Achilles will go to war, and die, but in the end, he will be remembered for all of eternity.


This is my favorite one. All of King Priam's decisions are made based on what he believes the Gods' had willed. It is his ignorance that costs him his life, his kingdom, and the war. Here we can see the Gods' influence on King Priam, as the statues are clearly behind him and above him. The fire in the background could also foreshadow the burning of Troy as well.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thank you David for sharing your wisdom. You are a pleasure to read.

I too am a big fan of shots that have the BG just slightly OOF. I think it is underused. Just enough to drive the eye, separate, give
the action "importance", yet sharp enough to enjoy detail on something worth keeping.

These are from "Beowulf and Grendel" 2005 which I had handy.

In this case I wonder if this was the deepest they could get? That iceberg is far away and those Viking ships weren't exactly cruise
ships. Maybe the DP had a preferred minimum aperture for their lenses?



On this one I really like how the distant clouds and mountains are sharp. So many would have been quick to open up the iris for exposure,
instead he captured the magic of the last light, gorgeous horizon and a great time for deep DoF IMHO. A particularly good choice since they
are discussing their "song", how they will be remembered by the rest of the world for their quests.



I don't particularly love this one but it shows an obviously intentional use of deep DoF. Not sure what I don't like about it though. I
if it is the lack of detail on the sky, though it works here. Maybe the texture feels a bit overpowering, but there is nothing you can
do about that. Deep DoF does helps convey how tiring it might be to go up that hill which was part of the story. The composition
and horizon do emphasize it.



How cool is the terrain in the BG?



An obvious use but worth posting.

[Tom Lowe]

In regards to the shot from "The New World" that Tom posted, it's interesting to note Lubezki's comments from the AC article on the movie:
"...those fans [of Malick] may be disappointed. I hope they don't blame me, but we chose not to shoot with pretty light." I believe Malick's request to Lubezki to shoot as often as possible at a deep stop is part of that overall vision, to retain a bit of harshness to the surroundings and not overtly prettify/romanticize them (one of their rules was to avoid sunset shots and anything too postcard-like). Of course, Malick's other request, to shoot as much in natural light as possible, means that there are a number of shallow-focus shots in the movie as well due to low light levels.

In the example posted, the question becomes whether the shot would be more aesthetically pleasing if it had a shallower focus. Again, it mostly comes down to dramatic intent -- a shallow focus shot would isolate her from her surroundings, which may be a good choice in a different context, but in this case, I think Malick wanted to make sure that the surroundings were "present" even in an intimate moment, plus there is always something interesting about an intimate moment between two people who are in a public space, not alone together.

I think you nailed it. There are two things going on. One is that they needed to show that Smith and the girl are in a community. The other was the dogma. Of course, they ended up throwing some of that dogma out the window pretty fast, considering how many incredibly beautiful sunset and magic-hour shots did make the film. You can't take the Malick out of Malick! Also, I think one of their dogma rules literally was something like "break the dogma rules."

I agree with you about the motivations for the DOF in the screencap. What I love about the shot is that the girl still stands out... it still looks three dimensional.

So many younger filmmakers are afraid to use a lot of DOF, because of the video stigma. But here is a clear example of when more DOF served the story... and it actually looks very beautiful!

[Casey Green]

Great thread. I haven't read it in it's entirety yet, but this is what I love about this forum.

Deep focus is particularly powerful in b&w where you aren't distracted by extra color information coming into focus and can create a graphic image:

David, I'm curious if the example above in "Citizen Kane" could be the use of a split focus diopter, or if that technique was in use back then (early 40's).

Below is a scene from "Tombstone" in which I believe the technique was used briefly:



Thanks again for your input.

[David Mullen ASC]

Though a split-diopter filter could have easily been invented at the dawn of photography, I can't recall any examples in movies until the 1950's in some of Nicholas Ray's CinemaScope movies (you can see them used in "King of Kings" for example.)

A prototype swing-focus lens was invented in the 1940's but hardly used, and it was not very sharp either.

I always thought that this shot from "Citizen Kane" was simply the result of using a lot of light and stopping down, until I noticed that the wall behind Orson Welles' head is not in sharp focus, but since the shot is not "dupey" like some of the other deep-focus trick shots in "Kane" executed by Linwood Dunn in an optical printer, I suspect that this is an in-camera split-screen double-exposure shot.

[Casey Green]

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

Yes, the wall is what had me guessing as well. :-)

[Roberto Lequeux]

I always thought that this shot from "Citizen Kane" was simply the result of using a lot of light and stopping down, until I noticed that the wall behind Orson Welles' head is not in sharp focus, but since the shot is not "dupey" like some of the other deep-focus trick shots in "Kane" executed by Linwood Dunn in an optical printer, I suspect that this is an in-camera split-screen double-exposure shot.

In-camera split-screen double-exposure? Could you please explain what that entails?