Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Gilbert Taylor, Cinematographer, passes at 99

Brian F Kobylarz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Norwich, CT. USA
One of those I credit for their inspiration.


Extracted from Deadline.com:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/gilbert-taylor-dies-star-wars-cinematographer/#more-570760

Gilbert Taylor, whose vast cinematography credits included the first Star Wars for George Lucas, Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove and Richard Donner’s The Omen, died today in his native UK. He was 99.


Taylor’s list of film DP credits are striking in their diversity: He lensed the Beatles pic A Hard Day’s Night, Alfred Hitchcock’s Frenzy and worked several times with Roman Polanski on films including Repulsion, Cul-de-Sac and Macbeth. The BBC quoted Taylor’s wife that the DP “turned down a Bond picture” to work with Polanski “because he thought Roman was a very interesting guy”. Polanski returned the complement, saying in his 1984 biography Roman that he wanted Taylor for 1965′s Repulsion after seeing his past work: “As I saw it, the only person who could do justice to our black-and-white picture was Gil Taylor, whose photography on Dr. Strangelove had deeply impressed me. I also saw his wonderful work on A Hard Day’s Night; Richard Lester, the director, was mixing it at Twickenham Studios, where Repulsion was to be made. [Our executive producer, Michael] Klinger protested that Gil Taylor was one of the most expensive cameramen in the business, but I held out for Taylor and I got him.” Taylor earned BAFTA nominations for Repulsion (1965) and Cul-De-Sac (1966), and he won the American Cinematographers Society’s ASC International Achievement award in 2006. But he was best known for Lucas’ 1977 watershed sci-fi film Star Wars. From the ASC magazine in a 2006 interview:
Consumed by the details of the complicated production, “George avoided all meetings and contact with me from day one, so I read the extra-long script many times and made my own decisions as to how I would shoot the picture,” says Taylor. “I took it upon myself to experiment with photographing the lightsabers and other things onstage before we moved on to our two weeks of location work in Tunisia.”

One of the first [Star Wars] scenes shot in Tunisia shows C-3PO and R2-D2 making their way across the dunes of Tatooine. The production was hampered by inclement weather — the first rain there in years — and “you couldn’t really see where the land ended and the sky began,” says Taylor. “It was all a gray mess, and the robots were just a blur.” Given the situation, Lucas’ request for heavy filtration perplexed the cinematographer. “I thought the look of the film should be absolutely clean; also, I was mindful that there was an enormous amount of process work to be done in America after we finished shooting in England, and I knew a crisp result would help. But George saw it a differently, so we tried using nets and other diffusion. He asked to set up one shot on the robots with a 300mm, and the sand and sky just mushed together. I told him it wouldn’t work, but he said that was the way he wanted to do the entire film, all diffused.” This creative difference was resolved by 20th Century Fox executives, who saw the results of Lucas’ approach and backed Taylor’s recommendation.
 
One of those I credit for their inspiration.
...

One of the first [Star Wars] scenes shot in Tunisia shows C-3PO and R2-D2 making their way across the dunes of Tatooine. The production was hampered by inclement weather — the first rain there in years — and “you couldn’t really see where the land ended and the sky began,” says Taylor. “It was all a gray mess, and the robots were just a blur.” Given the situation, Lucas’ request for heavy filtration perplexed the cinematographer. “I thought the look of the film should be absolutely clean; also, I was mindful that there was an enormous amount of process work to be done in America after we finished shooting in England, and I knew a crisp result would help. But George saw it a differently, so we tried using nets and other diffusion. He asked to set up one shot on the robots with a 300mm, and the sand and sky just mushed together. I told him it wouldn’t work, but he said that was the way he wanted to do the entire film, all diffused.” This creative difference was resolved by 20th Century Fox executives, who saw the results of Lucas’ approach and backed Taylor’s recommendation.

I am hoping the new stars wars will be a bit of a tribute to the "look" he developed in the 1977 Stars Wars, which was by far the best one. I love his approach with physical sets/practicals, I think it also helps to get great performances out of the actors and focus on the story. As a hint though, if they do make physical sets, they need to put a dragon on a motion controlled slider when the sets are done and do super high resolution clean plates.
 
Well, IMHO, "Star Wars" wasn't his best work, not even one of his five best looking pictures (in terms of his own work, not counting VFX, sets, etc). The original version, with the original grade, was somewhat inconsistent looking; the use of diffusion (nets) was clearly visible during the early desert scenes, shot in overcast weather, mostly with long lenses, and thus looked flat. Interior work shot at location (i.e. Obi Wan's house) has a very modern approach to it, almost with a single-source of light, whereas the second half of the picture, shot in the studio in England, alternates from light built on to the sets as practicals (a la "2001") to the old-school approach of hard & unmotivated lighting with a clean lens (have a look at the scene just before Luke and the others enter their ships to attack the Death Star, it almost has a 3D quality and a very sharp look). Remember it was a troubled production, and that Taylor himself complained the lack of communication from Lucas form day one. Plus it is said Lucas was after a soft-looking, dreamy look to be achived by diffusion filters (he first offered the picture to Geoffrey Unsworth, who was using a #2 Harrison Fog Filter for everything he shot at that time), but after the bad results of the desert scenes using this approach, Taylor began to shot the film clean; Lucas complained, but the studio supported Taylor, who shot the rest of the picture unfiltered. I like much more what Peter Suschitzky did on "Empire Strikes Back", which looks more consistent looking from beginning to end, source-motivated through practicals and built-in lights and softer, as it was shot through low-con filters; it's really a great piece of cinematography.

I bet Taylor himself would like to be more remembered from what he did on "Dr. Strangelove", "The Omen", or with Roman Polanski...
 
It's interesting that Taylor wanted to shoot "Star Wars" without diffusion, but shot "Flash Gordon" a few years later all through various nets.

I never understood why Taylor was replaced on "Conan the Barbarian" -- John Milius just said that "his methods were unsound" -- maybe he tried to use diffusion and Milius didn't want it because the final film has a somewhat gritty look to it. Or maybe they just didn't get along.
 
I have always thought he shot "Flash Gordon" through nets just to bother Lucas. Just kidding :)

Just prior to "Star Wars", he had also shot "The Omen" using his wife's panties as nets; I don't remember "Dracula" right now -he replaced Frank Tidy on that one, but I haven't seen it in about 15 years-, but I believe "Frenzy" and "Escape to Athena" (which features a gorgeous helicopter shot at the beginning) were shot clean. Plus, of course, his famous black & white pictures from the 60's with Lester, Kubrick and Polanski -the reason why Lucas chose him- were shot without diffusion.

"Conan" was shot here in Spain; the most reliable story I've heard is that Milius just wanted a faster cinematographer, as he thought Taylor's methods were time consuming (I assume he was after a more polished look) and that's why he brought Duke Callaghan, who was shooting TV at the time, but had shot a picture he had scripted ten years before (and is a very good looking picture, with very well exposed daylight scenes), "Jeremiah Johson". But I've also heard that the Todd-AO 35 lenses they were using were very poor and had unaccurate engraved t/stops marks, resulting in some severely underexposed scenes that had to be re-shot later in production. But then, remember the scene with "Conan" chased by the dogs, which originally -until it was timed back to day- was a not dark enough day-for-night shot. Weird.

"Conan", visually, is both flawed and interesting; I don't like the orgy chamber scenes, but the opening scenes and the final scene at Thulsa Doom are great.
 
For Star Wars, Gilbert mentioned that his optical compositing test was leaving a little glow around objects if he used diffusion. I think it's cool that he did a lot of sfx testing before the film, a lot of technology was changing at that time. Also he thought thru the costs of post when he was doing principle photography.
 
Very sad. I feel that the cinematography in "Star Wars" remains unsung. I find a lot framing very beautiful.
 
Back
Top