Overlighting in Old Movies?

[Tom Lowe]

It's interesting. I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm on Saturday night, and I felt sure that it would rock my Cinematography Top 10. While the movie was just spectacular, and while it makes my Top 20 Cinematography for sure, I did feel that some of the scenes were overlit. Mainly these were the indoor scenes, but several times some of the outdoor scenes appeared to be overlit as well, to me. Way too much bounce back onto O'Toole.

I do realize that this is a product of the time in which the picture was shot. I also had the same exact problem with The Searchers.... While the outdoor, natural-light cinematography was flawless and amazing, as soon as they went indoors, many of the scenes were way overlit, IMO.

Is it fair to say that a turning point was reached with Days of Heaven, when Almendros agreed to the shoot the whole picture with natural light, aside from a a very small handful of scenes? Or were there pictures before DoH that really set the precedent for natural light?

For me, natural-light cinematography reached its apex with John Toll's The Thin Red Line, and has not really been topped since, with the possible exception of Malick's next picture, The New World.

Thoughts?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Let's also keep in mind that the two pictures I have mentioned, Lawrence of Arabia and The Searchers, were shot on very large-negative film, which might have been new for their time. Perhaps they were used to lighting for 35, and did not take into account how much latitude 70mm and Vista Vision stocks really had?

But in the end, a lot of old, great pictures are overlit, IMO. It's kind of like how the acting used to be over-dramatic... just a product of its time.

 

[Jason Murphy]

Barry Lyndon would certainly be considered an exquisitely lit movie, shot in a large part using natural light (not to mention those wonderful candlelit scenes) 4 or 5 years before Days of Heaven.

But overlighting as you describe it certainly happened quite a bit in many studio pictures of the late 50's and the 60's. And Malick and his cinematographers certainly have done wonderful things with natural light; it certainly doesn't come much better than The Thin Red Line or The New World.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Barry Lyndon would certainly be considered an exquisitely lit movie, shot in a large part using natural light (not to mention those wonderful candlelit scenes) 4 or 5 years before Days of Heaven.

But overlighting as you describe it certainly happened quite a bit in many studio pictures of the late 50's and the 60's. And Malick and his cinematographers certainly have done wonderful things with natural light; it certainly doesn't come much better than The Thin Red Line or The New World.

Awwww... that's a good point about Barry Lyndon.... #4 on my Cinematography Top Ten. It was well before Days of Heaven.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There were technical limitations and also studio-imposed restrictions, but if you read a lot of interviews with people in those past eras, you also sense that there were different values, different aesthetics, different definitions of terms like Realism. DP's back then were talking about Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollack and other painting trends of the day. When they talked about "realistic" lighting, they meant simpler, cruder lighting that stripped away the complex baroque stylings of the past. They often referred to lighting as either being "masculine" or "feminine" -- as in the fact that male actors got rugged, sculptural, hard lighting.

It was a different set of priorities. To somehow put them down for not sharing our modern sensibilities risks us looking foolish to future generations who will find our aesthetics dated. What looks like realism to one generation ends up looking stylized to a later generation. Whenever anyone starts to feel their generation is superior to the past in terms of artistic accomplishment, I start to get uncomfortable. Look at painting -- you view enough centuries of it and you stop seeing it as some sort of progression towards better and better painting, but instead, see each generation as a reaction to the previous one, and each one locked into the circumstances of their times. Is Dutch painting better than Italian Renaissance? Can you really compare Caravaggio to Cezanne? I just try and look for what the best of each generation has to offer without trying to rate which era was better than another. "The Searchers" is a good movie, visually, directorially, thematically -- there isn't much sense in closely comparing it stylistically to "The Thin Red Line".

I find a lot of older movies more compelling -- I'd can watch "My Darling Clementine" more times than I will ever watch, say "The Fantastic Four". The "dated" elements of those old Ford films are sometimes part of their charm, other times they just don't matter much to me. Not to say that there aren't elements that are distractingly, horribly dated as well (too much cowboy singing in "Rio Grande" for me, but then, probably some critics of the day thought the same thing...), but in the best movies of the past, the good things outweigh the elements that don't work anymore.

It's odd, but as you get older, you tend to like things from a past that predates your own. I guess that explains the new generations of classical music listeners that keep springing up. I go the CineCon, which is a convention for lovers of early cinema, mostly Silent Era movies, and I'm surrounded by much older filmgoers... but none of them are old enough to have been moviegoers in the 1920's. I don't listen to much rock music of the 1970's/80's, which is the music of my youth -- but I listen more and more to George Gershwin, Cole Porter, WW2 Big Band, and classical music.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I really love The Lawrence of Arabia, it is a great film. My middle name is Lawrence, named after the title character. I love pretty much everything about that movie, it's gorgeous, plus the plot is compelling and the dialogue is witty and crisp.

That is interesting what you said, David, I agree with that. When I look at films of the past usually my first thought isn't, "Wow look how old and dated this thing looks," but, "Man they could do all that back then?! That's awesome." Like for instance when I started getting into Soviet formalist movies, I felt they were really exhilirating, the editing was even faster than some MTV music videos, and just in general I got this sense of movement and excitement that when I was growing up I never knew such movies existed so long ago.

Plus, people will forgive technical mistakes or limitations if you have a great story, I find.

 

[number6]

What looks like realism to one generation ends up looking stylized to a later generation.

David, does any one, or more, movies strike you as timeless in re: cinematograghy?

edit: just to clarify, are there any past movies you can think of that you would not change a thing if you could?

It's odd, but as you get older, you tend to like things from a past that predates your own.

I thought I was the only one who had broken a couple of teeth on my time cog, and had slipped back in time. I think we all owe Ted Turner a lot for giving us the classic movie channel. It is only in the last decade or so that I see a Fred Astaire dance routine and ask myself "how does he do that?" Not only that, I am beginning to think he was actually a very good singer!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Some movies seem less specifically of their time -- it helps when they aren't showing a contemporary setting though, and the lighting is not stylistic, but natural. "2001" comes to mind, as well as Malick's movies. Even Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" to some extent. There will always be some clues as to the time the movie was made of course.

To me, "Dr. Strangelove", "Seven Samurai", "8 1/2", "Sunset Boulevard" are near perfect movies, whether or not they are technically or stylistically tied to their times. But I have a bias because those films reflect certain interests or tastes of mine (in order words, they are movies I wish I could have made.)

For a perfect scene, I'd say the final scene in Chaplin's "City Lights" never fails to move me, even though the movie itself is uneven in my opinion. That scene is like a perfect storm of elements. I also love the opening scene in "A Matter of Life and Death" (the bomber in flames as David Niven talks to Kim Hunter.) As far as charming romantic movies go, I have two favorites: Powell's "I Know Where I am Going" and Lubitch's "Trouble in Paradise."

If you want to get an eyeful of great images, watch the Kubrick documentary "A Life in Pictures".

My earliest childhood influences were probably the original b&w "Godzilla" and classic Disney animated features, and for all I know, I'm still dredging up images from those movies while I am at work... can't say I'm whistling though while I work.

 

[number6]

and for all I know, I'm still dredging up images from those movies while I am at work... can't say I'm whistling though while I work.

Heh heh!

 

[Rodney Recor]

I love great cinematography. It has always been examples of the most beautiful camera work that have most enamored me to the classic black and white pictures. I've always been awestruck by the velvety pitch blacks and the shimmering silver whites of some great black and white movies.

For a good time looking at a couple examples, Click Here.

 

[I Bloom]

I feel like the pendulum will swing the other way. I recently saw "A Mighty Heart" which seems a purposely underlit movie. While I understood the intent, it didn't work for me.