Tarantino and table lighting

[Linda Barzini]

I've noticed for years that Quentin Tarantino blasts tables with light. I find the table hotspot particularly distracting in Inglorious Basterds, when Hans Landa is speaking with the French farmer.

What is Tarantino trying to achieve? Almost every DP I know would avoid these blown out hot spots. Its distracting because usually the main character is lit the most, not a glass of milk. I'm chalking it up to a Tarantino quirk like misspelling "basterd" or not explaining the bandaid on the back of Marcellus Wallace's neck, the glow in the suitcase, or not explaining the noose-like scars on Brad Pitt's neck in Basterds.

Anyone have an idea what Tarantino is trying to achieve with the table hotspots?

 

[Linda Barzini]

more pictures.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

That lighting style comes from the cinematographer, Robert Richardson, who developed it on the movies he shot for Oliver Stone around the time of "The Doors" and "JFK". He also did similar lighting for Scorsese when he shot "Casino", "Bringing Out the Dead" and "The Aviator". These are some frames from "JFK", which won him the Oscar in 1992 (he also won Oscars for shooting "Hugo" and "The Aviator".)

I happen to find it quite exciting and bold. For what it "means", it depends on the movie -- for "The Doors" and "Bringing Out The Dead" it often occurs when the character is in some sort of distressed mental state bordering on seeing hallucinations. For "JFK", to me, the light represents the journalistic drive to find the truth. Other times in other movies, it is used to give a scene a certain nightmarish quality.

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

Well everyone has their own style and it is an interesting thing to point out. If I remember correctly, in the movie BACHELORETTE they do some of this aggressively at a dinner table for some sinister under-chin fill (though I honestly haven't seen it since it came out so I'd have to check).

The type of fill it gives is very useful, but yeah it can definitely be a choice and most likely begins with the creative. I think that its sensationalized realism and they actually have light at their table, like you would in real life. I personally like to begin with an approach of "what would it REALLY look like" and "what are we trying to say" -- I'd argue that the former helps motivate the placement but the latter motivates the intensity.

I will agree that it took me a second to settle into the look at the beginning of INGLORIOUS BASTERDS but by the end I felt like it was really important to that scene.

To each their own!

 

[Aaron Lochert]

It's a stylized version of a pendant light. Something you see quite often in restaurants, bars, and dining rooms. While it's definitely stylized, it's grounded in the reality that often times in the real world, the people aren't the most brightly lit thing in the frame.

In fact, some of David's own work on Manure is a good example of this stylized reality. There's no rule that says people have to have all the light on them.

 

[Marc Wielage]

That's a big Gordon Willis look, too. This style has influenced some modern shows, like Downton Abbey:

It's not always about making the faces the brightest thing in the room... sometimes it's more about mood and what the scene is about.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

It's also reminiscent of Rembrandt's painting of The Conspiracy of the Batavians.

 

[Linda Barzini]

Excellent. Thanks for answering. It is definitely stylized lighting. I think I could appreciate it up to a point. In Inglorious Basterds, the only thing my eyes focus on is that damn milk glass the whole time. It's still an awesome scene.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

This was an awesome read! Thanks for the question and the answers. That scene in Inglorious is actually one of my favorite scenes in modern cinema, and I genuinely love the way it's lit.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm kinda like Linda in finding it distracting but for different reasons... that is, I keep looking up in the scene to see where the light is coming from. To me it suggests a skylight.

 

[Mark Spraker]

I too really enjoyed the opening scene in Inglourious Basterds (I also personally liked the dramatic table bounce). Matthew Scott did a breakdown of the full scene on his website (Pictures only). If you haven't read it yet I would recommend checking it out:

http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2014/7/18/glouriousbasterds

 

[Lee Kelly]

Quite an interesting couple of opinions on this. Not that my opinion counts for much but I do not like it at all and actually thought it was a mistake in Hateful Eight. I literally thought his light meter wasnt working properly as those pools of over exposed light made no sense to me at all. I am sure some people can make their own assumptions about the emotion its meant to create but I hope to never do that type of thing myself.

As for the ideas that people dont have to be the only things lit idea, that is perfectly fine and the screen shots provided show gorgeous shards and pools of light that are justified in a real life setting, with sunlight through a window highlighting a table (without a hidden meaning to featuring the table) or in a long hallway, under practical lights which totally makes sense and are appropriately exposed.

I think if the examples of the over exposed table lights were always to complement reality such as a pool table in a bar having overhead lighting or a desk lamp on a desk or whatever, but to have a scene where a room is 'lit' by candles, open fire and kerosene lanterns but then have a screaming hotspot above a table, it makes no sense to me. Those guys are awarded, great cinematographers and like I first said, my opinion doesnt count for much but there it is anyway.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm kinda like Linda in finding it distracting but for different reasons... that is, I keep looking up in the scene to see where the light is coming from. To me it suggests a skylight.

You might as well ask where the orchestral music is coming from during a scene, or how a guy can hear a quiet conversation from other people 25' away. This is a drama, not a documentary. It's going to be stylized, and beyond a certain point you have to buy into the fiction and the presentation as part of being entertained.

 

[Elsie N]

You might as well ask where the orchestral music is coming from during a scene, or how a guy can hear a quiet conversation from other people 25' away. This is a drama, not a documentary. It's going to be stylized, and beyond a certain point you have to buy into the fiction and the presentation as part of being entertained.

Sorry, by now I'm pretty much set and would have to have behavioural re-conditioning to not question what seems unnatural. '-)

And no, I do not question where the music is coming from as I often am doing something and hear music in my head, so it seems totally natural to me. '-)

 

[Aaron Lochert]

I think if the examples of the over exposed table lights were always to complement reality such as a pool table in a bar having overhead lighting or a desk lamp on a desk or whatever, but to have a scene where a room is 'lit' by candles, open fire and kerosene lanterns but then have a screaming hotspot above a table, it makes no sense to me.

True. But we're also dealing with Tarantino, who had a Rick Ross song in Django Unchained.

I personally love it. It's unorthodox as hell and it pushes beyond what feels right. It helps that scripts that Robert Richardson takes on are quite stylistic in their own nature and don't call for absolute, total "reality."

 

[Frank Glencairn]

I'm guilty of table bouncing too - Richardson made me do it since JFK.

..and Dion Beebe made me do floor bouncing

 

[Lee Kelly]

Really? Like, really? Sorry but if this was star trek or ET or something where aliens are tractor beaming people then it makes sense. I know its a film and a story etc but its not a fantastical story. His films may be whacky in their awesomeness and pistols might not fling you across a room when you get shot in 'reality' but the sets themselves are earthly places and there are no aliens in the story so where the hell is that light coming from and please tell me what it represents, honestly. Subtle highlighting of a feature in a scene makes sense to me, blowing out a non feature in a scene by a considerable amount from a source that doesnt make any sense doesnt work. Surely?
i mean no offense at all but the question has been asked and some of the explanations such as this guy or that guy did it, doesnt make it right to me.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

When it comes to artistic descions like this this, I always refer to the Anonymity Rule.

Meaning that, if it wasn't Robert Richardson and Tarantino doing it, would you be ok with it? Or would it be a mistake?

Hypothetically, if someone random film school student did the literally the exact same opening scene of inglorious bastards, but for a thesis film, instead of a feature, would you think the DP fucked up the top light by blowing out the table? Or would you still maintain the opinion you had when you knew it was Robert Richardson doing it?

I've found that unless the artistic descion, or "mistake", is logically motivated AND imbued with meaning, it's usually not as impressive if a non famous artist does it.

 

[Sidney L. Plaut]

wow suddenly this thread turned into a great one!

to me it also screams Robert Richardson, and one thing I really like about is, the look of the bounced light on the faces, plus the fact its a really quick way to make all the angles around the table look good,
so sometimes "if it aint broke, dont fix it" attitude is also all there is too it. Besides the interesting Thematic interpretations one can draw from it (which you certainly can also).

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

When it comes to artistic descions like this this, I always refer to the Anonymity Rule.

Meaning that, if it wasn't Robert Richardson and Tarantino doing it, would you be ok with it? Or would it be a mistake?

Hypothetically, if someone random film school student did the literally the exact same opening scene of inglorious bastards, but for a thesis film, instead of a feature, would you think the DP fucked up the top light by blowing out the table? Or would you still maintain the opinion you had when you knew it was Robert Richardson doing it?

I've found that unless the artistic descion, or "mistake", is logically motivated AND imbued with meaning, it's usually not as impressive if a non famous artist does it.

I think about this all the time.

Another great aspect is how you interpret what someone's role is and how it's influencing your viewing (very similar to what you're saying, but just a tad different). When a film is made, released in theaters, then released as streaming/bluray/dvd we have this sense of "the thing is complete, view this art as a whole".

When viewing a student film, there is an inherent element of "what would be done differently if it were up to you" that is either newly present or stronger. I think each has its place and sometimes we could use a bit more of one while viewing the other....just something to think about.