Tarantino and table lighting

[Linda Barzini]

It's difficult to comment on Tarantino's or Richardson's work because they have such a body of impressive work, but I just can't watch this scene without all my attention being drawn to the milk glass and thinking what is so damn important about this milk glass. It is a scene with some impressive dialogue building up great tension over a significant amount of time culminating in the soldier shoot-up, but that milk glass just bothers me.

 

[Lee Kelly]

I wonder what someone who isnt a film geek, watching at home thinks. Do they get the metaphor or deep hidden emotion or legendary DPs artisitc interpretation, or do they (even subconsciously) say to themselves, hmmm something is not right and i cant remember what that key bit of dialogue was because I was looking at a bright spot in the middle of the screen that didnt make sense?

As much as you would question a student DP if they copied this idea, the same could be said for another director/DP combo.

I actually thought this style was due to the fact those films were shot on FILM not digital and I actually thought that something must have gone wrong (in The Hateful Eight) as even in the carriage there was some hectic blowing out of the windows causing a flare that was not an attractive flare.

I feel a bit silly now writing off someone as revered as Richardson and I mean no disrespect, however I hope that style does not cycle around into fashion again and I dont think anyone else should try and pull it off.

 

[Elsie N]

It's difficult to comment on Tarantino's or Richardson's work because they have such a body of impressive work, but I just can't watch this scene without all my attention being drawn to the milk glass and thinking what is so damn important about this milk glass. ... but that milk glass just bothers me.

... or do they (even subconsciously) say to themselves, hmmm something is not right and i cant remember what that key bit of dialogue was because I was looking at a bright spot in the middle of the screen that didnt make sense?

...

I suppose these practitioners of the dark art of light get away with what they are doing because most audiences are passive as opposed to some of us who are an active viewer.

I pride myself on being able to identify the killer in a mystery based on clues left by an actor's subtle expression, an extra beat held on a shot that becomes a clue, or even the amount of time a known actor spends onscreen in the first half of a TV show.

But like Linda's fixation on the glass, something of that nature becomes a Red Herring and just takes away from the story in my opinion.

So many here on REDuser preach the mantra "It's all about the story... Content is King"! Well, if that be true, does using lighting tricks mean the story is weak?

I wonder if Tarantino could sell a script written under a pseudonym.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I feel a bit silly now writing off someone as revered as Richardson and I mean no disrespect, however I hope that style does not cycle around into fashion again and I dont think anyone else should try and pull it off.

Well, this is a purely a personal taste thing. But many, many young DPs and students copied this style in the 90s and 2000s. Think of Malik Hassan Sayeed's work in 'Clockers' and 'He Got Game' for instance. Or Matthew Libatique's work in 'Pi', 'Requiem for a Dream', and 'Inside Man.' Dan Mindel and Paul Cameron in their work with Tony Scott. And of course Janusz Kaminski developed a similar extreme style of his own. Those were exciting times, with much more stylized lighting, weird film stocks and processing/printing techniques, handcranking and ramping cameras, and bold use of color done in-camera than you typically see today. It will all cycle back again when directors and commercial agencies inevitably get bored of the flat, soft-lit, desaturated, smoky, flarely, faux-documentary handheld look currently in vogue. Time is a flat circle, after all

 

[Linda Barzini]

Strange to mention it on this forum, but it is possible to have such stunning cinematography that it can take away from the story.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Strange to mention it on this forum, but it is possible to have such stunning cinematography that it can take away from the story.

Well again, I think this just comes down to personal taste and sensitivity. The lighting in 'Inglorious Basterds' did not hinder my enjoyment of the story at all, in fact I felt the story was enhanced by it. But I grew up watching a lot of films in the 90s and 2000s and greatly admired the this style. I even tried to emulate it myself as a film student in the early 2000s. So it is totally subjective.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

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.

Hmmm that's really interesting. Definitely something I've never thought about before, but now that I think about it, I do that all the time.

Basically any time I watching a film that wasn't made by the Kubricks of the world, I project onto the film as a filmmaker instead of enjoying it as an audience member. I'm always thinking in my head about what would have been the better decision, or the better line, or better lighting setup etc.

Seriously thank you for sharing that. I'm gonna have to spend some time reflecting on that one.

 

[Lee Kelly]

How annoying is it to want to watch a film and get into it whole-heatedly only to pick it apart, or admire everything about it and be distracted by knowing whats behind the magicians curtain!
My wife hates that ill want to rewind something to show a boom shadow or radio mic pack or continuity flaw but perhaps my mind goes to that place when the story isnt catching my full attention. In any case this stuff is all subjective and one persons genius is anothers mistake.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

... but perhaps my mind goes to that place when the story isnt catching my full attention.

Ultimately it comes down to this.

It's why the first 5 times I saw The Dark Knight, I didn't see the millions of silly little mistakes and flaws in logic, but instead was floored by an amazing storyteller, telling an amazing story, with brilliant performances (which are arguably just as important, if not more so, in maintaining the attention of the audience, as the story is.)

For example, I didn't notice how illogical it was that in the opening scene, the joker escapes in the school bus. Because the first time I saw it, people were literally screaming, shouting and/or applauding (myself included), from the moment the joker took off his mask to the moment the scene ended.

The storytelling was so good none of us even had a chance to notice the mistakes. We were too enthralled in the film.

I got into a huge argument with one of my friends about this exact topic. He said that the dark knight is a bad movie because it has all of these flaws that were so apparent on multiple viewings. And my argument was the exact opposite. Saying that is the best compliment you could possibly give to a big studio movie like The Dark Knight. After watching it a bunch of times we can all see these mistakes, but the movie was so fucking good that none of us really noticed it the first time. But more importantly it clearly didn't matter to the millions of moviegoers who combined for billion(s?) of dollars worth of revenue for the film.

Again, this all circles back to the question of what is a mistake? Or what is just, "visually-lossless perfection"?

EDIT: Visually lossless perfection is an offshoot of the term visually lossless when describing compression schemes. I think it's an interesting way to describe a "mistake" as actually not a mistake. Just a trick the filmmakers used because it would benefit a different part of the film, but is so minor that the average audience member wouldn't notice (same logic as compression schemes). Like bouncing unmotivated light on a table so you could make the skintones of your actors look good, while providing your director with 360 degrees of coverage potential.:lol:

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

How annoying is it to want to watch a film and get into it whole-heatedly only to pick it apart, or admire everything about it and be distracted by knowing whats behind the magicians curtain!

I feel like it gets easier to let go of the critical technical side as you get older and more experienced as a filmmaker.

As a film student and young filmmaker in my 20s, I was extremely critical of technical issues in films because I was starting to notice these things for the first time. I was taught that things like blown out windows, grainy images, and soft focus were 'wrong.' I was proud that I had noticed them, and thus was only too happy to point them out. It took probably 10 years of working on set for me to relax and start enjoying films again as complete works and emotional experiences, like I had when I was just a fan.

When you begin to realize how hard it actually is to make even a mediocre film, and how we do the best we can with every shot knowing that they will never all be perfect regardless of budget, you tend to become a little more forgiving. These days I am more interested in the concept and ambition of the filmmakers, and to see if the choices they made have the intended effect on me. I'm less interested in trying to apply my personal taste to someone else's project. That's not to say I don't have opinions on whether some choices just didn't work for me, but I'm less sure than ever that some choices are empirically good or bad.

On the other hand, I'm a lot less tolerant of mediocre story choices now. But then I mostly just figure the film is not for me and don't bother to see it.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Strange to mention it on this forum, but it is possible to have such stunning cinematography that it can take away from the story.

A perfectly noble opinion to hold. Roger Deakins is the same way. In one of the Hollywood Reporter's cinematography roundtables he said, "People confuse pretty with good cinematography. Freddie Francis said there is good cinematography and bad cinematography, and then there's the cinematography that's right for the movie. I often feel that if reviewers don't mention your work, it's probably better than if they do."

At the same time, I love the artists that are pushing the boundaries. While I probably am more like Roger in that regard when it comes to working on my own stuff, it's an invigorating experience to watch something that pulls us outside of our comfort zone as viewers. Chivo's last three films won Oscars because he very much made the camera a character in its own right. I would never do that in something I make; I just don't see the world in the same way. But when I sit back and turn my DP brain off, I get submersed by the story and go along for an amazing ride.

After all, movies are a contrivance. There's a soundtrack, there's sound effects that are far clearer than you would have ever heard them, there's haze added to rooms that wouldn't have them, wet downs when there wasn't rain, soft lighting in direct sun, etc. etc. etc. Cinema is always outside of reality, even at the very core. The second we cut to a second camera angle is the second it's not real.

So I think this all really boils down to our own personal thresholds for where we can suspend our disbelief. For some it's illogical lighting. For others, it's jump cuts. And great points by Marcus and Brendan, the frame of mind you have coming into a movie will shift where this threshold lies. Also, like others have said, the quality of the story will let you believe more than something that didn't captivate you quite as much.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

People confuse pretty with good cinematography.

I feel this so hard. I kind of felt that way about Arrival *gasp*. I love Bradford Young's look, but he left such a strong signature on that film, it was really distracting for me.

Getting back on topic, though, I've always felt that the cinematography in Tarantino's films was perfect for those films. Just my feeling though.

 

[Lee Kelly]

I remember years ago I was working on a feature where I was sound recordist and water DP and we were shooting for 4weeks on a boat in the Maldives. We did this scene quite early on where the establishing shot was 3/4backlit and all looked gorgeous. We setup to do the reverse and the DP asked to have the boat turned around. I whispered in his ear that, wouldnt it be a continuity issue if both sides of the scene were backlit? He pointed out that the majority of audience members wont notice that and the important thing was that it was all pretty (or something along those lines)
Made perfect sense to me when put like that.

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

It's difficult to comment on Tarantino's or Richardson's work because they have such a body of impressive work, but I just can't watch this scene without all my attention being drawn to the milk glass and thinking what is so damn important about this milk glass. It is a scene with some impressive dialogue building up great tension over a significant amount of time culminating in the soldier shoot-up, but that milk glass just bothers me.

The glass works well to balance the scene. Without the glass it would have looked empty

 

[Aaron Lochert]

I remember years ago I was working on a feature where I was sound recordist and water DP and we were shooting for 4weeks on a boat in the Maldives. We did this scene quite early on where the establishing shot was 3/4backlit and all looked gorgeous. We setup to do the reverse and the DP asked to have the boat turned around. I whispered in his ear that, wouldnt it be a continuity issue if both sides of the scene were backlit? He pointed out that the majority of audience members wont notice that and the important thing was that it was all pretty (or something along those lines)
Made perfect sense to me when put like that.

Agreed. I find it quite jarring when sun position continuity is adhered to. It's a totally different look and feel from one shot to the other. One is backlit with most of the face in shadow, and the other is a full frontal blast of light. What matters more is "look" continuity. If both subjects have the same lighting ratios then your shot/reverse shot "match."

This sort of lighting inconsistency happens everywhere. For example: Wide shots vs. close ups.

Here's an example I snagged from The Wolf of Wall Street. This is a common scenario that's we've all had experience shooting: a dialogue scene at a table, with two people sitting across from each other. Note the Rembrandt triangle on McConaughey's cheek:

When the camera moves in for the close ups it also comes around to reveal the front of the face. But check out the lighting now. The Rembrandt patch is far more subdued--perhaps a softer source, perhaps the key light moved to more of a side light. And now they both have a kicker that is hitting their front temple just slightly that wasn't so present before.

Note the shadow on DiCaprio's neck below his chin. In the wide shot this shadow line was below his ear because the light was more frontal.

This all works because the look is consistent, not the lighting. If we lit the two-shot like the close ups, we'd have no highlights on their front cheekbones because we're only getting their profile--only shadows. On the flip side, if we lit the closeups like the two-shot, both cheeks would be getting light and their faces would be mostly highlights--less shadows. So changing the light between setups ensures we have a more consistent ratio of the amount of highlights to shadows from shot to shot.

We're creating the illusion of seamlessness by actually breaking logic.

 

[Lee Kelly]

All I noticed from that Wolf scene was the empty wine glass wasnt blasted with a tractor beam of light! I dont know what to think of the film anymore. Is it still one of the greats?