The Cinematography Discussion #1 (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

That's it. That's kind of what I thought it was.

Thanks, Walter...

 

[Seth Paxton]

In color, however, these dramatic properties are diminished by the medium's literal rendition of things, undermining such effects which depart from the apparent "realism" of a scene.

Agee, this whole section including this line is a very good and important point regarding film theory. Not just for Vertigo but overall.
This has sparked quite a lot of new thoughts for me on film, which is about the nicest thing I can think of to say about your comments. Good stuff!

 

[Seth Paxton]

To carry that further, it seems that there is a great debate in film theory over the "truth" of film. Some filmmakers regard film as the ultimate truth being reflected back at us, while others see it as the ultimate fantasy with reality being shown to us in such ways as to abstract it and view it in a way we never could.
Which is the truth is unknown I think, both sides of these thoughts have valid points. But here we sit discussing how "simple" B&W lends itself to the more "fantastical" aspects of cinema while the "exciting" color brings us closer to a literal viewing of what has been filmed.
Now think about that and go watch "Wizard of Oz" again.
Let's see, who was it that said film is truth 24 times per second? Fellini or Godard or someone? Sorry I forget.
And then wasn't it Kubrick who was big on how cinema/editing gave you this great ability to look at things in ways you never could (slow motion, same scene from different angles, etc).
So it's not like there aren't masters on both sides of the coin here.

 

[JohnRice]

Geez, Seth. You just had to open that can of worms. The way I tend to see it is that film has no emotions. Any particular film stock feeds back what is presented to it in a rather consistent way, as long as it is not acted on in ways that will vary it, such as processing variations. does that make it "reality?" Hardly, as far as I am concerned. But we could discuss philosophy like this until the end of time.

By the way. Did you move, or have you just been watching "The King of Texas" er, Montana.

 

[Agee Bassett]

In stating matter-of-factly that the scenes at the Mission Dolores were shot using a fog filter, I may have been guilty of merely repeating a "common knowledge" fiction. Certainly this is what I have always heard attributed to causing the effect. And then we have george's source, which is quite implicit that no filtration of any kind was employed.

Indeed, environmentally-caused light diffusion or no, the degree of light flare evident in the screenshots above seems abnormally severe for scenes photographed with no special modifying. Certainly, the severity of the effect is heavily suggestive of dedicated filtration.
However, after some meditation, I've decided that george's source is probably correct in that there was no filtration involved. Instead, I'm now persuaded the flaring effect was most likely caused by the use of photographing with uncoated lenses. Ms. Robertson's notes, which do not include the complement of any filters that day of shooting, but does list procurement of several lenses, certainly makes reasonable allowance for such an assumption. Further, as mentioned before, the degree of flare present, so acute as to noticably reduce overall contrast and produce intense halation around bright objects, is highly evocative of the severe light-scattering properties of an uncoated lens.
In sum, it is difficult for me to believe that such an effect could be preserved by an untreated, high-quality, 1950's Panavision lens (many of which are still perfectly servicable today). Most likely, the diffusing effect caused by the whitewashed walls of the Mission was noticed, in milder form, in the standard stock lenses during test shooting; which was then chosen to be emphasized for effect by Hitch, Burks & Co., by employing uncoated lenses (too, a lens hood may have been jettisoned). I wonder if george's source could enlighten us any more on the subject?
Seth: Thanks for the kind words. As you detect by singling out The Wizard of Oz, I would venture to judge the lion's share (no pun intended ) of its expressionism achieved through the palette of its preternaturally rendered color. Certainly more "fantastical" effects have been achieved in other films (b&w included) virtue of the more "traditional" cinematic alphabet--camera angles, composition, spatial distortion, chiaroscuro, editing, etc.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I've added some screenshots to my posts earlier on the page, so as to illustrate my points better.

More commentary forthcoming later.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

How many aspiring DOP's do we got here anyhow? C'mon, show of hands.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Speaking personally, I had the misfortune of an eye injury suffered playing college ball to derail my shot at the big time. :p)

 

[JohnRice]

I have to say. After really looking at those shots, I don't see any way that look was accomplished without some sort of light modification, even with uncoated lenses. I have shot with some uncoated lenses (a long time ago) and though they lack contrast, there is nowhere near the degree of halation that is in these ones. The only other option I can think of is if they used film stock that had the anti-halation dye removed or some other form of film modification. Removing the hood would lower the overall contrast, but shouldn't cause any halation.

Since we keep talking about halation, which a lot of people may not be familiar with, it basically means the glow, or "halo" around bright objects.

Dome, Believe me, I've thought about it. Or dreamed about it is more like it. One thing I don't know if I could handle is months of 20 hour days. I'd probably die in my sleep.

 

[george kaplan]

While I think that the book I quoted is a fairly definitive source for all things Vertigo, that doesn't mean it can't be in error. Which is why I had asked about other sources. An entire chapter of the book is dedicated to the Harris/Katz restoration, and they provide the author with a detailed interview. I should also point out that my primary source on the use of fog filters in the Fort Point scene, comes from the audio commentary with Bob Harris/Jim Katz and Herbie Coleman.

So, I think that Robert Harris may be able to clear this up. Perhaps someone should try to see if he's willing to throw in his two cents.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Further investigation has lead to, once again, change my mind and agree with you, John. I've been examining some still photographs from the turn of the century, shot with uncoated, imperfectly hand-ground lenses, and even in these such severe flare and halation isn't present. Either some form of filtration or film emulsion tampering (or both, plus perhaps in combination with an uncoated lens) must have been resorted to.
The illustrations featured at this link are helpful at demonstrating the flare caused the absence of anti-reflective coatings. Filters are featured, but even here one can see significant flare within a single-element lens.
However, the filter flare exhibited by the this photo, taken with a fog filter, seems to most closely recreate the effect seen in the Vertigo screenshots, respectively.

 

[george kaplan]

I just went back & relistened to the commentary during the Mission Dolores scene. Frustratingly inconclusive. On the one hand, they choose this point to begin talking (in conversation with Coleman, describing how they did the restoration) about the difficulty in determining when and what type of fog filters were used. They talk in some detail about the Fort Point scene and the use of Peggy Robertson's notes to determine when full, half and no-fogs were used. But never is there any discussion that fog filters were or were not used in the Mission Dolores scene that we are watching while they discuss fog filters at Fort Point. Oh well.

 

[Rain]

Perhaps someone should try to see if he's willing to throw in his two cents.

Um, you know you can email him, right? If you use the links in his profile, he does accept private messages and email, so I assume that means he doesn't mind being contacted.
EDIT: Never mind, I sent him an email myself.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Apparently no one watches Mr. Show or they would understand my new location.

 

[JohnRice]

Ok, I bite. What's "Mr. Show?"

and thanks, Rain.......

 

[Seth Paxton]

And while we are touching on the color/B&W philosophy, this quote feels a bit relevent though I wonder what Kubrick thought of it.

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

After all, film is an art based heavily in visual perception so a lot of it's effect has more to do in what the viewer accepts than it does with some absolute truth.

Perhaps for Oz the point might be made that so many people were coming to feel a certain "reality" with B&W film that color really did have a fantastical property to it.

I'm not sure how you guys feel about that film or how recently you watched it, but there is something to be said for the fact that Kansas seems more foreign than Oz. Oz has the familiarity of a lavish stage production while the brownish toned B&W of Kansas seems like the dream in it's look. Perhaps to a child the sound stage is less present (and I grew up loving the soundstage look though not being fully aware of what it was that I liked about that look - for any film that is), but now I see the limits of the camera movement, or the structure of such to show off the stage while trying to make the most of the limited space.

In short, Oz looks much more like a place I could actually be at and touch than Kansas does.

 

[Seth Paxton]

continuing the Mr Show sidebar - it was an HBO comedy show in the style of Python's Flying Circus (30 minutes of continuous flow humor with all sketches linked together and recurring during the show). In many ways Mr Show is the American version of MPFC. Sadly it only lasted 9 episodes thanks in large part to business aspects.
NewFreeLand is a funny bit about those guys that hole up in a trailer and demand independence from the US, like the ones in Texas about 8 years ago (or Ruby Ridge types). Basically the gov't says "okay" to this guy.

 

[Robert Harris]

Having seen the beam of Rain's signal we have gone into our files for the following information:

Exterior scenes at Mission Dolores were photographed on September 30th and October 1st 1957.

Camera and script were called for 6:30 am for line up and rehersal from 8 to 8:15.

First shot on the 30th was taken at 1:20 pm.

Company lost 2 hours due to overcast skies.

First shot on the 1st taken 2:05 pm.

Company finished at 6:30 pm on the 30th and 4:50 on the 1st.

Mr. Stewarts call was 7am; Ms. Novak's at 5am.

Shot with VistaVision cameras No. 2 and 7, there were 20 setups each day with Robert Burks as DP and Leonard South as Operator.

Scenes were taken with 35, 40 and 50mm lenses with a combination of filters being and 85 combined with either a single (1x) or double (2x) fog filter -- shot both ways.

Total footage shot:

9/30 - 2840 feet (VVLA)

10/1 - 3590 feet (VVLA)

Hope this is helpful.

RAH

 

[JohnRice]

Outstanding!

Pretty much sets that to rest.

Many thanks to Mr. Harris.

 

[george kaplan]

Thank you Mr. Harris for clearing that up. The book is obviously wrong. I do have a question for Mr. Harris or anyone else who owns the Vertigo book and understands this stuff. On page 75 is the first page of Peggy Robertson's notes. It covers the first 13 setups of the first day. I can not see any mention of fog filters on this page. Is there a shorthand for it I'm not seeing or would it be a later setup or is it just something she wouldn't have written down? Obviously it's written down somewhere that Mr. Harris has access to.