The Cinematography Discussion #1 (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

To everyone,

We are figuring it out as we go along regarding how long we stay on each film. I imagine we'll be sticking with this one into next week since there are so many people who plan to see or buy it over the next few days. This isn't a tournament, so we need to give it time. It may even continue through next week if conversation keeps going once more people have seen it.

Mike,

I hate to call this a "chick flick" though the name basically fits. It is a "relationship" type of film, but the ones I usually consider "chick flicks" like You've Got Mail don't have photography like this one and don't have as much going on below the surface either. Not everyone will like it as much as I do. One of our participants hated it.

Edwin,

Please watch it and come back. Right now I plan this film to continue into next week, possibly longer as the people who plan to watch it do so.

Gabe,

I absolutely agree. What it comes down to for me is a term that was used quite often back in college. "Is this a tool, or a crutch?" I know it may have sounded that way, but I don't always put more credence to "beautiful" photography than other forms. I do appreciate "beautiful" photography, though. My comment had more to do with some of the "creative" stuff I see from time to time that just seems to be nothing but short-cuts. I'm having a little trouble trying to say what I mean without going into a long dissertation, and this is not the place. Trust me, I have an extensive background in photography and I am often horrified by the lack of knowledge I see in other photographers. That is more what I am talking about. If you want, you can click on my "profile" and see a few, very small examples of stuff I have done.

 

[JohnRice]

I think there is merit to "snapshot realism,

I agree, with the people who knew what they were doing and did it well. Dorothea Lange, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lewis Hine, W. Eugene Smith, for example.

 

[JohnRice]

which was that complete abandonment of photographic technique would result not in a traditional "beautiful" image (the kind we look for in a movie like Man In the Moon), but a grittier (but, to my way of thinking, more realistic) imagery.

Gabe,

As I have thought about it, I can't say I agree, though I think it might have a lot to do with symantics. I would probably say something like "abandonment of traditional photographic technique" instead. I personally see a big difference between someone who visualizes a certain "gritty" or "ugly" image and knows how to create it, and someone who uses photography carelessly and ignorantly and then calls the final product "art." Also, as far as being "realistic," no photograph is truly "realistic." In the end, they are all interpretations. What is reality anyway? What each person calls "reality" is really just their individual interpretation in the first place. You'll notice I never used the word "realistic" in my analysis. In fact I used "Fantasy" many times, which is actually an opposite of reality.

I know it seems I give more credence to "beautiful" photography, and I suppose there is some truth to that. I do believe it tends to be more difficult, probably because it tends to be less subjective than more abstract forms. I just have trouble calling one more "realistic" than another. Another film I have been considering analyzing for a future thread uses a combination of lush, beautiful B&W photography and ugly, harsh color photography in an interesting way.

 

[Gabe D]

John,
I think you're right that it's just a question of semantics, because I don't really disagree with anything you've said.
I completely agree that "realistic" isn't a term correctly applied to any photography. I just chose it an easy name for the category other than "artistic," which is a word Seth used.
I also understand and agree with your point that an intentionally created "ugly" image should be judged differently than a carelessly created one. It just seemed to me that, earlier in this thread, no distinction was being made between the two.
As far as preferring traditionally "beautiful" photography over other kinds, that's clearly subjective. No right or wrong, therefore no need to argue.
Now, a warning- The small story I'm about to tell is completely off topic:
There's a woman at the office who can't remember my name. For at least three years she has called me Josh. I laugh and correct her every time. It's funny and I don't really mind. However, for the past couple of weeks she's been calling me Seth. I have no idea why she changed. Yesterday I started to correct her and she laughed and said "I'm sorry, Josh." Anyway, typing Seth's name a minute ago reminded me of that.

 

[JohnRice]

As far as preferring traditionally "beautiful" photography over other kinds, that's clearly subjective. No right or wrong, therefore no need to argue.

I actually never said I prefer it. I don't want to get too far off topic, though. The reason I said I tend to give it more credence is probably because the limitations tend to be more restrictive. That's probably not very clear, but we could fill a thread on this subject alone. Of course, "beauty" can take many forms in the first place.

 

[JohnRice]

It occurred to me that the people I mentioned four posts back are all still photographers, so most of the folks here probably aren't familiar with them. I have an example of each one's work ready to go. If others would like to see them, let me know an I will post them here. I would go ahead and do it, but my ISP is working on their hosting servers and I can't access my space right now. This also explains why you may be having some trouble seeing some of the images.

 

[JohnRice]

FYI.

The server storing all my images is having work done, so the images will be intermittent for a while. Hopefully this will al be taken care of by tomorrow (Wednesday) In the mean time, don't hesitate to add any comments you may have.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm back into the server, so here are the examples.
[c]Dorothea Lange
Link Removed
Lewis Hine
Link Removed
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Link Removed
W. Eugene Smith
Link Removed[/c]

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ok, I just watched the movie. The following are a few observations, with varying degrees of confidence.
Warning: this may turn out to be a bit long.
The times given may not be exact. Sorry for the lack of screen shots, but I have neither the patience nor the software for it. If we get to discussing specific things in this post, perhaps JohnRice would be kind enough to provide screen shots for us?
At the beginning of the movie, Dani is listening to an Elvis record. The camera goes back and forth between her smiling adoring face and the album cover, with a picture of Elvis in all his teen-idol glory. This gave me the impression of a young girl's idealisation of romance, ready to be shattered by reality.
8:45 Maureen and Dani in the car talking to the boyfriend
I think this was at the church. Maureen is in the driver's seat, Dani in the back. Maureen is wearing a light blue dress which is almost the same color as the car, which in turn both blend in with the sky behind them. Perhaps they are using light to highlight the similarities to blend certain things together.
This gives me the feeling that Maureen, at this point, is an element of the town, not yet staking out her own individuality. The action most associated with this is dating the popular boy. Dani, standing out in yellow, is a bit smarter than that.
The use of light to match colors between different objects, in this case Maureen's dress and the car, is used later as well.
Shortly before 10:00 Dani running to the pond
This is in line with John's discussion of the film's fantastical element. It is quite Tolkienesque: wispy fair-haired girl jaunting through the wild barefoot in a frenzy of innocent excitement.
(Holy crap, did I just use the word "jaunting?!")
19:00 - 20:00 Dani and her family meeting the Fosters / Maureen at the dance
This comprises a couple of scenes strung together to make one effect.
On the one hand, the family get-together is outside the house; a somewhat quiet, pleasant, "natural" affair. It leads to the innocent youthful back-and-forth between Dani and Cort that eventually forms their friendship. It is spacious, open, relaxed.
On the other, we see Maureen at the dance. People are crowded around each other, the cars are close together. Everything feels cramped. This feeling reaches its zenith when her boyfriend's father is greeting her and obviously trying to cop a feel. Later on, we see him making all sorts of, er, inappropriate suggestions to her. All this conveys that something unpleasant is bound to happen. Like father, like son.
This also highlights the ever-present message of the film-makers' apparent reverence for family. The sister that is at home is safe and happy; the one out with her friends has a rough time. This idea is brought about with the resolution of the story on a much bigger scale: both sisters lose their out-of-family relationships, but strengthen the sister bond. The same also happens with Cort: his friends won't write to him, but his mother is ever-adoring of her son.
The family imagery is constantly linked with nature: father and daughter fishing; son and mother cultivating farm.
Ok, this next thing is the coolest thing I've noticed. I'm quite proud of myself, actually It involves two seperate scenes close to each other, bookending the scene where Cort and Dani almost first kiss in the pond.
37:50 Dani is running to the pond to meet him. The scene I'm thinking of is lighted on the left, dark on the right. She is coming from between some trees on the right: stepping out of the darkness and into the light. At this point, she is very eager and excited.
40:41 After the unpleasantness in the pond, she leaves, coming back the way she came. The shot is exactly the same, except, this time, she is heading into the darkness, leaving the light.
Both scenese are accompanied with subtle yet incidental music to enhance these images.
Others have already discussed the symmetry of the opening and closing of the film. This acts as a smaller scale version of that.
45:08 Right after the father hits Dani with the belt, he is up against the wall, with Maureen looking on in the background. Her image is blurry. This visually captures the feeling one may have after doing something rash and shameful: people may be looking, but for that moment, you don't care. Then you notice, but it's too late. When the father noticed, Maureen became un-blurry (if un-blurry is even a real word. Non-blurry?).
51:12 Dani's father hugging her after she explains how she understands the corporal punishment inflicted upon her. This is another instance of the use of conveying emotion by placing the audience from the action at a considerable distance, previously discussed by John regarding the scene with Maureen and her mother.
I must say, I very much like this technique. I first became specifically aware of it in Taxi Driver, when he's on the phone with the girl, and the camera starts to move away from him as he's trying to convince her to see him again. As we see him getting rejected, the camera shows us the street, hitting us with a double-dose of loneliness
1:01:50 Earlier, I spoke of the use of light to match the colors of two different objects. This is repeated here: Cort is driving away from Maureen; his truck is the same color as the ground below him.
1:10:01 Cort comes back for Maureen. The square-on shot of the truck approaching conveys a sense of purpose and determination. This kid is sick of playing around with these chicks: he knows what he wants, and he's-a-gonna get it. The scene does a good job of portraying positive determination: his goal is honest and "good," as opposed to the machinations of Maureen's previous beau.
The use of bars across Dani's face, remeniscent of a prison, was mentioned once or twice. I noticed it quite a few times: the bench, the cemetery fence, her father busting through a fence with the truck, etc.
Although this is off-topic, I also would like to give credit to the sound. There were some great moments where it really enhanced the imagery. Though it is outside the scope of cinemetography, I can't help but notice this sort of thing; after all, I am a music lover before I am a film enthusiast.
Wow, that was long. Oh well, at least you can't complain that I didn't do my part to contribute to this thread.
Am I correct to assume that the movies will be discussed in the order they are listed at the beginning of this thread and/or that they are all available on DVD in their OAR?

 

[JohnRice]

WOW. Well done, Mike.
Right now, I can only respond to your comments in most cases. I actually wasn't able to do the screen shots myself, since I have a hardware issue (sounds kind of personal, doesn't it.) If I have any images to support your points I will use them.

Am I correct to assume that the movies will be discussed in the order they are listed at the beginning of this thread and/or that they are all available on DVD in their OAR?

The films aren't shown in the order they will be discussed. Part of the reason is the final order hasn't exactly been set yet. This is the way it looks now. Either Out of Sight or Klute will be next, followed by the other one, then Oliver Twist and finishing with Vertigo. Don't bother asking to have the order changed. This is determined mostly by the schedules of the individuals involved. All films are currently available on DVD in their OAR. This was a requirement to be eligible.
Well done, Mike.

 

[JohnRice]

I also would like to give credit to the sound. There were some great moments where it really enhanced the imagery.

I agree!! I am usually pretty unimpressed with movie music, but this one is well done. I want to point out one sequence in particular, beginning at about 1:22:40 and continuing for about three minutes. There is no dialog during the entire sequence. Notice in particular the Oboe and soft basses when we first see Court's casket as well as the violin as it starts descending.

 

[JohnRice]

We're not moving on for a little while, so I hope the folks who were planning to buy/rent this film come back and contribute something.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

As I go back and watch various scenes in The Man In The Moon, I gain a better appreciation and respect for the talent and effort involved in its cinematography. There is certainly a lot to appreciate here. So, allow me to add a few comments in certain areas already touched on while opening up new discussions in others.
THE VISUAL STYLE
Cinematography can certainly be analyzed in any film separate from the its storyline and narrative. But in the end, we should also look at it as a complete whole. The reason for this preface is because I question whether the fantasy style used in the film is appropriate.
The film is set in the 1950’s and the period certainly has a lot to do with its story. For me, the film’s main theme is coming of age and sexual discovery. I wonder if the visual style used in Stand By Me, another coming of age film where the period is highlighted along with its themes, would have been a more appropriate style?
THE USE OF FILL LIGHT
The reason I ask is because Freddie Francis, the DOP, never seem to want to deviate from this style (the soft images), which I thought somewhat limited him from making other scenes more powerful than they should have.
John, already brought up the strong use of fill light, which I agree. The nighttime outdoor scenes with only the moon shining did not appear natural at all. They used a lot of light that did not generate the strong and solid blacks that are usually characteristic in these scenes. Of all the nighttime scenes, the only one I found natural looking was at the outdoor party.
In addition, the scene where Dani and Court go for a night swim for the very first time did not blend in very well with the previous scene at the house where Dani was trying to sneak out. It was obvious that the pond scene that followed was shot in the early afternoon or late evening as the background scenes around the pond were more visible than they should have been in a dark night. The camera also avoided filming the nighttime sky, which for me, became a dead giveaway, as to when that particular scene was filmed compared to the other outdoor scenes shot at night in the film.
The Man In The Moon was set in the summer in the South where it is usually hot and humid at that time of the year yet the photography was not able to convey this. For example, in another scene, it was implied that Court and Maureen were intimate outdoors but with no sweat on their bodies. However, a minute later, Court jumps on his tractor dripping wet from the humidity. (Note: I realize that this is also a function of editing).
Again, the cinematography is without a doubt, wonderful. But I just question whether it was appropriate to the film’s narrative in the manner to which I relate it to the main themes I got out of the film.
SHADES, SHADOWS AND REFLECTIONS
Francis, nevertheless, was very effective in using natural resources to create a mood. Trees were used to block the harsh effects of the sun and from the sunlight hitting the actors’ faces. A lot of the daytime outdoors scenes outside the family house were filmed in the shade.
For the indoor scenes, reflections of the sun or the moonlight from the outside were also used very effectively. There is proper separation between the outside lights shining in and the shades in the interior shots.
Furthermore, one of the techniques I liked was the use of shadows to highlight a character’s mood. One such scene was at the car after the Sunday church service where Maureen and Dani were talking to each other. The shadow of the tree on Maureen’s face showed her calm side while the sun striking on Dani’s face highlighted her argumentative side. It also added another visual dimension to the shot itself.
FRAMING
Panning was used numerous times in this film in composing its shots. With this type of technique, we saw a lot more around the main subjects being filmed. Some of the scenes where this method was used are built around simple events like the fishing trip between Dad and Dani. But it was very effective in setting the mood and tone of the scene.
Well, that’s all I can think of right now.
The Man In The Moon is certainly a good film to demonstrate and discuss the art of cinematography. Robert Mulligan and Freddie Francis have done a very good job.
~Edwin

 

[JohnRice]

Excellent points, Edwin.

I'm only going to comment one one of them right now because I'm hoping some of the others will chime in so we can get more of an exchange going.

The Man In The Moon was set in the summer in the South where it is usually hot and humid at that time of the year yet the photography was not able to convey this. For example, in another scene, it was implied that Court and Maureen were intimate outdoors but with no sweat on their bodies. However, a minute later, Court jumps on his tractor dripping wet from the humidity. (Note: I realize that this is also a function of editing).

I agree. While you can "see" the humidity in the air, it is really only represented when it suits the story. I can only think of two examples of that. One is what Edwin pointed out, which almost seems like a continuity problem to me, though I think the film makers just didn't wan't the encounter between Court and Maureen to look too dirty by making them as sweaty as they would have been. I'm not saying I think that was a good decision, just that I suspect that was their reasoning.

The second example was when Court was conveniently sweaty because Dani was bringing him some water and commenting on how hot is was. For most of the rest of the film, it felt more like a cool, dry Colorado Fall day.

I tend to think that it wasn't an issue of the photography not being able to convey it, but a decision not to convey it. I can't say it was a good decision, but I'm not sure it was actually a bad one either where I am concerned. I actually tend to be pretty weak on symbolism, so I take the photography more for how it was done rather than what it means. Maybe someone else can chime in for that area.

 

[paul o'donnell]

Darn nice little thread you got goin' here. I will most certainly return for the last 3 discussions, as I haven't seen the first two films.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Re: what the photography "means:"

The images in this film are too carefully constructed to let something as obvious as people sweating in the wrong time slip in. Besides, Maureen and Cort gettin' it on was very "dreamy"- innocent youth frolicking about, and so forth. "Nice" sex. They didn't want to show two horndogs grunting and sweating all over the place.

So, I conclude it was all deliberate.

To tie the photography in the with the story: the events themselves, as well as their portrayal, act as one big photograph. For instance, nothing in the film was surprising. Everything was foreshadowed and clearly leading up to everything else: I knew the mother was going to fall, I knew Cort was going to die, etc. That was the point, though: the film is capturing these events for us to examine. Like looking at a photograph, one knows what it's about right away; the interesting part is looking at the details, understanding how everything fits together. The movie is really a motion picture.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Seth wrote:

We're not moving on for a little while, so I hope the folks who were planning to buy/rent this film come back and contribute something.

I agree with waiting a few more days before moving on to the next film but how about giving us a heads up so we can revisit the film first before the discussion?
In addition, maybe starting a different thread for each of the films to be discussed may not be a bad idea. That way, those who are not able to watch this film while we are currently discussing it now will still get a chance to do so later down the road and be able to just post their thoughts on an older thread specifically devoted to that film. In that manner, their comments would not be lost or combined with the current film in discussion had there been only one thread to discuss all five films all along.
Just a thought.
~Edwin

 

[JohnRice]

Edwin,
I'm thinking over your suggestions, though I'll definitely give a head's up a couple days before we move on. Incidentally, the order is pretty much set, barring any unforseen obstacles. This is how it will go.
Klute
Out of Sight
Oliver Twist
Vertigo
How long each film is discussed will be determined completely by the film. I plan the discussion for each one to go for at least 10 days and to cross two weekends, since this is the only time some folks have time to watch them.
I have some more comments about the things you and Mike brought up, but I'm also hoping some of the others will jump in as well. Several folks have mentioned they were renting/buying the DVD, but most of them haven't responded. Go ahead and jump in.
Finally,
I know this film is easy to brush off. I think it's simplicity is both deceptive as well as a big part of what I like about it. I am much more passionate about it than most others. I have been reading some reviews of it and felt the one by Roger Ebert was the only one that captured what I see.

 

[Seth Paxton]

However, for the past couple of weeks she's been calling me Seth. I have no idea why she changed

Okay, that is bizarre.
I wasn't knocking interpreted imagery, simply saying that a person can look at something live and want to capture that exact look to film, but we all know that film may not agree with that sentiment.
Thus to the layman they see something that looks like you are really there (lighting, colors, etc are "correct") and they take it for granted as just "pointing the camera". Whereas the truth often lies with fill lighting, film speed/stock, lens choices, etc. The ability to put those elements together to make the photo look like the reality is just as tough (and more impressive to me) than capturing an interpretation of a scene.
Perhaps simply because the effort is so much less obvious.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Ok, this next thing is the coolest thing I've noticed. I'm quite proud of myself, actually It involves two seperate scenes close to each other, bookending the scene where Cort and Dani almost first kiss in the pond.

Not dismissing any metaphorical intent, but there is something else more mundane at work there which is appropriate for this discussion.
The use of the mise-en-scene to imply character movement within the diagetic world. By using the same shot but with her moving in the opposite direction, the audience is told "she is going back the way she came, she is leaving now".
Sure we see this notion as obvious, but one flaw a poor filmmaker sometimes makes is NOT giving the audience proper visual cues like this. Imagine if instead of that shot a shot of someplace we had not previously seen was used, or some angle that made the location unrecognizable as one she previously passed through.
The audience could be led to believe she is running off to get lost or is confused from the events. It could be implied that she is running away. Many other things could be happening besides simply leaving the way she came if different shots are used at that point.
That stuff is subtle but crucial in good narrative direction.
If you can do it in a way that is both artful and metaphorical as well then you have a great achievement. Of course sometimes those 2 concepts override any sense of narrative direction and leave the audience lost and confused quite unintentionally (as opposed to Lynch who relishes that effect).
A side example off the top of my head can be found in Chaplin's Modern Times. He goes through a buffet line at one point, loading his tray up with food. How do we know he is "going down the buffet line"? Well, each shot has a similar counter space shown in front of him, but those could be seperate from each other, placed at different walls, etc. However, each shot also has him come in from the right and leave from the left. By following that pattern the audience assumes that his entering from the right is coming from the previous shot that he exited on the left, even though we don't really know such a thing occurred.
Again, it seems obvious but it's not. For one thing, there is no real buffet line for him to go along, so we know that the shots are giving us a real effect of that's actually fake. Most likely the exact same buffet counter is used with different signs on the wall behind him and he just keeps shooting the same shot over and over. He also adds food to the tray to add to the effect.
Sorry for the sidebar into direction, but the cinematographer does have to understand these problems as well. Just like the 180 degree rule for dialog scenes. You have to pick shots that will tell the story properly, not just look good. That means that the cinematographer has to be on-board with the director in terms of how the story is being told.