The Cinematography Discussion #1 (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

. Any thoughts?

I would check them all out, I did. Obviously, I had seen The Man in the Moon, but I have made a point of watching all five for this thread. Some I like better than others. Some I have only seen once, so I haven't been able to develop too much of an opinion of them. No matter how much I like The Man in the Moon, I'm certainly not going to guarantee others will. I know one person here who absolutely hated it.

 

[george kaplan]

Wow. I've just recently completed a film class and finally learned what cinematography is.

Just curious, what is it? I ask, because I think there's more than one legitimate answer to that question and I'm curious as to what it is you've learned.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Another thing to add that's pretty cool (sorry to derail the Klute talk).
Check out the Laser's Edge advert...all 5 titles being discussed here. Someone is on the ball for sure.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Just curious, what is it? I ask, because I think there's more than one legitimate answer to that question and I'm curious as to what it is you've learned.

The simplest definition I can give is camerawork, but its like a whole smorgasborg of other things as well. It's framing, spacing, height, tilt, movement, distance, and many other things all rolled into one. The most important thing I learned is that cinematography isn't out to make a picture look pretty (although it seemed otherwise when I was glad that Fellowship of the Ring won. If anything invalidates my opinion, it's that I haven't seen most of the other nominess, and I thought the cinematography underlied an extremely important theme inthe book). Rather, it serves as a tool for the director to make some connection to the narrative or motifs in the film.

 

[Mike Broadman]

My understadning, expressed most simply:

Director: directs the actions

Cinematographer: makes the action look right

I will most definitely check out Klute when I get a chance. This one is much harder to comment on without seeing it than Man on the Moon was, so it shall have to wait...

 

[Rain]

First of all, Patrick, may I commend you on an excellent write up on the film.
I was fortunate enough to have seen this film for the first time recently, as a good friend of mine sent me a copy as a gift.

Before I move on to the bold choices that Willis makes for the riveting finale of the film, I want to touch on a sequence that is not, in my very humble opinion, up to par with the rest of Willis' work on this movie...or maybe Willis was up to something with these compositions that I didn't grasp.

This outdoor scene is the point in the film when Bree is no longer the target of Klute's investigation. Thus, it is their first scene together when they are completely on the same level--person to person. Before this, Klute was in a "power" position as Bree was under investigation; afterward Bree is in the "power" position as Klute needs her help to continue the investigation in other directions.
During that scene, it is the first time they are speaking person to person as complete equals. The masks are off. The choice of shooting it in broad daylight (and the director's choice of location--outside in the open; no place to hide) suggests to me the openness and "truth" that comes for the first time in that scene.
It is also the first scene wherein Bree and Klute reveal that they may be developing some feelings for each other, though it is implied, not stated outright. She is genuinely hurt by his words when he calls her lifestyle "pathetic." I also don't beleive he means it, but is employing a defense mechanism as he is also starting to feel something for her.
It must be noted that prior to this scene, Bree tries, unsuccessfully, to seduce Klute in a purely sexual way. When they finally do connect sexually, later on in the film, they do not do so only on a sexual level, but rather on intimate/emotional one.
The scene is a revelation and it is lit in bright broad daylight. Willis makes no uses of odd angles or framing choices, but opts to shoot it "pedestrian" to further emphasize the character's being on equal footing. Makes sense to me.
It is also interesting to note that she throws the tapes away in the first trashcan she passes (and completely nonchalantly). She either wanted Klute to give them to her on principle or just didn't want him to keep them himself. Or perhaps both.
Earlier on, it seems that she wants them back on principle alone (there is really nothing of consequence on the tapes that she would really need to hide). Later, I think there is the second element--she does not want Klute to keep them, as she doesn't want him to remember her that way (the tapes contain exchanges with various johns--"business" transactions).
One thing is for certain here, this film is a great example of what can be achieved when a DP and Director are working closely together to capture the "spirit" of every moment of the film. One gets the sense that Willis and Pakula understood each other's intents extremely well.
I will be back later to talk more about the scene at the modelling call earlier on in the film.

 

[Jay E]

Excellent analysis Patrick! This is one of the best films of the 70's, a mature and intelligent film that relies on fully fleshed out characters and not on simplistic or over blown plot contrivances. A great modern Film Noir.

 

[PatrickL]

The scene is a revelation and it is lit in bright broad daylight. Willis makes no uses of odd angles or framing choices, but opts to shoot it "pedestrian" to further emphasize the character's being on equal footing. Makes sense to me.

Rain, that's an excellent take on the scene. I agree, and believe you're right about the reason why an exterior was chosen. (I might also mention that the segment which preceeds it, in Frank Ligourin's apartment, is a particulary dark interior scene - Willis going for contrast again) The compositions are still a little odd to me, however - for Willis, it's uncharacteristic that there are so many angles and shots compressed into such a short, talky scene. The scene certainly works dramatically, I should stress that. But the camera feels restless, shifting position every few seconds, and your post makes me wonder if maybe that is the point. With the two characters suddenly equalized, it's new and uncertain territory.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

As far as the Director and the DOP are concerned, I see those two the same way as I see a staff on any sporting team. To use a football analogy, it's a lot like the director is the Head coach, and the DOP is an assistant coach or coordinator. The degrees of collaboration vary, much like in football. Sometimes the head coach (director)makes all the calls, and the coordinator (DOP) is merely there to carry out his orders or the coordinator (DOP) has reign over his part of the job, and the head coach (director) gives his final approval. I hope that analogy works.

 

[PatrickL]

Earlier on, it seems that she wants them back on principle alone (there is really nothing of consequence on the tapes that she would really need to hide). Later, I think there is the second element--she does not want Klute to keep them, as she doesn't want him to remember her that way (the tapes contain exchanges with various johns--"business" transactions).

Rain, you might have missed this plot point, but Bree had been arrested for prostitution during the official investigation. The impression given is that the arrest was arranged to intimidate her into cooperating. Klute taps Bree's phone for the same reason, and gains access to her with the threat of having her "thrown back in the brig." During the scene where Klute makes it known that he has been taping her "business transactions" Willis starts the shot on Bree through the bars of Klute's window, re: prison.

 

[Rain]

Please excuse me, what I meant was that there was nothing on the tape that would have necessarily interested Klute in terms of his investigation of Gruneman's disappearance. The tapes would not have incriminated Bree in that investigation.

However, by pointing this out you have made me wonder again why exactly she nonchalantly tosses the tapes into the trash (right in front of Klute's eyes no less).

I think my initial thoughts can still stand. Yes, Klute could use them to have her busted for prostitution, but that's not really his goal.

Whatever the reason, I think it's pretty clear that Bree isn't very threatened by the tapes at that point, as Klute could have easily retrieved them from the trash.

I think I'll watch this film again over the weekend and rejoin the discussion next week.

 

[JohnRice]

I had a pretty strong feeling the tape scene was a way of Bree exhibiting that she did in fact have some power over Klute. She convinced him to give them to her, even though they really had no importance. Throwing them in the trash right in front of him was just a way of rubbing it in a bit.

 

[PatrickL]

The tapes have no importance to the Gruneman investigation; Klute uses them to intimidate Bree and get his foot in the door. By the time he hands them over, Bree doesn't believe he'd use them to mess with her probation. The tapes are disposable.

This is how I saw it: what she's reacting to is being dismissed ("I'm done with your part of it") and being called "pathetic." In a moment of anger (right after telling him to "f**k off") she dumps the tapes in front of him to mask her own hurt and to hurt him back. In the next scene, where he's tailed her to an audition, she's happy to see him. This is when she knows she's got to him, and although she initially tries to exploit her power as if he is a john ("It's gonna cost you") by the end of the scene the price she exacts for her involvement is "a cup of coffee" as if he's a date.

 

[JohnRice]

Well done, Patrick.
I actually have a couple things to contribute.
The word "beautiful," it seems, is often assumed to mean the same thing by everyone. I have to say, I find shots like the one below quite beautiful, though I realize it is not what would conventionally be thought of that way. While it fits into the context of the film, it also stands on its own as an evocative image.
[c]Link Removed[/c]

so it appears that the skyline is moving while the villain, in the helicopter, is fixed in one position on screen.

As though the world revolves around him, which is pretty accurate to the character.
[c]Link Removed[/c]
Well, for what it is worth, that is what I have to say. Unfortunately, I have only seen Klute once.

 

[Lin Weiwen]

Ok..I'll start on my cinematography topic on a film that always gets better with repeated viewings....Saving Private Ryan.

Spielberg frames the Omaha beach seqeunce with a close up shot of an actors's eyes. Eg before the Omaha beach landing takes place, there is a close up shot to Old Ryan's wrinkled eyes and then the sound of the waves breaking is heard before they are shown to us.......When the battle on the beach is finally over, Sgt Horvath collects some soil to add to his private collection of 'nationality' soils before commenting to Miller," That's quite a view..." Miller then looks up and there is a close up shot to his frowning eyes...."Yes..that's quite a view.."

That's was nicely done,Mr Kaminski!!

 

[PatrickL]

Lin, we're focusing on only five films in this thread, each in turn. After Klute, I believe Seth takes over with his thoughts on Out of Sight.

Quote:

I'm about twenty viewings ahead of you then.
Forgive me, but I wanted to add a little side-note here for anyone reading this who appreciates cinematography and OAR presentation. Obviously, I'm a big fan of Gordon Willis, who shot Klute, and I learned today that one of his 80s films, Perfect, is being released pan and scan only by Columbia/Tri-Star. I'm hardly the only one who strongly believes that Gordon Willis is one of the greatest cinematographers the world has ever seen, and to hear that any of his work will be available only panned and scanned is sad indeed. Keep on fightin' the good fight for OAR, folks. We haven't won yet.

 

[JohnRice]

Well, what do you know?

Gordon Willis did Perfect?

Jack Cardiff did Conan the Destroyer?

Will wonders never cease?

 

[Mike Broadman]

Ok, I finally saw it yesterday. Good flick. I'm really starting to dig the "noir" style of movie-making, and plan on finding some Humphrey Bogart movies to broaden my film-viewing experience.

The technique of showing a character's body but not the head has been discussed in this thread for the scene where Bree is with a John. This was also done earlier when Bree is applying for a modeling job. The employers' heads are never shown, IIRC.

One instance of layered subtext I liked is the scene where Bree is undressing and talking about some story she made up for an old man. The camera is from the point of view of Klute who is watching. The subtext here, for me, is objectification. The old man treats Bree as an object for his fantasies and entertainment. He, in turn, is an object for her. Besides using him for his money, she enjoys the power and control, and probably considers him an easy trick because she doesn't have to actually sleep with him. All of this acts as an object of study and empathy for Klute.

Something that was done in this movie a lot was making the foreground images blurry while keeping the background images in focus. This emphasises the "jungle" feeling of the city and Bree's world.

Another shot I liked that hasn't been mentioned yet was when Bree went to visit the old man for the second time. He wasn't there, but she encounters his son and secratary. She stands in the doorway, and the son is trying to be oh-so-helpful. The shot does a great job of conveying how used to this sort of thing Bree is, and how she's able to use it or ignore it at will. This is emphasised by the secratary looking on in dissapproval, right before she runs home to cook dinner for Archie and Meathead (sorry, I couldn't resist).

 

[PatrickL]

Quote:

Too funny; you had me going there, Mike. So much care goes into *not* throwing the audience out of the picture, and something that simply can't be predicted - like a character actress in a small role becoming instantly recognizable - does it anyway. But just for a moment, hopefully.

 

[Rain]

I wanted to comment further on the scene at the modelling call. I haven't had a chance to rewatch the whole film, but I took another look at the scene.

Check out the way the models are framed in the scene where they are just sitting there waiting to be inspected. Most of the frame is taken up by the larger than life posters hanging above the seated girls. Of course, the posters are of another model hanging there and "watching over" the scene in almost god-like fashion as though she is the pinnacle of what all these others are striving to be.

Also of note is the way the scene is shot as the models walk out of the "audition." Again, the models are kept to the bottom of the frame with the godlike face hanging above. The camera remains stationary as the girls walk out in single file orderly fashion (if memory serves, to the right of the frame) as another set of nameless, faceless girls is led in from the left.

The first time I watched that latter shot it brought to mind cattle being paraded by for inspection by prospective buyers. The second time something else hit me. It also brings to mind a police lineup, which may in fact be more relevant here. Looking only at the batches of girls, they could just as easily be a bunch of prostitutes standing in a police line awaiting identification by a witness.

Again, the way the whole sequence plays out emphasizes the objectification of Bree, as if to suggest that going to the "audition" is not much different from prostituting herself. In fact, it may be even more of an objectification as she has absolutely no control in that situation, unlike the control she has (the emphasis of which has already been discussed) when she is with a John.