The beginning of this week I was quite sick and out of it still, but I have, in my opinion, some good takeaways. I was interested in looking at the various gels and diffusions, and in how the different companies have influenced each other, particularly with Arri utilising the nomenclature that Lee developed. It also is good to know about certain diffusions and which are appropriate to use, and the same with ND gels. As a group, we managed to use some of this knowledge when working on Assignment #3, too.
After this week I have been left inspired to explore Henri Decaë’s work, including Lift to the Scaffold (1958), Plein Soleil (1960), and Le Samouraï (1967) – all shown in class. This is both to look at his achievements as a cinematographer, but also look into (and this is something I have previously discussed) how his style may translate over different films with the three different directors – Louis Malle, René Clément, and Jean-Pierre Melville. By doing this I can also take notice of the cinematography with consideration to the time, and the equipment used and any limitations it may have had.
Performing Exercise 9, I found it was good today for everyone to have a role, it meant that at least some of the class were really in tune with what they are doing. I think it sped up the process a little bit compared to other weeks, we did end up getting four takes. Unfortunately I have no idea how they turned out! I think as well it is sometimes hard to watch the class at moments like this, when I have no creative input. That being said, I am still feeling effects of my sickness so I was okay in sitting out in that regard.
Reflecting on some of those creative choices made today, especially the red gel on the light. with time, maybe we could have tried a shot first without the gel, with the intention of editing in the red in post-production. We could have then shot with the red gel to have a comparison. I think it is interesting in a situation like this to compare a certain variable and try to achieve the best outcome. It makes me think of a film set – there is planning for different scenes and shots, but to what extent is there a moment of just deciding something is going to be a certain way, because it is? Of course, there is a vision for the shot, and this is why certain lighting set-ups are utilised. But why is one set-up used over something else, that may achieve different or even better results?* I think what to take out of this thought is that in class exercises there should be a considerable planning stage where these sorts of things are understood. If we know what the script requires, why do we want to plan it this way? Is it just because that is what looks good? Why does Emmaline’s have a red spotlight on her in her dream?
This creative process is something I like exploring both when I am watching something, and when I am filming. Things may just be practical, too, and not offer a meaningful explanation of why something looks a certain way. This goes back to the first lesson we had, where we discussed why we light. To create a certain atmosphere, to draw our eyes to something, to use just what we have because that is all that is there – all these reasons need to be more explicit to all involved, too, when the exercises are performed.