Cinematography is often misrepresented as Photography, and is often believed as being 'the art of getting a nice picture', when it is infinitively so much more.
Cinematography is much more dynamic, it's purpose (as well as to present an nice image) is also to construct a narrative or tell a story through visual images, which is compiled through a selection of features such as framing, lighting, angles, depth of field, composition and even the length of the shot (e.g. long cutaways).
To me, cinematography is a way of representing so much more. It's powerful, and therefore can be used to show a range of different things you, as the film crew, want it to. For one it can be used for emotion or to create (a mood) an atmosphere within a narrative you're trying to get across to your audience, it is important to have a nicely constructed image that's appealing to the viewer's eye, but the story and the emotions it brings with it is the most important feature with our cinematography.
There are many rules or framing, which I will research throughout my workbook to improve what I know about setting up the perfect shoots which capture the story in the best possible way, and I therefore aim to research into each of these points to improve my contribution to our projects.
Sean Bobbitt, a cinematographer known for 'Hunger' (which I've seen in previous years of studying film & media), states how for aspiring cinematographers, you should 'just shoot, shoot everything and anything, and look at what you shoot, and be very critical. Also, try and use a skill base... you know these days it's very simple with auto-focus and auto-exposure and auto everything... if you let the camera make those decisions, you're failing, those decisions are the basis of Cinematography... if you're not in absolute control of all that, you're not a Cinematographer' - which I agree with completely. Without full control, it seems wrong to call whatever you are capturing you're own shot, as you're allowing the camera to do the work for you. I definitely think it's important to have full control on all the set ups, the focus, the exposure, as of course, auto hardly ever (in opinion) gets this right. This maybe just my personal opinion, but tweaking these to perfection is part of being cinematographer, and creating a shot through this work means much more, and looks much better than being 'lazy' and automating everything. It's not cinematography, it's mere amateur filming this way.
Above is the video I found of Sean Bobbitt, who states about his work as a documentary film-maker, as well as being involved in Drama works. I found this specifically interesting, as he spoke of how working on documentary works requires an open mind, and that, by working on such works creates a frame of mind in the way you work and capture the images, I feel that I act heavily on my instincts, due to documentary experience in the past, and I feel that filming anything and everything is the best approach in this sense. This is because in documentary, even though you can plan a story arc and focus point, you never know what may happen. In regard to our film, you never know if maybe an animal would break loose, something doesn't go to plan, and you want to capture everything about the experience, because you might get an unexpected feature.
Another documentary cinematographer I found was Albert Maysles, who created works such as Grey Gardens (1975) and talks about how they unexpectedly captured a relationship between a mother and daughter, and it was one of the strengths of the movies. Their aims was to capture their lives in this place, but instead got something much stronger and emotional to accompany the story. I now acknowledge the importance of Bobbitt's words of just 'shooting everything'.
Another specific point I liked that Sean Bobbitt mentions is the scene in Hunger, where the characters talk for almost 16 minutes, and yet the shot doesn't change. He says the director stated that 'when you're listening to a conversation, you don't move around, you merely listen.' But cinema has changed it as we are so used to having cuts within films. 'Cuts offer us an escape, we realise yes this is film because it cuts from one person to another, whereas when there is no cut, there isn't this escape.' Even though it isn't heavily linked to my research, I find it an interesting point, it's seems to add realism to the audience, which I enjoy and would like to interpret. Since we're creating a documentary, I don't want it to feel like a film in regard to editing lots of cuts, but rather shots of the subject in a realism sense, which maybe an interesting approach to the project.
No comments:
Post a Comment