Do current films inspire your photography?

[aplumpton]

<p>Reading Sunday morning the results of the prestigious Cannes film festival I am wondering which of the film winners may hold some footage that will inspire my own photography? Will it be 'Winter Sleep' of Bilge Ceylan, 'Mr. Turner' of Leigh, 'Mommy' of Dolan, 'Foxcatcher' of Miller, or one of the other selected films? I was thinking that the eyes of the director and cameraman were in fact experiencing something akin to that of the still photographer, faced with an ever changing continuity of images as he (or she) appraises scenes or events before him. Within that visual continuum are many single images that can be separated out and which speak for themselves and to us as very good 'still' photography and art. </p>

<p>I have yet to see these above-mentioned praised films and have only recently seen another, 'The Book Thief', from which a few scenes were I think very good when perceived as single instantaneous images, but which overall, and despite the other significant qualities of the film, didn't provide an enormous number of such instantaneous beautiful images (I use beauty here as a more widely defined term, as aesthetic, than the usually accepted notion). </p>

<p>Do you expect to be inspired by any of these new films, or have you seen another very recent film some scenes of which have inspired your photography? I refer the question to recent films as some of the old classics or pot boilers are not so easily accessible to those who may wish to visit their local cinema to see what you are describing. Which scenes or other instantaneous images of the film influenced your thoughts on photography, or perhaps your approach? As a black and white photographer, I was influenced by some of the scenes in the Oscar winner 'The artist' a few years ago, but also the psychological aridness of some color desert scenes from 'Incendies', in the foreign film category a few years later". Less specifically, which films may have provided you a rich experience for your photographic imagination, what and why? </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Arthur, I don't know about "recent" films. I don't see many "recent" films, as I'm cheap, and I wait for them to become inexpensive (e.g. on Netflix) before viewing them.</p>

<p>With that said, I love movies, and I love photography. And when watching movies, I often enjoy studying the photography. I've discussed some of these films here on Photonet. I particularly enjoyed the lift-off sequence in Ron Howard's Apollo 13, as well as the dream sequence in Flicka. Both of these have inspired experimentation on my part with incorporation of motion blurs in my own work. I was also mesmerized by the lighting in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. I did not realize the extent to which digital postprocessing was used, and in my attempt to re-invent their green-screen wheel, I invented a lighting rig that I have yet to build and try out. Finally, being a certifiable bokeholic, I'm always studying bokeh and lens choices. You can learn a lot about cinematographers by reading their out-of focus specular highlights!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Two recent films that inspired me were <em>Mud</em> (directed by Jeff Nichols, starring Matthew McConaughey) and <em>Nebraska</em> (directed by Alexander Payne, starring Bruce Dern). <em>Nebraska</em> is filmed in very expressive and appropriate black and white. The b/w is less graphic and glossy than <em>The Artist</em> (which I also liked a lot) and very differently used to go so well with the story and mood of the film.</p>

<p>Older movies tend to inspire me more photographically, particularly Westerns. It's as much for the unfolding of narrative and story-telling as for the visuals.</p>

<p>John Ford's sense of people in their environments and the connection between his people and land and place is, IMO, unrivaled. So many of his shots are glorious environmental portraits. And the incredible relationships he establishes among his people and the spirituality he gives their choices and dilemmas are so rich. Two of his that I saw recently are <em>Rio Grande</em> (John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara, an amazing duo) and an early non-Western, heavily German Expressionist influenced film, <em>The Fugitive</em> (with Henry Fonda and based on a novel by Graham Greene).</p>

<p>The Westerns of Raoul Walsh tend to be a bit more violent and frenetic but are also soulful in their own way and stunning visually. <em>The Tall Men</em> (Clark Gable, Jane Russell) is great.</p>

<p>And perhaps lesser known but fascinating are the Westerns of Budd Boetticher. They are more staged, there is more artifice, and his ability to use that to his advantage and still create such real characters and situations, all the while with control over the visuals, lighting, etc. is quite something. <em>Seven Men From Now</em> (Randolph Scott, Lee Marvin) is a good one.</p>

<p>Films inspire me photographically in terms of movement (which can be a significant part of even a still photo), narrative, and in going beyond simply the moment, which I think a good photo can do. Films are orchestrated (story, photography, music, acting) and a good photo can be as well.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Recently, "The Immigrant." Desert island/watched often: anything by Wong Kar-wai that Chris Doyle shot, esp. "In the Mood for Love" and "2046."</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The only reasonably recent films that made me think about my photography are those of <a href="http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/director.php?director_id=43">Guy Maddin.</a> You can see one of his shorts <a href="

although I would recommend <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saddest_music_in_the_world/">The Saddest Music in the World </a>for great feature length cinematography. Less recently, the films of <a href="http://www.warholstars.org/filmch/filmchro.html">Andy Warhol</a> and <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/richard-kerns-films-are-still-shocking-as-hell">Richard Kern,</a> who became a still photographer for many years after starting with movies. (All of Kern's work probably fits the NSFW category.)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sometimes Ektar 100 and Ilford XP-2 sort of inspire me. :|</p>

<p>Otherwise I love crappy old films (like GAF 500 and the ones on Netflix), so I have only been to a movie theater for a movie (as opposed the Met Opera) once in the last six years, anyhow- maybe longer. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>C mentions "<em>In the mood for Love</em>", which is also have as one of my favorite films by Wong Kar-wai (they are all masterly made), which inspires me continuously because of the use of light and multiple scenes half covered by walls and full dark. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23oBMOvt85o">recurring musical theme and the slow moving scenes</a> are maybe the most remarkable elements of the film, which would also be the most difficult dimension to translate into photography beyond influences from the "mood" they provoke. </p>

[sallymack]

It's not new but I just re-watched John Huston's glorious b&w "The Night of the Iguana." It shows how well b&w can be used, every scene beautifully filmed.

 

Am I the only person who checks out CDs and DVDs from the library? If the local library doesn't have what I want, there's always inter-library loan. Although I may have to wait, the price is right (eh, Sarah?) and I'm pleased when the movie comes in.

 

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll be checking them out. --Sally

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Very good thread topic, Arthur.</p>

<p>I'm a big movie cinematography fan, but, if you could indulge me, I'ld like to suggest to anyone interested to conduct an experiment involving capturing a still image of your TV of any movie or show that's playing and take note on how the still's impact is enhanced and/or impression altered compared to how it was viewed within the context of the movie or show. It's a very strange and mysterious effect on perception from an emotional POV I started noticing when capturing images this way. Just wish I could figure out how to get the same effect shooting regular real scenes. </p>

<p>To give you an idea some captures of movies and shows offer an other worldly, surreal feel while others just look like I took a picture of my TV. It kind of helped explain for me the effect Eggleston achieved with his P&S technique of impulsively snapping one shot of whatever crossed his line of sight and moving on. You'ld be surprised how hard it is to get a keeper that's compelling enough to hold your attention shooting this way. </p>

<p>For example the shot of my old Toshiba tube TV below was a random snap to test exposure that happen to catch a quick cut away shot, an unimportant looking blip not only on the TV but within the plot of that particular western which I can no longer recall. When I checked my DSLR's LCD preview I was taken aback emotionally by how it looked from a compositional aspect more than I would expect from shooting this way. Looking through the viewfinder of my camera watching the movie it came across as a nothing scene. </p>

<p>Have any of you noticed this effect shooting regular scenes with more purposeful intent? This effect also explains for me why actors choose to be still and slow their facial movements and tone down their expressions in order to provide more impact to the scene and dialog. </p><div></div>

[randrew1]

<p>The last motion picture that inspired my still photography was a travelog called "Jeep Trails in Utah" by Stan Midgley. It was shot (as most travelogs were) on 16mm Kodachrome. I must have seen it a few years after its 1957 premier. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1978&dat=19571030&id=11slAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a6wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5274,2697485</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Don't mind admitting that I'm an odd duck to watching films. Hmmm, it may have to do with my cinema education. Travelogues are cool and the one I saw in HS...ultimately it led me to visit and experience (36yrs later) Grand Canyon from the Colorado River pov.</p>

<p>Overall I shy away from Holly-made shlock, and tend to enjoy the indie-alternative films more. I have many favorites, but here are some:<br>

* Secaucus Seven<br>

* Black Robe<br>

* Kolja<br>

* Basilius Quartet<br>

* Sunday in the country</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>PS Some of the cinematographers had influence how I see things.</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>These perceptions of films and still photography are very informative and much appreciated and I am glad that I am not alone in benefitting from your comments, which I resume to date (very roughly) as follows.</p>

<p>The impact of cinematographic lighting and also motion blur and bokeh are found in the examples of Sarah, Sally, Fred and Anders. C Watson and Anders make me want to check out some films by Wong Kar-Wai.</p>

<p>The sense of people in their own milieu and the connection between people and land and place is well handled by John Ford and Fred also suggests other filmmakers who merit reviewing in that sense, including one I had not heard of, Budd Boetticher. I have always been impressed at how Mike Leigh can portray characters and their environment, but cannot remember the film names. His film on the artist J.W.Turner will be worth seeing for its visual effects, and the young directorial prodigy and Cannes prize-winner Xavier Dolan (age 25, and high school drop-out) apparently depicts the lives of his subjects ("Tom at the Farm", "Mommy") with a natural and profound sensitivity, again some films I have not seen but "Tom on the Farm" is still doing the round of a repertory film theatre here and may be worthwhile for the visual experiences.</p>

<p>Black and white films are also well worth viewing for their evocation of mood, mystery and tension and Fred's suggestion of "Nebraska" will be on my want to see DVD list. Another good B&W film that also portrayed the right mood was "Polytechnique", the film by Villeneuve of the Montreal massacre in 1989 that cost the life of 14 women students at the Université de Montréal. The violence is not shown as much as the drama of the occasion and the inability of others, particularly the staff and the male students, to intervene (months later, one of the male students who tried and failed to change what was happening is seen as he drives by a frozen large river in winter - the distance obscured by the atmosphere - parks and sits in his car as he directs the exhaust into the interior).</p>

<p>"The Immigrant" is now on our local screens and I will take note of C Watson's recommendation to see it.</p>

<p>Jeff mentioned Guy Maddin and Richard Kern, amongst others. Maddin's fast paced b&w images in his short films are much like the visual bites we see on TV these days, but assembled in a more definitive pattern. While some of the images are fascinating examples for still photography, my first impression is that they are secondary to the overall cinematographic purpose, like a piece of music we feel strongly as it finishes but which we may not have analyzed or enjoyed or understood fully during the playing. Kern's "Looking for Marples" is at the other end, visually absorbing but much more slow moving, using the expressions of the actors, slowly portrayed, to carry its meaning (or at least I think so on only one viewing).</p>

<p>JDM, I think that some Met Operas are particularly fascinating for their visual content, although that has much to do with the staging and the artists involved in that. The multiple cinema like scenes on the stage of "Faust" a few years ago provided some still photographic similitudes.</p>

<p>Lezek's suggestions of several off-Hollywood films is interesting as many offer good photographic examples although I would argue that film subject/theme tastes aside, Hollywood has provided some ground-breaking films of visual/emotive content. Hollywood is not really homogenous in its output. I recognized only one of the titles, "Black Robe", which I missed, but will have a look at the others.</p>

<p>There are many films of different directors and countries that are not cited, but that list is very great and perhaps others will signal some aspect of importance to photographic approach that has yet to be mentioned. "Europa" of Von Trier or "Run Lola Run", a German film, each have their examples of strong photographic elements, "Europa" for its mood of 1945-46 Germany (I think its title was different in North America).</p>

<p>Thanks to Tim for a very interesting research idea for photographers. I must admit that when I photographed known interviewed persons on PBS my instantaneous shots were generally strange looking, not very representative of the persons. Scenes are different than fast changing facial expressions as they last a bit longer without change, allowing us to capture them as we really saw them.</p>

<p>I may well be wrong, but I think that cinematographers may think more like still photographers than we may acknowledge, putting together a series of still images as much as a continuous stream. Perhaps a bit of both?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"I may well be wrong, but I think that cinematographers may think more like still photographers than we may acknowledge, putting together a series of still images as much as a continuous stream."<br /><br />I'm not sure if I've been inspired in my still photography by what I see in movies as such. But one thing I admire about movies is along the lines of what Arthur said. In a well done movie, pretty much every shot is a well done photo unto itself. I notice this especially in older B&W movies from the 30s and 40s where they followed the classic lighting rules and every single actor was accented by a hair light in every single shot (or almost). Almost any one of the shots is one a still photographer would be proud of, yet there are hundreds sometimes thousands of them in a row. Granted there's a whole crew of people to pull it off in the movies compared with still photographers who more often work alone. But it's still an amazing thing to pull off.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While I agree to an extent with Arthur and Craig, I think the difference from a still to a movie is so significant and the continuity of movies is pretty much a different ball game. All the narrative elements of foreshadowing, anticipation, resolution are dealt with in a movie by both director and cinematographer. Sequencing is an important element. If a movie was, indeed, shot as a series of stills, my guess is that it would be rather boring, even though I love still photography. It's in the transitions, the movement, the flow that a movie stands apart from a single still photo. It's in the way the cinematographer and director interpret the script and make the imagery cohere with and play off the script. Though some photos could be considered to have a script, most don't. </p>

<p>Take <a href="

famous scene from <em>The Graduate</em>. We've all seen the still of Dustin Hoffman's head through Anne Bancroft's legs. But the full wonderfulness of the scene is in her ease played against Hoffman's discomfort, the foreshadowing role of the longer shot of her crossed legs before we see the famous close-up, and finally Dustin Hoffman's innocent but obviously sexually aroused question at the end of the scene, "Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me, AREN'T YOU?" The buildup to and retreat from the memorable highpoint "still" moment of his head through her legs is what a good cinematographer can accomplish and play with. </p>

<p>When I'm looking at movies as inspiration, it is how to get my photos to have this kind of life, movement, and emotional impact, more loosely translated. My photographic experience of movies is a great deal more than noticing individual still moments extrapolated from the whole.</p>

<p><a href="

the trailer from FW Murnau's 1922 version of <em>Nosferatu</em>. It's amazing how every scene shown is so dependent on movement and utilizes it so incredibly effectively, more so than any one still frame taken from the movie would convey. From the moving ship, to the movement of the water, to the encroaching shadow, to the slowly closing door! That's not to say the stills taken from a given scene won't have a high impact and significance in their own right. It's just to notice what the vast difference is between cinematography and still photography and it's a big part of the reason I find cinematography so inspiring. Even if things are accomplished so differently from one medium to the next, there are universal qualities and aesthetic elements all arts share, though they may come through so differently in each form.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Not a current film by any stretch of the imagination but I love Robert Krasker's cinematography in 'The Third Man'. I also love the lighting in Jack Cardiff's films.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I don't find current films inspire my photography much and I am having to think hard about films of the past. Here is a selection which come to mind :<br /> <em>Barry Lyndon</em> (1975) by Stanley Kubrick for an evocation of the past using composition and colour.<br /> <em>Ju Dou</em> (1990) by Zhang Yimou for the sheer energy and vibrance of its colour.<br /> <em>Blade Runner</em> (1982) by Ridley Scott for atmosphere and scale.<br /> <em>Ice Cold in Alex</em> (1958) By J. Lee Thompson inspires me to drink cold lager.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

I haven't seen many movies lately but when watching TV shows I often notice how poor the lighting is on

many American made ones with lighting (shadows) coming from several different directions that can't be

accounted for in the establishing overall scene. The British shows seem to be much more careful in this

respect.

[JDMvW]

<p>Ah, Kubrick's work does inspire me. He is my "beau ideal" of film makers. Recently bought a copy of <em>Killer's Kiss</em> from 1955.</p>

<p>I have all of his feature-length films except for <em>The Killing</em> (1956) and <em>Fear and Desire</em> (1953). <br /> I've also tracked down a lot of his still photography for <em>Look </em>(a sort of <em>Life</em> lite) and elsewhere.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Some cityscape styles I've explored have been very influenced by certain movies, and often by specific scenes in movies.</p>

<ul>

<li><em>The French Connection</em>, which came out right around the time I was a kid getting into taking candid photos in and around NYC. Besides the climactic ending scene, for some reason the mundane scenes of Hackman's character on stakeout in the chilly weather, stamping his feet to stay warm, really stayed with me. Seems like a little thing but those scenes really conveyed the feel of being in NYC at that particular time, walking around in winter.</li>

<li><em>Paris, Texas</em>. The entire thing. My <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1067017">photos taken through bus windows</a> and other <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1049697">mundane or banal scenes</a> are a deliberate homage to Wenders' vision of Texas and run down cities in general.</li>

</ul>

<p>There are several other movies I love visually, but haven't tried to emulate or incorporate into my own still photography: <i>Let the Right One In</i>, Coppola's version of <i>Dracula</i>, the original version of Howard Hawks' <i>The Thing From Another World</i>, and almost any 1960s World War II movie with those sweeping vistas. Oh, yeah, and the adult graphic novel style of movies like <i>Delicatessen</i> and <i>Alien: Resurrection</i>.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>In the Russian film, "The Return," one of the characters (a young boy) shoots photos throughout the story. At the end of the film they show a slideshow of the images that the character supposedly photographed at those points in time. It's very powerful and well done.</p>

<p>Other than that, I can't think of a film that inspired my to pick up a camera. Movies and still photography seem like two different worlds in my mind.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Films that I know inspired me to take pictures goes way back: 8 1/2 by Fellini (1963) had awesome black and white cinematography, and the movie that really got me inspired to become "a photographer" was Antonioni's Blow-up (1966), which was about a trendy London fashion photographer involved in a murder mystery. After I got started I don't think any particular film had as great an impact as those two.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Recent films have nearly zero influence. I rarely go to the theatre as most of the new movies don't interest me. Cinematographers have access to lighting gear that makes even the best equipped still photo studio appear puny. Huge modifiers, huge watt seconds, grip gear that is astounding. But the lighting results can be stunning, beautiful and usually appropriate for the mood. I often view some movies with the sound off and pause for closer examination. Girl with a Pearl Earring, Citizen Kane not only for lighting but use of depth are a couple of my favs. Take a look at Bruce Blocks The Visual Story for some great examples. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Interesting how "Blow-Up" and "8 1/2" inspired Steve, as the masterful Antonioni film also got me interested in photography and the question of reality and the limits of photography and indeed of any other means of perception in our lives. Thanks to all for your film references. Even if they do not relate specifically to a still image and what the film showed us in that regard, the imagination of the directors and their crew provide good lessons and questions for our photography. I look forward to renting a few of the films mentioned.</p>

<p>The older films are sometimes hard to better and my original mention of a recent film was mainly to allow easy cinema viewing of a film mentioned by another. It is also hard to beat the pleasure of going to a cinema, if you can withstand the preliminary advertising crap that precedes the film. Somehow, going to a cinema or "movie theatre" is an absorbing experience that allows you to separate yourself from other distractions and events and be as captivated as you can be in reading a good book. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Maybe if we could shoot in 3-D, new films would be more inspiring.</p>