Anti-Rembrandt

This article is twofold, one is that it is a Sunday monring and I havent posted a second time this week but wanted to tackle something fun and light and secondly, I am a week into storyboarding a feature film - we have half way through and we never intended to storyboard the whole film but due to shooting starting in 6 months, the diretcor and I thought….why not.

I am enjoying the process more than i thought i would, i always assumed it was a very uncreative thing to do but in a lot of ways I am inenjoying the fact that we are making blocking, framing and storytelling choices so early in the process. Effectively we have enhanced the communication to a degree which i have never tackled anywhere outside the commercial world.

The other bonus to this is I can begin to orientate the lighting within the space, I can effectively commuinicate where the sun needs to be to the 1st AD and start to talk shot to shot with my gaffer…so I have been going down a hole of researching lighting and spacial lighting and all that fun stuff. As i have spoken about in other posts, the battle for SPACE VS FACE lighting is a battle that rages on and will for the history of cinematography…don’t you love the unnecessary drama? Me too.

Anyway, I have a deep love and admiration of Rob Hardy for his philosophy but also just because of his career and the path he has paved. Also again a huge admiration for the balance he has found with being a successful working cinematographer as well making time in his life and not over-working, to make sure he prioritising huis family - just think it is very cool.

Let’s get to it. Now, here is the interesting thing. You have a nice easy interior day couch scene, and what do you do. Whack a frame up and push a soft light through it. You can shape that up and get a nice rembrandt on the face.

REMBRANDT LIGHTING:

Rembrandt lighting referes to a (now) heavily used technique created by the painter Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, usually simply known as Rembrandt. He was a Dutch Golden Age painter, known for emotive and harrowing portraits.

“Pioneering movie director Cecil B. DeMille is credited with the first use of the term. While shooting the 1915 film, The Warrens of Virginia, DeMille borrowed some portable spotlights from the Mason Opera House in downtown Los Angeles and "began to make shadows where shadows would appear in nature." When business partner Sam Goldwyn saw the film with only half an actor's face illuminated, he feared the exhibitors would pay only half the price for the picture. After DeMille told him it was Rembrandt lighting, "Sam’s reply was jubilant with relief: for Rembrandt lighting the exhibitors would pay double!"

This techniques is huge within the filmmamking vernacular now and a real “to-strive-for” look with film students and up and coming cinematographers. What i have found though is that by focusing on achieving this look you end up focusing on your close ups and lighting the face and forget there is a broader space around you. In my process whilst I am shooting, If it naturally happens then wonderful, what a pleasing image but most of the time i find myself not bothering. However, I do see an implication for it in dramatic scenes, It is a beautiful way to make a space dark and isolating yet allow light into both eyes - gives you a very shakespearian feeling, like a sililoquey will ensue.

But this is always my trouble, I have to have motivation for my light sources or I really struggle with the logic and physics of the lighting. So how can every space in the room be equipped for Rembrandt lighting, it just cant - you need a Lamp or a high window with direct light. It just seems very unnatural to have it all the time even if it does look good.

This is why I love Mr Rob Hardy, he lights spaces and allows the actors freedom Have a look at these two images, they are from two different projects but have the same thing in common.

It…is sort of an anti-rembrandt right? And the fill light is really the key, but than then makes no sense. So the soft ambient tone is the key, the window light is then an edge light or a back light. It is just really interesting - but ultimately then stem from the same concept.

You have a window in shot to add depth and that then becomes the motication for your lighting, you have a textured window light entering your space. On the left you have a harder light coming through anf then on the right you habe a soft, through-sheers source. These window sources interact with your actor, wether it be hard light on the shoulders or soft light edge lighting and then the ambience in the room and the return bounce from the floor or wall opposite is what lights the face. It is very natural and not over lit, you don’t have the “over-lit” feeling because…well…you are slightly under lit but that is what makes it real, it isn’t quite perfect but somehow makes sense in the world.

Looking at this one more closely you can see that there is actually a source emulating the bounce back, just by the hand and the phone and really the light in the eye as well, just wouldn’t be as strong with a natural bounce back. Maybe it also has something to do with the window light, you want to see more detail outside so you underexpose that window and then put a big light through the window and use a fill source in front (that is really the key). You have a lovely checkerboard with that lamp in the BG and then the other window on the edge of frame. Lots of depth and beautiful naturalistic lighting.

HAZE - THE KING OF ROOM TONE

In both images there does apppear to be the use of haze. Haze is a wonderful thing but a pian in the ass to work with at times as it disapates over time, you need to be isolated (had a few issues there) and waiting for a hazer to warm up is just as annoying as waiting for a plane but this time…you know somehow everyone is looking at you because you are the one saying, “NOOOOOOO, it’s not thick enough yet!!! it won’t match!!!!!”

Haze is a brilliant tool for helping lift your blacks, soften your contrast and give you a nice filled in scenario like in the next image.

Checkboarding is strogn here, lots of depth - you have your offscreen window acting as the motivation of the light as there is a hard light coming in as you can see from the hands and the face. Then really the face is just filled in from bounce, you can tell because the eye doesn’t have a prominent “ping” or eyelight which is usually the reflection of a source. You can see how vital haze is to this scene, really helping to lift all those blacks up. I mean the anamorphic lens is good at being low contrast anyway, but that clarity into the shadows is haze and bounce board i reckon.

I really love this style of lighting.

Anyway, just a short one today but next week will be back to full scene breakdowns! Much lobve and have agreat weekend everyone.