The Cinematographer took me out of the film

I am a fan of Robert Richardson’s work, he has shot some great looking films; Eight Men Out, JFK, Talk Radio, Casino, etc.

He has worked with some great directors; Scorsese, Sayles, Stone (to a degree great), Morris, etc.

But I have an issue with Richardson; Conrad Hall was all about the film and never wanted to call attention to the technique, to the light, but it seems that Richardson is very much about Richardson.

The films he shoots move past being a Scorsese Picture, a Film by So and So, they become to a degree a Robert Richardson Film.

More than any other cinematographer he leaves his mark on a film, and more often than not it is with his trademark overhead key light.

And there are countless other examples that could be shown.

Again, I like a great deal of Richardson’s work, but because of his style, he can occasionally take me out of a film, it’s too obviously Richardson.

I don’t feel we have seen that with many other cinematographers, especially the great ones, Hall, Wexler, Zsigmond, etc, etc.

I think Deakins we can really tell sometimes, but not on the level of Richardson.

Any opinions? Other examples?

the old ‘heavenly light’ trick eh? But didn’t Richardson get over that years ago? wasn’t that just a 90’s thing?

Did his work bother you on I.Bastards?

Richardson has always done it, just sometimes more subtly than others, the second example is from Basterds

^^i don’t know, when it’s more subtle, it’s not quite as characteristic to me, but i take your point

when it hink his lighting, ithink of Bringing Out The Dead, Casino, Natural Born Killers, JFK, U-Turn etc. 90’s films.

Those are the most egregious ones, especially Bringing Out the Dead

good thread Uli, pity i can’t contribute any examples of my own(as of now)

I know there are many lesser DPs that have done things that totally remove an audience from the scenes, and even very solid DPs like Darius Khondji, his work in My Blueberry Nights was horrendous, but…

Whoever Tony Scott uses.

I’ll have to keep an eye out for this technique, it’s very interesting. A bit bombastic for you? Have you noted any other DP’s that get that special help from above?

It’s not that I mind the technique, as I said I like a great deal of Richardson’s work, but it is just obvious that it is Richardson hitting the switch.

I think Richardson’s work with Scorsese stands apart from the stuff he’s done with other directors. Scorsese seems to know how to reign him in and keep him in-line with his own aesthetic.

While I love the work Michael Chapman as done with Scorsese (Taxi Driver and Raging Bull), I feel that Scorsese has worked best with Michael Ballhaus. I think they share a similar mind and there is a true smoothness to the films that have done together.

I think Scorsese likes to work with the best around and that’s why he enjoys working with Richardson, but I don’t think their styles meld together as well as Scorsese’s does with Chapman and Ballhaus.

There is a boldness to Richardson’s work that is perfect with some directors, like Stone and Tarantino (I just threw up in my mouth a little), but doesn’t have the streamlined feel of a Scorsese picture.

I admit that the Scorsese Look prevailed in The Aviator, but Bringing Out the Dead was too Richardson and even Casino had some very Richardson moments.

Editing and cinematography technique should be almost invisible.

Could it be that since I have chosen to study film that I have learned too much about the technique and paid too much attention and knocked some of the magic away? yes. Ignorance can be bliss.

But mustn’t all work in a film serve the story, and not the director, performer, editor, cinematography?

Or is it all just Chicken and the egg?

“but Bringing Out the Dead was too Richardson and even Casino had some very Richardson moments.”

Really? I find Bringing Out the Dead (and Shutter Island) appropriately hallucinatory. Casino certainly has its glaringly Richardson moments

but, for the most part, it sort of captures the essence of Vegas lighting.

Part of the enjoyment of a film lies in its technique and, as someone else that’s studied film technique at university, I’ve found that knowing the technical side of the craft in more detail opens new doorways to enjoying a film or, on the other edge of the blade, hating a film.

But one needn’t be versed in film technique and visual theory to appreciate this. Any experienced filmgoer can look at CHILDREN OF MEN or BOOGIE NIGHTS or any Brian De Palma or Bela Tarr films you’d care to name and realize that they are looking at long single takes and loving it, whilst remaining absorbed in the story.

Christopher Doyle is one of my favorite DPs, though the films he’s worked on vary wildly in their overall quality. His work with Wong Kar Wai is so distinctly of his own style and sometimes so joyous in its experimentation that while its scrappiness can draw attention to itself, it never gets in the way of the story unfolding onscreen.

Is your concern that Richardson’s technique is somehow too artificial or that his stamp dilutes the authorial ownership of the film?

Not necessarily “the authorial ownership of the film,” for I disagree with the Auteur Theory — the author of the film is the writer to start and a collaboration from there on out.

Film Noir is a specific genre and the lighting was specific to it, we knew we were watching a Film Noir, and the lighting was part of the story and contributed to the story, the lighting brought attention to itself, but that is what the film was, and it did not pull a viewer way from the story (by the way, I think Richardson could shoot a hell of a film noir).

But in the films when Richardson pulls out his trademark, well, “Hey look, Robert Richardson shot this.”

While I am interested in cinematographers and have specifically gone to see films based on who shot them, I am there for the story and the film as a whole, once the overhead key light comes out, it brings attention to itself, and to the DP. Whether others in an audience notice it or not, I don’t know, but I noticed.

So, Uli, are you saying that Richardson insists on impregnating every film he works on with this signature style? Couldn’t it be possible that directors hire him because he has a signature style? And then on top of that, do you feel his style is too consistent? That he just uses the same techniques over and over even when the context of the film doesn’t warrant it?

I mean, Sacha Vierny had a very recognizable style and yet, I find him to be one of the greatest cinematographers in film history. I mean, his work seemed to fit every film he did (that I’ve seen at least) so perfectly. It seems like filmmakers used him because he had the style they wanted not that he took over the film itself and enforced his style upon it.

Well, Deckard, what do you think of Richardson’s style?

This isn’t about me, it’s about technique, please feel free to bring up other cinematographers or editors or whatever.

I chose Richardson cause he is the one that gets to me sometimes.

I don’t feel strongly about him either way. I like his work in general, but he doesn’t offer much variety IMO. He has a signature style but I don’t regard that as a bad thing … or even a distracting thing.

“Film Noir is a specific genre and the lighting was specific to it, we knew we were watching a Film Noir, and the lighting was part of the story and contributed to the story, the lighting brought attention to itself, but that is what the film was,”

Except, technically Uli, although the term was used in France as early as 1946, it was really a grouping that wasn’t really a genre category known in Hollywood and elsewhere in the US until after the classical phase of films noir was over, so certain there were films influencing other films, but there wasn’t a concept that said “If I want to make a film noir I need to have the cinematographer do A, B, and C, but not X, Y, or Z.”

Oy, there was a generally accepted way of making things look that feed with with the type of film one wanted to make that was in line with films similar in theme and that’s how the genre was born, whether it had a name or not, there was a blueprint that was accepted to a degree and followed.

“I find Bringing Out the Dead (and Shutter Island) appropriately hallucinatory”

well the use of ‘heavenly light’ can appear hallucinatory. And Natural Born Killers is probably more hallucinatory than Bringing out The Dead, yet it’s still clearly the work of Richardson.

Interesting topic. Personally I find myself thrown right out of the film with the heavy-handed cut-away, jump cut, all-a-blur, thump-grunt-crash, flash of light action sequences so popular over the last ie ten years. It doesn’t show me what is going on and stops me being able to follow the action, just presenting me with a rapid series of unengaging abstracts that makes wholly aware I’m sitting watching a movie and completely detached from whatever story I thought I was just following.

As a footnote, I think the style can be employed to great effect when used in moderation, i.e. by Ridley Scott in the chase scene through the projects in American Gangster. But generally it seems to be highly misunderstood, over-used and misused, and in these cases it takes me right out of the film.

“Oy, there was a generally accepted way of making things”

Sort of, but you can easily overstate the similiarities between how Arthur Edelson was shooting to how John Alton was shooting to how Ernest Laszlo was shooting, etc. There’s a whole lot of stylistic variation in what we now consider noir.

“And Natural Born Killers is probably more hallucinatory than Bringing out The Dead”

To me, NBK is too self-conscious and too intent of foregrounding its own artificiality to be call “hallucinatory.” It’s more interested in trying to show us our own media-mediated point-of-view, whereas Bringing Out the Dead and Shutter Island are legitimately aligned with the consciousness of their protags.

^^^Well, i know people that feel the same way about Bringing Out The Dead too. they complain it’s too polished, and feels like an extended video clip than a serious psychological character based study.

I think the budget works for and against Bringing Out The Dead. not sure if it needed to be that elaborately produced.

I’m not hugely enthusiastic about Richardson’s style generally, but there had to be some sort of overt stylization involved to make it play. I think it’s a film that’s often viewed through the wrong lens—it’s less Taxi Driver and Mean Streets than it is King of Comedy and After Hours.

“—it’s less Taxi Driver and Mean Streets than it is King of Comedy and After Hours.”

for me it lands somewhere in the middle of those two camps

It has elements of both (and more than a little Last Temptation, too), but I feel like most people who really don’t like it approach it as an unsuccessful version of Taxi Driver (a comparison that probably was inevitable given the collaboration with Schrader and the “driving around” POV).

Bringing Out the Dead is similar in local to Taxi Driver and After Hours, the dirty streets, but the style of the both films are smoother than BOTD. Obviously Chapman shoot TD and AH was the first time Scorsese worked with Ballhaus.

Each are very much A Scorsese Picture, but the Richardson stamp is on BOTD, whereas the other two are, well, more pure.

It could be that Richardson was already firmly established at this point, and neither Chapman and Ballhaus were. Hell, a year before Taxi Driver, Chapman was a cameraman on Jaws.

Scorsese using camera tricks all the time, and I am never pulled out of the film, but with Richardson lighting, it did it.

Look at the film speed changes in Age of Innocence (Ballhaus shot, and I think AOI is the perfect example of the look and style of A Scorsese Picture), and the Steadicam shots in Last Temptation (also Ballhaus). So stylization works, but there is something about Richardson that tweaks slightly the film experience.

…

I can’t argue with the claims that Richardson’s work is usually easily recognizable. But because I am so accustomed to detecting and/or wallowing in numerous technical aspects of pictures, everything is to some degree distracting…and nothing is distracting. It’s just how I watch these days.
In other words, I get taken out of the film quite often. Oddly, during repeated viewings, that happens less often.
Just the other day I was completely absorbed by The Limey.
But in any case, I can certainly spot a Tak Fujimoto shot at sixty paces. Especially a fall or winter scene.
Sometimes those autumnal, leafy suburbs seem more lovingly shot than the story requires.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
And I guess most of us here can identify a John Alton shot, Matt. I just wish there were more of them.