I have always wondered that, myself, because I like to give credit where credit is due. It really just depends. Like, I know that Wes Anderson has a very big impact on the look of his films, but some others don’t.
In answer to your second question, it also depends, but, really, most things (other than blocking the actors, etc.) is a combination of the two working together.
Savvy
I want answers
This is one of those things that unless it is directly addressed, you can never know for certain. So, read all you can. Read everything.
Masters of Light: Conversations with Contemporary Cinematographers
~ Dennis Schaefer & Larry Salvato
New Cinematographers ~ Alex Ballinger
Man With A Camera ~ Nestor Almendros
Painting With Light ~ John Alton
You need to own these.
American Cinematographer. Published monthly. Excellent for answering your questions about choosing lenses, deciding on a lighting scheme, etc. Some relationships between director and DP can be very loose. Lots of give and take. It simply depends. On personalities. History. Project. Ultimately, the director is The Decider (sorry, George).
For example, people would say that “Andrei Tarkovsky (a director) is noted for using long takes”
That’s a decision of Tarkovsky’s and I would guess he thought, “A long take here would be nice” before discussing it with his cinematographer. In fact, the length of the take is probably never the choice of the cinematographer.
but other times they would say “in the film “Fight Club”, cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth makes good use of a long shot, dim-lit, close-up filming style”.
I would imagine David Fincher said “I want a long shot here, dim light, and a close-up here”, and maybe discuss the mood of the scene. Cronenweth’s ability to bring this mood out is what makes him a good or bad cinematographer.
Basically, the director has either an exact or vague idea of the kind of shot that he wants, and the job of the cinematographer is to find out how to express that idea out in the shot. Shot length, general camera placement and mood are all up to the director. Lighting, color, the actual texture of the shot is up to the cinematographer but can be vetoed by the director whenever they don’t like the shot.
I would suggest it’s a mixture. Take the films Robert Burks did with Hitchcock – a distinctive look, yes? Now, have a look at a few films Burks worked on for other directors: The Spirit of St Louis, The Music Man, Hondo, etc. See my point? Try this exercise with other combinations – Mann/Spinotti, Bergman/Nykvist, and any others you like the look of.
ExirKamalabadi
I’ve always wondered how much the look and feel of a film is due to a director and how much is due to a cinematographer. Sometimes I have read a film’s imagery being credited to the director’s “vision” and “style”, but other times I’d read it being attributed to the cinematographer! For example, people would say that “Andrei Tarkovsky (a director) is noted for using long takes”, but other times they would say "in the film “Fight Club”, cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth makes good use of a long shot, dim-lit, close-up filming style". It always confuses me — why in one case the director is credited with the style and in another the cinematographer? It’s not like the reviewer visited the stage and actually saw them at work discussing shots!
In any case, what is the usual creative relationship between the two? Is the director the ultimate originator of the vision, the framing, the blocking, etc., and the cinematographer is simply a skilled technician who translates his vision by choosing the right equipment, lens, and other technical details? Or do cinematographers sometimes call the shots themselves and compose the scene?