Slide 1

Light is so crucial to cinematography that, in fact, cinematography is unthinkable

without it.

My Take on my 2 big influential readings.

Not the only thing I took from it but the big things relating to my topic

***Press Next
 Slide 2
Readings im dealing with for this presentation is
The Aesthetics of Shadow by Miyao
And
Hollywood lighting from the silent era to film noir by Keating

Keating provided a good base for me in terms of showing somewhat of

an advancement in modern lighting theory but also a justification for its
need to be evolved. He already touches on it in his explanation of 3 point
as as a result of technical advancements.
 Slide 2

The aesthetic of shadow however forms a more comprehensive telling

of film as an ongoing evolution.
Most of the book, which is structured very much as a threatise,
documents the early evolution of Japanese cinema as Hollywood
influences merged their way in but especially the push back. This
becomes a solid case study that has potential to be drawn to SA’s own
identity crisis in film aesthetic.
 Slide 3

My main take aways from this book was the Japanese obsession with clarity and
the industry’s pushback against Hollywood’s borderline noir embracement of
shadows.
The quotes are from Cinematographers in the text who at the time was getting
frustrated as their creative expression was being policed.
I know there’s a lot more happening in the reading but to me the pushback
against noir and towards clarity makes me feel uncomfortably at home.
 Slide 3
At AFDA, when watching SA films and now working in the industry I see the same ideals and
its almost subconscious. SA cinematographers are scared of shadows. And I don’t know if it’s a
the same fear Kotani and the studios feared back then that our audience of quality of film
isn’t at a calibre high enough to dare such concealment of elements of the frame or even
worse…sacrifice the visibility of the actor. Or if weve just come to accept this as our aesthetic.
And I obviously am not throwing a cover over all of SA cinema… there are the films who dare,
these however are either fully or atleast co-international origins. And that brings a bigger
question of is it maybe not the SA Cine (because ive seen internationals with local cines
succumb to the noir) so is it the SA studios that are pushing this aesthetic
but if I have to watch one more home grown production butcher a night scene I may just
snap.
 Slide 4
Moving onto Keating.

He gave me a lot of insights in terms of where lighting theory is more or less in its
delevopment.
Like Bordwell points out the invention of the klieg light in the 1915’s accounts for the move
away from flush studio lighting towards the now 3-point lighting and more embracement of
shadows.
But Keating just as quickly turns to Jacobs’ analysis that 3 point renders a neutral effect on the
mise en scene.
What I got from Keating is that he believes 3 point is a best of both worlds situation but he
does set up kind of advanced tiers of 3 point.
 Slide 4
In this book he brings up advanced theoretics like altering the 3 point lighting.
And laying out functions of lighting and convensions of lighting.
Functions covering Storytelling ,glamour, realism ec functions whereas
conventions are more towards the genre, effects ec.
He point out how institutes like ASC are instrumental to these conventions and
functions’ conceotion and adoption but to me he missed an opportunity to
explore how the 2 groups function or contradict eachother. But this is again
something I’d like to pick up in my work and then hold it to another group ie
semiotics and see how we create a visual language on screen.
 Slide 5
This would be where my most anticipated reading comes in.

The aesthetics of shadow is a documentary on the fight between cine and studio for creative
and aesthetic freedom vs the glamour viability.

In his intro on pg 9 Keating states that the art of lighting has always been a site of tension
between classical and non classicle principles. Though the nature of the tension changed over
the years.

In both of these readings the financial health of the industry is a overarching construct.

But the industry has different demands now.

 Slide 5
Looking at this reading, it crosses over the other two a lot, and the same words keep coming
up. Most importantly realism and technology advancing.

Bordwell points out in the aesthetic of shadow that DeMille’s intention with the language
when he started experimenting with low key lighting was to bring more realism to the screen.
And I think we’ve now reached a kind of middle ground of cinematic realism which is equal
parts cinematic language we’ve adopted and evolved over the 100 years and part realism. And
that’s where the elements that Piotr speaks about comes in. You can still see these elements
being used in a understated tone today.
 Slide 5
So my big take away from all 3 readings is how evident evolution is.
The evolution of cinematic light specifically. Its so subtle but just in the last 7 to
10 years. As we moved from film to digital you can see a clear change in how
light is handled on screen. I think the least subtle is how television aesthetic is
handled today.
 Slide 6
The biggest example I can put forward to show evolution in lighting is the small
vs the big screen. It is the surest sign of the importance of lighting being
recognised for its value of tone.
Here you can see the classical principles of TV vs Cinema. The handling of
lighting.
Although decades apart the subject matter is the same. Although of one origin,
the film is shot cinematically whereas the TV series has the classic studio lighting
flush of light.
 Slide 7
A bit of a fairer comparison and a show of the steps towards cinematic
TV.
Again, same subject matter same core concept. The series Ginny and
Georgia is marketed as a modern Gilmore Girls. And in such its clear to
see the difference in aesthetic handling.
 Slide 8
A move further and further away from the clarity above all notion Studio TV use
to pump out and closer and closer TV came to mimicking Cinema’s aesthetic
principles.
Until we get to…
 Slide 9
TV and Cinema melted till the point where its indistinguishable.
WANDAVISION
Wandavision is a literal visual case study on what I took from both the books and
then some. It literally explores every decade of TV aesthetic till we get to a point
where they intercut actual movie footage in between the modern broadcast and
we cant tell which is movie and which is TV.