Solitude becomes a party for two

A Place in the Sun (1951)
Dir. George Stevens
Cinematographer William C. Mellor

Brief Summary: George Eastman is a loner who gets a job from his wealthy uncle. While there he forms a forbidden relationship with a coworker--who he gets pregnant. He then falls in love with a captivating debutante who cannot help but be drawn into a life so different from hers. Finding this out, the pregnant girlfriend threatens to go to his uncle with the news that may cost him his job. George has fate within his grasp: 1. Break off with a new found soul mate (that guarantees him a life of happiness) or 2. Deal with woman threatening his livelihood.
The nephew, who is of a lower class, enters his uncles estate, who is obviously of a higher class. In this first shot they use a wide angle lens (everything, including behind Eastman, is in focus). Here he is dwarfed by the party when he first enters. Everyone is face away from him with no attention diverted to him. He, on the other hand, is fixated on the crowd--meaning this is new to him, he is curious but alien to this scene. The director fills the frame with crowds so that it feels crowded, but that Eastman is coming in last--as if left behind.
I will note that the previous, and later shots are all high key lighting. Nothing to note really of that choice, rather than it is a party and is not meant to be a dark one--even though the character does not fit in. It is still supposed to be a fun, light, cheery place. Here we see a POV from Eastman, with another wide angle. The attention is not necessarily meant to be concentrated on the main character, rather how he is alone and out of place and facing towards the crowd as he is left by himself. We see how he sees it: everyone is having fun and he is outside of that fun. Nobody is paying him any attention. Still a wide angle here as we can see towards the very end of the room.
Again, the shot is away from his face so that we are ONLY concentrating on the woman who seems to be very gregarious and jovial. What is uncomfortable in this shot is how close the main character and her are--but that she is oblivious to him. He is again alienated and alone even in the presence of a group. Everyone has there eye on someone else, even the background, as everyone is interacting except for Eastman. He is still an observer. The big pillar in the frame seems to act like a wall--in which he is trapped between the group and the pillar. Seems suffocating.
A MCU from the side to put the attention on Eastman. Now it is no longer the crowd we are supposed to see, it is how Eastman is reacting that we are supposed to be paying attention to. Notice how the group has their backs turned to him. He is ostracized from the group as well as the party. Again, he is alone and alien. Again--if you look closely the pillar seems like a wall that is placed out of no where. It is the director or DP's choice to include that little bit of space at camera right so that we see maybe that he is trapped within an open space. He is backed up against the pillar.
More covering shots of Eastman walking through the party and the groups, but as an observer. The shooting here is contriving in our minds that he does not belong in this society. He is a drifter in the movie, so that he is a drifter in a closer setting--the party. It seems also that he might be searching.. Even though the shot is wide angle and the background is in focus, the center of the frame (and half of it) is the foreground group--laughing and having a good time. It seems almost an intrusion by the main character that he be in focus. So it seems the director's intention and the story coincide here.
The light here is concentrated on the pool table and the three balls. It is highlighting it for him. What is interesting is that the room is empty, lifeless, but that Eastman seems to relate to that. The choice here is that instead of opening the door and standing full body in frame--he just "peaks" in--like another main character that we will see shortly. It is as if, even though it seems he is alone at the party, not really used to this seclusion-yet. It is drawing him in. It is kind of funny too that the 8 Ball is in the middle and pointed directly in his line of sight. The POV seems to come from the angle of the pooltable, or the pool balls. Kind of a portent of what is to come?
This is the first time we see him fairly calm and cool. He even has a cigarette in his hand. He is comfortable in this environment--darker, quiet, alone. The door is just left open--kind of relating that he is on the 'inside' of what everything else is on the 'outside'. Or Vice Versa.
The girl in this shot was seen earlier by Eastman--in which he fell in love on sight with. In the story I feel that she is drawn into this world of his. She is a socialite, he is a loner. Here in the pool room, he is alone but it is his room, his domain. She is attracted to him I think because he is different than anyone she converses with. She is curious of this difference, of this rogue of a guy. The choice of the long shot, to me, was only because they would eventually have her walk around the table itself.
Simple shot of him, not being startled, but calmly looking up, as if he was expecting her. Little soft focus of the background so that we are concentrating on him only. The director wanted a cigarette in his mouth to seemingly relate the calmness.
Needless to say, I really like this shot--always have since I first saw it. For me, it seems like this curiousness of hers is leading to what she really wants for herself (the light from the room versus the shadow, on the otherside of her face, from the party). The door is blocking her so that it acts as a barrier to her. She is like a stray puppy you see on the road one day, that you get out to pet but that it is hesitant to trot up closer out of fear and apprehension.
As she makes her way in the room, she is used in the foreground as taking up a bit of the frame, but that her face is not what we see rather a shrunken Eastman in the back. It seems the comfort has shifted from him to her as he looks rigid and nervous--or more like a confrontation.
MCU of Eastman--high key lighting with the wood panels helping with depth. Middle of the frame so that we are supposed to be fixated on him. Versus the pillar at the party--the wall is behind him, but he seems to be trapped not by a group not paying attention to him, but trapped with a girl who noticed him.
Reverse shot of her coming up to Eastman. The shot leaves a lot of space in front of her so that she walks into the frame and the space. There are no walls behind her--giving her freedom and openess to move and feel in control.
I cannot help but think that they intentionally spotlighted her just a bit here. I know that because of the previous shots that there was a shadow between the frames--and my guess is that they did not want that so they spotted a light on her. It seems the director wanted her to intentionally trap herself between the wall and Eastman--though it is was a choice for the character that she calmly lays on. Contrast this with the party earlier that Eastman used the pillar as a sort of safety net. Here she is using it as a prop--or somewhat like a chair.

Fields, lighting, and fields o my!

With this painting "Christina's World" by Andrew Wyeth it is not the lighting I necessarily prefer but the ambiguity in its portrayal. We do not see the woman's face--therefore we can think anything we like about it, that is what I genuinely like about this painting. She could have just woke up after dozing off from the lazy musing that a field of grass and a sunny day could only do. Maybe she was in the midst of running away from a life that begged to be eschewed; only as her beginning departure teemed regret was she able to look back one last time at what she might possibly leave behind. So I guess I would say this painting represents anything that you might give it. I cannot help but give preference also to the fact it is set in the country, in a wheat field (my soft spots).

I figured I ought to put a photograph here instead of concentrating on just paintings. I know nothing of good photographers so picking out which one struck me within the brief period from which I was browsing left me with this photograph by Florian Ritter. What is it with me and fields and open country? Nevertheless this is how and why I like it: I cannot help but see the pathway between the plateaus (naturally made) and the road akin to go around them. The natural trail is green and full of life, whereas the road matches the clouds above: gray and ominous (lifeless and dull). That is probably an odd interpretation but that is why I like it nonetheless.



To me this just shows how austere objects can be enhanced with the proper placement and precision of light. I look at light two ways: 1. No light 2. A degree of light. With this painting by Pieter Claesz as an example I will try to explain what I mean. Take the light away from this painting and what do you have? Nothing, blackness. Ok now put light on the background but not directed at the objects on the table and what are you left with? Similar, but different colors: (a uniform murky, brown color on the glass/a cloudy, but lightened, dark of tarnished silver: both for the candle holder and the saucer with the solitary olive). With the proper light I feel that these usually ugly things are slightly hinted with eloquence and beauty--which is what Claesz has done. The light here almost becomes another color that was not before present or intrinsic with these objects--the color of the light here becomes almost angelic because it adds something that cannot be possessed otherwise. That is the simplicity which I found within this painting, and that is why I felt the lighting made it beautifully simple.

Portrait of a "friendly" golf game

I actually shot two different things, but this one was easier to edit together...so here is a golf game under portrait. For those who might be confused, it is sort of a montage (silent film esque) of a bet between friends, and how they try to cheat each other. For the location--well it is outside of Tuscaloosa (was out of town last weekend for a friends wedding--I hope they don't mind that I took the equipment!) and shot at a golf course/park. The DP and AD are friends of mine.

Coalescing big ideas into doable ideas.

There is much that can be said visually, and when there is much that is wanted to be said it may seem like a conformity to pick just one. For this particular project, there was a lot of thinking, and a lot of directions I could go. Some of these ideas were constrained by time, by funds, by ability. However, I do not think this should always limit ideas, but in this case I went the easiest route. Originally I wanted to speak through glimpses of our everyday lives in a way that we may not normally have noticed. I cannot say I accomplished this, but I learned a lot from the attempt.

To start, I grabbed a notebook and a pencil and wrote (with my terrible handwriting--thank God for fonts!) everything meaningful and purposeful that came to mind. I had to choose fast—and I did, judiciously or not. Being since I have nothing to contribute to the field of artistic drawing, I had to make a enigmatic shot list—and hope that I would have the same sense of the scene when we actually shot. I actually prefer relating what I am seeing to someone with more talent than I, and directing him or her as appropriate until the idea is achieved. For me though, I can say that I see visually what I am looking for, and sometimes you are surprised to find something better when it is actually being done—sometimes not.

I feel that as we worked, I was seeing with an eye that had not noticed the smaller things before. I notice now what gets in the way of a shot, what is distracting it. It is a special and important moment when you improve in anything, whereas you might not have thought you could or would. Moreover, I felt after this weekend I did come away with something new, something that I will be the better for—and for that I am grateful.

All you need is a little direction.

The project we had to undertake this week was not meant for us to showcase our witty abilities to write dialogue, improv a great scene, or record a shot that is above spectacular. It was a run-n-gun exercise that was implemented to invoke pressure on the creative team to rush the thinking process, or eliminate it all together—ironically giving pressure so that there is no pressure. I tend to think that such an endeavor has with it an imminent sense of failure in that we know it will not turn out like how we had thought out in our head—everything about the exercise prohibits the ability to achieve what would be a perfect showcase of our vision. However, the failure here should not be intended to be used as a negation of progress. To the contrary, since it puts us immediately at a disadvantage, it forces us to think what could have been different if only we had the proper timing and planning. This is the beginning of how you should undertake any creative medium, namely film. Moreover, this is how I feel the run-n-gun benefits us and how I took it.

With this type of learning, we also get the sense of what makes people different and how they look at the same thing (our prewritten dialogue) with dissimilar eyes. You see how people give direction differently, approach shots differently, seek fluidity in the most enigmatic of situations differently. It is this uniqueness for which we try to demarcate ourselves as we seek to communicate it.