Cinematography : The Hollywood Reporter - Cinematographers Round Table by Geoff Hall

Geoff Hall - a Cinematography film club is a really interesting thought?? Would members be interesting in watching a film that's accessible to everyone and talking about it?

Shellie Schmals I would! Count me in.

Wow, a true wealth of artistic talent, in one room!

yeah we should have a film recs section two threads, one where you recommend say 20 movies and another for watch-parties

Great idea. Like reading is the basic way to learn writing, watching a movie gives you a lot of tools to practice cinematography.

my recs would be:

1. What planet are you from?

2. Killer Klowns from outer space

3. Sunshine (99)

4. it's such a beautiful day

5. The Langoliers

6. Upstream Color

7. Naked Lunch

8. La Cite Des Enfants Perdus

9. Nightmare Before Christmas

10. From Bedrooms to Billions

11. Cartoon College

12. Night of the Demons 2

13. Empires Strikes Back Uncut: Director's Cut

14. Idioterne

15. Kids

16. Henry Fool by Hal Hartley

17. Rush (91)

18. True Romance

19. Love and a .45

20. Power of Grayskull

----------------

Troll

Shut Up Little Man

Unforgiven

Geoff Hall - let's side bar & figure out a way to make this work!

Shellie Schmals cool, let’s do it.

how is this side project coming along? anything I can do to help?

Hi PolyD Flynt thanks, we are looking at using something like Just Watch to set up a film night with Army of Shadows. Will keep you posted.

It's comin'

I think it is much more important for a screenwriter to read a textbook on general psychology, gender psychology, family psychology and age psychology than to watch hundreds of old films.

Arthur Charpentier Sorry. I think that just promotes ignorance amongst filmmakers and intellectualises the process. Reading a book on psychology will not help a DP choose the right lens or lighting array, nor help a Director discuss lighting and shooting a scene with a DP.

Geoff Hall, If we talk about directors, their job is largely to show the audience non-verbal information.

A director can watch old movies as much as he wants, but if he does not know about nonverbal communication of people, about color psychology, about the meaning of colors and about the contrast of different colors, such a director will only copy material from other people's scenes.

Arthur Charpentier actually, it's both, otherwise you may as well make a silent film!

Colour psychology isn't fixed. It would mean something different to say Itten and Kandinsky than it would to an Early Modern aesthete in the Reformation period or a Renaissance critic like Cennini.

Watching the films of others makes you visually literate, not a copyist. Look at Tarantino's love of Japanese films. He doesn't copy them, he uses them as a starting point for where he wants to take his film; it's a visual cue and it's also a way of opening a conversation with other filmmakers. Much like academic papers that cite another author. They aren't copying, but using their research as a means to create something of their own.

Geoff Hall, color psychology is fixed for the modern viewer. of course, there are national interpretations of colors and it is important to take this into account.

I don't think a screenwriter has to watch a lot of old movies to come up with the plot of a series about a ghostbuster, for example.

Arthur Charpentier indeed, but we are not talking about screenwriters, here Arthur, we are talking about a director and cinematographer working in tandem to bring their interpretation of the script and develop the world visually.

Geoff Hall, the whole experience of Russian cinema proves that it makes no sense for directors to watch old films either. these films need to be watched if the authors create a retro-style movie. otherwise, they are useless and even harmful.

The Russian school of directing is based on the study of classics and 90% of 100 films fail at the box office. think about it.

Arthur Charpentier but what era of Russian cinema are you talking about?

Geoff Hall, I mean the modern period of cinema, the last ten years.

of course you are right that training and knowledge are important for a director and a screenwriter. but my opinion is that a person who knows psychology has more creative possibility than a person who has watched all the classic films.

Arthur Charpentier ah, I see. For me, I’d like to think that there’s a balance to be had between psychological and cinematic knowledge. And I say that as one who has read Jung and some of the Jungians and Imaginal Psychology, as well as FBI reports on serial killers and the psychological imbalance they have.

So I’m not anti-psychology, because I think, well, with Seeing Rachel, I researched deeply to find I psychological way of telling the story without sensationalising the ‘action’ (sex trafficking) and tragedy - there is more terror the story for it.

I’m off now for a while, so thanks for having this conversation. G

Geoff Hall, and thank you very much for the conversation!

I actually think that someone who loves film enough to want to do it for a vocation should watch as many and as varied films as possible. That doesn't mean they need to use existing films as influence for their work. they should use themselves as influence for their work and their world. but writers read, filmmakers should appreciate film.