B&W Film Moovies

Well, I don't emerse myself enough to know all the directors of all the b/w films worthy of comment. However, b/w been a favorite of mine. I got my oldest daughter interested in watching it for the lighting. I always thought many of the Humphrey Bogart movies had great lighting techniques, but have no clue who directed them. I also thought Hitchcock did well in b/w television.
 
I have found that the old (late 20's into the 40's) B&W movies had very good photography, even if the story line was bad. I am a fan of old B-Westerns. Can't get much more corny than that, but I am always pleased with the composition and lighting of these old films. The new stuff is pretty bad in my opinion.
 
the_jim said:
Not to discredit them as being b/w films, but "Control" was shot in color (I believe Kodak 5218?) as was Clooney's "The Good German" and "Goodnight and Goodluck." Still, they are all beautiful.

..........
Click to expand...




Can anyone explain me this ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Thanks DougFord, my original complain against these latter movies was they don't look good like in the past. I am glad to know the explanation is rather technical than related to skill.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Ruben, I think technical improvements in film stock have had the unfortunate tendency to shrink lighting budgets on many movie sets. When everyone was shooting iso 25 film, there was no option but to light the set. Now, we have iso 500 movie film. :D
 
Most recently seen with great black and white:

Hour of the Wolf
Sven Nykvist, Cinematographer
Ingmar Bergman, Directed

Also, the 1990's French film, Girl on the Bridge, just outstanding
black and white work by Paul Ivano

Too numerous to mention. Conrad Hall was great. Great work on the original Outer Limits. Great work of the German expressionists in the silent era. Mario Bava was incredible - color and black and white.

The list goes on and on...
 
Another Bergman mention and a movie with a look that I aspire to replicate in my still camera work - "The Seventh Seal".

Thank you very much, Ruben, for this thread. I had been thinking of starting a similar thread for some months now but I am very happy to read this today :)

N.
 
In Cold Blood

All of Kurosawa's B&W movies.


I'm all for a movie section, I'm a big fan of good cinema.
 
Doug , Ruben,

Agree that these newer films have a different look than the older ones whether because of the film stocks or other production practices, but I don't agree that it is necessarily a lesser one.

I guess that in any great film (or any art work), the over-all "Look" and all the details that go into its makeup must contribute to and support the whole.

I remember viewing the Coen Brothers' movie and being struck with the sort of deliberateness of every shot. The light, the framing, the camera position and movements, etc. being almost too perfect.

Cheers,
Gary
 
kevin m said:
Ruben, I think technical improvements in film stock have had the unfortunate tendency to shrink lighting budgets on many movie sets. When everyone was shooting iso 25 film, there was no option but to light the set. Now, we have iso 500 movie film. :D
Click to expand...

respectfully, this is a completely ignorant statement.

when people were shooting low iso motion picture stock you didnt have lots of options, the rule of the day was carbon arc (or worse mercury) which just spilled light everywhere. I havent had the pleasure of working on a set with carbon lights but apparently its a thing to see. Problem was, if you DIDNT want that look you were well out of luck as fresnels were in their infancy and magnetic ballasts for hmi werent even someone's fantasy yet.

You were also dealing with an era where most movies were part of the studio system (when it meant something) and there was no lighting budget because everything was owned by the production company, which was also the stage which was also the distributor, which was also, it goes on... Totally different system from what we have today.

Cut to today, there has probably never been a time where line items for lighting were greater. There are more toys and more variety of lights available and not only available but in standard use, than ever before. I havent worked on a movie in a very very long time that did not have full tungsten, HMI and kino flows on our trucks which discounts all the crap that is rigged on the stages.

There isnt a DP alive that wouldnt be offended by your statement. The last feature I did, the DP did everything she could in her power to keep her stop at 2.8 for all her interiors and the gaffer was in some kind of race to use virtually EVERY light he had in his package, I have *never* seen that many heads used to light the way that he did.

f16 at 24fps at 500 iso is equivalent to 1/60th at f16 at 500 iso.

no matter how you cut it, you need *alot* of light to light a movie set. Much much more than you might consider practical if you've never done it before. Film speed has very little impact on the amount of heads required. The size of them, perhaps, but practically speaking, not really. Alot of people will use a given head for the look it has even if it provides 100 times more light than you need. I worked with a gaffer years ago that would use a 10K bounce regularly where anyone else would have just put up a Baby and be done with it.

On topic, I was going to mention knife in the water, the movie looks amazing and also feels like available light to me. Paths of Glory is another that is incredible.

Oh also to note, if you dig through old copies of American Cinematographer you can find interviews with some DP's who have shot color negative for black and white positive just based on the look (as many here do), you can add schindlers list to that list. Its very very rare to find a black and white movie these days originated on 5222. In addition to the look, hollywood having absolutely no balls to commit to a decision, another factor is processing cost and infrastructure- as you can run your color negative with everything else. I would also consider the idea that everyone knows how to light for the color emulsions we have today, and while a good team would get up to speed on black and white negative, these guys have a routine that not only works with the emulsion and lights, but also with whatever they have figured out with the labs, so its a lot of dont fix whats not broken. Its pretty much excactly the opposite of where we were in the 60's when everyone knew how to light for black and white and not a soul could get up to speed on color to save themselves, so you had everything looking like the batman tv show for a while until the industry figured it out...
 
The Third Man! What a film! I have a copy on Super-8 (dupe sadly but still ok) and two on tape. I still think that this film is number 1 and never tire of looking at it. The two versions are interesting with opening voice over by Carol Reed and for the US marker, Joseph Cotton. Will we ever see a "Director's Cut" I wonder..I am sure that they must have shot more than one ending.."see you around, Holly"
 
WoolenMammoth said:
I would also consider the idea that everyone knows how to light for the color emulsions we have today, and while a good team would get up to speed on black and white negative, these guys have a routine that not only works with the emulsion and lights, but also with whatever they have figured out with the labs, so its a lot of dont fix whats not broken. Its pretty much excactly the opposite of where we were in the 60's when everyone knew how to light for black and white and not a soul could get up to speed on color to save themselves, so you had everything looking like the batman tv show for a while until the industry figured it out...
Click to expand...

This is a great point.

Take a look at "Dial M for Murder," which had to have been one of Hitchcock's earlier color movies. The lighting would have worked for black and white, but in color, it looks atrocious.

WoolenMammoth said:
...hollywood having absolutely no balls to commit...
Click to expand...

Sad, but true. I wonder how any 'good' movies actually get a budget. "Transformers" made tons of money. "Meet the Spartans" opened at number one, etc. It seems like all this funding is being directed at weak, cookie-cutter junk, that have more producers on-set than crew.

Back on topic: "The Good German" was apparently shot using some kind of vintage optics, probably Cooke Speed Panchros or Baltars. These are cool lenses that would certainly lend themselves to a more vintage look.

"Good Night and Good Luck," on the other hand was shot using modern optics. But ultimately, just like still photography, the overall look has a lot do with what you do in post.
 
Everyone should check out I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang by Mervyn LeRoy. The story, lighting, camera positions, are all amazing.

Though A Trip to the Moon/La Voyage dans la Lune by Georges Méliès. 1902. This movie was ground breaking. It had the first true close up. It was the first sci-fi movie. It was a parody on the science community. And was the longest movie of its time, at 7 minutes, I believe. For its time it was revolutionary, since the only other films were a few seconds of the waves moving or people walking. Méliès utilized The Lumière brothers equipment, where the camera doubled as the projector. Its a very interesting movie. I believe it is on youtube now.
 
Jim Jarmusch's "Stranger than Paradise" has already been mentioned. I would also like to add his films "Dead Man" for its disturbing and brilliant portrayal of the American West, and "Down By Law" which creates a palpable hot and humid New Orleans. The DoP in both cases was the the brilliant Robby Müller (also DoP of Mystery Train, Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom