American Cinematographer, Vol. 60, June 1979
Translation: Haishu, Qtn, KTV
As a cinematographer, naturally I will be attracted by the work of directors who pay attention to the picture. And I think there are three American directors who are masters in visual expression. They are: King Vidor, Josef Von Sternberg, and John Ford. They are interested in setting design, photographic angles, picture composition and lighting design, and combine them into their own creations to create film works with innovation and performance that can stand the test of time.
The above-mentioned visual directors, although they are praised for their complicated and detailed aesthetics, they all insist on the principle of seeking simplicity in the use of lights.
In their films, the combination of lighting and scene scheduling (Mise-en-scène) makes lighting a part of scene scheduling. This kind of high integration of vision and lighting can always guide me, and this artistic preference has also led me to Terrence Malick and his work-"Days in Heaven".
When the producers Harold and Bert Schneider contacted me about "Day in Heaven" for the first time, I asked to see Malick's previous film "BADLANDS". After watching it, I immediately realized that I could establish a unique and fruitful partnership with this director. Then I learned that Terry admired my work in "L'ENFANT SAUVAGE" very much. Although it was a black and white film, it was quite similar to "Day in Heaven" which was also a period movie. Place. In fact, it was because of this Francois Truffaut movie that Malick thought of asking me to make "Day in Heaven."
In the process of filming, the communication between the director and the photographer often causes confusion and misunderstanding because the director does not understand the technical details required by film photography. But working with Terry, such a thing will never happen. He always accurately understands my preferences and instructions in photography. And he not only allowed me to do a long-term experiment that I wanted to do—using much less artificial lighting than the old-school approach when shooting period dramas (most of the time I didn't use it at all)—in fact, he was forcing me to do so. This kind of creative support makes me personally very excited and directly improves my working standards.
The main insistence of our creation is simple photography: clean up the artificial lighting in recent movies. We refer to the silent film era (the works of Griffith, Chaplin, etc.), when the photographers had a basic and unique use of natural light.
Using natural light as much as possible means using only the light from the windows when shooting indoor scenes during the day, just like the paintings of the great Dutch painter Johann Vermeer. When shooting indoor scenes at night, only a single reasonable light source (justifiable source) is used for limited lighting, such as portable lamps, candles, or light bulbs.
Therefore, "Days in Heaven" is in a sense a tribute to the image workers before the birth of the sound film, to the rough texture that I love, and to the lack of artificial refinement and luster.
The art of motion pictures—the presentation of images on film—has become very mature and complicated in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. As a movie fan, I like the photography of those movies, especially the early sound films, but that is not the style I want to seek.
All the movies I made are inspired by those great painters. The film "Day in Heaven" mainly influenced me by American painters, such as Andrew Wyeth and Edward Hopper.
In addition, as a person who knows art well, Terry Malick is also a collector of classic still photos. Some of his collection of photography from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century is a guide for us to design clothes and perceive the atmosphere of that era.
Finally, considering the influence of these photos, we decided to put them in the opening part as the audience's first impression of the film, in order to establish the atmosphere and feeling of that era in the film.
Bill Weber edited these fragments. The photos at the beginning of the film, accompanied by classical melody full of visual sense, were slow and solemn, staccato and vibrato, presented one after another in front of the audience.
In order to find the layout and style of this particular movie, when I set foot on a location in Canada, my first consideration was how to use natural light in this film.
In France, the laundry detergent is placed in the red country, because there are thick clouds covering the sky, the sunlight is very soft and delicate, so it is very easy to shoot outdoor scenes, you do not need to shoot different angles of the lens (light). Make any adjustments.
In North America, the air is more transparent and the texture of sunlight is harder. But when shooting a person with backlight, his face will be shrouded in shadow on the film.
Under normal circumstances, people will use reflective or artificial lighting (such as arc light) to fill in the light when shooting outdoor scenes during the day to reduce shadows and reduce the contrast of the picture.
But when shooting this movie, Malick and I both felt that we should not follow the old shooting method, do not use lights, and use the shadows as the exposure standard. This will overexpose the sky and make the blue sky less blue. Terry likes this effect very much.
Like Truffaut, Malick follows the current trend of decolorization, and the blue sky will bother them. Because the blue sky makes the landscape look like a postcard, like a vulgar tourist advertisement.
Exposing the shadows directly against the backlight will overexpose the sky and lack color. If you use arc lights or reflectors to fill in the light, the entire picture will become very flat, without emphasis, and visually boring.
I decided to abandon all reflections and artificial lighting, and then measure the sky and shadows separately, and perform exposure based on the light difference between the two. The result is that the human face will be a little underexposed, and the sky will be a little bit. Overexposure, so that the sky will not be too blue, but it will not become dead white.
But to my surprise, this innovative decision became the main focus of debate among colleagues in the film crew.
As a European photographer working for a (Hollywood) studio, I was unable to select the technicians who would like to work for me. On the contrary, the technicians of this film are appointed by the producer to recruit. With very few exceptions, the entire film crew is composed of typical Hollywood veterans.
These people have become accustomed to the polished lighting and photography methods. For them, the human face should never be shrouded in shadow, and the sky should always be blue. I found that when I walked onto the shooting scene, the arc lights were already in place and ready for each scene. My job has become to reduce lighting, that is, to remove false, traditional lighting fixtures.
I can see that the crew was very dissatisfied with the innovative methods we used for this film, and some people began to publicly criticize us for being clueless and not “professional” enough. At these times, in order to show goodwill, we will take two shots for one lens, one with arc lights, and the other without. After that, we invited those who were skeptical to watch Mao Tse distinguish other film materials (rushes) to compare the effect, and give comments.
As the shooting progressed, this creative contradiction became more intense. Fortunately, Malick not only supports me, but is more brave than me. When shooting some scenes, I initially thought it was necessary to use a plastic foam board to reflect sunlight onto the actor's face to reduce the contrast, and Malick asked me not to use a reflector.
Since we can see that it is different from other film materials in real time, and found that the shooting effect is obviously conducive to the visual performance of the story, we have become more and more bold, constantly reducing artificial lighting, and pursuing rough and natural image quality. Some staff members began to understand our pursuit and gradually participated in the creation. Others never understood.
If there is a conflict between (us) and some craftsmen, on the artistic level, I am lucky to be able to work with some of the top collaborators I can imagine.
Every film will have a team that is really responsible for the "creation" of the film. In "Days in Paradise" this group consists of 6 to 7 people:
production designer Jack Fisk, who designed and constructed the farmer’s residence and the cabins of migrant workers.
Costume designer Patricia Norris, she reproduced the clothing of that era with outstanding taste and superior touch.
One of Malick's assistant Jacob Brackman was in charge of the second unit (most of the cutscenes where the main actors did not participate) shooting. In addition, of course there are producers, Harold and Bert Schneider.
Several of us drive a truck from the hotel to the wheat field every day. It takes an hour to drive, so we always discuss this movie on the road. Looking at it this way, our small group will have an impromptu meeting on film production every morning. In a large-scale production film, there can be such a unified concentration of creation, and its effect cannot be ignored.
In terms of scene decoration, props and costumes, we chose a softer color scheme. This is because from a historical perspective, the colors of the film reflecting the period are not as bright and intense as the colors of the current era.
Patricia Norris has designed some old-style clothing, which does not have the appearance and texture of chemically synthesized clothing under today's machined production.
The farmer’s residence is firmly built in the wheat field. It is a complete building with inside and outside, rather than just building the exterior as in most movies, providing an appearance for location shooting. Even the selection of its color and wood is full of sense of the times, all in a dark realism style.
Many people in the film industry believe that the director of photography only needs to care about the control of the camera and the technology related to it. And I think the director of photography must work closely with all the people related to the visual performance of the film. In fact, unless you work with set designers and costume designers, you can't achieve good photography, that is, photography with a specific style and beauty.
If there is a mediocre taste in the selection of the objects to be painted, then no matter how hard the photographer works, the visual power of the picture will always be weakened by the ugly or untimely objects in the painting.
You can't find beauty in ugliness, unless you are after Andy Warhol's oxymoron "ugly beauty".
There are several camera operators in this movie. Unlike the works I shot in Europe, the (American Photographers Union) does not allow me to operate the camera myself. Of course, I did the lens arrangement and previewed the visual design of the lens (that is, the movement of the camera and the position of the actors) with Malick. Considering this situation, I am lucky to have four camera operators with outstanding skills and talents: John Bailey in Hollywood; Rod Parkhurst in Canada; Eric Van Haren Noman, a professional who manipulates Panaglide (①) cameras, and the second Camera crew operator, Paul Ryan.
To be fair, praise for my work should be given to the above-mentioned camera operators and some other unknown mechanics, especially in the scenes of multi-camera shooting, when one camera uses a wide-angle lens to shoot, the other machine uses a far The camera lens, and a hand-held Panaglide camera as it shuttles through the flames and the crowd. The last thing to mention is Haskell Wexler, who oversaw the filming during the last three weeks when I left the film crew due to a prior appointment. All of this was finally unified by Malick's outstanding talent; he should be thanked for his technical knowledge and his impeccable taste.
When I first contacted the producers Harold and Bert Schneider, I informed them of my promise to Truffaut. Truffaut's new film will start shooting exactly when "Days in Heaven" was originally planned to be completed.
The Malick and Schneider brothers accepted this condition because they hoped that the progress of Truffaut's "L'homme qui aimait les femmes" (L'homme qui aimait les femmes, 1977) would be delayed in the pre-production stage. This situation did not happen. At the same time, due to various complicated factors, the autumn tiger weather appeared in Canada, so the snow scenes we needed came late.
When the situation became clear and I knew that I could not finish the filming of this film, I immediately tried to find a suitable replacement for my excellent American photographer in my mind. What I think of is Haskell Wexler, I admire his work very much, and at the same time treat him as a friend. I asked him if he could finish my work. Fortunately for me and this film, he accepted the invitation.
The two of us worked together on the crew for a week. During this period, he observed our shooting style, watched all the material that has been shot, and perceives our creative pursuit.
In the end I filmed for 53 days; Haskell filmed the remaining 19 days. I believe that no one can distinguish the parts we filmed.
The parts he is directly responsible for include the scenes of Richard Gere's role in the city after his death; all the snow scenes; and some scenes that need to be supplemented with alternate angles and coverage.
The continuity he achieved was an unusual achievement; the talent he showed in it made me grateful for the rest of my life.
In movies, it often happens that the plot is not in the original setting, but is shot in a similar appearance in a remote location. "Day in Heaven" fits this type of situation.
Although originally set in Panhandle, Texas in 1919, the film was shot in Southern Alberta, Canada. As often happens in film production, the various elements of this area are in full compliance with the original setting of the film.
The selected shooting location is a vast and undeveloped beautiful landscape, occupied and cultivated by the Hitterites, a sect that immigrated here due to religious dissent in Europe many years ago. Just like the Mennonites and Ammans in the United States, these people live in different areas from ours.
They collectively own and use this elastic land, and they can grow higher wheat than those obtained by contemporary agricultural methods.
Their supplies are made of natural materials, including their simple furniture. They don't have radio or television, and they eat natural foods grown by themselves. Even their appearance is different from ordinary people (this has some expressions in the movie). The one-hour journey from the hotel to the shooting site brought us back to the 19th century from the 20th century.
There is no doubt that the atmosphere of this land adds realism to the film's images.
In addition, we also borrowed wine-red silos and steam-driven antique tractors and harvesters from some private collections nearby as props in the movie.
"Day in Paradise" is also the first time I have the opportunity to use a camera that has been popular in the United States but has not yet landed in Europe: Panaflex.
This kind of machine is very light and has its own noise reduction system, which is the response of the United States to the new similar European cameras (but I think Panaflex is better).
At the moment, film equipment is moving towards lightness, which will allow the machine to move more freely when shooting. Panaflex was born under this trend. It is good in many aspects, not only the quality of studio cameras, but also the flexibility and (compact) appearance of news cameras. During the shooting, its only drawback was the blurry viewfinder, which has since been subtly taken care of.
Having this highly sophisticated camera, coupled with the help of ultra-speed lenses (ultra-speed lenses), allows us to shoot some lens effects that were impossible before. Without these cameras and lenses, it would be impossible to achieve "Day in Heaven".
Years of work experience reminded me of the inertia of Hollywood mechanics. Because they have always been in a leading position, it will take some time for them to catch up with the new trend and accept the necessity of adjustment and innovation.
After World War II, Europe became the forefront of equipment renewal. The lightweight camera was one of the first devices developed. With it, filmmakers were able to overcome the limitations of the studio. These cameras were further developed into reflective cameras, and the United States has not been able to develop such a machine for a long time.
Another example of this inertia is reflected in the use and development of dollies (dolly, or rail cars). I prefer simple camera movements. The most convenient camera cart for me is the Italian Elemack system, which is highly mobile and light. However, when filming "Day in Heaven", the crew insisted on using an old-fashioned studio cart with a hydraulic head. This heavy piece of equipment requires six people to lift it. And the size of this cart makes it impossible for me to use it in some occasions where I need a cart. Obviously, this filming team (unit) lacks adaptability when shooting.
I guess there is a shortcoming that is unique to Americans (but it may also be a shortcoming of all mankind) that makes them reject simplicity.
A typical example of this rejection is reflected in their continued use of gear-type heads. Nowadays, gyro pan/tilt and hydraulic pan/tilt have appeared. The effect of using them to move the camera is equivalent to or even better than that of the old gear type pan/tilt. (Sachtler and Ronford are the best examples of gimbals
.) It does not require much experience to use them (gyro or hydraulic platform). As long as it is a person with a good sense of rhythm, it is enough to achieve panoramic panning, or to follow the movement of the actor while maintaining the composition.
With the camera supported on the simple pan-tilt and the operating handle, the operator can integrate with the machine to achieve the most user-friendly camera movement. The panning made by operating the handle has emotions that the perfect mechanical movement of the gear-type pan-tilt cannot express.
If Americans reject simplicity, on the other hand, when they are truly committed to one thing, there is no doubt that they are the best technicians and innovators in the world. What's more commendable is that whenever they conscientiously tackle a certain scientific and technological problem, they will unreservedly disclose the research results to the world.
We are fortunate enough to benefit from this ingenuity when shooting, and can use the Panaglide system (camera stabilization system developed by Panavision). It is equivalent to Panavision's Steadicam system, but has some advantages over Steadi.
At first, Malick was very keen on the Panaglide system and wanted to use it to shoot the entire film. However, after a while, we realized that it was just a useful device, indispensable in some situations, but not a panacea.
Just like the group of filmmakers who used the zoom lens uncontrollably with excitement when the zoom motor was invented, as rookies, we also paid the tuition.
Because we have the freedom to move the camera in all directions, the shooting process is as lively as sitting on a merry-go-round. The entire film crew, from the sound engineer and the record, to the director and me, always runs around behind the camera operator when shooting to avoid getting into the picture.
The material we shot is incredible: they are wonderful, but a bit too hard. The camera itself becomes the protagonist, the actor, and the intruder. We found that the most valuable is often a fixed lens supported by a tripod, or a smoothly moving lens (dolly shot).
However, the Panaglide system plays a vital role in the main passages and shots of "Days in Heaven." They are also the most discussed part by audiences and critics.
For example, there is a scene about Richard Gere persuading Brooke Adams to accept Sam Shepard's marriage proposal. This scene requires (camera) movement, but it is unrealistic to set up a cart underwater. In addition, the actors improvised in this scene, walking freely in the water up to their knees, with no restrictions on their positions, but the camera kept following them steadily. Only the Panaglide system can achieve this lens.
Similarly, in those fire scenes, the camera can pass through the flames and make wonderful vertical movements, thereby visually raising the drama at this time to a high point.
But these wonderful shots also bring some editing difficulties. The improvisation of actors and cameras prevented several shots from being used because they could not be connected to the scene.
In addition, it is not easy to compress paragraphs, so one of the best shots had to be cut in the final cut. That was the camera operator standing on the rocker arm, (the height of the rocker arm) flush with the third-floor balcony of the farmer's residence. Linda Mantz walked into the house from the balcony, walked through the bedroom, and then walked down the stairs. At the same time, the rocker came down with her. We could see her intermittently through the windows. When she reached the first floor, the operator walked down the rocker and followed Linda step by step into the kitchen, where she met Richard Gere and had a conversation with him (concurrent recording).
The first part of this shot makes the rocker follow the actor outside the building, and describes her movements through the window in the process, which is not novel. King Vidor did this in Street Scene (1931), and Opheles did it in "The Countess's Earrings" (Madame de..., 1953). But on the other hand, the next part where the camera really enters the building is very novel.
The French washing powder is placed in the invention of the Red Man, the Louma boom, which allows the camera to enter the building at the end of "La Vie Devant Soi" (La Vie Devant Soi, 1977), but it can only enter one room because it cannot rotate. But with Panaglide, you can finally get the three-dimensional feeling and perfectly describe the layout of the building.
Despite its amazing potential, Panaglide has a serious shortcoming: the entire system is quite heavy, so its operators must have Olympic-level athletic ability. If it becomes a standard machine, we will train a whole generation of athletes/photographers. The problem is that the athletes we are looking for must also be artists.
All three operators and I tried to operate this machine, and finally gave up exhausted. So Bob Gottshalk of Panavision sent a well-trained athlete: Eric Van Haren Noman, and he was also an outstanding artist.
I have been pushing the night scenes throughout the filming process. When 5247 film (belonging to Kodak Eastman) was first released a few years ago, the effect of intensifying it was not very good, but when we filmed "Day of Heaven", the new film had almost perfect results , The results we got at the Alfa-Cine printing plant in Vancouver made us more than satisfied.
We intensified the night scene part by one level to the sensitivity value of ASA 200, and in a few extreme cases, the sensitivity level was increased by two levels to ASA 400. To our surprise, the graininess of the film is not noticeable, even in a copy that is magnified up to 70 mm.
With this ASA sensitivity value and the support of the new ultra-high-speed lens, I can shoot in ultra-low light conditions that I have never tried before. For example, the aperture of a 55mm lens is T/1.1. With it, you can even shoot with a match or flashlight as lighting. We often use T/1.1 aperture, add a stop of exposure, remove the 85th filter, and use the last ray of skylight to shoot.
Although I can feel at ease in terms of exposure, I still worry about the focus problem, because in this case the depth of field of the lens has been reduced to a minimum, and when we consider to enlarge the issued copy to 70 mm, this problem even made me Double worry.
Once again, I am fortunate to have a talented second assistant (note: follower). Michael Gershman is responsible for the follow-up, and he also knows that this filming is a gamble. Although the task is arduous, he still proved his pursuit of perfection. He will prepare for rehearsal time and time again before confirming the focal length. Contrary to the impatience of some people towards him, I am extremely grateful for his dedication to his work. I didn't use a diffuse filter and wanted to get a sharp and clear image. The sharp images in the final film should be directly attributed to his professionalism.
In professional film production, there is usually no risk at the expense of underexposure and focus (unrealistic), but Malick wants this film to have a unique style, and this style requires these adventures. In order to get this style, he encouraged me to be bold and innovative.
In 1917, outdoor activities at night were generally illuminated by bonfires or lanterns. In our bonfire section, in order to get a realistic effect, the challenge we face is to shape the lighting effect where the fire is the only light source.
Many westerns have a distinctive feature. When the characters sit around the campfire, there are usually electric lights hidden under the firewood to increase the brightness of the fire. I always think these scenes look fake.
Even in such an outstanding movie as "DERSU UZALA" (1975), there is a bonfire scene that looks absurd. Not only did they use too many lights, but the light had already overshadowed the fire, and the white of the light conflicted with the color temperature of the fire, destroying the entire atmosphere.
Another commonly used technique is to make people shake the animal in front of the lamp to create the effect of the fire flashing in front of the human face.
All these methods didn't make me satisfied enough, so I began to think about the technique of lighting the actors with real flames. Like all new discoveries, our solution was born out of coincidence.
[When we were preparing for the bonfire scene where the workers celebrated the harvest, I saw how the fire light effect works. A duct with several gaps is used as a container for natural gas, and the gas valve of the propane cylinder controls the airflow so that the gas turns into a flame at the gap. Through the gas valve, the height (and brightness) of the flame can be controlled. 】
We put these tube devices close to the camera as the only auxiliary light source in the campfire passage. We take the real firelight as the main light, it has its own real color and dynamic. I set the exposure between T/1.4 and T/2, and enhanced the film to ASA 200 by one stop. I think we not only capture the sense of reality, but also the sense of beauty.
Similarly, we did not add any artificial special effects to the spectacular scene of burning wheat fields. Because if you artificially illuminate the flame, it will weaken its visual effect.
In super-produced movies, fire scenes are always over-lit by mistake, thereby ruining the overall effect. I think this is mainly due to the excessive enthusiasm of the photography director using any lighting equipment available on hand, thinking that this will prove to everyone that his salary and status are beyond doubt.
The scene of the burning wheat field in this film took us two weeks to shoot. We burn different fields every night. In the end, the drama and excitement reflected on the screen can hardly compare with the tension we face on the shooting scene.
Although we took all precautions, it was still difficult to control the fire when shooting. We would suddenly find ourselves surrounded by flames, and the air was suffocating. The entire camera crew-field affairs, herdsmen, and transportation personnel-reacted swiftly, loading everyone and machines into the truck at the fastest speed, and drove through the flames into the open area.
It was really a turning point in fate, and bad luck was also likely to come. Fortunately, this movie was blessed by the gods.
Just like the fire scene, some night scenes illuminated by lanterns also need to have the real effect of using lanterns as the real light source, instead of just using lanterns as props as in other movies.
In order to create this kind of real effect, we connected the lantern to the electric wire, the electric wire passed through the actor's wrist, and finally received the actor's battery hidden in the clothes and fixed to the waist. In terms of color, we painted the crystal part of the lantern dark orange. In these scenes I usually use a very soft front side fill light and add color to it with double-sided 85 orange paper. This auxiliary light source is only used to add a little brightness and color to the dark part.
When filming "Days in Heaven", I used a shooting technique for the first time, so that actors in the forward and back light positions can finally be cross-edited together.
When shooting location scenes, an unavoidable problem is how to perform this kind of cross-editing. On weekdays, this situation seems very common, but from a photographic point of view, this situation is simply disastrous. The final cross-edited (supplement: positive and negative) shots give people a sense of discontinuity (an actor was The shadow is covered, the other is in direct sunlight).
The typical solution to this problem is to add fill light to the face of the backlit actor, so that his brightness is equivalent to that of the actor in the forward light position. Its disadvantage is that it will make the sky behind the backlit actors white (overexposed), while the sky behind the straight actors is blue. (Of course, unless you over-illuminate the backlit actors in order to reduce exposure. This situation is as ugly as the above.)
I accidentally got it in a movie called "Women in the Sun" (1974) A solution that is completely opposite to my realist inclinations.
This plan is to arrange the two actors with their backs to the sun when shooting cross-editing shots, and carefully ensure that the actors’ positions and line of sight can be matched correctly. In this way, the faces of the actors and the background can be equal in brightness, and the effect of cross-editing becomes natural.
The terrain of the shooting site is undoubtedly our advantage. The land is very flat and covered with the same wheat in different directions.
When terrain restrictions arise, we shoot a single actor in the morning, and shoot another actor in the afternoon when the sun moves to the other side of the sky.
Let two people be backlit when facing each other at the same time, or let the sun appear in both screens. I don’t know which of these two ideas is smarter.
If a very careful movie fan can count two suns in a daytime scene, he can't even count one in the sunset scene. I believe this technique has brought some unconscious attention to the running out of "Days in Heaven".
In many cases, the most beautiful light in nature often appears in some extreme situations: those moments when you feel that you can no longer continue to shoot; those moments when all photography manuals will not advocate you to try.
Malick wanted most of the film to be shot in these time periods, which he called "magic moments." During this time, the sun has set and the night has not yet fallen, and it is difficult for people to recognize the source of the light; it seems to come from a magical place. This time has extraordinary beauty.
In fact, there are only about 20 minutes between sunset and total darkness, so the term "magic hour" is just a beautiful legend.
Malick's decision to shoot many parts of the film at magical moments was not just an aesthetic pursuit without a cause. Whether in history or in the story, the shooting of this period of time is reasonable and reasonable, because the farmers in the story have to work at sunrise and rest at sunset. The only time they can freely control is this "magic moment." .
Thanks to Malick's genius and brave perseverance, these passages became the most interesting part of the movie. He is "brave" because it is not easy to make a group of technicians from Hollywood understand that we only shoot 20 minutes a day.
In order to prepare as much as possible, we will spend the entire daytime rehearsing with actors and cameras. Then as everyone is fully prepared, we will do our best to shoot quickly (or even frantically) as soon as sunset, and don't want to waste even a minute.
Malick looks like Joshua in the Bible in his daily shooting, hoping to stop the unmoved pace of the sun.
However, in some cases, due to the length of the passage, we can't finish the filming as planned before the sky is completely dark. We had to wait again for the "magic moments" and film these scenes the next day.
When filming the "Magic Moment" part, we always add one gear to the ASA 200. As the light diminished, we gradually opened the aperture until we opened the 55mm lens with the fastest light-through speed to its maximum aperture: T/1.1.
After that, we will remove the 85th filter. In my estimation, this is equivalent to adding another level of sensitivity.
Our last resort is to slow down the shutter speed, use 12 frames per second, and then reduce to 8 frames per second to shoot. We carefully instructed the actors to move very slowly, and when the movie is being screened normally at 24 frames per second, their movements will return to normal.
While reducing the shooting speed from 24 frames per second to 8 frames per second, we increased the exposure time from 1/50 second to 1/16 second, which is equivalent to an increase of one and a half gears of sensitivity.
Shooting in this low light means that the negative film will have almost completely different tones, and the difference in tones will increase as the "magic moment" deepens.
It is the MGM processing factory that unifies these mismatched materials and distributes the light into a smooth and consistent whole. Bob McMillan is the colorist for this film, and his work is unparalleled.
Generally speaking, every day it distinguishes other films from the rough cut version (the original material) due to the color difference, which looks like a blunt patchwork. And he (Bob McMillan) finally made these materials into a unified whole, needless to say, I am very grateful to him.
Except for the passages mentioned above, no artificial lighting and auxiliary light sources were used in the filming process of the whole film. When lighting is needed, we also do our best to make the light appear natural, and clarify its light source.
In order to achieve this effect, even those interior night scenes in the house were "illuminated" by the small table lamps commonly used in that period.
After those lamps were processed by the dimmer to reduce the color temperature, their original modern bright appearance became the warm and low-power appearance of the early tungsten filament lamps. Soft light is the only auxiliary lighting we use in these scenes.
We did not use any auxiliary lighting or supplementary lighting when shooting the interior day scenes. We only use natural light through the windows. It's like taking a picture of Vermeer.
I have already used this technique in other films, especially in the French-German co-production, "The Countess of O" (Die Marquise von O..., 1976) directed by Rohmer.
Like the other examples in this film, although I have used this technique before, I have never pushed it to the limit that Malick encouraged me to reach. For example, in "Countess O", although we accurately planned to shoot at the moment when the sunlight through the window provides the best lighting for the lens, we still added auxiliary lighting to the shadows because Rohmer does not I like the high-contrast picture.
However, when shooting with Malick, we did not add any lighting. Frankly speaking, the effect we get is a completely dark background. Only the characters highlighted by the background are exposed.
In addition to the extraordinary beauty and texture of pure natural light, the real advantage of this photography technique is to free the actors from the dazzling lights and the suffocating high temperature of the lamps, and get more room to play. Not to mention this method saves the time originally used to connect cables, move equipment and adjust lights.
Its negative effect is to make the depth of field shallower. When the aperture is fully opened, the depth of field range is also reduced to a minimum. Fortunately, Malick is a unique director who quickly understood the methods and limitations of photography.
Changing to another director probably won't consider the lack of depth of field. At least, he won't accept this restriction so easily, and carefully design the position so that the actors are always on the same focusing surface. There is no over-the-shoulder shot or front-to-back contrast stance, so that no one actor is out of focus.
All our creativity is to keep improving. Like the great filmmakers in the silent film era, we are moving against the current trend, using only simple, fast, effective and always in the camera visual techniques and special effects.
Over the years, audiences have been able to get a glimpse (even if they didn't intend it, at least they could know it unintentionally). The audience can easily perceive the optical special effects somewhere in the film, because at this time the film particles will become eye-catching and the color tone will be improved accordingly. In order to avoid these optical links in visual effects, we keep all effects completed in the machine.
From my work experience in Europe, I also brought a technique that my colleagues considered “sacrilege” (incarnera fade) at first.
At the end of some scenes, we will fade the film to a black screen by slowly closing the shutter of the lens. For example, if our exposure aperture value was F/2.8 at the time, then we would slowly fade to F/16, and then close the active shutter on the Panaflex camera until we reached the effect of black film.
Another stylized technique we use is "day for night" (day for night). In the era of black-and-white films, "shooting night scenes during the day" is a photography technique that takes a wide outdoor scene during the day into a seemingly night scene.
The standard black-and-white film processing technique still used in today's color film field is to underexpose during shooting and then print down during the positive film processing. The main difference with the black and white film technique lies in the use of a red filter that enhances the brightness of the face, the enhancement of the global contrast, and more importantly: the darkening of the sky.
In order to control the sky and contrast in color films, polarizing filters and graded neutral filters are often used. I don't think these two methods are very satisfactory.
In "Day in Heaven", we simply used the method of raising the camera position/lowering the shooting angle, or choosing a camera position where the horizon is not visible (such as the foot of a mountain) to avoid the sky.
In order to highlight the night scene effect, in addition to the standard underexposure and exposure version, we also used 85 filters and placed the actors in the backlit position for shooting.
The result is a compact, cool blue moonlight effect-an improvement in color photography. During the filming of "Days in Heaven", Terry Malick created an aggressive atmosphere and space that allowed us to make progress at all times.
His amazing understanding of photography skills and his unremitting artistic inspiration and support have become the supreme motivation for our visual achievements.
In the scene of the locust plague in the wheat field, Terry's bold and minimalist aura inspired me to burst out a simple technique that allows us (without resorting to optical special effects) to obtain the ideal picture quality and maximize the dramatic effect.
We used live locusts provided by the Canadian Department of Agriculture in the foreground, but on the wide panorama, blurred tractors and dim migrant workers’ lens, we used a technique used in "The Earth": the camera rewinds the film. Shoot the peanut shells dropped by a helicopter.
When the film is shown in sequence, these "locusts" seem to rise into the air. Of course, this means that all performances and actions have to be reversed, especially actors and tractors. In fact, everyone said, "This doesn't work." But a few believers persuaded them to come and let us retake it, thanks to Terry's courage. When these people saw the sample, everyone was shocked. Not only does this work, it's perfect.
All of this is because of Malick. He is really the best filmmaker in America, a polymath in art. In terms of artistic attainments, he belongs to the same category as Luo Mai and Chufu. A person who inspired me and perfected my photography skills with fearlessness and artistic talent. He made it easy for me to adapt to my new job in the New World. The days we worked together were really like "days in heaven."
View more about Days of Heaven reviews
