Spielberg filming style question

I did not know that Spielberg or any other director in the american system can take so much control over the visuals ?

I always thought that the DoP has main control over the visuals, making their work so darn expensive?


The relationship between director and DP is a very dynamic one.

As a DP, when I meet with my director, I'll find out if it's my canvas or his. This is the very first thing I need to know as it will dictate the working relationship for the rest of the shoot.

Some directors don't want to be troubled with the look of the film and leave it in the hands of their DP and production designer.

Some want to be involved and will relay their vision to the DP and Production Designer and expect them to make it a reality.
 
The relationship between director and DP is a very dynamic one.

As a DP, when I meet with my director, I'll find out if it's my canvas or his. This is the very first thing I need to know as it will dictate the working relationship for the rest of the shoot.

Some directors don't want to be troubled with the look of the film and leave it in the hands of their DP and production designer.

Some want to be involved and will relay their vision to the DP and Production Designer and expect them to make it a reality.

DH, that´s exactly what I had in mind, and what I experienced when working with various Directors.

Over here in Germany it´s essentially the same, with the DoP´s being sometimes very strong to a point of almost directing (experienced that with a "great" DoP and a "weak" director while working on a "Romy Schneider" bio pic, where the DoP almost ruled over every aspect of the movie). Not to mention that a DoP earns about twice what a Production designer does :rolleyes

CTF, yes, I know the "Auteur" theory, and actually don´t like that approach too much, but mainly because the German "author´s cinema" and the "Oberhausener Manifesto" from 1962, with Fassbinder, Herzog, Syberberg, Schlöndorff etc. kind of "smashed" the German movie industry.
I have to deal with this on a regular basis, where the author is the director, often produces and probably shoots the pic.
(Thanks for correcting me btw., of course it´s Janusz. I am a bit more firm with production designers :p )

To me a movie is a collaboration of a lot of creative people, and not one single director in the world can claim that a movie is solely his or her work. Of course one person should have a vision, but the result is always a collaboration. The extent of course can vary to a great extent.

That being said, I did never see Spielberg as being an "auteur",at least not in such a way that allows to tell that a movie is his work by looking at how a shot is framed.

PD brought up an interesting point that I find more important, namely how he guides actors in a scene or how he breaks a sequence down.
 
To me a movie is a collaboration of a lot of creative people, and not one single director in the world can claim that a movie is solely his or her work. Of course one person should have a vision, but the result is always a collaboration.

Yes, the result will be a collaboration, but it all has to be filtered through the influence of one mentality, ideally a director with an advanced interpretive insight on the text.
 
Spielberg usually keeps the camera pretty stationary as did many of the old masters. Most films of today are zooming all over the place from what I call the "MTV" or Michael Bay Syndrome", but Spielberg still pretty much keeps the frame steady and allows (as pointed out above) the action to take place mainly within the frame of that take.
 
Im not a DP , or a director, but I am an artist/illustrator and one of the most important aspects of art is finding the correct composition for the piece in question.
Composition is a bit of a strange element. For the most part, there are established rules in composition and it is up to the artist to use these rules in a unique way that makes his art special (without actually breaking these rules).

Most film makers today simply play it safe and use the common "rule of thirds" for composition, or just use eye candy effects (Slow motion, exaggerated filters, etc, which draw ettention away from poor composition) but Spielberg always seems to use a variety of composition elements which he mixes and mashes together to get a unique style....Almost to the point where you think he's breaking the rules of composition, but he is actually inventing his own form, which still adheres to the classic rules.

If you look at Kubrick's work, he rarely ever uses the Rule of Thirds. He seems to always opt for a very symmetrical composition (Which is extremely difficult to do...If not done correctly, it could ruin the entire piece.)


Damn, I miss Kubrick.

DS
 
From a artists viewpoint (not a director) I can point out the mish-mash of composition elements which Spiuelberg used in the scenes previously posted on this thread -

In this scene we see that the entrance to the shed is the main focal point in the shot. THere are two ways of drawing the eye to this area.
1- Placing the element within one of the 4 focal points cited in the Rule of thirds (which Spielberg has done)

2 - Light also draws attention to the main element (which spielberg has also done)

Spielberg makes sure that Elliot is not positioned on any of the other remaining 3 points of the Rule of thirds (THis is considered a No-no, in composition. No two objects should be placed on more than one point of the Rule of Thirds or they will compete with each other for dominance.)

The light spilling from the entrance draws the eye to Elliot, and from there, the clouds and moon draw the eye back to the shed.
Spielberg visually controls where the viewer should look first and guides them through the rest of the elements in the scene, and coms to a rest back at the entrance of the shed.
spielberg1.jpg


The Raider's warehouse scene is a combination of Pyramid /Funnel composition that is framed by a dark area that draws the eye along the path of the corridor.
spielberg2.jpg



In the Raider's chase scene we see that Indy's head is positioned exactly on one of the 4 points of the rule of thirds, but Spielberg takes it further (as mentioned by Jet Beatle) framing him within the wall of the cliff and the truck on the right. Creating a funnel that leads they eye to Indy.
spielberg3.jpg


The boulder scene in Raider's uses a symmetrical composition that employs the axis of the boulder rail to lead the eye to Indy, and then to the boulder (The boulder being lighted perfectly to accentuate the element that the rails are leading the eye to.)
spielberg4.jpg



The Landing scene from Saving Private Ryan also employs a pyramid composition, but Spielberg uses the outstretched arms of the soldiers on the left and right as an axis to first draw attention to the main character (Tom Hanks), before the viewer moves on the the other elements at the top of the pyramid.
spielberg5.jpg


DS
 
DS, I think that you really should not discuss the composition of a movie shot without mentioning the DoP.

An interesting interview with Janusz (!) Kaminski:
http://www.afi.com/education/conservatory/cinematography_video.aspx

That was a great interview. But it goes without saying that it's the job of a good DP to know what the director wants - not vice versa. The tunnel shot posted was something SS himself discussed at a Q&A at USC while discussing the technics employed by more modern directors whose signatures are larger than the portrait. In the discussion of what makes a person's "style" - its the small, ever present choices in the work that leave impression of certain person's hand at work. Nothing unique about the above posted shots, unless used at a constant - which is the case as far back as Sugarland Express (maybe even Amblin - but it's been awhile since Ive seen it)
 
That was a great interview. But it goes without saying that it's the job of a good DP to know what the director wants - not vice versa. The tunnel shot posted was something SS himself discussed at a Q&A at USC while discussing the technics employed by more modern directors whose signatures are larger than the portrait. In the discussion of what makes a person's "style" - its the small, ever present choices in the work that leave impression of certain person's hand at work. Nothing unique about the above posted shots, unless used at a constant - which is the case as far back as Sugarland Express (maybe even Amblin - but it's been awhile since Ive seen it)

Point taken! :thumbsup
I think I´ll have to brush up on my Spielberg and his "visual preferences" in the near future, and focus less on the production design that´s going on in there ;)
 
Point taken! :thumbsup
I think I´ll have to brush up on my Spielberg and his "visual preferences" in the near future, and focus less on the production design that´s going on in there ;)

It sounds to me like you know more about, or at least are a serious student of camera and cinematic layout - which gives you much more technical insight than I have. i only know from what I heard or read. If Speilberg is doing more with his tapestries I'd be interested to hear what you spot.
 
I'd agree in spirit with the notions about composition, its importance, and the skills of directors and DPs keeping it in mind. But there is also the phenomenon of, through overanalysis, finding stuff that wasn't put there intentionally.

For one thing, the ark warehouse was a post-production thing supervised by Lucas and his boys. Spielberg didn't even shoot the live action element, much less compose the painting. Kasdan's script laid it all out beforehand anyway. How are you going to show aisles of crates in "the biggest room in the world" without lines of perspective occurring?

Similarly: Indy next to the truck. Sure, they used a wider lens to increase the sense of perspective. Cool. But carefully lay out the route of the vehicles so that they pass some rocks on the left at just the right moment to create a "V" shape while Indy transfers? At the breakneck pace Spielberg was shooting that film? Not a chance. Maybe Kubrick would, and maybe Spielberg in Kubrick mode would, but Raiders was by-the-seat-of-your pants time.

One can always find the right lines to draw to support just about any visual theory.
 
It sounds to me like you know more about, or at least are a serious student of camera and cinematic layout - which gives you much more technical insight than I have. i only know from what I heard or read. If Speilberg is doing more with his tapestries I'd be interested to hear what you spot.

At least I always heavily try to sound like I know what I´m talking about :lol
I´m working as an assistant art director on movies, with a post-graduate study of production design under my belt. That does not by any means make me an expert (especially since it´s the German movie "industry" I´m working in, ya know, that brought you "The life of others" or ), but probably makes me a bit (actually a lot) biased when it comes to the analysis of who played an important part in creating a movie :$ And when I read things like "Spielberg was at home directing over the phone", well, then that makes my blood boil a bit ;) Mutual respect for all departments, I say.Hey, one can dream! Oh and yes, I already had a fight with a DoP once :lol He got pwned, creatively, that is :p Nah, also physically ;)

Treadwell said:
I'd agree in spirit with the notions about composition, its importance, and the skills of directors and DPs keeping it in mind. But there is also the phenomenon of, through overanalysis, finding stuff that wasn't put there intentionally.
...
One can always find the right lines to draw to support just about any visual theory.

Well put.

Or meaning where there is no meaning at all.
 
I'd agree in spirit with the notions about composition, its importance, and the skills of directors and DPs keeping it in mind. But there is also the phenomenon of, through overanalysis, finding stuff that wasn't put there intentionally.[/qoute]

I can assure you that when it comes to visuals in films or static art, (especially a Spielberg film) these elements are no accident.
Ive written several articles on composition, and I can instantly see when composition is intentional or just a case of luck.

I admit that Im not well informed on the job requirements of the DoP, Director, Cinematographer etc, but from looking at the finish product, I can tell that the elements in these finished shots were done intentionally for the best possible impact...Especially considering that these type of shots are a trademark of Spielbergs in nearly every one of his films (He can't have that many accidents).



For one thing, the ark warehouse was a post-production thing supervised by Lucas and his boys. Spielberg didn't even shoot the live action element, much less compose the painting. Kasdan's script laid it all out beforehand anyway.

From what Ive heard Spielberg does most of his own storyboards, so even if it was done in post production, whoever filmed the scene would still have to adhere to what Spielberg specified layout.


How are you going to show aisles of crates in "the biggest room in the world" without lines of perspective occurring?

Actually , I never mentioned lines of persepective...all shots have lines of perspective.
I said it was a "pyramid" composition.
A pyramid comp method that funnels they viewers eye into a path to a desired point. It does include perspective lines , but the perspective lines are used in a specific way.

Spielberg could have easily used any number of methods to film this shot...But his method seems to work best -

Rule of thirds shot
spielberg6.jpg


Radii compostion from a bird's eye POV -
spielberg7.jpg


Another rule of thirds shot, framed by the Ark crate, worm's eye view -
spielberg8.jpg




Similarly: Indy next to the truck. Sure, they used a wider lens to increase the sense of perspective. Cool. But carefully lay out the route of the vehicles so that they pass some rocks on the left at just the right moment to create a "V" shape while Indy transfers?

Well considering that the truck would merely need to follow along the rock wall, there really is no difficult "route".


DS
 
Great shots there Darth Saber = very impressive and insightful.

i will say on the mentioning of Kubrick's name - i love his stuff - from barry Lyndon to even Eyes Wide Shut - Kubrick's shots are way more technical and planned out than Speilberg's and that's because Stanley was (and for the most part remained) a photographer more than a storyteller. Usually his trademark shots have very little to do with moving the story, they're just there because of Kubrick's love affair with the camera. He takes helicopter, dolly and crane shots and multiplies them so that pretty soon you're looking at the longest helicopter shot in the world or dropping in on a war from crane to dolly in Paths of Glory as well as Spartacus. Somehow though he did manage to make the camera a character on occasions - 2001 being the example that pops into my head. It's a mood film, where atmosphere and character walk hand and hand.
 
From what Ive heard Spielberg does most of his own storyboards, so even if it was done in post production, whoever filmed the scene would still have to adhere to what Spielberg specified layout.

I'm spending some time with Mike, the guy who's responsible for that matte painting, so I'll definitely ask him.

And that's a great analysis, Pat!
 
although not a filming technique or style, another Spielberg trade-mark is the absent fathers, there is alot written about this running theme in his movies so I wont go as far as listing them but it's one of those things that I had to have pointed out to me and when it was I see it clearly rewatching his movies
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top