Chapter 1 – Part 4 – The “theory of technique”


I.4. The "theory of technique"

The atmosphere he creates a film is all the more powerful indefinable. The origin of this work is a way of looking at the staging, shared with the Council and expressed also by Ferzetti, for which this is understood as a process of realization of an aesthetic project narrative. The practical application of this idea is to go from virtual movie of the script, his definitive translation images[1] the, in the words of Pasolini, writing using the forms stolen from nature, that language that reality just talk. In short you decide what to see, how much and how, phase in which comes into play the role of the director of photography, as one who materially, in the strict sense, controls and manipulates instruments and means able to define the intensity and the space visible own film, that are quite different from those that we perceive through our eyes, as well as in photography in general.

The figure of the director of photography is central in the organization of work in film, but has often been neglected by critics. His job, SINCE continuously adapt to technology, just the same questions the status of neutrality that many still, absurdly, insist on giving it. In the words of Sacha Vierny, famous French operator, the author of the photograph of a film, even before his technical knowledge, certainly puts into play a kind of spontaneity specialist: his is a job at the boundary between the certainties of technology and the possibility of creating, boundaries and highly variable and influenced by several factors, contingencies such as production, the kind of movie that is going to make, the relationship with the director, the temperament of the individual operator and so. The control that he exerts on the light, even if it has a margin precise and sometimes very large autonomy, is always in the service of something else that is being built on the set, from the mediation between the various powers of the world movie. It is increasingly clear that the photograph of a film is in any case also determined by varying technical and production. The director of photography is called upon to interpret the irreducible gap that exists between the light in the scene and the one that appears on the screen, immedesimando to take his eye with the camera, that says that the visible very quickly. His job consists in a real work interpretation, But that has nothing to do with concepts, but with images and passing through the mediation of a technical apparatus with which the user reformulates and gives body to the imagination of film.

Talking, you are forced to deal with the ambiguity of the division of roles on the set, and in particular the intrusiveness of a figure like that of precisely ddf[2], who join the ranks of technicians is able to exercise very exorbitant, highlighting all that this undefined concept of "technical" includes hides and. There is therefore a real opportunity to think about continuity or breaks in the work of individual directors: In fact punctuality with which each author stresses the need for a story, of a narrative which anchor and bring the choices of lighting, reveals how the light is in a sense a "this side" of the staging (or at least that is what we mean when we say that the illumination must be "right"). This is because for a ddf is of paramount importance to put the director in a position to achieve the desired images, giving their work to its, until they are indistinguishable, feature which makes it almost impossible to properly investigate its style regardless of the atmosphere of each film and the nature of his collaborations with different directors with whom he is working in her life. The light most successful in fact, in film, is considered to be one that you can not even imagine separated by specific characters, environments and the story told in the film.

You can then simply trace the outline of the practical activities of those who create the photograph of the film, suggesting that through this operation, however, is at stake in this trend and going to recover small constant in the choices, techniques and, consequently, in the taste of the individual authors of photography: in what in essence, of their experience visual, inevitably spills in films different from each other for events and atmospheres.

The complex relationship that exists between in film theory and technique suggests, this a di Bernardi[3], the possibility of a real theory of technique, hypothetically based on three poles, which are specifically: who tells the stories, who shows images and those to whom it is directed the film. In dealing with the director of photography and cinematic picture, one can not talk about almost everything that has to do with the film, from the production of the film, the structure of the filmic narrative, the history of the authors, technicians, painting, of the composition of, sense of cinema and so on. Talking about the director of photography is a really difficult task. In times of uncertainty and fear as these are avoided discussions on substantive issues or at most, naively, you translate these uncertainties on diatribes superstructure, but any discussion, if it does not address issues at the root and does not pose thesis at the right point, is likely to become a fact Byzantine. Here, therefore, is meant to assess the repeated problem of "what" can be considered a work of art and on the basis of such considerations, ie what parameters and points of view, however, applied to an object of analysis very accurate and at the same time so vast as to become vague, which is the film photography.

In considering the problem might start with some comments on the substantial difference between an illustrator and a painter, exploiting a comparison that is still the basis of endless controversy. The illustrator has a reproduction of events always epidermal and sometimes filtered weakly from his temperament. The painter artist instead delves into the heart of the matter, and operates as a result of a laborious search, made of trial and error: an artist always pursues a social design, reveals in his work a precise reference collective and temporal. The painter artist, although linked to the customer, proceeds almost always alone, with modest means and can easily accomplish what you mean by a relative economic effort and without controls. The man of the cinema, part of their, can not lift a finger without imposing a technical installation, that conditions in a total way even before the start of the film and that it inevitably turns into a pawn of the system. The production of a film can almost never be the work of a single, but instead is, most often of times, collective creation. This aspect of cinematography democratic hypocritically, transforms the film into a composite product, and as pointed out by Bernard in an essay[4], the operation carried out in common is often antithetical to be able to express freely theories, feelings and aspirations. Then as the sole manipulator of the ideas remain who can exhibit or provide the money, and since the money for the money is the authoritarian ideology of the century, the work arises most often in this context of the time.

The film photography still survives despite having a leg now mired in the ghetto flat television and perhaps lost while denouncing the opportunity to picture an art capable of drawing with light the world outside of economic schemes. Survives in the work of those who think together and separately, ideano, structure and shape, each bringing a bit 'of themselves and their spent, the images that the viewer sees passing in front of the nose of the narrative in the amalgam. In evaluating it we refer often to painting, because the photograph of the film is to all effects and by definition, "Built drawing with light", moving. The ddf do so when the painter manages to mix the brightness appropriately essential to its operation of the shots, in the context of the narrative for images.

In conclusion, anyone who can create with their own feelings and their own wits a literary work, scientific or artistic, could be considered as "author" of the same. The backgrounds and settings are the basic elements of the film and also what it covers those who create the photograph of the same. On the other hand the dynamic film depends unquestionably, at least from the physiological point of view, the persistence of a photographed retinal and as he said Kracauer[5], in photography everything depends on the balance between realistic trend and creative trend, balance that is achieved when the latter does not try to overpower the first, but the claims.

What is an artistic process cognitive: l'opera d'art looks, through nature, to higher goals. In England the cinema was once called Bioscope because presented in visual terms the movements of the forms of life (from the greek Bios: life). The cinema was and is a sensational blend of the old mechanical technology, and the new electric world, very well defined by McLuhan[6]. On film the mechanic in its flow appears organic and makes credible vision for example of the growth of a flower. The task of the writer or filmmaker has always been then to transport the reader or viewer to a world that is his, to another that is built specially. It’ a fact that usually occurs in a manner so complete, that those who undergo this experience accept it in a subliminal way. In reality, however,, such as printing and photography, as "means hot" communicate, movies presuppose in their users a high level of literacy and rattle on the other hand the illiterate, adhering perfectly to the logic of linearity that characterizes our society. For more than 150 the photography is one of the protagonists of our daily lives and the actual context of new media comes in an impressive number of ways, always busiest, minimized artistic, as well as magnified, or carried to the nth degree. The photograph becomes an attendance in today's society almost daily. Even by Gabriele Salvatores, eg, for generations ranging from the postwar period, imagine a picture story and then think cinematographic sense has become simpler, given that by dint of watching movies each of us is built up with a sort of library frames movies all staff, obviously related to the perception that we have of these individually. Probably think in pictures and very often for actual shots, today is still before the write and you can see it in a lot of contemporary literature. In each frame, in each image of the film, contain, a microcosm that reflects the macrocosm, all the aesthetic characteristics, formal and content of the same, its intentions and its peculiarities: analyzing these moments become in their time-image, you can investigate in a legal manner on such films as artistic product.

What you want to go to build through this text then becomes a kind of open reflection, largely supportive of the creation of the pedagogy Alain Bergala, whose purpose was to make the recipients of the teaching material, involved and aware of the choices that the director and in our case the director of photography, accomplished in the design phase and recovery of the shots of the film. This system refers to the phenomenology of cinema, the semiotics of the story in pictures, the most famous philosophical theories on cinema, as well as to film aesthetics and the writings of numerous directors, directors of photography and critics. It begins with the new and old theories of mass communication, but also from all manuals that tells some of the film material, of pro-and post-film and so on. There has been partly occupied codes and parameters of the constitution of the iconic image, considering the cornerstones of an investigation which must necessarily fluctuate between multiple poles, to fully understand the object in question has.

The questions about the role of director of photography, especially as an author and artist with his own creativity, as well as technical service to directing and screenplay, are many. What is the artistic contribution of the director of photography on film? What is the relationship holds with the director? Because the most popular authors in the world of photography are Italians (among other numerous)? Chief among the attempts of this thesis is to think about a possible answer to be given to these and many other questions, about the role of the operator in the world of cinema, starting mainly from the detailed description of the job that accomplishes and in substance of what manipulates: of how and why certain choices ago, also considered to be part of the sphere crafts. Here is certainly the idea that technology is only a tool, important course, but that alone is not nothing, and also that every human being has its own techniques to relate with others. Often talking about film states that they work, a view of a large gear that must move its parts well and simultaneously at the same level, because you get what you want, but you have to wonder what's involved in the operation at the end of a film on his life when compared to fascinate, very often, are its dysfunctions, just as happens for people.

For Pasolini film was especially painting, Fellini for staging, for Visconti literature, Eisenstein for mounting, but also strength, wonder and taste to place the camera, Taviani for the cinema was especially the relationship between image and sound[7]: the photograph of the two directors of the films has always been able to grasp even the most subtle nuances of light hills sometimes sweet and sometimes inaccessible in Tuscany, the merciless sun or delicate and all the contradictions of its landscape. There is a visual syntax of cinema, but it is also obvious that each, starting from a common language and a grammar, you create your own language usandone tools in a personal way, and the investigation of this peculiar way, declinarsi in the film in more personality, which addresses the thesis.

Often the evaluation of a photograph of a film arena on a subjectivity that easy stops opinion: "I like it / I do not like". You always look at things according to their own knowledge and the cultural context of which it is part. The photograph is an image without code, though, it is evident that both, some structures affect their reading and are those related to the prospect albertiniana, then go to create all combinations of photography and film art of painting. The photographic image is not a analogue of world, although in its own has an unbreakable bond with the referent: what it portrays is built, because the optical camera and therefore also Film, subject to the laws of perspective, for which is made of a two-dimensional three-dimensional subject effigy.

Every speech is query, dialogue, but also and especially confession. In the case of film the theoretical instance has recently corrected by focusing on the entire production process of the message and the determinations of the sense that the semiotic processes can induce the network of relationships defined by the shape of the signifier. It does not seem so wrong from the analysis of this very complex interweaving of forms in order to understand the basic ideas and style, the way those of the plasma, partly always in his image and likeness. There is still a strong theoretical debate around the overcoming of the notion of representativeness of the film image, to approach that of writing and in kind of speech. However, in the cinema as well as in many other sectors, especially artistic matrix, the rules are made to be broken and you always expect that certain players Barino.

It can therefore say that the film uses to all effects a language, that there still remains a tangle of codes: it is thought that, forming, produces linguistic manifestations in turn obviously built. "To say a picture"[8], as also pointed out Rotunno, is an extremely difficult: you can try to describe it with adjectives do not own generics as good, cup, interesting, hard, joyful, Nordic, Mediterranean. It seems very complicated shape it with the words, but perhaps it is primarily a psychological issue: must be put in a position to understand the structure of photographic, perhaps starting with a detail that seems insignificant and instead reveals that to which it tends. Great writers, such as Camus, were able to express themselves through their novels with light and therefore it may in fact think that this is somehow "readable".

[1] Advice, S., Ferzetti, F., "The shop light. The directors of photography ", edited by Tadini, E., Milan, Ubulibri, 1983, the. 11

[2] Understood now as an abbreviation for director of photography. (N.d.a.)

[3] Bernardi, Sandro, "Introduction to rhetoric in the cinema", Florence, Letters, 1994, the. 1

[4] Mario Bernardo, "Time lost", in Bernardo, Mario (edited by), "Yearbook Italian Association of Cinematographers, 1990", Rome, AIC Ediz., 1990, the. 46

[5] Kracauer, Siegfried, “Film: return to physical reality”, Milan, The Assayer, 1962, the. 98

[6] Mc Luan, Marshall, "Understanding Media", trad. it. Capriolo, Hector, Milan, IS, 1999, the. 303

[7] Ferrucci, R., Turini, P., "Paolo and Vittorio Taviani. The poetry of the landscape ", Rome, Ed Gremese, 1995, the. 11

[8] Advice, S., Ferzetti, F., "The shop light. The directors of photography ", (edited by) Zens, E., Milan, Ubulibri, 1983, the. 155