I had a difficult time getting 'involved' with Out of the Past, I felt like I was watching a play more than real events. I believe it is because a lot of the outdoor scenes were done on a sound stage. Some scenes that come to mind: The rainy house Kathy and Jeff stayed at, some woods scenes, and Whit's house on Lake Tahoe.
It's not that sound stages immediately turn me away, indoor scenes and cities can be done quite realistically, but seeing a backdrop of Lake Tahoe instead of the real thing ruins the immersion. I don't know how well everyone else noticed, but I could see fake rain and fake woods that had a 'convenient' clearing for the camera.
We have talked about intentional low key lighting, and dark scenes in noir, but I wonder if the reason so many scenes are dark is partially because directors liked shooting in real outdoor locations at night. I liked the night scenes in Double Indemnity and Chinatown because a lot of them were extremely dark which that added to the immersion. Most modern movies light up the darkness, but retaining the darkness adds grit to the films. What do you all think?
That's really interesting because, to be honest, I had no trouble ignoring the "falseness" of the backdrops. On the other hand, I can see how it would be jarring after watching Double Indemnity and Chinatown. The part that killed me wasn't the painted backgrounds but the stock footage of Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the reason for the darkness, you might be on to something, but I think it's more a product of stylistic choices and the influence of expressionist films. The realness of it is really important, but what would stopped them from adding an extra light to the set other than a stylistic choice?
I think you're totally right about the darkness adding grit to the film, I just don't know that it necessarily has anything to do with whether or not it was shot on a soundstage (which I suspect is probably a cost-cutting measure).
Actually, the film did use location shots for Tahoe, Reno, Mexico, and "Bridgeport." Almost everything in fact. The rainy night was a studio, but most of the other shots were likely on location. The sense of artificiality may have more to do with the lighting and composition, which is one reason why use of sets in noir (which tends to be inside anyway) doesn't seem out of place. Noir, especially later noir, started the move toward more location shoots, sometimes for cost (though location shooting is often more expensive) and partly through influence of neorealism. If you're referring to the last shot, it's possible that's a process shot of some kind, but the lighting may be creating a sense of artificiality as much as anything.
ReplyDeleteWild. I really figured that most of those mountain scenes were painted backdrops. I'M LEARNDING!
Deletehttp://i.imgur.com/skdO80V.png
lol funny pic
DeleteThe scene that looks really stiff to me is last one where Jeff and Kathy were at Whit's mansion. The woods I was referring too was a small shot as well, but it's those small instances that remind me I'm watching a film.
ReplyDeletehttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3334484706_3697bc32f8.jpg
There's a different way to consider this view, which is to see how differently our conception of film realism is. I think audiences of the time would have felt the film somewhat more "real" than other films of the day. From our vantage, we tend to see the stylization of the shots, lighting, etc. Everything that makes it "noir."
ReplyDeleteI guess because I grew up watching a lot of old movies the sets or scenes always seem in context with the time period or genre of movie. When it comes to the lighting I think only being able to work in b/w may limit you, but also brings out incredible creativity in the way the use of light can tell, enhance and manipulate a story. I don't however, agree that most modern movies light up their night/dark scenes too much. There may be some instances of that, but mostly I get frustrated that their too dark; I can't tell what's going on. I know - I'm not supposed to right? Well, I feel they go too far most of the time and I might as well just read the book. lol
ReplyDeleteOh, and in regards to the backgrounds again. I think it's funny how some sets look fake (and we don't mind or notice as much cause it's on old movie) and others are so realistic we don't question them. Maybe I'm gullible, but I never realized much of Gone With the Wind was painted on the film cels. The house wasn't actually there, lol.
ReplyDelete