American Cinematographer - October 2008 - 83

number of films, from Napoleon (1927) to The African Queen (1951), that have been restored digitally! Is that not incongruous? I look forward to seeing another digitally restored version of Lang’s iconic film in the not-too-distant future. So much for resolution, history and preservation! Then there is Wall-E (2008). I was privileged to be involved in a very minor way in the making of that film, and I learned a great deal about the process behind what Pixar refers to as an “animated” film. The animators who “photographed” the film worked in a three-dimensional world and covered the action in much the same way as a live-action film, but directors of photography Danielle Feinberg (lighting) and Jeremy Lasky (camera) — separate positions, you might note — used no emulsion, no Fresnel lamps or diffusion, no Steadicam, no geared head, nor any other live-action tool. Nevertheless, theirs was a stunning cinematographic achievement. It’s true they had an advantage — they never had to battle fading daylight, conceal a light’s source or hide dolly tracks — but I would not hesitate to recommend them for ASC membership. There are all sorts of techniques and technologies we cinematographers can use to create our images. Some are new, and some have been in use since The Robe (1953) was photographed, or even longer than that. Some of us migrate to one way of doing something rather than another. A video artist might choose to use film, and a filmmaker might choose to use video, but is it not diversity that makes any form of human activity interesting? It’s been a while since I was a student, but information continues to come at me from a variety of sources professing a variety of certainties, whether in regard to the role of the operator, digital capture, or other thorny issues. If you believe cinematography is more than a craft, then there can be no formula for shooting a film. There can be no rules. Just as we have no definition for what we mean by “quality,” we can’t say what really gives an image resonance, but I’m sure there is more to it than technique. I’m not suggesting for a moment that film should be consigned to the history books anytime soon, or that anamorphic is redundant (one recent blockbuster has disproved that idea); at the same time, I would not dissuade the use of 16mm or a cell phone to capture an image if that medium were appropriate. Only change is a certainty, and as members of the ASC, we need to encourage students of cinematography to find their own ways of seeing and their own ways of creating images in our changing industry. If there is a threat to the role of the cinematographer in the future, it will surely be the lack of vision. There is Culloden, and there is The Wild Bunch. I’m so very glad we have both. I 83

http://www.go-easylighting.com http://www.go-easylighting.com

American Cinematographer - October 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - October 2008