{"id":353108,"date":"2024-09-10T15:02:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-10T13:02:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cined.com\/?p=353108"},"modified":"2024-09-30T12:33:15","modified_gmt":"2024-09-30T10:33:15","slug":"unmotivated-light-as-a-storytelling-tool-when-is-it-appropriate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cined.com\/jp\/unmotivated-light-as-a-storytelling-tool-when-is-it-appropriate\/","title":{"rendered":"\u30b9\u30c8\u30fc\u30ea\u30fc\u30c6\u30ea\u30f3\u30b0\u30c4\u30fc\u30eb\u3068\u3057\u3066\u306e\u6d88\u6975\u7684\u7167\u660e\u306f\u3044\u3064\u4f7f\u3046\u306e\u304c\u9069\u5207\u304b\uff1f"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Lighting should be believable and motivated\u2014or at least, that\u2019s what modern filmmaking conventions say. We have already talked a lot about it and how to achieve it. After all, emulating light is a crucial skill for lighting designers. However, how about breaking the rules? What if we want to use unmotivated light deliberately as a storytelling tool? Let\u2019s take a look at some examples that may help us on this mission.<\/strong><\/p><353108-inline-buylinks\/>\n\n

Like many other filmmakers, I sincerely believe that all tools should support the story. Of course, lighting is no exception. When it\u2019s motivated, it helps the audience immerse themselves in your created world without being distracted, and we will discuss this below. But what if the distraction is intended or even desperately needed?<\/p>\n\n

Motivated versus unmotivated light<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

When we talk about motivated lighting, we mean believable lighting, cohesive lighting, and authentic lighting. In short, film lights that can be justified within the shot. Sometimes, filmmakers use practicals<\/a> for this purpose: Say, if you want to illuminate the background, you can place a small lamp within the frame to create the illusion that it’s casting the necessary light. In other cases, we rely on common sense. If there is a window in the room and the viewers know about it, they will believe the daylight falling onto the actor\u2019s face from that direction.<\/p>\n\n

Of course, natural lighting is the most believable, and we can surely use it as well, but not in all cases. (You can read more about why that’s so here<\/a> and here<\/a>.) So, when we apply film fixtures to illuminate the set and get the correct exposure, we try to emulate the light appropriate for the situation as much as possible. This way, the lighting creates a believable world for the audience to dive in.<\/p><353108-mzed-course\/>\n\n

Unmotivated lighting, as the name suggests, is the opposite. Imagine a shot where the light feels random, comes from weird angles, is too bright, or doesn\u2019t fit the situation at all. That would be distracting, wouldn\u2019t it? At least, it won\u2019t add realism to our cinematic world.<\/p>\n\n

However, as the cinematographer and educator Tal Lazar suggests in his MZed course \u201cThe Language of Lighting\u201d<\/a>, realism is not the only big force motivating lighting. The second one is the story, and the story can call for something completely unexpected, rare, and irrational.<\/p>\n\n

It wasn\u2019t always the case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

Let\u2019s start with the fact that this demand for realism wasn\u2019t always on the radar in filmmaking history. In the early Hollywood films, you will often see the opposite. For example, Tal Lazar shows us a scene from the 1942 film \u201cMildred Pierce.\u201d<\/a> Look at a couple of still images from it below. Can you spot something weird about the lighting?<\/p>\n\n

\n
\"\"
Film stills from “Mildred Pierce” by Michael Curtiz, 1945<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n

The first shot is dark and moody, suggesting that there is almost no light in the room behind Joan Crawford, who portrays the protagonist. However, when she turns around and goes inside (picture 3), she is suddenly beautifully illuminated. And her close-up shot has soft, even lighting coming from a very specific high angle. Makes no sense, right? Well, that\u2019s because the only motivation for light here is the convention that existed at the time and dictated how the star \u2013 and specifically the female star \u2013 should be lit. Thus, if you watch old movies, you will notice that all close-up shots follow the same lighting design. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n

Nowadays, we have much more freedom. In most cases, actors are okay with even very unpleasant lighting on their faces as long as it supports the story and their character-building. And so is the audience.<\/p>\n\n

Unmotivated light today<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

As Tal explains in his course, story doesn\u2019t always equal realism. Because we have such things as subtext, the emotional journey of the characters, and underlying mood, we can decide to use light to support them instead of emulating reality. Here are some film stills from the drama \u201cMiddle of Nowhere,\u201d<\/a> which won the Sundance award for Best Directing.<\/p>\n\n

\n
\"\"
Film stills from “Middle of Nowhere” by Ava DuVernay, 2012<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n

What do we see here? A simple moment: a family is gathered around the dinner table. Does it feel like a friendly and loving encounter, though? I bet, even from still images \u2013 no, it doesn\u2019t. Some angles show windows in the background, suggesting bright daylight outside. However, the darkness inside is inconsistent with that. We barely see some of the characters! The lights around the table feel artificial and unpleasant. When the mother asks \u201cwhy having a meal as a family is so painful?\u201d we know exactly what she means. The atmosphere created by this unrealistic (to an extent) lighting design supports this notion without words.<\/p>\n\n

The symbolic use of the unmotivated light<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

Traditionally, light has a symbolic meaning representing moral goodness and a force withstanding evil darkness. So, we can use it to connect someone or something to this symbol, just like Luc Besson brilliantly does in \u201cL\u00e9on: The Professional,\u201d the film that broke many hearts and remains on all the must-watch lists.<\/p>\n\n

At the end of Act One, we see Mathilda\u2019s family being slaughtered. When she comes back home, she finds her young brother dead in the open door of her apartment. The murderers are still there, so she has to walk past her brother to the neighbor\u2019s door. We \u2013 the audience \u2013 already know who lives there: a professional assassin and recluse L\u00e9on. Let\u2019s rewatch together this painful scene, where Mathilda begs him to open the door (starting from 02:00):<\/p>\n\n

\n