American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1926)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

February, 1926 AMERICAN CINEM ATOGR APHER Seven Behind the Camera for IDilliam de HUlle Bij L. Quij XUilkxj, A. S. C. The following story appeared originally in The Motion Picture Director, which is sponsored by the Motion Picture Directors Association. It gives interesting camera "angles" on one of the most celebrated direct'/ r-cinematographer teams: (Registering the psychological qualities of a director's genius on celluloid, getting just the right shading, the proper balance between high lights and low lights, translating on to the him the underlying spirit of the story and the director's conception of its treatment — these are some of the problems which must be met and solved by the cinematographer. Upon him devolves a responsibility commensurable with that of an artist working in oils or in stone, for no matter how much feeling is expressed by the principals and members of the cast, no matter how much artistry is developed by the director in his treatment of theme or scene, unless feeling and artistry are adequately caught by the camera and registered for all time on the film with the same appreciation of artistic qualities their value is utterly lost. L. Guy Wilky, who tells here of his experiences as cinematographer for William deMille, shares with that director the artistic honors accorded deMille productions.) There is no set form of cinematography. Perhaps that is why it has earned the right to be termed an "art." To attempt to standardize it strictly would deprive it of its expression, and it would soon become rigid and inflexible, slow to progress, rather than being the extremely facile medium that it is today. Any effort to classify or designate the various standards of cinematography, is, therefore, extremely difficult, outside of indicating, in the most general way, the kind of photography that is used for the outstanding types of motion picture direction. The cinematographer who has a theme of rousing action with which to work. — costume stuff, with plenty of swordplay and back grounds of castles, and the like — possesses the opportunity to blossom forth with the kind of motion photography which, if properly done, must command the attention of even the casual layman. He has, it has been said aptly, a "photographic picture" to work with. He is enabled to conjure results which are as spectacular in their own way as are the direction and action which they help so much in "putting across." On the other extreme, we encounter comedy cinematography, replete with "special effects," necessary in aiding and abetting the spontaneous registering of the endless array of "gags" on which the average short comedy thrives. Strangely enough, this branch of cinematography has proved the training ground for cinematographers who have later been retained to utilize their knowledge in putting the intricate action of some of the greatest dramatic productions on the screen — as witness Fred W. Jackman, who, though now a director and a member of the Motion Picture Directors Association, is still acclaimed for his mastery of "trick" cinematography and who has continued to be an active member of the American Society of Cinematographers. The work of the comedy cinematographer, in short, is such that it, too, stands out for recognition to all those who view motion pictures. Between the foregoing t\\ *o extremes then, there lies a A. S. C. Member Writes Story Relative to Famous Director-Camera Team field of cinematography wherein the highest compliment that could be paid to the cinematographers, who are giving forth their efforts in it, is that their work, in a given production, is scarcely "noticeable." By that is not meant that the cinematography fulfills its mission in such instances by being inferior or merely passable — by no means; it must, on the other hand, be just as conducive of attaining the end of action and story that the director has in view. The writer knows of no better means whereby to identify this sort of cinematography than by referring to the productions of William deMille, with whom, if the personal mention may be pardoned, he has been associated for the past six years during which time he has been chief cinematographer on the twentyfive productions which Mr. deMille has produced for Famous Players-Lasky. As is readily recognized, Mr. deMille's productions have not been of the swashbuckling action sort; nor have they been, on the other hand, of the strictly comedy type. Hence there was no call for the two extreme "types" of cinematography as have been heretofore mentioned. Far from it — this director's touch required a treatment all of its own, and it was in this direction that the writer immediately bent his efforts as soon as he became associated with Mr. deMille. For the purposes of this article, Mr. deMille might be referred to as a "psycholog (Continued on Page 18)