American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1941)

WHAT SHOULD TESTS SHOW? By LESTER WHITE, A. S. C. I']1 happens all too often in every studio . . . production is well under way, but everything is thrown suddenly out of gear as the rushes show that some person, costume, set or prop doesn't photograph as it should. Sometimes it means costly delays as a set is repainted or rebuilt, a costume re-made, a make-up or coiffure revised. Almost always it means ruffled tempers as producer, director, cinematographer and everyone else concerned asks "WHY?" That person or object has almost certainly been subjected to extensive photographic tests. And those tests had showed up successful on the screen. The various executives, technicians and others whose duty it was to screen and pass on them had approved the person or object tested as wholly satisfactory for its part in the production. And still, perhaps in the expensive middle of production, we find things aren't right — that there must be delays and changes — probably retakes— before things can continue satisfactorily. No wonder everyone asks "WHY?" and points an accusing finger at the people on the set who can't apparently make that person or object appear as advantageously as in the test. And they usually speak highly of the cinematographer who made that test that was so good. Hut to my mind, the shoe can very often lie on the other foot in a case like this. The people who made the test did their work not merely well, but too well, for they made it under conditions which couldn't always be duplicated in actual production. They had, I think, the wrong conception of the test, in that they aimed for the maximum possible with that person or costume, rather than for the minimum that would be possible under the worst conditions of actual production. Suppose, for instance, we're testing a player for an important feminine part. The natural instinct would be to give that test the very best photography of which you're capable — to present that girl in glamorizing close ups and long shots that enhance every bit of her natural beauty and charm. Of course it's necessary to include some shots of this nature in any test. But to my mind, if the test is composed exclusively of them, it will be doing an injustice to the player, the cinematographer, the studio — and to the test itself. It leaves too much unanswered! You've proved that the girl can be made to look lovely on the screen — in a shot where everything played into the photographer's hands; where movement of both subject and camera was minimized. You've proved, perhaps, that you can make her look attractive as she sits still and presents first a full-face angle to the camera, then the right profile, then the left, or perhaps walks slowly toward or from the camera. So what? Sooner or you — or some other cinemai /grapi._ . ill have to face the problem of photographing her in action on the set. She'll be moving around — perhaps violently. Often your camera will be moving, too, on dolly or boom. Your lamp-placement may at times be restricted by camera-movement or the need of eliminating microphone-shadows. Can you still make her look as well then as she did in the test? Maybe in your test you used a heavy — and glamorizing — diffusion. You can do this in close-ups in production: but how about the longer shots where you can't use so much diffusion ? How is she going to look then ? Unless the test takes consideration of these inevitable factors, and shows the minimum that can be expected, as well as the maximum, it can't be called a really fair test! Suppose you have a character-actor like Paul Muni, for example, playing a Mexican or a Chinese. A test of his make-up alone shows nothing but the already well-known fact that he can be made up to represent almost any type of character. But unless you and the testdirector plan for it, it won't show how convincing that make-up will be in scenes where he is eventually to work with a genuine Mexican or a real Chinaman. Neither will it show how he will appear in scenes where he is to work closely with the other players — with Americans or Britishers, and with the leading lady. Maybe these are obvious considerations in tests of extreme character make-ups — but they're easily overlooked, none the less, in making "just a simple make-up test." Costume tests can hold just as many pitfalls. And it is not always or exclusively the costumes of the principals that can give you trouble, either. Only recently I had the task of testing some costumes for the chorus of a musical film. To put it bluntly, the designer had done his best to suggest the daringly revealing costumes of chorines without literally running afoul of censorship regulations. But photographic tests were necessary to prove whether or not the photographic rendition of the costume and its wearers would be too nearly similar, and perhaps give some sensitive minded reviewers the impression that there was too little costume and too much girl revealed. In the comparatively close shots of normal dramatic action, the cinematographer can do a great deal to control the way such a costume would appear on the screen. Definition and gradation are both at the maximum. Furthermore, discreetly placed shadows can conceal doubtful points. But in long-shots of a musical number, or dance routine, the situation is reversed. Definition and gradation are almost inevitably at their minimum. And with a set lit for the high-key effects usually desirable for such numbers, and both players anil camera moving constantly, very little — if any — shadowing (Continued on Page 442] 418 September, in 11 American Cinematographer