Richard Kline has been a cinematographer longer than most UCLA
students have been alive ““ long enough to remember a time
when artistic innovation was not as appreciated in the film
industry as it is now.
“When I started out, studios had total control of
everything, and heads of department would cite what they did not
like,” Kline said. “Our motto was “˜Be daring, but
don’t get caught at it.’ Nowadays, we don’t have
those restrictions.”
Kline, in fact, did get caught ““ but in a good way. Later
this month, he will receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from the
American Society of Cinematographers, one of the highest (if not
the highest) honor a cinematographer can earn. In tribute, the UCLA
Film and Television Archive will screen “Body Heat,”
shot by Kline and directed by Lawrence Kasdan in 1981, tonight at
the James Bridges Theater.
At the screening, Kline will answer questions about his
wide-ranging career, which has included work on films from
“Star Trek: The Motion Picture” to
“Camelot,” for which he received an Oscar nomination in
1968.
Although he represents an older school of filmmaking, he feels a
basic philosophy still applies to the currently changing nature of
his craft.
“It’s the story that counts, and the cinematography
helps tell the story visually,” Kline said. “It’s
a matter of feel. There’s no rule how you do it.”
The rules are especially tough to pin down today, when the
artistic possibilities of cinematography are greater than ever.
This is in large part due to the pervasiveness and accessibility
of digital technology ““ everything from shooting on
high-definition video to significantly manipulating the look of a
film in postproduction by adding computer graphics. A number of
recent films, from “Domino” to “King Kong,”
owe part of their visual aesthetic to effects added afterward,
requiring the cinematographer to consider the impact of these
effects during shooting.
In some cases, the line has blurred as to who is responsible for
the look of a film. When the Online Film Critics Society awarded
“Sin City” best cinematography of the year, David
Ridlen was perplexed.
“It was curious because it was pretty common knowledge
that most of the film was digital,” said Ridlen, who was the
digital effects supervisor for the film. “I began to wonder
if these critics knew what they were voting on.”
In a traditional sense, the cinematography was so basic that
there was no director of photography on the film. Rodriguez shot
most of it by positioning actors in front of a green screen, and
then inserting all locations and effects digitally in
postproduction.
Ridlen, who helped create the signature look of “Sin
City” in postproduction, contacted the OFCS and was surprised
to find out that most of the voters did not know that the film was
mostly digital.
“When I posted a question online about it, most of the
fans readily understood what I was getting at, while critics
didn’t seem to understand that,” Ridlen said.
“And more recently, I have spoken to cinematographers and
directors and production designers who also didn’t realize
how much of “˜Sin City’ was digital. It was surprising
how many supposedly informed professionals didn’t realize
(that).”
Ridlen’s solution is to widen the definition of those
responsible for the look of a film so as to ensure that everyone
involved is properly recognized. For him, this would be a natural
step in an industry in which new technology is decreasing the
usefulness of old classifications.
“A lot of the traditional positions and areas of expertise
are starting to dissolve in the digital arena,” Ridlen
said.
Yet, for all the questions that inevitably come with new
technology, it can most importantly be used to further the artistic
capacities of the craft. This is the aspect of digital
cinematography that should be emphasized, argued Professor Bill
McDonald, head of cinematography at the UCLA School of Theater,
Film and Television.
“This is just a natural stage of evolution within the art
form,” McDonald said. “It could not be more natural.
There have been so many times within the film industry when some
technology changed, and people said, “˜You practitioners of
the old techniques are the dinosaurs, goodbye.’ In the end,
it’s just a tool.”
According to McDonald, there has always been the appearance of
tension between old and new practices in cinematography. Despite
technological changes that seem to alter the craft completely,
however, McDonald holds that a cinematographer’s true tasks
have always been the same.
“It’s a completely natural progression.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency to make it an
“˜or’ ““ film or video. It’s film and video;
it’s analog and it’s digital. It’s all embraced
to tell stories better,” McDonald said.
“The art of cinematography as telling the story through
the creation of images ““ images that consist of light, color,
movement, composition ““ all of that hasn’t changed in
the 100-plus years of cinema history. The art of the
cinematographer remains.”
The job of a cinematographer, then, has traditionally included
adapting to new technology.
“The other cap that the cinematographer wears is a
technical one. The tool set that we use consistently changes.
We’ve gone from hand- cranked to motors, then we transitioned
from fluid black-and-white to Technicolor cameras, through to
today’s hybrid, high-def video,” McDonald said.
“In other words, technology has always been changing for
cinematographers. They are the first to embrace technology to help
them tell better stories.”
McDonald is enthusiastic not only about incorporating new
techniques as a cinematographer, but also about passing those
techniques on to his students as a teacher.
“When my students leave UCLA, they can work in film,
high-def video ““ they know how to work within all the tools
to create the images that tell the story,” he said. “As
an educator, I couldn’t be more excited about this, because
it makes the students better storytellers and more
employable.”
For Richard Kline, who has seen cinematography endure many
supposedly earthshaking changes, the fundamental purpose of the art
is immutable.
“There’s still a story to be told, whether you use a
lot of postproduction or not,” he said. “Something
still has to appear on the film.”