The secrets of anamorphic Blade Runner

[Andrew Reid]

[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/blade-runner-eye-flames.jpg[/img]

Ridley Scott will direct the sequel to Blade Runner soon and a screenplay is currently being prepared. Find out what Scott and cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth were thinking when they shot the incredible original with anamorphic lenses.

They copied Citizen Kane

In preparing to shoot Blade Runner, Ridley Scott told his cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth that the photography of Citizen Kane best suited his vision for the film. Says Cronenweth – “This included, among other things, high contrast, unusual camera angles, and the use of shafts of light.”

Embrace unusual light sources

Part of the reason Blade Runner resembles the great Asian cities like Tokyo is due to the overcrowded streets and abundance of neon lights. In fact rather than use normal film set lighting for the most part Scott had a 7 man crew overseeing numerous rented neon signs. The signs in-frame were on dimmer switches and turned down to the point where they’d just begin to flicker. The flicker was more attractive and the dimmer switch avoided blown highlights so that they maintained a vivid colour on film. Off-frame neon signs were ramped up to full brightness so that they bathed the set in a neon glow from afar.

Anamorphic composition is more dramatic

For many years after its release in cinemas Blade Runner was shown in a pan and scan format on 4:3 TVs. Brett Sherris of 80′s magazine Videofax remarks for the first time on the new Laserdisc transfer of Blade Runner in all its anamorphic glory.

“One of the most interesting surprises that one immediately notices upon seeing the entire Panavision anamorphic frame is how cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth frames his characters either screen left or screen right – rarely centred. This aesthetic is reinforced by a lighting design that places the characters half in light, half in shade. This motif gives the impression that all concerned are living their lives on the fringe – an existence that is perpetually off-balance. The anamorphic laserdisc transfer of Blade Runner makes an excellent case for the idea that when a portion of the frame has been left empty, it may be intentionally so.”

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/265/philips-release-2-39-1-anamorphic-tv-with-2560x1080p-resolution"]With the exception of this Philips TV (coverage at EOSHD)[/url], the TV standard today is 16:9 unfortunately. I think Brett sums up what anamorphic gives you as a cinematographer. It supercharges the attractiveness of the rule of thirds and gives you more room to play on the emotions of characters, isolation and dead-space. In other words, it is simply more dramatic.

Flaws can add to the film

On the Los Angeles set for a chase sequence where Deckard chases a replicant through several glass shop windows Ridley Scott struggled with the lighting until he decided to take some of the neon lights from outside and put them into the store window itself. The very high brightness of the lights allowed for high frame rates so Scott and Cronenweth decided to shoot the memorable sequence in slow-mo to better capture the shattering of hundreds of shards of glass and the flailing limbs of replicant Zhora. The only problem was that the high shutter speeds required caused a visible flickering effect on the neon signs. Rather than abandoning the slow mo Cronenweth decided to use the ‘pulsing’ as an element of the chase. To always aim for a 100% perfect shot setup is not always the right choice because flaws introduce creativity.

Sci-fi plots allow for more creative license

The future setting of Blade Runner allowed the director and cinematographer to be more elaborately stylish. “Since the film is set in the future, unusual sources of light could be used where one would not accept them in a contemporary setting. For example, many of the people on the street set carried umbrellas that had fluorescent tubes incorporated in their shafts, providing a light source which could create a glow on their faces.”

(I actually like this idea for an umbrella maybe I should start a Kickstarter campaign).

Most CGI lacks soul

In the pre-workstation CGI geek era of filmmaking, control over special FX were micro-managed and every frame was touched by hand and far less clinical. This slow process also gives the director far more control over what is on screen and the ability to see immediately what affect the camera, lighting and composition has in unison with the effect. Says Blade Runner DP Cronenweth:

“One of the identifying characteristics of replicants is a strange glowing quality in their eyes. To achieve this effect, we’d use a two-way mirror — 50 percent transmission, 50 percent reflection — placed in front of the lens at a 45-degree angle. Then we’d project a light into the mirror so that it would be reflected into the eyes of the subject along the optical axis of the lens. We’d sometimes use very subtle gels to add color to the eyes. Often, we’d photograph a scene with and without this effect, so Ridley would have the option of when he’d use it.”

With actors use hard backlighting, soft frontlighting

Any DSLR shooter can try this. The cinematographer on Blade Runner had a specific technique for lighting characters. Cronenweth would use a bright backlight to give a sharp high contrast edge to the character and a dramatic sense of atmosphere and location. He’d then use a soft dim frontlight on the actors’ faces to better emphasis their humanity and vulnerability. This from an interview with ASC Magazine…

Cronenweth: “I can never use enough backlighting. It’s just that some directors want to see the actors’ faces. I keep telling them that the audience only goes to see the sex.”

ASC Magazine: “The cinematographer is as interested in creating mood or an effect as he is in lighting an actor’s face.”

For Cronenweth there was one exception where he’d use hard frontlighting on Blade Runner. “I love hard light in the face if it is overexposed. I think that’s beautiful. It’s different; it’s unusual. It’s exciting; it’s violent.

Further reading / sources

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide"]The EOSHD Anamorphic Shooter’s Guide[/url]

[url="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/11/04/ridley-scott-says-he’ll-direct-‘blade-runner’-sequel/"]Ridley Scott directing Blade Runner sequel[/url]

[url="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HAma4m3w38EC&pg=PA171&dq=Cronenweth+panavision&hl=en&ei=7RbiTrzPAYjTsgbtzZSrBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Cronenweth%20panavision&f=false"]Retrofitting Bladerunner at Google Books[/url]

[url="http://www.theasc.com/magazine/mar99/blade/pg1.htm"]ASC Magazine on Blade Runner DP Cronenweth[/url]

[url="http://vimeo.com/30300114"]Blade Runner inspired Tokyo time-lapse on Vimeoe[/url]

[/html]

[Guest Sean2D2]

[html]

Great article. And the umbrellas are awesome, Think Geek sells Blade Runner inspired umbrellas if you want one. Got one for Christmas last year, they work well!

[/html]

[Guest sebaspi]

[html]

Blade Runner was definitly a master piece i remember seen a while ago how did they shoot the intro sequence and im still to this day amazed by the quality of it non the less it took a great amount of work.

Im now learning about a anamorphic lenses thanks to your blog and i realize is one of the aspect that makes cinema real cinema, and to think that is dooable this days whit a digital camera goes to show how thing have changed haha im getting my gh2 soon, but i think its gonna cost me a lot more to be able to get an anomorphic lens i believe some day i will get one some how and finally shoot they way i always imagine too.

you are an inspiration so thanks Andrew!

talking about kickstarters haha check this led iluminated bikes, http://vimeo.com/27280439 the futuristic lighting its becoming not so futuristic anymore hahaha!

[/html]

[Andrew Reid]

Very tempted by those umbrellas with Christmas coming up... But are they a bit girly?  :)

http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/gear/d163/?srp=2

[ntblowz]

lol very tempted to get one of these!

[bg2b]

I love these sorts of articles.  Much more so than the technical ones, however useful they may be.

[Andrew Reid]

If you have any other films you want to know more of how the cinematography was handled let me know, I think we can all learn a lot from these masters.

[Antonio]

First of all, thank you for your articles and your passion in writing them, Andrew.

That said, visually speaking, I think it could be rather interesting learn something about two movies released this year. I'm talking about Melancholia and The Tree of Life. I remember you wrote something about Terrence Malick photography, but not specifically on his last film.

Regards

[Rosebud]

[i]I think Brett sums up what anamorphic gives you as a cinematographer.

It supercharges the attractiveness of the rule of thirds and gives you more room to play on the emotions of characters, isolation and dead-space. In other words, it is simply more dramatic.[/i]

Unfortunately, this is way too simple to accept as a summing up, as you can achieve the above without being anamorphic.

When we deem what is cinematic, the reality is never recognised in what is cinematic to begin with. Our own field of view is taken for granted, slap a crop in front of your eyes and suddenly the field of view is narrowed to a point where we now concentrate much more on what we can see, this for many is what is called cinematic today. However it goes way above and beyond this, If you presented Eastenders with a 2.35 crop, is it now cinematic? Well for a lot, maybe so, for me clearly not, this is what fails a lot of British films made today, they don't feel like cinema, look like cinema, and are not worthy of being put in front of an audience and being called cinema, and more so today, films are not conceived with a knowledgeable history of the psychological, cultural or technical aspects of cinema behind them.

The attractiveness of Anamorphic shooting is recognising that it is a first and foremost a distorting lens, this is what makes it stand out creatively, this is what makes it feel cinematic in the way we want to describe and understand cinema, it is the combination of both fantasy and reality that delivers a surreal image that we can't quite make sure of, but know it's alive and larger than life and we like it, it's a sexy and enticing visual quality. You only have to view some of the mediocre examples online of anamorphic shooting and they instantly feel more cinematic, than anything otherwise. This is why? Now have this in the hands of trained and visual masters and it becomes a dream we don't want to wake up from.

Everything is just bland after you see something in anamorphic, look at the early work of Luc Besson, and then watch The 5th Element and there is something a bit off, and that is whilst Besson is pro-anamorphic, for 5th he had to shoot Super 35, they printed in Anamorphic, and he did his best in a composition way to try and achieve it with 5th, but had to shoot non-anamprohic to allow the special effects to work properly and it clearly shows, the flatness of it all.

I also am disturbed by the desire by Cameron and Jackson to shoot at higher frame rates, with the absurd just for this given that it is more true to our own vision. You only have to look at video games played in this high frame rate to see it is horrible and the once lush cinematic dreams are now turning into un-cinematic nightmares.

All of this is just how I feel what needs to be understood first about what is what and how, and not be summed up with simple expressions. Todays market demographic have not had the pleasure of watching films the way a lot of us have done and been illuminated by, quality control is at its lowest ebb, there are very few maestros left who process themselves with the steely mastery of a Kubrick, or Hitchcock, the success of Blair Witch proves that. However, the more we take things apart, the more we get to the core of how it works, and why, then it is in that, that we truly learn how to be masterfully better and how to apply what we have discovered, to advance in our own expressions.

Anyone who knows Terry Gilliam's work, knows how much he loves anamorphic, (in fact he uses the extremeness of the distorting end of things as a creative tool and successfully too, unlike the same way that JJ Abrams uses lens flares to hide his bad direction) and in the documentary about him failing to make Don Quixote called Lost In La mancha, (highly recommended along with The Hamster Factor for anyone with a 1% interest in filmmaking) there is a trailer at the end using the footage he did manage to get, and there is more cinema in those few shots, than most films made today.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=Antonio link=topic=56.msg684#msg684 date=1323603264]
First of all, thank you for your articles and your passion in writing them, Andrew.

That said, visually speaking, I think it could be rather interesting learn something about two movies released this year. I'm talking about Melancholia and The Tree of Life. I remember you wrote something about Terrence Malick photography, but not specifically on his last film.

Regards
[/quote]

The Tree of Life cinematographer's tips are in the GH2 book. Melancholia I'll look into.

[RobertoSF]

[quote author=Rosebud link=topic=56.msg686#msg686 date=1323612316]

The attractiveness of Anamorphic shooting is recognising that it is a first and foremost a distorting lens, this is what makes it stand out creatively, this is what makes it feel cinematic in the way we want to describe and understand cinema, it is the combination of both fantasy and reality that delivers a surreal image that we can't quite make sure of, but know it's alive and larger than life and we like it, it's a sexy and enticing visual quality. You only have to view some of the mediocre examples online of anamorphic shooting and they instantly feel more cinematic, than anything otherwise. This is why? Now have this in the hands of trained and visual masters and it becomes a dream we don't want to wake up from.

Everything is just bland after you see something in anamorphic...
[/quote]

I agree.

The other day, at the base of a tall, thin Poplar tree in fall color, I pointed a 35mm anamorphic lens straight up and rotated the tripod head. I figured this would accentuate the natural distortion in the lens, but I had no idea that it would look so organically beautiful, as if the tree itself were growing in real-time in ways I could not fully grasp but only marvel at.

I can not read enough about anamorphic cinematography. Thanks Andrew for presenting all but lost insights from the past, and creating a space for insights like Rosebud's here. Keep going.

[gh2sound]

And the film was utterly flawed and destroyed post Mr Scotts "release" and the recording of the infamous VO by Mr Ford - however still epic whichever version we all caught first :) Again story and content > how many pixels for me - always!

[Caleb Genheimer]

Andrew, one anamorphic film that is really growing on me and is now on my short list of all-time favorites is Hunt for Red October.

[Sean Cunningham]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=56.msg675#msg675 date=1323554345]
If you have any other films you want to know more of how the cinematography was handled let me know, I think we can all learn a lot from these masters.
[/quote]

A film that I'm constantly going back to reference for its beautiful yet understated anamorphic cinematography is Magnolia.  Lots of Z-axis location movement requiring either available light or clever, difficult light placement to avoid being seen in its many, extended tracking scenes.  Love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxcegktcxSM