You’re missing the forest for the trees. Tarantino is using hard light to emulate the look of the low-budget 70’s b movies of his youth. No doubt much of what you point out is correctly assessed as sloppy due to a tight schedule and the need to finish shooting the scene before they lose the location. But I also have no doubt that many “mistakes” were deliberate aesthetic choices designed to mimic the “mistakes” of the source material. The light on the plant for example; I can easily imagine that was done deliberately because that’s what they would have done in the 70s You mention True Romance, but Tarantino did not direct that movie so it does not reflect his vision, regardless of how involved he may have been.
100% But I’m playing devils advocate here 😅 So when we look at Tarantino’s body of work more recent work we don’t see these types of things. Or more accurately there are moments where an aesthetic calls for a harder less flattering light etc. but it is done in a way that feels more intentional within the context of the scenes that surround it. I think my point about True Romance is relevant as a few people have said Pulp Fiction is an older film so shouldn’t be held to the ‘modern’ standards so looking at that as a contemporary piece of work. Also for all it’s ‘imperfections’ I really enjoy it and the way it feels/looks, I also like to look at these things and try to spot the bits that didn’t get all the time/love and try to understand why and maybe how I can approach similar situations.
Great video! I see your points about incosistency. As others have said, I think the character development partially motivates the lighting. The characters are at a crossroads in their lives, they try to decide who they will become, and the final scene deals with that as well, hence the shadows. In addition to that, this scene's lighting always feels ethereal to me. It's almost like characters are in a magically lit place, and I associate that with how the film ironically deals with divine intervention and epiphany. Even a minor character is lit very harshly. In fact, I always found that close-up of waitress very mysterious, why cut to her at that moment, seemed so pointless. Then when I saw Bonnie & Clyde, I realized there's an exact close-up of a waitress there. She's interested in Clyde. Here, Tarantino reverses the dynamics and it's the woman, Yolanda, who is enchanted by the waitress's beauty. It also quickly establishes how Yolanda is a gentle soul and her robber persona is bound to fall off. So many layers!
I’ve been waiting for this analysis ever since you mentioned it. Lots of useful info on lighting forensics, although I won’t be able to watch “Pulp Fiction” again without seeing all the exposure and lighting issues. I also have to remind myself it was shot on film, which is less forgiving than digital when light changes. Thanks for another great vid!
Thanks Chris, it has been an interesting process for me making it and good reminder of how much other aspects of a film can carry less than perfect lighting!
Moreno Tempini there’s lots of BTS bits and pieces on the Still Moving Instagram, also have a few show reels on this channel m.ua-cam.com/video/qXxLmvn8MZ0/v-deo.html
@@StillMovingMedia Nice, thank you. Now i'm watching the breakdown of the the Gentleman and this is exactly what i was looking for a month. I'm really glad i found you.
It’s interesting, I certainly agree that using different flavours of hard and soft light can create a mood and influence how a character is presented. However looking at the lighting over the course of the film I feel sometimes the quality of light was a compromise for level. It’s something I frequently bump up against on lower budget shoots where we can’t bring in huge lights to create consistency even on wides. It was after all made on a tight budget under $3 million after actors etc.
3 minutes in the vid and i already disagree. Pulp fiction is an early 90s movie. Esthetics and taste in cinematography was different then. It's constantly cycling. Late 70s soft lighting came out of fashion and had not yet come back with the 2000s... Hard lighting was the way, the norm. Today, soft lighting is an obsession again. In 5 years, maybe it will be totally discarded and a guy will make a vid about how pulp fiction lighting is so sophisticated...
Carnets de 16 definitely moves in cycles, but there are plenty of examples from a similar time with more finessed lighting, True Romance being a particularly relevant one. But I think although I call out when lighting is hard etc that isn’t what I’m most infested in, it’s more consistency etc. When light changes and this is usually due to budget when the size of light, modifiers and amount of time available limit how much the lighting in a setup can be maintained over the duration of the scene. I don’t have a problem with hard light and indeed a mix is what can give more depth to a piece to help create different moods etc. But as with everything like this it is all highly subjective. What isn’t as subjective is consistency 🙌
@@loudmotion5639 definitely, and always relish the excuse to rewatch pulp fiction... had to watch it twice when I did these videos as I forgot I was meant to be analysing it 😅
@@StillMovingMedia Since you are replying to my comment, I would love to say you guys are a huge inspiration to further my craft, I follow you peeps on instagram and these BTS & breakdowns are so helpful. Thank you
Indeed, although technical limitations can be overcome creatively/successfully I feel there are many here that aren’t artistic just budget/time crunch.
Everything you're saying is why films look like SHIT now! It's funny how you are sitting over exposed with horrible turning of form... and right next to you is beautifully exposed, with colour and form turning like clay... And for 49 minutes you're like... "there's no annoying blinds shaddow everywhere" In other words film, movies, shows look like Z grade level student films.... and it's this type of nerd teaching... The actual good cinematographers back THEN were looking at paintings and actually understood value and turning form. This teaching is why everything looks flat, and is shot on a red, but looks like it was shot on an iphone 1 and there's talcum powder all over the lense or something... 🤦🏻♂️
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Tarantino is using hard light to emulate the look of the low-budget 70’s b movies of his youth. No doubt much of what you point out is correctly assessed as sloppy due to a tight schedule and the need to finish shooting the scene before they lose the location. But I also have no doubt that many “mistakes” were deliberate aesthetic choices designed to mimic the “mistakes” of the source material. The light on the plant for example; I can easily imagine that was done deliberately because that’s what they would have done in the 70s You mention True Romance, but Tarantino did not direct that movie so it does not reflect his vision, regardless of how involved he may have been.
100% But I’m playing devils advocate here 😅 So when we look at Tarantino’s body of work more recent work we don’t see these types of things. Or more accurately there are moments where an aesthetic calls for a harder less flattering light etc. but it is done in a way that feels more intentional within the context of the scenes that surround it. I think my point about True Romance is relevant as a few people have said Pulp Fiction is an older film so shouldn’t be held to the ‘modern’ standards so looking at that as a contemporary piece of work. Also for all it’s ‘imperfections’ I really enjoy it and the way it feels/looks, I also like to look at these things and try to spot the bits that didn’t get all the time/love and try to understand why and maybe how I can approach similar situations.
Great video! I see your points about incosistency. As others have said, I think the character development partially motivates the lighting. The characters are at a crossroads in their lives, they try to decide who they will become, and the final scene deals with that as well, hence the shadows. In addition to that, this scene's lighting always feels ethereal to me. It's almost like characters are in a magically lit place, and I associate that with how the film ironically deals with divine intervention and epiphany. Even a minor character is lit very harshly.
In fact, I always found that close-up of waitress very mysterious, why cut to her at that moment, seemed so pointless. Then when I saw Bonnie & Clyde, I realized there's an exact close-up of a waitress there. She's interested in Clyde. Here, Tarantino reverses the dynamics and it's the woman, Yolanda, who is enchanted by the waitress's beauty. It also quickly establishes how Yolanda is a gentle soul and her robber persona is bound to fall off. So many layers!
Thanks Dale, great as always!
Thanks again!
netting her is such a great tip! thank you!
Thanks 👌
Awesome breakdown, Pulp Fiction is one of my favourite films. And Tarantino is an amazing director!
I’ve been waiting for this analysis ever since you mentioned it. Lots of useful info on lighting forensics, although I won’t be able to watch “Pulp Fiction” again without seeing all the exposure and lighting issues. I also have to remind myself it was shot on film, which is less forgiving than digital when light changes.
Thanks for another great vid!
Thanks Chris, it has been an interesting process for me making it and good reminder of how much other aspects of a film can carry less than perfect lighting!
How the hell you don't have more views? Really helpful.
Thanks, hopefully gonna get there with the views 😬 for now it’s just fun doing these breakdowns!
@@StillMovingMedia Where can i see some of your works?
Moreno Tempini there’s lots of BTS bits and pieces on the Still Moving Instagram, also have a few show reels on this channel m.ua-cam.com/video/qXxLmvn8MZ0/v-deo.html
@@StillMovingMedia Nice, thank you. Now i'm watching the breakdown of the the Gentleman and this is exactly what i was looking for a month. I'm really glad i found you.
I think the hard lighting might have been a part of the character development.
It’s interesting, I certainly agree that using different flavours of hard and soft light can create a mood and influence how a character is presented. However looking at the lighting over the course of the film I feel sometimes the quality of light was a compromise for level. It’s something I frequently bump up against on lower budget shoots where we can’t bring in huge lights to create consistency even on wides. It was after all made on a tight budget under $3 million after actors etc.
@StillMovingMedia consistency in storytelling is the driving force behind movies, not the lighting
It's a good thing these films weren't filmed in our time or they wouldn't be shit
3 minutes in the vid and i already disagree.
Pulp fiction is an early 90s movie. Esthetics and taste in cinematography was different then. It's constantly cycling. Late 70s soft lighting came out of fashion and had not yet come back with the 2000s... Hard lighting was the way, the norm.
Today, soft lighting is an obsession again. In 5 years, maybe it will be totally discarded and a guy will make a vid about how pulp fiction lighting is so sophisticated...
Carnets de 16 definitely moves in cycles, but there are plenty of examples from a similar time with more finessed lighting, True Romance being a particularly relevant one. But I think although I call out when lighting is hard etc that isn’t what I’m most infested in, it’s more consistency etc. When light changes and this is usually due to budget when the size of light, modifiers and amount of time available limit how much the lighting in a setup can be maintained over the duration of the scene. I don’t have a problem with hard light and indeed a mix is what can give more depth to a piece to help create different moods etc. But as with everything like this it is all highly subjective. What isn’t as subjective is consistency 🙌
@@StillMovingMedia What isn’t as subjective is consistency 🙌
@@loudmotion5639 definitely, and always relish the excuse to rewatch pulp fiction... had to watch it twice when I did these videos as I forgot I was meant to be analysing it 😅
@@StillMovingMedia Since you are replying to my comment, I would love to say you guys are a huge inspiration to further my craft, I follow you peeps on instagram and these BTS & breakdowns are so helpful. Thank you
All v subjective but such is the nature of arT 🤓
Indeed, although technical limitations can be overcome creatively/successfully I feel there are many here that aren’t artistic just budget/time crunch.
crazy thing is i got to this video because i was intrigued by how QT's movies are lit, you are a certified LAME bro
i cannot take this video seriously. i'm sorry.
😅 never imagined this one would be so controversial 👍🏼
Everything you're saying is why films look like SHIT now!
It's funny how you are sitting over exposed with horrible turning of form... and right next to you is beautifully exposed, with colour and form turning like clay...
And for 49 minutes you're like...
"there's no annoying blinds shaddow everywhere"
In other words film, movies, shows look like Z grade level student films.... and it's this type of nerd teaching...
The actual good cinematographers back THEN were looking at paintings and actually understood value and turning form.
This teaching is why everything looks flat, and is shot on a red, but looks like it was shot on an iphone 1 and there's talcum powder all over the lense or something... 🤦🏻♂️