(no subject)
Can someone tell me who is the director of photography on Leverage, so that I may find them and bash them in the face repeatedly with an oversized foam baseball bat? And the lighting designer and the cinematographer, too, while we're at it. In fact EVERYONE.
Because the lighting on that show is a CRIME. First of all, someone needs to tell them that "dark," by itself, IS NOT AN AESTHETIC. Even shows known for their "darkness," like X-Files, were doing something with it - you can't just turn down the lights and call it art! On Leverage, I am constantly wondering WHY ON EARTH everyone seems to be standing under a tarp to shield them from the lighting rig.
As you might guess, this annoys me greatly as a vidder.
And, not incidentally? This kind of lighting choice is racist. eta which isn't to say that it's intentionally racist, but that because it's some combination of badly done/underfunded/lazily done/unthinkingly done, it ends up reinforcing racism. /eta Leverage is darkened down to the point that I can just barely make out the facial features of the white cast (which, btw, doesn't really do them any favours either) and so Hardison's face often just becomes a dark-shaped blob in the foreground. Let me give you some examples (as well as some before-after shots, showing how I attempt to correct this kind of thing in Final Cut).
So, here is a before and after image from Leverage - the left is the original shot, the right is after I've played with it a bit in Final Cut. It's a shot in a HOSPITAL, so I have no idea why it's that dark. Do they not have fluorescent lighting in hospitals in the Leverage universe?
As you can see, Parker's features are just barely visible, but only because she's so light-skinned that she reflects the light a lot. What I've done here is use the "gamma correction" tool - typically I'll change the gamma from "1" to anything between ".6" and ".9" in order to lighten it. This does add a fair bit of graininess and washes the image out, but on the other hand, look, I found Parker! To deal with the washing-out, I then use the colour corrector tool to bump the saturation up on the image, and sometimes I do actual colour correction (shifting the whites, blacks, and midtones) if there's too much green or red or whatever in the image. Also, I'll occasionally use the brightness and contrast tool to bump the contrast just a bit - from "0" to "10," say - which also tends to make it look less washed out after I've used the gamma correction tool. The graininess, sadly, I don't know how to fix, but I'll put up with it for the sake of being able to see the image. If anyone knows how to stop that graininess, or knows a better way to lighten images, do speak up!
So, anyway, Parker doesn't look great in that left hand shot, but at least you can see her. Which is more than I can say for Hardison, say, here:
I've used the same trick of correcting the gamma a bit and then boosting the saturation, but as you can see, it's not doing a lot of good in this instance - Hardison is silhouetted against a (relatively, for Leverage) light background, and any further attempts to mess with the gamma or the brightness just makes everything look ridiculous. On the left, Hardison has almost no facial features except those in silhouette; on the right, he has a little bit more of an eye? This means that whatever expression Aldis Hodge chooses to make in this scene is pretty much moot, because the camera isn't picking it up. Here's another hospital shot in which Hardison's face is kind of lost:
And, again, while Eliot's face isn't easy to make out, it's a lot easier to see than Hardison's. Here's another side-by-side comparison, the left being the original shot, the right being my shot after I've messed with it:
As you can see, this technique that I use also has the problematic effect of making Aldis Hodge's skin look lighter, which isn't something I would want to do under normal circumstances for obvious reasons, but it's a sort of compromise that vidders (and other kinds of fanartists) sometimes have to make in order to make dark-skinned characters visible at all.
Now, it's true that these are small screenshots, and that on a large-screen HDTV you can see a lot more than I can on my laptop, but that's not really the point; the point is that I shouldn't have to maximize the quality of my video output just in order to be able to see the actors of colour. For contrast, have a look at how Hustle lights Adrian Lester, whose skin tone is not too different from Aldis Hodge's:
Neither of those have been altered in any way. As you can see from the shadows, even in spaces that are meant to be a little dingy/dusty/shadowy, they've got a light or a reflection of light on Mickey's face so that his facial expressions are clear. And, btw, the rest of the shot is also a lot clearer and easier to see, and it looks less like it was lit by a drunken ocelot flinging flashlights in the general direction of the set. Particularly telling are shots like this one:
This is a dark alley at night and Mickey is standing in front of a relatively light background, but it's still lit carefully in such a way as to make him (and Ash! And the background!) visible. Lastly, here is another picture of Mickey from Hustle, not for any particular reason, just because he's pretty:
. . . I couldn't help myself. His little SMILE! But, okay, back to the srs bsns.
It's not a secret that Hollywood lighting techniques have been specifically designed to make white people look good, and that this goes back to the beginning of film. And it's important to remember, too, that limiting the facial expressiveness of black actors is not only racist in the obvious way - dehumanizing actors of colour, literally denying them visibility, etc. It's also racist in that it plays into a racist stereotype with a long and extremely gross history; namely, the "overanimated negro" stereotype that's familiar to me from old Bugs Bunny cartoons and the like. Sianne Ngai, in her book Ugly Feelings, has an amazing chapter on this stereotype and its associations, which she calls "animatedness." Like the name implies, the black figure characterized by "animatedness" is also characterized by a lack of will - the appearance of having been animated by someone else, like a puppet on strings whose grotesque and exaggerated emotions can only be expressed in the crudest way possible, and are only expressed by a force outside themselves. Anyway, it was Ngai's analysis of this history of representation that got me thinking along these lines, and I really recommend that chapter of Ugly Feelings if you want to read more about it.
It's easy for me to imagine Aldis Hodge, when lit like that, being told by the director to "go bigger" or "give us a little more" - to exaggerate his reactions and expressions so that they'll register on camera, register within a visual environment that is not designed with him in mind. And denying actors of colour the ability to register subtle, quiet, minute changes in facial expression continues the American history of representing black people as overanimated, emptyheaded, crude, soulless, animalistic, and grotesque.
ANYWAY, that's how Leverage's lighting choices are not only ugly, but also racist. And that's how I attempt to make up for them. But vidders who don't know how to do that, who don't have the time to do that, etc., are bound to just recreate these problems. And it's not like our options are ideal - like I said, the problem whereby lightening the entire shot also makes skin tones look lighter isn't the greatest thing ever. But I do think that we, as vidders, have a responsibility to try - if we have the ability, if we have the spoons - to try as best we can to be aware of and deal with the racist cinematography in the source we're working with.
. . . and like I said, if you know of a better way to lighten images, or to make dark-skinned characters visible in a dark shot, please let me know!
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)
Because the lighting on that show is a CRIME. First of all, someone needs to tell them that "dark," by itself, IS NOT AN AESTHETIC. Even shows known for their "darkness," like X-Files, were doing something with it - you can't just turn down the lights and call it art! On Leverage, I am constantly wondering WHY ON EARTH everyone seems to be standing under a tarp to shield them from the lighting rig.
As you might guess, this annoys me greatly as a vidder.
And, not incidentally? This kind of lighting choice is racist. eta which isn't to say that it's intentionally racist, but that because it's some combination of badly done/underfunded/lazily done/unthinkingly done, it ends up reinforcing racism. /eta Leverage is darkened down to the point that I can just barely make out the facial features of the white cast (which, btw, doesn't really do them any favours either) and so Hardison's face often just becomes a dark-shaped blob in the foreground. Let me give you some examples (as well as some before-after shots, showing how I attempt to correct this kind of thing in Final Cut).
So, here is a before and after image from Leverage - the left is the original shot, the right is after I've played with it a bit in Final Cut. It's a shot in a HOSPITAL, so I have no idea why it's that dark. Do they not have fluorescent lighting in hospitals in the Leverage universe?
As you can see, Parker's features are just barely visible, but only because she's so light-skinned that she reflects the light a lot. What I've done here is use the "gamma correction" tool - typically I'll change the gamma from "1" to anything between ".6" and ".9" in order to lighten it. This does add a fair bit of graininess and washes the image out, but on the other hand, look, I found Parker! To deal with the washing-out, I then use the colour corrector tool to bump the saturation up on the image, and sometimes I do actual colour correction (shifting the whites, blacks, and midtones) if there's too much green or red or whatever in the image. Also, I'll occasionally use the brightness and contrast tool to bump the contrast just a bit - from "0" to "10," say - which also tends to make it look less washed out after I've used the gamma correction tool. The graininess, sadly, I don't know how to fix, but I'll put up with it for the sake of being able to see the image. If anyone knows how to stop that graininess, or knows a better way to lighten images, do speak up!
So, anyway, Parker doesn't look great in that left hand shot, but at least you can see her. Which is more than I can say for Hardison, say, here:
I've used the same trick of correcting the gamma a bit and then boosting the saturation, but as you can see, it's not doing a lot of good in this instance - Hardison is silhouetted against a (relatively, for Leverage) light background, and any further attempts to mess with the gamma or the brightness just makes everything look ridiculous. On the left, Hardison has almost no facial features except those in silhouette; on the right, he has a little bit more of an eye? This means that whatever expression Aldis Hodge chooses to make in this scene is pretty much moot, because the camera isn't picking it up. Here's another hospital shot in which Hardison's face is kind of lost:
And, again, while Eliot's face isn't easy to make out, it's a lot easier to see than Hardison's. Here's another side-by-side comparison, the left being the original shot, the right being my shot after I've messed with it:
As you can see, this technique that I use also has the problematic effect of making Aldis Hodge's skin look lighter, which isn't something I would want to do under normal circumstances for obvious reasons, but it's a sort of compromise that vidders (and other kinds of fanartists) sometimes have to make in order to make dark-skinned characters visible at all.
Now, it's true that these are small screenshots, and that on a large-screen HDTV you can see a lot more than I can on my laptop, but that's not really the point; the point is that I shouldn't have to maximize the quality of my video output just in order to be able to see the actors of colour. For contrast, have a look at how Hustle lights Adrian Lester, whose skin tone is not too different from Aldis Hodge's:
Neither of those have been altered in any way. As you can see from the shadows, even in spaces that are meant to be a little dingy/dusty/shadowy, they've got a light or a reflection of light on Mickey's face so that his facial expressions are clear. And, btw, the rest of the shot is also a lot clearer and easier to see, and it looks less like it was lit by a drunken ocelot flinging flashlights in the general direction of the set. Particularly telling are shots like this one:
This is a dark alley at night and Mickey is standing in front of a relatively light background, but it's still lit carefully in such a way as to make him (and Ash! And the background!) visible. Lastly, here is another picture of Mickey from Hustle, not for any particular reason, just because he's pretty:
. . . I couldn't help myself. His little SMILE! But, okay, back to the srs bsns.
It's not a secret that Hollywood lighting techniques have been specifically designed to make white people look good, and that this goes back to the beginning of film. And it's important to remember, too, that limiting the facial expressiveness of black actors is not only racist in the obvious way - dehumanizing actors of colour, literally denying them visibility, etc. It's also racist in that it plays into a racist stereotype with a long and extremely gross history; namely, the "overanimated negro" stereotype that's familiar to me from old Bugs Bunny cartoons and the like. Sianne Ngai, in her book Ugly Feelings, has an amazing chapter on this stereotype and its associations, which she calls "animatedness." Like the name implies, the black figure characterized by "animatedness" is also characterized by a lack of will - the appearance of having been animated by someone else, like a puppet on strings whose grotesque and exaggerated emotions can only be expressed in the crudest way possible, and are only expressed by a force outside themselves. Anyway, it was Ngai's analysis of this history of representation that got me thinking along these lines, and I really recommend that chapter of Ugly Feelings if you want to read more about it.
It's easy for me to imagine Aldis Hodge, when lit like that, being told by the director to "go bigger" or "give us a little more" - to exaggerate his reactions and expressions so that they'll register on camera, register within a visual environment that is not designed with him in mind. And denying actors of colour the ability to register subtle, quiet, minute changes in facial expression continues the American history of representing black people as overanimated, emptyheaded, crude, soulless, animalistic, and grotesque.
ANYWAY, that's how Leverage's lighting choices are not only ugly, but also racist. And that's how I attempt to make up for them. But vidders who don't know how to do that, who don't have the time to do that, etc., are bound to just recreate these problems. And it's not like our options are ideal - like I said, the problem whereby lightening the entire shot also makes skin tones look lighter isn't the greatest thing ever. But I do think that we, as vidders, have a responsibility to try - if we have the ability, if we have the spoons - to try as best we can to be aware of and deal with the racist cinematography in the source we're working with.
. . . and like I said, if you know of a better way to lighten images, or to make dark-skinned characters visible in a dark shot, please let me know!
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)