Million Dollar Baby lighting

[LucaM]

I don’t know if it’s the right part of the forum to post this, but i’ve been wondering for a lot of time about the meaning of Million Dollar Baby lighting. I think Clint Eastwood and Tom Stern collaboration created great movies and I love this one in particular. Perhaps it’s the first movie that really made me reflect about the “meaning” of the lights in a movie. What struck me the most are the shadows: while there are many scenes on the ring with very soft and light shadows, there are many other in the movie with very hard and defined shadows and the characters seem to sink in them, and i keep on wondering “why?” .

I don’t think the answer is just “because it looks cool” and it’s not just for creating the spotlight effect of a gym or the ring: they are everywhere in the movie, even when they don’t actually make sense: that’s the point, i am sure they did it on purpose, but what’s the purpose then?
Apart from the dramatic and stylistic effect, I see a deliberate choice behind it . They are not only elegant and beautiful ,  somehow they anticipate the finale, to me. I hope not to spoiler it too much, but it forces the audience to reflect about what is ethically right, what it’s not and if there’s a grey area in between. So to me the hard edges of the shadow means that the characters have just one path available : either in the light or in the shadow, but a defined choice must be made.

What do you think? Am I looking too much into the meaning of this lighting or is it actually a way that cinematographers (like Roger or others) can use to contribute to tell the story of the movie? A hard story may require hard lights?

Thanks!

PS: i think Tom Stern would be a very interesting guest for the podcast, if you didn’t consider it so far! 🙂

Topic

[Sean Buffini]

“So to me the hard edges of the shadow means that the characters have just one path available: either in the light or in the shadow, but a defined choice must be made.”

Well depending on how you look at it, you may have just answered you own question. Reception theory dictates that regardless of what the filmmakers intentions were, the effect those choices have on you and how you enjoy the art is arguable more important than the filmmakers intentions.

It’s very possible that Tom Stern and Clint Eastwood just “felt” that high contrast, hard lighting was just “right” for the film. Relying entirely on their artistic intuition without really deconstructing why they felt that way.

In my opinion, I find lighting is usually more about the feeling than the logic. It’s less of a clearly defined microcosm of the films complete themes and typically more of an individual component that works in harmony with the rest of the film.

But I like your theory a lot. Very clever.

[LucaM]

Sean Buffini wrote:

It’s very possible that Tom Stern and Clint Eastwood just “felt” that high contrast, hard lighting was just “right” for the film. Relying entirely on their artistic intuition without really deconstructing why they felt that way. In my opinion, I find lighting is usually more about the feeling than the logic.

Yes, i agree with you on that and that’s my point : the lighting feels “right” for this story but my impression is that they tried to give to the majority of the scenes the very same feeling (because it’s elegant? to underline the moral meaning of the movie? because it’s cool? i don’t know but that’s there) more than aiming to a realistic approach. Of course one could suggest that i feel the lighting so “right” because that’s why i experienced the movie, but as a mental exercise i tried to think how the movie would look with different lighting and if “feels” different.

This is the frame that somehow triggered my curiosity . There’s the composition of the image, the elegance of such a solution and many other things of course, but it made me realize that characters in this movie seem to costantly emerge and drown in the shadows and many scenes are made only by few details in a sea of black shadows.

Sean Buffini wrote:

In my opinion, I find lighting is usually more about the feeling than the logic. It’s less of a clearly defined microcosm of the films complete themes and typically more of an individual component that works in harmony with the rest of the film. But I like your theory a lot. Very clever.

It’s an interesting point of view, it shows that lighting a movie is not just recreating a  light for a right scene, but also adding a touch of artistic and personal view to the entire movie.

Sean Buffini wrote:

But I like your theory a lot. Very clever.

Thanks a lot, i do appreciate that!

I apologize if i don’t use a correct terminology but my experience is with illustration, drawing and painting (that’s why the shapes created by lights and shadows and their edges grab my attention, it’s the core of painting reality) and i’m doing my very first steps in understanding cinematography and cinema in genera and i think Roger’s site is the best place i could find to begin the learning journey. 🙂

[Stip]

I don’t think there is an interview where one of them explains their approach. As far as I know Clint is a very intuitive filmmaker. I could imagine that they based the overall look on what they both ‘felt’ was right. But I could also imagine that for some specific shots/scenes, like the last one you posted, they did dig a little deeper into light and shadow as a metaphor.

[Author]

Replies