Sicario/close up

[au]

Hi Roger,

Do you remember how you lit this shot?
To me it seems like there is a bounce source (probably a poly) to get that kind of highlights on the skin, but the light seems kind of hard just to be a bounce source. is it a combination of bounce and direct?

Thanks as always,

Ale

Topic

[Roger Deakins]

I remember using two 4′ x 4′ gold stipple reflectors. This kind of bounce can be soft – when it is 8′ in width and relatively close to the subject – as well as directional.

[Max A.]

Hello Mr. Deakins and Au, if I can ask more questions on this topic and analyze this night sequence with you Mr. Deakins, and all the people on this fantastic forum I would like to understand some processes about these dark night shots that always amaze me in terms of lighting results.
I can’t write and attach everything in one reply (I don’t know why the website doesn’t allow me to do this) so I try to do my best to compress words and replies.
Of course, if these questions will bore you Mr. Deakins I apologize and totally understand if you don’t answer.

If I remember well (but unfortunately I can’t find the topic where you Mr. Deakins talk about it), for the wide shots you used tungsten lamps to “argument” the headlights of the cars, this can seem “easy” to say but the placement and the “patterns” of light and shadows that you achieve are outstanding in my opinion.
I attach some frames to show the reference for the question better.

1) In this wide shot (Dolly-In) characters walk toward the camera, into the background there is a “strong” light hitting the rocks (with moving casting shadow that I love), on the characters, there is a soft directional side light that reaches faces and body, but when they come in the foreground and the camera pan to compose the group shot there is nothing (I maybe think that there is some 8X8 bounce) over the cars to light those.
Another amazing thing (in my opinion) is that cars are perfectly in the darkness, so the light doesn’t come from there (I guess). At this point, I can only suppose that the light is the result of the ground sand bounce of the “big” light that hit the background rocks. Am I right about this, or is there another process behind it?
 

Ps. I love the fact that you and the director positioned the cars in a way you can “always” argument the headlights for every shot even when the camera looks in another direction.

[Max A.]

2) For this Wide shot that “prepares” the audience for the close-ups dialogue (the one in the first question of the topic), I love the alternation of lights and shadows from the background to the foreground of course,  that light that “wash” the foreground come from right frame (in the close-ups there is a little cheat of angle) and has a different color temperature (warmer and brown-ish, probably you achieved it dimming the tungsten lamp/s) that give depth to the shot in my opinion.
Is that light achieved with the same 2 gold bounce that you mentioned to use for the close-ups?

 

For her medium Close Up, I suppose you move the bounce sources a bit closer and angle those to 45° to see the highlights in “her eyes” and have depth.
What I notice is that, as you often mention, is like the “farthest” bounce source is more “directional” to better shape the facial feature and the closest is more “soft” to gently wrap her and go into the shadows gradually (but probably is just one 4×4 bounce and I’m overthinking).

I apologize for my bad English and for the long questions, the next reply will be the last of the series. Thank you very much for your patience.

[Max A.]

Last part of questions (I cut some questions otherwise it would have been incredibly too much, but the curiosity is really great).

For the medium and close-ups, do you maintain the same positions of the characters where they stay in the “wide” or did you cheat by moving to another nearby spot? I do this question because it seems to me that Josh Brolin’s character does not have so much space behind him (since the two are in a sort of trench) but when the camera is looking at him he seems to have more space behind him. The background is brilliantly dimly lit on the top to create depth and pattern (probably with a fresnel lamp as I see a “hot spot” in the center and warm soft fall-off around).

 

In her close-up, I better “see” the two gold bounce sources in the reflections of her eyes. I suppose those bounce sources lit also the rocks behind her (I love the fall-off along the rock line).
The car is greatly placed to create a dark area in the middle top but also highlights in the headlamps and back-side (probably hitting by a small lamp), together with the light on the far rock wall is pure art of photography (composition and lighting) in my opinion.

I really apologize for this amount of long questions, since it was a long time since I didn’t write in the forum I really wanted to study and analyze this incredible sequence once it comes out on the forum topic😁

I want to thank you in advance for your availability and your time. But over everything I want to thank you for your art and experience that always triggers me and (I think all of us) to study and admire your incredible works.

I apologize for my bad English which can make questions less clear.

I wish you a peaceful day.
Max.

[Roger Deakins]

Wow! That is a long question.

The headlights were the primary source. I remember the shot of the group walking towards the camera was lit by the headlights with little added. I asked for vehicles with particularly good headlights but even then I needed to add a little more. That was especially true for the wide looking towards the berm. I had two or three 650 watt Tweenies for this. Not much but just enough to widen the effect. They would have been dimmed to create that warmth on the sand.

The close shot of Josh does have a deeper background as he is at that point out of the trench. Kate was lit using a little bounce and, as the headlights alone were not enough, I added a lamp here. I was never happy that I was cheating the light as much as I was but performance is important.

[Max A.]

Thank you so much even just for taking the time to read the various points of the question Mr.Deakins! I really apologize, I actually got too carried away with the curiosities related to this sequence that I adore.

Your light “cheating”, in my opinion, is brilliantly embedded in the story. The viewer will never be able to perceive the changes because they are all micro changes brilliantly connected to the mood of the scene (the most difficult thing in my opinion), so those changes are essential for lighting characters and only if we analyze and study cut by cut the lighting (angle-pattern etc.) we can see those and admire how brilliantly are matched in the whole sequence.

As I said in another topic some days ago, the difficult thing is to cheat but maintain the mood of the scene, the sequence, and even the whole movie in a set that runs fast and sometimes can be very distracting and put a lot of pressure.
At home, in front of my/our pc’s, it seems “easy” to think about an inch more left or right, but I think it is not easy on the day (especially at the end of a day when tiredness is very present).

Now is the time to stop to write for me 😁

Thank you very very much again Mr. Deakins.

I wish you a peaceful day.
Max.

[Author]

Replies