The book, "From Caligari to Hitler," by Siegfried Kracauer, is a recommended read on German cinema, from the end of WWI until Hitler's rise in power. The book not only details the origins and creation of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," it explains the film's impact on German cinema and its influence on emerging directors as Murnau, Lang, Pabst, to name a few, and its foreshadowing of the rise of the Third Reich.

Interesting video. I wasn't aware that Lucas had directed the Vietnam segment, but it makes sense that he did it. When Coppola first optioned Milius' "Apocalypse Now" script, it was with the intention that Lucas direct it. And Lucas wanted to do it in 16mm. Milius suggested they actually shoot in Vietnam, but that was never taken seriously.

Also interesting that Lucas had former USC classmate Caleb Deschanel as director of photography for the entire feature. In an article I'd read long ago, Deschanel said they'd shot the Vietnam material on an Arriflex 16SR camera, using Eastman Kodak 7247, ASA 100 film. When they screened the dailies they realized the images looked too good, as if they had been shot in 35mm. They had to go an extra generation or two with the negative, plus timing and grading it in the printing so the image looked more degraded, as if this had been actually shot during Vietnam with 16mm reversal stock that had been affected by the heat and humidity. I liked this segment the best, and the Candy Clark material second best, though that is a stretch. The other two segments were pretty weak. I had seen this film only once, and that's when it first came out in 1979, so at least I got to see it in a theater.

Looks like the perfect argument to shoot on film. But, who's going to lug around a 16mm camera? Shoot stills on film. It's not worth destroying your sensor to get a moving image of a performance. And you still have it recorded for friends and posterity.

Also, are these lights shooting into the eyes of the audience too?

It's only two dimensional because one is looking through the viewfinder with one eye, so you are half right on that. While it will render the exact framing and even how much or little in focus the background will look (as long as you are looking through the lens) it still won't give you the exact image. When you see it on the screen, with the lighting the way it has been set up, then you will see what it is exactly going to look like. This was something else Spinotti pointed out at that seminar. He also pointed out that it was hard for Michael Mann to go back to film when seeing the setup like that.

The old guard studio DPs of the "Golden Age" preferred it that way -- that is, let them light and nobody else could see what was going on until the dailies were shown. It helped create the "aura of mystery" as to how they did their jobs and thus gave them more power on the set. Of course, they had hours to light a set as well, something your average low to modest budgeted filmmaker doesn't have the freedom to do. However, according to some interviews I've read with the 1970s DPs, these old guard guys died with their secrets. That forced the younger, up-and-coming DPs to take a different approach. This was fostered by the younger up-and-coming directors who wanted to do things differently, influenced by the French New Wave and other foreign cinema. The result was something exciting and dynamic within the "New Hollywood," which, with the help of the subject matter, the actors and the directors, broke the old rules and created new ones.

I had to light the traditional way (I mean, with a light meter) with my college films (16mm). I didn't see the results until I got it back from the lab, and we shot reversal, so any mistakes in exposure made it hard to fix when making an answer print. When I could actually see what I was getting when lighting it made everything go faster. When I started doing that I only had one monitor, and I always shut it off until I needed it to make a final check of the setup, or when the director needed to watch the take on the monitor. Otherwise, too many crew members hovered around and offered up their own unwelcome opinions.

About 13 years ago, I attended a round-table seminar with Dante Spinotti. Even then he said he was "sold on digital," having used it a few times with Michael Mann. He recalled the times he shot film, and no matter how good the lighting looked on the set, how carefully the lights were placed, how on-the-money the f/stop was on the lens in accordance to the meter, he was always concerned how it would appear in the dailies. He said he would act confident and assure the director that they were going to get what they were looking for. And then he'd wait for the dailies and hope that he was right and that the director would be happy.

Spinotti confessed that even the best DPs aren't going to know exactly how a shot will look until they see those dailies. But he would always say to the director, "Yes, this will look good," because DPs always know what they are doing; that's what they are being paid for, right?

Back when Spinotti said this, he was still using the Vipercam, not a particularly good digital camera by today's standards. I remember seeing Mann's "Public Enemies" in a theater, and it still looked too video-ish in places, even though I was watching it on a film print. Someone at the end of the discussion told me about the RED cameras. I checked out their site, and felt some degree of assurance that digital would look better with time.

The Arriflex Alexa does great work as well; one really has to look carefully to see if the image is film or digital when shot on an Alexa.

Tarantino's current DP, Robert Richardson, works with both film and digital. He won an Oscar for "Hugo," and he said in a podcast two years ago that he couldn't have pulled it off (with all the effect and such) had he shot on film. Richardson is one of the best DPs in the business, and he has no problem with digital.

Also, as far back as the 1960s, Kubrick was using a Polaroid to check lighting on shots in "2001," which a light meter would not notice. Basically, the use of the instant Polaroid photos was a precursor to looking at a video screen and seeing how a shot will look when it's lit -- that is, an instant version of how the image would look on film. Better to see any issues while filming than to wait and find out later. It saves money if something has to be re-shot. (Case in point: when Kubrick saw the two-dimensional Polaroid shot, he realized it didn't look the same as it had appeared to look good through the (three-dimensional) viewfinder. He had the setup changed.) I'm sure if Kubrick had lived long enough, he would have used digital, perhaps not entirely on a movie, but he would have seen its potential, even if it was simply as an aid in checking out exposure and lighting on a shot as the black and white Polaroids were for "2001."

It's not just what the naked eye sees that's important, but how it will look on the screen, whether that is achieved with a Polaroid still, or a monitor hooked up to a digital camera; the result will be what the image is going to really look like (barring timing and grading on digital post systems).

Whether one is using conventional studio lighting with digital, or more naturalistic (if not just existing) lighting, it still takes a DP with skill and talent to make such shots work. A good camera will not give you good results if the person using it doesn't know what they are doing.

Just ask Roger Deakins, and I love Deakins' work, both on film and digital. (I'd love to see Deakins do something on an iPhone, just for shits and giggles. It would probably blow everyone away.)

Where is "Lawrence of Arabia" in all this? There is that famous scene with Lawrence in Faisal's tent. Faisal walks away from Lawrence to the background, turns and the focus shifts to him while the back of Lawrence's head goes out of focus. Also, as Faisal moves close to Lawrence again they follow focus on him until he is face to face with Lawrence, and both are now in focus. And there were a couple of other moments where the change of focus is obvious in this scene.

What makes this scene even more remarkable than it already is is because the film was shot in 65mm, in which the depth of field is cut in half from 35mm cinematography that would use a similar lens to capture the same perspective. The other thing is that the 65mm Panavision camera was not a reflex viewing camera, so this all had to be worked out in rehearsal, checking the focus via the rear finder when the camera was racked over in order to see through the lens itself. Then markings were no doubt made on the floor, as well as on the lens, so that the 1st AC (focus-puller in England) would be able to follow focus and hit his mark on the lens just as Alec Guinness hit his mark on the floor.

We tend to think of desert vistas when we think of "Lawrence of Arabia," but moments like this one are examples where good interior lighting and careful planning with blocking and marking focus points are also essential for good cinematography.