"Picnic at Hanging Rock" was lauded for cinematography after it release, winning a BAFTA award in 1977 and receiving other nominations. The filmmakers had a lot of breathtaking features to work with, from Hanging Rock to the wild outback to the incongruity of the prim, colonial schoolhouse, an isolated piece of civilization set against the fields.
But Australia's natural beauty wasn't what made the cinematography so extraordinary. The play of the camera on the rock made it a living character. The use of a bridal veil over the lens gave some of the schoolgirl scenes an ethereal and dreamlike quality.
Several articles about Weir, including Wikipedia's, cite his interest in contrasting a microcosm and macrocosm, with characters moving into the macrocosm with mixed results — in "Picnic at Hanging Rock," "Dead Poet's Society" and "The Truman Show." "Picnic's" cinematography is essential to establishing this idea of what happens when the girls leave their civilized, gilded cage and have a chance to explore the real world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Oh, but I should add that I saw this on DVD, and the colors were very rich and vibrant. The trailer was one of the extra features, though, and it was quite dark and the tonal qualities were much cooler. That might have given it a more chilling or gothic feel, but lost some other qualities.
My memory of this movie — I saw it first at the theater at KU — was of something pale and sort of antique, like a sun-faded Laura Ashley. (Maybe it was just that particular copy of reel-to-reel or maybe that's just how my memory preserved it)
I was surprised, watching the DVD, at how fresh and vivid all the scenes felt, but still very dreamlike.
This question is right in Ricky's wheelhouse, but, alas, he is scampering up a pebble somewhere and won't be able to weigh in until Tuesday or so.
Yes, it got a bit windy and damp on that pebble, so I’m back.
Perhaps I’ll want to watch this on DVD sooner rather than later since it sounds like maybe the DVD is more saturated.
The Hanging Rock area of Victoria looks remarkably like the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, so I found the setting felt familiar. In the foothills near Sonora, there are exposed cliffs of a related type of volcanic rock. And on the Sierra East Side, there are some rocks that are quite similar although the setting is a bit different. So in some ways, this movie felt like it was filmed in a place I knew well. Sure the plants were a bit odd, but they fit into the same ecological niches that are found here in the San Joaquin Valley.
The copy of the movie I watched was a rather old and somewhat worn VHS tape. The picture wasn’t particularly sharp, but I thought the color balance and saturation were just right. The outdoor scenes were bright and just slightly washed out. That is exactly how the foothills here look in high summer when it is hot and it hasn’t rained since spring. The indoor scenes seemed to follow this lead and had colors and tones to match. The famous veil over the lens washed the frame out a bit, so I think it would look right only on a bright print. If it was dark, it would just look muddy and not dreamy.
Wasn’t the mid-70’s the heyday of the soft focus soft porn look? For instance, didn’t Playboy run a lot of photos that were shot with petroleum jelly smeared around the edges of the lens? The look I’m thinking of strikes me as similar to the veil-on-the-lens scenes where the subject is mostly backlit, the picture is bright, and it has a fuzzy glow that seems dreamy or nostalgic.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare6/picnic-at-hanging-rock.htm
The DVDbeaver is a good site to check if you want to compare various DVD releases. Although there are several versions out, it sounds like the colors and tones are all similar. So perhaps this is about how Weir wants the film to look.
Hmm, those hyphens seem to somehow have kept that address from posting as a link. Just copy and paste if you want to have a look.
Nice to hear there are some more accessible places that compare to the Australian outback. I meant to say as much on your post at kc's blog.
Thanks, also, for the Web site tip.
eah, I'd like to see the landscape you're talking about. Is it near Sequoia and King's Canyon National Parks?
Wasn’t the mid-70’s the heyday of the soft focus soft porn look? For instance, didn’t Playboy run a lot of photos that were shot with petroleum jelly smeared around the edges of the lens?
Yes, it was. Your very mention of that gives me a mental image of women with sun-streaked feathered hair and pink blush and super-shiny lip gloss!
I think even the Star Trek TV show (pre-1970s)would film leading lady types through a gauzy lens.
The rolling hills with tan grasses and scattered trees are spread out over a very long stretch of the foothills and certainly go as far south as you are suggesting. But the volcanic rocks I mention are in a much smaller area that is farther north and is mainly between Modesto and Yosemite National Park. They have also built a lot of reservoirs in this area. But these are different from that lake we saw in the movie which was shallow and surrounded by wetlands. The reservoirs here in the foothills are in steep sided valleys. By summer, the water level has dropped fifty below the tree line exposing a steep rocky shore that you would have a hard time walking along.
I remember once reading a photography book that must have been from sometime in the ‘70s. It had a chapter on shooting nudes that talked about that soft focus. That’s where I learned about the petroleum jelly on the lens. Although I think they actually recommended sparing your lens and smearing it on a cheap UV filter instead.
Star Trek did it too? It would be about cheesy enough for them. Can you just imagine the music during such a scene? Can’t say I ever liked the look.
Post a Comment