• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Feature film with no lighting?

Are there any good examples of films shot with little to no lighting at all?

I'lll be shooting a film that will be all handheld, almost like a stylized documentary, but it will be fictional. It seems like I would be able to get away with only using whatever natural or practical lighting that already exists in the locations. I will be shooting mostly without permits so I won't have time for lighting setups.

It mostly takes place in the day time or inside houses. The few nights scenes can be shot in publicly lit locations like parking lots. If I'm shooting with a Red One (and Red lenses), will I be able to see my actors' faces for the most part? Natural shadows in any of the scenes will be OK because I'm going for realism, but I don't want them to be completely lost and I don't want every scene to look too bland.
 
Even the most "found footage" films I've worked on I've seen many lighting techniques used, even if it's a simple French Flag or a white bounce.

I can't think of anything that doesn't use any lighting at all! :/
 
Lars von Trier and his buddies experimented with a set of rules they called Dogma 95, which included a bunch of hardships including all-natural lighting. One of the rules, also, was all hand-held shots only... which you mentioned in passing.

They made several films like this. Definitely a good spot to start looking.
 
I just read about Dogma 95 films and I'm very intrigued. I've seen his documentary The Five Obstructions, which talks about a different set of restrictions, although I was disappointed with that film.

I also just read that as far as lighting is concerned, Lars' film Dancer in the Dark comes pretty close to what I'm looking for. That's one of my favorites.

But I guess I'm hoping someone in this forum has a more modern example, something like Bellflower. I have no idea what the lighting situation was like for that film but I will have the same budget as those guys and, stylistically, I loved what they did.

Other films whose "look" I like are Another Earth and Martha Marcy May Marlene. Any idea what their lighting situation was like?
 
I just filmed a short with 100% natural light, BUT, I also knew going into it that the room I planned on filming in is uniquely suited to just using natural light due to the placement of windows and northern exposure. And again, this was a short (about 5 minutes long), not a feature. I don't think I'd want to even attempt it on a feature...
 
im moving down the same route intentionally, it just feels right, i want to learn how to place my scenes in light rather than light in my scenes.

ps: i heard soderbergh uses only available light.
 
Are there any good examples of films shot with little to no lighting at all?
You mean using only available light, right? Not shooting with no
light at all.
Natural shadows in any of the scenes will be OK because I'm going for realism, but I don't want them to be completely lost and I don't want every scene to look too bland.
That's the trick isn't it. It will take a LOT of work and plenty of skill.
"Realism" can be quite difficult because the camera processes light
quite differently than the human eye does.

I look forward to seeing your result.

Probably the best example is the amazing "Barry Lyndon" shot by
John Alcott. "The New World" by Emmanuel Lubezki. "The Girlfriend
Experience" by Steven Soderbergh
 
"The Girlfriend
Experience" by Steven Soderbergh


Thanks for this. I just read in an interview that he used natural or practical available light in every shot except 2 of them (which he ended up regretting) and it was shot with a Red camera, which is what I'll be using.

I havent seen the movie yet, but all of the clips look great! This gives me the confidence I needed.
 
Is lackluster lighting a trademark of sorts, for Soderbergh?

As a Soderbergh fan, I'll toss in my two bits.

Soderbergh has intentionally avoided tying himself to any particular style. The guy is one of the most versatile, all-across-the-spectrum directors...maybe ever. He shoots most of his own stuff (under pseudonym "Peter Andrews"), and the look of each film is unique to the type of film it is.

His small, "indie"-style pieces (Girlfriend Experience, Bubble, Full Frontal, etc.) are usually shot hand-held, small-format, existing light, much improv.

His "docu-drama" style films (Contagion, Che, Traffic, etc.) are lit, but in a "stylized realism" fashion: greens for flourescent rooms, oranges for warm locales, blues for urban scenes, etc.

His "Hollywood"-style movies (Ocean's 11-13, Erin Brockovich, Out of Sight, etc.) tend to be lit and shot in the glossy, glamorous Hollywood style.

Then, on top of that you've got his black-&-white noir-ish films (The Good German, Kafka), and some that sort of mix the various styles, depending on the particular scene (The Informant, Solaris, The Limey).

And, finally, the indie film that basically touched off the indie film revolution (Sex, Lies, & Videotape).

The guy is phenomenal, IMHO. :cool:
 
Be careful of when you read that certain movies were shot with 'available light'. In The Social Network, for example, parts were shot with available light.. However, the grip and support equipment was 100x more complex, expensive and intense than that needed for your normal lighting setup. They shot on Master Primes wide open at T1.3, and used a whole lot of intricate grip and support gear to add light reflectors and flag lights etc. Plus, shooting at T1.3 means your camera assistants need to be pretty damn good at pulling focus.

As well, the whole film looks it could've been shot in available light but it's very deceptive and there are a lot of scenes that have huge kino banks behind the camera or on certain sides that you wouldn't even be able to tell were there unless you knew. That's why it was nominated at the Oscars for cinematography
 
If I'm not mistaken, Antihero was shot with just natural light.

Great movie, btw, you should check it out. :)

:D

Thanks for the shout-out (and kind words). Much of the movie was shot with available light, and much was shot with quick-and-easy (lazy) lighting. This wasn't because I hate lighting. I just love directing, and those aren't the same things. This was a one-time deal for me; the next big project requires a dedicated person who loves lighting.
 
the next big project requires a dedicated person who loves lighting.

Pick me! Pick me!
smiley_panic.gif



2001 Productions said:
As a Soderbergh fan, I'll toss in my two bits.

Very interesting summary there, sir. I'm going to have to rewatch many of those, and see some for the first time, as well. :cool:
 
As a Soderbergh fan, I'll toss in my two bits.

Soderbergh has intentionally avoided tying himself to any particular style. The guy is one of the most versatile, all-across-the-spectrum directors...maybe ever. He shoots most of his own stuff (under pseudonym "Peter Andrews"), and the look of each film is unique to the type of film it is.

His small, "indie"-style pieces (Girlfriend Experience, Bubble, Full Frontal, etc.) are usually shot hand-held, small-format, existing light, much improv.

His "docu-drama" style films (Contagion, Che, Traffic, etc.) are lit, but in a "stylized realism" fashion: greens for flourescent rooms, oranges for warm locales, blues for urban scenes, etc.

His "Hollywood"-style movies (Ocean's 11-13, Erin Brockovich, Out of Sight, etc.) tend to be lit and shot in the glossy, glamorous Hollywood style.

Then, on top of that you've got his black-&-white noir-ish films (The Good German, Kafka), and some that sort of mix the various styles, depending on the particular scene (The Informant, Solaris, The Limey).

And, finally, the indie film that basically touched off the indie film revolution (Sex, Lies, & Videotape).

The guy is phenomenal, IMHO. :cool:

Nice to see another Soderbergh enthusiast. And here i thought i was the only one who liked Solaris and The Limey from his work.
 
Back
Top