A Hidden History of Film Style: Cinematographers, Directors, and the Collaborative Process
248
A Hidden History of Film Style: Cinematographers, Directors, and the Collaborative Process
248eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780520959927 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | University of California Press |
| Publication date: | 04/30/2015 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 248 |
| Sales rank: | 989,966 |
| File size: | 6 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
A Hidden History of Film Style
Cinematographers, Directors, and the Collaborative Process
By Christopher Beach
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
Copyright © 2015 The Regents of the University of CaliforniaAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-520-95992-7
CHAPTER 1
Pioneers in Babylon
D.W. Griffith and Billy Bitzer
In 1914, one could see a two-reel drama plus a couple of comedies at the better theatres for a dime.... Generally, the photographic quality was poor. Highly contrasty and overdeveloped, the highlights were chalk-white and the shadows deep black. Known in the trade as "soot and whitewash," it was the quality most exhibitors demanded because of low- powered projection equipment. The Biograph Company insisted on being different. They refused to make "soot and whitewash." Their films had delicate half-tones and a silvery effect that was the envy of us all.... Screen credits were not listed in those days, but I learned from reading motion picture articles in magazines that the best Biograph films were directed by D.W. Griffith and photographed by Billy Bitzer.
Joseph Walker, The Light on Her Face
The collaboration of D.W. Griffith and G.W. "Billy" Bitzer began during the summer of 1908, when American filmmaking was still in its infancy, and it continued until nearly the end of the silent era. One of the longest and most productive creative partnerships in the history of American cinema, the Griffith-Bitzer collaboration resulted in the production of more than five hundred motion pictures, including many of the most canonical American films of the silent period. If it is true, as David Cook has suggested, that Griffith did more than any other filmmaker "to establish the narrative language of the cinema and turn an aesthetically inconsequential medium of entertainment into a fully articulated art form," it was Bitzer, as Griffith's gifted and loyal cameraman, who provided him with the brilliant images out of which he was able to fashion his powerful visual narratives.
The long-term partnership of Griffith and Bitzer raises important questions about the status of such collaborations during the silent era, and more specifically during what has been called the "period of transition" between the early years of American filmmaking and the classical period. There is a good deal that we do not know, and will probably never know, about how directors and their cameramen collaborated during the transitional period of 1907 to 1913. How much control did each of them have over matters such as camera placement, shot selection and composition, camera movement, and lighting? To what extent did directors of the period discuss questions of visual style with their cameramen? To what extent was visual style even a conscious consideration for filmmakers, apart from a desire to find ways of telling their stories more clearly and effectively?
The period during which Griffith and Bitzer initiated their working relationship—the summer of 1908—was one in which the power dynamic between directors and cameramen was still relatively fluid. Although each studio functioned under a slightly different system of production, it seems clear that during the years immediately preceding the transitional period, there was a great deal of collaboration in the making of motion pictures. As Charles Musser has noted, the period prior to 1908 was dominated by a "collaborative system of production," particularly in the case of fiction films. This system generally involved "the uniting of complementary skills" in what was roughly "an association of equals." This association could be two directors working together—as in the case of Wallace McCutcheon and Edwin S. Porter at the Edison studio (1905–1907)—or a more complementary pairing such as that of Porter and actor George S. Fleming during an earlier period at Edison. Musser describes the collaboration of Porter and Fleming, which lasted from 1901 to 1903:
Fleming was an actor and scenic designer. Porter, who had been improving Edison motion picture equipment, joined him as a cameraman, and the two worked together. What we see is a pairing of men with comple-mentary skills. Working together, Fleming constructed the sets and directed the actors while Porter shot the scenes, developed the film, and edited the results. Yet much of the actual filmmaking—the choosing of subjects and planning of actual scenes—was done by both men.
Similar partnerships also existed at studios other than Edison. At Biograph, for example, Wallace McCutcheon collaborated with Frank Marion between 1900 and 1905, while at Essanay the actor and playwright Lawrence Lee worked closely with cinematographer Gilbert P. Hamilton. Lee, whose background appears to have been very similar to Griffith's, led the acting troupe and production crew, but he deferred to Hamilton on questions of camera and lighting. In fact, as late as the summer of 1908—the exact moment when Griffith and Bitzer were beginning their partnership—the cameraman was still considered the final authority over certain key filmmaking decisions. One contemporary account suggested that the photographer "vetoes absolutely the dramatist's suggestion," and that the said "dramatist"—the person we now call the director—must often "rearrange his pawns in the moving picture game and change his system to coincide with the limitations of the camera."
In part, the power still wielded by the cameraman in the transitional period was the remnant of an earlier era, when filmmakers such as Edwin S. Porter were able to combine the roles of cameraman and director. While the position of the cameraman had existed since the very beginnings of the cinema, that of the director was a later invention; it evolved gradually from the much more limited role of stage manager or leader of a company of actors to a position involving significant creative control over all aspects of filmmaking. In this sense, the working relationship of Griffith and Bitzer can be seen as emblematic of widespread changes in the industry, and especially of changes in the way power and authority were beginning to shift from the cameraman to the director. By 1913, the year when Griffith and Bitzer left Biograph, it is clear that the director was emerging throughout the American film industry as the more dominant partner in both organizational and creative terms. What is not so clear is whether this change was happening with equal rapidity at all the studios, or if Griffith's powerful position at Biograph during these years was something of an aberration, giving him the ability to assume creative control more quickly than directors at other studios.
Charles Musser suggests two possible explanations for the expansion of the director's power after 1908. First of all, with the growth in acting companies at each studio, the director had increased responsibility for such matters as casting and performance. Second, with the increasing dominance of fiction films relative to documentaries, directors were of greater importance, since they were responsible for making sure the stories that would go before the camera were clear and logical. In the case of Griffith, there was an additional factor in his ability to take power more quickly. Because Biograph was on the verge of commercial disaster when Griffith took over as director, he had "unusual leverage in the company." This leverage allowed him to assume the position of producer as well as director of his films and to take control of the editing.
For about the first year of their collaboration, the relationship of Griffith and Bitzer appears to have been closer to one of equals, with Griffith responsible for the actors and Bitzer for the positioning and operating of the camera. This also meant that—because these were two very strong-willed individuals—open disagreements on the set were not uncommon. Bitzer wrote in a 1939 letter to Seymour Stern, he and Griffith had "had differences of opinion ... from the start," and these differences sometimes led to heated arguments. It became clear, however, in the course of the first months of their collaboration, that Griffith and not Bitzer would gain the upper hand in making crucial decisions about how films would be made. "Before [Griffith's] arrival," Bitzer recollected in his autobiography Billy Bitzer: His Story, "I, as cameraman, was responsible for everything except the immediate hiring and handling of the actor. Soon, it was his say whether the lights were bright enough, or if the makeup was right." Bitzer's comment, though telling, leaves us wishing for more details about exactly how these changes took place. Did Bitzer complain to Biograph management about Griffith's attempt to gain greater control? If so, was the company receptive to his complaints? Or did Bitzer simply back down when it became clear that Griffith would have the upper hand?
There are several facts we do know, some of which support my contention that Bitzer was a central collaborator in Griffith's films rather than a mere technical supporter. One of the strongest arguments in favor of Bitzer's central importance to Griffith's films is the fact that Griffith, prior to his appearances in films at Edison and Biograph at the end of 1907, had been an unsuccessful playwright and modestly talented actor, with little exposure to film and even less knowledge of filmmaking technique. Griffith's lack of filmmaking experience is suggested by Bitzer's claim to have taught him the rudimentary aspects of filmmaking—such as how to frame a shot and how to organize a scenario into scenes—prior to his directing his first film, The Adventures of Dollie. Further, directors of the pre-Griffith era were essentially glorified stage managers, whose sole purpose was to move the actors into their places for the camera and give minimal instructions about how they should perform their scenes. As Richard Schickel notes, there was not much for the director to do once he had chosen his actors "except [to] make sure that, in carrying out such bits of business and action as he might devise for them, they did not step outside the guidelines, marked on the floor, which indicated the limits of what the lens could record."
Bitzer's situation as Biograph's lead cameraman seems to have been quite secure. Employed as a professional cinematographer since 1896, he had shot over five hundred films by the time he began his collaboration with Griffith, and he had directed at least some of Biograph's films prior to Griffith's arrival. Though it is difficult to say with any certainty how many films Bitzer had directed—given the lack of a clear distinction between cameramen and directors in the early years of the twentieth century—he is credited with directing films such as the 1906 short The Impossible Convicts in which trick photography creates the effect of prisoners walking backward into their cells. Since Bitzer was the cameraman for a number of other Biograph films for which there is no known director, we can also consider him to be at least one of the principal authors of those films. Bitzer was, put simply, one of the most experienced and accomplished filmmakers in the business at a time before the position of director even existed.
Another factor in support of the central importance of Bitzer's contribution is the contemporary attitude toward film photography during this period. Both the industry and the trade press recognized the importance of cinematography to the success of Biograph's films during the period from 1908 to 1913. A 1910 editorial in Moving Picture World, the most influential film journal of the period, noted that "the Biograph releases are distinguished by a certain pictorial quality which is the outcome of patient systematized work in the photographic department," and that the Biograph studio had "a standard of [visual] quality ... which other makers are laudably endeavoring to emulate." Since Bitzer was responsible for shooting the lion's share of Biograph's films of that year, it seems reasonable to assume that his photographic work was judged to be superior to that of cameramen at most other studios. Charlie Keil seems perfectly justified in listing the presence of Biograph's "two veteran cameramen"—Bitzer and Arthur Marvin—as one of the major reasons Griffith had been able to advance so quickly from an inexperienced filmmaker to one of the most accomplished directors in the industry. After Marvin's death in early 1911, it was Bitzer alone who was responsible for the quality of Griffith's images. But even during the years 1908–1910, when Bitzer and Marvin were the company's two cameramen, Bitzer shot significantly more of Griffith's films than Marvin did.
Another argument in support of Bitzer's importance to Griffith's early career is the fact that when Griffith left Biograph at the end of 1913 and went to work for Harry Aitken and the Mutual Film Company, he lobbied Bitzer vigorously to leave Biograph and join his filmmaking team. Bitzer was reluctant to leave the studio and the security of his position there, but Griffith offered him a salary of $200 a week (far more than Bitzer was making at Biograph, and more than any other American cameraman was earning at the time), as well as a 10 percent participation in the profits of Griffith's independent productions. The battle between Griffith and Biograph for Bitzer's services escalated into a no-holds-barred bidding war, with Biograph offering the cameraman a paid vacation in Florida, and Aitken giving him the use of a car. In his attempt to convince Bitzer to leave Biograph and join his new company, Griffith promised his cameraman that they would bury themselves "in hard work out on the coast for five years, make the greatest pictures ever made, make a million dollars, and retire." Clearly, Griffith placed considerable value on Bitzer's participation in his filmmaking venture, and considered him an essential collaborator in his films.
Bitzer was also instrumental in Griffith's ability to continue making films after leaving Biograph. When Aitken was unable to provide Griffith with a usable studio space in New York, Bitzer found him a space in a former rug factory in the Bowery, and when Griffith needed additional funds to make The Birth of a Nation, Bitzer put up a large part of his personal savings to help Griffith finance the picture. As of 1915, at least, Griffith and Bitzer appear to have been acting as partners in the most literal sense of the word, though their relationship would change quite dramatically in later years.
We can also frame the question of Bitzer's importance to the development of Griffith's filmmaking by asking whether Griffith could have made the films he did without Bitzer. Although this is by no means a simple question to answer—especially given the limited information about the exact circumstances of their collaboration during the Biograph years—I would argue that Bitzer contributed significantly to the aesthetic quality of Griffith's films, and that the rapid development of Griffith's technique as a filmmaker would not have been possible without Bitzer's technical and creative input.
Unfortunately, Griffith himself said very little—at least in writing—on the subject of his collaboration with Bitzer. Like many other self-styled auteurists, Griffith preferred to take credit for the artistic and commercial success of his films for himself. Since we do not have Griffith's perspective on his working relationship with his cameraman, we rely primarily on the information Bitzer conveys to us, with supporting evidence from other firsthand commentators, such as Bitzer's assistant Karl Brown. Bitzer's account of the collaboration with Griffith, contained in his posthumously published autobiography Billy Bitzer: His Story, is frustratingly incomplete, leaving significant gaps in the record of his work on Griffith's films. Bitzer's "story" also ends rather precipitously in 1920, thus leaving us with very little information about the final decade of his career. Nevertheless, Bitzer's book remains the single most important source of information about his work with Griffith.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from A Hidden History of Film Style by Christopher Beach. Copyright © 2015 The Regents of the University of California. Excerpted by permission of UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
List of Illustrations,Acknowledgments,
Introduction,
1. Pioneers in Babylon: D.W. Griffith and Billy Bitzer,
2. Rebel with a Camera: Gregg Toland, William Wyler, and the Development of Deep-Focus Technique,
3. Peering into Corners: Billy Wilder, John Seitz, and the Visual Style of Film Noir,
4. The Color of Suspense: Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Burks,
5. What Rule Are You Breaking? Collaborating in the New Hollywood,
6. Cinematography, Craft, and Collaboration in the Digital Age,
Notes,
Works Cited,
Index,