Visions of Light

Taking a stand for cinema's populist underdog, Visions of light reinstates the basic elements of importance in film in an age where the artistic merit is credited the director and the actors. Or maybe it merely tells an audience what every filmmaker knows so well; that the art of film would be nothing without light and the craft of capturing and animating it. Since the origin of film-making, cinematography has maintained its reputation of being a craft, long after the role of the director was given creative control. And with such a responsibility in management of physical and optical parameters, the creative expression of the director of photography is purely based on experiment through immense control. From Charles Lang being instructed to "put his shadows wherever he wanted, but not on the actors face" to David Lynch and Frederick Elmes discussing "how dark is dark", the art of cinematography is just as much about being an illusionist as just a mediator between production and aspection. In commentary to his "sketching of things in the dark" to the point of monochromism, John Alton summed up the spirit of cinematography in reminding us that it is not as much about the lights you turn on as the one's you don't.

I watched this to hopefully get some ideas on what movies would be interesting to watch. From this point of view I was disappointed.

The movies used as illustration are fairly mainstream. I had heard of almost all of them even though I hadn't seen them all.

One thing that I very much have a problem with is that I think that the frame speed was accelerated on some of the silent film clips. The alternative would have been to repeat some frames so that events would play at the intended speed, but would have a slight skipping irregular pace. (24 frames per second was not a standard film speed during the silent period, so many films were done in 16, 18 or even occasionally 12 frames per second) I believe that the latter solution to the frames problem is preferable to comically fast pacing.

Also the silent period was some what gypped in that it got the same amount of time and focus as each subsequent decade. It should have gotten twice as much time as a decade, because it includes 1910's and 1920's and all prior movie history. Other than this minor disparity, the amount of time spent on each decade is about equal. This is good because the documentary isn't skewed toward any era.

Even bias is a prerequisite for a film documentary, and this documentary has it.

Keep in mind that this documentary is very general. It would be impossible to go into a great deal of depth in only 1 1/2 hours. It is not for an extreme film buff. The film is not going to be a revelation, but if you are looking for a very general introduction to cinema this is a good documentary to watch.

The magical glow Marlene Dietrich gave off in her vintage exotic films, the almost news-coverage like grit of DOG DAY AFTERNOON, the realistic look of JAWS- all the secrets of how to make a film look it's best possible are here in this excellent American Film Institute produced documentary. VISIONS OF LIGHT traces the history of cinematography in simple, everyman terms (No, we don't have cameramen using jargon like "f stops, ground glass, neutral density.") The film clips from such beautifully lensed films as SUNRISE, GRAPES OF WRATH, REBECCA, T-MEN, PICNIC, IN COLD BLOOD, TAXI DRIVER and BLADERUNNER) perfectly highlight the film. A true must see.

This is a great documentary, of interest to any student of film or anyone who wants to deepen their appreciation of movies. The film showcases some great cinematographers (Caleb Deschanel, Conrad Hall, Gregg Toland, etc.) chronologically, giving a brief history of film at the same time -- it interviews the cinematographers at it shows countless clips from all sorts of film.

My only complaint is that, despite the work from several foreign cinematographers, the films are mostly American (this doc was made after all by the AFI), and so it skips out some great legendary international films (from Kurosawa, Bergman, etc.) that deserve equal attention.

Yes, it ignores most of Europe and the rest of the worlds contributions, but for what it is, it's just lovely.

It's an introduction to the art of cinematography in American movies, with clips and comments from the greats about American film from birth till 1990 or so, when it was made. Some of the cinematographers are humble and self-effacing, some clearly have large egos, but they all obviously love and care deeply about film and film making.

This is a terrific film to show your children, a behind the scenes that is informative rather than salacious or snarky.

Highly recommended.