Lighting in film, and especially horror is so *so* important to the tension in the scene, itâs a significant part of visual storytelling, and the cinematographer/DOP (director of photography) shouldâve picked up on that.
Itâs particularly embarrassing in comparison to the original material, as with digital/modern technology, you can literally see how the shot looks while youâre shooting.
This shouldâve also been sorted in comp and fixed well before distribution.
As already pointed out, the lighting values have no depth to them, thus creating a very flat scene (this is one of the first design principles we are taught in design for animation/film- if I had handed in a lighting shot or concept anything like this, I wouldâve failed the module).
If you take the shots and put them into greyscale, you can see this a lot clearer.
In the original Halloween shot, we can see a high range of value (how bright or dark something is)- the lighting is brightest on Jamie Lee Curtis, the viewerâs eye is drawn to her first- we can see her emotions clearly and gain sympathy for her character. Then we are drawn into the darkest value, creating dread, and this is fulfilled and heightened with the contrasting (and next highest) value of Michaelâs mask.
In the modern shot, all the values are within a similar range (mid-greys), and there is no proper depth in value- making the tension within the shot fall flat (not ideal for horror).
In fact, the highest value in this shot is the fire in the background- which is where the eye is drawn to first. The background. Not the action. So instead of feeling empathy or dread, we are focusing on the wrong details.
And yes, while it could be said from a film analysis POV that the flatness of the shot âputs the characters on the same fighting ground/level of power in the shot,â Iâm not going to give them the benefit.
To top it off, the use of colour in the modern shot highlights the errors in lighting. Whilst sharing the blue/orange colour scheme of the original shot, everything is blue except the one area of contrast, the orange fire. So once again, we are drawn to none of the action and instead the background.
With a very small edit in compositing and lighting to match the original Halloween, the feeling (and focus) of the shot is completely changed. The shot has higher contrast and range of values- the focus is on Curtis, while Michael feels more foreboding in the darkness. The contrast puts the characters on opposite sides- good vs evil, telling a narrative in contrast to the unedited shot.
These effects couldâve easily been achieved by adding a key light on Curtis and rim lighting on Michael in production, and if necessary, editing value depth in comp to enhance the raw footage.
TLDR: Digital filmmakers still need to know traditional film and design theory- just because you have good actors, cameras and composition, does not mean you can forgo basic film craft. The aim of cinematography is to enhance the narrative, not restrict it.
