THE LIGHT IN FABRICE'S MOVIES REVAULT D'ALLONNES

The last book that I have read myself is “The light in the movies”, of Fabrice Revault d'Allones. For time I have the (confirmed) impression that my weakest point in the audio-visual thing is the light. In fact, I believe that it is more díficil. In the personal thing, in spite of having read a few books and of having received classes, I keep on feeling that I do not have it does not even design. And the fact is that a thing is to place four lights and very different other one, to transmit emotions with them.

I have read several books that were telling how to place lights. But I believe that, to place foci, it needs slightly more that to know 4 manual dispositions. It is necessary to know what you want to transmit. After all, from the point of view of the achievement, it is a much more important knowledge what you want to count that not how that does technically. At least, this is my opinion.

The case is that I bought the book after driving away it and after seeing that it was a book essentially of “philosophy“ of the light, of his language. It does not treat so much of how to use a quartz as of what it can "transmit" with them.

I believe that the book is very well raised, since everything makes it turn about 3 very clear concepts and that they help very much to the comprehension. Essentially, the book distinguishes 3 types of treatment of light; classic, baroque and modern.

Part of the base of that the light, so much if he loves as if he does not love, transmits a certain meaning, therefore it comes to the conclusion that the light is always significant, although sometimes it is certainly insignificant. And this classification is based on this essential fact of the light.

The classic light is that that transmits the only and univocal, very typical meaning of movements as the expressionism or some of the esthetics cohetáneas. The baroque light, that one that transmits more than one meaning, typical one of the American classic movies.

Let's depart from the base that any of these different types of movies they tend not to look for a naturalistic light, fleeing of the open spaces (with a light very much less controlable). Of course, it would not be necessary to confuse baroque esthetics (with many elements on the screen) and a baroque light (polisémica). For example, the expressionism is tremendously baroque in the visual but univocal thing in the meaning of the light and, therefore, classic.

It went over to such a point of excess of control of the light and of abuse of transimisión of meanings, which with the modernism one thought about how to avoid to transmit things with the light, using as much as one could natural light that everything floods with light and, therefore, it makes her insignificant. This is the modern light.

The book studies in depth very much this classification. It is a clarifier, although it is necessary to realize that it is very dense. Also it is true that it would find it hard to myself to put very much examples of those that the book does not use, so perhaps he had needed at times a more flat speech and with more accessible examples (in this type of books there appear many qualifications difficult to see). Although when you read a book of a French author (there the movies has much more prestige that here) you already know what exists.

It gives me the sensation that I will need some thing more for aprehender the use of the light, but also I believe that these concepts, when sedimenten, they me are going to be tremendously useful. I believe that the book is adapted neither for the first approach nor for the people who has not seen classic, but very useful movies sufficient in the opposite case.