Theoretically the whole acting area might be lighted with one powerful instrument directing its beams to the stage from a distance, at an angle which would light up the face of the actor somewhat as the rays from the sun make objects visible on a sunny day.
–Stanley McCandless, A method for Lighting the Stage
During his time a single light that could cover an entire stage was nothing but theory, but now such technology is commonplace. The film industry has found a need to brightly illuminate large areas in a color identical to daylight, such that the camera does not pick up the difference between the sun and the artificial lighting in the photography. Because of that need, the HMI Fresnel was born. HMI is a kind of lamp that operates much like a fluorescent or neon in that there is a glass container with chemicals in it that gets flooded with electricity and lets off (very bright) light. Although originally designed for film, these lights have found their way into theaters, primarily through European opera houses and increasingly in the US as well.
The difference between an HMI and a traditional incandescent lamp is like comparing watercolor to oil paint. One can achieve the same range of colors, perhaps, but the actual quality of the medium is quite different. By using these large lighting instruments one can achieve effects that are quite simply impossible with ‘area lighting.’ One of the biggest issue is shadows. Often in American theatre productions one sees a stage floor covered in lots and lots of tiny shadows. These are the result of lots and lots of tiny little lights focused into lots of little areas. This is very common in so called ‘naturalism’ and yet it is about as unnatural as one can get. When we walk out into the sun at 4:30 in the afternoon, we see a single shadow cast from a single source of light. Perhaps two if we are near a building with a reflective glass wall. But nowhere, unless we are in an artificial environment, do we have the twenty-three shadows one sees on a typical American stage floor.
Now, I am not arguing for an aesthetic that knows only shadows. If everything were like that, it would get as boring as anything else. But, a deeper appreciation for shadow could greatly enhance the beauty and dynamism of the American stage. In some ways this is a political stance. I never watch TV unless I am on an airplane, but when I have the chance my favorite thing to watch is Fox News(or Faux News, in the patriotic dialect). Their lighting designer must be one of the most brilliant propagandists alive. Watch one of their cable news shows some time, it is fascinating. All the anchors are lit so evenly that there is not a single shadow to be found. After all they represent the ‘truth’ they are ‘fair and balanced.’ So then they have their Conservative guests on camera who have slight shadows. Nothing big, but just enough to differentiate them from the hosts. Finally you have anyone other than a conservative wingnut. They always, ALWAYS, have a shadow underneath their chin. Minor issue right? Who cares? Indeed. No one cared in 1962 when Nixon and Kennedy debated on television. Appearance in front of a camera means nothing. Nothing at all.
Shadows mean secrets. Subconsciously we know this somewhere. It is an accepted part of our culture. Shadow = untruth. Or at least half truth. We can not believe the shadowed figure as much as our fair and balanced hosts. They have nothing to hide, so we must trust them. I do not believe this was always the case. For shadow means something else entirely. It means Mystery. One need only look at the paintings of Rembrandt or Caravaggio or El Greco to see a strong Western tradition that appreciates the beauty of the shadow.
It is time to reclaim the beauty of shadows. Like Tanizaki did for Japanese culture with In Praise of Shadows, we must relearn the beauty and truth of shadows. They need not be things to fear, so long as we know how to approach them. Batman after all, one of the greatest dark hero’s of modern mythology, hides in the shadows. We are afraid, as a culture to look inside ourselves and stare at the void. We are much more content to turn on the television and be told about our fair and balanced world. But it is time for our art to show us that void. If we can not go there unaided, then our art, our cultural subconscious, must be brought to the surface of our attention. We must learn to stare out at the dark expanse of human consciousness and see possibility and potential. We must learn to live in praise of shadows.
Tags: aesthetics, area lighting, beauty, dance lighting, method, shadow, stanley mccandless, subconscious, tanizaki, tools of the trade, void
excellent
Absolutely.
I’ve never been afraid of shadows in lighting. That’s what I do. Of course, it means that on many shows I’ve lit for other people I wind up being asked after a first preview or early performance if I can “bring everything up 5 points.” Sometimes I do (if the reasoning is “it’s a comedy” and I know there’s no arguing with that thinking), sometimes I don’t, sometimes I compromise (if I’m tired and it’s not worth it).
My problem — and it IS a problem — is figuring out how to make bright things interesting. There are times when things DO need to be bright, and I can never make that appealing to my eye in any way. Sometimes color helps, but that’s often inappropriate as well.
In film, yes, though it’s not something I like doing, I have learned to photograph bright scenes in interesting ways, but on stage, bodies in space in shadowless light makes me gag. But sometimes, it has to happen.
Shadows I know about. Any advice on making bright light interesting, Lucas?
Thank you.
Ha! I’m not really sure I can help if its a matter of your taste and not enjoying brightness. Though I must say that brightness and shadows are not incompatible. Very strong backlight is both bright and shadowed.
Often “it’s too dark” is really a matter of contrast. There are ways around this, color is one, quality is another. In film, unlike theatre, the light is rarely all hard light. Often it is a combination of hard(direct) and soft(bounce) light sources. This can be solved in terms of color as well with combinations of dominant and recessive colors, the color analog to hard and soft lights.
Oh, no, I can enjoy brightness. Generally, though, it’s painful, hard, nasty ugly brightness. Pleasant even brightness hurts me, but sometimes it’s what’s required. Backlighting I love, really bright, really REALLY bright. Problem is I can’t stand frontlighting at all, but you gotta do it sometimes . . .
It’s partly personal taste, yes, but I’m trying to find what I DO like within what I “don’t like.” I used to have an across-the-board irrational “hatred” of yellow and green until I found the shades of those colors that I respond to. There should be, similarly, a solution to the “I hate even frontlighting” irrationality.
I think you gave me the lead I need though — bounce. I need to wean myself away from pure hard light. I need to learn soft things. I know how to make it work with color, but for those times when anything but the mildest color is inappropriate, I need to learn soft light. Thanks. Time to study.
Happy to help.