s0023329a2film-blog - Tumblr blog

[s0023329a2film-blog]

INDEX

S1: Post A. Summer Work

S1: Post B. Key Sequences Notes (Like Crazy)

S1: Post C. Key Sequences Notes (About Time)

S1: Post D. Key Sequences Notes (Before We Go)

S1: Post E. Source Review 1

S1: Post F. Source Review 2

S1: Post G. Source Review 3

S1: Post H. Source Review 4

S1: Post I. Source Review 5

S1: Post J. Source Review 6

S1: Post K. Source Review 7

S1: Post L. Source Review 8

S1: Post M. Source Review 9

S1: Post N. Source Review 10

S1: Post O. Source Review 11

S1: Post P. Source Review 12

S1: Post Q. References List

S1: Post R. Collated Quotes

S1: Post S. Essay Abstract

S1: Post T. Essay First Draft

S1: Post U. Essay Final Draft

S2: Post A. Initial Ideas

S2: Post B. Synopsis

S2: Post C. Screenplay

S2: Post D. Storyboard

S2: Post E. Recce Report

S2: Post F. Casting

S2: Post G. Shooting/Editing Schedule

S3: First Edit

S3: Final Edit

S4: Evaluation

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S4: Evaluation

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post G. Shooting/Editing Schedule

Link to my creative investigation 

I am planning to film mostly inside which is highly influenced by Like Crazy, which is a film that has loads of scene taken shot inside, mostly in flat, house or office. I only have few scenes shot outside and most of them will be shot during the day which is an impact of About Time where most of the exterior scenes contains very high key lighting. I only got one scene that would be filmed outside in evening which is a horse riding scene but it was inevitable since the horse riding track was only available in the evening. 

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post F. Casting

CATHY (Emma Uflacker)

Head-shot Pictures

Screen Test Video

https://youtu.be/0r6NMgClCwA

Link to my creative investigation

I asked Emma to be in my short film because I thought she would be very suitable for the role as I was looking for a teenage girl who is aged between 15 and 18, average height and a brunette. This is highly inspired by the role of Anna in Like Crazy, which is played by Felicity Jones. 

Felicity Jones is highly related to my creative investigation since John Guleserian has done two films with her and she is considered to be one of the most significant collaborators of him. I thought the character of Felicity Jones would be helpful for the audience to empathise with the story in the film because Anna was not a type of individual who stands out too much from the crowd and therefore I wanted to find someone like her for the same effect.

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post E. Recce Report

Link to my creative investigation - written in Bold

Location: House

I will film particularly in a kitchen and a bedroom using only natural lighting. The bedroom that I chose to film in is picked because it includes a big window. However I will need to remove a curtain and let the sunlight come directly in without any obstacle on its way. I don’t need any permission for it, however the time range that I can film might be quite small. I decided on the location of a bedroom for a scene when Cathy feels extreme emptiness without her sister because there are two beds in the room and therefore I can physically show an empty space. I chose a kitchen as a place where Cathy and her mom argue about Cathy neglecting her normal life because I considered that a kitchen can be represented as her mom’s territory, which will be helpful in showing the pressure that Cathy gets from her mom who wants her to move on and live her life normally. One of my focal films, Like Crazy, also had a scene where Anna and Jacob argue in their kitchen and after I watched I considered that a kitchen can be the most proper location for family argument in a house as it is a room that tools which can be considered weapon that actually is capable of hurting people such as knives and forks are mostly placed.

                                  Location: Cemetery

I will film the first scene of my short film in a cemetery in Hull because first of all it is a place that I can very directly reveal that someone is dead and secondly I thought it will give a powerful impact from the beginning so that the audience can focus more after all. I got the idea in the scene of About time where the film connotes Tim’s dad’s death by showing the preparation of his funeral. The cemetery’s opening hour is between 8:30 am to 7:30 pm so I should make sure I get the filming done between then. Since I want the scene to have low-key lighting, I will film after the sun starts to set. However, it always can go dark sooner than I expect, so I would like to prepare a lighting equipment to make sure the shots look fine. 

                                                                              Location: Bus

In a bus, I will film a shot of Cathy and her friends hanging around and Cathy being unable to concentrate on why people talking about as she thinks about her sister too much. This is inspired by the scene in Before We Go where Brooke takes a public transportation.

I don’t think I will particularly need a permission as long as I only have my actors in the frame and not anyone else. The bus service is available between 6:30 am and 11:30 pm so I need to make sure I film in the right time. It could be too noisy to film in the bus because of the engine sound and people chatting, therefore I will make sure the sound setting is lowered in the filming process. I will need to have appropriate seats so that I can have good amount of sunlight coming in from the windows of the bus.

Location: Street

I need a brief shot of Cathy walking on the edge of pavement with a natural lighting. I decided on the location of a street because I wanted a scene where Cathy walks unstably to present her vulnerable mind. There are many scenes shot on streets in my focal films showing the tension between the characters or emotions of them by their facial expression and the way they walk.

It doesn’t necessarily need to be certain street, so I will pick where the lighting is good and not too many cars are around near where I live. I don’t need specific permission for it but again, I need to make sure I film at the right time so that I won’t struggle with the lighting problem. I also need to make sure the street it empty when I film so that I won’t have anybody else’s face that I’m not permitted to film. 

Location: Beach

I am planning to take a couple of short shots at Hornsea beach with natural lighting and put them into collage. I chose to film there as homage of the beach scene in About Time where Tim and his dad spend the last happy moment together before his dad’s death.

I need to check the tide times so that there won’t be any unexpected emergency situation and prepare prevention of water for the equipment and some towels in case anything gets wet. I also have to check the weather as it can be dangerous if wind is too strong or rainstorm comes. No particular permission for the location is needed.

Risk Assessment

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post D. Storyboard

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post C. Screenplay

Link to my creative investigation

While wrting this script, I wanted to focus on this one lead character Cathy and explain her emotions throughout the film. This is a decision influenced by my focal films, especially Like Crazy and Before We Go because they are a type of films that the narrative is completely developed by the changes of emotions of the characters. In Like Crazy, the most important element of the story is how Anna and Jacob think, feel and react about their relationship and in Before We Go, it was how Brooke’s feelings towards her husband and their marriage drive her. In my short film, the whole narrative is very concentrated on Cathy’s grief after her sister’s death. 

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post B. Synopsis

Cathy is an ordinary girl who has a little sister named Eve. Eve dies at her age of seven by car accident and sixteen-year-old girl Cathy falls into deep grief that she has never gone through before.    

1. SHOCK & DENIAL

Cathy’s reaction to the loss of her sister is numbed disbelief. She denies the reality of her sister’s absence so that she can avoid the pain. The shock provides her emotional protection from being overwhelmed at once. 

2. PAIN & GUILT

As the instant shock goes off, she starts to suffer from unbelievable pain. She’s scared and feels chaotic to live a life without her sister. She can’t get over from guilty feelings and remorse over things she did or didn’t do with Eve. 

3. ANGER & BARGAINING

Cathy’s frustration becomes anger. She lays unwarranted blame on people close to her, such as her family, for the death of Eve. It brings conflict to the relationship of family and she knows that it’s wrong but it’s hard to control herself. She tries to bargain with God thinking that she’ll do anything if he brings Eve back to her. 

4. "DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS

Cathy finally realize that Eve is actually gone and never going to come back. It depresses her so much that she just want to isolate herself. She refuses to go outside for school or any social activities. She spend her days reflecting on memories with Eve of the past. She feels emptiness more than ever. 

5. THE UPWARD TURN

Cathy gets to adjust to her life without Eve as time goes by. She becomes slightly calmer and more neat. Her insomnia lessen and she feels a bit less depressed than before. 

6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH

She becomes more functional and her mind starts to work as usual again. She tries to find a way of realistic solutions to life problems. She goes to school without sudden absence and sees her friends. It’s still not easy but she's willing to reconstruct herself.

7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE

She starts to plan things for the future. Now she can think about Eve and retrace happy memories they built together without feeling painful. She still has sadness but the wrenching pain is gone. She anticipates good times to come and find joy again in her life. 

Presenting 7 stages with emojis of different facial expressions

Link to my creative investigation

The synopsis of my film is simply based on 7 stages of grief. Grief is one of the main theme in one of my focal film, About Time, as death of a father of the protagonist Tim is one of the most significant events in the film. I wanted to display how people get over their lose, which is linked to the narrative of About Time, as eventually Tim works through his father’s death and realises that what’s important in life is not to look back in past and regret, but to enjoy the present and do one’s best for the moment of living. 

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S2: Post A. Initial Ideas

Inspiration from films

Like Crazy (2011, Doremus)

About Time (2013, Curtis)

Before We Go (2014, Evans) 

Imagine (2015, Mason) - short film

Cinematography

Cinematography would definitely be one of the things that I will mostly focus on since my creative investigation was about John Guleserian, a cinematographer. I will mainly follow some of the essential cinematographic techniques of Guleserian, such as hand-held shooting, soft focusing, informal camera movement, close up shots and high key lighting. I’m willing to make it realistic so that the audience can feel like they’re actually watching it right next the characters but also dynamic enough to keep holding their attention. I’d also like to attempt more various types of skills than how I did in my previous film of the last year, as cinematography was a part that I felt unsatisfied about.

Narrative

The planned narrative of my short film is highly influenced from the short film Imagine (2015), which is about a girl getting diagnosed with Neimann-Pick type C. I watched this film last year during my short film research and recalled it while I was studying my focal films of this years because I thought that the style and the theme of it were quite close to what I was focusing on throughout my creative investigation. Therefore I decided to make a story about death of a young girl as well, but in order to give some originality, I’m not going to present what happens to her starting from the beginning of the problem to the death like Imagine, but instead, what happens to the people close to her after her death. What I’m going to portray is a girl named Cathy who is suffering from her little sister’s death by an accident and how she gets to overcome.

Theme

Guleserian has been focusing on certain themes in most of his films, such as love, family, conflict, death, grief, man vs himself and overcoming adversity. In my short film, I’m thinking about going in depth with death and grief theme. I’m going to set the characters in one family since Guleserian always covers the story of family somehow in his films and thus I thought it is an important feature. I’d like to present the 7 stages of grief that people go through after the loss by portraying a girl getting over the sorrow after her little sister’s death, sometimes fighting against herself with guilt and sometimes fighting against the others such as her parents or her friends due to her depression. And It will make me possible to manage most of the themes the Guleserian tends to present.  

Genre

As all of my focal films are classified in drama genre, the short film that I’m going to make will be composed with drama iconography and conventions as well. For example, car accident, alcohol, death and marriage can be significant iconography, and emotional or physical conflict, real life issue, a seemingly normal characters (before the issue begins) and happy ending for drama conventions. Based on these, my short film might include some of the conventional features such as emotional breakdown.

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post U. Essay Final Draft

For my creative investigation, I have chosen a cinematographer named John Guleserian as my research topic. I particularly picked him because first of all I wondered whether a filmmaker who is not a director can be considered an auteur or not. Secondly, Guleserian worked as a director of photography in a film About Time, which is not only one of my personal favourites but also a film that I was very impressed with the cinematography. Therefore, I started with About Time as my first focal film and chose the other two films Like Crazy and Before We Go from his filmography as they have similar genre and themes to About Time but were released in different years and directed by different directors, which made them comparable only in terms of their cinematography and whether Guleserian’s auteur status has been consistent. In order to prove Guleserian’s authorship, interviews of people in the film industry who have worked with him, such as Richard Curtis, Drake Doremus and Felicity Jones, were very helpful in particular.

Aims of Research:

 I believe that John Guleserian as a cinematographer shows his own personal and characteristic style of cinematography and has a significant effect on portraying narrative, genre, representation and value of film works. In the auteur theory, Andrew Sarris stated that it requires three premises including technical competence, personal style and interior meaning to be a true author as a director and I would like to argue that Guleserian should be considered to be an auteur as he accomplishes all of the three premises. In this essay, I will demonstrate Guleserian’s authorship by investigating his works.

Throughout the essay, in order to verify whether my hypothesis was right or wrong, three sub-topics that go into more detailed will be used.

The first sub-topic is whether Guleserian can be considered an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, whether he has a personal auteur style. For this question, I am hoping to find out how his work of cinematography is distinctive from the others and why his presence is significant in the film industry. Furthermore, if he actually does have his own unique style, I would also like to discover to what extent Guleserian conforms to the stylistic conventions of the romance and drama genre and whether this undermines his 'auteur’ status.

The second one is how Guleserian has used his experiences from other media forms to develop his own style, and whether this strengthens or weakens his ‘auteur’ status. For this question, I am looking forward to find out how his experiences of working on commercials influenced on his works in film industry and whether his own style that is shown in his recent works can be found in his former pieces as well. In order to demonstrate this, I will focus on comparing his old commercials to the three focal films and look for the secondary sources that imply the development.

Finally, the last sub-topic of the essay would be how Guleserian has directed cinematography in terms of portraying his characteristic themes in his films and why they were effective. For this question, what I would certainly like to figure out is which are the themes that he tends to present and what kind of particular cinematographic techniques he uses for them.

  Primary Sources:

 1.                  About Time (2013) Directed by Richard Curtis [Film]. Translux and Working Title Films.

2.                  Like Crazy (2011) Directed by Drake Doremus [Film]. Paramount Vantage, Indian Paintbrush, and Super Crispy Entertainment.      

3.                  Before We Go (2014) Directed by Chris Evans [Film]. G4 Productions, Nutmeg Film Productions, and Wonderland Sound and Vision.

  Secondary Sources:

 1.                  Rosen, C. (2013) Richard Curtis explains why ‘About Time’ is not a romantic comedy. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/richard-curtis-about-time_n_4181021.html [Accessed 14/9/2017]

This source shows that Guleserian has his own recognizable techniques of camera work and helps me in a way to comprehend his uniqueness in the field and distinguish his style from other cinematographers. It also provides the information that most of the shots in the film are recorded with handheld camera, and it was a decision of Guleserian himself, which reveals that he has his own personal style of cinematography, enhancing his auteur status.

 2.                  Behind the scene: cinematographer, John Guleserian (2013). Available online: http://www.decoratedyouth.com/john-guleserian/ [Accessed 26/9/2017].

This source shows which aspect about his job fascinated him and what his next step would be in the film industry. It also reveals his belief as a profession that cinematographers are as responsible as other film related jobs and should be treated more equally. This suggests that he highly regards cinematography as important in filmmaking, which can be helpful in claiming that a cinematographer also can be an auteur.

 3.                  Bernstein, P. (2015) Sundance 2015 cinematographers on how they captured their most difficult shots. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/sundance-2015-cinematographers-on-how-they-captured-their-most-difficult-shots-65619/ [Accessed 1/10/2017].

This source shows how he deals with obstacles during the filmmaking process and his unique ideas to solve such problems. It also shows that he can be considered an auteur, as his influence on the films is very significant.

 4.                  Bernstein, P. (2015) How I shot that: DP John Guleserian captures the adult playdate gone awry in ‘The Overnight’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/how-i-shot-that-dp-john-guleserian-captures-the-adult-playdate-gone-awry-in-the-overnight-65991/ [Accessed 1/10/2017]

This source shows that he thinks it is important for cinematographers to have their own style rather than following what everyone else does conventionally. It presents that he places high value on trying new things that others do not do and find originality. This supports his authorship as it suggests his distinguishable characteristic.  

 5.                  Macaulay, S. (2015) Cinematographer John Guleserian on shooting Sundance dramatic competition film, The Overnight. Available online: http://filmmakermagazine.com/92431-cinematographer-john-guleserian-on-shooting-sundance-dramatic-competition-film-the-overnight/ [Accessed 2/10/2017]

This source shows that not only Guleserian’s skills and capacity but also his set of values and attitudes has been reflected in the film, which makes him to be considered auteur as it means that he has contributed to interior meaning of the film. It also shows how he discusses some important subjects with other departments in order to try unusual and unconventional features, which can be related to his personal style.

 6.                  Connolly, M. (2011) Like Crazy. Film Comment; New York, 47. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/894420802?accountid=11528[Accessed 5/10/2017]

7.                  Morgenstern, J. (2011) Arts & Entertainment – Review: ‘Crazy’: from cupid’s blunders, wonders — Expressive silence resonates in ‘Like Crazy’; ‘Shrek’ scion ‘Puss in Boots’ is lovely, if imperfect. The Wall Street Journal Asia ; Hong Kong, W.9. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/902027841?accountid=11528 [Accessed 5/10/2017]

These two sources present that how Guleserian gets blamed when the cinematography of his film is unsatisfying for the audience and critics, which connotes that he is accountable and therefore emphasizes his auteur status.

 8.                  Lindsay, T. (2014) How I shot that: the most difficult shot in Sundance drama ‘Song One’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2014/01/how-i-shot-that-the-most-difficult-shot-in-sundance-drama-song-one-30950/ [Accessed 12/10/2017]

This source shows that he thinks an ultimately ideal form as a cinematographer is a good collaborator and perceives a film as a collaborative work. This source suggests that it’s not just a director who can be considered to be an auteur as a film is a result of all of the crew’s efforts, and therefore it’s possible to claim that a cinematographer also can be an auteur.

 9.                  Mattmovieman (2011) Interview: Felicity Jones, Drake Doremus aim for authenticity in festival hit ‘Like Crazy’. Available online: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/16284/interview-felicity-jones-and-drake-doremus-aim-for-authenticity-in-like-crazy [Accessed 12/10/2017]

This source shows how influential Guleserian’s role was during the filming. He is not just a cameraman who’s only in charge of camera work, but he also shares thoughts and feelings through the camera with actors. This connotes that he is also influential on interior meanings of the films. Furthermore, it presents that Guleserian is not just one of the many cinematographers but the one who owns his unique characteristic, as Director Doremus likes to work with him because his uniqueness is evident in the result. This proves that Guleserian’s style of cinematography is distinguishable, thus enhancing his auteur status.

 10.              Formo, B. (2014) Underrated cinematographers poised to make it big in 2015. Available online: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/12/underrated-cinematographers-poised-to-make-it-big-in-2015/john-guleserian [Accessed 22/10/2017]

This source is supporting evidence that tells Guleserian has a big influence on the result of work. It proves the impact of Guleserian as a cinematographer in the collaboration with Doremus, which presents that his job is as significant as the job of a director, proving his authorship. It also shows his specialized skills for romance/drama genre has been approved through his filmography.

 11.              Bang, D. (2011) ‘Like Crazy’: sweet and revealing. Available online: http://www.davisenterprise.com/arts/like-crazy-sweet-and-revealing/ [Accessed 22/10/2017]

This source shows that Guleserian has focused a lot on capturing all the small but crucial detailed features in order to portray the key themes of the sequence effectively. This can be related to his authorship since by portraying the themes in his way, he influenced on the interior meaning of the film.

 12.              Barker, L. (2015) Chris Evans gets romantic in Before We Go. Available online: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/29577-chris-evans-gets-romantic-in-before-we-go [Accessed 23/10/2017]

This source shows that Guleserian’s job is not only confined to camera works but also covering the overall filmmaking process. Evans directly said that Guleserian was there for every step, which lets us know that he has influenced on all procedures. This may suggest not only that Guleserian has a high level of technical competence as he can work on many different provinces but also the interior meaning of the film would have been affected by him during the process, therefore enhancing his auteur status.

   Discussion of Findings:

1. Can Guleserian be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, does he have a personal auteur style?

 As part of my study of a cinematographer John Guleserian focusing on authorship, I have analysed the films Like Crazy, About Time and Before We Go in order to determine whether he can be considered to be an auteur and the true author as a person who controls what the audience gets to see.

According to the auteur theory of Andrew Sarris, ‘auteur’ is a filmmaker who has a distinctive style or consistent theme that is unmistakable as it enables the audience to recognise who’s work it is upon sight. Therefore, Guleserian as a cinematographer can be considered an auteur as his style is distinctive in the film industry, which got proven by the directors he worked with.

In an interview with Richard Curtis about his recent film About Time [Item 1], he was asked how he got to work with Guleserian and he said, “I kept saying, “I saw ‘Like Crazy‘ and that was so beautiful. I loved the informality and brightness, so whoever we get, we have to get it to look like ‘Like Crazy.’” Someone finally said, “You know, just ask the guy! See if he’s around.”” This proves that Guleserian’s works of art are distinctive in terms of style and therefore irreplaceable. It also tells us that informality and brightness are parts of the most significant features of his style. Furthermore, Drake Doremus, who has collaborated with Guleserian for a long time, explained what it is like to work with him saying, “His eye is so unique. I think he’s an incredibly unique DP.” [Item 9] This statement very directly presents Guleserian’s originality.

This can be seen in one of my focal film Like Crazy, when Anna turns towards Jacob with anger during their argument. The camera angle moves along the movement of her head and almost bounces at the edge dynamically expressing Anna’s unstable emotional status. As the camera is handheld, just as the majority shots of the film, the angle moves very freely and limitlessly and therefore it can be incredibly effective in portraying the invisible features as emotions. It is also useful in presenting the informality of the scene, which is one of the most noticeable characteristic of Guleserian’s cinematography as Richard Curtis mentioned, and it helps appealing to the audience with more sense of reality by increasing verisimilitude and immediacy.

In addition, Guleserian’s distinctive style using handheld camera is also shown in the other focal film About Time, in this shot where Tim comes into the house and hugs his wife. Long shot is used, a half of the frame is blocked by the wall and it slightly shakes as it’s handheld, therefore it seems as if we are watching them hidden behind the camera. We also can assume that probably we are a bit small since it’s slightly a low angle. This secretly implies what will happen next in the scene because in the next shot, we find out that a baby is placed at where the camera was and Tim dramatically notices that the baby has been changed from his daughter to a different one.

Lastly, it is also evident in this focal film, Before We Go. In this scene, Nick and Brooke are arguing after Nick stopped Brooke from running away. As they are standing against each other and shouting, the handheld camera pans from Nick to Brooke pulling depth of field at the same time from shallow to deep focus. This raises dynamic and immediate mood and makes audience feel like they are actually watching their argument right next to them, turning their heads as the conversation flows.

The most significant stylistic characteristic of Guleserian that I consider is that he mostly uses handheld camera for filming. Richard Curtis has mentioned about this in his interview [Item 1] saying, “He also basically did the whole thing with the camera on his shoulder. That meant it was a very relaxed atmosphere on set — none of the sticks and the tracks and all of that.” As Curtis indicated, his handheld shooting skill lets the actors and staff on the set feel calmer and less nervous, just as Felicity Jones said in her interview [Item 9]. She stated, “John Guleserian’s presence was so important to us feeling as comfortable as possible.” Furthermore, not only that, it also makes it possible to give the audience intimacy, immediacy and dynamics while they are watching the film. The key scenes above suggest that how he effectively used handheld camera to convey the appropriate atmosphere following the narrative.

Nevertheless, some people may argue that still cinematographers cannot be an auteur because they only get involved in the certain area among the whole filmmaking process such as shooting. However, according to what Chris Evans said in his interview about his new film Before We Go [Item 12], Guleserian helps Evans in “every step of the way through storyboards and scouting and all”. It proves that the job of cinematographer is not necessarily limited on camera shooting and shows that he has contributed to many different aspects of filmmaking and therefore would have influenced on its inward significance overall. It is also linked to the auteur theory of Andrew Sarris where Sarris says that a filmmaker must accomplish interior meaning in order to be an auteur.

The major counterargument that can be brought up at this point perhaps will be that those evidences cannot perfectly prove Guleserian’s authorship since techniques listed above might not be his own style but conventions of the genre. He has worked on fairly a lot of films that are in romance and drama genre. It is possible that his characteristics are based on the romantic drama genre conventions rather than his originality and therefore I looked at how each of my focal films has portrayed its genre through cinematography and whether it is conventional or not. I did not necessarily focus on only cinematography but also how it’s combined with other micro elements such as mise en scene, sound and editing in order to represent the genre.  

In the films that he has worked on, it is not hard to find out that he enjoys to use quite unconventional features of cinematography. The one that I focused on was the scenes with conflict. The lighting sometimes is low key and seems almost unrefined compared to how it is in common romantic drama genre films which I think makes his shots more exclusive.

Brian Formo has written his article [Item 10] about underrated cinematographers of 2015 and mentioned about Guleserian, saying, “Luckily Doremus’ trusty cinematographer has experience with the ever-tricky sci-fi romance, by shooting the underrated About Time with an unseen flair for a quick, bouncy montage. Guleserian expertly conveyed the barriers of romance in Like Crazy (distance) and Breathe In (in the shadows).” which shows Guleserian’s specialized skill for romance/drama genre has been approved through his filmography.

The point can be clearly seen in this key scene of the film Like Crazy. The half on the frame is blocked by the side of the fridge and therefore it makes the audience feel like they’re peeping at Anna, especially as the audience cannot exactly see what Anna’s hands are doing, which is type of a shot that will be rather commonly used in thriller genre. It presents what characters doing with adding more sense of reality and tension since a few seconds later Anna and Jacob get to have a big argument. Just as Brian Formo has mentioned, this scene well conveys the undisguised negative side of romance.

Furthermore, in one of his other films About Time, when Tim, the protagonist of the film, travels back in time to solve a serious problem, Guleserian used extreme close-up emphasizing the tightly closed eyes with very low-key lighting. Extreme close-up shots don’t get used commonly in romance genre as it sometimes makes the scene too intense and gives the audience uncomfortable feeling and nervousness.

In this key scene of the film Before We Go, the overall lighting is very pale and almost lavender, and it is a type of colour that usually gets associated with either peace and calmness or depression. As it has two meanings that are totally opposite, it makes the audience get confused and wonder how it’s going to unfold. It also matches with the narrative because at this point of the film, Brooke is struggling very hard and feeling terrible confusion about her marriage. This kind of lighting is rarely used in Romantic drama genre film; the conventional lighting would rather be warmer and more natural.

These evidences of his films demonstrate that Guleserian uses his own way of forming what goes on the screen without overly relying on genre conventions, but portrays the genre with his own interpretation. In one of his interview [Item 4], he said, “Everyone always wants to tell you that there is right way to do things. These are conventions. The way you choose to do it is the right way, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to follow conventions.” when he was asked what he thinks the worst advice for cinematographers would be. It explains that looking for the originality is something that he sets great store by in filmmaking.  

However, some might argue that it’s only a few key scenes or shots that show him being apart from the conventions and still there are many other fairly conventional shots in his works. For example, according to what Jim Hillier stated, it was the way American directors rose above and beyond the genres that fascinated their European counterparts during French New Wave. This may be argued that in order to be a true author, a director necessarily needs to have an ability to elevate a film beyond its genre. Personally, I only partially agree with this argument. Although Guleserian tries many different and unique cinematography techniques in the films that he works in, he obviously cannot be perfectly free from the genre conventions. As a theorist Steve Neal stated in his theory of repetition and difference (1968) a film must conform to these conventions enough that it can still qualify and be identified as a film of that genre. I consider that to follow the template enough to get qualified does not necessarily mean that it undermines the filmmakers’ authorship as long as they develop their own personal style along with it.

  2. How has Guleserian used his experience from other media forms to develop his own style? Does this strengthen or weaken his 'auteur’ status?

Since Guleserian has worked as a DP not only in the film industry but also in other media related areas, I am going to analyse how the style of Guleserian is shown in his commercials and whether there is any unity between his works investigating the cinematographic techniques of them.

In Guleserian’s early career, he paired up with Drake Doremus, his long-time collaborator, to shoot numerous commercials in addition to the 2009 feature film Spooner. As his major step as a film cinematographer has started in 2011 with Like Crazy, it is obvious that those works of commercials helped him lay a firm foundation as a DP. Guleserian has shown his distinctive stylistic techniques throughout my focal films, and most of them are also presented in his previous works.

In an interview with Guleserian about Breathe In, his recent film of the time, [Item 2] he got a question asking whether he has ever thought of getting involved in other aspects of film making besides cinematography. He answered, “Not really, I have always had a passion for images. I would love to work as a visual consultant for animated movies someday”. This statement proves that as he is willing to expand his career field and work on different forms of image, his experience of making commercials can strengthen his status as a DP with extensive technical competence.  

The first evidence showing that how Guleserian’s style has been built from other media form is this Tylenol commercial. As the mother carries the baby and takes the baby’s temperature, the camera angle softly shakes a bit which gets along well with the purpose of advertising since it should provide the watchers cosiness and closeness so that they identify themselves with the mother and the baby in the commercial. The lighting is also very soft coloured and not too bright, which gives it more warmth. In addition, depth of field and soft focus, which were repeatedly shown in his shots above, were used in this shot as well.  

This is also shown in a commercial of AXA that he has worked on. In the shot above, an insurance agent man is being mournful as he meets inhabitants of the flooded district. The camera swings up and down slightly portraying him being sad and sharing inhabitants’ feeling. Low-key lighting is used and the dim cold lighting emphasises the tragedy and makes a big contrast with upcoming scene with very high-key lighting where the town finally returns to normal. This shot apparently seems quite different from the other shots of Guleserian because of its colour and formality, but its purpose is to go well with the narrative and present the aim of commercial. Nevertheless, it’s still not hard to recognise that it’s his work due to some features such as handheld camera or depth of field.

In this bank of America commercial, Guleserian’s style has used in very effective way as the commercial tries to soften the image of the bank by the advertisement. Guleserian used handheld camera as usual and it emphasises the informality of the whole commercial and makes the image of the people in it more familiar and friendly. In addition, he used very high-key natural lighting to the scene, which makes the mood more hopeful and delightful. Guleserian used medium close-up shot in order to show the online page of the bank in the monitor and as it’s shown with the bright lighting, the page itself looks more accessible and less difficult to deal with which is absolutely fit for the purpose of the commercial.

Guleserian has been portraying his style of cinematography very continuously along not only his filmic works but also works in other media related areas. His handheld skill, which was shown in the previous topic, also has consistently appeared in his commercials and it demonstrates his authorship as a person who visually translates the overall purpose.

On the other hand, some people might raise a question on whether working on commercials has supported establishing his style or only has lessened his status as an artist since those commercials cannot be an ‘art’ as they are made for earning money. Commercial is about creating images that will help selling their clients products or ideas, and thus eventually, is made in order to move viewers toward that intended goal. In my personal opinion, the basis of the way those are created is not too far away from how films are made. They are both about visualizing the idea and presenting that in an effective form so that the audience can be influenced to the certain way as they intended. Richard Dyer, an English film critic, stated that it is possible to consider all works of entertainment as also always works of art and ideology as they have formal properties and affects and perforce convey world views. An American author Ursula K. Le Guin also stated that art and entertainment are the same thing, in that the more deeply and genuinely entertaining a work is, the better art it is. These statements show that it is hard to claim entertainment and art are clearly distinguishable from one another as they have same properties. Furthermore, there are many other filmmakers who have directed commercials but are still called as a major ‘auteur’ of the industry, such as Wes Anderson who directed ‘American Express’ and ‘Stella Artois’ commercial and David Lynch who directed ‘Sony PlayStation 2’ and ‘Clear-blue Pregnancy Test’ commercial.  

  3. How does Guleserian direct cinematography in terms of portraying his characteristic themes in his films and why were they effective?

 Andrew Sarris used three criteria in his classic work of cinematic authorship to determine whether a director can be considered an auteur. Sarris’s third criterion, which is the last and the most significant, is interior meaning. Although each of the narrative and message of the films that Guleserian has worked in has been always different, most of them are portraying similar kinds of themes such as love, family, conflict, death, grief, man vs himself and overcoming adversity, which all include various interior meaning. In order to investigate how he managed those themes in his images, I looked at my three focal films and saw how the certain themes are presented by his cinematographic features and subsequently, how he conveyed what those themes are trying to tell the audience.

In one of the film reviews of Like Crazy [Item 11], the critic mentioned about Anna and Jacob’s first date sequence. He said, “This awkward, sorta-kinda first date is punctuated by the weird non-sequiturs we all slip into such conversations, when not wanting to reveal too much of ourselves too quickly, but at the same time wanting to come across as, well, brilliant and perfect. John Guleserian’s camerawork catches all the essential details: Anna’s shy, nervous expressions; Jacob’s somewhat more self-assured replies.” This explains that in order to portray the key themes of the sequence, such as awkwardness, shakiness and somehow fluttering emotions of the first date, Guleserian has focused a lot in catching all the details that imply those.

For instance, in this chosen scene of Like Crazy, Guleserian has portrayed a theme of conflict between lovers with cinematographic techniques combined with a prop. Anna in this shot is holding a sharp knife in her hand and it is pointing directly at Jacob. The knife is placed in the centre of the frame, which emphasizes the aggressiveness that Anna is disclosing towards Jacob and gives the precarious atmosphere to the scene. Furthermore, Anna and Jacob are counter posed to each other on each side of the knife and Anna is showing her back, standing, whereas Jacob is facing the front sitting down on the chair. That clear contrast between the two characters presents the theme of conflict effectively, letting the audience feel the tension being built.

Guleserian’s elaborate photo directing in terms of portraying the key theme is also shown in this scene of About Time. Tim and his dad look at each other as they are almost like a reflection of one another but the lighting is very low key and cold colour and it demonstrates the seriousness of their secret fact - that they travel in time - and the severity of their life as extraordinary individuals, and therefore effectively emphasizing the theme of adversity. In addition, over the shoulder shot is used, which helps to establish the position of each character, and gets the feel of looking at one person from the other one’s point of view. Tim and his dad both have half shadow on their face and it represents two sides of time traveling; usefulness and riskiness, which also portrays the theme of adversity.

Lastly, here is another successful shot portraying the key theme in Before We Go. Guleserian used close-up and side view shot for this shot and it emphasizes the drop of tear on her cheek dramatically. It shows the contrast between the tear and her smile - portraying her inner confusion and contending emotions, which is also demonstrating a theme of man versus himself and adversity. Side view shot is also very useful in making the audience feel as if they are watching her just as an observer so that they can empathize with her helplessness. High key lighting is used in the shot and it makes her emotions look more bare and exposed and therefore more vulnerable.

Guleserian has used many different and efficient techniques in order to present various themes, especially when the theme is including negativity such as conflict, death, and adversity. He portrayed those dynamically with diverse colours and brightness of lighting, different type of shots and camera movement, and character positioning combined with other microelements such as mise en scene, sound and editing. According to Andrew Sarris, interior meaning, which is one of the three essential premises of auteur work, is what completes the filmmaker as an auteur. The listed key shots suggest that Guleserian directions of the photography in each film are not only technically and stylistically well-developed but also revealing an interior meaning of themes attributed to a film through the image and therefore Guleserian should be considered as an auteur.

However, some may argue that yet cinematographer cannot be a true author of the film in the first place because eventually the director is the one who decides what goes in and comes out and manages the final work, which makes him as, in the words of Syd Mead, ‘God in film’. In my opinion, although it’s quite general that only a director gets recognised as an author of the film, filmmaking is a collaborative work and the work of many and not one sole author, as Paul Sellors stated. Grant also believed that it is “Naïve and often arrogant” to assume the director is the only author that matters in the filmmaking process. There are many filmmakers in the industry who are called ‘auteur’ but none of them can make a film on their own. Drake Doremus, who has collaborated with Guleserian for last 13 years, got a question about Guleserian in his interview after releasing Like Crazy [Item 9] and he said, “He pushes me to be the best I can be, and I push him to be the best he can be. There is an honesty there and an understanding that we won’t let each other down. We will always push each other to do the best, and when it’s not right or it’s not the best it can be, we can call each other on it.” This statement implies that when they work together they both have equal amount of responsibility for the film and therefore they help each other out to make the best result. As their collaboration shows, a good film comes out when everyone in the filmmaking process is accountable and therefore all of them put a tremendous effort into it and bring up their greatest creativity. Thus, I personally consider that the name of ‘auteur’ is never limited to one particular role.

  Evaluation of Research:

 Reflecting back on my creative investigation about John Guleserian and whether he can be considered to be a true author of his films or not, I would say that Guleserian does have the qualities of a true auteur although he is a cinematographer, not a director. It is possible to consider him as ‘auteur’ since he presented all of the essential premises of auteur theory including technical competence, distinguishable personality and interior meaning through the cinematography of his films. However, my argument can be considered limited since the auteur theory of Andrew Sarris is very out-dated as it came out in 1962. Pauline Kael also criticized the theory of Sarris with counterargument against each premise. She stated that technical competence is not valid criterion since some directors were beyond competence, distinguishable personality could be seen to favour repetitive directors whose styles are recognizable because they rarely try anything new, and interior meaning is impossibly vague and favours ‘hacks’ who try to force style into the crevices of plots. Moreover, my study was not broad enough to demonstrate his authorship perfectly since I annotated only three films of his filmography. In order to develop my study, I would like to research more of his recent films such as The Overnight (2015), Equals (2015) and Come Swim (2017). I also have not found much secondary sources reviewing his cinematography in professional critic’s view, which makes the study less reliable.

  Reference:

 1.                  About Time (2013) Directed by Richard Curtis [Film]. Translux and Working Title Films.

2.                  Like Crazy (2011) Directed by Drake Doremus [Film]. Paramount Vantage, Indian Paintbrush, and Super Crispy Entertainment.      

3.                  Before We Go (2014) Directed by Chris Evans [Film]. G4 Productions, Nutmeg Film Productions, and Wonderland Sound and Vision.

4.                  Rosen, C. (2013) Richard Curtis explains why ‘About Time’ is not a romantic comedy. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/richard-curtis-about-time_n_4181021.html [Accessed 14/9/2017].

5.                  Behind the scene: cinematographer, John Guleserian (2013). Available online: http://www.decoratedyouth.com/john-guleserian/ [Accessed 26/9/2017].

6.                  Bernstein, P. (2015) Sundance 2015 cinematographers on how they captured their most difficult shots. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/sundance-2015-cinematographers-on-how-they-captured-their-most-difficult-shots-65619/ [Accessed 1/10/2017].

7.                  Bernstein, P. (2015) How I shot that: DP John Guleserian captures the adult playdate gone awry in ‘The Overnight’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/how-i-shot-that-dp-john-guleserian-captures-the-adult-playdate-gone-awry-in-the-overnight-65991/ [Accessed 1/10/2017]

8.                  Macaulay, S. (2015) Cinematographer John Guleserian on shooting Sundance dramatic competition film, The Overnight. Available online: http://filmmakermagazine.com/92431-cinematographer-john-guleserian-on-shooting-sundance-dramatic-competition-film-the-overnight/ [Accessed 2/10/2017]

9.                  Connolly, M. (2011) Like Crazy. Film Comment; New York, 47. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/894420802?accountid=11528[Accessed 5/10/2017]

10.              Morgenstern, J. (2011) Arts & Entertainment – Review: ‘Crazy’: from cupid’s blunders, wonders — Expressive silence resonates in ‘Like Crazy’; ‘Shrek’ scion ‘Puss in Boots’ is lovely, if imperfect. The Wall Street Journal Asia ; Hong Kong, W.9. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/902027841?accountid=11528 [Accessed 5/10/2017]

11.              Lindsay, T. (2014) How I shot that: the most difficult shot in Sundance drama ‘Song One’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2014/01/how-i-shot-that-the-most-difficult-shot-in-sundance-drama-song-one-30950/ [Accessed 12/10/2017]

12.              Mattmovieman (2011) Interview: Felicity Jones, Drake Doremus aim for authenticity in festival hit ‘Like Crazy’. Available online: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/16284/interview-felicity-jones-and-drake-doremus-aim-for-authenticity-in-like-crazy [Accessed 12/10/2017]

13.              Formo, B. (2014) Underrated cinematographers poised to make it big in 2015. Available online: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/12/underrated-cinematographers-poised-to-make-it-big-in-2015/john-guleserian [Accessed 22/10/2017]

14.              Bang, D. (2011) ‘Like Crazy’: sweet and revealing. Available online: http://www.davisenterprise.com/arts/like-crazy-sweet-and-revealing/ [Accessed 22/10/2017]

15.              Barker, L. (2015) Chris Evans gets romantic in Before We Go. Available online: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/29577-chris-evans-gets-romantic-in-before-we-go [Accessed 23/10/2017]

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post T. Essay First Draft

I believe that John Guleserian as a cinematographer shows his own personal and characteristic style of cinematography and has a significant effect on portraying narrative, genre, representation and value of film works and therefore should be considered as an auteur. In this essay, I will demonstrate whether Guleserian is an auteur or not by investigating his works.

Primary Sources:

1.       Like Crazy (2011) Directed by Drake Doremus [Film]. Paramount Vantage, Indian Paintbrush, and Super Crispy Entertainment.

2.       About Time (2013) Directed by Richard Curtis [Film]. Translux and Working Title Films.

3.       Before We Go (2014) Directed by Chris Evans [Film]. G4 Productions, Nutmeg Film Productions, and Wonderland Sound and Vision.

Secondary Sources:

1.       Rosen, C. (2013) Richard Curtis explains why ‘About Time’ is not a romantic comedy. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/richard-curtis-about-time_n_4181021.html [Accessed 14/9/2017].

2.       Behind the scene: cinematographer, John Guleserian (2013). Available online: http://www.decoratedyouth.com/john-guleserian/ [Accessed 26/9/2017].

3.       Bernstein, P. (2015) Sundance 2015 cinematographers on how they captured their most difficult shots. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/sundance-2015-cinematographers-on-how-they-captured-their-most-difficult-shots-65619/ [Accessed 1/10/2017].

4.       Bernstein, P. (2015) How I shot that: DP John Guleserian captures the adult playdate gone awry in ‘The Overnight’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/how-i-shot-that-dp-john-guleserian-captures-the-adult-playdate-gone-awry-in-the-overnight-65991/ [Accessed 1/10/2017]

5.       Macaulay, S. (2015) Cinematographer John Gulesarian on shooting Sundance dramatic competition film, The Overnight. Available online: http://filmmakermagazine.com/92431-cinematographer-john-gulesarian-on-shooting-sundance-dramatic-competition-film-the-overnight/ [Accessed 2/10/2017]

6.       Connolly, M. (2011) Like crazy. Film Comment; New York, 47. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/894420802?accountid=11528[Accessed 5/10/2017]

7.       Morgenstern, J. (2011) Arts & Entertainment – Review: ‘Crazy’: from cupid’s blunders, wonders — Expressive silence resonates in ‘Like Crazy’; 'Shrek’ scion 'Puss in Boots’ is lovely, if impurrfect. The Wall Street Journal Asia ; Hong Kong, W.9. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/902027841?accountid=11528 [Accessed 5/10/2017]

8.       Lindsay, T. (2014)  How I shot that: the most difficult shot in Sundance drama ‘Song One’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2014/01/how-i-shot-that-the-most-difficult-shot-in-sundance-drama-song-one-30950/ [Accessed 12/10/2017]

9.       Mattmovieman (2011)  Interview: Felicity Jones, Drake Doremus aim for authenticity in festival hit ‘Like Crazy’. Available online: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/16284/interview-felicity-jones-and-drake-doremus-aim-for-authenticity-in-like-crazy [Accessed 12/10/2017]

10.   Formo, B. (2014) Underrated cinematographers poised to make it big in 2015. Available online: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/12/underrated-cinematographers-poised-to-make-it-big-in-2015/john-guleserian [Accessed 22/10/2017]

11.   Bang, D. (2011) ‘Like Crazy’: sweet and revealing. Available online: http://www.davisenterprise.com/arts/like-crazy-sweet-and-revealing/ [Accessed 22/10/2017]

12.   Barker, L. (2015) Chris Evans gets romantic in Before We Go. Available online: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/29577-chris-evans-gets-romantic-in-before-we-go [Accessed 23/10/2017]

Throughout the essay, in order to verify whether my hypothesis was right or wrong, three sub-topics that go into more detailed will be used. 

The first sub-topic is whether Guleserian can be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, how it's linked to his personal auteur style. For this question, I’m hoping to find out how Guleserian’s work of cinematography is distinctive from the others and why his presence is significant in the film industry. Furthermore, if he actually does have his own unique style, I would also like to discover to what extent Guleserian conforms to the stylistic conventions of the romance and drama genre and whether this undermines his 'auteur' status. 

The second one is how Guleserian has used his experiences from other media forms to develop his own style, and whether this strengthens or weakens his ‘auteur’ status. For this question, I’m looking forward to find out how his experiences of working on commercials influenced on his works in film industry and whether his own style that is shown in his recent careers can be found in his former pieces as well. In order to demonstrate this, I will focus on comparing his old commercials to the three focal films and look for the secondary sources that imply the development. 

Finally, the last sub-topic of the essay would be how Guleserian has directed cinematography in terms of portraying his characteristic themes in his films and why they were effective. For this question, what I would firstly like to figure out is which are the themes that he tends to present and what kind of particular cinematographic techniques he uses for them.

1. Can Guleserian be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, how is it linked to his personal auteur style? 

As part of my study of a cinematographer John Guleserian focussing on authorship, I have analysed the films Like Crazy, About Time and Before We Go in order to determine whether Guleserian can be considered to be an auteur and the true author as a person who controls what the audience gets to see.

According to the auteur theory of Andrew Sarris, ‘auteur’ is a filmmaker who has a distinctive style or consistent theme that is unmistakable as it enables the audience to recognise who’s work it is upon sight. Therefore, Guleserian as a cinematographer can be considered to be an auteur as his style is distinctive in the film industry which got proven by the directors he worked with.

In an interview with Richard Curtis about his recent film About Time [1], he was asked how he got to work with Guleserian and he said, “I kept saying, “I saw ‘Like Crazy’ and that was so beautiful. I loved the informality and brightness, so whoever we get, we have to get it to look like ‘Like Crazy.’” Someone finally said, “You know, just ask the guy! See if he’s around.””, which proves that Guleserian's works of art are distinctive in terms of style and therefore irreplaceable. It also tells us that informality and brightness are parts of the most significant features of his style. Furthermore, Drake Doremus, who has collaborated with Guleserian for a long time, explained how it is like to work with Guleserian saying, “His eye is so unique. I think he’s an incredibly unique DP.” [9] This statement very directly presents Guleserian's originality.

This can be seen in one of my focal film Like Crazy, when Anna turns towards Jacob with anger during their argument. The camera angle moves along the movement of her head and almost bounces at the edge dynamically expressing Anna’s unstable emotional status. As the camera is handheld, just as the majority shots of the film, the angle moves very freely and limitlessly and therefore it can be incredibly effective in portraying the invisible features as emotions. It’s also useful in presenting the informality of the scene, which is one of the most noticable characteristic of Guleserian’s cinematography as Richard Curtis mentioned, and it helps appealing to the audience with more sense of reality. 

In addition, Guleserian’s distinctive style using handheld camera is also shown in the other focal film About Time, in this shot where Tim comes into the house and hugs his wife. Long shot is used, a half of the frame is blocked by the wall and it slightly shakes as it’s handheld, therefore it seems as if we are watching them hidden behind the camera. We can assume that probably we’re a bit small since it’s slightly a low angle and this secretly implies what will happen next in the scene because in the next shot, we find out that a baby is placed at where the camera is at the moment and Tim dramatically notices that the baby has been changed from his daughter to a different one. 

Lastly, it also gets evident in this focal film, Before We Go. In this scene, Nick and Brooke are arguing after Nick stopped Brooke from running away. As they are standing against each other and shouting, the handheld camera pans from Nick to Brooke putting depth of field at the same time which raises dynamic and immediate mood and makes audience feel like they are actually watching their argument right next to them, turning their heads as the conversation flows. 

The most significant stylistic characteristic of Guleserian that I consider is that he mostly uses handheld camera for filming. Richard Curtis has mentioned about this in his interview [1] saying, “He also basically did the whole thing with the camera on his shoulder. That meant it was a very relaxed atmosphere on set — none of the sticks and the tracks and all of that.” As Curtis indicated, his handheld shooting skill lets the actors and staff on the set feel more calm and less nervous, just as Felicity Jones said in her interview [9]. She stated, “John Guleserian’s presence was so important to us feeling as comfortable as possible.” Furthermore, not only that, it also makes it possible to give the audience intimacy, immediacy and dynamics while they’re watching the film. The key scenes above suggest that how he effectively used handheld camera to convey the appropriate atmosphere following the narrative.

Nevertheless, some people may argue that still cinematographers cannot be an auteur because they only get involved in the certain area among the whole filmmaking process such as shooting. However, according to what Chris Evans said in his interview about his new film Before We Go [12], Guleserian helps Evans in “every step of the way through storyboards and scouting and all” which proves that the job of cinematographer is not necessarily limited on camera shooting, it depends of the person’s competence. It’s also linked to the auteur theory of Andrew Sarris where Sarris says that a filmmaker must accomplish technical competence in their technique in order to be an auteur.

The major counterargument that can be brought up at this point perhaps will be that those evidences cannot perfectly prove Guleserian’s authorship since techniques listed above might be not his own style but conventions of the genre. Guleserian has worked on fairly a lot of films that are in romance and drama genre, which can be assumed as all of my focal films are romantic drama genre as well. It is possible that his characteristics are based on the romantic drama genre conventions rather than his originality and therefore I looked at how each of my focal films has portrayed its genre through cinematography and whether it is conventional or not to investigate it. I didn’t necessarily focus on only cinematography but also how it’s combined with other micro elements such as mise en scene, sound and editing in order to represent the genre.  

In the films that he has worked on, it’s not hard to find out that he enjoys to use quite unconventional features of cinematography. The one that I focused on was the scenes with conflict. The lighting sometimes is low key and seems almost unrefined compared to how it is in common romantic drama genre films which I think makes his shots more exclusive.

Brian Formo has written his article [10] about underrated cinematographers of 2015 and mentioned about Guleserian, saying, “Luckily Dormeus’ trusty cinematographer has experience with the ever-tricky sci-fi romance, by shooting the underrated About Time with an unseen flair for a quick, bouncy montage. Guleserian expertly conveyed the barriers of romance in Like Crazy (distance) and Breathe In (in the shadows).” which shows Guleserian’s specialized skill for romance/drama genre has been approved through his filmography.

The point can be clearly seen in this key scene of the film Like Crazy. The half on the frame is blocked by the side of the fridge and therefore it makes the audience feel like they’re peeping at Anna, especially as the audience cannot exactly see what Anna’s hands are doing which is type of a shot that will be rather commonly used in thriller genre. It presents what characters doing with adding more sense of reality and tension. Just as Brian Formo has mentioned, this scene well conveys the undisguised negative side of romance.

Furthermore, in one of his other films About Time, when Tim, the protagonist of the film, travels back in time to solve a serious problem, Guleserian used extreme close up emphasizing the tightly closed eyes with very low key lighting. Extreme close up shots don’t get used commonly in romance genre as it sometimes makes the scene too intense and gives the audience uncomfortable feeling and nervousness. 

In this key scene of the film Before We Go, the overall lighting is very pale and almost lavender, and it is a type of colour that usually gets associated with either peace and calmness or depression. As it has two meanings that are totally opposite, it makes the audience get confused and wonder how it’s going to be unfolded. This kind of lighting is rarely used in Romantic drama genre film, the conventional lighting would rather be warmer and more natural. 

These evidences of his films demonstrate that Guleserian uses his own way of forming what goes on the screen without overly relying on genre conventions, but portrays the genre with his own interpretation. In one of his interview [4], he said, “Everyone always wants to tell you that there is right way to do things. These are conventions. The way you choose to do it is the right way, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to follow conventions.” when he was asked what he thinks the worst advice for cinematographers would be. It explains that looking for the originality is something that he sets great store by in filmmaking.   

However, some might argue that it’s only a few key scenes or shots that show him being apart from the conventions and still there are many other fairly conventional shots. Although he tries many different and unique cinematography techniques in the films that he works in, he obviously cannot be perfectly free from the genre conventions. As a theorist Steve Neal stated in his theory of repetition and difference (1968) a film must conform to these conventions enough that it can still qualify and be identified as a film of that genre. I personally consider that to follow the template enough to get qualified doesn’t necessarily mean that it undermines the filmmaker’s authorship. 

2. How has Guleserian used his experience from other media forms to develop his own style? Does this strengthen or weaken his 'auteur’ status? 

Since Guleserian has worked as a DP not only in film industry but also in other media related areas, I’m going to analyse how the style of guleserian is shown in his commercials and whether there’s any unity between his works investigating the cinematographic techniques of them. 

In Guleserian’s early career, he paired up with Drake Doremus, his long-time collaborator, to shoot numerous commercials in addition to the 2009 feature film Spooner. As his major step as a film cinematographer has started in 2011 with Like Crazy, it’s obvious that those works of commercials helped him lay a firm foundation as a DP. Guleserian has shown his distinctive stylistic techniques throughout my focal films, and most of them are also presented in his previous works. 

In an interview with Guleserian about Breathe In, his recent film of the time, [2] he got a question asking whether he has ever thought of getting involved in other aspects of film making besides cinematography. He answered, “Not really, I have always had a passion for images. I would love to work as a visual consultant for animated movies someday”. This statement proves that as he is willing to expand his career field and work on different forms of image, his experience of making commercials can strengthen his status as a DP with extensive technical competence.  

The first evidence showing that how Guleserian’s style has been built from other media form is this Tylenol commercial. As the mother carries the baby and takes the baby’s temperature, the camera angle softly shakes a bit which gets along well with the purpose of advertising since it should provide the watchers cosiness and closeness so that they identify themselves with the mother and the baby in the commercial. The lighting is also very soft coloured and not to bright which gives it more warmth. In addition, depth of field and soft focus, which were repeatedly shown in his shots above, were used in this shot as well.  

This is also shown in a commercial of AXA that he has worked on. In the shot above, an insurance agent man is being mournful as he meets inhabitants of the flooded district. The camera swings up and down slightly portraying him being sad and sharing inhabitants’ feeling. Low-key lighting is used and the dim cold lighting emphasises the tragedy and makes a big contrast with upcoming scene with very bright lighting where the town finally returns to normal. This shot apparently seems quite different from the other shots of Guleserian because of its colour and formality, but its purpose is to go well with the narrative and present the aim of commercial. Nevertheless, it’s still not hard to recognise that it’s his work due to some features such as handheld camera or depth of field.

In this bank of America commercial, Guleserian’s style has used in very effective way as the commercial tries to soften the image of the bank by the advertisement. Guleserian used handheld camera as usual and it emphasises the informality of the whole commercial and makes the image of the people in it more familiar and friendly. In addition, he used very high key natural lighting to the scene, which makes the mood more hopeful and delightful. Guleserian used medium close up shot in order to show the online page of the bank in the monitor and as it’s shown with the bright lighting, the page itself looks more accessible and less difficult to deal with which is absolutely fit for the purpose of the commercial.

Guleserian has been portraying his style of cinematography very continuously along not only his filmic works but also works in other media related areas. His handheld skill, which was shown in the previous topic, also has consistently appeared in his commercials and it demonstrates his authorship as a person who visually translates the overall purpose.

On the other hand, some people might raise a question on whether working on commercials has supported establishing his style or only has lessened his status as an artist since those commercials cannot be an ‘art’ as they are made for earning money. Commercial is about creating images that will help sell their clients’ products or ideas, and thus eventually, is made in order to move viewers toward that intended goal. In my personal opinion, the basis of the way those are created is not too far away from how films are made. They’re both about visualizing the idea and presenting that in an effective form so that the audience can be dragged to the certain way as they intended. Furthermore, there are many other filmmakers who have directed commercials but are still called as a major ‘auteur’ of the industry, such as Wes Anderson who directed ‘American Express’ and ‘Stella Artois’ commercial and David Lynch who directed ‘Sony PlayStation 2’ and ‘Clear-blue Pregnancy Test’ commercial.  

3. How does Guleserian direct cinematography in terms of portraying his characteristic themes in his films and why were they effective?

Although each of the narrative and message of the films that Guleserian has worked in has been always different, most of them are portraying similar kinds of themes such as love, family, conflict, death, grief, man vs himself and overcoming adversity. In order to investigate how he managed those themes in his images, I looked at my three focal films and saw how the certain themes are presented by his cinematographic features and subsequently, how he conveyed what those themes are trying to tell the audience.

In one of the film reviews of Like Crazy [11], the critic mentioned about Anna and Jacob’s first date sequence. He said, “This awkward, sorta-kinda first date is punctuated by the weird non-sequiturs we all slip into such conversations, when not wanting to reveal too much of ourselves too quickly, but at the same time wanting to come across as, well, brilliant and perfect. John Guleserian’s camerawork catches all the essential details: Anna’s shy, nervous expressions; Jacob’s somewhat more self-assured replies.” This explains that in order to portray the key theme of the sequence, Guleserian has focused a lot in catching all the details that imply it.

For instance, in this chosen scene of Like Crazy, Guleserian has portrayed a theme of conflict between lovers with cinematographic techniques combined with a prop. Anna in this shot is holding a sharp knife in her hand and it is pointing directly at Jacob. The knife is placed in the centre of the frame, which emphasizes the aggressiveness that Anna is disclosing towards Jacob and gives the precarious atmosphere to the scene. Furthermore, Anna and Jacob are counter posed to each other on each side of the knife and Anna is showing her back, standing, whereas Jacob is facing the front sitting down on the chair. That clear contrast between the two characters presents the theme of conflict effectively, letting the audience feel the tension being built.

Guleserian’s elaborate photo directing in terms of portraying the key theme is also shown in this scene of About Time. Tim and his dad look at each other as they are almost like a reflection of one another but the lighting is very low key and cold color and it demonstrates the seriousness of their secret fact - that they travel in time - and the severity of there life as unordinary individuals, and therefore effectively emphasizing the theme of adversity. In addition, over the shoulder shot is used which helps to establish the position of each character, and gets the feel of looking at one person from the other one's point of view. Tim and his dad both have half shadow on their face and it represents two sides of time traveling; usefulness and riskiness, which also portrays the theme of adversity. 

Lastly, here is another successful shot portraying the key theme in Before We Go. Guleserian used close up and side view shot for this shot and it emphasizes the drop of tear on her cheek dramatically. It shows the contrast between the tear and her smile - portraying her inner confusion and contending emotions which is also demonstrating a theme of man vs himself and adversity. Side view shot is also very useful in making the audience feel as if they are watching her just as an observer so that they can empathize with her helplessness. High key lighting is used in the shot and it makes her emotions look more bare and exposed and therefore more vulnerable. 

Guleserian has used many different and efficient techniques in order to present various themes, especially when the theme is including negativity such as conflict, death, and adversity. He portrayed those dynamically with diverse colours and brightness of lighting, different type of shots and camera movement, and character positioning combined with other microelements such as mise en scene, sound and editing. According to Andrew Sarris, interior meaning, which is one of the three essential premises of auteur work, is what completes the filmmaker as an auteur. The listed key shots suggest that Guleserian directions of the photography in each film are not only technically and stylistically well-developed but also revealing an interior meaning of themes attributed to a film through the image and therefore Guleserian should be considered as an auteur.

However, some may argue that yet cinematographer cannot be a true author of the film from the first place because eventually the director is the one who decides what goes in and what comes out and manages the final work, which makes him as, in the words of Syd mead, ‘God in film’. In my opinion, although it’s quite general that only a director gets recognised as an author of the film, filmmaking is a collaborative work and the work of many and not one sole author, as Paul Sellors stated. Grant also believed that it is “Naïve and often arrogant” to assume the director is the only author that matters in the filmmaking process. There are lots of filmmakers in the industry who are called ‘auteur’ but none of them can make a film on their own. Drake Doremus, who has collaborated with Guleserian for last 13 years, got a question about Guleserian in his interview after releasing Like Crazy [9] and he said, “He pushes me to be the best I can be, and I push him to be the best he can be. There’s an honesty there and an understanding that we won’t let each other down. We will always push each other to do the best, and when it’s not right or it’s not the best it can be, we can call each other on it.” This statement implies that when they work together they both have equal amount of responsibility for the film and therefore they help each other out to make the best result. As their collaboration shows, a good film comes out when everyone in the filmmaking process are accountable and so that all of them put a tremendous effort into it and bring up their greatest creativity. Thus, I personally consider that the name of ‘auteur’ is never limited in one particular role.

Reflecting back on my creative investigation about John Guleserian on whether he can be considered to be a true author of his films or not, I would say that Guleserian does have the qualities of a true auteur although he is a cinematographer, not a director. It is possible to consider him as ‘auteur’ since he presented all of the essential premises of auteur theory including technical competence, distinguishable personality and interior meaning through the cinematography of his films. However, my study was not broad enough to demonstrate his authorship perfectly since I annotated only three films of his filmography. In order to develop my study, I would like to research more of his recent films such as The Overnight (2015), Equals (2015) and Come Swim (2017). Also I haven’t found much secondary sources reviewing his cinematography in professional critic’s view, which makes the study less reliable.

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post S. Essay Abstract

Hypothesis

I believe that John Guleserian as a cinematographer shows his own personal and characteristic style of cinematography and has a significant effect on portraying narrative, genre, representation and value of film works and therefore should be considered as an auteur. In this essay, I will demonstrate whether Guleserian is an auteur or not by investigating his works. 

Primary Sources

Like Crazy (2011) Directed by Drake Doremus [Film]. Paramount Vantage, Indian Paintbrush, and Super Crispy Entertainment.

About Time (2013) Directed by Richard Curtis [Film]. Translux and Working Title Films.

Before We Go (2014) Directed by Chris Evans [Film]. G4 Productions, Nutmeg Film Productions, and Wonderland Sound and Vision.

Subtopics

Can Guleserian be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, how is it linked to his personal auteur style? : For this question I’m hoping to find out how Guleserian’s work of cinematography is distinctive from the others and why his presence is significant in the film industry. In order to demonstrate this question deeply, I will use how he has directed cinematography to portray his characteristic themes in his movies and why they were effective. 

How has Guleserian used his experience from other media forms to develop his own style, and does this strengthen or weaken his 'auteur' status? : For this question I’m hoping to find out how his experiences of working on commercials influenced on his works in film industry and whether his own style that is shown in his recent careers can be found in his former pieces as well. In order to demonstrate this, I will focus on comparing the three focal films to his old commercials and look for the secondary sources that implies the development made from them.  

To what extent does Guleserian conform to the conventions of the romance and drama genres, and does this undermine his 'auteur' status? : For this question I’m hoping to find out how my three focal films are effectively portraying their genre through cinematography and whether the way of it is conventional or not. 

1. Can Guleserian be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, how is it linked to his personal auteur style?

Intro: As part of my study of a cinematographer John Guleserian focussing on authorship, I have analysed the films Like Crazy, About Time and Before We Go in order to determine whether Guleserian can be considered to be an auteur and the true author as a person who controls what the audience gets to see. 

Point: According to Auteur theory, ‘auteur’ is a film maker who has a distinctive style or consistent theme that is unmistakable as it enables the audience to recognise who’s work it is upon sight. Therefore, Guleserian as a cinematographer can be considered to be an auteur as his style is distinctive in the film industry which got proven by the directors he worked with.

Source: In the interview of Richard Curtis about his recent film About Time [1], he was asked how he got to work with Guleserian and he said “I kept saying, “I saw ‘Like Crazy’ and that was so beautiful. I loved the informality and brightness, so whoever we get, we have to get it to look like ‘Like Crazy.’” Someone finally said, “You know, just ask the guy! See if he’s around.”” Furthermore, Drake Doremus, who has been collaborated with Guleserian for a long time, explained how it is like to work with Guleserian saying “His eye is so unique. I think he’s an incredibly unique DP.” [9]. 

Evidence 1:

This can be seen in one of my focal film Like Crazy, when Anna turns towards Jacob with anger during their argument. The camera angle moves along the movement of her head and almost bounces at the edge dynamically expressing Anna’s unstable emotional status. As the camera is handheld, just as the majority shots of the film, the angle moves very freely and limitlessly and therefore it can be incredibly effective in portraying the invisible features as emotions.

Evidence 2:

In addition, Guleserian’s distinctive style using handheld camera is also shown in the other focal film About Time, in this shot where Tim comes into the house and hugs his wife. Long shot is used, a half of the frame is blocked by the wall and it slightly shakes as it’s handheld, and therefore it seems as if we are watching them hidden behind the camera, and probably we’re a bit small since it’s slightly a low angle. This secretly implies what will happen next in the scene because in the next shot, we find out that there’s a baby is placed at where camera is at the moment and Tim notices that the baby has been changed to a different one. 

Evidence 3:

Lastly, this is also evident in this focal film, Before We Go. In this scene, Nick and Brooke are arguing as Nick stopped Brooke from running away. As they are standing against each other and shouting, the handheld camera moves from Nick to Brooke which raises dynamic and immediate mood and makes audience feel like they are actually watching their argument right next to them.

Explanation: The most significant stylistic characteristic of Guleserian that I consider is that he mostly uses handheld camera for filming. Richard Curtis has mentioned about this in his interview [1] saying “He also basically did the whole thing with the camera on his shoulder. That meant it was a very relaxed atmosphere on set — none of the sticks and the tracks and all of that.” As Curtis indicated, his handheld shooting skill lets the actors and staff on the set feel more calm and less nervous, just as Felicity Jones said in her interview [9] that ‘John Guleserian’s presence was so important to us feeling as comfortable as possible.’ but not only that, it also makes it possible to give the audience intimacy, immediacy and dynamics while they’re watching the film. The key scenes above suggest that how he effectively used handheld camera to convey the appropriate atmosphere following the narrative. 

Evaluation: Nevertheless, some people may argue that still cinematographers cannot be an auteur because they only get involved in the certain area among the whole filmmaking process such as shooting. However, according to what Chris Evans said in his interview about his new film Before We Go [12], Guleserian helps Evans in “every step of the way through storyboards and scouting and all” which proves that the job of cinematographer is not necessarily limited on camera shooting, it depends of the person’s competence. 

2. How has Guleserian used his experience from other media forms to develop his own style? Does this strengthen or weaken his 'auteur' status?

Intro: Since Guleserian has worked as a DP not only in film industry but also in other media related areas, I'm going to analyse how the style of guleserian is shown in his commercials and whether there’s any unity between his works investigating the cinematographic techniques of them.

Point: 

Source:

Evidence 1:

The first evidence showing that how Guleserian’s style has been built from other media form is this Tylenol commercial. As the mother carries the baby and takes the baby’s temperature, the camera angle softly shakes a bit which gets along well with the purpose of advertising since it should provide the watchers coziness and closeness so that they identify themselves with the mother and the baby in the commercial. The lighting is also very soft coloured and not to bright which gives it more warmth.

Evidence 2:

This is also shown in a commercial of AXA that he has worked on. In the shot above, an insurance agent man is being mournful as he meets inhabitants of the flooded district. The camera swings up and down slightly portraying him being really sad and sharing inhabitants’ feeling. The lighting gets a bit dim and cold to emphasise the tragedy and make a big contrast with upcoming scene with very bright lighting where the town finally returns to normal.

Evidence 3:

In this bank of America commercial, Guleserian’s style has used in very effective way as the commercial tries to soften the image of the bank by the ad. Guleserian, of course, used handheld camera and it makes the image of the people in the commercial more familiar and friendly. Also he used very high key natural lighting to the scene which makes the mood more hopeful and delightful. 

Explanation: Guleserian has been portraying his style of cinematography very continuously along not only his filmic works but also works in other areas. His handheld skill which was shown in the previous topic also has appeared in his commercials and it demonstrates his authorship as a person who visually translate the overall purpose.

Evaluation:

3. To what extent does Guleserian conform to the conventions of the romance and drama genres, and does this undermine his 'auteur' status?

Intro: Guleserian has worked on fairly a lot of films that are in romance and drama genre, which can be assumed as all of my focal films are romantic drama genre as well. Therefore I looked at how each of my focal films has portrayed its genre through cinematography and whether it is conventional or not. I won’t necessarily only focused cinematography but also how it combined with other micro elements such as mise en scene, sound and editing in order to represent the genre. 

Point: In the films that he has worked on, it's not hard to find out that he enjoys to use quite unconventional features of cinematography. The one that I focused on was the scenes with conflict. The lighting sometimes is quite dull or seems unrefined compared to how it is in common romantic drama genre films which I think makes his shots more intrinsic. 

Source: Brian Formo has written his article about underrated cinematographers of 2015 and mentioned about Guleserian, saying “Luckily Dormeus’ trusty cinematographer has experience with the ever-tricky sci-fi romance, by shooting the underrated About Time with an unseen flair for a quick, bouncy montage. Guleserian expertly conveyed the barriers of romance in Like Crazy (distance) and Breathe In (in the shadows).”

Evidence 1:

The point can be clearly seen in this key scene of the film Like Crazy. The half on the frame is blocked by the side of the fridge and therefore it makes the audience feel like they’re peeping at Anna, especially as the audience cannot exactly see what Anna’s hands are doing which is type of a shot that will be rather commonly used in thriller genre. It presents what characters doing with adding a lot of realism.

Evidence 2:

Furthermore, in one of his other films About Time, in the scene where the character travels back in time to solve a serious problem, Guleserian used extreme close up emphasizing the tightly closed eyes with very low key lighting. Extreme close up shots don’t get used commonly in romance genre as it sometimes makes the scene too intense and gives the audience uncomfortable feeling and nervousness. 

Evidence 3:

In this key scene of the film Before We Go, the overall lighting is very pale and almost lavender, and I personally think this kind of lighting gets associated with the lighting of operating room which gives the feeling of disclosure of something that has been hidden. This kind of lighting is rarely used in Romantic drama genre film, the conventional lighting would rather be warmer and more natural.

Explanation: These evidences of his films demonstrate that Guleserian uses his own way of forming what goes on the screen without overly relying on genre conventions, but portrays the genre with his own interpretation. In one of his interview [4], he said “Everyone always wants to tell you that there is right way to do things. These are conventions. The way you choose to do it is the right way, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to follow conventions.” when he was asked what he thinks the worst advice for cinematographers would be. It explains that looking for the originality is something that he sets great store by in film making.  

Evaluation: However, some might argue that it’s only a few key scenes or shots that show him being apart from the conventions and still there are many other fairly conventional shots. Although he tries many different and unique cinematography techniques in the films that he works in, he obviously cannot be perfectly free from the genre conventions. As a theorist Steve Neal said in his theory of repetition and difference (1968), a film must conform to these conventions enough that it can still qualify and be identified as a film of that genre. I personally consider that to follow the template enough to get qualified doesn’t necessarily mean that it undermines the filmmaker’s authorship.

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post R. Collated Quotes

Can Guleserian be considered to be an auteur as a director of photography, and if so, how is it linked to his personal auteur style?

Item 1: “I kept saying, “I saw ‘Like Crazy’ and that was so beautiful. I loved the informality and brightness, so whoever we get, we have to get it to look like ‘Like Crazy.’” Someone finally said, “You know, just ask the guy! See if he’s around.””

Item 1: “So I both love the way he made it look, but he also basically did the whole thing with the camera on his shoulder. That meant it was a very relaxed atmosphere on set — none of the sticks and the tracks and all of that.”

Item 2: Q. What do you think is the biggest misconception about being a Cinematographer? A. We are not just the camera man. We are all very different, but a cinematographer has many responsibilities and should be equal parts Artist, Manager, and Technician.

Item 3: “We knew we wanted to have some underwater shots as part of this montage, but I was worried about the time and resources it would cost for us to put a camera and operator in the pool for just a couple of shots. I ended up having the idea to put a GoPro on an old $10 monopod and just dunking it in the water and following the action around. This was difficult because I couldn’t monitor the camera while shooting. I was just hoping for the best and luckily, it worked out great.”

Item 5: “This is always a challenge to me because I believe every shot is telling your story and nothing should ever feel arbitrary. I also think some scenes work best as a single shot, and having a second camera around can give us all a “let’s just shoot it so we have it” attitude. Patrick and I decided early in our planning stages that we would avoid that way of thinking.”

Item 9: Q. When shooting a film this intimate, the cinematographer must feel like another cast member. Jones: Absolutely. John Guleserian’s presence was so important to us feeling as comfortable as possible. We luckily had a man who’s not only extraordinarily talented but has the ability to observe without being intrusive. That was the key really. He’s a substantial man. […]  His energy comes through the camera.   

Item 9: “His eye is so unique. I think he’s an incredibly unique DP.”

Item 11: They flirt, meet for coffee. Right here, the film’s core strength becomes evident: This awkward, sorta-kinda first date is punctuated by the weird non-sequiturs we all slip into such conversations, when not wanting to reveal too much of ourselves too quickly, but at the same time wanting to come across as, well, brilliant and perfect.John Guleserian’s camerawork catches all the essential details: Anna’s shy, nervous expressions; Jacob’s somewhat more self-assured replies.

How has Guleserian used his experience from other media forms to develop his own style? Does this strengthen or weaken his ‘auteur’ status?

Item 2: Q. Have you ever thought of getting involved in other aspects of film making besides Cinematography? A. Not really. I have always had a passion for images. I would love to work as a visual consultant for animated movies someday.

Item 12: Q. As a first-time director, did your Director of Photography help you with location scouting, storyboarding, picking out lenses?  How involved were you? Chris: All of that stuff. Oh, John Guleserian, I just love him. He was wonderful. [...] The beautiful thing about movie making is that we all know cinema so you can reference other films so you can say “That. How do you do that?” Luckily, I had a lot of people who were willing to be patient with me and walk me through. But he was there every step of the way through storyboards and scouting and all.  

To what extent does Guleserian conform to the conventions of the romance and drama genres, and does this undermine his 'auteur’ status? 

Item 4: Q. What’s the worst advice? A. Everyone always wants to tell you that there is right way to do things. (This is the way you light a night scene. This is the lens you use for a close up. This is the coverage you shoot in a car.) These are conventions. The way you choose to do it is the right way, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to follow conventions.

Item 10:  Luckily Dormeus’ trusty cinematographer has experience with the ever-tricky sci-fi romance, by shooting the underrated About Time with an unseen flair for a quick, bouncy montage. Guleserian expertly conveyed the barriers of romance in Like Crazy (distance) and Breathe In (in the shadows).

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post Q. References List

1. Rosen, C. (2013) Richard Curtis explains why ‘About Time’ is not a romantic comedy. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/richard-curtis-about-time_n_4181021.html [Accessed 14/9/2017].

2. Behind the scene: cinematographer, John Guleserian (2013). Available online: http://www.decoratedyouth.com/john-guleserian/ [Accessed 26/9/2017].

3. Bernstein, P. (2015) Sundance 2015 cinematographers on how they captured their most difficult shots. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/sundance-2015-cinematographers-on-how-they-captured-their-most-difficult-shots-65619/ [Accessed 1/10/2017].

4. Bernstein, P. (2015) How I shot that: DP John Guleserian captures the adult playdate gone awry in ‘The Overnight’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2015/01/how-i-shot-that-dp-john-guleserian-captures-the-adult-playdate-gone-awry-in-the-overnight-65991/ [Accessed 1/10/2017]

5. Macaulay, S. (2015) Cinematographer John Gulesarian on shooting Sundance dramatic competition film, The Overnight. Available online: http://filmmakermagazine.com/92431-cinematographer-john-gulesarian-on-shooting-sundance-dramatic-competition-film-the-overnight/ [Accessed 2/10/2017]

6. Connolly, M. (2011) Like crazy. Film Comment; New York, 47. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/894420802?accountid=11528 [Accessed 5/10/2017]

7. Morgenstern, J. (2011) Arts & Entertainment – Review: ‘Crazy’: from cupid’s blunders, wonders — Expressive silence resonates in 'Like Crazy’; 'Shrek’ scion 'Puss in Boots’ is lovely, if impurrfect. The Wall Street Journal Asia ; Hong Kong, W.9. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/902027841?accountid=11528 [Accessed 5/10/2017]

8. Lindsay, T. (2014)  How I shot that: the most difficult shot in Sundance drama ‘Song One’. Available online: http://www.indiewire.com/2014/01/how-i-shot-that-the-most-difficult-shot-in-sundance-drama-song-one-30950/ [Accessed 12/10/2017]

9. Mattmovieman (2011)  Interview: Felicity Jones, Drake Doremus aim for authenticity in festival hit ‘Like Crazy’. Available online: http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/16284/interview-felicity-jones-and-drake-doremus-aim-for-authenticity-in-like-crazy [Accessed 12/10/2017]

10. Formo, B. (2014) Underrated cinematographers poised to make it big in 2015. Available online: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/12/underrated-cinematographers-poised-to-make-it-big-in-2015/john-guleserian [Accessed 22/10/2017]

11. Bang, D. (2011) ‘Like Crazy’: sweet and revealing. Available online: http://www.davisenterprise.com/arts/like-crazy-sweet-and-revealing/ [Accessed 22/10/2017]

12. Barker, L. (2015) Chris Evans gets romantic in Before We Go. Available online: http://www.kidzworld.com/article/29577-chris-evans-gets-romantic-in-before-we-go [Accessed 23/10/2017]

[s0023329a2film-blog]

S1: Post P. Source Review 12

Secondary Source Overview

Name of Book / Magazine: Kidsworld

Author: Lynn Barker

Publisher, place of publication and date: 03/09/15

Title of chapter / article: Chris Evans Gets Romantic in Before We Go

Web address used to access source: 

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/29577-chris-evans-gets-romantic-in-before-we-go

Date Accessed: 23/10/17

Your research topic / question:

Study of Cinematographer

Brief overview of what the article / chapter / book is about:

Interview of Chris Evans about his recent film Before We Go

Key quotes from article / chapter / book that relate to your topic:

Q: As a first-time director, did your Director of Photography help you with location scouting, storyboarding, picking out lenses?  How involved were you?

Chris: All of that stuff. Oh, John Guleserian, I just love him. He was wonderful. Being a first-timer, you don’t necessarily have the lingo to express the look you want. It’s like you know what flavor you want to taste, you just don’t know what ingredients go into it. The beautiful thing about movie making is that we all know cinema so you can reference other films so you can say “That. How do you do that?” Luckily, I had a lot of people who were willing to be patient with me and walk me through. But he was there every step of the way through storyboards and scouting and all.

(This quote of Chris Evans can be significant source because it shows that Guleserian’ job is not only confined to camera works but also covering the overall filmmaking process. Evans directly said that Guleserian was there for every step which lets us know that he has influenced on all procedures.)