Grant's Photography


Just watched the DVD and was struck all the way through by Grant's photography. It may be one of Hammer's most beautifully shot films, which, if you think about it, is saying a lot. Watching the Hammer films today, particularly those from the late fifties to the mid sixties, the level of craft and cinematic invention really shines. The writing always seems spotty, but the way these expert actors maneuver their way through almost moment by moment inconsistencies, it seldom seems to matter. The stories are fantasy, anyway; a pretext for gothic invention. And of course the directors, Terence Fisher and, in this case, John Gilling: they move from story point to story point, never wasting any time or allowing us the time to call foul. In many cases, their work is absolutely inspired. In this film, Gilling's approach is low key, almost dead pan; skewed camera angles and the subtle manipulation of the depth of field compliments Gilling's method, creating moments that both move the story forward and are often incredibly beautiful. It's interesting to consider the level of craft at work here. Hammer made low budget films for the exploitation market. Yet today, we can view these films as works of art and film making text books.

reply

Grant did a great job on this film. I commented a bit on the photography in this essay: http://davidlrattigan.com/hhplague.htm

The two most notable features of the camerawork are the extreme low and high angle shots, which have a lot of thematic significance (power/subservience etc), and the "locking in" of the actors behind objects (ie objects in the foreground etc).

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.blogspot.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

reply

Thanks for the note. As you can see, I'm terrifically fond of Hammer, particularly Fisher's films. John Gilling, though, runs a close second. This, plus THE REPTILE, and for another company, FLESH AND FIENDS, are all provocative, well crafted horrors. Totally agree about Grant's camera work, but would add to your list the way Grant manipulates depth of field. His use of short lenses for even medium shots clearly displaying the overall image in focus, placing characters within a realistic setting without editorializing it. This gives certain images a balanced sense of perspective that ordinarily suggests tranquility. In this context, and with the lighting, there's a kind of sophisticated irony at work here. Equally provocative is the way Grant and Gilling block out camera moves, keeping the figures in various, fluid medium positions throughout a dialogue. This seems to me the same technique Sven Nykvist and Ingmar Bergman perfected throughout their collaboration. Jack Asher, in contrast to Grant, often uses long lenses; he and Fisher pinpoint details of specific focus, layering in information. Asher will use short lenses in fluid master shots, with figures shifting positions within a larger frame. Both camera men were masters, I think, and contributed a great deal to the classic Hammer period.

I looked for your piece in the blog but couldn't find it. Are you David Rattigan? Would like to read more of your stuff.

reply

Excellent comments and an interesting post.

reply