I had a good time this week laughing with a friend about photography in movies we have watched.
That had me remembering my wife’s comments to some evening guests, that I always remark about any camera when one appears in a TV show.
Yes, I do that.
I can tell her I am sorry for interrupting movies she is watching, but I’ll just do it again the next time I see an actor with a camera.
I enjoy watching movies about photographers.
I guess the number one classic was “Blow Up” in 1966, staring Vanessa Redgrave and David Hemmings. The plot was about a fashion photographer that takes some casual shots of people while he walks through a park.
However, when he blows up his prints he realizes he’s also photographed a murder. It is a worthwhile “time period” movie to watch if one is interested in what was “hip” in 1966 and likes symbolism.
I have seen it several times and enjoy critiquing the photography, and the cumbersome way the lead actor uses his Nikon. The stylish photographer kept enlarging, cropping, and enlarging the prints from his 35mm camera. Impossibly, the prints were always sharp and without any grain.
Another of my favourites was an awkward movie called “Nights in White Satin”.
The story line was weak, but one has to watch a movie with a title and lead song by the Moody Blues. The music throughout was pretty good, and made up for the simplistic story revolving around a photographer who gets involved with a homeless woman.
The photographer tooled around on a Harley Davidson, used a Leica rangefinder, and, in spite of hurriedly taking pictures in dimly lit flophouses and back alleys the resulting pictures were always perfectly exposed with studio lighting. Of course, the woman living on the street was beautiful, well washed, and used makeup.
The third and last movie I’ll mention was packed with delightful clichés. It would be forgetful if not for those.
It was a made-for-TV British show entitled “Midsomer Murders”. The director sets his main characters, a couple of detectives, investigating the murders of camera club members.
Members are at odds over which technology is better, film or digital. It was amusing to observe that the club members who used film had old Rolleiflexes, Leicas, and wooden 4×5 cameras, and all wore those campy, khaki-coloured, photography vests with all the pockets we occasionally see from time to time.
The club members that were using digital DSLRs had electronic flashes, and wore black leather jackets with black pants.
The directors must have had fun searching out every photo cliché imaginable, and, those of us old enough to remember film processing will laugh at the darkroom scene, where one fellow developed and printed colour film in a brightly lit room with what could only have been black and white chemicals in a tray.
I am a sucker for any movie or TV show that involves photography. They usually are poorly done, and I am sure I ruin it for anyone unfortunate enough to be in the same room because I am so vocal about everything photographic.
I do have a great time and can’t resist outbursts pointing out everything right or wrong (gosh, my wife is so patient). However, I expect some readers may share my enthusiasm, and I am sure are thinking of movies with cameras that they critiqued out loud.
I wonder if there is a group called Photography Movie Addicts Anonymous?
These are my thoughts for this week. Contact me at www.enmanscameratalk.com or emcam@telus.net. Stop by Enman’s Camera at 423 Tranquille Road in Kamloops. I sell an interesting selection of used photographic equipment. Don’t hesitate to call me at 250-371-3069.
