3 ms·
And yet somehow that is not at all obvious. It's a form of art. In my high school memory of sneaking into my girlfriend's pitch black house at night, I could
by heleninboodler 4y ago
And yet somehow that is not at all obvious. It's a form of art. In my high school memory of sneaking into my girlfriend's pitch black house at night, I could see her face and the room every bit this well. That's the point. It doesn't have to perfectly reflect reality; it just has to evoke a feeling of a situation. And this does.
- Krasnol 4y agoThe author didn't question the artistic aspect. He says: > It’s a purely stylistic choice, employed for that one moment to cast doubt on Billy’s trustworthiness in the audience’s mind. It’s an extremely stagey choice that fits neatly within the larger series’ heightened, melodramatic style. Scream wouldn’t really be Scream without it. It doesn't mean that he's ignorant of the aspect that a camera looks differently than our eyes do, as you wrote above. The scene is not bright because of this fact. It's bright for artistic reasons, and you could describe it as overcompensation, since it wouldn't even have to be that bright to deliver a facial expression.
- heleninboodler 4y agoIn my opinion, the scene is bright because if we were actually in that scene, our incredible eyeballs would be able to discern a lot of detail, and in order to show us all that detail, the filmmaker must make it bright. If you make it dark to make it more "realistic", you are counterintuitively making it less realistic by making it harder to see what we would be able to see if we were actually there. This balance is part of filmmaking.