George Hurrell, Documentary

**Drew Wiley** · 8-Feb-2022, 11:03

Well, I didn't do a lot of studio sessions, but still do have my good ole Arri fresnel main light. Those are great, but like all "hot lights", actually hot! I was told Hurrell used those too, and wisely did so, in a deliberate attempt to mimic movie lighting of the times. Really the best of both in my opinion, during that era. Now in many cases, great camera and lighting work simply gets replaced with loosey goosey digital substitution. Hurrell's work had real glamor, today's movies, mostly teenage influenza germs, corn syrup drinks, and popcorn all over theater seats after some ultra-noisy blockbuster movie where 70% of the actors are cyber figments anyway.

**massimodec** · 22-Feb-2022, 02:16

Very good Bernice! we can see setting details. Thank you !

But the "language" of lighting was - and it should still be - the mean towards identification with movie characters: we, audience's single persons, are in front of the star, with all the lights that show us her/his glows and all the plans of the space around, so that it can become also "our" space...

That's why it was so important to have a reciprocal influence between Hurrell's and movies settings and lightings.

And for Hurrell it was easy to use, if necessary, the very same fresnels and lights of the movie shooting sets.

Mimic was a trademark for anybody: Hurrell, Studios, Stars... win, win, win

**Bernice Loui** · 22-Feb-2022, 11:03

One other often forgotten aspect of these portraits from that era, 8x10 film was highly fixed aka "re-touched" by extremely talented artist before prints were made. Post camera/process fixing (ala Fotoshop of that era) was common routine applied as needed to meet the publicity image goals.

One of the many reasons why 8x10 was THE highly preferred for these images.

Bernice

**r.e.** · 22-Feb-2022, 14:00

The Hurrell estate website says that this film was made for one of Ted Turner's broadcasting companies. The film's producer manages the Hurrell estate and owns an art gallery in Vermont, where the cinematographer and production manager are also based. Carl Colby, the director, is best known for a documentary about his father, Richard Nixon's CIA Director William Colby. It's unclear where Canon fits in, apart from having put up money and, as Bernice points out, getting one of its cameras featured near the end.

To me, the film comes across as an uncritical homage to the Hollywood studio system and the Hollywood publicity machine. Not what I would have expected in 1992, when the film was made. The filmmakers had an opportunity to make a truly interesting film about image making, but didn't take that opportunity. Greg Gorman, featured near the end, is one of the photographers who effectively rejected the studio/George Hurrell approach to portraying actors. I've heard him speak, and he has a lot to say, but not in this film. The filmmakers had George Hurrell at their disposal, but either never seized that opportunity or left anything interesting that he had to say on the cutting room floor. While they managed to round up some actors to sit for Hurrell for the purpose of the film, by 1992 that style of photography was dead and buried. Look at some of Greg Gorman's photographs from the same time period.

**Drew Wiley** · 22-Feb-2022, 16:50

For one thing, Hurrell was mostly from a different era. And he did make his living as an appendage to the contemporaneous movie scene, in effect promoting its own actors and scenes in that light they wanted to be seen in. He did it consistently and well. It isn't really fair to compare that with the kind of artistic liberties taken by others on a largely different premise. A competent craftsmen then, and seemingly with the appeal of nostalgia today, recalling the days of the silver screen. And maybe that's how certain later actresses and actors would like to be remembered too, as if in retro glamour or glory or whatever. I don't know the motive for them sitting for this flick. But they wouldn't have done it cheaply!

Not everything needs to be "critical" or "up-to-date" artsy-wise. Some might enjoy the craft aspect more. I dunno. It was just a brief diversion for me from the usual chores; so I can't complain.