Best Cinematography is probably my favorite category. When director Robert Eggers‘ film The Lighthouse was nominated for Best Cinematography, I had to see it. If you read a recent post of mine, you might remember my enthusiasm for 1917. If Roger Deakins doesn’t pick up the statue for the award, I hope Jarin Blaschke wins the Oscar for The Lighthouse.
Here are some reasons why The Lighthouse was superior in cinematography.
1.19:1 (19:16): Sometimes referred to as the Movietone ratio, this ratio was used briefly during the transitional period when the film industry was converting to sound, from 1926 to 1932 approx. It is produced by superimposing an optical soundtrack over a full-gate 1.3 aperture in printing, resulting in an almost square image. Films shot in this ratio are often projected or transferred to video incorrectly using a 1.37 mask or squashed to 1.37. Examples of films shot in the Movietone ratio include Sunrise, M, Hallelujah! and The Lighthouse.
The cinematic choice adds to the historical climate giving the picture a classic feel. It boxes the story adding to the claustrophobia. As the story progresses, the audience feels the confinement caused by the weather and the lighthouse.
2. It’s a psychological horror story. The story is about two lighthouse keepers who struggle with their sanity. Pattinson did a fine job. However, it was one of Willem Defoe’s best performances. The claustrophobic rooms, the spiral staircase, the beautiful glass prisms of the lens of the lighthouse gave the film a somber, spirited, beautifully dark environment that justified the psychological horror story. The varying camera angles and close-ups capture this and add to the tension. One major criticism was the score. The overloud-Hans-Zimmer-sledgehammer thuds were unnecessary. Especially when the actual horror happens in the final act. The constant sound of the foghorn would audibly drive anyone insane.
3. I don’t like horror films, but I love psychologically intense films. This felt like Hitchcock. Watching Pattinson’s character devolve and lose his sanity was wonderful. That is, the cinematography includes snippet glimpses of Ephraim Winslow (Pattinson) with mermaids and disturbing dream sequences. The shots looked up at the face of the crusty sea-dog played by Willem Defoe, elongating the bags under his eyes, and at times, when he stood to give godly sermons, he rose in stature and became frightening. I loved that he sang old sailor songs, told nonsensical stories (that come true), and spoke in the vernacular of a sailor in the 1890s. His mood-swinging personality kept me on edge. Two men are alone on an island for a month. How do you suppose they spend the time? I ended up liking them both even though they were morally gray.
4. A basic theme of the story is the corruption of the soul and the punishment that ensues. Who gives the punishment? The lighthouse was Godlike. Seeking the light, Ephraim Winslow steals up to the lantern and faces the light — light that a mortal shouldn’t see. The shots that show Ephraim facing the supernatural force is awesome.
5. The ending shot is peculiar and perplexing. It sure screams of the Greek myth “Prometheus” who was punished by Zeus for helping mankind. What are your thoughts about the ending scene? During the first act, Ephraim acts out on a sea bird. A bad omen. Ephraim dreams of mating with a mermaid. A bad omen. All of the bad omens and superstitions of the nautical world are included in the story to give it an interesting aspect. The motif of blindness runs through the film such as the bird and the head of a dead man. Being blinded by the light is a punishment no one is likely to survive. It’s not a film for everyone. But I liked it. 4/5