Katarzyna Taras
Alchemy. About the art of cinematography
Disquieting John Seale
I love artists such as John Seale, simply because any interaction with their work verifies all we had determined before. “Does a cinematographer have his/her own style?" - this is one of the essential matters connected with the Plus Camerimage festival of the art of cinematography since its first edition. (The subject of "good cinematography" that was mentioned in the previous text is an absolutely basic one). I assume that cinematographer's style is supposed to be an inclination to use "particularly these" means, taking advantage of "these and not any other" solutions; something like "handwritten signature". These are the factors that allow us to determine that these certain films were shot by THIS particular cinematographer. Surely, film scholars and critics have their own opinions, but so do cinematographers. Whenever I tried to ask about this style, by describing specifically "how I perceive it", the answer was, to put it mildly, that I was wrong. And I do not know whether it was just good manners or whether I really overinterpreted it.

I am completely helpless towards John Seale's body of work. Every time I create my own theory concerning his style there comes a new film that makes me revise my previous conclusions. That's how it should be, though. A viewer (and Sergei Eisenstein had already known that) is a lazy creature who has to be stimulated, surprised. And this is what John Seale's cinematography achieves.

John Seale, photo by Bob Marshak
This is not supposed to be an encyclopaedic description, that's why I do not have to mention all the movies, nominations and awards. Nevertheless, I can allow myself to present my personal way of interpreting the films made by John Seale. It has to be that way, one cannot write about it without any emotions.

Peter Weir's “Witness" (in 1985) was the first. But wait...

Witness
The first one was Peter Weir's"Picnic at Hanging Rock", a cinematic experience alluring with calmness and at the same time disturbing, in which John Seale was a camera operator together with Cliff Green.

But let's come back to "Witness" from which I still remember two things. Firstly, the face of the boy from the Amish community who was the eponymous character. Secondly, my own astonishment with the fact that it had been possible to show convincingly and credibly how the autistic child perceives the surrounding world. The artist was able to demonstrate (or rather visualize, which sounds better) the way a genius sees reality. In "Rain Man" directed by Barry Levinson (1988) John Seale presents the man who feels more and understands everything in a different way, which is similar to observations of Anotni Kępiński, the Godfather of the modern Polish psychiatry, who recognizes it more as a schizophrenic behaviour. Thus, it is not surprising that John Seale was nominated to the Oscar for the two abovementioned films. In the meantime, he shot "Gorillas in the Mist" (1988, directed by Michael Apted), a story (once again) about an exceptional and oversensitive human being. Perhaps we could regard John Seale as an expert at telling stories about individualists, as the one who can convey and show what thoughts occupy exceptional heros' heads. One year later appeared "Dead Poets Society", directed by Peter Weir (1989), which is the cult film for the forty-year-olds. This is an incredibly intimate story concerning the anxieties of maturity, the need of having a Master and the price of freedom. There are two charismatic persons in this film. The first one is Professor Keating (who is selfish and who does not realize how responsible you have to be when you "become a Master"), played daringly by Robin Williams. Yet, the more interesting one is Neil Perry, portrayed spectacularly by young Robert Sean Leonard. If someone does not believe that it is possible to experience the magic of the real theatre and that Shakespeare is immortal, he or she has not seen the sequence when Neil delivers Puk's monologue and ... (there won't be any spoilers). The boy, the snow, “Midsummer Night's Dream" and John Seale behind the camera or behind the pre-viewer.

Dead Poets Society
Nevertheless, John Seale's cinema offers not only the stories about the exceptional people but also images through which the artist flirts brilliantly with the tradition of filmmaking appealing even to those viewers who were brought up on other films than “Dead Poets Society". Let's recall “Perfect Storm" (directed by Wolfgang Petersen in 2000) for which the artist was nominated for an ASC award, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" (dir. Chris Columbus, 2001) or “Prince of Persia. The Sands of Time" (dir. Mike Newell, 2010). These were also the impressive and revealing “Ghosts of Mississippi", directed by Rob Reiner in 1996, with an Oscar nominee James Woods whose face is unforgettable, and “The Firm" directed by Sidney Pollack in 1993.

The face is the key-word. When I asked myself what I associated with John Seale's work, it turned out that what I remembered best were just the faces. The faces of the aforementioned James Woods; Signourey Weaver, Dustin Hoffman, Robert Sean Leonard, Harrison Ford, Jude Law or Juliette Binoche. One of the Great Cinema Theorist said (I am quoting from memory so I can be imprecise a little bit) that “the naked face in the movement of feelings" was the factor that made the film different from other arts. Only the cinema renders an encounter with the human face, a confrontation with the Other (sometimes the Alien, but not always) possible. The cinema of John Seale is the cinema of faces. According to this statement, we are dealing with the Artist who touches upon what the Most Significant and Precious in the art of filmmaking is.

Cold Mountain
Perhaps, during this year's Plus Camerimage I will have a chance to ask Peter Weir's and Anthony Minghella's collaborator a question which preys upon my mind: “Can a cinematographer have his/her own style?" Maybe I will finally find out whether during shooting a literary adaptation a cinematographer uses the original as well? (I have heard many different statements concerning this matter) Together with Anthony Minghella John Seale made "The English Patient (1996, based on Michael Ondaatje's novel ) and "The Talented Mr. Ripley" (1999, based on Patricia Highsmith novel; it had been adapted previously for the screen, René Clément made it into "Purple Noon" in 1960, with the dreamlike Alain Delon in the lead role). It was "The English Patient" that won John Seale the Oscar (later he was also nominated for Minghella's “Cold Mountain", released in 2003). No wonder! I am one of those fanatic admirers of "The English Patient" who either adores the film... or not. One of the roles of cinema is to enchant (by the way, I wonder why "The English Patient" divided the viewers so strongly? Was it about identifying oneself with this or that character? True, it is not nice to walk in the betrayed husband's shoes, even if he is played by Colin Firth).

The English Patient
Anyway, Minghella and Seale succeeded in many different areas. First of all, it is hard to believe but they have divided the audience with a melodrama. Secondly,during the last years of the 20th century they did bring the melodrama genre back to the pantheon of cinema. Possibly because they refreshed its form using all of its potential. Some will say "kitsch", others will call it a fairy-tale (however, they filmmakers have restrained themselves from distorting proportions). The film has it all. Hungarian aristocrat, English woman in love, romance, spies, aviators, dessert, jazz, thimble with saffron, hair that smells of marchpane and “the very plum-like plums, Herodotus, frescoes, Bach, themes of "love conquers death" and "death inflicted in the name of love", flirt, mystery. And passion born out of the story. “I'll tell you about the winds..." suggested Almasy (Ralph Fiennes).

Nothing but the story. "The art of images" of John Seale is “the art of telling stories". This way we approach the essence of cinema yet again.