I know I tend to pontificate and lecture ... but: I saw some (the middle) of a documentary on Marilyn Monroe last evening. There were at least seventy 6 x 6 frames shown of portraits and figure studies. Her face was dead centre in every single one of the portraits - just like many I have taken of beautiful women for decades* - there's a row of them in Gallery II on my website. But there are also some that fit beautifully into several rules.
In the Marilyn portraits certain rigid rules (of nature) were in evidence. In other words her face conformed to the same rules as other human faces; as a result her eyes were always above a horizontal centre line drawn thorough a frame because that's here human eyes are normally to be found. The same comments apply to the dozens of 35 mm frames that were also shown. The 6 x 6 format was perfect for the task and every square millimetre was used to advantage. My guess is Rolleiflex. I don't know why I think so - perhaps because of the time - about 1956? In the 35 mm frames (vertical) the photographer included more of the interesting lady for our enjoyment. Again nothing seemed to be wasted. Most of the shots shown were of contact prints (on film) made directly from negatives and filmed on a light-box. Of those 6 x 6 and 35 mm (horizontal mostly) frames where she was ~not~ dead centred it was because of the pose she had assumed. Highly artistic dancer-like, geometrical arrangements of her body. But the margins were all equal. I forget the photographers name could it have been 'Green?' Some of the poses were very elegant and beautiful and they probably conformed to the 'rules' of dance, but any photographer with an 'eye' could have fitted them to one or more of his quiverful of rules. However, all the stills taken from movie frames of Miss Monroe in her various roles were composed according to a set of rules probably cast in bronze in Hollywood and which are hardly ever broken. When they are, the breaker, often an obscure person of doubtful character, gets a prize in Cannes and lots of champagne and Caviar to go with a contract to make films in Hollywood where everything is done to make sure he never does it again. And finally, I must add, that I adhered strictly to a rigid set of rules when I was a News Stringer for CBS in my distant youth. To do otherwise would have been very stupid. My boss, in New York, told me what he wanted and I gave it him. However, there are things that can be done in moving pictures that just don't work with a still image ... and vice-versa. Cotty knows more about this than I. By the way. If you stand right in front of the Mona Lisa, she seems to be looking directly at you. If you stand to the side of the picture she seems to be looking directly at you. Is there some magic here? It works with photographs too. * The portraits are of family. To have posted any others would be unwise. Best, Don (In Toivakka at -28C) Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
