From Rosemary’s Baby, 1968
There was a period in my moviegoing, late ’70s and early ’80s, where my pals and I would automatically go and see a picture based on who shot it. Among the Hollywood guys, if it was Gordon Willis, Vilmos Zsigmond, Robert Surtees, Haskell Wexler, or William Fraker, we were in. This circumstance led to us seeing a number of pictures we might have missed for other reasons. I don’t believe I would have ever plunked down cash to see Divine Madness or even the Beatty Heaven Can Wait, Julie Christie or no Julie Christie, had they not been shot by Fraker.
Fraker didn’t have an overt signature in the mode of Willis (the prince of darkness indeed) or Zsigmond (that Monet-esque diffusion of backgrounds in shallow-focus shots). What he had was an extraordinary sensitivity to light overall, and a way of framing compositions perfectly while making said framing seem almost…offhand.
From The Exorcist II: The Heretic.
Fraker died at age 86 on Monday. His long and distinguished career is chronicled in this Los Angeles Times obituary.
I recently watched the Bullitt Blu-ray for the first time and marveled anew at the gritty beauty of Fraker’s lighting. He was a true master. While far from perfect, Monte Walsh is a lovely, elegiac film. Too bad he didn’t get the chance to direct more than three features.
Bullit will definitely get plenty of well-deserved praise, but I’ll put in a word for the cinematography on Looking for Mr. Goodbar. The movie’s problematic in all kinds of ways, but it has an incredible richness to its textures and colors. As you say, Glenn, unlike some of his more high-art colleagues (I love Zsigmond, but you can definitely see the artist at work), Fraker had a terrific knack for making it look easy.
And hell, it’s even worth recalling his work on WarGames. Even lower on the good-movie scale, but surprisingly visually memorable. Fraker does a great job shifting between warm and cool, again without ever making it obvious what he’s doing.
Not to be pedantic, but Robert Surtees had stopped shooting movies by the late ’70s. Perhaps you mean Bruce?…
I’d say “Bloodbrothers,” 1978, qualifies as the “late ’70s.” As does the same year’s “Same Time Next Year,” speaking of a film I might never have looked at if it weren’t for a specific director/lenser team, that is, Mulligan/Surtees.
And of course, no disrespect to Bruce, son of Robert, implied.
Yeah, I guess I was looking at the whole late-70s/early-80s spectrum there. Bruce was pretty active at that point.
Rancho Deluxe is another one that has a wonderful look to it, particularly the natural light.
While he may not have been as stylized as “the prince of darkness”, Fraker did a very good job of parodying him in THE FRESHMAN. I still remember watching that movie on a plane, and nearly falling out of my seat from laughing at the first shot of Brando.
Although neither is held in good regard, I loved his work in Joshua Logan’s “Paint Your Wagon” and Steven Spielberg’s “1941”.
Wasn’t his “thing” soft focus?
It’s what I generally think of when I think of Fraker– 1941, Memories of an Invisible Man– that slightly blown-out haze with cottony whites.
1941 and Exorcist II are both good examples of movies with serious problems that nonetheless have highly enjoyable passages thanks to Fraker’s stellar work. The African passages of Exorcist II in particular have a terrifically eerie, dreamlike feel to them.
Just a few weeks ago on my blog I wrote a piece on the Fraker-directed THE LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER, which really isn’t a good movie at all and I said so. I guess I feel bad about that now. But he shot 1941 so he’s forever ok in my book and if I’d ever met the man I would have gladly bowed down out of respect.
EXORCIST II is a trainwreck combined with a plane crash and a few speeding cars embroiled in the flames as well but it sure is beautiful to look at.