McCandless Method

derekleffew

Resident Curmudgeon
Senior Team
Premium Member
In 1932, Stanley McCandless, a lighting designer and professor at Yale University, wrote a little book titled A Method of Lighting the Stage, and changed the course of stage lighting history.

Mac's critics and contemporaries later expressed that he simply documented what was being done on professional US stages, and thus should not receive all the credit for "The Method." Others stated there cannot be only one way to light a stage. McCandless countered that the book was titled A method, not THE method.

Much of the book is not controversial. There are five functions of lighting. There are four controllable properties. It's best to divide a stage into chunks or "acting areas." et cetera.

Where most take issue is with Mac's concepts of angle and color. He states that the most realistic lighting can be achieved from the front by positioning two fixtures on the diagonal of a cube: 45° up and 45° off of center. No real argument there, other than the fact that very few theatres have those ideal lighting positions. He further states that for maximum revelation of form, without compromising selective visibility, it's best to color the two lights with tints of complimentary colors. Here's where most have taken issue. Light Amber (or pink) from one side and Pale Blue from the other can make for an odd look, even if the science holds true. In sunlight, highlights (key light) appear yellow and shadows (fill light) appear blue. Then there's the nagging question: Which color should come from which side? As Howard Bay stated in his book Stage Design, "Why should an actor be blue when he faces left stage, pink when he faces right stage, and pied when he turns front?" Many forget that lighting is often a compromise. While the greatest plasticity WILL be achieved using R10 Yellow and R80 Medium Blue; for realistic purposes McCandless recommended tints, and R02 (BastAmber) and R60 (No Color Blue) are a classic combination, and are pale enough so that to all but audience members sitting on the extreme sides of a widely splayed auditorium, the lighting will appear "natural."

For more backgound on McCandless the person, see Stanley McCandless-the granddaddy of lighting designers. For more on The Method, see An Approach to Stage Lighting. More CB discussion in this thread: https://www.controlbooth.com/threads/45-degree-rule.8858/.

Howard Bay proposed the most common alternative to the McCandless system, which he deemed "jewel lighting," and which essentially states: hit the actor from as many angles as possible, and adjust color and intensity to suit, as if lighting a diamond in a store's display window. For the 1920s Broadway houses (until very recently when they began hanging FOH trusses) this meant most of the front lighting came from the Box Booms, with the Balcony Rail and Footlight positions being used sparingly just to fill in the shadows. In both systems, Sidelight and Backlight play secondary roles, as they provide no assistance in helping the audience see an actor's face. If the audience cannot see the actor, they believe they cannot hear the actor either, thus the message is lost. Note we're talking about straight drama here, not dance; not even musical theatre, which didn't even exist as a genre in 1932.

edit 11/21/08: Ah, the joys of the Internet! Googling "McCandless Method" returns many hits--some good, some not so good. A particularly foul one is this: http://techtheatre.info/dotnetnuke/Lighting/McCandlessMethod/tabid/64/Default.aspx. It appears the writer has either never read or understood Stan's book, and even more distasteful: the picture of the theatrical lighting fixture hung upside down! Television is NOT theatre. Regardless of the media, illuminating an object or person with lights placed along the diagonals of a cube, in complimentary colors, still holds true.

There's no substitute for reading the actual book. While out of print, it can still be found at used bookstores and on ebay. I've seen copies go for $4 to $60.
McCandless, Stanley R., A Method of Lighting the Stage, Theatre Arts Books, various publication dates. [URL='http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=a+method+of+lighting+the+stage&x=0&y=0"]Amazon search link[/URL].

... There are a lot of good designers who have had great careers with the McCandeless Method... and it was a revolution in its time to be sure - both of which should be acknowledged every time we get ready to rail against it....

The task of a lighting designer is always to balance the technical with the artistic, and I think a designer who says "I am a McCandless style designer" is stating that they value technique over art, and that doesn't work for me personally. McCandless is a single technique to get a certain look, and properly executed it will give adequate lighting almost every time... and there's value in that.

My principle argument against it, when I lay out a plot for most of my shows... is that it takes too much instrumentation for not enough effect. I don't like front light. I doubt I'm alone in saying that here.... but I don't. I hang it. I use it. I probably turn it up higher than many designers ( but gel it a little more saturated than many designers... so it balances out.) But I never like it. And McCandless uses two thirds of my hang for front light. And the last third of the plot is for straight in back light in a (to be properly McCandless) light enough tint to halo the shoulders and separate the actor from the background.

I'm sure someone wants to tell me now that you can add sidelight on TOP of McCandless, and you can... but why? Why do I use two thirds of the plot to provide facial visibility? Yes it's important but I can get facial visibility with one straight in front light to each area and I've freed up 20 or 30 instruments for other tasks... this might be enough to provide two or three colors of sidelight, or template washes on top of my frontlight, or diagonal backlight which separates the actor from the background AND creates a strong sense of direction.

Several things have changed since Stanley McCandless was working (1932)...

1. Set design has become more creative. We're spending a lot less time trying to get light into naturalistic box sets... and when we do it, good scenic designers have now figured out how to give us architectural breaks to sneak sidelighting into these sets as well.

2. The philosophy of lighting scenery has changed some too... from 'Don't do it' to 'point a light (preferably several of different colors and textures) at every visible piece of scenery so that we can control composition and separate the actor from the scenery in ways OTHER than dumping a mostly white backlight on them.'

3. The purpose of lighting design has changed from 'reveal the scene in a less than boring way' to 'emotionally grip the audience and drive them through the theatrical experience.'

4. The aesthetics of lighting design have changed from 'lights aren't noticed unless they screw up' to 'Wow that deserves a Tony! I don't know how they did that!'

In the end... for me... the process of deciding what angles lights come from is something I go through each and every time I design, and I try to start with no preconceptions - with the idea that I know what the play should look like. What is the dominant source of light in the world I'm creating? Where does it come from? Now what does the rest of the world I want to create look like? Is it in harmony? Is there a visual argument? How do the characters relate to their background? How MUCH do they need to stand out and how much do they need to 'fit in?' Only after I have some strong ideas about what the lighting should look and feel like will I let myself consider the technique of it... the 'where else do I need some amount of light coming from to satisfy the technical requirements of this particular play in this space for this audience? Sometimes I'll arrive at a very McCandless plot... sometimes I'll arrive at a more modern 'Broadway style' plot with straight in fronts, sides, and backlight in stronger colors... and sometimes I wind up deciding that the dominant light in the scene will be from a back diagonal window and that the light from the front will be from 180 degrees to that and in the same color as the floor to feel like 'reflection.' In each case, I've provided for visibility but in each case I've also designed what was right for the play, not what was right for me as a designer, just because I have one style or another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back