How Wong Kar-Wai Shoots A Film At 3 Budget Levels

INTRODUCTION

Wong Kar-Wai has long been one of my favourite directors. His filmmaking is a high energy, super visual expression that channels the spirit of characters, places and emotions in an experimental form.

With a vividly saturated palette, a balance between chaos and beauty and a heavy focus on characters deeply concerned with personal, emotional relationships, Wong’s style has become synonymous with Hong Kong cinema’s 2nd New Wave.

As I do in this series, I’ll take a look at 3 different films made by Wong Kar-Wai at 3 increasing budget levels: the low budget As Tears Go By, the medium budget In The Mood For Love, and the high budget The Grandmaster, to identify how his filmmaking progressed throughout his career.  

AS TEARS GO BY

Wong grew up in Hong Kong and after graduating got his first taste for film production work through interning at a TV network. He quickly began a career as a screenwriter, starting out in TV series and soap operas before moving up to writing film scripts. 

Not all of this work was very creatively fulfilling. 

Wong claims to have written over 50 screenplays during this time, most of which he was uncredited for. By the late 1980s he’d found a mentor in director Patrick Tam and wrote the screenplay for his film ‘Final Victory’.

It was intended to be the second installment in a trilogy of films that tracked some characters' in the underground world’s progressions from teenagers, to their 20s and their 30s. Wong imagined the first installment in the gangster film trilogy being ‘As Tears Go By’.

For some quick context, In Hong Kong in the 1970s and 1980s, a group of filmmakers emerged to form a movement called ‘Hong Kong New Wave’. 

Although it was more an accidental outcome than an intended movement on the part of the directors, many of them were drawn to making genre films which included fresh, experimental elements that broke away from tradition and tread the line between art, political commentary and mass entertainment.

By 1987 the film industry in Hong Kong was prospering under this movement and seeking new films from new directors to continue this run of success. Using his industry connections from his time as a screenwriter Wong became a partner in In-Gear, a newly formed independent production company with producer Alan Tang. 

He was granted considerable creative freedom to direct a film in the gangster genre - which tended to perform well financially at the time. For his directorial debut he returned to the idea of ‘As Tears Go By’.

Despite doing lots of research I wasn’t able to track down the exact budget that was green lit, but interviews establish that the budget was low by the standards of the time.

“Our intention is to make a gangster film without a hero. They are a failure. They are not successful. So they are not a big boss or a hero in the mafia world. They are just like a normal failure and how they deal with their problems. So I think already the film is not a genre film, even though it's named as a gangster film.” - Wong Kar-Wai

When it comes to writing, Wong takes an approach which breaks away from the norm. While many screenwriters start the writing process by developing a story and then slotting various characters into that story, Wong conceptualises characters as a starting point and then develops the story based on what he imagines the characters would do. 

To him stories are far less important than characters. 

As the characters come from him, the personalities of the characters cannot be separated from his own preferences. Perhaps this is why there are commonalities between many of the characters in his films.

His stories are also very influenced by locations - something we’ll return to later. In the case of As Tears Go By it’s set in an area of Kowloon in Hong Kong near to where he grew up.

When it came to directing the film he initially aimed to take inspiration from his directing mentor Patrick Tam:

“Patrick is a very organised director. He has all these storyboards and shot lists way before shooting. And he’s very precise about all of his shots. And I thought I’m going to be like Patrick or Hitchcock - everything is already decided. But then I realised the night before shooting I’m still working on the script. I tried to fix it. And I said, you know, I will wake up in the morning and will make a shot list at least. So everybody won’t be panicked. And the call time was 9:00 and I woke up at 8:00.” - Wong Kar-Wai

From this first ever day of shooting this became his de facto working style: arrive on set without much of a plan and build the film from there using the elements that presented themselves.

Wong, and his cinematographer on the project, Andrew Lau introduced many experimental visual elements into the film which Wong would continue to use throughout his later career.

As Tears Go By was photographed using interesting unconventional low angles, coloured neon lighting, a reactive handheld camera, and perhaps most notably step printing.

This technique, which became synonymous with Wong, is achieved by shooting at 12 frames per second, and then printing every frame twice. When the footage plays back at the standard 24 frames per second it therefore includes 2 printed frames of each single frame instead of 1. The result is a rough, experimental, jaring emotional effect where the audience is suspended in moments for longer and where time is distorted.

Lau photographed the film in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Wong would choose to photograph most of his later films in either this or the even squarer 1.66:1 - usually staying away from widescreen.

As Tears Go By established connections with cast and crew members that Wong would work with through the years such as actress Maggie Cheung and William Chang who worked both as an editor and as the overall art director in all of Wong’s films - doing the costumes, production design and providing an overall eye for the film’s aesthetic.

For a first film, As Tears Go By, carries remarkably similar trademarks to many of Wong’s later films, such as casting pop culture stars, experimental photography, musical motifs and a character focused, high energy story.

It was produced on a low budget by only hiring a small, core crew, containing the scope of the story, limiting the length of the production timeline, and shooting mainly on location without big set builds in lower budget locations in Hong Kong.  

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE

As Tears Go By performed remarkably well at the Hong Kong box office and kick started Wong’s career. After a string of commercially and critically successful films set in contemporary time, Wong embarked on making a period drama set in the 60s - which would be a sort of spiritual and thematic successor to his earlier film Days Of Being Wild.

In his unconventional style of working, Wong started doing little segments of unauthorised shooting without a script and began writing a rough treatment for a film - a loose guideline which he used to secure funding - which acted as a skeleton for the structure of the movie. 

To sketch out the film he assembled a team of his frequent collaborators - actors, art director William Chang and the cinematographer who had shot his previous five films, Christopher Doyle.

“I feel very excited to work with a bunch of people around me and sharing the same spirit...It’s not only your idea. You have to visual the idea and you need the help or the collaboration with not only the cast but also the crew. Because I’m writing all the time it means that the film is in an organic form. It’s not fixed. I can’t write without knowing the space. I need to know where the story will happen and how the story will happen between who. I can create a story if I find an interesting space. But I cannot imagine something very abstractly on paper.” - Wong Kar-Wai

To find the right location for the film they initially scouted in Beijing but difficulties in securing permits and shooting permissions at short notice prevented this and Hong Kong was chosen as the backdrop for the story instead.

However, since many of Hong Kong’s locations had modernised since the 1960s, Wong and Doyle went in search of exterior locations which felt more correct to the period. 

In Doyle, Wong found a collaborator for whom the space a film takes place in was an integral part of the story. Together they would carefully scout and select locations which informed the themes and language of the movie.

“We decided to shoot part of In The Mood for Love in the heart of Bangkok...So what do you say? For me there is something about this wall and the sense of loneliness. There’s something about the way in which it is falling apart. There’s something about the way when I first came here the light fell on this wall so that it gave it a texture...There is a sense of loss there.” - Christopher Doyle

Unlike other Wong Kar-Wai films - which were shot with very wide angle lenses (sometimes even as wide as 6.5mm) up close, personal and chaotic - In The Mood For Love took an approach to cinematography which was more detached and formal to emphasise a feeling of loneliness that the characters were experiencing due to their failing relationships. 

Doyle shot the film with medium to longer focal lengths (often a 35 and 50mm from the looks of it), from further away, and used foreground in the majority of shots to further distance us from the characters and create a feeling of alienation, claustrophobia and separation.

“I just felt that giving one more layer of, one more level of, detachment. One more level of removal made it even more lonely. So we shot most of that sequence through here as a tracking shot. It didn’t happen because we thought it through. It happened because of this space, this light, with this particular possibility, gave us this moment.” - Christopher Doyle

Doyle photographed it on an Arriflex BL4, mainly using a dolly or sticks for slow moves or stationary frames. He likes operating himself with a fluid head such as an O’Connor 2575. He lensed the film with Zeiss glass, Super Speeds by the look of it. 

The film was captured on higher speed Kodak stocks - 500T and 800T. This created an image with plenty of grain and texture while requiring less powerful lights to be used for the numerous darker night and interior scenes. He lit the movie with lots of undiffused hard light. This creates highlights in the skin and defined lines of shadow. 

While he kept things relatively neutral colour wise, and seems to have used mainly tungsten lights for the tungsten balanced film stock, there were still moments where he gelled lights to create strong colour casts.

The costumes and overall palette from William Chang were saturated, punchy, textured and appropriate to the 60s.

Due to Wong’s method of finding the story while he shot without a script his shooting ratio - the amount of total footage he shot in relation to what made the final cut - was very high. He reportedly sometimes shot as many as 40 takes, which he used to find his vision by manipulating the camera, different performances, dialogue or thematic ideas from the actors.  

This style of changing the story as he went, by introducing new scenes and ideas on the fly meant that In The Mood For Love went over schedule and over budget. So much so that Doyle had to leave the project near the end due to another scheduling commitment. He was replaced by Taiwanese DP Mark Lee Ping-bing who maintained the same visual language to complete the film.   

Production finally wrapped after 15 months of shooting.

In The Mood For Love was therefore shot on a medium budget by maintaining a fairly small scope story, with few cast and crew members and no large set pieces. However its extremely lengthy production schedule drove up the costs. 

THE GRANDMASTER

The director’s reputation for shooting over long production periods was pushed to the extreme on The Grandmaster. The initial idea that Wong put forward was to produce a documentary on martial arts. To prepare he went to various regions of China for a year doing research. 

In 2009 he brought cinematographer Phillipe Le Sourd onto the project, without a script, to shoot material for a documentary or biopic about martial arts which was set in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. 

It developed into a martial arts drama based on the life of Ip Man which was eventually shot over a period of three years.

“Every time and every day was a discovery with him about what could be the scene. Of course he was writing every night after the shoot...But you didn't know if the scene you would shoot for 2 days, 1 week, 10 days, or 2 months.” - Phillipe Le Sourd    

His way of working opened up many possibilities which may have been impossible to see when committing words to the page or storyboarding a scene ahead of time. The locations may influence new angles, colour palettes or story ideas on the day.

However, the challenge of working like this for the cinematographer is to maintain a coherent look and continuity in lighting when the same scene may be shot years apart.

“The big challenge for me was to keep consistency...With the light I had to keep a diary every day about each shot we were shooting. One set we shot in 2009 and came back three years later...I was making notes on every shot about where I put the light, which colour I used, which light I used. Because I didn’t know if we’d finished a scene or not.” - Phillipe Le Sourd    

At times he would show a photograph as a reference and at other times he would play music on set during a take for the camera and the actors to get a sense of the correct pacing, movement and rhythm that he wanted. He’d then turn off the music and repeat the take.

Le Sourd elected to shoot on 35mm for the textural component that it provided which he felt better represented the look of the period drama. They used Arricam Studio and Lite cameras with Cooke S4 primes for their ability to reproduce slightly softened, pleasing skin tones.

For the first time the director elected to shoot this epic in a 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio. 

They went into the project shooting on Fujifilm Eterna 250D and 500T stocks. However since the shoot lasted over three years a problem arose. Fujifilm stock was discontinued by the company. The production was tasked with sourcing what was left of the 35mm stock from around the world. In 2012, to complete the film they finished shooting the last ever can of Fujifilm Eterna Motion Picture Film.

A few select slow motion sequences during fight scenes were captured in 2K with a Phantom Flex at 1,000 frames per second. The colourist then matched this with the Fujifilm footage during the DI.

As always, in post production the director was forced to cut much of the footage they had shot and find the film in the edit by distilling the story into its most important elements.

The Grandmaster’s excessive production timeline, as well as its more difficult to photograph set pieces, fight scenes, larger crew and extensive production design meant it was Wong’s highest budget film at around $39 Million.

CONCLUSION

Wong Kar-Wai directs like a writer - changing locations, themes and character motivations as he goes. For a writer all it takes is an eraser or a simple press of a backspace key. When making a film it’s a bit more tricky.

There’s a reason that the film production pipeline works the way that it does: with a carefully planned script, schedule and budget. It’s the same reason that most of Wong’s films went over budget and took large amounts of time to shoot while he found his story during the process of making it.

For all its logistical flaws, what his unusual method does provide is a massive amount of freedom to explore creative ideas and find possibilities which may not have been imagined initially by the writer. 

His method may be unusual, but it has produced some of the most interesting and best made films of all time.

Cinematography Style: Jeff Cronenweth

INTRODUCTION

In this series I’ve mentioned a recent trend of some younger cinematographers being drawn towards what I’d call ‘dark photography’ - where the actors are underexposed, backlit or illuminated in a low-key style.

Although there have been other early pioneers of this dark style of lighting, such as Gordon Willis - who I made a video on - Jeff Cronenweth is a DP who, to a large extent, is responsible for popularising this style, through his work on movies such as Fight Club or The Social Network.

His photography regularly features a dark exposure, a subtly desaturated image, a use of soft toplight, naturalistic imagery and smooth cinematic camera moves.

In this edition I’ll look at Jeff Cronenweth’s philosophy on photography and show some of the gear which he uses to execute that vision. 

BACKGROUND

Jeff Cronenweth’s background in filmmaking is basically the holy grail.

His father was legendary American cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth, known for photographing a number of classic films including his famous work on Blade Runner. His father introduced him to sets where he worked as a 2nd Assistant Camera during high school. After graduating he enrolled to study cinematography at USC and, post graduation, resumed working with his father, this time as a 1st AC.

During this time he worked for famous cameramen such as John Toll and Sven Nykvist, from whom he picked up lots of lessons and precious experience. In working with his father he was introduced to David Fincher, who Jordan Cronenweth shot for. During this time his father would let him do some of the on-set grunt work of lighting, placing the camera and operating.

Cronenweth was hired as B-Camera operator on Seven and served in a similar capacity on The Game. When it came to selecting a DP for Fincher’s next project Fight Club, Cronenweth got the call. 

This accelerated his career as a feature film cinematographer.

He has shot feature films, commercials and music videos for directors such as: David Fincher, Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Romanek.

PHILOSOPHY

“You may not have a style. I hate it when people try to brand you and put you in a box because I think each opportunity creates its own opportunities to find something new. Even if it resembles something you’ve done before it’s still going to be something different.”

Like all cinematographers, Cronenweth’s style is flexible and changes depending on the suitability of the story.

The story should inspire the visual style. The visual style shouldn’t just be placed haphazardly on top of every story.

Although he hates to be boxed in, I’ll now try and do exactly that and connect some common threads that Cronenweth carries across various projects. Much of Cronenweth’s work uses naturalism or realism which he’ll then enhance for cinematic effect.

In Fight Club Fincher and Cronenweth created a visual contrast between Edward Norton’s nine-to-five life, which was lit and presented in a natural, reality-driven way, and Brad Pitt’s character, for which they wanted a more deconstructed, torn-down, hyper-real look.

This visual metaphor supported the change in the story from real and mundane to hyper-reality. It was done by gradually making the lighting moodier and darker, making the costumes and make-up more unconventional, and making the sets progressively dirtier and more extreme.    

Another example of Cronenweth’s preference for naturalism can be seen in his use of practical lights, lights that you can see in a shot. He uses these practicals to motivate his placement of supplemental film lights, mimicking the direction, quality or colour of the on screen practicals. Likewise, he has also used the natural light that the weather offers up and supplemented it to feed the story.

“I think the weather depends particularly on the story you are trying to tell. In Girl With the Dragon Tattoo it needed to be cold and it was cold...and it was so imperative that that element, to some degree, was a character of the movie. In the setting it was imperative that you felt what these characters were going through physically in order to appreciate their journeys.”  

Cronenweth uses his photography, particularly in his work with Fincher, to convey a more visceral feeling to the audience. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo feels cold. Fight Club feels dirty. The Widowmaker feels claustrophobic.

He is able to do the job of a great cinematographer - convey a feeling using images.

GEAR

When preparing for a long form project Cronenweth does ample preparation by doing camera tests, going through various lenses, film stocks, lights or production design palettes, in order to set the look of the movie.

To prepare for Fight Club he tested different film stocks by pulling, pushing and flashing the negative. Flashing is where the photochemical film stock was quickly exposed to a tiny amount of uniform light prior to developing the film. Typically it was done at a film lab. This allowed darker areas of the image to show more detail, rather than reading as pure black.

Before digital cameras, he used film stocks from Kodak, such as their 250D, 500T and 100T emulsions.

When shooting on film he regularly used the Panavision Platinum, but also occasionally used Arri cameras such as the 435. 

As digital cinema cameras became available on the market he made the change over to using them instead.

“I miss, like all of us, the texture and the quality of a projected film image and even to some degree that shutter which was comforting. But when you spend so much time perfecting an image and you walk in a multi complex and you walk from one screen room to the next screen room and it's completely different, I almost let go of it a little bit in order to get some of that control back.”

A large part of his preference for digital photography and digital projection stems from the consistency which they provide. When screening a 35mm print it may get scratched, be dirty, or the projector may be dim. 

However when a digital projector screens a bunch of 1s and 0s from a DCP it should be more or less identical to the final image which the cinematographer saw in the grading suite.

Although he has shot on Arri cameras - I know because he shot on the Alexa Mini LF when I worked as a 2nd AC for him - he shoots much of his digital work with Red. He was an early adopter of the Red One MX back on The Social Network in 2010. All subsequent projects which he shot for Fincher he also used Red cameras such as the Epic MX and the Epic Dragon. 

Another reason for using digital, especially when working with someone like Fincher who does lots of post production work and likes every shot to be stable, is due to its resolution capabilities. 

On Gone Girl he recorded the entire sensor at 6k but framed for 4K by placing the image that he wanted inside the central frame lines. Therefore there was extra information on the outsides of the digital negative. This allowed the image to be stabilised in post production software, which used some of the extra information recorded, without needing to crop into the framed shot.

Cronenweth regularly shoots on spherical lenses, another preference that he picked up from working with Fincher. If he needs to frame for a 2.40:1 anamorphic aspect ratio he usually prefers to extract the ratio from Super35 than use anamorphic glass.

This is because spherical lenses come in a more flexible range, which include more focal lengths. They let in more light and can therefore be used in conditions with lower light - such as reading practical lights on a street at night. He uses various focal lengths and often opts for lenses with a good degree of sharpness such as Panavision Primos, Master Primes, or Leica Summilux-Cs.

Cronenweth achieves his so-called ‘dark look’ by regularly placing his lights overhead or behind characters, rather than directly from the front. Placing lights overhead, which is called top light, is a great way of creating a spread of ambient light to a scene. Since many interior locations do come with overhead lights, placing a light overhead is also a choice motivated by his desire to supplement reality. 

He often uses lights like Kino Flos for this, rigged by his grip team.

Shadows cast from this light will fall straight down and you’ll often get a nice, soft, low level, return light bounced back up from natural surfaces such as tables. To separate characters from dark backgrounds he’ll then use a backlight or a rim light. This is a light placed behind the character which creates an outline of light that distinguishes them from a darker background.  To save some detail in the shadows he may then fill in the scene with a low level light such as Kino Flo with diffusion from a 216 gel or muslin textile in front of the light. As a final touch to bring out a ping of light and presence in the eyes he may rig a low power light like an Obie or a small LED under the mattebox.

When it comes to moving the camera he tends to prefer using more traditional gear which creates classic cinematic movement, such as a dolly, a technocrane or occasionally a Steadicam.

If the budget allows, he’ll also opt for a helicopter with a stabilised head like a Shotover, over using a drone, for more dynamic and traditionally cinematic aerial shots.  

CONCLUSION

Although he admittedly doesn’t like to be boxed into a particular style, if I had to box him in a bit I’d say that Cronenweth’s photography relies on more traditional Hollywood conventions, such as stable camera movement, while pushing the envelope with bold, dark lighting.

His camerawork of course isn’t a cinematic monolith and does adapt and contour to the correct shape of the story that is being told. 

In so doing he uses a technical eye and experience to summon a feeling amongst viewers using nothing but 2D images.

How The Worst Movie Of All Time Was Made

INTRODUCTION

When I pick topics to cover for this channel I try to provide examples from critically acclaimed works from some of the best filmmakers of all time. A lot can be learnt from greatness. But, maybe, a lot can also be learnt from a...well, lack of greatness. 

In honour of In Depth Cine getting to 200K subscribers I thought I’d do something different and take a look at the making of a film by an unlikely auteur which many consider to be the worst of all time - The Room. Here we go.

PRE-PRODUCTION

Like any notable tale, the story of The Room came about due to the meeting of two unlikely friends. Greg Sestero developed an early love for film when he was young -  going so far as to write a sequel to Home Alone when he was 12 years old, including an acting role for himself.

He worked as a model, picked up a role in an episode of a TV show and scored a couple of commercials. In an attempt to further his career he attended an acting class in San Francisco. This is where he met Tommy Wiseau. 

Not much is known about Tommy.

Greg partnered up with Tommy in class - despite his tendency to give bizarre, over the top performances. They rehearsed sections from plays together which they would perform for the class and struck up a friendship, bonding over a shared love of James Dean.

Despite his very thick Eastern European accent he claimed to originally be from New Orleans. He drove a $60,000 Mercedes Benz, wouldn’t reveal his age, nor the source of his wealth. Although it does appear that he had a clothing company, Street Fashions USA, and handed out cards from this business. 

During one of his classes Tommy had shot an 8mm short film entitled ‘Robbery Doesn’t Pay’. He had dreams of becoming an actor and a filmmaker. 

Together, the friends decided to move to LA, where Tommy was already renting an apartment. Tommy bounced some of the ideas for films that he had off of Greg, such as the story for a vampire movie with the amazing title ‘The Vampire from Alcatraz: King of Vampires’.

This project never got off the ground.

While Greg’s acting career gradually progressed, Tommy struggled to land any roles, or even to get any call backs. Fed up, he decided to write his own screenplay - a drama about a love triangle (which was reportedly autobiographical) called The Room.

Upon reading the script Greg offered his opinion: 

“I’d told Tommy what I thought about The Room several times, which was that the script didn’t make any sense. Characters’ motivations changed from scene to scene, important plot points were raised and then dropped, and all of the dialogue sounded exactly the same, which is to say, it sounded exactly like Tommy’s unique understanding of the English language. But nothing I said would ever change his view of The Room, so what did it matter?”

Nonetheless The Room began its preproduction journey securing funding from the only source willing to back the project...Tommy himself.

He created a production company, Wiseau-Films where he did everything from acting as the administrative assistant (under the pseudonym of ‘John’) to being the legal department. The credits did include two other executive producers, however one was his much older English teacher who had never had any involvement in film prior or since, and the other EP had been deceased for years already by the time of production. 

Tommy brought on Greg as the film’s line producer, the person who manages the daily operations of a film shoot, despite Greg not knowing what a line producer even did.

When it came to casting, Tommy gave himself the lead and Greg organised auditions for the other roles. He cast an actor called Dan, who Tommy incorrectly always called Don, as Mark, the supporting character. Philip Haldiman was cast as the adolescent Denny, despite the fact that the actor was 26 and actually older than many of the other actors who were playing adult characters.

Initially they found it difficult to cast the oddly named Chris-R - the drug dealer character.

They consider doubling up and having Scott Holmes - who’d also been cast as Mike - play two roles and put on a strange Indiana Jones like disguise for Chris-R to prevent his double appearance getting noticed. They decided against it.

While holding auditions for other characters Tommy had to insist upon some actors that the film they were trying out for wasn’t porn.

With things falling into place, kind of, Greg and Tommy met up the day before the first day of shooting to go over things. At this final pre-production meeting Tommy managed to convince Greg to play the role of Mark - which had already been cast to Dan, or Don - by offering Greg a large acting fee and a new car. 

PRODUCTION

On the first day of shooting Tommy was four hours late. This was a trend which would continue throughout. 

Rather than shooting on location, Tommy made the unusual decision to shoot everything in a studio. Exteriors were shot in the studio parking lot with the help of a green screen. 

They shot at the small Highland Avenue lot of Birns & Sawyer - a Hollywood rental house. This offer was extended by the owners due to the unheard of decision by Tommy to purchase, rather than rent, the film production gear - a financial decision which made no logical sense. It was reportedly a $1 million investment. However he took this illogical decision a step further by deciding to shoot the movie, simultaneously, using both 35mm and digital capture. 

This doubled the cost of shooting as it required two separate crews, one to run the film camera and one to run the HD camera. Despite the crew’s insistence that he would either use the 35mm or the HD digital footage for the final cut, not both - Tommy went ahead with this bizarre decision anyway.

He purchased two Panasonic HDX-900 digital cameras, one Arriflex BL4 35mm camera and a dozen cinema lenses which included Cooke zooms. Most of the movie was shot off a dolly.

Raphael Smadja, an experienced French born DP who mainly worked in reality TV, was hired as cinematographer on the film. 

He mainly lit the sets using strong sources of hard light, apparently undiffused, coming through windows. These lights often cast hard shadows against other actors which made it pretty obvious where the source of light was and wasn’t the most naturalistic way of illuminating a set.   

At times, the DP would retreat from the camera to the director’s monitor - which was away from the set - while Tommy was performing a scene saying that he wanted to view the lighting from a monitor. However really it was because he struggled to stop himself from laughing while Tommy performed his lines.

He would routinely forget the lines that he wrote while acting. It became so painful at times that it took them three hours, many rehearsals and 32 takes to get one 7 second line. Tommy also appeared to lack any awareness of the correct emotional tone when performing. 

The job of making sense of the script and ensuring continuity fell to script supervisor Sandy Schklair - who would change lines from the screenplay to make them more intelligible, block the scenes and generally act as a kind of 1st assistant director.

The rooftop set was created using three separate Styrofoam walls backed with cheap plywood hastily erected in the parking lot. Why the luxury apartment rooftop had a corrugated iron doorway no one quite knew. To get alternate angles the crew would move the three walls around to create the illusion of four. Sometimes their alignment was umm...questionable.

Since Tommy usually showed up late to set most of the rooftop scenes had to be shot in midday or afternoon light where the sun cast unflattering shadows on faces. To combat this the cinematographer used lots of overhead diffusion with textiles on frames to soften the light, which ate up shooting time.

When Don, cast as Mark, who hadn’t been told that Greg had been cast in his place, played out his scenes on the first day of shooting they didn’t roll any film on his takes. He soon found out, lost his temper with Tommy and Tommy fired him, along with another actress cast as Michelle. His reasoning for firing her as well was so that it would prevent any legal issues. Although what he meant by this exactly no one was sure about. 

These weren’t the only people to leave. Fed up after weeks of shooting, Raphael the DP insisted that unless Tommy hired a proper line producer to handle the running of the shoot he would walk. When his demand wasn’t met he quit, followed by his crew who also resigned in protest.

Thus The Room hired its second DP, a guy called Graham, who was recently out of film school. After Graham walked around the set for the first time he immediately concluded that the production must be a money laundering scheme. 

Tommy’s second DP didn’t last long. His reason for quitting was the result of another strange financial decision from Tommy. He refused to rent a generator for $200 a day to power the lights and instead lost hours every day as a result while the crew came up with work around power solutions - which was far more costly.

After days of promising a generator and not delivering Graham walked off the set.

This led one of the few remaining crew members from the camera department who didn’t walk off - Todd Barron - to step up as the third, and credited, cinematographer. He managed to get through the remainder of the shoot.

POST-PRODUCTION

Upon starting the edit the obvious decision was quickly made to dismiss all the HD footage that they had unnecessarily shot and only used the 35mm takes.

A problem soon presented itself - sound. Through a combination of the inexperienced sound recordist, an inability to sync up some of the dialogue sound to the footage and Tommy’s struggle with saying the lines, a lot of the sound was unusable.

They therefore embarked on using ADR, re-recorded dialogue in a controlled environment, to replace much of the location sound. This wasn’t exactly masterfully done.

Rather than carefully controlling the edit through deliberate cutting, the decision on when and what to cut had to be decided by the parts of the footage they had which were actually usable.

The pacing of the edit is another factor that makes the film feel so...odd. Certain scenes without much substance, such as the numerous sex scenes, take up about 10% of the total running time. They really go on forever. Also you can’t not laugh at the beyond cliche music choices. 

With some digital trickery, and some questionable compositing, what is meant to be the San Francisco skyline was added to the rooftop scenes for the last touches.

The final budget, with its strange mix of gratuitous overspending and miserly cheapness, ended up being estimated around a staggering $6 or $7 million dollars. 

Tommy marketed the film by renting a large billboard with his face on it for $5,000 a week. To some crew’s surprise the final film actually opened in a cinema. Its box office take - $1,900.

CONCLUSION

Over the years something interesting started to happen. It was so badly made and strange that it amassed a cult following. Fans from all over the world became enamoured with it and it entered popular culture. 

Over time it actually managed to recoup its budget.

Perhaps his movie didn’t go exactly how he intended it, or maybe the problem was that it did go the way he intended it. 

Either way the best, worst movie of all time gave Tommy Wiseau his dream of fame and celebrity that he’d spent his life seeking.

What Makes A Movie Great?

INTRODUCTION

Art is subjective. Therefore it’s impossible to categorically state what a great or terrible piece of art is. 

Nonetheless certain movies are held in high regard by a consensus of viewers and reviewers alike. So what exactly is it that makes certain films ‘great’? What is the magic formula that I can use to make my movie a part of cinema’s canon? 

It’s hard to pin down exactly but in this video I’ll break down some factors which I feel contribute to movies being regarded as ‘great’.

STORY

One trademark that connects almost all great films is their story. Not only must the story be engaging but it must also connect with an audience en mass. 

In the novel East Of Eden, one of John Steinbeck’s characters says, “No story has power, nor will it last, unless we feel in ourselves that it is true and true of us.”

I’d argue that part of what creates that magical spark that makes humans identify with a story is the tale’s ability to, consciously or unconsciously, reveal an insight about the world or the human experience.   

From the beginnings of consciousness, humans have used stories as a way to communicate deep truths, messages or ideas - rather than just stating these ideas outright. Perhaps because a story is a more nuanced form of communication different people can take away different things from the same story. 

As humans, our lives are also just one big story, so drawing theories, ideas, emotions, truths and themes out of narrative events is something which our brains are accustomed to doing. Many great films have the impact and longevity that they do by taking simple concepts and conveying them through story - almost like a fable. 

District 9 uses a story about aliens to create a commentary on social segregation, xenophobia and South African history. Rather than using a complex wordy argument, the story itself conveys those ideas. 

Or in Citizen Kane, which uses story to show a man who has to come to terms with the fact that people are not just the sum of their achievements and that money and power doesn’t buy happiness. Kane reveals a truth about life that we can identify in ourselves.

Most great films therefore have a story which is both engaging and which functions in presenting an insight, or truth, about the human experience.

CULTURAL IMPACT

Great films are a product of their time. They often represent a moment or period in a particular place in history and have a definite cultural impact. 

For example, Taxi Driver visually represents the tone and feeling of the bleak, dark state that New York was in during the 1970s. Even if movies do not feature contemporary stories (are period or sci fi films) they often still carry traits which indicate or represent the feelings of the time in which they were conceived. 

For example, Classic Hollywood cinema from the 1950s often displayed a more idealistic, romanticised optimism that was prevalent during the post World War Two economic boom. 

This tone starkly contrasts many New Hollywood films from the 1970s which felt far more uneasy, realist and discomforting -  a tone which reflected the economic recession, rising protests and growing disillusionment and fear about the Cold War. 

The pieces that make up these films may age over time, the dialogue may become cliche, the costumes out of style and the performances over the top. However, as great films have a solid thematic idea at the core of their story, these themes will stand the test of time.  

Like movements in art - with famous works from expressionists and post modernists - in film great movies are often selected and remembered which represent the time and style of the period - whether that be French New Wave, New Hollywood or Italian Neorealism.

TECHNICAL INNOVATION

This leads to another important aspect which contributes to a film’s greatness: it’s level of technical and artistic innovation.

Many great films are remembered for using cinematic devices in inventive ways which pushed storytelling forward and experimented with artistic conventions. This could be through the cinematography, editing, music or any other expression of technical creative decisions. This could be the dark lighting that set the tone in The Godfather, or the match on action cut that transported the story 1000s of years in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

When watching a great film, more often than not, nothing feels out of place or awkward. The audience just gets sucked into the story. We don’t question anything from a tonal point of view or point out technical flaws. This is the sign of a polished technical style.

CREATIVE SYNERGY

Not only do great films often innovate technically, but there is a high level of synergy between what is in front of the camera and the technical aspects that capture it. Things such as the lighting, camera movement and pacing in the edit are used to elevate and add to the story.

I’d attribute this synergy to a director who is able to create a singular artistic vision. One where the technical side is in sync with the artistic side which is in sync with the story. 

That’s why some of the most well regarded directors often have a good degree of technical knowledge which they use to execute their artistic ideas. 

SUSPENDING DISBELIEF

In a world where we as an audience have become acclimated to having tons of information available at the click of a button we are more familiar than ever with how things are constructed. The same applies to film. When people are more analytical and critical it becomes challenging to awe the audience.

Back in the day all it took was a clip of a train coming towards the camera to terrify and amaze folks. Today’s audiences are more demanding.

Whether a musical, a horror, a comedy, or a drama, great films are able to entangle the viewer. Getting them caught up in experiencing emotions because they buy into the world of the movie - suspending disbelief. 

Great films therefore create a cinematic landscape which is both believable and sucks you in. Any time there’s a shaky performance, a bit of odd pacing or an unbelievable twist in the story, filmmakers run the risk of alienating the audience.

CASTING

Speaking of shaky performances, the final factor which I feel largely impacts a film’s legacy and impact is casting. 

Coming back to my first point about the story, a great screenplay is meaningless if the on screen talent aren’t cast correctly and have the capacity to tell that story. Star power can help in this regard. Famous actors that are well cast in a great film, will retain that role as part of their legacy and solidify their character in the minds of the masses. 

Whether through film criticism, popular culture or memes, a character that enters the canon of mainstream culture will increase the impact of the film.

Stardom isn’t a prerequisite though. Many great films have been made without stars, by lesser known actors giving stellar performances. The duty of holding up a story will always partially fall to the actors, so casting should never be underestimated.

CONCLUSION

The magic ingredients for greatness boil down to story, cultural impact, technical innovation, creative synergy, suspending disbelief and casting.

But there’s also a mystery surrounding greatness, a spark which sticks in the minds of viewers and places a film in the history books. Maybe it’s everything I’ve mentioned, maybe it’s luck, or maybe something else. 

But what we do know is that it requires masterful filmmaking skills and a creative spark to ignite the fire of greatness.

What A Director Does On Set: Crew Breakdown

INTRODUCTION

In this series I go behind the scenes and look at some of the different crew positions on movie sets and what each of these jobs entails.

If ever there’s one crew position that everyone has heard of it is the director. They are the person to whom the entire creation of a film is accredited to. You may know a bunch of famous ones, but do you know what their day to day job actually entails? 

In this Crew Breakdown video I’ll go over the role of the director, break down what they do, what their average day on set looks like and some tips from some of the best directors out there.

ROLE

Unlike some of the other crew positions that I’ve previously gone over that are more technical, the director’s role is largely a conceptual one.

As the name suggests, they are responsible for ‘directing’ how the overall film is made by taking a script, visualising it and creating an overarching cinematic tone for the project. In doing so they guide the actors and the various crew heads of departments to realise the vision which they have.

Unlike most other crew members, who fulfil a particular niche in the film production process, directors are present throughout the entire making of the film - from pre production to post production and usually even after it has been completed - from distribution to promotion. As such they are responsible for a great many duties along the way and require a diverse skill set. Like with other big picture management positions, there isn’t a definite list of duties or ways of going about things. 

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates had very different ways of doing things but both produced tech products - which were different, yet reflective of their individual philosophies.

A director’s level of involvement in these various duties will change from case to case, and usually includes - but is not limited to: casting actors, deciding on locations, production design and costumes, forming a visual style for how the film will be shot and edited, communicating and delegating that vision for crew members to execute, and overseeing the post production process - including the edit, colour grade, sound mix, selection of music and any visual effects. 

Directors also need to be cognisant of the budget of the project and visualise and craft a film which takes that into account. 

Some directors like to write their own screenplays, but this isn’t a prerequisite. Many others prefer directing scripts which are written by screenwriters.

The process of visualising a screenplay requires directors to make technical decisions to sculpt the visual language or vocabulary which ends up on screen. 

“There are certain tools that you use and those tools become part of a vocabulary. That’s just as valid as the vocabulary that is used in literature…There was an intelligence, enough kind of intelligence, that was trying to tell a story through where the director, the writer, the cinematographer, where they were focusing your eyes.” - Martin Scorsese

AVERAGE DAY ON SET

Usually in these videos I start with how a crew begins their day on set. However in the case of the director their involvement in the projects happens long before this moment. Unless they are a ‘hired gun’ -  employed to direct a project with the screenplay and many of the elements already in place - directors usually have to create their own work to some extent. 

For example, in the world of commercials, directors will receive a brief from a creative agency which the client has picked. They will then use that brief to come up with a treatment or vision of how they imagine the commercial and then pitch that in order to win the job. 

There are many ways a feature film can be made - but in most cases it will require the director to pitch their vision at some stage, whether for funding or studio approval. Unless it’s a totally self funded independent film, which is rare.

Once funding has been won and pre production begins, a director will start the process of casting actors, deciding on shooting locations and outlining their creative vision - through storyboards, a shot list or just conversations with key crew members.

Once everything is in place principal photography will begin. 

A director’s day may start early by viewing some of the rushes (or dailies) - raw footage from the previous day of shooting. This informs future creative decisions which they must make, is a way of checking that they are on the right path and helps them to determine if they need to make any changes or do any reshoots.

Rushes could also be viewed at other times - when shooting on a digital camera - such as at night after the day's shooting, at lunch or at the end of a week.

Director's will arrive on set with a pre-planned schedule for the day detailing the scenes and shots that need to be covered. On arrival they’ll be presented with art direction-related decisions which need to be made such as confirming the costume of the on screen talent, adding or removing props or production design items from the set and sometimes commenting on the makeup required. 

Most of this would usually have been dealt with in pre-production but sometimes these choices are narrowed down or finessed on the day of shooting.

The actors will arrive on set and do a blocking with the director. This is where they quickly run through the scene, determine how they will move in the space and their actions. The director will work with them here, giving their feedback or direction for how they see it playing out. The actors will leave the set and the director will then collaborate with the cinematographer and other crew members to decide on how best to cover the scene.

Some directors may be very technical and specific here and others less so.

Once the lights, camera and everything else has been set up, the actors will return to the set and do a take. Some directors like to call action themselves but more often than not that’s left up to the 1st AD.

In between takes the director will give feedback in an attempt to get the shot as perfectly as they can in the way in which they imagine it. It’s their job to know what they are looking for and to find it. They will sculpt a bunch of elements like they’re molding clay, making subtle changes to things like the performances, the camera movement, framing, or the blocking, until everything comes together to their liking.

Once they’ve got a take they are happy with, they will then move onto a new shot or scene and repeat the process.

TIPS

“It’s really hard to make a movie. It's like a two or three year process. You’re really married to it. I call these films my children...This is what I’ll leave behind. This is what my name is on...I put a lot of time, a lot of focus into it. So why do that for something that you don’t care about?” - Ava DuVernay

Unlike other crew who bounce around between projects with a greater frequency - directors are in it for the long haul. So pick the projects that you want to work on carefully - especially for directors who work in long form. 

As I mentioned, there are many different styles of working. But having a broad skillset as a director is usually helpful. The more that you understand about the process - from casting down to the sound mix - the more you will be able to shape each facet of the process into the tone that you imagine.

The director’s job is all about making decisions. On set they may be faced with hundreds of little choices that need to be made every day. Cultivating the ability to quickly analyse a situation and make a firm decision is a crucial skill for anyone entering this position.

When making subjective decisions in the creative space there’s never one right answer. So perhaps the best approach is to make those choices by bringing yourself and your own background into the equation. 

“Some of this movie comes from me, sure. But I’m never going to be able to make a movie that doesn’t. You know, even if I’m making a movie about the turn of the century I think it’s always going to be personal. It’s just in the ‘details stuff’.When I grew up in the valley I was really embarrassed for the longest time. That’s where I lived and that’s where I grew up. Cause I knew I wanted to make movies. I looked back to my favourite directors and said ‘Ok, there’s Howard Hawks and, boy, he served in the war and there’s Ernst Lubitsch and who escaped Germany...But I didn’t have s---- to bring. I’m from the f------- valley. And I was really embarrassed about that for a long time until one day I just woke up and said I guess that’s what I have to make movies about.” -  Paul Thomas Anderson

While telling stories from your own point of view is valuable, it’s equally as important to use each scene and every creative decision to serve the thematic ideas in the story that you want to unpack. 

Ask yourself why certain scenes are in the script and try to translate that why to the screen.

“Films are experiential and emotional. We all know that with storytelling in narrative fiction we can’t be married to factual accuracy. It’s all about what best serves the story. And so, I really started thinking about, you know, why I had all of these meal scenes. Aside from the fact that it's realistic. But what does that mean? What does it mean to this experience? How did it make me feel while I was there?” - Lulu Wang

CONCLUSION

Every director is different. Some rehearse. Some don’t. Some prepare everything. Some improvise. Some edit or shoot themselves. Some delegate and collaborate. Some are more technical. Some focus more on performance. 

There is no general advice that can be given in this regard. Directors need to find their own voice and then use that as a guide in determining a way of working which is best for them.

After all, these different voices, visions and working styles are what makes film the artistically diverse medium that we all enjoy.

5 Rules For Effective Low Budget Filmmaking

INTRODUCTION

Kevin Smith made Clerks with $27,000. Richard Linklater made Slacker for $23,000. Shane Carruth made Primer for $7,000.

Despite being largely self financed low budget projects, these films were all responsible for launching the careers of these directors. However, before we romanticise the potential of low or no budget projects too much, it’s important to note that for every success there’s also a gigantic heap of movies that, through luck or from being poorly made, never managed to find an audience. 

In this video I’ll go over 5 tips which I think will enhance the strength of your filmmaking without breaking the bank, and give your low budget films a fighting chance at gaining recognition and launching your career.

PLAY TO YOUR STRENGTHS

When working with little or no money, you’ve got to accept and embrace that you won’t be able to control all aspects of production. So always play to your strengths and work with the resources that you do have available. 

For example, Dave Klein, Kevin Smith’s DP on Clerks, initially imagined shooting the project in colour, however practical concerns made this a pipe dream.

“I think the look of that movie was mainly decided by the dollar. It was more cost effective to shoot black and white…You've got fluorescents but you’ve also got windows to deal with...we can use the tungsten lights that we have, mixed with the fluorescents which were there. Close the shutters. Kevin wrote that into the script - someone put gum in the locks. Then we didn’t have to worry about the windows that’s another colour temperature.” - Dave Klein, Cinematographer

Filmmakers, such as Christopher Nolan or even...myself and my director friend Greg, opted to shoot our first no budget feature in black and white for similar reasons. Rather than choosing colour and then fighting with colour temperatures, a lack of control over colour palettes and lighting, we choose to play to our strengths by embracing black and white and only focus on lighting contrast.

Another easy way to play to your strengths is to choose your shooting times carefully by shooting when the natural light will be best. The most effective way that I’ve found to play to your strengths is to first determine your budget, then sit down and allocate your resources appropriately.

Planning is your friend.

Although as a cinematographer I naturally want all the budget to be spent on those beautiful vintage lenses or on a bunch of HMIs - it’s important to understand that your loyalty should always be to the story. That’s why (even though it pains me to say it) budget should always be prioritised on getting experienced actors or locations rather than on renting top shelf gear. 

It’s better to shoot on a DSLR from 2008 with a solid cast of actors than spend all the budget on an Alexa Mini and a set of anamorphic lenses while casting your brother’s friend who makes TikTok videos as the dramatic lead. 

DIY CINEMATIC PRINCIPLES

A lack of money doesn’t mean that your movie has to look bad. Using the same cinematic principles that are used on high budget Hollywood films, but in a DIY way, is a great way of bumping up your low budget movie.

This could be done by using DIY rigs to move the camera - although don’t hold me responsible for the safety on these. Lighting with practical lights, or DIY fixtures assembled from a hardware store is another way to add to the look without spending much cash.

“I just chained up some fluorescent lights back there and I think we even put some halogen work lights...We took all the cigarettes out from above the counter and basically bounced the light off where the cigarettes would normally be.” -  Ed Hapstak, Gaffer
For other ways to light cinematically without a budget, you can check out a video I made on how to light without any lights.

Learning how to grade footage yourself with free software such as Da Vinci Resolve, or wrangling a free grade from a good colourist, is also a great way of improving the look of your film without spending any money. 

CREATE A LOOK (AND STICK TO IT)

“For Slacker I guess the original idea was the form of it. The way it wouldn’t be a traditional narrative...I remember I was driving to Houston I was like ‘Why can’t you just make a film where it goes from character to character?’ That could be a whole film. For me when it all started it was the formal kind of agenda. The formal aspects of the film. The cinematic qualities. That was my initial impulse.” - Richard Linklater, Director

Probably the best way to stand out or add so-called ‘production value’ to your project is to create a cohesive look or form for the entire project and then stick to it.

In the case of Pi this could be a super high contrast black and white look, or in the case of Slacker a series of long, linked takes, or in She’s Gotta Have It, consistently breaking the fourth wall in 16mm black and white with one 35mm colour set piece, or Tangerine which Sean Baker shot entirely on an iPhone. 

Unless the look is intentionally a mixed medium film, cutting between footage captured by many different cameras, moving in arbitrarily different ways, with varied paced editing or inconsistently graded footage - will make the movie feel disjointed and amateurish. 

Coming up with a set of rules, such as only using natural light, or only shooting on wide angle lenses, is an easy way to build a film with a coherent, deliberate vision.

This doesn’t mean you have to make it look like a Hollywood blockbuster. There are different ways of being cinematic and creating a coherent look or interesting form which works for the story. For example, the Dardenne brothers' exclusive use of rough, handheld work was appropriate for the documentary inspired Rosetta.

SMALL SCOPE STORIES

Your most valuable tool when it comes to creating effective low budget films is how the script is written. It’s great to imagine and write ambitious screenplays filled with car chases, plenty of guns and an ensemble cast. But if you are starting out or don’t have a budget to work with then you have to be realistic.

Write contained stories which are small enough in scope for you to effectively shoot.

The easiest way to make a bad movie is to try and produce a larger scope story than what the budget allows. The easiest way to make a successful low budget film is to come up with a great concept which can be executed relatively simply. 

Some ways to reduce the scope of the story include shooting at limited locations, using a smaller cast, having limited or simplified set pieces and setting your story at locations which you will be able to have access to.  

NAIL THE BASICS

Like with any form of art, in filmmaking you are free to express yourself however you like. But, a good rule of thumb is to first be confident in the basics before trying to be too experimentally ambitious.

Without the basics in place a movie is doomed to fail - even if it’s shot in an amazing single take shot with very technical blocking and has lots of fancy VFX work.

Don’t try to run before you can walk.

Make sure your casting is great, the performances are engaging, dialogue sound is good, you don’t jump the line with the camera, that your locations look realistic and that your story is strong. Once these foundations are firmly in place only then can you start taking risks.

Cinematography Style: Natasha Braier

INTRODUCTION

When creating images as a cinematographer it may be tempting to succumb to a more visually conservative route suggested by the producer, client, agency, production company or anyone who is taking a financial risk on the project.

These parties often prefer visuals to be well illuminated without much shadow, sharp, with plenty of light on the actor’s faces, using literal rather than suggestive shots.

Throughout her career Natasha Braier has tended to stay away from these more traditional cinematic conventions by working with experimental collaborators, focusing on the essence of the story and committing to bold, riskier photographic decisions.

In this episode I'll show how Natasha Braier's philosophy on photography and the gear that she uses informs her own cinematography style.     

BACKGROUND

After growing up in Argentina, Braier moved to Europe with her parents when she was a teenager. To deal with the move she picked up photography and soon became immersed in it - spending lots of time experimenting with chemicals and film in her dark room.

She was one of six aspiring cinematographers to get accepted to study her Masters at the National Film and Television School in England. After which she travelled and embarked on her career as a DP, before settling in the US.

She has shot a variety of content - feature films, commercials and music videos - for a range of directors such as: Nicolas Winding Refn, David Michod, Claudia Llosa and Alma Har’el.

PHILOSOPHY

“I was always quite experimental and searching for very alternative ways of photographing and trying to express emotions through light and framing.”

Part of what allows her to express herself through experimental visual forms is due to the directors which she works with.

A common thread throughout Braier’s work can be found in the thematic and emotional connections in the stories that she chooses to photograph. She is drawn to working with directors with a strong, sometimes extreme, visual personality. If they prioritize other parts of their filmmaking at the expense of a strong visual style then she’s less interested in working with them.

She does acknowledge that there are of course different ways of making good movies - which don’t always include a strong visual language - but she is drawn to those collaborators who don’t shy away from experimental or artistic risk taking.

Her experimental side can be seen through her use of expressive coloured lighting, dark exposure, unconventional framing and preference for an optically imperfect image - shot with older glass, softening filters and flares.  

“I show them all the radical things I want to do and make sure that they want them...Look, this is what I’m doing. You won’t be able to make it lighter. Are you OK with this darkness? Do you like that the shadows are purple because you won’t be able to undo this?”

She likes making definitive creative decisions on set, leaving as little work for the colour grade as possible, and is sure to communicate and establish this visual language early on with the director. Her photographic goal is to transmit the essence of the story - which focuses on feeling rather than always providing clear narrative explanations. 

Her sensibilities lie in the abstract which means she enjoys taking on projects where the viewer doesn’t necessarily have to ‘understand’ everything. But, she concedes that sometimes being more direct is necessary. Particularly when shooting commercials, where everything is already storyboarded.

Braier doesn’t box herself into always shooting in one style and feels that different perspectives are required for different projects with different directors. For example, with Honey Boy she says she adopted a more realistic, documentary gaze, whereas for Neon Demon an experimental, male gaze was necessary.  

GEAR

While she adjusts her approach to shooting depending on the film, she does carry across similar techniques and gear choices from movie to movie.  

For example, when it comes to lighting she likes using LEDs, to light a space 360 degrees, which her team rigs to a wireless DMX board so that she can do quick adjustments to lighting on the fly. 

“I replaced all the practical lights with LED lights. I used transmitters and receivers. So I was at my monitor with a set of dimmers and I could control all those lights...Depending on what he was doing I was literally like a DJ, you know, like jamming with the dimmers around what he was doing...So in that way I could support the emotions with the lighting...It was really like a dance of light that I would do live.”

Working with a DMX board makes it easy to tweak lights quickly in shoots such as Honey Boy where much of the blocking of scenes was improvised during takes. It also allows her to dim or change the colour temperatures of lights during a shot.

She often uses lights from Digital Sputnik, LitePanels, or KinoFlos - which are manually gelled with different colours.

For years she shot projects on 35mm film - mainly Kodak tungsten stocks like 200T - but has recently come around to using digital cameras -  for which she almost exclusively uses variations of the Arri Alexa, such as the Mini or XT.

When lighting for 35mm film she liked to use a light meter and view the image through the viewfinder. However with digital she prefers lighting using a calibrated monitor as digital cameras are more sensitive and act differently to the way film does.

She’s worked with lenses such as the Zeiss Ultra Primes in the spherical format, but mainly is drawn to using the anamorphic format - which she exclusively shoots with the vintage Cooke Xtal Express lenses. Although the Xtals are slower than modern anamorphic lenses and don’t have the best ergonomics, she finds their softer, dreamy look the most appealing out of the anamorphic choices available.

Braier likes baking in the final look as much as possible on set, by using techniques that can’t be undone in post production.  Such as: placing effects filters in front of the lens or subtly flaring the lens with a small light to introduce a warmth to shadows and give the image a subtly vintage look - like flashing a 35mm film negative would.

“I designed two special LUTs with my colourist Alex Bickell from Color Collective in New York. We were trying to emulate Kodak 200T and get this kind of a more photochemical and also a little bit warm, nostalgic childhood feeling...Then we just used that LUT for the whole movie so that was kind of my negative.”

On set she uses this Kodak 200T LUT when she exposes the image in camera, so that when it comes to the grade 95% of the work has already been done - and only minor tweaks are made. She thinks the grade is a very important part of being a DP, especially when shooting digitally.  Back with film, once the negative was printed there wasn’t much you could do to alter the exposure. But with digital it’s possible to light a scene really dark and then change it to look really bright in the grade. 

Therefore it's important for a cinematographer to be at the grade to ensure the integrity of the image and protect the original intentions of the lighting.

Much of her work features handheld shots. She likes operating the camera herself, and still does so for commercials, describing the process as being like a dance between the operator and the actor. However, since doing features in the US, where crew unions typically prohibit the DP from operating, she now relies on her ability to communicate with an operator and collaborate with them to find the correct choreography for ‘the dance’.  

CONCLUSION

Even though Natasha Braier’s cinematic gaze changes depending on the needs of the movie, her flare for photographic experimentation carries over to everything which she shoots.

Her love of colour, anamorphic lenses, dark lighting and unconventional framing are a testament to this.

Sometimes being photographically safer may get you more work, but sometimes having a bold eye and the courage to take creative risks will attract like minded directors, for whom the look of a movie is just as important as its content.

4 Ways To Light Cinematically Without Any Lights

INTRO

I feel that the term ‘cinematic’ has become an overused one lately - particularly on YouTube. And hey, I’m guilty of overusing it too.

However, the idea of ‘cinematic lighting’, which refers to the qualities or characteristics of light used in films are linked by some common traits: contrast - the ratio between the lightest and darkest part of a frame, quality - whether the light is hard, soft, textured or clean and the shape - how the light is controlled or manipulated.

In this video I will go over four ways that cinematographers can control these factors without even using any film lights.  

WHY SHOULDN’T I USE LIGHTS?

‘Why shouldn’t I use lights’? you may ask. 

Well the most obvious reason is to save money. These techniques are useful when you’re asked to shoot that short film for a favour that has no budget for gear.

Another reason is personal preference and an appreciation for natural light. I’ve worked with some DPs who like using a ton of lights and others that prefer to sculpt the ambient light on set. 

Generally, manipulating illumination without lighting fixtures results in a more naturalistic looking image - which some DPs prefer.The choice to not use lights also comes with downsides. 

Lights provide a consistent source of illumination, so shooting without them means that lighting conditions and your exposure may change while shooting a scene if the sun goes behind a cloud or shifts its position.

Also, maintaining ultimate control over illumination without lights may require large amounts of textiles and a big crew of grips to rig them and be on standby to alter the rigging as the sun moves. Which may take up more time and then kind of defeats the purpose of saving money.  

NEGATIVE FILL

The easiest way to light without any lights is usually to reduce illumination.

One way to do this is with negative fill or ‘neg’. Rather than adding light on one side of the face to increase illumination and create contrast, negative fill creates contrast by removing light on the other side of the face, reducing illumination.

The colour black absorbs light and doesn’t reflect any colours on the light spectrum. So, bringing in a black textile close to one side of the face will remove light and create a shadow. Cinematographer can control light by placing a black surface wherever they don’t want light to be reflected.

“Generally my rule is any wall you don’t see put black on it. So, first thing I do when I go in a room, is I black the ceiling. That’s gonna give you better shape. It’s not always nice to have all this return on the face. I like stuff to have a little bit more attitude, even though it’s soft. And then if it’s blacking the floor or blacking a wall you don’t see to shape the light.” - Bradford Young 

Since lighting like this doesn’t require an artificial source, it creates contrast and shape in a really soft and natural way.

Some common tools to do this include: a frame with blackout (such as a 8x8, 12x12 or 20x20 frame), a 4x4 floppy, the black side of a polyboard, or pieces of duvetyne (a matte black material). While these methods are common in the industry, any DIY method will usually work just as well, such as: placing a character next to a black or darkly painted wall, using any piece of black cloth that you have or even black bin bags. 

Neg is a great way to create contrast on the cheap.    

It should be noted though that the larger the negative fill and the closer it is to the subject the greater effect it will have. Don’t expect to hold up a black bag 5 meters away from a subject and get a strong shadow.    

BOUNCE

While negative fill removes light, bounce adds light and works in an inverse way. For example, natural light from the sun can be bounced off a white or reflective surface to create a new light source. This light can be used to fill in shadows on the face or can be positioned as a key light. 

To position the angle of a bounced light, first you find where the light is being bounced by angling the bounce at the ground, and then follow that bounced light as you change the angle of it and move the light into the correct position. 

Usually a white surface is used for softer bounced light such as: from a frame with a white ultrabounce or muslin textile, a white polyboard, or foamcore.

“Then we just did bounce and tested 20x20 ultrabounce and 20x20 muslin, bleached and unbleached, and the muslin was the best one. Also because their costumes were made out of that similar material so it felt very organic…We just had three or four of those on set everyday, three 20x20s, four 20x20s, to control the contrast.” - Pawel Pogorzelski

For harder light with stronger shadows, reflective surfaces like a mirror can be used or a silver polyboard.

Bouncing can be a great way of softening and spreading the light source by using nature’s biggest, strongest, free light - the sun. The output of bounced light will however be lower than the direct source.

Again, it’s also possible to use homemade solutions to bounce light: from rigging up a bedsheet to using a handheld mirror. 

DIFFUSION

Another way to soften light without bouncing it is the common cinematic technique of using diffusion. This is where a translucent modifier is added in between the light source and the subject to soften the contrast and shadow falloff.

For example, a 12x12 frame with a half silk material could be placed overhead between the sun and the subject to soften the intensity of the sunlight and even out harsh shadows.

There are many different materials that can be used for diffusion: such as textiles like silks or grid cloth, 416 gels, or even the diffuser part of a 5-in-1 reflector. 

Again, DIY solutions are also possible, such as a bedsheet, paper or a shower curtain.

“We tend to use unbleached muslin which is lighter, thin canvas which light will travel through and diffuse much more...You can chop them up. You can put them on the floor. They’re much more versatile. You can wash them. Whereas with diffusion plastic you can’t. But in reality you can use whatever you want. You can go to Ikea and buy a shower curtain and use that.” -  Julian White, Gaffer

Placing diffusion in front of a large natural source, like the sun, is a cost effective way of achieving illumination which is more beautiful, soft and cinematic than straight sunlight.

SHAPING

“Look, I was in a hole for a while where I always wanted to light from 3 quarters or the side and then I realised that you get into situations in a scene sometimes where it’s going to have to take place where the camera is at the window and your subject is facing the light source. My answer to that is tons of grip and cutting the light, teasers and all these things.” -  Reed Morano

Shaping, or controlling, how light hits an object is an important aspect of creating cinematic illumination without any fixtures.

As Morano says, this can be done by placing lighting or grip tools such as flags in between the source of the light and the subject to affect the texture and shape of the illumination on surfaces.

Flags, black textiles mounted on various sizes of frames, can be used to block out certain portions of light. For example, so that light only hits a small area on an actor's face.

Some other shaping tools include nets, camo textiles, a cookie, or a dingle - a tree branch attached to a stand.

Production design items, such as curtains and blinds, are a basic way of naturally shaping light that comes in through a window. However, any household object can also be shifted in front of a source to shape the light.  

CONCLUSION

Although it is possible to shoot and work without any film lights by using some of the four techniques in the video, that doesn’t mean it’s always advisable. 

Most DPs use a combination of natural light and film lights along with negative fill, bounce, diffusion and shaping. 

Being able to light scenes without lights, using the techniques in this video, will better inform your cinematography. So that when you do have the budget to rent lights you’ll already know how to adjust its contrast, quality and shape.

How Stanley Kubrick Shoots A Film At 3 Budget Levels

INTRODUCTION

In the world of cinema, Stanley Kubrick is a household name. With a career that spanned multiple decades, he’s considered, with good reason, to be one of the most influential directors of all time.

Despite his longevity, his output of films was pretty low. In 39 years he made 13 films. Part of this can be attributed to him being a filmmaking perfectionist. 

His movies typically involve expressions of inner struggle, supported by inventive photography, innovative editing and a strong use of, usually classical, music.

In this episode I’ll examine Kubrick’s approach to shooting 3 films at 3 different budget levels: Fear And Desire, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining to identify the similarities between the three films and how his way of working progressed over his career.  

FEAR AND DESIRE - $53,000

“I then found out how much feature films were being made for, you know, millions, and I calculated that I could make a feature film for about $10,000...by projecting the amount of film I’d shoot, figuring that I could get actors to work for practically nothing. I mean at this point I was the whole crew, cameraman, assistant cameraman, you know, director, everything.”

Before he had even left high school, Kubrick took up photography and sold his first picture to Look magazine - where he was later hired. From looking at some of his early photographic work it’s easy to tell that he had an incredible eye for visual storytelling and framing.

However he had the desire to make the jump from the photojournalistic world into photographing moving images in the form of short documentaries.

His first documentary short, ‘Day Of The Fight’ was self financed independently and shot with the same careful framing as his photojournalistic work with Bell & Howell Eyemo cameras. 

These compact daylight loading 35mm cameras allowed him to work quickly and use them handheld but their small 100 foot magazines meant that the camera could only roll for just over a minute before it had to be reloaded. After producing and selling a couple of these independent short documentaries he decided it was feasible to embark on a narrative feature.

He chose Fear And Desire, a screenplay with a small scope, contained story about an allegorical Odyssey on the philosophical and psychological struggles of war, which he could produce with his limitations. He calculated that he needed a budget of $10,000 to pay for production and again managed to raise the funds independently.

To save money, the entire production cast and crew consisted of just 15 people. The director, 5 actors , 5 technical crew and some assistants who help transport the gear around the mountain locations they were shooting in.

With the small budget he carefully planned out the film shot for shot beforehand - as he did not have the luxury of affording the film stock or time required to shoot excess shots. To reduce costs and maintain creative control, Kubrick served as both director and cinematographer. 

He shot it on a rented Mitchell NC camera with a set of four Baltar lenses -  a 25mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm. He also used the Eyemo again for certain scenes. He mixed 35mm black and white film stock from DuPont and Kodak, exposing only 50,000 feet of film, a fraction of what standard Hollywood productions used at the time.

The low budget also forced Kubrick to come up with inventive solutions to cinematography and filmmaking, something which he’d repeat throughout his career. For example, to achieve tracking shots without access to a dolly he used a baby carriage to move the camera. 

For another scene where he wanted fog he got hold of a crop sprayer instead. Apparently the cast and crew were nearly asphyxiated because the machinery still contained some insecticide used for its agricultural work.

Despite Fear And Desire being a solid effort for a first film with bold ideas, Kubrick did make some technical mistakes during production, such as a scene inside a cabin where the action was incorrectly blocked and an actor crossed the line by entering the frame from the wrong side. Fixing it required flipping the 35mm negative in the printing process to preserve continuity. 

Kubrick pieced the film together himself in the edit and used an array of unusual cuts, such as abruptly cutting to quick close ups of characters for moments of emphasis that suited the visual storytelling.   

In the end principal photography was achieved on the $10,000 budget. However after forking out for recording sound, effects and a prominent classical music score in post production, the final budget ended up closer to $53,000.

Although not a perfect film - Kubrick would later disown it - it showed great promise for a debut low budget independent narrative feature without a full professional crew.  

Fear And Desire also hinted at some stylistic traits which were carried over into his later films such as: realistic performances, a deliberate visual camera language, using interesting cuts for emphasis, a strong use of music and maintaining complete creative control by working with a small crew. 

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - $2 MILLION

“There’s this myth going around that Stanley is in complete control which is not true because Stanley never knows where to put the camera, he barely knows what scene we’re shooting. He comes in with no preparation. Any director who knows what he is going to do is a very poor director as he must use the elements, spontaneity that happens on the set. He’s able to do that.” - Malcolm McDowell

After a string of successful films Kubrick’s career had progressed from planning out everything beforehand - in Fear And Desire - to being allowed the luxury of spending time on set to work things out. After his work on higher budget, critically acclaimed releases such as 2001 and Spartacus, he wanted his next film to be less ambitious in scope - at the medium budget level.

While looking for a new story to shoot, he came across Anthony Burgess’ novel A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick was immediately attracted to it.

By this point, he had become a perfectionist who researched meticulously, with thousands of photographs taken of potential locations that he requested be within an hour and a half of his house.

During production, as had become his technique, he insisted on shooting a large number of takes with actors for most scenes until he had multiple takes he was happy with. Despite this, filming took place between September 1970 and April 1971, making it one of the quickest film shoots of his professional career.

A Clockwork Orange mainly used real locations situated around London and only two sets were built. Although many locations incorporated vividly colourful or bleak production design - depending on the psychological state of the character.

Kubrick’s reputation for perfectionism carried through when it came to photographing the film. Since first working with a DP on The Killing, he had insisted on retaining control over almost every visual component of production, from framing to even deciding on the lens used. He did however hire DPs to execute his lighting plans.

For A Clockwork Orange he called up English cinematographer John Alcott, who had previously shot the latter part of 2001.

To suit the dream-like quality of the film’s dystopian world, Kubrick decided to use a favourite lens of his, an extremely wide-angle 9.8 mm. This lens gave the image a very wide field of view which distorted and exaggerated the spatial relationships of locations and objects.

He shot it on the Arriflex 35 IIC for handheld as well as his own customised Mitchell BNC camera. It was shot on Eastman 100T film stock. The production used over 450,000 feet of film, which, when compared with the 50,000 feet used on Fear And Desire, gives you an idea of how many more takes he now did. He paired the camera with an interesting customised lens. To achieve extremely long continuous zooms he requested that the Angenieux 20:1 zoom be used. However, since it was built for 16mm film, and they were shooting on 35mm, it needed to be reconfigured with a 1.6x extender in order to cover the 1.66:1 aspect ratio without vignetting.

To give Kubrick the freedom to shoot scenes 360 degrees and to save on budget, Alcott did a lot of the lighting with practicals, such as Photoflood bulbs or fluorescent tubes which appeared in the shot. The lighting in the film mixes the well exposed high-key illumination in high society interiors with more low-key grungy lighting setups. 

For a scene where a character jumps out a window, Kubrick again used an innovative camera technique where a crash cam, a Newman-Sinclair clockwork camera, was placed in a box and dropped from the window. It survived 6 takes.

A Clockwork Orange used its medium budget to create an experimental, highly stylised look, with an expanded scope story, which was shot over a production timeline shorter than many of Kubrick’s other films.     

THE SHINING - $19 MILLION

“Filmmakers are encountering the problem of subconsciously, or unconsciously, of - what importance is a story. Is it more than just a way of keeping people’s attention while you exercise the most subtle aspects of the medium that you’re working with? Or is the story the most important thing or is the story just holding your interest? And the execution of the art form becomes what the audience is interested in.”

After the lack of commercial success and air of disappointment following Barry Lyndon, Kubrick sought to make a film which would be more commercially viable - while still being artistically fulfilling.

He settled on the genre of horror for his next project. 

The story goes that while going through a stack of potential horror novels, Kubrick's secretary would hear the sound of a book hitting the wall as the director threw them into a reject pile after reading the first few pages. Until one day, when she no longer heard any more thuds of books hitting the wall, she went to check on him and found him reading The Shining.

Kubrick had enormous sets constructed on soundstages at EMI Elstree Studios in England for the interior shots in the film. Having all these sets constructed allowed him to shoot the film in chronological order, bouncing around from one stage to another depending on the scene.

“First of all, since it was a supernatural story, we didn’t want to have any impressionistic sets. We wanted it to look like a real hotel. And this is also carried forward into the lighting. You know, we didn’t fall into the trap of a haunted hotel look.”

By now, Kubrick’s directing techniques had evolved tremendously from doing very few takes in Fear And Desire out of necessity to doing absolutely tons of takes on The Shining over an arduous and lengthy production. To facilitate the long production window, which was over a year, he used a small crew.

His philosophy of being spontaneous on set also expanded to the point where he would constantly change the shooting script, sometimes even multiple times per day.

His reported mistreatment of lead actress Shelley Duvall, along with the lengthy and strenuous amount of takes per scene led to her falling physically ill due to stress to a point where, according to reports, Shelley was no longer representing a terrified woman; she was literally terrified.

Again, Alcott was called upon as cinematographer to technically execute the lighting for Kubrick.

It was photographed with an Arriflex 35BL as well as the IIC for certain scenes, with Zeiss Super Speeds and Cooke Varotal lenses. Again he used Eastman 100T 35mm film. 

This time, Kubrick innovated with cinematography through the early use of the Steadicam, which had recently been invented. He got its inventor, Garrett Brown, to operate the Steadicam for shots which required a smooth, floating motion where dolly or crane use wasn’t possible.

Kubrick’s desire to view the Steadicam image at all times, without using cables, also led to innovations in wireless video transmission technology. 

One famous example of Steadicam use was during the maze scene, which they shot on Kubrick’s 9.8mm lens with the camera 24 inches above the ground, chasing the action through the fake snow.

The Shining used its larger $19 million budget to construct enormous sets on various sound stages and shot meticulously with a large shooting ratio for over a year of production.

CONCLUSION

Stanley Kubrick was an independently minded director who did not like to be held back creatively by studios and over the years created a unique style of working which reflected this.

His working style grew from carefully planned low budget filmmaking all the way to taking over a year to photograph a feature with a high budget. His innovative, experimental style, supreme technical photographic knowledge and desire for ultimate creative control did however remain present throughout his career.

If ever there was a director who made sure to fully utilise all the funds at his disposal in the pursuit of bringing his singular artistic vision to the screen, it was Stanley Kubrick.    

Cinematography Style: Marcell Rév

INTRODUCTION

If I had to compartmentalise him, I’d place Marcell Rev in the camp of the new school of cinematographers who like to elevate on screen emotion visually by using higher contrast lighting with mixed colour temperatures, a darker negative and a combination of large format digital and film cameras.

The crux of his cinematography style comes down to the idea of ‘emotional realism’.

In this episode I’ll look at Marcel Rev’s philosophy on photography and show some of the gear which he uses to execute his vision. 

BACKGROUND

Marcell Rev was born in Hungary and studied cinematography at the Academy of Drama and Film in Budapest where he attended a master class led by legendary DP Vilmos Zsigmond.

After starting his career working mainly in Hungary, he’s since transitioned to shooting a lot of US content. He works in short form on commercials and music videos as well as long form on feature films and series.

Some of the directors he’s worked with include: Sam Levinson, his father Barry Levinson and Kornél Mundruczó.  

PHILOSOPHY

One of the directors which he’s probably most known for working with is Sam Levinson. They have a tight creative partnership. 

When working together Rev tends to get involved from day one, being sent early drafts of scripts when the concept is still in the idea phase.

He likes getting involved before pre-production starts whenever possible, especially when working for a very visual director like Levinson. Together they will start collecting images, watching films and putting together some visual ideas.

“We collect these visual references. We discuss them and by the time we’re getting to like actual prep, we kind of know what the feel will look like.”

Identifying the feel or emotion behind the look is a crucial part of his process. I’d describe Rev’s stylistic philosophy as ‘emotional realism’ - a way of showing emotion in a more visually exaggerated way. 

He often uses amped up cinematic choices, like slightly unrealistic coloured lighting for example, which elevates scenes out of complete naturalism, while the characters and story stay rooted in a more realistic approach.

The primary reference they came up with for Euphoria with its individual, ensemble cast members who are all linked together was Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia.

They drew on some of the longer takes Magnolia used which involved intricate camera moves. To execute the carefully choreographed movement they had planned, Rev recruited Jeff Kunkel as his key grip, who had also worked on Magnolia. Surrounding himself with an experienced technical crew is an important part of Rev’s process.

On Euphoria, once they started pre-production with their visual style in mind they then collaborated to develop comprehensive storyboards for the show. Having these storyboards in place was a great structural tool, as it helped them plan out the difficult camera moves required and meant they had a solid plan going in. 

Despite being grounded by a plan, Rev also enjoys moments on set where he can be more reactive and make flexible decisions which may go against the initial plan whenever it’s appropriate. 

“I mean there are instinctive decisions on set. We always have a good plan. For most of the situations, for the entire first season we storyboarded and we came with a plan, but with Sam it’s pretty easy to change things on the day. If we feel like something would work better.”

An example of a more instinctive decision occurred on the Part One Special Episode in Euphoria. 

The majority of the episode takes place in a diner at night in a long scene. Initially they had only planned to shoot a small portion of the scene at the beginning through the glass window from the outside to establish things and then jump inside to shoot the rest of the scene.

After seeing the 35mm film rushes from the first day, Levinson and Rev both liked the glass foreground so much that they decided to cover a significant portion of the scene from outside the diner and then use those shots when necessary in the edit. It was a risky move, since it was a very long scene and they only had a limited time to shoot it but ultimately it added an interesting perspective to the scene which they hadn’t envisioned in pre-production.

GEAR

To achieve a feeling of emotional realism, Rev has used different cameras, lenses and lights depending on the project’s requirements.

He loves shooting on 35mm film and claims it’s his medium of choice for most projects whenever it's feasible. He likes the Arri system and uses the Arricam LT as his go to 35mm camera. He has paired the Arricam with Eastman Double-X 5222 for a classically grainy black and white look on Malcolm & Marie, and almost always uses Kodak Vision3 500T for 35mm colour work.

However he does accept digital cameras are more suitable for other projects. 

White God required working with dogs and rolling for extended periods of time to capture the right moments from the animals. In the end they shot about 170 hours of footage so elected to use the Alexa Mini at 2K for practical and financial reasons. The Alexa’s ability to shoot at 800 ASA with less light also helped him for night scenes where he couldn’t afford the large sources necessary to shoot on the less sensitive 500 ASA film stock which he likes to meter at around 320 ASA.

For Euphoria’s first season he elected to mainly go large format digital, shooting on the Alexa 65. He felt this format had a contemporary feel which suited the mood of the show. As the show and characters matured into the special episodes and season two he swapped large format digital for 35mm film.

However with digital he fights to make the image not feel excessively clean by dirtying it up with lots of atmospheric smoke or using vintage lenses such as the rehoused old glass found in the Arri DNAs.

“We found these amazing lenses for the Alexa large format. We tested with the DNA lenses. Arri is rehousing some old glass. I don’t know what they are, maybe Mamiyas or, I don’t know. They just have this amazing feel to it. And I found one particular lens, a 65mm focal length that we ended up shooting like 98% of the show on that one single lens.”

He’s also used other lenses such as Cooke S4s, Zeiss Super Speeds, Kowa Cine Prominar primes as well as zoom lenses such as the lightweight Angenieux Optimo range. He’s used these zooms to do push ins to direct the audience's focus to a particular character or detail in a shot.

As I mentioned, Rev uses light to evoke an emotional realism. He does this in part by mixing strong light sources with different colour temperatures and hues. He uses a lot of large tungsten units, mixed with LEDs and HMIs.

“I mean I love LED lights but tungsten units have a certain quality that you just can’t match, I think. And when I’m on stage most of the time I do direct sun with tungsten units and I just add a little fill or bounce with HMIs and I endorse that colour contrast. For night exteriors I use tungsten lights a lot.” 

For one night scene at a carnival, his crew rigged four 20K tungsten fresnels on condors in different positions spread throughout the large set to backlight the scene. He hid tungsten maxi brutes behind booths and rides to backlight them and accentuated the rest of the set by including various practical lights in different colours in shot. He then used a big softbox rigged overhead as a toplight to provide soft, overhead, moonlight-esque ambient fill to the scenes.

To get a warm, cool colour contrast he regularly mixes the warm temperature of tungsten lights with HMIs gelled with a cool Cyan 30 or 60 gel. Even if these colours aren’t really realistic, they create a more emotionally exaggerated look, which suits the tone of the show.

To give a sense of chaos and introduce the space, as well as connecting various characters together at the carnival scene he used a Technocrane which dollied, jibbed and telescoped smoothly at various points during a long take.

A lot of his work is done either with a dolly tracking along a straight axis, or a handheld camera which he likes to operate. 

CONCLUSION

Marcell Rev has used his skills and gear throughout his career to sculpt films with a bold visual style which isn’t always overly bothered with reality. 

Instead his photography focuses on using cameras, lights and movement in creative and innovative ways to produce a response which appropriately represents the emotions of the story and the characters. 

5 Tips To Improve Your Filmmaking Without A Camera

INTRO

Part of the trick to succeeding in the film industry means always being proactive, always looking for ways to get work and improve your skills. For those starting out it can be a bit demoralising to just sit at home waiting for the phone to ring with that next job. 

So in today's video I'll look at five things that aspiring cinematographers and filmmakers can do to be proactive and build up their skill set when you don't have access to a camera or a set. 

1. EDUCATE YOURSELF

Since we're living in a time with the easiest access to information ever it's a no brainer to use this to your advantage to develop your filmmaking skills. 

When it comes to learning I'd say around 70% of it can be picked up from actively shooting and working on sets while around 30% of filmmaking can be learnt through education. Whether you agree with this percentage or not, it still makes sense for aspiring filmmakers, and even established ones, to expand the bounds of their theoretical knowledge. 

This doesn't mean that you have to attend a film school. There are many free avenues for education which I'd recommend.

YouTube is a great resource when it comes to expanding your knowledge - if you look in the right places. I'd recommend balancing watching videos which are more technical such as camera setup videos, or cinematography workshops with interviews from some of your favourite filmmakers or behind the scenes videos.

Watching reviews of the newest or latest camera gear on the market is less important than educating yourself on core filmmaking concepts like lighting, focal lengths and blocking scenes.

Reading cinematography articles is another great way of learning. Again, looking at both technical articles such as American Cinematographer along with interview articles of cinematographers or directors that go over the philosophical decision making behind those technical choices. 

If you're just starting out in film and are looking for physical reading material on filmmaking and cinematography some books I’ve found useful are: Painting With Light by John Alton and Film Art by Bordwell and Thompson.

There are also many people on social media posting their lighting diagrams these days. This can certainly be useful when you're starting out to get a sense of lighting concepts but I would caution people checking out these posts to use them as inspiration for their own lighting rather than trying to directly copy these setups. 

2. OBSERVE

Your filmmaking skill set will come from physical application and practice along with the theoretical side. 

I find a great way of working on a more tangible appreciation for lighting - without using any gear - comes from observing light in the real world. When lighting a scene, almost every DP begins by first being aware of what the natural light on a set is already doing and then building on that. 

Actively observing natural light sounds simple but is a great way of building up a subconscious visual database in your mind of what kind of light you like and what kind of light you don't. 

See what happens when you turn off lights in your house, close a curtain or open a door and stand in different positions relative to the light. Observe the nuances. 

For example, if you like the look of light coming through a single window in a dark room then use that the next time you shoot by adding a light outside a window and turning off all the house lights. The more aware you become of how light naturally acts, the better you will be able to manipulate it when you are on set. 

Observing life is also a great way of getting inspiration for your visual storytelling. The best filmmakers tend to draw from their own experiences when they produce art, so being conscious of your surroundings is always going to be helpful.

3. WATCH MOVIES

Watch movies. 

No seriously. Watch movies, series, music videos, commercials, any filmed content. And I don’t mean just zoning out and binging on Netflix. Watch films with a critically aware eye.

Identify what you like about them and what you don't. If you have a favourite movie go back and watch it analytically and identify why you like it. You may find it's the framing, the writing, the editing, the camera movement, the lighting, the production design, or all of the above. 

Whatever it is, store it in the back of your memory, in your subconscious visual database, which you can then pull out as a reference if a suitable project comes along.

Also having a deeper knowledge of film allows you to more easily communicate with your collaborators and crew by referencing a particular movie, shot or director. 

4. NETWORK

You may be the most talented cinematographer in the world, but the reality is that if you don’t have a network of directors to work with you won’t be able to shoot anything.

As film production work is done on a freelance basis, you need to build up a network of contacts willing to employ you or collaborate with you.

This can be done in many ways such as: displaying your work online through a website or social media, attending film festivals and making contacts there, joining a crew agency who will put you forward with new contacts, communicating or reaching out to potential collaborators and production companies directly or making shorts with classmates at a film school.

It takes time and won’t happen overnight but establishing a range of relationships in the industry is the only way to ensure you get consistent freelance work.  

5. PERSONAL SKILLS

To maintain your network of relationships in the industry you need a good level of social skills. It may seem obvious but, like in any occupation, having good personal skills goes a long way.

Plus, who wants to go through life being unnecessarily unpleasant to people.

Back in the day, at least in the industry I work in, there was almost an army-like mentality to crew. Where experienced, upper rank crew members trained apprentices or assistants starting out through, how do I phrase this, verbal and emotional abuse.

This was meant to both toughen up newcomers and scare away those who wouldn’t last in what is a tough industry.  

As this approach is definitely getting phased out of the industry now with newer generations rising up the ranks, these kinds of ‘social skills’ are no longer tolerated as they once were.

Yes, it’s an extremely stressful job and yes, you are often running on minimal sleep and working very long hours. So finding a way to deal with these factors and still maintain a cool, calm, confident and likeable persona on set is a must. Again, there are many ways I’ve found to go about this from meditating or taking a deep breath, to forcing yourself to slow down for a minute and think about each decision you make on set rationally.

However you want to better your personal skills and ability to deal with stress is up to you, but is definitely a crucial part of your filmmaking that you need to develop.

CONCLUSION

Working on all of these facets unrelated to the technical side of making movies is just as, if not more important. 

It’ll put you in the best possible position so that when an opportunity to shoot a project does arise you feel confident to shoot it to the best of your ability.

If you also want to look your best on set, you can check out the new merch that I’ve launched by clicking the link in the description, which has amazing original illustrations specially for people who love film. Otherwise until next time, thanks for watching and goodbye. 

Popular Grips Rigs For Cinematic Camera Movement (Part 1)

INTRODUCTION

One of the keys to creating so-called ‘cinematic’ footage comes from the way in which the camera is positioned and from how it moves during a shot.

The grip on a film set is responsible for the technical execution of these moves using various rigs and pieces of gear which have become standardised across the film industry.

In this video I’ll look at a few of the most popular grip rigs which are used by cinematographers, how they move the camera, their basic setup and what kind of shots they are typically used for. 

FLUID HEAD TRIPOD

Let’s start with the most basic piece of gear that everyone knows about - the tripod. 

Film production tripods are split into two parts: the head, the upper part where the camera sits which can be panned or tilted, and the legs, the base which remains rooted to the ground. Typically, film productions carry two sets of legs, talls and shorts, and one head which is swapped between the legs. The required camera height determines whether talls or shorts are used. For shots with the camera very close to the ground a low boy can be used. 

Heads come in two different types, a geared head and a fluid head. Since it was introduced by Miller in the 1940s, the fluid head has become the most popular head in the film industry due to its ease of use and ability to do quick pans and tilts. They are operated by moving around the pan handle manually. 

Before their invention, operators could only use heads which were turned by gears meshing together and operated by rotating different wheels for pan and tilt. Some operators still prefer using geared heads such as the Arrihead 2 as it gives smoother motion than a fluid head.    

As mentioned, a fluid head can be used with legs, but is also compatible with other rigs such as a ride-on crane or a dolly.

It’s used in a tripod configuration for locked off shots where the camera doesn’t move or for shots which require panning or tilting the camera from a stationary position.

By far the most common fluid head used for film production today is the O’Connor 2575. However there are other brands used such as Cartoni or Sachtler.

To work the head, a baseplate is attached to the bottom of a camera by screws. This baseplate then slides backwards into the camera platform on the head and is locked by pulling the front camera plate lever across. If you release your hand from the camera it will now either be front heavy, where it’ll start to tilt down by itself or back heavy where it’ll tilt up. To rectify this unlock the platform release lever on the side of the head and slide the camera platform forwards or backwards until the head is balanced and it doesn’t tilt by itself.   

There’s a tilt lock on the side and a pan lock on the front. You can also change the amount of resistance the head gives when operated by changing the counterbalance. Heads always come with a bubble to check whether the camera is level with the horizon plane. To even out the head each leg of the tripod needs to be adjusted up or down until the bubble lies in the centre. 

DOLLY

Next up, a piece of gear which is probably most associated with achieving so-called ‘cinematic’ camera movement - the dolly. A dolly is a weighted, wheeled cart which is pushed by a grip or dolly grip to create smooth movement on a horizontal axis. 

They come with a hydraulic arm, which the camera sits on attached to a head, that can be raised or lowered smoothly by turning the valve control handle. The arm comes padded with velcro so that markers can be placed to signify a starting or end point of a hydraulic move. Dollies are steered and pushed using a handle.

This means the camera can be pushed forwards or backwards on an axis as well as raised or lowered during a shot.

A dolly comes with wheels which can either slot onto a track for smooth movement over rough surfaces or be used on even, stable ground such as on the floor of a house.

When using tracks, the DP will decide on a position and length of the move, a team of grips will lay tracks down and then use wooden wedges, packing or apple boxes underneath them to make sure they are completely level - with the help of a spirit level. Once the track is level the dolly will be picked up and placed on the track.

It can take up to four people to pick up a dolly, one person lifting from each wheel, since most weigh upwards of 127kg without a head or a camera. Their excessive weight may make them cumbersome to pick up, but it ensures maximum stability and smoothness when they are pushed.

Many DPs like to use dollies even for shots where the camera may remain stationary, as they make it easy to quickly reposition a heavy camera and find the perfect frame by wheeling it around or jibbing up or down.

It’s also possible to use the dolly without a head, for example with the operator sitting on it with a handheld camera or with the camera suspended from a bungee rig for a looser handheld feel that requires tracking motion.

Other rigs like a slider or a jib arm can also be mounted on a dolly for additional movement possibilities.

There are two brands of film production dollies - Chapman Leonard and J.L. Fisher. The PeeWee series from Chapman are probably the most popular used today. 

TECHNOCRANE

While the dolly allows filmmakers to achieve a wide range of smooth movements, a Technocrane or telescoping crane takes that to the next level. However, it does come at a cost, being one of the most expensive pieces of grip gear to rent along with requiring specialised crew members to operate it.

Technocranes allow camera moves on every axis. They can be mounted to a track with dolly wheels to move forwards and backwards on an axis. The camera is mounted on a remote head which can pan, tilt or even roll the camera. At the same time the crane arm can swivel around and jib up or down. And finally, it has a telescoping arm, which allows the camera to extend or retract remotely. This makes the technocrane suitable for large budget productions which require complex camera motion.

A technocrane comprises a base with four wheels used for transportation (which can be swapped out for dolly wheels) and an arm. 

Different technocranes come with different lengths of telescoping arms. For example a SuperTechno 30 can extend its telescopic arm by 22 feet. When the arm extends a weighted section moves backwards down the arm proportionately to keep the crane balanced.

Operating a technocrane requires a few crew members. A grip holds the back of the crane and controls how it swings and jibs. Another grip then holds a control in their hand that they push to either extend or retract the telescopic arm, kind of like a zoom in or out control on a camera.

To achieve complex moves safely requires skill, experience and communication - which is why the grip team and the DOP will usually communicate using wireless headsets during this process.

Some brands include the SuperTechno and the Moviebird, with the SuperTechno 30 and 50 being popular models. Moving around a technocrane is not a quick or easy process, with the SuperTechno 50 weighing in at over 2,500kg and requiring its own truck to transport it to location. 

This, along with their price tag, means they are usually used exclusively for individual, pre-planned shots rather than as an everyday tool for moving the camera around.

HOSTESS TRAY

Finally, let's look at a type of car mount which is used to film profile shots from the side of a moving vehicle. The hostess tray gets its name from its likeness to the tray stand that held food which used to be attached to cars at a drive-in.  This rig mounts a cheese plate to the open window of a car and is typically secured at the bottom by poles attached to suction cups which are mounted onto the car to form a triangle between the tray and the car.

A camera plate can be attached to a leveling head or directly onto the cheese plate and manipulated to find the desired angle and framing. The camera is then securely locked off so that it cannot move during the shot. 

This allows us to get footage with stationary framing from the outside of a moving vehicle. As it’s directly mounted on the car, any vibrations or bumps from the road will be felt in camera. This provides for a tactile car shot.   

Rigging a hostess tray to a car should always be done by an experienced grip to ensure the safety of all involved in the shot as well as the camera gear. 

There are different manufacturers of these mounts, such as Matthews Studio Equipment or Grip Tech.

How Wes Anderson Shoots A Film At 3 Budget Levels

INTRO

Unlike some of the directors who I’ve covered in this series that have undergone large changes in their shooting budgets, Wes Anderson is a director who has seen more minor, incremental changes in his film around the medium budget range.

Like the incremental changes in budget, his directing style has also changed incrementally over his filmography. However it has been bound since day one by common stylistic traits which make all of Anderson’s films easily identifiable.

His movies are fast-paced comedies, punctuated by melancholic moments, deadpan performances, symmetrical compositions, a limited colour palette, with themes of family dysfunction, unlikely friendships, parental abandonment and loss of innocence, which unfold in their own uniquely contained world - almost like a fable.

In this episode I’ll dive into three films by Wes Anderson - Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and The Grand Budapest Hotel - which he shot at three increasing budget levels - to uncover the similarities between them and how his career and style as an auteur has progressed over time.

BOTTLE ROCKET

“It’s odd in that it’s a movie where some people really do like it quite a lot and so many others really hate it. But I do find that I manage to keep a consistent run of just that kind of response.” 

After graduating in 1990, Anderson and Owen Wilson decided to write and shoot their own black and white short film called Bottle Rocket. They convinced indie producer Cynthia Hargrave to fund their $4,000 short. Due to their inexperience in producing they ran out of money after shooting 8 minutes worth of footage. However those 8 minutes were enough to secure the additional funding to finish the 13 minute short. The final film managed to get into Sundance film festival in 1994, where Anderson and Wilson also attended their lab.

A family friend of the Wilson family, whose three brothers starred in the short, managed to get a copy of the film as well as the script for the feature length version to producer Polly Platt.Platt organised for James L. Brooks, an executive producer with his company Gracie Films, to visit Anderson and the Wilson brothers. At the time they were all living together.  

“Jim Brooks is coming here. We were living in Dallas. And I said, ‘So, we’re gonna go get him at the airport?’ And they said, ‘No, he’s coming here to where we lived.’ We lived in, this place was a hovel, it was a really squalid place. In fact I got double pink eye one time during the winter staying with Owen and Luke and I think Wes might have been staying in one of the rooms or it might even have been in the same room with us. We were all sleeping in the same room for warmth.”

Like their living situation, the film was the product of a close knit group of family and friends. At the time, Brooks had a deal with Columbia Pictures to finance a low-budget film of his choice and, after reading their script, he liked it so much he decided that that low-budget film should be Bottle Rocket.

Like with all his films, Anderson had a unique vision for how it should be made and sought to clarify his vision in pre-production. He got a pin board and created a huge collage of images which represented the colour palette of the film sets.

Going in he knew how he wanted to frame the movie, but didn’t know how it should be lit. To execute his film visually and light it he turned to cinematographer Robert Yeoman. Anderson tracked down Yeoman’s address and sent a personal letter along with the enclosed script which he loved. When they met in person they immediately creatively clicked.

They hired a small cast and crew and tried to create a family atmosphere during production. He carried this style of working over onto his subsequent movies.

Although he had a clear vision for the film Anderson and the Wilson’s had to come to grips with the technical process along the way.

“When we started the movie Owen and I didn’t know what a focus puller was. So you know there was a camera and the camera operator and then Wes and the sound guy. Then there was this guy John Boccaccio who had the focus right here and he sat right beside the camera and just had this kind of poker face. After about the second day Owen and I were like ‘This guy hates us!’”

Yeoman photographed the film in 35mm colour on a Panavision camera with spherical Primo lenses. They decided to shoot the whole film on a 27mm lens. When the producers caught wind of that they tried to put a stop to it. So, Yeoman got his AC to change up the lenses on the camera report which they handed in to production - a 15mm here, a 100mm there - even though they actually used the 27mm for the whole movie.

Once completed, to their dismay, Sundance rejected the film. It was a commercial failure and struggled to find an audience. However, it received critical acclaim from reviewers and over the years attained a cult status.

Anderson used the low $5 million budget to create Bottle Rocket using 35mm colour film, a small cast and crew and a contained story which featured early signs that hinted at the emergence of his trademark style.

RUSHMORE

Years before Bottle Rocket was made Anderson and Wilson had already started writing Rushmore based on their own school experiences: with Wilson being expelled from an elite prep school and Anderson sharing the lead character’s motivation, lack of academic interest and a crush on an older woman.

After initial talks to produce the film with New Line Cinema fell through due to a disagreement on budget, Anderson, Wilson and producer Barry Mendel held an auction for the film rights in mid-1997 and struck a deal with Joe Roth, of Walt Disney Studios.

They came up with a budget of $10 million, a step up from his initial film into the medium budget range.

Anderson wrote the role of Mr. Blume specifically for Bill Murray but doubted they would be able to get him on board. However, Murray’s agent had seen and enjoyed Bottle Rocket and got Murray to read the script for Rushmore. After reading and connecting with the script Murray agreed to come on and even to work for scale, which is the minimum wage that actors need to be paid - stipulated by the screen actors guild. The total cost of his rate was around $9,000, a tiny fraction of what he would usually be paid for such a role.

With one month to go before production began they were still without their lead actor for Max. On the last day of casting they found Jason Schwartzman who had been introduced to the casting director at a party, as a cousin of filmmaker Sophia Coppola.

Anderson was then faced with the task of finding the main school location.

“We searched all over the place and did the same thing that we did for Max. We look at schools all over the country, all over Canada and all over England. Then my mother sent me pictures of my school and I realised that’s what I was trying to find in all of those places. I was trying to find one like that.”

To prepare for the film Anderson drew basic storyboards by hand. Some storyboards were almost a shot for shot identical match with the final cut, whereas other storyboard frames changed on set during shooting as the location and actors blocking sparked new ideas.

He again teamed up with Yeoman to photograph Rushmore. This time they had more money, a larger canvas, Bill Murray and Anderson had more experience in film production.

He built on the visual style of Bottle Rocket by including symmetrical frames, a contained colour palette, top down close ups, hand-made production design and flat space camera moves. This is where the camera moves directly forwards, backwards, up or down as opposed to the more standard method of moving the camera across at an angle. 

They also incorporated new camera techniques such as zooms and whip pans. To execute these moves Yeoman used a dolly for most of the film with a fluid head that allowed him to move the camera with enough speed to do the whip pans.

For vertical up-down movement he also used a crane.

These custom shots and intricate moves were often more challenging and difficult to shoot than just relying on regular coverage but they built in a visual language which supported the whimsical, fable-like world of the story.

This time Yeoman shot with anamorphic glass. Again, with his preferred Panavision setup. He used the Panavision Primo anamorphic lenses on the Platinum. Like on Bottle Rocket they maintained a wide field of view by sticking to the 40mm anamorphic lens for around 95% of the shoot. A 40mm anamorphic lens is very wide and has a field of view somewhere close to a 20mm spherical lens in Super 35.

Another creative flourish Anderson employed was creating the month name titles to structure the film on curtains by using a slide projector with a xenon bulb. Using curtains to bookend scenes also added to the theatrical nature of the film.

Yeoman mainly lit the film using Kino Flos, HMIs and lots of light modification using flags, diffusion, negative fill and nets to shape the light.

For a shot where Murray jumps into the pool, Yeoman opted to shoot it at night using strong light sources. Underwater shots require lots of strong, directional lighting in order to get a clear image. If using natural light and the sky is overcast it may look murky underwater. So they cut from shooting the above the water scene in daylight to shooting the underwater shot night for day.

Anderson truly found himself as a director on Rushmore and used the larger $10 million budget to create a more expansive cinematic world, with more expensive locations and production design, a popular music soundtrack, a moderate scope story, using more elaborate technical gear and a star. 

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL

After a string of successful and original films which continued to build on Anderon’s unique style, he embarked on making The Grand Budapest Hotel. The initial idea for the film was conceived in 2006 when Anderson and Hugo Guinness wrote an 18 page story draft.

Anderson became fascinated with the work of Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, especially his pre- World War Two novels such as Beware of Pity and The World of Yesterday. He used this as inspiration for creating a historical pastiche which took a more disillusioned approach to pre-World War Two European history.

With a larger estimated budget of $25 million Anderson was able to cast a troupe of well known actors, many of whom he’d worked with previously. Once again, he paired up with Yeoman for their 7th feature length film together.

The pair scouted possible shooting locations across Europe before eventually deciding on eastern Germany, due to its combination of easy logistics and ideal locations. 

The production design team were tasked with transforming a former department store into the main hotel lobby location.

While scouting they would sometimes bring along a camera to work out scenes, with crew members tasked to stand in for actors. Since locations feed so heavily into Anderon’s films, he and Yeoman used these scouts to work out the scenes as much as possible.

Like on his prior films, storyboards were created which were then edited into an animatic. Visually they drew on a bunch of references: from films to books to old colourised photos.

To delineate the three different time periods Anderson used different aspect ratios that were the popular photographic formats for each period of time. The squarer Academy 1.37 for the 1930s scenes, widescreen 2.40 anamorphic for the 60s and 1.85 for the 1980s.

This time Yeoman shot in the Arri system with a single Arricam ST paired with spherical Cooke S4s and an Angenieux Optimo 24-290mm zoom for the 30s and 80s, and Technovision-Cooke anamorphics for the vintage 1960s look. Again he used mainly wider focal lengths which distorted more around the edges, such as the 40mm Technovision anamorphic.

Along with the aspect ratios, Yeoman also used light to differentiate the time periods. For the 1930s scenes in the hotel lobby, he bounced 20 4K HMIs off frames on top of the roof through the skylight window. This produced a soft, gentle ambience. The lobby was then punctuated with tungsten practicals which gave the 1930s space a warm, inviting feeling. Then for the 1960s scenes which take place after the eastern bloc communist era takeover, his production designer created a fake ceiling which could be lowered to block out all the soft, ambient light from the skylight. Then, as was common in post communism 60s Europe he lit the space to invoke the feeling of fluorescent overhead fixtures.

To do this his team rigged 24 12 light maxi brutes shining through a layer of 216 diffusion which covered the ceiling. This light feels subtly harsher and more oppressive than the gentle, warm ambience of the 1930s when the hotel was in its prime.

All the lights were put on dimmers. He usually lit to a T/3.5 stop but for zoom shots on the older Techno-Cooke anamorphic 40-200mm he lit to T/8 because the lens looks soft if it's not shot at a deeper stop.

Yeoman also referenced the dramatic lighting changes that Vittorio Storaro used in One From The Heart. To emphasise and punctuate certain emotional moments he would use the dimmers to fade the lights up or down during the take.

As always Anderson and Yeoman shot on film, this time Kodak Vision3 200T without using an 85 colour balance filter for exteriors and got the lab to do the basic colour balance in post instead.

The larger budget of The Grand Budapest Hotel accommodated a range of well known actors, in a more expansive story with more complex sequences, larger production design builds and big lighting setups.

CONCLUSION

As he matured as a director, Wes Anderson carried certain trademark features across his films and built his style into one which is easily identifiable at a glance.With each film he made his style became more and more pronounced.

By crafting his stories piece by piece with individual storyboarded shots, rather than through conventional coverage, Anderson builds up a visual world for his stories which sucks in the audience.

Whether you like or dislike his films, one thing that can’t be denied is that he is a wholly original and unique voice in the world of cinema. 

New IDC Merch!

I’m excited to announce that In Depth Cine now has official merch!

The designs feature original, custom illustrated drawings (by illustrator Greg Bakker) which are perfect to wear on set, and, at the same time, show your support for the channel. 

We spent a lot of time and effort on these, making sure that the drawings both look cool and accurately represent film crew and the real gear used on film sets - something you’ll struggle to find anywhere else.

So, if you want to have a look at these unique designs and support the channel visit the store to check them out! 

Cinematography Style: Ellen Kuras

INTRODUCTION

Ellen Kuras's career as a cinematographer spans multiple forms and genres over a few decades. Documentaries, high budget movies, indie feature films, music videos, shorts, she's done it all.

Her work stands out as being representative of her own point of view and is characterised by visual metaphors that reflect the meaning of the story being told. 

In this episode I'll show how Ellen Kuras' philosophy on creating images and the gear that she uses informs her own cinematography style. 

BACKGROUND

American DP Ellen Kuras was led into film through studying anthropology, where she had to produce documentary projects. Her first notable film as a cinematographer was a short documentary in Cambodia which received the Eastman Kodak Best Cinematography Focus Award, won an Academy Award in the student film competition and screened at Sundance. 

That same year she shot Swoon, her first dramatic feature film, which kickstarted her career as a cinematographer. 

She’s shot a range of projects for a range of well known directors as well as also working as a director herself. Some of her collaborators include: Michel Gondry, Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch and Sam Mendes.  

PHILOSOPHY

“There's kind of a different environment now in the world of cinematography. You can make a film with your iPhone. So the question becomes: what distinguishes you from another person who's making a film?”

Kuras believes the answer to this question lies in the point of view or perspective that the DP brings to a project.

She uses her perspective to create visuals that reflect the meaning of the story which is being photographed - a lesson she learnt early in her career when she hired someone else to shoot her anthropology masters thesis film in the 1980s.

“It was really beautifully shot, but it was missing something. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. I was just like, ‘It doesn't move me.’”

Even though the film looked beautiful it was missing the connection of a visual metaphor which connected to the core of the film.

Therefore it felt empty. 

From that moment on she picked up the camera and began shooting documentaries. She challenged herself to be cognisant of the form of the photography and to sculpt it to suit the film’s meaning.

“Every single shot has a story to it. Every single time you pan the camera, there's a reason for it. There's a reason why you choose the lenses you do. Why do a dolly move? Because it looks like a cool shot? Maybe. But then, what does it mean? You have to understand that when we see something, we perceive it visually as an audience and it affects us.”

Kuras paired her awareness of the visual language with the core requirement of a DP, which is to translate a director’s vision to the screen. Sometimes this required deviating from her own preferences in order to service the desires of the director.

She likes building up a kind of telepathy between the director and cinematographer.

In order to create this relationship, gain an intimate knowledge of the story and to make herself familiar with the director’s vision for the film she insists on extensive pre production prep.

For long form narrative work she requests at least 4 days with the director before the shoot starts. She dislikes taking time on set to do this as it loses the production valuable shooting time. Kuras uses this knowledge to translate the director’s descriptions and feelings about the story into photographic form by making technical decisions. 

For example, on Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind the language had to be organic and dynamic to add a naturalism and imperfection to the relationship of the characters and avoid the film becoming static. To create this visual metaphor they made the decision to shoot handheld, using longer takes and not being precious about the shots being steady or traditionally cinematic. This added an emotional layer to the camerawork which was the right visual tone for the movie.

One of the first questions she asks herself when crafting a visual language for a film is whose point of view the story, or a particular moment, needs to be told from. 

She emphasises that it's especially important for cinematographers to be aware of this in documentaries where DPs may sometimes have to shoot portions of the film without the director being present. 

GEAR

“I was asking everybody. I was like ‘listen, do you know anybody who has a used camera I can buy.’ Somebody said, ‘Talk to that guy over there. He’s an equipment dealer.’ I talked to him and turns out he’d just got an SR2. I borrowed money, I begged my parents and I bought this camera. And I t changed my life.”

Owning her first 16mm camera - the Arri SR2 - allowed her access to shoot whenever she needed, including on her first notable documentary project in Cambodia. She also built up a familiarity with the camera in her early career which allowed her to operate it effectively and efficiently as an extension of herself.

Unlike some DPs, Kuras is not precious about sticking to a particular set of lenses, cameras or film stocks. She changes her selection of gear depending on the needs of the project.

She’s used 35mm film cameras such as the Panavision Millennium and Platinum, the Arricam ST and LTs and of course her own Arri SR2 for 16mm.

While most of her work has been on celluloid, she’s started using the Sony Venice for jobs that need a digital camera, which she has occasionally supplemented with the A7S II. 

The lenses she’s used have included: Panavision C and E-Series anamorphics, the vintage Cooke Xtal Express anamorphics, Zeiss Super Speeds and Cooke S4s.

However she doesn’t limit herself to prime lenses and likes using zooms such as the Cooke Varokinetal 16mm zoom or the Angenieux Optimo range. 

When she was starting out she pushed against the zeitgeist that cinematographers should only use primes due to the inferior optical qualities of zoom lenses. Zooms gave her the opportunity to make subtle movements in or out without being too prescribed. On Swoon she did push ins at the end of a take to bookend scenes after the director called cut, to capture the actors doing a physical release. 

Kuras tells a story of getting the blessing of legendary DP Sven Nykvist to use zooms. He told her to follow whatever she feels, her point of view, and let the choices in gear be dictated by that.

She likes finding creating solutions and isn’t afraid of limiting her selection of film gear on a job. For example, on Eternal Sunshine she didn’t use a regular dolly at all and instead opted for a doorway or sled dolly, or sometimes even a wheelchair which the camera operator sat on with a handheld camera on the shoulder while her grip tracked.

Some overhead shots were also done on a rideable GF-8 crane and operated handheld on the shoulder rather than off a stabilised head or a fluid head - as is the norm.

She likes including practical lighting fixtures on locations. Sometimes she supplements these with various single lightbulbs rigged to dimmers. Her longtime gaffer, John Nadeau, fabricated a creative, custom light rig with four clip lights to a c-stand which was shaped and controlled by using blackwrap. They could position this to create a realistic quality of practical light.

She likes supplementing existing light with added film lights. For example, in a street exterior night scene she rigged additional sodium vapour lights onto telephone poles to augment the existing streetlights.

Kuras has used different Kodak and Fuji stocks over her career. However, she took a particular liking to Fujifilm stocks such as Reala 500D due to its cooler cyan bias in the shadow areas, its saturation and grain. Again, this went against the status quo of the time that shadows should be pure black without cyan.

CONCLUSION

While at times Ellen Kuras’ style may have gone against the grain of traditional cinematography conventions, her decisions were always motivated by her point of view which use visual metaphors to enforce the story.

While she’s certainly technically proficient and a solid camera operator, she claims her most valuable asset to be her point of view. 

That's what truly and uniquely identifies and differentiates each DP from each other.

How To Shoot A Scene With A Single Camera

INTRO

Creating a film is just like creating a physical product. Before you start fussing over intricate details it's important that you understand the basic mechanics of how they are made. Every film needs a solid foundation. 

In this video I'll outline some of those filmmaking 101 concepts by introducing the idea of coverage and show how to use it to shoot scenes using only a single camera.  

SINGLE CAMERA VS MULTIPLE CAMERAS

Before we get into coverage, let's take a quick look at why some productions choose to shoot with a single camera and why other productions rely on using multiple cameras. 

Straight away, the biggest case for productions choosing to shoot scenes using multiple cameras comes from the simple notion that shooting with more cameras allows you to get more footage in a shorter time. 

How this works practically is that the director and cinematographer will consult and work out which angles and shot sizes they would like to capture the scene in. They will then carefully position the two cameras so that they can both capture different angles or shot sizes without either of the cameras being in the shot.

The cameras will roll, the director will call action and the actors will play out the scene. If using two cameras then one take will yield two different angles, whereas if using one camera the actors will need to run through the same scene two times to cover the same angles.

Filmmakers who like to edit their films quickly and include many different camera angles, such as Edgar Wright for example, find this way of working ideal as it provides them with more cutting options when putting the film together. 

For multicam dialogue scenes, a common tactic is to use an A camera and B camera arrangement which captures two actors in alternating shots. Using multiple cameras is also favoured for scenes which are either very expensive or practically difficult to do multiple takes of, such as a large explosion or car crash in an action scene or a scene where an actor really shaves off their hair.

You may then wonder why all productions don't just use as many cameras as possible to limit the amount of takes actors need to do and to speed up production. Well, there are a few reasons for that. 

The most obvious reason is budget.

Hiring an extra camera, set of lenses and camera accessories is expensive. Especially when dealing with high end cinema cameras rented for weeks or sometimes months at a time. Also for each additional camera extra crew needs to be hired to run them, such as a camera operator, a focus puller and a loader. However there are some films, which have no shortage of budget, and still opt to use just one camera. 

Roger Deakins is well known for refusing to use multiple cameras whenever possible. Even on huge blockbusters such as Blade Runner 2049 or Skyfall, Deakins fought against the Line Producer's desire to use up to nine cameras and instead insisted on shooting with one unit on a single camera for the majority of the film. Why is that?

One disadvantage of using multiple cameras is that it often requires compromising on a shot. To make sure an extra camera is out of shot, cinematographers may be forced to adjust their preferred angle and frame. Accommodating two cameras may also force them into using a longer focal length such as a 200mm zoom lens to see less background in a close up. The option to use wider lenses on multiple cameras may not be possible. 

Also including specific, custom shots with movement across a set may make shooting with an extra camera impossible. 

Finally, some directors prefer using one camera as a way to carefully craft each actor's performance. Shooting each actor's close up performance individually allows the director and actor to work on specific details and nuances in each take. Whereas shooting a scene with four different cameras on four different actors at the same time can be less focused. 

It makes it more difficult to communicate with all the different actors simultaneously and even view and identify the directions to give during each performance.

Broadly, single cameras enable filmmakers to craft each individual shot in a more focused way, while using multiple cameras allow productions to get more cutting options and save on shooting time. 

WHAT IS COVERAGE? 

Before diving into the mechanics of shooting a scene with one camera it's important to understand the concept of coverage. To conventionally edit a scene together you need multiple angles and shot sizes to work with. 

Therefore, most filmmakers rely on what we call getting coverage. This refers to the process of filming a master shot, which records the entire action and dialogue in the scene, and then shooting a variety of other takes from different angles, sometimes in certain portions. 

This way a scene is 'covered' from multiple angles and can be cut together using bits and pieces from a collection of shots: a wide shot, a medium shot and a close up. 

A script supervisor is hired in order to ensure each shot matches up correctly with the others without any mistakes or lapses in continuity which may disrupt the illusion.

While this method is the most common there are other ways to cover scenes, such as in a single long take. However shooting in a single take leaves the editor no way to alter the pacing of the scene, cut around mistakes or insert magical pieces of performance. 

Shooting a single take requires perfection from beginning to end, which is difficult due to all the moving pieces that need to fall into place such as blocking, performance, camera movement and focus. 

HOW TO SHOOT A SCENE WITH A SINGLE CAMERA

Quick disclaimer. There are a million different ways to shoot a scene. In this introductory video I'll use the most basic and common approach used to create a solid foundation of coverage. 

The way I like to think about shooting coverage with a single camera is to imagine meeting someone at a party. This may seem weird but bear with me. 

When you first enter a room, people are further away. You start by seeing someone from across the room with a broad field of view. This is like a wide shot. As you get more confident you begin moving through the space and get closer to the person. Your eyes now have a field of view which sees people from the waist up: a medium shot. Once you introduce yourself to someone you get much closer. As you talk one on one and maintain eye contact, you view them in a close up. 

Filmmakers tend to apply this same philosophy when shooting and cutting together a scene. 

They start on a wide to establish the space, move into medium shots for general conversation and as the scene builds to a more intimate or intense moment with a character that we are now familiar with, we cut to a close up.

Although this is standard practice and feels more normal to viewers, some filmmakers like to twist convention by mixing up the order of these shots for creative or emotional effect. To edit a basic scene together therefore it helps to have a wide, a medium and a close up shot of each key character. 

It's most common to start by shooting the wide and running the scene from beginning to end and then progressively move the camera closer to the actors with each new setup. 

Starting on a wide means that the production design must be fully set up before you can shoot. This minimizes continuity errors which may occur by shooting the close up first and then adding bits and pieces of details to the background or set as you get wider and realise something is missing. As the wide sees everything it determines the blocking and continuity for the entire scene. 

Also, some directors like to start wide to let the actors get a sense of the scene, their blocking and refine their performances before the camera captures them up close - where nuances in their actions can be most easily observed. 

After getting the wide, the camera will then move into mids, or medium shots, starting with one actor before moving onto another.  Once we've got a wide and two medium shots we move to a more intimate position and get close ups. 

By this stage the actors have performed the scene multiple times and, with the help of the director, should have found the right tone for their performances by now. 

Throughout this process they will usually run through the whole scene for each new shot. But sometimes, to save time or to redo a specific moment or line of dialogue from the scene, the director will do a pick up. As the name suggests this is where a shot is 'picked up' from a certain point in the script.

Now that the scene has been covered in these three shot sizes, a director may request an insert shot. This is a separate take where we see a key detail in the scene and is often shot in an extreme close up. 

On large enough jobs, these insert shots are sometimes done at a later stage by a second unit if the main unit runs out of time. And voila, with those basic shots in the can, you should now have enough coverage for the editor to cut between and create a scene! 

CONCLUSION 

Once you understand and can apply this basic formula it's then possible to start experimenting and looking for inventive ways to cover a scene. However, it's useful to remember that the camera should always aid the storytelling. It shouldn't be a distraction. 

Sometimes fancy, choreographed long takes work best, but sometimes the most effective way to tell the story is through ordinary, conventional coverage.

What A Gaffer Does On Set: Crew Breakdown

INTRO

In this series I go behind the scenes and look at some of the different crew positions on movie sets and what each of these jobs entails.

For anyone who would like to work in film, knowing what is expected of your role is of course a given, but having a basic understanding of the roles of other departments on set also comes in handy. In this Crew Breakdown video I’ll go over the head of department position in the lighting department, gaffer, to break down what they do, their average day on set and some tips which they use to be the best in their field.

ROLE

In film production the gaffer, sometimes referred to as the chief lighting technician, is responsible for executing, and sometimes designing, a production’s lighting plan. The word gaffer was derived from a hooked metal pole called a gaff which was used to adjust stage lights.

The role and contribution of the cinematographer and the gaffer on set can be flexible. 

On paper, the director of photography is responsible for the concept and design of the lighting which they then delegate to the gaffer who practically executes that plan with the electrical team. The lighting department has a hierarchical setup. Since productions usually deal with truck loads of lighting equipment, a full team is required to quickly move around and set up the gear.

The gaffer is at the top and consults directly with the DP. 

They pass down instructions to their best boy electric, second in command, who leads a team of sparks or electricians in setting up the lights. A genny op is responsible for power generation and running cables to the various lighting fixtures.   

As there are a variety of DPs with a variety of working styles, the manner in which they navigate their relationship with their gaffer occurs on a spectrum.

Some DPs like to be very technical and specific about their setups. For example they may ask their gaffer to put up an 18K HMI at a specific height and angle outside a window bounced off an 8x8 half silk with a ¼ CTS gel frame a meter in front of the light.

Other DPs may be more conceptual about their lighting and ask their gaffer for a strong, bounced source which is warmed up a bit and then let their gaffer handle the specifics of executing the setup.

Most DPs are somewhere in the middle.

Gaffers require an extensive knowledge of film production lighting and electrical concepts.  They need to know everything: from being able to calculate the amount of power generation required to run large lighting setups, to having an in-depth knowledge of lighting fixtures available on the market as well as an eye for using that technology to create specific qualities, strengths and shapes of light.

Due to this required wealth of knowledge, some gaffers have been known to make the move up to DP. For example, Erik Messerschmidt transitioned from working as Jeff Cronenweth’s gaffer on Gone Girl to being cinematographer on David Fincher’s subsequent projects.

The lighting and grips departments have some overlap in their duties which differs depending on the country.

In the ‘British System’, adopted across the UK, Europe and Commonwealth countries, including South Africa where I work, the lighting department is responsible for handling both the electrical equipment as well as the basic rigging of it using stands, frames and tools for modifying and shaping light.

In the ‘US System’ the lighting department only handles the lights themselves and the distribution of electrical power. The grips department sets up the stands, does the rigging and handles equipment that modifies light, such as setting up flags or diffusion.

Many gaffers buy their own gear which they keep in their lighting truck and then rent out to productions through their own company. Any additional gear needed will then be acquired from a rental house.

AVERAGE DAY ON SET

A gaffer’s job begins before they even step onto set. In the build up to a job they will meet with the DP to determine their vision for the lighting and come up with a plan.

They will assemble a gear list which falls within the production’s budget and organise a lighting crew, with more or less members depending on the nature and complexity of the setups. Sometimes locations will be pre-lit and sometimes they will be lit during the shooting day. 

Pre-lighting means that the gaffer or best boy will supervise the rigging and setup of lights at a location before the rest of the crew arrives. This is done to save on setup time on the actual day of shooting. Once all the lights are roughly in place, as per the gaffer’s instructions, the DP will then bring in a camera and consult with the gaffer to do lighting tweaks. This may include repositioning lights, adding negative fill, diffusion or practical fixtures. 

These tweaks usually continue between different setups of a scene. For example a light may be moved closer or refined for an actor’s close up.

When working on film, and sometimes with digital, the DP may ask for a strength of light as well as a colour temperature. This is measured in kelvin, foot candles or in stops on a light meter. For example, the DP may ask the gaffer to give them a key light with a stop of 5.6 at 500 ASA at 3,200K.  The gaffer must ensure that the lights that they hire have sufficient output to achieve the DP’s desired strength of illumination.

For larger rigging or lighting setups the gaffer will consult with the key grip to ensure the safe execution of those setups. 

When a scene is completed, the electrical team will de-rig the lights and begin setting up for the next scene. This is then repeated throughout the day.  

TIPS

Of the gaffers that I’ve observed, the most successful ones tend to stick to hiring the same lighting crew from job to job.  Of course this rule isn’t set in stone, but generally having a team of technicians that are familiar with each other and a set style of working are able to deliver lighting setups quickly and efficiently.  Particularly on short form jobs like commercials where the crew may only have a day to get used to a system of working.

Most teams work with coms and earpieces. The gaffer on set can then give instructions to his team over radio to communicate effectively and make a request happen as quickly as possible. Lighting crews may also stagger the position of themselves and the gear on the location. For example, one spark may be at the lighting truck, making sure the gear there is organised. Other sparks will be on standby with gear which may potentially be requested just outside the location. And the gaffer will be on the actual set within earshot of the DP, ready to communicate any requests to his team. 

As with any crew position, being proactive is encouraged. For a gaffer this may include ‘offering something up’ or making creative or technical suggestions to the DP which they may decide to go with.

To minimise setup time, gaffers communicate the setups for the day to their team before they happen. That way, gear that is not being used can be set up in the next location ahead of time or begin getting packed away to cut down on wrap time at the end of the day. 

When shooting exteriors, gaffers often use apps such as SunSeeker or weather apps to try and predict where the sun will be during the day. A gaffer glass, a high density UV inhibitor, is also used to look directly at the sun without damaging the eye to determine its position and how it will travel through clouds. Another old trick is to look at the reflection of the sun against a reflective surface like a pair of sunglasses. 

They then communicate this information to the DP, for example saying that in about 5 minutes there will be full sun.  

How Edgar Wright Shoots A Film At 3 Budget Levels

INTRO

In this series I take a look at the careers of different directors by comparing three of their films shot at increasing budget levels.

Edgar Wright is a director known for producing snappy, kinetic, genre mash-ups which utilise the camera and the edit in inventive and stylised ways. In this video I’ll break down Wright’s filmmaking process and approach to shooting: A Fistful Of Fingers, Shaun Of The Dead and Baby Driver, to identify the similarities between the three films and how his career has progressed over time.    

A FISTFUL OF FINGERS 

Between the ages of 18 and 20 Edgar Wright indulged his early passion for cinema by making three hour-long genre films on video with his school friends. One was a superhero movie, one a cop movie and one a western, to which he gave the tongue in cheek title: A Fistful Of Fingers. These early undertakings displayed a fascination with genre which would continue throughout his career as director.

While at Bournemouth Art College he became inspired by filmmakers like Sam Raimi and Robert Rodriguez who made their own no-budget movies. And so, he set out to produce a proper feature length version of his prior video taped A Fistful of Fingers which mashed up the western traits with satirical films like Monty Python And The Holy Grail.

“My tutor warned me not do a spoof as my first movie, and he was probably right, but I ignored his advice. They had a PC in the college library, so I holed up in there and painstakingly typed out the script. As you can probably tell from the movie, I never did a second draft. It might have been better if I did.”

To get funding to make the film he tried reaching out to celebrities such as Jonathan Ross.

When that didn’t yield any success he turned to the editor of the local newspaper. It turned out he had just come into an inheritance and he decided to use a portion of it to fund Wright’s movie as a way to reduce his tax bill on the funds. 

With the modest budget he was able to hire a skeleton film crew, some gear and pay for the 16mm Fujifilm stock over 21 days of shooting.

To accommodate catering into the modest budget he made a deal with a local pizza restaurant, which meant he and his crew ate pizza every day of the shoot.

Wright got his school friends, some of whom did drama and school plays, to act and even managed to score a cameo from TV celebrity Jeremy Beadle.

“I was a big Western fan, but hadn't quite matured into liking Howard Hawks and John Ford. My parents used to talk about Sergio Leone films a lot. And I got really into them. I love Clint Eastwood. I love the camera angles. I love the music. And when it came to picking a subject matter for a comedy film, a Western seemed doable. We could just go stand in a quarry with some toy guns. No sets required.”

Wright would maintain these core ideas of using homages to genre films, interesting camera work and a heavy use of music throughout his subsequent movies. He employed some of Sergio Leone’s aesthetic and stylistic tropes, such as using close ups and quick cutting during standoffs and a musical motif.

While he did draw inspiration from these techniques, A Fistful Of Fingers also hints at the formation of what would become his own visual style: a quick, kinetic cutting on prominent sound design beats to detailed extreme close ups.

Rather than just copying, he twisted genres to produce something which was unique.

To edit the film he was able to score a suite, which was basically a broom closet, at Pinewood Studios. 

“It only just qualifies as a feature because it’s 78 minutes long. The original assembly edit of the movie, which is the longest it can possibly be before you’ve cut anything out, was 72 minutes long.”

He learnt an important lesson in post that in order to use quick cutting in the edit he required more footage than he had managed to get during production.

“There just wasn't anything to cut to, to speed up the pace, because every shot is in there. I think I've over-compensated for it ever since, with the amount of coverage I get. You shoot more stuff to make the film faster."

Although in hindsight Wright admits that the movie wasn’t that great his debut low budget feature did: serve as an introduction into feature filmmaking, get him exposure as a young director, made him useful industry contacts, and acted as a learning curve which established some of his early stylistic traits and creative voice. 

SHAUN OF THE DEAD

“When we were shooting the scene with the zombies outside the pub one of the zombies in make up came up to me thinking that I was a runner and just looked over at me and went, ‘Whooh, straight to video for this one.’” 

With the contacts that Wright made from his first movie he was able to start directing BBC TV shows.

One of those shows, Spaced, became a cult sitcom and paired him up with a collaborator he would work with for many years to come - Simon Pegg. Together they wrote a screenplay, developing it from an episode of Spaced. 

This time he drew from the genre conventions of the rom com and, of course, the zombie movie. The roles were specifically written for Pegg and Nick Frost. He secured a low $6 million budget from Working Title Films.

“I felt with Shaun of the Dead I was getting a second chance to make my first movie. I left nothing to chance.”

He therefore prepped the film as much as possible in advance and had it fully worked out by the time production began. David M. Dunlap, an established camera operator and 2nd unit DP, was brought on to photograph the project. 

Perhaps, selecting a cinematographer who was better known as a 2nd unit DP allowed the production to save a bit of money and showed that Wright was confident in communicating the film’s visual direction to a cameraman who could technically execute it.

Dunlap opted to shoot on multiple Arricam cameras with Cooke S4 lenses on Kodak film stock. 

This time, Wright was able to use the increased budget to execute shots which weren’t possible in his prior film. For example, he used a Steadicam to shoot a long take sequence of Pegg going to the local shop. 

Filming it in this way without cutting both introduced the space and location to the audience while simultaneously creating an uneasy feeling and foreshadowing the predatory looks which would later come from zombies.

He built on the kinetic editing of A Fistful Of Fingers. Cutting quickly on amped up sound effects with extreme close ups added a dynamism and humour to the mundane aspects of daily life, such as making breakfast.

In another scene he introduced one of his trademark techniques by synchronising on screen actions to popular music - something we’ll revisit later. However the $6 million budget still had its limitations. Certain scenes which required lots of zombie extras to be paid stretched the budget to its limit. 

“We saved by encouraging fans of Spaced to be zombies. I think they got paid a pound. We pushed their fandom to the limits.”

Upon release, Shaun Of The Dead found both critical and financial success.

The $6 million film effectively delivered a fairly contained zombie story with great writing and performances, which meshed different genre conventions to create a unique, creatively stylised piece, driven by an inventive camera and edit.   

BABY DRIVER 

Many years, and films later, Wright finally managed to produce a movie which he had initially imagined when he was still making his first film.

“My initial idea of a car-chase film powered by music goes right back to my flat in Wood Green, when I was 21 and first living in London. I made a music video for Blue Song by Mint Royale. I hadn’t come up with a concept so I cannibalised the opening scene I’d planned for Baby Driver, with Noel Fielding as a getaway driver. I was happy with the video but also mad at myself for squandering this great idea. But it ended up helping because years later, I had proof of concept.”

He used this proof of concept and his directing track record to secure $34 million of funding for the project.

This time his genre reference was The Driver, a crime thriller about a getaway driver.

To prepare for the large portions of action synchronised to popular music, he pre-selected all the tracks before production. He got his team to clear the rights and storyboards were created and cut to the time of the music. The music was then played on set during production to ensure that the actions on screen could be correctly synced. 

He enlisted legendary DP Bill Pope to shoot it, who he’d previously worked with on Scott Pilgrim. Like his other projects, he elected to shoot on film due to his love for its look. 

Pope selected Kodak’s 250D stock and multiple Panavision XL2s with the more modern G-Series anamorphics. He used two cameras each on both the A and B units of the movie.

“Edgar likes a second camera, because he is crazy about continuity. It offers the actors a certain amount of freedom. And his cutting is so rapid that without continuity he can't make those cuts.”

Baby Driver starts as a character study and progresses into an action movie. We see the movie largely through his eyes.

The cinematography reflects this. For example during chase scenes, when we move away from the action, it’s always Baby that we keep cutting back to in close up.

Like in Shaun Of The Dead, they used a long-take Steadicam shot in an homage to musicals that show the world as a lovely place, before things go south. In order to get the shot they spent a day rehearsing and a full day shooting that one long take. In the end they managed to get it on take 22 after almost killing the Steadicam operator.

Pope and Wright also wanted to return to the roots of car films and include as many practical effects as possible rather than relying on CGI.

“Our film is a visual and thematic rejection of the current spate of car movies that are so heavily CG'd and fantastical. We want the audience to be in those cars with the actors actually driving them.”

Baby Driver’s $34 million budget was spent on a larger crew, a larger production window and executing complex action sequences with lots of practical stunts with more expensive, famous cast members.

CONCLUSION

Edgar Wright lays the groundwork in his screenplays, executes the shoot visually by getting lots of specific coverage and then masters the film in the edit - where all the stylistic bits and pieces fall into place.

He learned an early lesson through his debut that preparation and having a definite vision for a film is crucial.

He found his artistic voice early on and played to his strengths by making genre inspired pieces that are wholly original and which worship the medium of cinema. 

The Most Popular Cinema Cameras (Part 2): Arri, Red, Panavision, Sony

INTRO

Over the years cinematographers have chosen different cameras to dictate the medium and influence the look and capabilities of how footage is shot.

In the second part of this video I’ll go over a few of the most popular cinema cameras which have been used in the film and commercials industry. I’ll look at a variety of formats and go over their ergonomics as well as the look which each can generate.  

ARRI ALEXA MINI LF (2019)

In recent times there’s been a boom in the use of LF, or large format, digital cameras. The Mini LF from Arri is probably the most popular camera used to capture this format. 

So what makes large format cinema cameras different? 

Back when film was the default medium these cameras were designed around the 35mm sized film gauge. When cameras transitioned to digital, most manufacturers created sensors matching the size of Super 35 film which was already an industry standard. These cameras had similar visual characteristics to 35mm film, such as the field of view, depth of field and selection of lenses which covered the sensor.

Large format cameras use a sensor larger than the traditional Super 35 sensors. The Mini LF has a sensor size which is in between the regular Alexa’s Super 35 sensor and the Alexa 65.

The look that is produced by large format can be difficult to describe. The larger sensor means that lenses can record more surface area. This means that when using the same lens on a Super 35 sensor and an LF sensor, the field of view of the LF will be wider.

Also, a larger sensor combined with DPs typically using longer focal lengths means that the depth of field on the LF is very shallow, even in wide shots.This results in a ‘larger than life’ look which is great for capturing expansive vistas or showing more background information in a frame.

The Mini LF uses a bigger version of the highly regarded Alev 3 sensor which is found in other Arri cameras. It produces beautiful, organic colour with a base ISO of 800 at up to 4.5K Arriraw.

The maximum frames per second that can be shot with this codec is 40. Meaning that the camera needs to change to a lower res codec if slow motion is required.

Shooting large format comes at an increased cost, not only due to the rental of the more expensive camera and lenses, but also due to data storage. When shooting at 4.5K you only get 32 minutes of footage for one whole terabyte of storage. 

The Mini LF has a great ergonomic design. It’s accommodated in a slightly larger, updated version of the Alexa Mini body. This means it’s small enough to be used for lightweight setups, such as on an Arri Trinity. The modularity of the design means it can be quickly and effectively built into different configurations by camera assistants, saving a production time on set.

It comes with an LPL mount, Arri’s new mount which accommodates large format lenses. However there is also an LPL to PL adapter which allows the use of standard PL lenses too. 

The Mini LF has 3 internal FSND filters, which have no colour shift, and come in 0.6, 1.2 and 1.8 strengths. This is far fewer internal NDs than some of its competitors such as the Sony Venice.

Overall, the Mini LF has become a dominant large format force in the high end film market due to its efficient design, compact size, beautiful, organic Arri look and its ability to meet Netflix’s 4K UHD approval standards.     

RED MONSTRO (2017)

Next, let’s take a look at Arri’s large format competitor, the Red Monstro.

Monstro refers to the sensor designed by Red which, like the Mini LF, is larger than the standard Super 35 size. This bigger sensor requires special lenses designed to cover large formats. This includes vintage lens options - such as lenses from Canon originally designed to cover their full frame stills cameras - as well as newly released modern lenses such as the Zeiss Supreme Primes.

This Monstro sensor is capable of recording in 8K resolution. Recording in such a high resolution makes it possible to easily reframe or stabilise shots in post without downresing. Although the camera captures in 8K, this is usually downsized to either 4K or 2K for its final display. Downsizing 8K footage will result in a sharper, crisper look than footage that is natively shot at a lower resolution such as 2K.

The Monstro can record at 8K in Redcode RAW at up to 60 frames per second, meaning slow mo is possible at this high resolution. The Monstro has a low pixel density, meaning that the pixels in the sensor are further apart than on the Helium sensor, for example. Noise is therefore reduced and the camera is capable of better low light performance.

This Monstro sensor can come in a few different bodies: the older body with the DSMC2 brain, the new Red Ranger body or even Panavision’s DXL2 body.

The older Red body is compactly constructed and therefore good for lightweight rigs like gimbal or steadicam. Personally I’m not the biggest fan of Red's touch screen monitor system, which acts as a menu for the camera. It is easy to use, however it quickly attracts fingerprints and smears of dirt, meaning it requires constant cleaning to be used as an actual exposure reference monitor.

Red’s are also a little less user friendly when paired with Arri accessories. For example, when using a Mini LF with a compatible WCU-4 focus handset from Arri it’s quick and easy to do things like change settings, programme lens data, roll the camera and playback clips all from the handset.

Shooting on Red with Arri accessories requires work-around solutions for these issues, which may slightly slow down production.

Overall the Monstro is great for those looking for a large format camera with a crisp, clean, high resolution look that has lots of maneuverability in post production. 

PANAVISION XL2 (2004)

Now, let's move from digital to film and take a look at a 35mm camera.

There are two main camera choices when it comes to shooting 35mm motion picture film today: the Arricam or the Panavision XL2. The XL2 is the most modern 35mm camera produced by Panavision. It comes with a PV mount and supports all anamorphic and spherical 35mm film lenses as well as standard accessories.

It comes in an ergonomic form factor that means it can alternate between studio builds and lighter steadicam builds. 

It can shoot 3 or 4 perf film. Using a 3 perf negative pulldown saves on film stock but records to a reduced surface area, meaning slightly less fidelity and quality. The XL2 comes with a 400’ and a 1000’ magazine option and features a clear, detachable optical viewfinder. It’s capable of shooting from 3 up to 50 frames per second. 

A big improvement comes from the 2 HD video tap options. This makes it much easier to monitor footage and provides a clearer feed to the focus puller. This is a big step up from some older 35mm cameras which had very low definition, barely visible video feeds, sometimes only in black and white. 

Since it’s a film camera its look is determined by whatever stock is selected by the cinematographer.

The XL2 is a great, contemporary 35mm film camera due to its reliability, ergonomic versatility, ability to record up to 50 frames per second and the increased quality of its video feed. 

SONY F65 (2011)

Finally, something a little different.

The F65, from Sony’s CineAlta range, is a Super 35 digital camera capable of recording in 8K resolution. Although now discontinued, for its time the F65 was able to deliver highly detailed images from its CMOS sensor. With extremely fine texture and low aliasing courtesy of its amazing 16 bit RAW files.

Despite producing incredible images and being a technically amazing camera, it never achieved widespread appeal in the industry.

This is probably due to its design.

I’ve worked with the F65 once and believe me when I say it's a clunky, cumbersome machine to work with. The body is extremely wide and heavy meaning it is very difficult to manoeuvre for anything handheld. It’s like having a boulder on your shoulder. It’s also too large to be usable with a steadicam.

So while the F65 is capable of producing incredible images in 8K, 16 bit RAW, with beautiful colour science, it is limited by its bulky size and cumbersome ergonomics, which probably contributed to it not being mass adopted across the industry. 

What Tension Looks Like: Uncut Gems

INTRO

There are two ways to present a story: objectively or subjectively.

Directors who frame their stories through an objective lens use the camera to create an emotional distance from the characters so that the onus of how the film is interpreted is placed solely on the audience. Hirokazu Kore-Eda is a great example of a director who likes to maintain a wider, objective point of view on social realist stories.

On the other hand, directors who frame their stories subjectively use the camera to manipulate the audience into getting entangled in the minds of the characters. Warping the viewer’s emotional perspective into that of the fictional people represented on screen.

The Safdies use the camera to create cinematic worlds in this subjective style. Uncut Gems is no exception.

In this video I’ll break down how they used this subject approach to directing to create a chaotically tense, amped up, social realist thriller which visually represents the manic, addictive behaviour of its lead: Howard Ratner.    

BACKGROUND

“The goal was to make it seem like it was unspooling in front of you. That there was no script at all because that adds to the tension. It adds to the plausibility of, no, this is actually happening in front of me.”

In the ten years which it took the Safdies and fellow co-writer Ronald Bronstein to develop and write the script, this goal of complete and utter immersion remained at the film’s centre. It’s a style of filmmaking which they’d spent years cultivating.

Their other films, such as Heaven Knows What and Good Time, also prioritised a similar chaotic realism which was built around characters more on the extreme side.These movies push right to the limit of what is realistic. Keeping audiences in maximum suspense without losing them due to implausibility.

Josh and Benny initially pitched the script to Adam Sandler’s manager in 2009, who rejected it before Sandler got a chance to read it. 

In 2016 they managed to secure funding for the project from Elara Pictures and RT Features. They later cast Jonah Hill as the lead, and attempted to age down the character, with A24 set to distribute. The Safdies cultivate this sense of amped up realism in their films through a combination of casting actors with star power alongside first-time actors.   

After almost ten years, Sandler saw Good Time, got hold of the script in 2018 and agreed to come on board to star, replacing Hill.  

To get a sense of Howard Ratner before production began the Safdies conducted camera tests. 

“It wasn’t all there but it was pretty close. It was kind of exciting that all of a sudden he just put on these clothes, put on the teeth and he just clicked. We had this viewing room at a sports bar and we filled it with these degenerate gamblers, some real life bookees who we were actually trying to convince to be in the movie still and there was a Celtics game on. That was the only script. You have your bet and this is it. All these people were trying to meet Adam Sandler but here he shows up as Howard and he’s trying to give them enough Sandler so that they’re, like, OK with it but he’s really just trying to open up their personalities so he can feast on them.”

While they did embrace a certain amount of improvisation during production, they noted that improv was a means but not an end. They used that same spontaneous, realistic energy that comes from improv but structured it through the written scenes in the script.   

So while a large part of the energy of the film came from casting and performance, another component of it came from the film’s visual style.

VISUAL STYLE

So, how did they use cinematography to represent manic, addictive tension visually?

They borrowed from the visual approach which they had formed with DP Sean Price Williams on prior films such as Heaven Knows What, whose characters were literal addicts with some of the same impulsive, chaotic decision making traits as Ratner.

This time they teamed up with cinematographer Darius Khondji.

Heaven Knows What used extremely long, old school wildlife lenses and sometimes shot two whole blocks away from the actors. As the lenses were too large and cumbersome to be able to operate efficiently handheld, Sean Price Williams operated the camera off a fluid head tripod. This allowed him to track the actions of the actors from a far off, voyeuristic point of view.

Khondji adopted this style of using extremely long focal lengths, shooting from far away off an operated fluid head. From early on Khondji made it clear that he wanted to help the Safdies make their movie, rather than imposing his own visual preferences. 

“They wanted Uncut Gems to capture the realism of New York, with a garish and gritty look, inspired visually by the kinetic photography of filmmakers such as Robert Altman and post modern architecture in the city, which I found rather ugly.”

“I am more disposed towards glamorous and exciting visuals and quickly realised they did not want a pretty-looking result.”

In particular they referenced the garish, postmodern architecture and designs of Michael Graves. 

Instead of using spherical zooms he pushed to use Panavision C-Series anamorphic lenses. He felt anamorphic lenses would help to isolate Ratner amongst the busy backgrounds and make his close ups feel larger than life.

"Of course, widescreen can be used to convey the epic nature of the story, but anamorphic can also act like a magnifier. Josh and Benny like telling stories close-up to their characters. They love how the long anamorphic lenses rendered the actors' faces, and felt it was perfect for Howard.”

He even managed to track down a rare 360mm Panavision anamorphic prime lens which allowed them to shoot tight shots with a compressed, uneasy feeling.

They also implemented zooms to introduce dynamic movement and mimic subjective point of view shots.These were done on Panavision front anamorphic zooms, specifically the 70-200 and 40-80. 

Khondji’s lighting embraced the realistic yet garishly colourful tone that the Safdies wanted. He was forced to light in a 360 degree style where the entire area of the set is lit. 

This was due to the Safdie’s preference for not having definite marks for actors and them preferring the actors to block the scene in the way felt most natural, giving them space to improvise and move around if necessary.

This lighting style was different to most of Khondji’s films where he lights specific areas which the actors would be forced to stand in on marks.

To give the negative a rougher feel Khondji selected Kodak’s higher grain 500T film stock which he pushed by an extra stop. This means he underexposed the film by a stop and then got the lab to compensate by overdeveloping it. The result was a grainier image with more contrast and less resolution.

Some scenes were shot digitally on the Alexa Mini. 

Colourist Damien Van der Cruyssen created custom LUTs to try and balance the look of the digital footage with the 35mm scans. In the final grade he also added grain elements to the Alexa footage, shot by the camera crew with the 500T film, to try and maintain the same continuity in texture across the film.

Now, let’s take a look at a couple of examples from Uncut Gems to break down how this visual approach was implemented.

SCENE 1 - JEWELRY STORE

Ratner’s 47th Street jewelry store located in New York’s Diamond District was all built and shot in a studio. They leaned into a colourful, garish look both in the production design as well as in the lighting.

Khondji’s team rigged Arri Skypanels overhead into the ceiling panels which could all be controlled. This meant the lights were out of sight and scenes could be shot 360. 

These RGB LEDs are also easily dimmable and can alter their colour. They used them to create a palette of strong, tacky cyans, pinks and greens. They also placed different practical lights in shot all around the store.

In these scenes, and indeed throughout the whole movie, the camera almost never sits still as it tracks the constant movement of the characters. This cranks up the tension visually. Large portions of these scenes also play out in close ups shot on long lenses. By not letting the scene play out in wides it’s difficult to get a sense of the layout of the store. This framing results in a claustrophobic, trapped psychological feeling.

Overall this mixture of harsh, garish lighting, constant camera movement and an abundance of close ups builds up a feeling of chaotic tension in Ratner’s space. 

SCENE 2 - THEATRE

While this feeling of constant tension is cranked up through most of the film, the Safdie’s carefully insert just enough moments of calm to punctuate the madness and prevent the movie from being too overbearing.

These scenes typically involve quieter moments with his family, around whom he is forced to momentarily slow down.

This scene plays out with realistic, yet more traditionally cinematic lighting. The colour temperature is a more comforting, warmer tungsten. There’s a more conventional contrast split between light and shadow. The light is softer. In these less crazy scenes the camera finally comes to a stop. The scene is covered in locked off frames. 

However the shot selection still sticks to claustrophobic close ups. Like Ratner himself, although the visual language briefly becomes a little more grounded it never truly relaxes.

Using the slower pacing of these stiller moments allows the audience to take a breath for a second before the tense, action-packed rollercoaster begins again. 

CONCLUSION

The subjective camera in Uncut Gems functions to heighten the feeling of tension which Ratner embodies. The cinematography is Ratner. It’s bold, garish, rough, intense and always in motion.

Rather than having beautiful, cinematic images for their own sake, Uncut Gems does a great job of making visual decisions which truly support the mood of the story.

Even if that mood is ugly and intensely chaotic.

That is what good cinematography is meant to do.