David Watkin

Mike Williamson · October 13, 2004

I know David Watkin's name has been mentioned recently, but I'm wondering if anyone can suggest some titles of his that they enjoy or recommend, the man's prolific! I'm particularly interested in his 60's work, in as much as people have been talking about it as influential, bringing that single-source look into more mainstream narrative films. Was he also influential in bringing multi-camera shooting into "regular" dramatic scenes? I know someone mentioned director Richard Lester's name in connection with multi-camera shooting, fstop perhaps?

Also, availability on video would be a plus.

David Mullen ASC · October 13, 2004

Help, The Three and Four Musketeers in particular. Out of Africa from the 1980's, as well as Hamlet. His parts of the Jesus of Narareth mini-series.

Ignacio Aguilar · October 13, 2004

I like too his work on Peter Hyams' Hanover Street (1979), one of the rare films Watkin shot in anamorphic. Lots of telephoto lenses, smoked sets and single source lightning.

DavidSloan · October 13, 2004

The Knack is an amazing film...very reminiscent of early nouvelle vague, B&W films. I haven't studies Watkin's work as carefully as some of you guys have, time to start cracking!

Tony Brown · October 15, 2004

I started in 1974 and am hard pressed to remember a film that DIDN'T shoot two cameras.

Mr Watkins was a character, though spent more time asleep on the set than 'worrying' about compromise :lol:

Mike Williamson · October 15, 2004

Thank you fstop, David and Ignacio, I'm starting to dig in this weekend. I saw "Help!" earlier this week, I think my favorite parts were the Beatles' performances in the studio, some really beautifully controlled rim lighting in one, nice black and white goodness in the opening sequence for the song "Help!" (with Ringo's giant ring prominently featured!) It was tough for me to absorb some of it, however, as the movie is so frenetic that I almost feel that the lighting doesn't often have enough time to establish mood. I think I liked the performances best because they felt complete, as opposed to the "plot" portions of the film.

As far as the history of multi-camera shooting, I'm aware of Kurosawa's pioneering work in shooting action sequences prior to Lester's films, it's nice to get some perspective of its introduction into dialogue/dramatic work. I'm curious how current DP's feel about shooting multi-camera set-ups for dialogue scenes, is it an opportunity or a necessary evil? David, I know you wrote about requesting more B-camera days on "Shadowboxer", how much of that decision was purely pragmatic? Were you happy with the results? Any other opinions on multi-camera shooting?

Personally, I've never had the opportunity to shoot with more than one camera, so I'm curious about the realities of shooting that way. So far I've tended to be probably too dogmatic about one-lighting set up for one scene, so it seems that it would be easier to integrate a second camera into that kind of lighting style. At least until I learn to cheat better...

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · October 15, 2004

It's funny, but I didn't realize until recently how much Watkin has rubbed off on me. I just kind of noticed it from you guys talking about it then I happened to catch the Three Musketeers and thought for a second "Hey, that looks like something I would do!" Just this soft source that has a natural falloff toward the wall.

I guess it shouldn't be a suprise, I have watched "Chariots of Fire" countless times studying the lighting. That film warped my mind when I saw it the first time, I must have only been 11 years old. It really feels like a different time and place, with a smooth dreamlike quality laid on it. There are some fabulous interiors in that film.

I want to cry every time I watch that opening beach run. It's one of those scenes that you wonder what did the DP really do? It looks like it might be some delicate underexposure or something. I hope he shot that and not some second unit guy.

I really like his work and hope I'm able to do something as good one day.

Max Jacoby · October 15, 2004

Most Dops that I work with seem to accept a second camera as a necessary evil, something that one ressorts to in order to save time and make the schedule. I have also encountered Directors who are completely uncapable of dealing with 2 cameras simultaneously. Sometimes you end up doing an unneccessary big amount of cut-aways instead of an alternative angle of an actor who is giving a big performance.

From what I hear Michael Mann shoots with multiple cameras as often as possible. The scene in 'Heat' between Al Pacino and Robert de Niro was covered with 4 cameras (2 on each actor). same for 'The Insider'. But it suits his style of filming, which is more raw and also slightly chaotic. On the other hand you can bet that Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the opposite: once he has set up one of his wide-angle close-ups he couldn't get in a second camera even if he wanted to.

And if you ask the soundguys for their opinion, the best way to use 2 cameras is to shoot not 2 sizes in the same direction, but 2 shots in opposite directions