The director's limitations

mark leuchter · November 6, 2004

Hello again,

As some of you know, I'm not a DP but a director. On my first film, I seved as my own DP, but probably will not on the next one.

So here's my question for you all: at what point must, or should, the director release the reigns when it comes to the camera? Where does one draw the line as a director in terms of his/her vision for the film, and respect the decisions of the DP as to how a shooting strategy should be executed?

For example, I really like using wide angle lenses. On my first film, I used the Optar primes, and relied on the 8mm, 9.5mm, and 12mm almost exclusively throughout the shoot. One mentor commented to me that this might cause problems in terms of going from shot to shot in the editing, but I didn't experience any problem like that. And the very deep focus I achieved seemed like the most natural thing in the world in terms of the story (I generally did not go in for closeups...and when I did, they were never too close). Indeed, my favorite directors -- Welles, Kubrick, Frankenheimer -- all tended to favor deep focus, wide angle work.

(and I admit that when I made my first film, I chose the wide angle approach in part because I did not have focus-pulling ability...the crew was just me manning the camera, and a sound guy.)

Yet, I am also aware that this is not the norm. Last night, I watched The Human Stain, a wonderful film, and it was shot beautifully. But it was conventional in terms of lens choice, framing, etc., and there was no deep-focus aesthetic at work.

I think of some of my other favorite directors: Bergman, Woody Allen, Coppola...they all have wonderful DPs manning the camera, and they generally don't go deep focus.

So, again, the question -- where do I draw the line in terms of how I envision the shot? Do you feel it is really unconventional to maintain wide angle, deep focus aesthetics throughout an entire film? If a director insists on maintaining this aesthetic from shot to shot, when do you, as the DP, feel that you must suggest otherwise?

Mark

Adam Frisch FSF · November 6, 2004

There's a difference between a wide shot and and wide angle shot. I tend to like wide shots, but not nescessarily wide angle shots. I agree - the close-up is overused. A product of the TV age. Kubrick and many contemporary filmmakers, like Fincher for instance, tell stories wider. Which is more descriptive and natural I think - acting isn't just twitches in a face. But nothing takes me out of a picture faster than close-ups with very wide lenses or pans where you see the "rush-in's" in the corners towards the middle of the frame. To me personally, that signals filmschool or amateur for some reason. Don't know why.

One very wide director is Jean-Pierre Jeunet. It works fine in Amelie because it enhances the comedy of it all, but it doesn't work at all in Alien 4, for instance - you have a hard time taking it all serious. So the notion that wide angles are more aking to comedy, I do find somewhat true.

So, shoot thrillers like Tony Scott and comedies like J-PJ....

Personally, I rarely shoot below 20mm in 35mm because I don't like that distorted look. You don't have to step up far, in my opinion, to get to a very nice sweet range, the 25-40mm. Still wide, but not too wide. I've often done close-ups with 32mm, 35mm, and 40mm although these are considered to be "to wide" for a close-up in the classical sense.

Lens and angle is also a choice many directors want to control. One can always give suggestions and try other lenses, but I'm quite happy relinquishing that power. Often, though, most directors will leave it up to you.

As ususal, it's all about taste. :blink:

Edited November 6, 2004 by AdamFrisch

David Mullen ASC · November 6, 2004

There are plenty of directors who maintain a wide-angle aesthetic throughout the shoot. If that's your style as a director and storyteller, I think the DP has to find a way to make it work unless he can present a compelling-enough reason to you not to.

Now there may be technical reasons why a particular set-up requires a longer lens to accomplish the needs of a shot which the DP will hopefully explain to you. For example, trying to shoot an over-the-shoulder of someone looking into a mirror, where it is harder to get the camera out of the reflection if it is closer on a wider-angle lens.

I do feel that art direction becomes more critical when shooting deep-focus because you no longer are using focus as a means to draw the eye to what's important. So controlling colors and shapes in the background become more critical when it's all in focus and competing with the actors' faces for the viewer's attention.

mark leuchter · November 6, 2004

Thanks Adam.

I also agree that panning with WA lenses is tricky. Maybe I am a bit old-school, but I try not to move the camera if I can avoid it. Most of my shots are typically static, or if there's movement, it's subtle. As a director, I like the framing, the lighting, and the acting/dialogue to do the work for me.

When I used the Optar 12mm in my last film, I found that it forced me NOT to overindulge in closeups. I could go in closER, probably close enough to accomplish what a closeup would need to accomplish. I could even go in for a medium-to-close closeup from certain angles without difficulty, and without much distortion. In fact, when I did have a moving/tracking/panning shot, I found that the 12mm lens was perfect, as it helped to retain the deep focus aesthetic and allowed the viewer to explore space while at the same time not being too extreme and distorting the actor or other objects in the moving frame.

But this brings up another point related to the purpose of the initial post -- what do you, as DPs, think is the difference in aesthetic effect when using a 25mm lens vs. using a wide lens like a 12mm or a 9.5mm? I don't mean the obvious, i.e., one gives deeper focus and distorts space more than the other. I mean the dramatic and cinematic implications. Let's move away from the technical discussion for a second and discuss the artistic element. Let us say you have a scene where you must follow two actors as they are playing pool at a billiards hall. What circumstances -- dramatically -- would motivate you to use a wide agle/deep focus aesthetic vs. a standard angle and shallower depth of field?

Mark

Greg Gross · November 7, 2004

I've really enjoyed reading your posts gentlemen. Thank you for sharing

your knowledge. I am nobody but if I was an experienced cinematographer

I would want to shoot a lot of films with one director,have a good creative

working relationship with him or her. I wish I could have been around working

professionally when Sydney Pollack started to make films,my favorite director.

I would have knocked on his door and asked to work with him. Here's a quote:

Sven nykvist,

"A handful of principles have defined my life as a cinematographer. Be true

to the script. Be loyal to the director. Be able to adapt and change one's

style. Learn simplicity. I would also say that a cinematographer should direct

at least one film. As a cameraman, its very easy to become a technical freak.

The experience of writing and editing a film enables one to understand the

whole creative process of film-making."

From the book Cinematography Screencraft(Focal Press),page 47.

Greg Gross,Professional Photographer

Student Cinematographer

November 7, 2004

Hi,

If the director knows what he wants, I do my best to accomplish it. This doesn't mean I don't have any ideas, I just try to incorporate what I like with what they like. It makes for a much better working environment.

Personally, I opted for longer lenses on most projects. However, there have been directors (like yourself) that prefer wider lenses and I try to give them what they want. Just because it?s not my preference, doesn?t mean it?s bad. One director actually changed my opinion on wider lenses, because his project right for it. I argued, but I soon realized he was right and my approach wouldn?t have worked as well for the story.

Ultimately, it?s the director?s film and I think the DoP should respect that. This doesn?t mean a director should ignore the DoP?s opinion, because film making is a collaborative effort and no matter how brilliant a director may be, they can always use some suggestions.

If the DoP and the director are on the same page, everybody is a little happier on the set.

Justin

Edited November 7, 2004 by subclass-todd

Sam Wells · November 7, 2004

"(and I admit that when I made my first film, I chose the wide angle approach in part because I did not have focus-pulling ability...the crew was just me manning the camera, and a sound guy."

And the sky didn't fall, did it.

I've adopted little-to-none focus pulling in some cases simply because I was working with a zoom and did not want to see it breathe; in fact I could do it had I wanted, even w/o an AC because I can hide it in a move etc (something I got to practice on video industrials, partially redeeming those yawn-inducing productions I guess).

So you adapt, discover, think about space differently.

Otherwise, I'll take working with a director who has strong visual ideas any day.

-Sam

mrbill762 · November 7, 2004

Hello again,

As some of you know, I'm not a DP but a director. On my first film, I seved as my own DP, but probably will not on the next one.

So here's my question for you all: at what point must, or should, the director release the reigns when it comes to the camera? Where does one draw the line as a director in terms of his/her vision for the film, and respect the decisions of the DP as to how a shooting strategy should be executed?

Mark

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

When it does not detract from the story you are telling.

In other words if the DP has a better, faster or easier way go with it.

If that changes the way the story is told or changes the how you want the shot to look then stick to guns and get what you want.

I believe it was in Stanly Kubricks second film he hired a top DP, Kubrick specified a 50mm lens and set the camera and dolly where he wanted it.

The DP switched the lens with a 100mm and moved the dolly back so the framing was the same, so it was easier for him to shoot.

Kubrick made him change back because while the framing was the same the perspective was not. It changed what Kubrick was looking for.

Mr. Bill

mark leuchter · November 7, 2004

Kubrick made him change back because while the framing was the same the perspective was not. It changed what Kubrick was looking for.

Mr. Bill, that story is retold on the documentary film made by my friend Jan Harlan, who was very close to Kubrick. The film is entitled "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" and if I remember the episode, Kubrick wanted to use a 25mm lens. The DP figured it would be easier to shoot it with a longer lens and tried to fool Kubrick into thinking that the effect would be the same. Kubrick apparently took him aside and calmly said that if he every tried to do that again, he'd be fired.

Kubrick was the master, the ultimate filmmaker, at least for me. His example is a very good one to invoke in our current discussion, as here was a guy who could have been one of the great cinematographers in his own right had he not opted to direct. And with him, too, is this generally consistent visual approach that favored the deep focus, wide angle aesthetic (with a few exceptions, of course).

Last night I attended a sceening of Dr. Strangelove; it was the first time in many years I had seen it on a big screen. I was amazed at how he was able to make deep focus work for him. With the exception of a few moments in General Ripper's office (played by Sterling Hayden), there were virtually no closeups at all, and telephoto work seems to have been limited to the battle sequences shot documentary-style. My impression was that he employed a 25mm lens (or some similar length) throughout most of the film, and let the characters and atmosphere unfurl within the frame as opposed to emphasizing just one actor or object.

Imagine the scenes in the War Room, shot with standard length lenses (say, a 50mm lens): as George C. Scott carries on, or as Sellers as Strangelove wheels himself around, they would be separated from their background. Rather, in one shot in particular, Strangelove approaches the camera from the background, wheeling himself towards us. He emerges from the background but is not separated from it as he approaches. There is no need for follow-focusing. The result is a character who is part of a world/culture in that room, a pervasive reality of which he is a part.

I suppose my curiosity runs such: Kubrick's use of the deep focus aesthetic is atypical, but it seems so natural to me, and I've used the same technique in my own limited experiences as a director. It is the OPPOSITE way of doing things -- using regualr focal lengths, doing follow-focusing with more limited depths of field -- that seems like something unnatural to me. Not WRONG, just not my first instinct. Yet it is also the case that most films I see do this, using shallower depths of field in an instinctive sort of way.

Beyond practical or technical reasons, why is this method of framing and shooting the norm, whereas the deep focus work of Kubrick, Welles, Renoir, etc., seems to be the exception? When you, as DPs, are told by a director to follow a character in medium shot, is it your initial instinct to use standard depth of field unless told otherwise by the director? What governs your decision making process? Ideally, a director should know something about cameras/lenses, but often, directors think about the camera last and have only the vaguest idea about the visual choices he or she makes, relying on the DP for the detailed decisions such as Fstop, lens choice, etc...

(forgive me for pursuing this thread to such a degree, but I very much want to be as sympathetic and knowledgeable a director as I can be when it comes to the cinematic elements of the filmmaking process over against the story/dramatic elements of the writing/acting...not that the two are mutually exclusive...)

Mark

Edited November 7, 2004 by mark leuchter

mrbill762 · November 7, 2004

Kubrick made him change back because while the framing was the same the perspective was not. It changed what Kubrick was looking for.

Mr. Bill, that story is retold on the documentary film made by my friend Jan Harlan, who was very close to Kubrick. The film is entitled "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" and if I remember the episode, Kubrick wanted to use a 25mm lens. The DP figured it would be easier to shoot it with a longer lens and tried to fool Kubrick into thinking that the effect would be the same. Kubrick apparently took him aside and calmly said that if he every tried to do that again, he'd be fired.

(clip)

(forgive me for pursuing this thread to such a degree, but I very much want to be as sympathetic and knowledgeable a director as I can be when it comes to the cinematic elements of the filmmaking process over against the story/dramatic elements of the writing/acting...not that the two are mutually exclusive...)

Mark

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

Being sympathetic is nice but remember someone (you) needs to be in command of the production. An inability to decide or looking for approval for every lighting decision ( or any decisions) can quickly degrade into a loss of control and hard feeling when you try to regain it.

It is hard to express in words when you put your foot down and when you do not.

My best advice is don?t sweat the little things.

You are correct in the size of the lens my memory failed me.

However it is still a good example of when to be the boss and not the sympathetic director.

I was floating around a foot above the ground for a week when the Historic Fargo Theater choose my latest short film (I was the DP) to play with Dr. Strangelove in their political film series this year as I to look to Stanly Kubrick for some of my inspiration also.

Good luck have fun see you in the theater.

Mr. Bill

Michael Nash · November 7, 2004

The compositions you create with focal lengths and camera placement are part of a visual language you're using to tell the story. It more than just an aesthetic, or technical issue.

For one thing, you're creating a distinct POV that the story is told from. In a locked-off wide shot with deep focus, the viewer's POV tends to be much more objective. If you were to punch into a closeup of a character within that frame and let the background go soft, you're bringing the viewer more into that character's space. The audience then has the opportunity to identify with that character's situation, and POV might shift away from the objectivity you created with the wide shot.

What I'm getting at is that the focal lengths and camera placement are part and parcel to how the story is being told (namely with regard to the POV). The DP and the director HAVE to be on the same page with what story they're trying to tell, and how they're trying to tell it. Otherwise they're not making the same movie!

So if disagreements arise about what focal length to use because of aesthetic or technical reasons, the director and DP can step back and consider the storytelling. "What are we trying to say here with this shot? What visual devices are we using to say it?" These are approaches that should be spelled out during preproduction, so that issues on set can be resolved quickly.

mark leuchter · November 8, 2004

Michael, thank you for that last post.

The reason I am asking for these opinions is because I have a very distinct shooting strategy in mind. The story is one of anxiety and desperation involving a man going through a divorce, and I want everything -- the colors, the depth of field, the focal length -- to suggest the hyper-reality that goes along with living through a 6-month anxiety attack. There will be some flashback shots, some "mindscreen"/imagination shots, and for these I am imagining a telephoto look. But for the first half of the film, I want an exagerrated, almost painfully too real sense to the visuals.

As the story progresses and the character becomes more aware of why his life has fallen apart, the lens use will go to more conventional focal lengths, depth of field, etc. The characters will be given more room to speak their minds, reveal the depth of their emotions, and as this happens, I plan on having them more distinct from their surroundings, going in for closer shots and letting some of the backgrounds go soft.

This is all tentative, but as I am currently working on the script, I find it very helpful to envision how these scenes I am writing will appear and play within the film frame. This is a circumstance where learning from you all as DPs actually helps me craft the storyline and develop these characters. I am thinking here of something Ingmar Bergman said -- that film is like music, it goes directly to the senses, only to be analyzed after it is experienced. As such, and since this is first and foremost a visual medium, I wanted to better understand the DP's perspective on communicating these ideas.

Mark

Sam Wells · November 8, 2004

James Wong Howe's work on Frankenheimer's "Seconds" is one good example of anxiety building with very wide angle lenses.

-Sam

Michael Nash · November 8, 2004

Mark, it sounds like you're on the right track by designing a visual language for your film. If you can express to your DP what you've said here, you shouldn't have any problem. Ideally your DP will be able to pick up on your ideas and expand on them.

I should point out when I said "wide lenses and static shots tend to create an objective POV", that's only one possible interpretation. There are no universal rules governing what any shot "means;" only "conventions" or a common understanding of visual devices based on what audiences have seen before. With each new film you create a whole new visual language, even if it borrows from previous films. You (the director) and the DP are responsible for outlining the visual vocabulary, and telling the story with that vocabulary.

I just watched part of Snow Falling On Cedars again last night; and man -- talk about telling a story with visual poetry.