Brian Dzyak

A long time ago, I was on a set where the Art Department had rigged it's own power for some practical lamps. At some point in the morning, the very thin (and obviously inappropriate wiring) wire lit up.... it was very much like a movie where you could actually see the flame moving up the cord, much like a fuse that was lit. The toxic fumes forced everyone off the set until it could be aired out and the lighting fixed properly. While it's a pain a in the butt for the Electrical Department, because of that instance, I think it's important that Electrics provide power to anyone on set who needs it. That includes providing the power and running distribution and cabling it properly to the final destination. Just getting light is one thing, but doing it safely is another. I get it. I get the frustration of Electrics being expected to deal with things other than big "movie lighting." Doing what I do, traveling with a VERY small lighting package, it irritates the living SH** out of me when I get a whiny Makeup person showing up (late) and asking me for a light so they can do their work. It's not like I show up with a forty foot truck and eight guys. I barely have enough lighting to do what I'M supposed to do, muchless cater to someone who KNOWS she needs light but fails to pack what she needs. The Makeup people in my world just show up with their little kit and expect ME to light up their world just as some Sound Mixers just expect me to provide them a C-stand and hardware to mount their boom. I show up with the things I need, so why doesn't anyone else ever seem to? But, on a BIG feature with distinct departments, all who have many people and a budget, it's likely better to have Electrics deal with anything and everything electric for safety concerns if nothing else.

Good morning, Oleg! That's a VERY big question you're asking and is nearly impossible to answer in this limited internet-forum format. I urge you to take a look at the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" which lays out and explains EVERY department and EVERY job that exists on set in the professional industry. Everything you want to know is there. :)

Look, the fact of the situation with Wikileaks is that virtually NOTHING was done to the site or to Julian Assange UNTIL he threatened to do another 50 gig info dump that would (he said) implicate Bank of American in "something." It just so happened that the very next day, the world's governments began to move against him and the site using Interpol and by threatening sites like Amazon and Paypal. The other fact is that Assange has done nothing wrong. All he did was publish info that was obtained by someone else. THAT person is guilty of taking information that was classified, but Assange is guilty of nothing whatsoever. If he is, then that opens the dangerous door that puts ALL journalism at risk. Using the tool of "espionage" as a weapon against Assange is VERY dangerous and is one of the tools of Fascists to first, cut off information, then to fully take over a population. Plutocrats have been slowly manipulating policy to ensure that "government" works to further the ends of Corporations so that the age of Robber Barrons returns. It's been happening in front of our eyes for nearly thirty years and is only now affecting most people in a negative way. This brilliant speech by Bill Moyers http://wn.com/Bill_Moyers_Democracy_vs_Plutocracy explains in a beautiful way just how our nation and world has gotten into the mess we're in and precisely who is at fault. It's long, but well worth the time to listen.

I don't say CONservative to be facetious. It's true. Conservatives are con-artists of the highest order. They KNOW that "Trickle Down" economics doesn't work. The know that tax cuts for the wealthy aren't really for "small businesses." They know that "most Americans" (as Mitch McChinless likes to say) aren't for Fascism as the GOP proudly is (in secret, of course). The know that they need Fox "News" PAC to pay off truckstops all over America to run their program in order to brainwash a undereducated populace. They truly are the NAZI's of our time, willing to let millions of people die just so that a few can remain wealthier than God. They don't care about freedom or democracy or the Constitution or any of that other silly stuff that they hide behind. All that matters to the CONservatives in America is their own profits. Unfortunately we have thirty years + of real data to prove it. I've seen the Cons attempt to turn the tables, as it were, to say stupid things like "Lieberals." But there is no basis for it in that Progressives and Liberals don't lie and manipulate facts and history the way CONservatives do for their own selfish ends. If have yet to hear any factual list of lies that "Liberals" spew out into the cosmos on a regular basis the way selfish CONservatives do. So saying something like "LIEberals" is the juvenile response to a very serious and truthful reality regarding the most selfish and greedy among us on this planet. It's entirely appropriate to call a spade a spade. It's not politics. It's just the unfortunate fact of life today in America. :( Don't blame me for pointing out a little bit of truth. It's not my fault that CONservatives are, by and large, con-artists.

Wow, that is exactly untrue. The United States was founded by people AGAINST Corporate influence over "the people." The tipping point prior to the American Revolution was the British East India Company exerting influence over the British Parliament to exact taxes over "local" tea production in order to protect the product from the East India Company. It was a fight against Fascism before it even had a name. Every generation that suffers under the undo influence of Fascist CONservative ideology needs someone to turn a light on in the dark room that Fascism cloaks us all under. Wikileaks is this generation's Upton Sinclair. He will be maligned and falsely accused of a lot of things as all good rebels and "patriots" are. Banks and Corporations are more afraid of "Liberals" than any government is mainly because, since at least the Revolutionary War (in the Americas), banks and Corporations have more to lose than any government every does. It's all about the money. People can argue back and forth about political ideology all they want to and never get noticed, but threaten the wealth and power of those at the top, then those Fascists put down their pipes, take off their smoking-jackets, and take notice. It's all about the money. If it wasn't, nobody would care.

Lighting is about EITHER A) recreating and enhancing the NATURAL "look" (what it REALLY looks like in an environment) or B ) creating a new "look" via lighting that creates a specific mood or tone. So, the question is, what is your footage supposed to do? Are you trying to invoke a specific mood or are you just shooting event/documentary coverage of what really is there? Once you know that, then you can make decisions regarding the camera and the lighting that is necessary. If you want "light and bright," then you likely may be able to just use the practical overhead lighting that is there, assuming that your camera can handle it. But if you need to keep that "look" but enhance it somewhat, then you likely just need a few small lights to fill in as the overheads just provide an unattractive "over" light that looks good on no one. For most shoots, killing the practicals, particularly overhead fluorescents, is a great idea, even if your goal is to just recreate reality. Most video or film shoots happen BECAUSE someone wishes to "sell" something ( a product, a service, a person) so just shooting what's there hardly ever is adequate to accomplish the task. So, it is likely that you should plan to light the "set" entirely with your own lights to CREATE a "look"/mood in order to best "sell" whatever it is your client is trying to sell.

One person's experience won't necessarily be someone else's, so while you should gather alumni opinions, for curriculum specifics as they relate to what YOU want, you really should contact each school/program that interests you and ask specific questions. Naturally a school is interested in getting you to join them so it's up to you to discern what is "marketing" and what a school actually can deliver.

The typical sequence from the First AD's perspective: [excerpt from What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood] From the Second AC perspective: From the Sound Mixer's perspective:

Of course mine is just one opinion, but after reading through your qualifications and experience, I wouldn't recommend that you concentrate on film school at all. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go to a University and get a higher education and degree. You should. A University isn't meant to be a trade school and it sounds as if you already have a really wonderful start on your DP career. Unless you go to a school that has a very specific concentration for Director's of Photography, then it is doubtful that a formal school will help you any more than you are already doing on your own (for far less cost, presumably). What should you go to school to study if not film specifically? There is more to being a great DP than just knowing the technical aspects of the job. Those you are learning on your own very well, or so it seems. The logistics of "directing" a crew in collaboration with a Director and other departments will come as you make movies (more on that in a second). But the ART and craft of what you do comes from expanding your education into subjects like Art Appreciation, Art History, Literature, and History. Also by pursuing a higher education you'll learn valuable communication skills which are VITAL to the job of a Cameraman as well as skills like time-management and logistics and budgeting. Is this to say that you DON'T take any film classes at all? Not in the least. Ideally, you'll find a school that has a strong film program in which you can take classes in film appreciation and production. What I am suggesting is the you don't immerse yourself in "fiimschool" because that degree won't help you get a job at all. Everything else you do will help you begin and maintain a viable career. If you study those non-film subjects in addition to minoring in film production/appreciation, you'll find that your work will be much stronger as you'll be working with a broader background in the arts and will be able to draw on many different disciplines instead of only being able to copy previous movies if you only studied film.

I wrote a book precisely to answer these kinds of questions. In addition to "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" chapters one through five plus chapters 27, 28, and 29 in addition to the Camera and Electric chapters, I'd suggest: http://www.amazon.com/Grip-Book-Fourth-Michael-Uva/dp/0240812913/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291165535&sr=8-1

That's either really good Craftie or really bad Craftie.

That area seems to be WAY too large for the minimal lighting you have available. Ideally, you'd boost the ambient level with some kind of balloon or other large soft units for the wide masters and then add fill with smaller closer units for the closeup work. If you can't get units to light that large of an area, then perhaps consider shooting at magic hour or day-for-night. Magic hour is likely your best bet so if the work will exceed what you can accomplish in one "day," then plan on spreading the work out accordingly and returning to the location as needed.

Likely your best most up-to-date resources will be here on cinematography.com and at http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/ . By the time any technical book hits shelves, it's likely out-of-date already.

Yep. On rare occasions, I'm asked for a reel, but anyone who knows what I do should know better. Getting footage is next to impossible. Cameramen I know who have reels generally pull their shots from DVDs or second-party sources.

Are you directing the commercial or are you the DP... or both? I was confused a little by your description. :)

You're talking about lighting a HUGE space and people in it. I assume that you'll be videotaping or filming the event as well? Anything in the neighborhood of a 1K is only good if it can be within six feet or so of your subject. Given the way you describe the environment, a "normal" lighting scenario won't work. Instead, you need to think about hanging lights from an overhead grid (if there is one) OR using the existing room lights and just shooting it as is. Anything you put on the floor will inevitably be in the way of your cameras or will interfere with the audience's experience. I've done a few of these and unless you have COMPLETE control over the event (and "we" hardly ever do), then you will likely have to go with the existing lighting scheme and work with the "house" lighting technician to turn on/off the existing lights that are already there. A situation like this just doesn't lend itself to any kind of "film style" lighting in that the camera crew is generally secondary to the event itself. Event coverage is vastly different from narrative production and many many compromises have to be made. So, you will have to deal with the existing lighting units and then push your cameras to get the best exposures possible. Assuming that the cameras are a fair distance away also, you'll need longer lenses and they'll likely be wide open (aperture) and possibly even have gain introduced ( assuming you're shooting with video). The only other alternative is to bring in some fairly large units to place in the wings of the audience area and/or the stage area, just to get the throw you'd need. But of course you'd also be flagging them quite a bit and a lot of cable out to the generator would have to laid. Without knowing the exact situation, it's difficult to give precise advise, so I'm just going off of my experiences before with shoots like this. :)

Just don't turn to the Darkside! (and underexpose) ;)

Does that mean that someone like Michael Bay shouldn't be considered to be a "filmmaker"? I don't agree with the assessment, but a lot of people dismiss his movies as being trite and whatever other dismissive epithets can be conjured up to describe what he does. While something like "Amadeus" is a FILM in every way I can imagine, so too is something like "The Rock" which entertains in its own way, a way that is distinctly different from something like "Amadeus" but equally appealing for different reasons. So who are any of us to suggest that N'Sync members aren't "real" musicians while Bocelli is? True, they do VERY different things and appeal to very different audiences, but in the end, they both sing and entertain and make money. I don't really see any fundamental difference at all. The bottom line is that in the world of "art" as it collides with "business," there are plenty of cubby-holes for aspiring artists to inhabit. Some make more money than others but that shouldn't negate the artistry of one or the other.

Note that I try very hard to use the word "CONservative" when describing the ideologies and avoiding assigning ideology to one specific political Party. While the Republicans of today are in lock-step regarding just about everything that has to do with undermining and destroying the USA, the Democratic Party is quite possibly the polar opposite, unable to gather unanimous support for the most important Progressive issues. So, when a Democrat welcomes CONservative policies, the title of "Democrat" doesn't excuse that representative from his/her clear CONservative worldview. And let me be clear about my personal opinion. I am NOT anti-Corporation at all. As you say, Corporations have their purpose and many (or most?) of them serve their purpose well (to make a profit). What I am AGAINST is A) our Government giving Corporations and other wealthy INDIVIDUALS an unfair economic advantage no matter the effect on other people, the environment, and our Constitution ... and B ) Corporations and other wealthy individuals having undo influence over our government, the representatives we have, and the policies they create. Just as we try very hard to keep religious beliefs out of the government sphere, so too is it IMPERATIVE to keep Corporations and wealthy individuals from influencing the government. When that happens, it is defined as Fascism and it would be hard to argue that this is not the situation we have in the USA today.... all built by the CONservative Right Wing elite over the past thirty years. And you are 100% correct to suggest that the beginning of the solution is campaign finance reform. NOTHING positive and progressive can ever get done so long as our would-be representatives have to bow to the wealthy and Corporations in order to get elected. It's a sad state of affairs in US politics and the issue of tax incentives is just another symptom of the fundamental cancer that pervades our society.

But it IS the Right WIng CONservatives who favor tax breaks and other incentives for Corporations. That's been their mantra since Reagan... hand over money to the wealthy and Corporations and watch it "trickle down" to the little people. They do that by enacting tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and by fostering the idea of tax incentives and subsidies for Corporations. This is a RIGHT WING scam/scheme, not a Left Wing one. The Right WANTS everyone fighting over the jobs in order to drive UP the amount of incentives offered to Corporations and drive DOWN wages for working people. Those who are against "incentive" programs aren't anti-job... they're anti-CONservative economic ideology which has proven to be an utter failure across the globe. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is anything but a Right Wing tool. It's not even "Liberal" or "Left Wing." It just reports numbers to the best of its abilities. The game that is being played by the Reagan Revolution is meant to put more money in the hands of a very few and leave everyone else fighting over the scraps. That is why unfettered Free Market Capitalism cannot sustain itself forever. There was a major reset in our trade and economic policies following the Republican Great Depression in the 1920s. We're due for a similar reset after having our economy all but decimated AGAIN by CONservative policies. Unfortunately, our current Administration isn't living up to the legacy of FDR as it needs to. Fascism is alive and well in the USA. Everybody cheer. :huh:

Tax "incentive" programs haven't paid off because they never will. They're not designed to ever pay off. Waiting and "giving them time to work" is like waiting for a rock to grow legs and walk. It won't happen. Yes, there are short-term jobs created and thus some tax revenue from those employees, but the governments are handing out so much as subsidies and tax breaks that any revenue gained by a very few local crew who are hired is offset by the high amount of the bribe given away. The "feather in the cap" argument has been one offered by pro-incentive people, but the numbers don't back up the claims of long-term economic benefit. The problem is that current programs ARE ABOUT instant gratification. "Look, we got a big Hollywood movie shootin' in town, Pa!" It's cool for "middle America" to see the circus roll into a town where nothing usually happens. But if they were looking beyond the instant gratification, then they'd see the scam being foisted upon them. If they'd look past the shiny lights for a minute, they'd see that they're being robbed. And again, having a government pay for an adult to make art for art's sake is a different discussion for our society which is primarily Capitalist in nature (even though we do have quite a bit of Socialism around us every day without any complaining about it). ;) It's one thing for a government to fund a public school program for youth to help foster/encourage their appreciation of art in case they want to enter adulthood to become an "artist" who can support him/herself with that skill/talent. But the question really goes to the heart of what "film" really is.... is it art or is it a product? The answer is, that it is primarily a product that has art within it. Much like an automobile which can be stylish (the art) but has a primary function to get you from A to B. If government begins financing filmmakers, then why shouldn't they also finance car makers or any other product that also has "artistic design" infused with it, like toasters or furniture?

I've always loved the look of The Thin Blue Line. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(documentary) Awards The Thin Blue Line won Best Documentary honors from the New York Film Critics Circle, the Kansas City Film Critics Circle, the National Board of Review, and the National Society of Film Critics.[21] Morris himself won an International Documentary Association Award, an Edgar Award, and a MacArthur Fellowship Genius Grant (1989).[22][23] The film was marketed as "nonfiction" rather than as a documentary which disqualified it from being considered in that category for an Academy Award.[7]

Okay, point taken. So how about tax incentives ONLY for indie NON-Corporate projects? Of course, that opens the door for established studios to run all of their big-tent movies through some "indie" arm that proclaims to be making "indie" films so there would have to be major regulations in place to keep the cheaters out. After all, the Republicans here are always using "small business" as their mantra (even though we all know that they are merely using that phrase to get tax cuts for the wealthy). But, that said, if a potential movie appears to be a good bet, an investor is going to invest in it tax incentive or no. Obviously an investor is going to want to spend as little as possible, particularly on a riskier project that isn't a sequel or one that doesn't have movie stars in it. But if the project is worth investing in, then it will attract money, tax incentive or not. If the project doesn't attract investors, then it likely isn't worth the effort in the first place. Making art for art's sake is a nice idea, but aside from the National Endowment for the Arts, the USA doesn't have the history or mechanism in place to let "artists" spend taxpayer money on their own artistic vision. I believe that it's Italian filmmakers who are striking right now because their government funding is being cut. The question of how much a government should hand out money to filmmakers is a complicated one, but what is clear is that the current tax-incentive scheme/scam is mostly only serving to put more money in the pockets of those at the top while undermining the livelihoods of career professionals who just want to have a comfortable life and not have to chase work around the globe.

I'm more than well-aware. Don't fool yourself though. This IS the "fault" of Corporations, at least in part. It's called Fascism when Corporate powers unduly influence a government. There is no doubt that the United States is now being run by Fascists who claim to be Capitalists. So yes, our political system is failing the people who it is meant to work for. That is the ultimate problem with something like tax incentives. They serve only to aid those at the top while denying "the People" the revenue that they should be receiving.

This is a good discussion point. The assumption, that your statement above implies, is that the "guy shooting his first indie film for 100K" WOULDN'T get to make that movie if the incentives weren't there. There's no evidence of that at all. What it DOES allow the indie guy and the billionaire filmmmaker to do is make the movies for less expense, which means either they are paying the cast & crew less than they should be and/or the local government is taking in less tax revenue than they should be to provide for the infrastructure that, ironically, makes it possible to shoot a movie there in the first place. So, I don't buy the argument that movies, big or small, would suddenly not be made if the incentives weren't there. Movies were made before this con-job was ever conceived and they'll likely be made after the scheme collapses under its own weight. It still comes down to having a project that is worthwhile for a financier to invest in. If the project appears to suck, it doesn't matter how much tax incentive someone is offered. But if the project shows promise, it'll likely get made incentives or not. The incentive thing is merely to allow the "manufacturer" the ability to pocket more on the back end due to tax breaks or outright money upfront.