Dan Parkes

Hi Kevin Thanks for that. Actually, I think my problem was the music did not have enough notes.....! :) Anyway, in regard to the beginning of the original blog that you took exception to, you actually answered the question in your post when you wrote "you must have made some serious errors in your choice of DoPs" which actually hits the nail on the head. I don't want to dwell on the names or situations etc but prior to shooting Ambleton we had several bad experiences with DPs who were at best non-communicative and hence gave me the impression of some mystery. It was more likely due to inability, but I would never want to accuse anyone of that, so hence just labelled it somewhat humorously 'a mystery'. I know I am not alone in this phenomena. But note that I was here discussing personal experience and not DoPs in general as I know that this is certainly not the case on a higher and more professional level. I have several books on Cinematography (including David Mullen's incidentally) and often pop into Deakin's site and this forum, so in practice it is clearly not secretive. And I have had a great admiration for DoPs (more than directors) since a very young age and could read Dean Cundey's name in the credits.... So ultimately yes you are right that the original blog does not accurately reflect my opinion of DoPs simply because it never intended to....but it does accurately reflect my personal experience and the fact that I also DPed sections of the feature myself. The blog is primarily about the lighting equipment; it was only Karel's misleading blog here that unfortunately gave it any other impression and released a proverbial lynch mob.... Anyway, thanks again Kevin, hope that clears things up!

Thanks Kevin, I think you are right about Ed Wood jr, but not completely sure of its relevance here. As in the blog (http://bit.ly/DPhere) I go on to list 16 directors known to simultaneously direct and DP. Not that I am recommending this particular Auteur option; as it says in the blog I personally would rather work alongside a fulltime dedicated DoP. Regarding Marc Price's £45 "Colin" -yes, no DP and yet 9 make-up artists! But you cannot deny that it worked for them, no matter how good or bad the film was. Zombie films are an easy pick for low-to-no-budget productions such as ours; however our film is based around small village politics and hence the production values had to be a lot higher. The producer's motto was "Low budget does not mean low quality" and I think we can say we were successful on that front. As for your comment about stretching talents to include music... as an interesting side point I actually did compose some music for this film, as I in my earlier days I was a restaurant pianist/composer and since the film is told through the eyes of a restaurant pianist it was logical to include two of my compositions in the film. It is always an economical option to get original music rather than clear copyrighted material and this film in fact has a wealth of original British band music from jazz to heavy metal. But I disagree with your evaluation that it is just "putting notes in the right order". Having scored 40 minutes worth of underscore for an earlier feature film all I can say is that it is extremely hard work and I personally believe that directors, just as with DoPs, should not do both as it often requires a separate pair of eyes to provide the depth of emotion. In our case composer Iain Cameron did a brilliant job with his score to Ambleton (he got nominated for an award). As for the feature film itself it has been on the festival circuit for the last year, has picked up some awards (including 2 Best Film awards and one Best Actor) and we are now responding to distribution enquiries. Will see how it goes.

Nice! Your above link and post unfortunately reveals the truth of the situation and I rest my case. Karel -instead of belitting the efforts of others and all the unnecessary vitriol wouldn't your energy be better spent on some positive, constructive, creative outlet.... such as the art of filmmaking?

Thanks Pat, glad you are enjoying the blog. I have certainly learned a lot from what happened, although in all honesty most of the negativity is based on the misleading title and tone of this thread, and also the same author's misleading post on the UK version of Shooting People (which afterward seemed inclined to live up to its name!) rather than the original blog in question. But I have compiled my lessons learned into a new blog entitled 'Dark arts?': The Great DoP Debate which covers such issues as whether there can be two DPs on set, and if directors can also DP. The link is: http://bit.ly/DPhere :)

Thanks Anna for clearing it up, I appreciate that. As you say the shoot was great fun and a positive experience and I for one am very proud of what the entire cast and crew have achieved.

Brad -I would rather credit you with more intelligence than that, as the answer is in what you have just quoted. The supplementary scenes were all DPed. There was a DP for the supplementary scenes. The supplementary scenes were lit by a DP. But it was someone different from the dedicated DP. Surely this is not too difficult to understand? No DP = No film. What you might be trying to say is that you disagree with having more than one DP on a shoot, or do not like the idea of a director who also DPs? I assume that when you describe me as talking "like a low budget producer" that is not supposed to be a compliment. But in fact it should be. If a producer can successfully produce a film on a low budget then chances are they can do a lot more with a larger budget. Our motto was 'Low budget does not mean low quality' and I can say we stuck by that. However, I was primarily the director, although since I waived my fee, I'm also on the production team. The primary producers were Itsuka Yamasaki and Sinéad Ferguson, who were tough but great to work with, and ultimately the secret to the success of the project.

Freya -You do seem to have a rather short term memory. 'Disloyal' 'unappreciative' and 'abused' are your very own words, just look a few posts above, they are not my words at all. I will specifically address the two 'examples': 1. "unprofessional" -I actually wrote "probably unprofessional" in reference to both Anna and I commenting publicly on production matters using inaccurate information. I don't think anyone would disagree with that being 'probably unprofessional'. And this was only a few posts ago.... several days after you used the words Disloyal' 'unappreciative' and 'abused'. So this most definitely does not equate to being 'abusive' whatever way you look at it. 2. Your quote from one of my comments on the blog (note: not in the blog itself) can hardly be described as critical. Anna herself has said to me that some of the shots we DoPed without her were in fact very good. Does that make the shots she DoPed by default poor and/or bad? No, it does not! Not unless you read that into the sentence with a negative frame of mind. And please also note this sentence references her hard work on set as well. Freya, you are really clutching at straws if that is all you have to offer of my 'abuse'. I am most thankful for Anna's work on the film and I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept that. The facts have already been clearly established. So please let's stop wasting everyone's precious time with these fruitless and negative arguments. Regards Dan

Numerous? Please cite one specific example of me being publicly "critical" and/or 'abusive' of Anna and I will most certainly address it, and if valid most definitely apologise, as that has never ever been my intent, quite the opposite. Regards Dan

'Disloyal', 'unappreciative' and 'abusive'. Freya, these are serious words to use about any filmmaker, especially (and correct me if I am wrong) a fellow UK filmmaker, one you have never met or yet worked with. It saddens me tremendously that you seem determined to take this stand. Anyway, I hope that we can meet one day and/or the actual truth of the matter can one day be known to you. Thee British film industry, as wonderful as it is, needs all the positive support it can get, and not this. Regards Dan

You forgot to copy and past one rather important part in the above - "Ambleton Delight said... " You will notice my comments have "Dan Parkes said". I never personally said Anna's comment was offensive. Ever. But it was effectively inaccurate because it was referring to my removed comment regarding the use of the word "half". If you read my actual comment above I am referring to both of us. It is unprofessional for members of a crew to be airing grievances in public when the line of communication should be directly with the production team. In this case there isn't actually any grounds for any grievance in the first place, so is worse. I am not and have not been critical of Anna. As I have stated all along the blog is not about her. Please provide a specific example of this. No I do not. You were quoting from the comments section, not the blog, and so I am referencing the comments section, in which I make an inaccurate comment that was removed. I stand by the original blog -as it is not about DoPs but about lighting equipment. There is nothing in the original blog to apologise for, as it is not about her, but about the kit. Karel's thread title and link are far greater causes for offence than the lighting kit blog itself. If Anna has any ground for offence she should really take it up with him. Ask Anna herself if you think there is cause for an apology. I have been corresponding with Anna regularly over the last few days, including today, and found it most worthwhile and I would similarly recommend you write or talk directly with Anna herself, rather than all these attempts to vilify me. How about we get back to the far more important, positive and enlightening topic of the beauty of cinematography, the great DoPs we have the pleasure of seeing work in our time, and the ever increasing array of fantastic lighting tools at our disposal?

Exactly! We don't begrudge it at all. To elaborate, this word is not with the meaning of holding a 'grudge'; in this context it is in the meaning of being "reluctant" or "resentful", in this case of her time. There are some who allege we have been "disloyal" or unappreciative of the fact that Anna volunteered her additional time for "free". For example Freya you wrote regarding in response to this: "No good deed goes unpunished eh! How nasty can you get!" And later you recommend the response be: "I don't mind being used, it's being used and abused that really gets to me!" Punishment, abuse? That is certainly not the case. It was simply a blog on lighting equipment! We appreciated her work then and appreciate it now, and have no slightest intention of any "punishment" or "abuse". Quite the opposite! Regards Dan

Thanks for the clarification Freya, I am glad you don't think I am "bizzare". And I completely agree with you -we should never respond to anyone who is or who is acting nasty by being unpleasant in return. As David Mullen wisely advises posters here: "Don't let someone else's negative tone or attitude prompt you to respond in kind, though it is highly tempting I admit." So while there have been some 'negative tones' and misinformation on this thread, I think it is a great opportunity to discuss, to clarify and to learn. :) Regards Dan

Hello Freya Thank you for clarifying things. If I have appeared to be nasty to Anna then for that I do sincerely apologise -that has most certainly not been my intention and never will. It was not the intention of the blog -it is listing lighting equipment, and is not about the DoP. Anna worked hard and also volunteered her time and I will never ever begrudge that at all. You pick up on the comments in the blog... The reason for Anna's comment being removed was simply because it was in response to my own comment which had been rightly removed! My comment was inaccurate when I wrote in general terms that she lit "half" the film, which Anna replied to. In fairness, she established a lighting design that was then reflected in the supplementary and second unit scenes and so you can not put a percentage on her input. So the production team rightly decided to remove it, as well as Anna's response. I have never ever said her post was "blatantly offensive". When I have ever written that? Like mine, it was inaccurate and quite possibly unprofessional, but not offensive. However, the same can not be said of many of the comments about the blog on this forum, which is truly a shame, when it presents a wonderful platform to share and encourage. I haven't taken offence at the fact that you describe me as a "massive fool" or having a "high bizzare value". But maybe based on your own argumentation about 'being nasty' I should? Regards Dan

Thanks Tim. The title of the blog is: "Tip #42: Simple and effective lighting kit." So not sure how that can be confusing, it is clearly about the kit. The number of people who are offended about something does not necessarily validate the offence. Karel took an unfortunate stance with the naming of this thread that has predisposed those who have then taken offence. There are just as many if not more who have read it and saw nothing offensive about a kit list and hence have not bothered to reply. The only mention of the DoP in the blog is that they shot "key scenes" and that the blog is based on our experience DPing supplementary scenes. I cannot see how that could cause anyone any offence... other than when within the misleading way Karel presented it.

No, in my opinion a DP is absolutely necessary at all times on a shoot. Fact: In our case we had a dedicated DoP for key scenes. For the supplmentary scenes the camera team and director DPed, just as lighting cameramen often do.