Jayson Crothers

By the time you've got to the interview process, you should take a breath and relax a bit - the tough part is over. By interviewing you, they're essentially saying that from all of the applicants, they saw something in both your work and your narrative statement that showed them you were serious and dedicated to the art and craft. It's an insanely intensive program (look in the archives, I posted a little while back on what the first year is like), so the interview is largely to get a feel about how serious you really are, because it's not a program for people who are uncertain about thie field. My interview was mostly chatting about what they expected from me, what I should expect, what did I expect, etc; very informal and conversational - they're around 20-30 minutes. As for the cost - the tuition hike for next year is considerable, and I have no idea why. For me, I would have gladly payed twice that for what I gained from the first year - a total rebirth in terms of viewing the world and my work..............etc, etc, etc. However, it's different strokes for different folks and that's why you should really do the interview in person rather than via phone because you should also be interviewing AFI. In my interview, after they'd asked me why I wanted to attend AFI, I asked them why THEY wanted ME to attend - you need to make sure it's a good fit and will be worth the money. I gained insight, appreciation, management skills, contacts, etc................I'm a supporter of AFI because of MY experience, but I'm positive others on this board who have gone/are going can tell you a very different version. In my case, I photographed a 16mm feature last summer that was successful as a direct result of my education from AFI, and I'm shooting another feature right after graduation this summer with a director I met in the program, and not a 10K mini-DV film on weekends (not that there's anything wrong with those), but a film with a decent budget and wages that aren't a total insult for crew. It was a tough call for me because my family is most certainly not wealthy (my mother is a special education teacher in a state notorious for low-balling teacher wages), so I'm here entirely through loans and lots and lots and LOTS of scholarships (hint, you can never start too early for scholarship applications and apply for EVERYTHING! - I got a $200 scholarship from some random organization simply because I'm taller than 6'3"!). The point is that AFI is like ANY educational institution in the simple fact that it's what you make of it - if you come in ready to take the place by storm, make use of your time, learn on your own so you can ask tough and informed questions, etc...............you'll do well. If you expect to sit back and be told and lectured and not actively participate in your own life and career........well, you get back what you put in. Feel free to contact me via email if you want to chat on the phone, or if you have any other questions I can answer, please let me know.

I can't imagine how you're pulling off 83 set-ups involving kids and that many actors in those types of hours. Kudos to you David! How many more weeks of shooting do you have?

Having recently shot a feature where we used smoke extensively for four weeks, I can also add that it's imperative to have a good FX crew that can keep a sharp eye on it for consistency - whatever you use to get this effect, keep in mind that the thicker it is, the more affect it will have on your lighting (it's lowering contrast the more you have in the room). If you're shooting a scene over multiple days and don't have good notes and consistency, you'll be most unhappy in dailies later on. Also give serious consideration to the saftey and health factor - most materials used to create this "shaft of light" look are tested for safety and you can find that information, but those tests are never done with consideration to 12+ hours of exposure over many days. I carry a gas mask (courtesy of Home Depot) in my gear bag just in case, and arrangements should be made for similar gear for the rest of the crew - this, of course, depends on the exposure to it - a few shots is probably fine, a week of inhaling that stuff is another matter altogether. Just my thoughts.

Hey All~ Darius Khondji, AFC, ASC came into AFI a few weeks ago and chatted with a few of us - an amazingly humble man who was extremely self critical of his own work. He was pretty vocal about disliking heavy technical questions (he claimed he wasn't a very technical person and wouldn't know how to answer many of those types of questions), and got very excited and animated when he was discussing WHY he did things in his movies. I've pasted a list below of some films he said had inspired him over the years and that he often goes back to for ideas and, well, inspiration - this was the list as it was emailed by him, so please forgive me if there are any errors. TITLE-DIRECTOR Sunrise - FW Murnau Lâ??Atalante - J.Vigo Citizen Kane - O.Welles A bout de soufflé - JL Godard Pierrot le fou - JL Godard Les quatre cent coups - F. Truffaut Jules et Jim - F.Truffaut Huit et demi - F,Fellini All that Jazz - B.Fosse La notte - M.Antonioni Birth of a nation - D.W, Griffith The Grapes of Wrath - J.Ford Vampyr - C. Dreyer The Searchers - J.Ford Il conformista - B.Betrolucci LA regle du jeu - Jean Renoir Les Courts metrages - Artavaz Pelechian Andrei Roublev - Andrei Tarkovski Freaks - Tod Browning Johnny Guitar - nicholas Ray The red river - Howard hawks Bring up baby - Howard hawks Les yeux sans visage - G.Franju The godfather I and II - F.Coppola Apocalypse now - F Coppola 2001 a space Odyssey - S.Kubrick Clockwork orange - S.Kubrick The Shining - S.kubrick The Wind - V.Sjostrom Faces - J.Cassavetes Husbands - J.Cassavetes Taxi driver - M. scorcese Raging Bull - M.Scorcese Vertigo - A . Hitchcock Lâ??Imperatrice Yang kwei fei - K.Mizoguchi Contes de chrysantemes Tardifs - K.Mizoguchi Lâ??intendant sancho - K.Mizoguchi La grande Illusion - Jean Renoir America America - E.Kazan All the presidents men - A. J. Pakula Klute - A. J. Pakula The four horsemen of the apocalypse - V.Minnelli The long goodbye - R. Altman Moby Dick - J.Huston The big sleep - howard hawks

It seems to me (though I only glanced it over for about 15 minutes on their site, so I could be very wrong here) that this is a $500 DVD version of what you could learn from the book "Film Directing Shot by Shot" by Steven D. Katz. Not meant as a promotion; I just think it's an excellent book for learning about blocking and shooting scenes. I'd suggest you save your money for other things.

Bootleg DVD of "The Conformist"? You have my attention................. I'm not one for piracy, but if you have a DVD version of it, we should talk. How, what quality, etc.................

Any kind of rigging to a car, especially when you're not using a tow rig, should be done by someone with experience - nothing is more terrifying than seeing your camera go off a hostess tray or having a hood mount go loose while you're driving along - a friend of mine lost a camera this way just a few months ago - her 2nd unit guy rigged a camera on a hood mount for a few "simple" shots and didn't do it right..............kiss one A-Minima goodbye. And I'll be the nagging mother - PLEASE be careful if you plan to have the talent drive and act at the same time - you should find a deserted area you can control and have PA's at the start of the run and at the end of the run so they can notify someone in the car (all with walkies of course) if there's another vehicle coming. Safety first!

I don't wish to sound negative, but typically when a production is trying to make itself look bigger than it really is (especially shorts and student films), it's a bit of a failure. By that I mean that so much attention is paid to "production value" that things like story get put into second place - and since you ARE low budget, invariably your big budget attempt seems like just that - an attempt. That's not to say you shouldn't be aiming to cram your film with as much production value as you can - simply moving the camera (in appropriate times and places) adds immense perceived value - the last feature I shot just sold and the company who sold it was able to get a fair amount for it because the "camera was moving a lot" and that equated to a bigger budget; go figure. I'm just cautioning to not lose sight of the story and how to best tell it; focus on that and how you might do that WHILE adding production value, rather than how to make the movie seem big and making telling the story second to that. For me, the two biggest things that make a film seem low budget are poor lighting and bad sound (sound can really make or break you - be good to the sound crew!). Philippe Rousselot once said (very wisely in my opinion) to a boom op. friend of mine "If it's [the lighting] bad for you, it's bad for me." He was referring to putting sound into a position, lighting wise, where they might not be able to get good sound (ie, excessive top light, etc).

Welcome to the site Lisa!

I own some square china "balls" that are excellent for controlling spill - I have 12"x12" and 24"x24" units with strips of duvetyn attached to each side - when I need to control the light, I jsut unclip a side and down it comes without swaying the unit to one side or the other. Any city with a "china town" should have them (I've found them in Chicago, LA, and New York). Target carries some 12" units as well I think.........

As always David, thank you for the fantastic posts. What I find particularly interesting is reading this one and then going back and re-reading older posts from past films and seeing how you've changed your approach or how you've changed personally/professionally. Tracing your growth and progress has been exciting and inspiring, and for me, shows that the most interesting work is whatever you're doing now or next because you (or perhaps I should now say "we", as cinematographers in general) are always in a state of perpetual motion and change. Cheers David and thank you again.

I was at the awards last night and most everyone I spoke to seemed very surprised by this win. Don't misunderstand me; clearly it's a beautiful film and deserved it's nomination, but with the beautiful work by Richardson, or the innovative work by Cameron and Beebe............well, it was rather unexpected when they announced his name. It was very interesting also when they screened sample clips of the nominees to see the pieces of "Collateral" shot by each cinematographer - it struck me that Cameron was exploring more depth and capturing the grit of the city while Beebe seemed to be pushing how far one could go with darkness and "no light". Of course, that's a vague opinion formed from only a brief clip representing each of their contributions to the film, so take it for what it's worth. Alec Baldwin was an excellent speaker and presenter.............funny cinematographer impressions.

Claudio~ Welcome to the site, fantastic to have you. I've spent much time looking at your site; amazing work that keeps inspiring me (I especially love what you do with anamorphic flares). Glad to have you here!

A number of seminars in the 2nd year aren't always lighting related - in the case of both Khondji and Richardson, they both spoke with us. Richardson screened the Aviator and spoke about it from his prespective and about his career, and Khondji was especially great because we just kept screening scenes from various films of his and talked about why he made certain choices and how he works with directors, and how he chooses films, and what he was afraid of, and, and, and................ Equipment at AFI is a bit dismal - first year you shoot everything on DVCAM (with the number of films shot and the turnaround, film's not practical) and your G&E is very limited but you make it work - rarely any money the first year for additonal anything really. The second year AFI gives you a bit more, but it't not much. I spent much of my time working out deals on a lot of equipment - I think we ended up with 11 different vendors on my last thesis shoot - that's a lot, but it was the only way to get everything I felt we needed for the budget we had. AFI stresses that it's the person behind the camera, not the camera itself, that matters. Have you been to the campus yet? I'm not trying to sell it or say yay or nay, just trying to help make informed decisions. Call JJ Jackman or Scott Hardman for a tour - let me know if/when you do and we could meet up - you might even be able to stop into a class too if you'd be interested.

Just got to reading this whole chat - it's great. I've been here for 18 months from Chicago - LOVED that city and it's taken work to adapt to living here. I live in Hollywood (very close to AFI because I spend so much time in this area anyways, may as well live here) and spend $875 for a 1-bedroom. Last year had an AMAZING place with two friends and paid under $600 each. As others have mentioned, my street is very clean and friendly, but right across Sunset Blvd I wouldn't walk at night and I stand 6'4"! Best advice is to find an area you feel comfortable in, has things you're looking for, and just shop around apartments - takes some time, but eventually you can find those killer deals everyone else gets jealous about.

Hey David~ Wow, big question there. I'll try to take a crack at answering it the best I can. AFI is a two year program, and for me, the first year was both personally and professionaly groundbreaking - this second year is an entirely different experience; not bad, but not as good. Professionally, you're immersed entirely in your studies of cinematography - both in class, on set with your peers, and constant evaluations (every film made the first year by every fellow, 84 total, is evaluated by both the entire school as well as again in each discipline). AFI is also representative of time - you're paying for 2 years to not worry about getting work and to focus on studying and learning and growing - my first year was best rounded out by taking my "free time" and pursuing areas I felt I was weak in, outside of AFI. AFI broke me down, kicked me around, then picked me back up, said maybe I wasn't so bad afterall, and nudged me down the street to discover things for myself - making a breakthrough in yourself and your work is an amazing experience and I still recall the specific moment I was watching my work, unsatisfied, and realized "Oh My God...........that's IT!" and my whole approach to cinematography, both as an artist, manager, and technician, changed. Between my first and second year I photographed a 16mm feature out of town, and it was ONLY because of the lessons learned via AFI that I was able to pull it off (consequently, they were so pleased with my work that I'll be shooting another feature for the same company this July). They teach you what it MEANS to be a cinematographer, both as an artist (the biggest focus - how to interpret and dramatize your directors script and vision and why), manager (budgets, schedules, egos, personalities, politics, career survival, etc), and as a technician (knowing as much as possible and then forgetting it so you can focus on story and not get caught up in toys and technical wizardy, but also being knowledgeable enough to handle anything that might come your way). Personally it's grueling because your first year is 4 days on set, either your own or crewing for your classmates (the cinematographers are a VERY tight group and on the whole, all very supportive and encouraging.........at least my class is), 3 days in classes, and additional projects outside of school (lots of shooting still photos). 9 out of 10 people in relationships broke up within 2-3 months of starting AFI, and any hobbies and relationships that aren't AFI related fall to the side. It's tough to constantly be slapped down, get wrapped up in the politics of any educational system (especially one as small and intimate as AFI), and in general everyone goes through at least one dark patch of being so emotionally drained that they check out for a bit. However, I'd gladly pay double for what I got out of my first year because it really does foster an environment where you learn to re-invent yourself into what you want to be, and your approach to this field and work does a 180 for the best I believe. The second year is about nothing but your thesis, and most of that is spent fundraising, which is so inherently uncreative it's like pulling your own teeth with a spoon. AFI has so many rules and regulations that it often seems like they don't want you to make a movie, but those that are passionate enough get past all the system noise and get down to the work. You do a lot of crewing as both favors to friends but also because you want/need crew for your thesis. You spend far less time in class and you see each other far less, so people start to drift away quickly trying to get other things going for them outside of AFI. Guests vary - Darius Khondji and Robert Richardson were both in just a few weeks ago, and Tom Stern and Fred Murphy are both coming in next week for lighting seminars (and of course our own David Mullen came in for a mind blowing 8 hour chat about any topic we could toss at him), but some guests aren't as spectacular or as informative, and it also depends on their availability. The program is going through some big changes I think - most folks know that Bill Dill, ASC, is no longer at AFI and instead Stephen Lighthill, ASC, is just in his first year running things - Stephen's great and is implementing a number of new things that are very good for the program - he's got decades of experience behind him and is MORE than happy to hand it all over to you - he's supportive when he needs to be and brutal when he needs to be - he's very fair I think and is an excellent teacher. A big thing to consider is the cost - tuition is rising by (rumors) $6000.00 for next year, which, IMHO, is too much and is worth a frank question of: What can I REALLy expect, specifically, for that much more money? If I were to be in that position, I'd REALLY think about it with this new price tag. Ages range a bit, but very late 20's to early/mid 30's seems to be the norm (I myself will turn 26 in about 6 weeks, I was 24 when I entered the program, so I was a bit younger that most). I suppose the bigger question would be: what do YOU expect from the program, and what do you WANT from it? Let me know and maybe I can answer more specifically to those things since so many people enter with expectations that aren't met or are skewered. What's your background in? Sorry for the long post, hope it's not too rambling and it helps. Alicia?

Hey Everyone~ I'm doing a few inserts for a recent shoot on an Arri 35 III and we're having some serious trouble with our 1000' mag. In short, the take up only works intermittently - I'll get 10-15' of take up fine, but then it stops rotating and the film starts spooling up in the mag - we had no problem at check out, but this problem couldn't be solved tonite for our one shot. Since these inserts are so few, we have a package that's essentially a freebie, and with it being the weekend, calling tech support at the rental house is dicey - I can have our AC break down a 1000' roll into the 400' mags, but I like her and would like to avoid such abuse if possible. =) Any advice, thoughts, obvious things that I'm just not smart enough to be catching? Thanks.

I've used the Pro-35 with Super Speeds. I've not used this set-up for any HD originated projects going back to film, so I can't comment on how happy you might be with the system if that's your post flow. However, finishing to a video based medium, I've always been very happy - it takes just a bit of the video-ish edge off and gives you control of selecting focus without needing to use extremely long lenses (the focus works just as though you were shooting 35mm). It does suck up battery power fast, and the adapter steals about 2 stops of light from you, so consider what your shoot calls for because you may end up coming in with more light than expected. It's also a bit heavy, so consider that for handheld or steadicam work - and don't forget to turn the device on and off between takes to conserve batteries. I've done a few shoots where the look it gives just wasn't appropriate, so as always, head on down to the rental house, toss it up on a camera, and have a look for yourself.

Mr. Stern will be conducting a lighting seminar for a few of us next week at AFI - does anyone have any specific questions they'd like answers to? I'm more than happy to ask.

Alicia~ Welcome to the forum! It's nice to see another AFI'er around here - I'm in my last few months there. Great looking site.

I get VERY nervous about any post that has the phrase "how to avoid death" in it............. In COMPLETE seriousness, do not attempt or consider anything remotely like this without a stunt coordinator - they are professionals who make their living doing these things and are experienced, trained, and equipped to do them safely and effectively. I did one show with a stunt crew of people who were, shall we say, less than qualified; someone was badly injured in a relatively easy stunt - last time I'll make that mistake. It's just a movie - it's not worth a death, it's not even worth an injury. If you can't afford to hire someone specifically trained and experienced in how to do this, you shouldn't be doing it - ESPECIALLY a stunt involving a moving vehicle and dragging someone. The stunt coordinator will also be able to communicate to your Cinematographer some of the more effective ways to shoot the stunt in question to make it sell better, more exciting, etc. Sorry to harp on this matter, but I need to say again - if you don't have a Pro setting this up for you, forget it!

Hey everyone - a friend has a shoot coming up where he's considering mixing formats and is looking at using an old tube camera he has access to for it's unique look - however, he's looking for any information out there about tube cameras. Does anyone have a direction they can point him in? Thanks.

One great trick I learned was to watch the footsteps of the talent; if you're tracking or moving with someone, watch how they walk and time your steps to match theirs - one reason handheld work often feels jerky is because the movement of the subject in frame is in opposition to the movement of the camera, so the more you can sync the two together, the less apparent the movement is. Studying dancers and the way they move is also very useful.

Thanks for all of the replies - we're still debating on this or a Moviecam SL. I'll let you know which way we go and how it works out.

I have a S35 short coming up that I'm looking to shoot 3-perf; great deal of car work and a healthy dose of handheld work. I have a very fair offer on renting an Aaton35-III and am wondering if anyone can offer their thoughts on it in practical production situations. I'd be looking at using it as our A camera, so considerations of noise, ease of use, troubleshooting, etc. I have a feature coming later in the year that's considering 35 and so this may also be a test run for the camera on that. Thanks everyone!