Miguel Roman

7 hours ago, Dermot McDermot said:

In the tree shot, I would guess an ND grad was used. Brian was not averse to popping those things on when he thought about it. 

Brian's rushes often looked crap - as you'd expect when things were over exposed two stops. The producers would often have to see graded sections before they calmed down. I have no doubt that this was Brian's idea for achieving the look that Malik wanted and I doubt Malik had the experience to know that this would wash out the blue sky but also reduce the need for fill lighting or reflectors.

Brian came to prominence in a period in the UK when films were looking more and more realistic and unlit - whatever the actual technique used. Ken Loach's Days of Hope was (and still is)one of the most naturally lit things I had seen and was incredibly influential for lighting cameramen at the time. It was a decade or more before this look appeared in the US and there are still many many Hollywood films made which are lit like tennis courts.

There were a lot of other subtle things which Brian used to do which may have gone over Terry Malik's head due to youth and inexperience. One was Brian's very consistent use of different colour key and fill lights. He always tried to get a small blue/orange difference to shape the light in a room.

Another was his use of what he called "control words". At one point, when a director was asking for things Brian didn't agree with, Brian just made a small quiet comment. This was followed by 5 minutes of bluster from the director following which the director changed the scene and shot something different. I asked Brian about this later and he said "everyone has their control words. When it's getting over the top, you just need to drop a gentle hint using a control word and things should get back on track. You can't use them too often though."

There's mention on the different way of working between Brian and Steve Larner. Brian was the best DOP I have worked with in terms of running his part of the film. He was the "head of department" and made sure that his department worked well and did the best they could, even though everything else was falling apart. I've worked with DOPs where it was everyone for themselves and in-fighting all over the place. Brian was not like that. He was a father figure, both with discipline and advice.

The only odd thing, which perhaps started after the ulcers, was his overall level of calm on set. It was not uncommon for Brian to fall asleep, leaning on a light stand or ladder, while waiting for the rest of the crew to get ready for a shot and one of his trusties would gently wake him up before anyone noticed.

Thank you for your comments Dermot! Could I ask you what was your role in Badlands? Did you use to work often with Probyn or Larner?

Thanks for the comments; it is interesting what has been said about experienced actors being sensitive to light and lenses, which makes me think that it should be the same for experienced directors, I mean even if they have not studied lighting, composition, etc, they should have some knowledge after having worked for some time in the industry.

But going back to my initial inquire, It comes to mind some early work of Francis Ford Coppola, at least in films like Apocalypse now, where Storaro seems to have a big influence in the cinematography (like in most of the films he has shot, I think)

22 hours ago, Raymond Zananiri said:

I would think Woody Allen belongs to that category as well. 

Yeah, right? At the very least I think that is obvious during some of his early work and the strong style of Gordon Willis's 

Thanks Gregory! I noticed you collaborated with him in some of his films; do you know if David O. Russell have no knowledge on the photographic aspect, interest or neither of them?

Hello everyone,

I find interesting the work of some filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson who seem to be quite knowledgeable about photography in general, but I was wondering if any of you can recall any film directors who are (or were) mostly interested in the content of their work and not so much in the form, letting the cinematographer take full control on the look of the film.

Thanks!

13 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Hi Miguel .. wow great many thanks .. I just listened to the Chris Menges , Roger Deakins podcast and they mentioned my dad quite alot ,as Menges was his assistant on Poor Cow and I think the first few shoots Chris Menges worked on ..  anyway thank you again sir  !

You are welcome Robin, I will definitely check that podcast that you mention!

@Robin R Probyn Hello Robin, I found an interview of your father and I thought you might be interested in reading it; it was published on 1975, in the magazine Cinema Papers. I am posting the link to the entire magazine, the interview appears in the pages 73, 74 and 75.

https://issuu.com/libuow/docs/cinemapaper1975marno000/79

Thank you!

Hello! I would like to know more about Kodak's Dye Layering Technology, which is something I read in one of the Technical Data sheets from Kodak Vision3 500T 5219:

The proprietary, advanced Dye Layering Technology (DLT) provides noticeably reduced grain in shadows, allowing you to pull out an amazing amount of shadow detail.

Could anyone explain a little more about  about how does this layering technology work? Why does this DLT allow the film to perform better in the shadows? I have not been able to find info on this...

Thanks!

8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Oh great thanks for the quotes .. I actually thought he shot more than 1/3rd .. thanks for taking the time to do that .. 

No problem! 

The other interview, which can be found in the same book of Maher's, it's an interview conducted by Michel Ciment for the magazine Positif in 1975, but there is no direct reference to your father on that one.

6 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Do you have a link to the article about Badlands .. I would be interested to have a look .. thanks  .. Im not in the same country as my brother but I can give it a try ..

This last sentence about the soft technique comes from a transcript of a master class “A Master Class with Terrence Malick” at the AFI, in 1976. It can be found in a book called All Things Shinning: An oral history of the films of Terrence Malick (Paul Maher Jr., 2017). I only have the physical book, so I can not link it; but besides that sentence there is only a few references to your father:

He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work. IT was difficult. I mean, he is 55 years old or so, and I was just a kid. And I didn't know what I was doing. this was on-the-job training. But I should right there have taken things in hand, and I didn't, and then the same thing sort of happened with the second person. We sort of mutually got fed up with each other. And the third person, who used to be an instructor here, was my instructor in cinematography.

[…]

QUESTION: Why did Brian Probyn leave the production? 

Malick: Well, it sort of - he got quite exhausted and developed a bad case of ulcers at the same time that we weren't getting along. It was quite hot where we were shooting. It was what used to be the dust bowl.

QUESTION: How much of the film had Probyn shot before he left?

Malick: About a third. Each of them [Probyn, Fujimoto and Larner] shot about a third. Almost exactly. It just worked out that way. 

[…]

(…) if you get somebody with a documentary background like Steve Larner he didn't need anybody...the people he had, they were mainly to hold things that he stuck in their hands so they could be high school students. But that couldn't have happened with Brian Probyn, for instance, who was used to woking in a different way. His interiors look better, I'm sure, for their preparation than Larner's would given the way he had to work.  

9 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Interesting Malik mentions the over exposing , but it definitely wasn't his idea ? and it wasn't to avoid using lights or reflectors.. I do remember my dad saying he wanted a sort of washed out , hot , bland look to the day exteriors day shots  and that Malik was very concerned when they sure some un corrected rushes. Yes they did use lights  just that when the topic of the lighting budget came up Malik has been surprised he used lights at all !... my dad was from documentary work and had done alot of the BBC "Wednesday Plays" with Ken Loach ,and then Poor Cow ,Loaches first feature film .. there was a whole new wave of a more naturalistic lighting in the 60,s early /70,s .. presumably Malik had checked out his work and thought he just didn't light anything ....he had shot Down Hill Racer before Badlands too .. maybe he was basing the no lights idea around that film .. which of course used lights .. Malik was just very green then .. 

Sorry I don't have the slides , hopefully my brother in the UK still has them ! 

About the choice of your father as cinematographer, Malick says “He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work.” So I guess that combined with the documentary background would make him quite an ideal candidate for an independent shooting like Badlands.

Please let us know if your brother can find the slides!

6 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

I don't think it is personally.. its just shade 

It does look like the tree's own shade...but when I look at the sky on the background I can see a difference in the contrast of the top of the image and the middle of the frame, as well as the right grey post at the edge of the frame...

6 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

I wish I could ask my old man !.. he started the film and it was a pretty bumpy ride with Maliks inexperience I heard .. in the end my dad got an ulcer but didnt leave due to any big falling out , and was given the Cadillac after the shoot which he drove alone the west coast .. Malik is in Badlands as a friend who comes to the door of the rich guy and Kit answers  , apparently the actor who was meant to do it just didnt turn up !.. all I can remember is the old man was over exposing all the hot day ext by 2 stops and "printing down"..and that was kept during the shoot .. and he shot the house burning stuff too .. I think he shot most of it and has the top credit, (Tak Fujimoto was the AC  and did some shooting after the old man went to hospital )..or that was just in his contract .. he was flown over from the UK and when he got there there was basically no lights ! as Malik thought he didnt use them.. great film but he really was very green when he made it, straight out ion film school virtually .. and there was alot of upside down slates going on .. but still personally I think its his best film  regardless of any family tie .. the music is fantastic and two un known young actors .. he had lots of slides but many seemed to be of Sissy Spacek  and of him taken by her mmmm..  she did end up marrying the art director I believe ..

That's quite interesting! About the over exposing in Badlands, in one of his rare interviews Malick says “I overexposed the negative and then printed it with very low contrast, so that even in exterior shots with natural light the characters never need to be lighted by reflectors.” So I guess that's why he wasn't using that much artificial light, although depending on the shots (and therefore, depending on who of the three dps shot them) it can clearly be seen the use of lights. And as you said, Spacek ended up marrying Jack Fisk, the art director in Badlands and most of Malick's films, some of David Lynch's, Paul Thomas Anderson's, etc.

Any chance of seeing some of those slides that you mentioned?? That would be great!

Those are great answers! Much appreciated!!

I was also wondering about what filters might have been used on the lenses; in Badlands there is one shot in particular where I personally believe a ND grad filter was used, and I would like to ask your opinion on it:

Hi everyone, I am trying to find out what lenses were used in the shooting of Terrence Malick's Badlands, but there seems to be no info available on this topic. I just know that three cameras were used during the production: Mitchell Bncr, Cameflex, and Arriflex.

Badlands was shot in 1972, does anyone know what lenses were common for any of this cameras around that time, specially for the Mitchell?

Thanks!

That's very insightful, thank you David! 

Thank you for your answer Stuart; I read that, in the time when celluloid was the norm, there was an optical step at the end of the answer-print process that could decrease slightly the quality of an image shot in super 35. Do you know if this was always the case? I guess with digital there is no such a problem anymore...

Hi everybody,

I have a question related to the film To the Wonder by Terrence Malick. In an interview for the American Cinematographer magazine,  director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki says that for “To the Wonder we did some tests and decided on the compromise of going 2.35 but shooting spherical— partly because I really, really love the sharp, clean Master Primes. We also went with spherical because we were shooting in a lot of houses.”

Since Lubezki speaks about the 'compromise' of going 2.35 but shooting spherical, my question is: does that mean that they shot super 35 and then cropped the image, therefore loosing some part of the original frame?

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for your comments! I apologise, the flashback is not at 02:38:08 but at 02:08:38, with the character of Marty in the swing. To me, the slow motion also appears to have been shot at 48 fps, but since I can not confirm that, I was hoping to find a legitimate source for this info.

I am writing my dissertation about the films of Terrence Malick and I am very interested in the flashbacks that appear in The Thin Red Line; particularly I would like to ask if anybody knows at what rate of frames per second were shot the flashbacks that appear at the moments 00:05:15, 01:17:09, 02:38:08 y 02:34:58. The action on those flashbacks is slower than the usual 24fps but I would like to know the exact speed.

John Toll was the cinematographer and there is an article in American Cinematographer (February 1999) about his work in the movie, but they don't mention this information on it. So far I haven't been able to find out about it, so any help will be appreciated!

Thanks!

I see, that makes sense, specially in terms of quality; I didn't know it was no big deal to run the film backwards. Thanks!

I would like to know, can anyone explain me why some scenes in films have been shot running the film backwards (using for instance the Arriflex IIC)? Is it not easier to shot it in the regular way and then put it backwards in the editing process?

As an example I can mention the scene of Days of Heaven where the locusts take flight (which was done by dropping peanuts from an helicopter and shot in the way I mentioned).

Great, thanks a lot! I can't say about Star Wars or Close Encounters, but for Days of Heaven it seems like they used the new version; the cinematographer Néstor Almendros commented: " A few years ago when 5247 was first released, the results of forcing the film were not very good, but when we began DAYS OF HEAVEN, the response of the new stock had come to perfection."