Operating: UK vs. USA

[Guest fstop]

Traditionally there's been the feeling that, generally speaking, in the UK the "lighting cameraman" handles the lighting while the camera operator handles the composition and speaks directly to the director on the subject. of course this isn't a rule and there are many old school British DPs who prefer to operate themselves (Alex Thomson being one) while younger DPs like Michael Seresin and Roger Deakins also like to be more hands on with composition.

 

Apparently, in the USA the DP talks to the director about composition and framing while also doing the lighting.

 

Thoughts and opinions on the unwritten tradition and where it originated from?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Tim Partridge

[David Mullen ASC]

It should just be a matter of whatever works best for you, although in the low-budget world, there is a tremendous pressure for the DP to also operate, and in the union world, a tremendouse pressure for the DP to not operate, so go figure.

 

What's interesting is that the U.K. developed the tradition of the more powerful operating position separate from the lighting cameraman, while in neighboring Europe, there is a stronger tradition of the operating DP.

 

If you work with a really good operator, it's a tremendous help to the DP. Particularly in this day and age of multiple camera shooting, where it's better for the DP to watch what both cameras are doing rather than operate one and have no idea what is going on over at the other camera, leaving it to the director to monitor both. This is probably why Deakins is less than enthusiastic about multiple camera shooting, since he also operates (and he's excellent at it...) Deakins has an interesting approach by mainly shooting with a remote head that he operates -- he sort of has it both ways, standing with the director next to the monitor AND operating the shot. But it must be tough on the focus-puller since no one is actually looking through the eyepiece during the take to double-check the focus.

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

David, did you operate on 'Northfork.' I just watched it again after many months and I can't say enough about how truly beautiful and sweet that movie really is. One of the best movies nobody has seen. (don't mean that in a bad way)

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, I did. It shows off my skills in composition without bringing out my weaknesses in movement, since we hardly moved the camera (actually, I'm good at slow & graceful moves and I'm a decent handheld operator, but fast moves, like booming up with an actor, whip-panning, etc., well... let's just say that there are people who are better at it than I am.)

[Alberto Larios-Saavedra]

Yes, I did.  It shows off my skills in composition without bringing out my weaknesses in movement, since we hardly moved the camera (actually, I'm good at slow & graceful moves and I'm a decent handheld operator, but fast moves, like booming up with an actor, whip-panning, etc., well... let's just say that there are people who are better at it than I am.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think Norhtfork is an inspiration for a lot us (at least to me who is new to cinematography). I rented a video a couple of days ago and saw a "preview" to the film where there's a couple of reviews that mention the stunning beauty of the cinematography. The way some of the scenes were lit and shot remind of some paintings by Dali (I don't like to compare, but I do it because Dali is one of my favorite painters).

Awesome David!

[Tony Brown]

It depends on the operator and the DP rather than any rigid system. I've seen both systems work well on both sides of the water and I've seen both systems fail miserably. The old Lighting Cameraman system usually relied more on the operator to finesse the moves with the Director its true, but the DP would always be overseeing the whole performance. The way its often described makes the Lighting Cameraman sound like some little junior who silently goes about the little matter of lighting the set. Its not so. The old school boys may on the face of it been less hands on with the camera, but they were far more the overseer than many so called DP?s today. The lighting and operating phenomenon has had consequences on many productions, compromise can be an ugly thing.

 

Operating from a remote head sounds very blinkered to me. Partly for the reason stated, on many shots an AC is as good as the person looking through. Its very hard to tell if you?ve clipped a light stand on the edge of shot, whether the eye line is right or hair/make up/ wardrobe needs attention (cos lets be honest those responsible are more likely to be 30 feet away talking about last nights soap). A good operator is the first pair of eyes in everyone?s department. You cant do that from a monitor half way up the directors backside, especially the way I light? you?d never see anything! . Also it would appear extremely disrespectful (rude?) to the artists to excluded from the ongoing discussion from take to take. I?ve seen this after the camera cuts. The artists are left standing waiting for some feed back while people round the monitor discuss this and that. Spielberg when using a crane used to have a small speaker mounted on the camera end so that he could give direction without having to raise his voice or get off his butt and walk out there. It was a cold and selfish way to work. A good operator builds an invaluable relationship with artists. When you remove that person from the sharp end who has the stature of position to converse comfortably with the talent, it can become amateur night. If there is a problem at the back then the operator can be a superb decoy while the powers that be sort it out.

 

Sadly outside of films its almost impossible to justify getting a good (known) operator in on a job. In the UK (and in the US on Union shoots where IASTE used to ?allocate? you an operator from the list) the grade of Operator became the one where all the old dead wood ended its days. They were miserable, creatively stale and basically couldn?t give a toss. I can think of maybe 4 or 5 operators in the UK that I would have with me on any job, after that, in spite of all the advantages I?ve mentioned I would rather (and do) do it myself.

 

The other scenario that has become prevalent is that of the Director operating. In most cases we all know where that leads. The Director I mainly work with operates; we run two cameras whenever possible. It has its downside on occasion, but he has such a fantastic eye (ex stills) for a composition that it?s a system that works extremely well. We don?t shoot wide and close, the second camera will always either be cutting an angle or more often seeking details, small moments that give the spot that personalised look. Then there are Directors that direct, light and operate. Tony Kaye for one. He has been known to bring in three 2nd AC?s or even three runners (PA?s)3, to run the kit, leaving no dissenting voice to cramp his ?style? (ahem). Well good luck to them, they might be breaking moulds and really ?out there? as far as the clients are concerned but I know my opinion of this new wave.

[Guest coolbreeze]

There's an interesting article about the "English System" Vs the "American system" in the most recent issue of British Cinematographer. Well worth a read.

Edited November 25, 2004 by coolbreeze

[Tony Brown]

Freddie Cooper was a great character. He was a very very funny man who could lift the spirits of a deflated crew with ease. I worked a little with him when I guested on Hanover Street with Watkins and Outland with Peter Hyams and Goldblatt as well as other odds and sods over the years. I remember him as being fairly conventional in his approach, but his rapport with the director and talent was exacltly what I was trying to convey in my previous post. Everybody loved him. I wouldn't say he had the creative eye of (for example) the late Mike Roberts, but he was one of those 'big names' within the industry here that you looked forward to working with without ever feeling in awe of him or made to feel insignificant.

 

He'd soon let you know if his tea wasn't right though..... :angry:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Amusingly enough I find that I get asked rather early whether I want an operator or not, on narrative shoots, and I often feel that this is a loaded question where the answer will affect my getting the job. It's happened twice just today. This feels unfair, as there's clearly no absolute consensus on the best way to proceed. Mr. Brown's experience notwithstanding, there's about half a dozen guys in the entire country who get to work that way so it doesn't make for a terribly representative example.

 

For similar reasons to Mr. Mullen, I find myself preferring to have an operator. I do tons and tons of ENG style handheld stuff - just corporate party coverage, and I can do that fine, but I'm simply not a particularly precise camera operator for more considered material. Also, it's almost as if you aren't free to watch the shot while operating - although you are of course intrinsically watching the shot you can't step back and evaluate it very well. Maybe this is just my inexperience talking.

 

Phil

[Dan Salzmann]

Generally if I light, I operate because I light for the way I frame. Sometimes I operate for others that light. This is just the way I work and feel comfortable. That being said the exception that proves the rule will probably show itself next week or something. As others have said already it is a question of feeling comfortable with the situation at hand.

[Keith Mottram]

i truly believe that film is a collaborative medium and you should get comunally the best results possible, so whoever can operate the shot in the most suitable way should operate the camera for that shot. In the last two shoots (as director- one music vid, one commercial) I've regretted massively that i didn't operate. in both cases there were subjective timeings (depending on performances) that the dp didn't get and i think that based on past experience i could have nailed them- i guess i'll never know. then again in other shots which were more technical the dp managed to operate in a more smoother fashion than i would have achieved. i think with operating their needs to be an open attitude. i have never tried the american ideal of an 'operator', but i think every shot requires the best man/ woman for the job. next time i shoot i'll be more hands on. share the wealth/ share the pain.

[Tony Brown]

You mention Hyams and Goldblatt on Outland, Tony- is it true what Adam Frisch said about Hyams actually shooting the bulk of the film? What was the deal there? i know Hyams co-lit the model unit with the late Bob Kindred (who only gets an operators credit).

 

Peter Hyams was (it seemed to me) quite an accomplished DP, he had a good eye. I didn't spend too much time on the main unit (my brother was 1st AC on the Model Unit so used to get the odd day in with them), but from what everybody told me at the time I would say Adam was pretty close.

 

Bob Kindrid - I'd forgotton Bob. What a lovely man. Hyams would come in and basically set the lighting for the models, and it wouldn't change much for several days, so it was left to Bob to fine tune I guess. Steve Claydon was main unit 1st AC, another character. Connery was a bit sprung loaded for whatever reason, but Steve was always so laid back. He was more worried about getting home in time to water his tomato's than whether Connery was hitting his marks or not.

 

It was on that film I learnt a valuable lesson. My brother was pulling focus on Connery on a second camera long lens. Hyams came in the next morning and said we were going to reshoot it. When quized he told Connery it was soft. My brother was mortified. During lunch he checked the shot with the editor, it was pin sharp. Hyams however changed the action / reaction very slightlly for the reshoot.

 

Just goes to show when even you get it right it can still be 'your fault' :angry:

[DavidSloan]

I think Gordon Willis said it best: "Why the fu** do I want to shoot a guy walking up the stairs, 14 times!" :D hahahahaha!