Jump to content

steven soderbergh


Recommended Posts

@ chris walker

 

i understand your point, but isn´t the most important thing the film itself? as in: if the director being the DP gets better results (or the results he wants to get) than having another person doing the job, why shouldn't he?

 

Well, it's not always up to the director whether a DP is required for the job or not, especially in corporate hollywood. I think someone like Steve Soderbergh is too much involved in the process and technology of cinematography that he simply can't let go of the camera. You know, Soderbergh's style of shooting, always makes me think of him holding a Millennium XL Panaflex right on his shoulder, operating the camera with his hands on the matte box. For me it's seems very clear that his visual approach matches his vision.

 

Stanley Kubrick once said that he would never use cinematographer...Until de discovered John Alcott of course. Never say never, Soderbergh just needs to find the right DP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observe 'he' also as 'she' where appropriate.

 

How does a director/'film-maker' get a better result over having a skilled professional assume the same role? Is the argument that a DP can't produce a better shot than his director? Moreover, why is it when a director takes it upon himself to act as his own DP he must operate the camera, too? Simply, they can't let go; they refuse to believe that anyone can approximate or even better their artistry.

 

As I've already said, a low-budget independent film has to cut corners in terms of crew, equipment and time among other things. With a film that does have a sizeable budget, a big crew and a hundred other points it's unrealistic that a director should expect to operate the camera. He wants to be the DP, not because he's the best man for the job, but for the simple reason because he wants to.

 

It's a selfish want, and if they get what they want it only inflates their ego further. Also, answer why a director never wants to pull focus, apply make-up or hold the boom mic.

 

Personally, I don't like the moniker 'film-maker'. I've said many times on this forum that film should be an elitist profession, and to be part of that group you have to work hard to get there. In my mind for every great indie shot on a RED, 5D or EX3 there are a hundred other pieces of crap that exist because of people who are bad writers, directors, actors etc. who don't know the craft. Our ambition should be to become the best through study, hard work and experience. I believe part of that is through collaboration, and having faith in the abilities of other, often greater, artists.

 

Would someone care to back me up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Observe 'he' also as 'she' where appropriate.

 

How does a director/'film-maker' get a better result over having a skilled professional assume the same role? Is the argument that a DP can't produce a better shot than his director? Moreover, why is it when a director takes it upon himself to act as his own DP he must operate the camera, too? Simply, they can't let go; they refuse to believe that anyone can approximate or even better their artistry.

 

As I've already said, a low-budget independent film has to cut corners in terms of crew, equipment and time among other things. With a film that does have a sizeable budget, a big crew and a hundred other points it's unrealistic that a director should expect to operate the camera. He wants to be the DP, not because he's the best man for the job, but for the simple reason because he wants to.

 

It's a selfish want, and if they get what they want it only inflates their ego further. Also, answer why a director never wants to pull focus, apply make-up or hold the boom mic.

 

Personally, I don't like the moniker 'film-maker'. I've said many times on this forum that film should be an elitist profession, and to be part of that group you have to work hard to get there. In my mind for every great indie shot on a RED, 5D or EX3 there are a hundred other pieces of crap that exist because of people who are bad writers, directors, actors etc. who don't know the craft. Our ambition should be to become the best through study, hard work and experience. I believe part of that is through collaboration, and having faith in the abilities of other, often greater, artists.

 

Would someone care to back me up?

 

Yup. I concur, especially with the last paragraph. There are far too many young "film students" out there who believe they can be jacks-of-all-trades after only taking some basic classes in a four-year program. That's a problem. It's just like driving a car. As my dad said to me after I got my license, "NOW you're gonna really learn how to drive."

 

Hey, I was the same way when I got out of college and was writing, directing and DPing a 16mm short. In retrospect, even though I was happy with finished product, it would have been smarter to allow someone else a bit of creative control. But that's the key word: CONTROL. I can even understand some indie filmmakers taking on multiple roles because of cost. But when it comes to the feature length projects, you need to focus in on ONE job and let everyone else do theirs. I think the few in Hollywood that DP and direct are, for the most part, just insistent on lighting the film THEIR way.

 

And this is another reason I feel that this overabundance of digital technologies being the ONLY medium that film educators are using is a HUGE problem. As I stated to department chair of a university, "Film is a discipline" which is no longer taught. He agreed. You actually have to know what you are doing. The digital technologies that students are learning on have little-to-no learning curve. Everything is done for you (on the idiot proof JVC cameras and even FInal Cut Pro is rather intuaitive for anyone who has ever edited anything.) And people graduate thinking they know it all, yet I'd love to see how much patience they would have if someone asked them to load 400' of film into a mag with no instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observe 'he' also as 'she' where appropriate.

 

It's a selfish want, and if they get what they want it only inflates their ego further. Also, answer why a director never wants to pull focus, apply make-up or hold the boom mic.

 

well played sir :) and a valid point.

 

Personally, I don't like the moniker 'film-maker'. I've said many times on this forum that film should be an elitist profession, and to be part of that group you have to work hard to get there.

 

I fully agree with working hard, learning everything there is to know and learning how to do it well. There is nothing worse than someone graduating from film school, buying a video capable DSLR, and running around town calling themselves a DP/Cinematographer. I was shooting some B-cam stuff in full daylight last week, and the "DP" was operating A cam, I heard a strange clicking while he was setting up his shot and when he wasn't looking I checked his settings. He was controlling exposure with shutter speed, shooting at 1/2000....I sighed and continued shooting my stuff with perfect exposure at the proper 180 degree shutter.

 

In my mind for every great indie shot on a RED, 5D or EX3 there are a hundred other pieces of crap that exist because of people who are bad writers, directors, actors etc. who don't know the craft. Our ambition should be to become the best through study, hard work and experience.

 

Again, you're points are totally valid and make sense, but I'll add that for a lot of people, making pieces of crap is how they are studying/putting in work/getting experience. There has always been tons of crap out there, but when Richard Linklater was hanging out in Austin shooting experimental films and FULLY LEARNING everything he could about using the camera, editing, composition, etc. He didn't have a vimeo account to load his crap up to and show the world. The crap now has a platform, and there inlies the problem.

 

 

 

I believe part of that is through collaboration, and having faith in the abilities of other, often greater, artists.

 

This is the best thing you've said and like I said in the other message, some people are just poor collaborators. What I didn't say but am taking away from this conversation, is that yes people like Soderbergh do produce results and they are extremely talented in their own right, but they could benefit tremendously by learning to collaborate with other artists

 

 

Would someone care to back me up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with a lot of points in this discussion regarding filmmaking in general, I think that some people are caught up in the emotions of their particular discipline.

 

Soderbergh sometimes hits, sometimes misses, but he is definitely an innovator - constantly experimenting and pushing the medium. I thought The Girlfriend Experience was a terrific film, very unique and compelling. I also thought it was one of the best looking RED features I've seen - it doesn't try to emulate film but instead breaks into a new direction.

 

While positions such as cinematographer and camera operator should not and will not be replaced, some filmmakers work in esoteric ways. If they can make handling multiple jobs work for them, I think it shortsighted to assume that they are being egotistical - they've simply found a shooting style that works for them. As for the question of why he may operate the camera but not, say, pull focus, I again think attributing this to ego is missing the picture. The 1st AC is a very critical job and when it is poorly done can ruin a film, but focus pulling rarely determines framing. Soderbergh is likely after a certain level of intimacy that, again, he finds works for his process.

 

Though in the case of something like The Girlfriend Experience, budgetary considerations were undoubtedly a large contributing factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the original lure of Cinematography was the ability to write a good story and to make the story come alive by filming it. And while good picture quality is important and beautiful this constant obsession about picture quality misses the point and that is that the story is what is most important. Besides I think that there will always be Cinematographers that have better skills than me although I can offer interesting experimental techniques. But few Cinematographers can match my skill at writing and can thus challenge me as a visionary film maker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be about attitude, motivation and skill. all three need to be in the right place (and they are a moving target)

 

The DP is in a triangle, Producer, director and DP (should be a square when you include the writer)

 

If one person occupies two parts of the triangle it can become very unbalanced (unless they are very fat and sit at the bottom)

Edited by Adam Levins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Personally, I don't like the moniker 'film-maker'.

 

This is the only part of your post that I disagree with. There are plenty of actors, directors, editors (and DPs, I guess) that, while still focusing on whatever their particular speciality may be, greatly contribute to a given film. When interviewed on Inside the Actors Studio, Harrison Ford said that "filmmaker" is the label that he finds to be the most appropriate for himself. And from what I have heard, he has come up with more than a few creative ideas to add depth to the stories and characters of his films. Yet, he sticks to one role: acting.

 

Also, I've always felt that "filmmaker" is the only proper label for some of the ground-breaking avant-garde and experimental artists that have come our way, such as Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Kenneth Anger and Jan Svankmajer to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to pursue film making as a true art form you have to move beyond Cinematography or operating a camera. Cinematography involves capturing a vision but to truly capture a vision you first have to write it down and draw a picture. Of course you do not have the advantage of specialization but as long as you can master basic skills or you have people that can help you out I think the task can be accomplished. Unfortunately if you are a Cinematographer but have never written a story you are probably closer to being a skillfull technician rather than a true artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that many of the artists have refused to collaborate with me citing their specialized skills and elite membership in the American Society of Cinematographers which is open by invitation only. Although many members of this organization have claimed humble beginnings I lack the specialized skills and have violated too many of the rules of Cinematography to be considered a team player and this is true but in reality they do not want to play with me. Also I have been criticized about the environmentally obscene content of my proposed movies although recently a film called Moon was made which is a story about environmentally friendly Helium 3 mining therefore my proposed movies are not environmentally obscene. However my original written works are less controversial and deal with cyborgs and humanoid robots. By focusing on my writing skills I am able to transcend cinematography and give an answer to my most severe critics who insist that picture quality is of no value and it is only the story that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But few Cinematographers can match my skill at writing and can thus challenge me as a visionary film maker.

if you are a Cinematographer but have never written a story you are probably closer to being a skillfull technician rather than a true artist.

 

Writers write. Cinematographers light and frame. Ability in one role has no bearing on the other.

 

As one of the unfortunates who bothered to read the extracts from your 'novel', I sincerely hope your claim of being a 'visionary film maker' is not solely based on your writing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I have never posted any chapters from my novel on this website but rather only isolated phrases which would be difficult to understand out of context. On other websites I have posted material and complete chapters and have received positive praise for my work and have had my work featured. However I do not know if my work will appeal to a wider range of audience since it can be esoteric. So I expect people to reserve judgment until they have at least the opportunity to read a few chapters.

 

If a Cinematographer wishes to light and frame his own work then he will have to come up with his own story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I've always thought that cinematographers should know at least the basics of writing, (the more they know, obviously the better) and should be well versed in editing. But, they are 'Cinematographers', and their job entails, as Stuart Brereton said, to light and frame.

 

Also, though MANY may disagree, cinematographers are, (get ready for the cliche), storytellers first and foremost. I'd be weary of a cinematographer if he came onto a project thinking himself an artist rather than, (or anything more than) a story teller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say Shaan may hold true if you are writing a documentary but if you are creating an original work of fiction then you truly are an artist because you have created the story.

 

I was talking mainly about cinematographers, not writers. I think that in being a cinematographer, you are visually writing the story that the director has envisioned. If you take a film like "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", sure, an audience member wouldn't think twice about calling it an artistic accomplishment for Kaminski, but if you watch any interviews of him talking about the film, he talks of how he was interested in visually telling a story, not creating 'art'.

 

There are two quotes that I find particularly inspiring.

 

‎"I think of filmmaking as a form of communication. Maybe it's also an art, but that's for somebody else to decide." - Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC

 

‎"In general, what people take for inspiration & art in movies is really just technical problems solved really well."-Michael Chapman, ASC

 

Basically, I call these fine gentleman artists, but more importantly, story tellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This is the only part of your post that I disagree with. There are plenty of actors, directors, editors (and DPs, I guess) that, while still focusing on whatever their particular speciality may be, greatly contribute to a given film. When interviewed on Inside the Actors Studio, Harrison Ford said that "filmmaker" is the label that he finds to be the most appropriate for himself. And from what I have heard, he has come up with more than a few creative ideas to add depth to the stories and characters of his films. Yet, he sticks to one role: acting.

 

Also, I've always felt that "filmmaker" is the only proper label for some of the ground-breaking avant-garde and experimental artists that have come our way, such as Maya Deren, Stan Brakhage, Kenneth Anger and Jan Svankmajer to name a few.

No argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...