Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC

by **jzakko** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:37 pm

Hey Roger, thanks so much for the forum and all the information. I'm really curious, who are a few directors you haven't worked with, but would really like to, and why?

by **Roger** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:21 am

Do they have to be alive? There are quite a few that are alive and working but to mention one might sound like a plea for a job and to miss another out might be a slight!

by **martellucas** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:39 am

How about some directors of old then?

Some names that pop into my head are: Sam Peckinpah (for exploring crazy kinetic action shots and overcranking), Jean Renoir (intelligent shot design and figure behavior), and John Ford (for all the obvious reasons).
I consider Kurosawa (powerful blend of wide/est shots and close ups) and Hitchcock (for film grammar) a given.

by **juan namnun** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:09 am

it would be a plea for a job but you may get it!
for example, Wally would love to exchange working gigs with you(sweeping Nolan for the Coens would be great for the five involved)

by **Roger** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:59 am

Not sure what you mean by that remark! Besides, the Coen brothers can choose whomever they wish, especially as I am unavailable for their next shoot.

by **juan namnun** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:16 am

I tried to say that Wally Pfister could learn a lot working with the Coens,that would benefit him, Chris Nolan could learn a lot working with you,that would benefit him, the fact that you are busy and couldn't work with the Coens right now so they will need someone very good(Wally may not fill your shoes but can do a really good work)so they benefit also.
you re the best cinematographer working on Hollywood now...an Oscar may not benefit you but can not hurt either.

by **Roger** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:49 am

I can't say I agree at all. How do you define 'best' anyway?

by **MarcVanOsdale** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:10 pm

juan namnun wrote:I tried to say that Wally Pfister could learn a lot working with the Coens,that would benefit him, Chris Nolan could learn a lot working with you,that would benefit him, the fact that you are busy and couldn't work with the Coens right now so they will need someone very good(Wally may not fill your shoes but can do a really good work)so they benefit also.
you re the best cinematographer working on Hollywood now...an Oscar may not benefit you but can not hurt either.

Sounds like highschool gossip to me. Wally Pfister and Roger Deakins are both professional cinematographers, I think the only necessary learning should be coming from you by asking relevant questions on this forum.

by **Roger** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:07 am

I don't think that last comment is necessary. I am more concerned as to how one defines best.

by **juan namnun** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:39 pm

for Best i meant the one whose impressions on audiences is best remenbered, i ve seen 30 of your movies, from "1984" to "In Time" most of them on the big screen,so your work is not alien to me(as i m alien to high schools in Usa so i m a little lost on the comment by Marc )i ve also heard the appreciation of your work by some of your colleges( most of them aliens to Usa but Academy awards winners),and they paint a really nice portrait of your talent and capacity (theirs names would be pointless to mention as i supposed everybody on this forum knows how many not Americans cinematographers had won an academy award in the past ten years im referring to two of them ) that portrait, and the admiration that arises normally by seeing most of your movies("The man who wasnt there","1984""The Ladykillers" "Barton Fink" "Doubt" "A serious man" and others) not just on me, but on people all over the world(from Spain, India, China,Hispanic America)is bigger than the admiration all others highly esteemed American cinematographers(again names would be pointless to mention)arises...sorry mr Deakins to be intruding in such topic,..
i ve learnt a lot reading your answers and saw so many wonderful films that you ve recommended(as "Sid and Nancy" and "Come and see") thanks for the nice lightning and framing of so many movies, and so many great answers!

by **Roger** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:43 am

Cinematography is not just about the light or the frame but something even less tangible. Miyagawa, Decae, Yusov!!! Not much else to say.

by **juan namnun** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:11 am

"Rashomon" "Les Cuatre cents cuops" and course "Ivan s childhood"(and those wonderful color soviets films!) movies we should get back from time to time...as those of Dreyer,Bergman,Bunuel,Lang,Chaplin,Keaton,Kubrick...but as 2012 and shooting with digital tools and Digital intermediates;the films you shot are the ones most people i know(that works in films and really loves them) remembers best! (although there s excellence to be found on the work of: Dod Mantle,Dion Beebe,Guillermo Navarro, Christopher Doyle,John Bailey,El Chivo Lubeski,Mr Kaminski)

by **jeclark2006** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:15 am

juan namnun wrote:"Rashomon" "Les Cuatre cents cuops" and course "Ivan s childhood"(and those wonderful color soviets films!) movies we should get back from time to time...as those of Dreyer,Bergman,Bunuel,Lang,Chaplin,Keaton,Kubrick...but as 2012 and shooting with digital tools and Digital intermediates;the films you shot are the ones most people i know(that works in films and really loves them) remembers best! (although there s excellence to be found on the work of: Dod Mantle,Dion Beebe,Guillermo Navarro, Christopher Doyle,John Bailey,El Chivo Lubeski,Mr Kaminski)

The word 'best' is perhaps inappropriate... I think 'style' and what styles you like, want to emulate, or 'asked to emulate'... is more important. But it is also a matter of material... if I were to shoot a 'found footage' film... I'd go to fleamarkets, garage sales, etc. and pick up old '8mm/16mm' home movies and view them to get a 'found footage style'...

To have one's own 'style', in essence means that the styles one has been exposed to, the experiments that one does that are different from those styles, etc. become internalized such that answers to questions come from within...

It is my personal hope that the digital age will democratize movie making... I think some of that is becoming visible... with the DSLR's one can make films without either the expense of film film, or even the expense of 'high end' Hollywood production cameras...

I think a modern DSLR based film can 'match' most of the 60's 'flowering of the independent film'... bold statement may that be...

by **Marco** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:47 am

jeclark2006 wrote:It is my personal hope that the digital age will democratize movie making...

Oh, I hope that this will not happen. I do not need more "enthusiasts", who think they can make great movies with their DSLR or toy-camera, only because they have this camera. And then whole crews sit in front of a big monitor and discuss the frame, the lighting and everything, because you get a nice and clean output from every camera.

They made "Citizen Kane" without democracy, but with teamwork and a strong vision, and it worked for a hundred years like this. And guess what, independent movies existed before digital cameras, shot on beautiful 16mm or also on 8mm. If you want to make a movie, go out and shoot. But with you vision, and with knowledge, passion, everything, but not with democracy because a camera is cheap.

by **jeclark2006** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:01 pm

Marco wrote:
jeclark2006 wrote:It is my personal hope that the digital age will democratize movie making...

Oh, I hope that this will not happen. I do not need more "enthusiasts", who think they can make great movies with their DSLR or toy-camera, only because they have this camera. And then whole crews sit in front of a big monitor and discuss the frame, the lighting and everything, because you get a nice and clean output from every camera.

They made "Citizen Kane" without democracy, but with teamwork and a strong vision, and it worked for a hundred years like this. And guess what, independent movies existed before digital cameras, shot on beautiful 16mm or also on 8mm. If you want to make a movie, go out and shoot. But with you vision, and with knowledge, passion, everything, but not with democracy because a camera is cheap.

In their day '16mm' and '8mm' were the 'throw away' formats.The flowering of the 60's 'independent films' that are now 'classics' and their directors, cinematographers, composers, and heck, actors and actresses, are the pillars of the current industry.

The use of a 'cheap' format like 16mm made for the final death dive of The Studio System, and allowing more people to make films. The current 'cheap' format is the low end digital video/DSLR end of the spectrum for image capture. In it's day the Nagra stands in the same place as say a low end digital audio recording device does today, in terms of allowing more people to participate in film making.

I don't have a problem at all with that.

Speaking of Orson Welles, one of the reasons why his output was so 'low' relative to those who stayed in the 'studio system', was because he did want to be 'independent', and at the time making films was excessively expensive. and even worse, studios owned not only the 'means of production', but also the 'method of presentation', in the form of studio theaters. That changed in 1948 in the US when the studios were ordered to divest their holdings in the theater chains. This allowed theaters to book more material from a wider variety of distributors.

The whole process is getting more people involved across a wider region.

With reduced costs of entry, more people will make films... and one will have more choice, and 'studios' or even 'distributors' will not be able to lock out material because 1) they don't see a direct payback across their 'wide' market, 2) don't particularly want to be associated with the 'content'. (For example, back in the 'olden' days Disney had to create Touchstone to distribute more R material, because the Disney name was to be kept 'squeaky clean'... things have changed in that regard for Disney, but they still avoid certain subjects, and the like...)

One of the side affects of course 'schlock'... these days looking back on the 60's one has the 'classics', the 'film school/critical canon'... what you don't see are the millions of miles of schlock 35mm/16mm film that was shot by less than luminary... ok... there's always Ed Wood... but I digress...

It is my belief that had the Revolution of small, independent, cheap production not occurred in the late 50's early 60's, that what we consider to be 'classics' and 'standards' would never had happened...

And to use a farm analogy... there's a lot of shit that needs to be spread around for the cash crop to grow...

Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC

directors you would like to work with

directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Re: directors you would like to work with

Who is online