Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Blocking during prep or on the night before can work well if the location or set are available, but a problem can arise when an actor comes in the next day with a different idea. Mind you, that can happen when they come back from their make up trailer or after take one! There is no ‘right’ way!
I have worked with storyboards but never with any extensive pre-vis, if you are referring to an animation of the action. We did do a pre-vis for the opening of ‘Skyfall’ as we were working with a second unit and wanted to be very specific as to what we wanted. Personally, I would just as soon discuss a script with a director in a more general way and leave specific shot choices for location scouting and blocking rehearsals.
If you have seen the images of that lighting rig we constructed for the ‘church’ in ‘1917’ you will note it was quite large. Although each of the Dinos, Maxis and Mini Brutes may have flared in the lens if they had been individual sources the fact that there was a mass of these lamps and that they were dimmed down to different levels lessened the problem. There were inevitably the odd lamp that was problematic, just because of its angle to the shot or because a few lamps did carry spot bulbs. If I saw a flare during a camera move I would dim the light or ask for a little more smoke at that particular point in the action.
We did extensive blocking rehearsals of ‘1917’ with the main actors but that was a very particular challenge. Norman Jewison did blocking rehearsals before we shot ‘The Hurricane’ and also on evenings within the schedule, but probably nothing as extensive as Sidney Lumet did.
A ‘go-to shot list’!!!! Perish the thought! I like working a scene out with the actors on the day. Of course, that can be stressful but its part of the challenge and the fun of the job. The reason to have some sort of shot discussion prior to the shoot is to have the right equipment available on the day. I don’t like to carry more equipment than I will need from day to day and certain shots might require some lead time.
As I said, ‘Blade Runner 2049’ was a far more complicated film. The overall world that the film was to be set in had to be imagined and, within that whole, there were many sets that required specific looks of their own. Whereas on a film like ‘Sicario’, in which scenes took place within existing locations or could be combined with relatively simple sets, for ‘BR2049′ we needed to combine any number of sets and locations to create a composite environment.
The night scene where the spinner crashes against the sea wall was just one instance where we needed to conceptualize the scene before the film could be scheduled. After much consideration as to how and where the sequence as imagined would be shot it was decided to build of a large open air tank, some 160′ square and 15’ deep, on a studio backlot in Budapest. That takes time.
It varies from film to film. On ‘Empire of Light’ Sam and I only worked out our camera shots with the actors on the day of the shoot, whereas on ‘1917’ we decided on the ‘shot’ months before shooting started. On ‘Blade Runner 2049’ Denis and I shot listed and boarded much of the film months in advance but on ‘Sicario’ we focused only on specific scenes. I usually work with a director on shot listing during prep but that is not always the case. Joel and Ethan would often do a pass of their storyboards before I became involved and then we would do a final pass together.
I really can’t remember if the shot was sped up though I doubt it. The shot was made when 1st unit was changing location from London to Yorkshire. The weather was incredibly bad for mid summer so, with only a brief window of time, we were lucky to get that shot.
I think it is interesting to study the care that was taken in the past to light an actor when in a close shot. We were recently talking with Billy Williams and had, in anticipation, revisited some of his work: ‘Women in Love’, ‘The Wind and the Lion’ and ‘Gandhi’. Often his close up lighting would vary quite considerably from the wider coverage but this is only apparent if you specifically analyze the lighting. Not so when simply following the story, which certainly benefited from his care. The actors too must have loved what Billy did for them as his close up shots were always beautiful.
Today there is a tendency to light a set and shoot in the same lighting for a close shot as for a wide. Sometimes a shoot will cover the wide and tight with multiple cameras so there is no chance to make a change if desired. Personally, I will often adjust my lighting as the camera (single camera) moves in to an actor for a close shot, regardless of that actor’s gender.
Yes, it all depends on what you define as ‘style’. I would not like to be known as a cinematographer who’s style is lighting soft and shooting with a 50mm lens. Whereas, I could light with a single hard source and shoot with an 18mm lens and the image would, I hope, still reflect my taste.
I don’t think I have a particular style at all. As David says, everyone has a personal taste and that informs the work. And, like every cinematographer I know, I have certain tools and techniques I have developed over the years. But technique is only a way to create what is in the mind’s eye and is not , or should not be, the impetus for it.
While it is true some directors have a defined style I would argue that may are chameleons who morph into each film they take on.
I am not a fan of anamorphic. I have shot tests in the past but not with the Master anamorphic lenses.
