Soderbergh discusses the Red and his new "Girlfriend Experience."

[Scott Macaulay]

Hi everyone,

Filmmaker Magazine has an interview with Steven Soderbergh about his new film, "The Girlfriend Experience," in which, towards the end, he discusses his RED cinematography.

Here's the link.

 

[Justin McAleece]

pretty inspiring. he's practically dogme.

 

[Kevin Wild]

Yeah, that is a great article. We work so hard to get lighting right all the time...and he comes along and uses only avail lighting. Argh!

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Some of this forum "darlings" that all the time try to make and promote his "perfect picture" that always looks a bit "empty" and "obsolete" should finally learn something from Soderbergh there.

 

[MJ KERBER]

Are you guys joking?

GFE represents one approach to cinematography and lighting that has been done before and, of course, can work for certain projects. But, it's not the one and only way--just like making a 'perfect picture' isn't. 'Empty and obsolete'
images can happen no matter how something is lit or what camera they're created with.

-Michael Jacob Kerber
D.P. / L.A.

www.mjkerber.com

 

[MJ KERBER]

P.S. Sanjin, I like your Godard quote.

-Kerber

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Are you guys joking?

GFE represents one approach to cinematography and lighting that has been done before and, of course, can work for certain projects. But, it's not the one and only way--just like making a 'perfect picture' isn't. 'Empty and obsolete'
images can happen no matter how something is lit or what camera they're created with.

-Michael Jacob Kerber
D.P. / L.A.

www.mjkerber.com

I was referring to something that's aesthetically even beyond use of lighting.

 

[Jason Diamond]

Our film "The Exploding Girl" was shot with only available light back in August of 2008. The RED is amazingly responsive to an available light shoot even when the only light is at night coming from a deli window in NYC. incredible performance from our cam and we are beyond excited. come check it out at the Tribeca Film Fest this and next week if anyone is in NYC. I Believe we are in competition with Soderbergh this time around as well which is great.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

A lot of movies about "GIRLS" that were shot on RED1 at this Tribeca Film Festival :hurray: opcorn: :wub:

 

[ericyoung]

Our film "The Exploding Girl" was shot with only available light back in August of 2008. The RED is amazingly responsive to an available light shoot even when the only light is at night coming from a deli window in NYC...

So what sensitivity were you shooting at? 320ASA?

What f-stop on the lenses?

Shutter speed?

Did you have noise issues in the blue channel?

 

[Zak Forsman]

i'm no Soderbergh by any means but he just described my exact approach to cinematography. Scouting and capturing the magic of available light, as seen here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5TKKbR6hzw&fmt=18

...not one light, no flags, no nothing. just an appreciation for what's real and what's compelling.

 

[MJ KERBER]

No additional lighting on the rooftop scene?

 

[Zak Forsman]

nope. that's the rooftop patio of my production studio. it always looks like that.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Great interview. I definitely agree with his ideas about letting actors improvise, and the fact that you will get interesting results that way -- stuff no writer could ever have dreamed up. It just takes patience and some balls to shoot this way.

BTW, if he knows he's shooting available light, why on earth shoot anamorphic and limit yourself to 2.8? I don't get that.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

We've discussed the pros and cons of available light photography for narrative work in the past. When it works and is appropriate, it can be fantastic, or at least, honest and natural.

The script really determines how something needs to be shot, assuming you are attempting to be true to the writer's intent. Of course, a director may decide to change things for cinematic or visual reasons.

You may get a scene that is so long that it will take more than one full day to shoot, or it may cover several characters talking in multiple locations on the same story day -- let's say, a family picnic scene which is seven pages long and jumps between multiple conversations. So while it may be possible (except in winter) to get all the shooting done while the sun is up, the light will not only change from early morning thru noon to sunset, but it may change from overcast to sunny and back again. And you may even end up faking some of it at night just to stay on schedule or keep your actor or location. Maybe the script even indicates that this scene takes place near sunset and is a early dinner family BBQ. So notions of being able to shoot all of this at the perfect time of day sort of goes out the window, unless you have a very generous schedule.

You may even move part of the conversation indoors, like into the kitchen, but end up having to shoot it night-for-day to match the light outside.

So recreating (aka faking) a natural light look is a basic skill that all cinematographers have to master. We don't all get to work with Terrance Malick on 100+ day schedules -- sometimes we're doing a poor-man's version on a 3-week schedule.

This is all assuming that achieving as close as possible an unlit available light look is the primary goal -- there are projects that call for more stylization than that. People don't go to see "Transformers" for a Malickesque visual experience ("wow, didn't you love that magic hour scene where Optimus Prime slowly walks through that wheat field, touching the growing stalks of wheat?") But you don't even have to look at Hollywood films for acts of stylization -- there are plenty of art films that opt for theatricality and artifice. Saying that all movies have to be realistic in nature and intent is a very limited view of the potential of cinema.

 

[I Bloom]

nope. that's the rooftop patio of my production studio. it always looks like that.

Zak,

Where can your films be seen?

IBloom

 

[Clayton Harper]

Saying that all movies have to be realistic in nature and intent is a very limited view of the potential of cinema.

What a boring world it would be in that case.

I feel a little bit sometimes that people cling to the "natural light" idea because of a lack of experience in lighting or limited funds/budgets or whatever. There is always a nice middle ground in terms of how many instruments you have to have around.

For little throw away shots or low budget work it always pays to at least own a soft light of some kind and a quacker. The difference between two small lights and a couple c-stands can make a world of difference in a "natural light" shot.

Take sensitive digital imagers and add in all the amazing innovations with LEDs and other lighting tools coming out and it totals up to an amazing time to be a DP.

All you natural light boys should invest in at least a small lite panels kit and a stand. Your stuff will look nicer, I promise.

Zak, I think you have a great eye, BTW. I think you'll find when you move to making stuff in the way that David describes that a few lights will make your work more consistent and risk-proof.

 

[Zak Forsman]

i didn't mean to imply this was the only way to do it. sorry if it came across that way. just saying I share a frequency with Soderbergh in that much of the work can be accomplished by being sensitive to the beauty inherent in the light that is available at the right time and the right place. it's not for lack of experience, it's for want of a bit more creative freedom and uninterrupted flow without having to reset and wait for a shot to be lit when the actors are primed and flying!!!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Always reminds me of the Laurence Olivier quote about the most important quality for an actor to have:

"Sincerity. If an actor can fake that, he can fake anything."

What's the most style for a cinematographer to master?

Natural light. If he can fake that, he can fake anything.

 

[jpp]

I definitely agree with his ideas about letting actors improvise, and the fact that you will get interesting results that way -- stuff no writer could ever have dreamed up. It just takes patience and some balls to shoot this way.

If I understood him correctly, he was talking about not forcing written dialogue on untrained amateurs, letting them instead speak in their own voices and cadences.

What's so galling about all this -- forgive me -- is that the stuff Soderbergh is doing has been done by no-budget filmmakers for years, for lack of any choice in the matter. And yet he's celebrated for these "innovations", here and elsewhere.

It's like the rich discovering rice and beans or ripped jeans.