Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Casey Green]

Casey,
As a director, you will probably delve as deep into any subject as your intellectual curiosity drives you to, regardless of exactly how practical everything you learn is. I love researching about obsolete film processes like 3-strip Technicolor, Cinerama, Autochromes, etc. Don't know the real value in that, but it's interesting to me. How much you need to learn technically sort of depends on what you'll be trying to do, with what equipment, and if you'll be doing it on your own or not. Even among DP's, there are different depths of knowledge - I know one DP who does his own densitometry readings of his negatives while another does his own lens collimination work. This is sort of deeper than I necessarily want to go. Ultimately all that matters is the quality of the work you do. As you shoot more, you'll find more areas that you want to study and explore, while other areas may seem less and less important over time.

What I encourage any filmmaker to do is develop their ability to previsualize, to develop a visual imagination, and find ways of conveying emotion and story information through images. Learning the technical stuff is useless if you don't have a creative idea to express using that knowledge.
___

David - Thank you for taking the time to answer. It's a good feeling to hear positive words that affirm the idea that I'm on the right track. I was very curious of what level of technical prowess various Directors have brought to the projects you have worked on and how much that was a factor to the success of the film... (are there successful directors who haven't a clue what lens to choose for a setup? - I suppose so) - but what it seems is that no matter what role one plays, the same rules apply: Dive in as deeply as you like, and find creative ways to express your vision.

Thank you, again.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Whether or not they are photographically knowledgable, most directors are fairly smart (not all, but most) so it doesn't take long on a feature shoot of putting up lenses for them to learn the effect of different focal lengths.

If I have a lens finder on the package, I can put the actual prime lens up on the finder and let the director watch a rehearsal through it. Then he can say "too wide" or "not wide enough" etc. or get a sense of whether the action is too spread out to capture in one composition or moving shot.

Working like that, it isn't long before the director and DP then start to guess the lens and come to similar conclusions ("let's try shooting the master on the 27mm...") because they've gotten familar with the lenses in the package.

Assuming your lens choice isn't based on practicalities like filming in a small room and trying to get a wide shot, then mostly what you and the DP will be trying to decide on is the level of perspective compression or expansion to use for the shot. An over-the-shoulder looks different on a shorter lens than a longer lens because the focal length affects the relative sizes of the two heads in the shot.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Now for a normal question....

What do you feel is leading more and more Cinematographers/Directors today to shoot with a very, "MTV" sense of style?

It seems that the days of long, slow, meticulously composed shots are out the window in favor of the wide followed by a usually un-controlled procession of mediums, close-ups, and the more than ocassional ecu.

Perosnally, I'm a huge fan of the Kubrick / Kurosawa framed film. I won't lie though, I think that some films are perfectly fit for an ecu filled extraveganza such as Requiem for a dream.

How much of this trend would you contribute to todays music video, reality tv, in your face sense of media exposure?

Do you think that these decisions have more to do with the Cinematographer or the Director?

I know that many french and spanish films tend to still stick to a slower tempo of story telling but do you see the pacing of Hollywood films ever coming back down to the same tempo of the past in the sense of wider framing and slower more drawn out shots?

 

[Casey Green]

Whether or not they are photographically knowledgable, most directors are fairly smart (not all, but most) so it doesn't take long on a feature shoot of putting up lenses for them to learn the effect of different focal lengths.

If I have a lens finder on the package, I can put the actual prime lens up on the finder and let the director watch a rehearsal through it. Then he can say "too wide" or "not wide enough" etc. or get a sense of whether the action is too spread out to capture in one composition or moving shot.

Working like that, it isn't long before the director and DP then start to guess the lens and come to similar conclusions ("let's try shooting the master on the 27mm...") because they've gotten familar with the lenses in the package.

Assuming your lens choice isn't based on practicalities like filming in a small room and trying to get a wide shot, then mostly what you and the DP will be trying to decide on is the level of perspective compression or expansion to use for the shot. An over-the-shoulder looks different on a shorter lens than a longer lens because the focal length affects the relative sizes of the two heads in the shot.

Makes a lot of sense... the wisdom and advice is greatly appreciated.

thanks again,

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Though it makes sense at times, like for action scenes, I'm not such a fan of the "more is more" attitude in modern Hollywood directorial style -- more shots, more movement, more close-ups. It can be self-defeating because you quickly run out of tricks to pull out of your hat when you actually need to get the viewer's attention. In fact, these days it's the occasional extreme long shot that these directors use to create an impact, because the close-up is so overused.

What I tend to like is a little musicality to the directing, where shot size and length is varied like in a symphony -- choppy alternated with fluid, loud with quiet, close with wide, etc. Spielberg is good at that approach. I remember the opening montage beginning the truck chase in "Raiders" -- the quick cuts to tight inserts (doors being slammed closed, foot on gas pedal, googles going on, etc.) emphasized by the beats of the music score, followed by a long slow boom down from a wide shot to reveal Indiana Jones watching on the low hill. It's almost like iambic pentameter or something: short, short, long, etc. (not that that's iambic pentameter...)

The thing is that when your framing gets tighter and tighter, you are almost always forced into making more cuts because so much action is happening outside the frame, so you have to cut to it to see it.

A nice bit of directing is in the climax to Michael Powell's "Black Narcissus" (the attempted killing of Deborah Kerr by Katherine Byron), which was staged to music playing on the set. Although you really should see it on DVD (the colors are gorgeous), you can see the clip on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+narcissus&search=Search

 

[Roberto B]

What I encourage any filmmaker to do is develop their ability to previsualize, to develop a visual imagination, and find ways of conveying emotion and story information through images. Learning the technical stuff is useless if you don't have a creative idea to express using that knowledge.

at last, there..

something that i can label as the most relevant truth that i could hear from a dp..

 

[Costelloe Michael]

David,

Thanks for all your input it makes good reading.You guys sure stay up late, I'm eating breakfast writing this in the UK!

I take it you work mostly on 35mm, most of my commercials work has gone from 35mm to HD in the last two years in the UK. Are you feeling a similar push in the States? And, is it your interest in Indie that leads you to this forum or do you see yourself adopting the Red Camera 4k route through commercial budget pressures?

Mike Costelloe

 

[Casey Green]

David,
Thanks for all your input it makes good reading. You guys sure stay up late, I'm eating breakfast writing this in the UK!

hahah - after wrapping on a recent production, I finally can catch up on the important things.

 

[number6]

facial imperfections

facial imperfections

David, with high definition displays becoming ubiquitous in the home, and Blu-Ray and HD DVD becoming the consumer standard, will lighting, and even lensing undergo any significant changes to disguise the skin or body imperfections of actors? After all, with the need for more content and the dounward spiral in general health, it will soon be impossible to find apparently flawless-skinned talent, when that is called for. I'm thinking that makeup will be more noticeable to the viewer as well, so how would you approach any problems that a director might present you with, in re: the above?

 

[Kenn Christenson]

What about the 40 ft. movie screens we've had over the past 100 years? Film is the oldest high definition format. Why are facial imperfections now just becoming a problem (besides the over sharpening on HD cameras?)

FYI - there is no such thing as "flawless-skinned talent" - never was, never will be. Why do you think they use everything from stockings and Vaseline to Promist?

 

[number6]

What about the 40 ft. movie screens we've had over the past 100 years? Film is the oldest high definition format. Why are facial imperfections now just becoming a problem (besides the over sharpening on HD cameras?)

FYI - there is no such thing as "flawless-skinned talent" - never was, never will be. Why do you think they use everything from stockings and Vaseline to Promist?

Thanks David.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Nice clip David, the cuts matched the score very well.

All of my favorite films have a brilliant score that matches the tempo and cuts of the film. If there isn't much of a score, such as in Kurosawa's Ran, the visuals are just so gripping and paced with perfection.

 

[wshultz]

David, are you at a point in your career where you pick and choose your projects? How do you choose? Do you still enjoy smaller indie pictures?

 

[Yash Keough]

Casey,
Yash,
In terms of simpler intro books than "Cinematography", I'm not sure if there are any noticably simpler, though you may find how someone else explains things to be easier to understand -- maybe Blain Brown's book, for example, or the Ascher book. Otherwise, I'd probably read some basic intro to photography books, since the principles are the same regarding film speed, shutter speed, f-stop, etc. I think I started with the old Upton Photography textbook, but also the Ansel Adams series too.

Thanks Mr. Mullen, I really appreciate your help.

I'll definitely take a look at those and see what I can learn. I think I have a pretty solid (though inexperienced) understanding of most of the basic concepts of film/video that I have been taught such as shutter speed, film speed, ISO etc. What I have found difficult though is gaining a better understanding of the big picture such as determining the required amount of light required to correctly expose for a scene and then how to achieve that amount given a particular speed of film or sensor, or more precisely, how to tie all that knowledge together in order to light a scene.

In Cinematopgrahy, I was finding the descriptions of the different light meters and how they are used to be a little confusing and that seemed to be the main thing holding me back. I will however take a look at those books you recommended as I'm sure another description would be highly beneficial to better understand. I will also be sure to read that Upton Photography book among the others mentioned. I do have a few other books including photography ones but they are all digital and tend to focus on a different way of achieving great shots in terms of metering etc.

Thank you very much though for taking the time to answer my question!

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Hello David, (or anyone else)

I will be shooting a TV commercial soon. One of the scene goes like this;

NIGHT - MOVING car, driver with a passenger at the back.

The camera is placed on the hood (bonnet?) of the car so that we see the driver in the fg. with the passenger in the backseat in the bg.

Both the driver and the passenger are dark skinned.

What will I need to light this scene properly? Can I use the car's battery itself? Where do I place the lights?

Anyone has experience lighting these types of scenes please do let me know how to go about it.

BTW I am in Ghana (West Africa). We do not have access to any fancy lighting gadgets. We have very, VERY basic lighting equipment.

Thanks.

 

[chuck colburn]

Often the windscreen is removed. If not, it helps to use a polarizing filter to control reflections off the glass.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David, with high definition displays becoming ubiquitous in the home, and Blu-Ray and HD DVD becoming the consumer standard, will lighting, and even lensing undergo any significant changes to disguise the skin or body imperfections of actors?

It's a concern -- 35mm is high in resolution, but since it is so magnified for theatrical projection, plus often it's a multi-generational dupe, there is an inherent softening process going on there, although traditionally cinematographers have had to watch out for facial flaws anyway. And then the 35mm movie went to NTSC and PAL and again, it was hard to see the facial flaws in SD. But now that movies are going to HD and being shown in HD, it can be real problem.

I've been color-correcting some TV stuff that I shot, 35mm-to-HD, and it's been somewhat of a creative challenge to find the happy balance between the desire to show sharp images on HDTV broadcast and trying to be kind to the actors. Me, the producer, the colorist, the post-supervisor all have our opinions regarding diffusion levels. I mean, ideally we'd just shoot everything sharp and add digital diffusion and touch-up work in post as needed (and we are doing a little of that here and there, subtlely) but it's a time/money issue so if I can get it right at the time of shooting, it makes the post go faster.

Truth is, though, that I don't think they cast TV shows by how good the skin of the actors are. Facial structure, maybe, or physique, but they always seem to think that skin problems can be fixed with make-up, lighting, and filters. And of course, it's better to get good performers and work around their minor facial flaws than to get pretty faces that can't act. Honestly, even the actors that are a bit of a challenge to light, etc. are still usually better-looking than the average person... we're usually just trying to show them in the best light, so to speak. And it's partly because it allows the viewer to enjoy the performance more.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You try to avoid removing the windscreen because of the wind problems; besides, for a night scene, moving reflections on the glass aren't so bad.

If this is an urban night driving scene, driving through the most well-lit neighborhoods is a good idea -- then you can just add some weak interior light, run off of the cigarette lighter or batteries. Could be anything -- I usually use Kinoflo Kino car kits (Miniflos) but I have even just used tiny battery-powered flourescent lights from drug stores or hardware stores.

If you are driving through darkness, you have to ask yourself if the real background would be black anyway, why not do the driving shot "poor man's process"? You can put two little lights in the far background to fake car headlights visible through the back windshield, and create some moving light effects on the car.

Some people have also been using a poor-man's rear projection set-up using projected video footage.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Regarding the indie scene, obviously shooting digitally has taken off faster there than in mainstream movies that can afford to shoot in 35mm. So given that digital will take up a larger and larger marketshare of indie production at a faster pace than studio production, the better the digital cameras are, the better these indie films will look. So it is in my self-interest to see high-quality imagemaking tools like the RED camera become commonplace in indie production rather than having to keep resorting to using the F900 as I seem to.

And of course, eventually 35mm will disappear even in studio productions so it's also in my self-interest that the digital tools keep getting better and better, although I think that day is a little farther off than many people here do. It doesn't really matter to me anyway -- I'm just focused on what the state of technology is today and the near future, for practical reasons.

Also, I'm a regular filmgoer, of all types of movies, and I just want movies to look better, regardless of their budgets. So the RED camera is exciting from the standpoint of a moviewatcher as well.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Regarding work, I'm in a bit of a twilight zone right now. I did several months on a TV series, so I still have a little money in the bank, then I took off some time to get some minor surgery, recovered from that, but as I look for something to shoot, it's been difficult -- I'm being a bit picky these days, while I can, but eventually I won't be able to be as picky.

Sometimes I seem to either get sent for consideration bigger projects with appalling scripts with no visual possibilities, or smaller projects where the budget is inadequate for the script's needs, or smaller projects that are also visually unappealing. And some of the scripts have just been too risque for my tastes. Part of me feels stupid for not persuing the bigger project just because it's a dumb comedy with no possibility of interesting cinematography -- at least I'd be paid well. And part of me feels stupid for turning down something because I'm not comfortable with the level of sex and violence in the script. I remember turning down one dumb comedy only to see some big-name DP that I respect take it instead, and then I felt guilty, like I was being a snob or something. Eventually what happens though is that either it pays off for being picky and something great gets offered, or you get desparate and take anything at a certain point.

Things are picking up though in the industry and it seems like I have a number of better scripts coming my way, so who knows what I'll take next.

I'm not so opposed to doing something really low-budget, but there has to be a good reason now, either because the script is so darn visually interesting and the budget is adequate for that material and the director has some good ideas on how to pull it off, or if it's because of a long-term relationship I have with a producer or director. Otherwise, the problem with just taking any low-budget work offered is that it can drive your rates down; there are points in your career where you have to make a stand to push your rates up, even if it means losing some work. But it's painful.

I'd love to say that indie scripts were always more interesting than studio scripts, but actually it's not true. Both can be bad or good. Too many indie screenwriters resort to talky scenes between friends, ala "Swingers" or "Clerks", because they think that's all they can afford to shoot, people talking in apartments and diners and bars and cars. Talk, talk, talk. And we're not talking Mamet or Stoppard here. Sometimes I just flip through a script and if I see wall-to-wall dialogue, it's hard to get excited about reading it.