Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[J.R. Hud]

I love the 'Split Diopter' technique (if even a composite).

-

Thanks David for the WotW answer. I love the look.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

Thanks for the answer, Mr Mullen. To use a 500 mm anamorphic lens and get focus in all planes sounds very impressive. That set must be a hot place to be!

Maybe the answer to the Speed Racer-question is revealed in the latest number of American Cinematographer. I wonder if I should buy it online.

I love the 'Split Diopter' technique (if even a composite).

Split Diopter? I'm not a professional, but I can not spot any indication of use of diopter. The wall with the drawings is in focus on both left and right side of the girl's face.

Loved your blog, J.R. Hud! It must be the only of its kind on the web!

 

[Evin Grant]

Although I suspect David is right (who am I to question him?) bare in mind that Speed Racer was shot on the F-23, a 2/3" camera, it would be much easier to get the DOF in this shot on that format.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I agree with that, monochromatic backgrounds make a big difference when using hyper focus. After all, the most touted example of this technique, Citizen Kane, is a black and white film, and you can see how as the scene moves deeper, the colors tend more towards greys and blacks, as opposed to lighter tones in the foreground, in fact somehow "homogenizing" the background to keep it from interfering with the points of attention intended.

Another famous user of this technique, Sergio Leone, cleverly positioned his actors in front of vast expanses where the backgrounds were always arid landscapes far away from the actors, whose faces furthermore usually filled up half the screen real estate, so as to not allow the background to diverge the viewers' attention while still keeping everything in focus. For the interiors, Leone was also smart in that, although he still tried to keep everything is as much focus as possible, he blatantly used his lighting to underline the important parts of the scene while leaving the other parts basically in darkness. "Once upon a time in the west" is one of the best examples of this Leone style, and a film that an old mentor of mine insisted, should be mandatory for all film makers venturing into features shot on HD, as the 2/3" sensors would simulate that style on their own.

Hyper focus on color films where the authors don't want, or care to, make a distinction between the different focal planes in the scene, as Speed Racer seems to do, will probably be distracting to say the least, and counterproductive to story telling and character association, though most reviews I've read seem to agree Speed Racer is not really big on either of those...

 

[J.R. Hud]

Thanks for the answer, Mr Mullen. To use a 500 mm anamorphic lens and get focus in all planes sounds very impressive. That set must be a hot place to be!

Maybe the answer to the Speed Racer-question is revealed in the latest number of American Cinematographer. I wonder if I should buy it online.



Split Diopter? I'm not a professional, but I can not spot any indication of use of diopter. The wall with the drawings is in focus on both left and right side of the girl's face.

Loved your blog, J.R. Hud! It must be the only of its kind on the web!

Oops

Sorry Tabula

I meant the term in the look of the frame itself; aand assuming it's a composite.

Thanks for the comments onb my lil Blog. Have to do a fresh article very soon (my wife has all 300 of my DVD's)

 

[Adam Clark]

yeah, according to the speed racer article in american cinematographer - there is a lot of comp work done to intentionally create a very hyperreal dof

 

[Nick Wolf]

Hi David,

Lets say you have a paragraph of prose. And in that paragraph you get the who, what, where, when, why, and how of whats going on. When putting it all together each and every element would you asign various information to different levels of expression? For example the quality of the Hero or heroine is courage, would you give some thing of that to the music to convey, to photography, how do you go about distributing the burden of expression? Do you think its good to have several elements working for it or better to have them juxtaposed?

A film like the "Exorsist" I think works so well because in many ways its like an Ibsen play in construction. Its very straight and normal. Playing against the "Super-Natural" elements that are introduced as details breaking with the established norm and developed into an increasingly omininous pitch.

How would you for example present the information of "Old" through explicitly dressing the character or by contrasting it with something that it "Was not" and thus infering the fact.

There is a scene in the Godfather where some toddelers burst into the room and are quickly gathered and ushered out by Tom Hagen...This flurry detail that interupts whats going on in the room is very memorable and I dont think its just a way of changing tempo though it also serves that purpose. Isnt it that whats going on in the scene is an age old ritual of power and its macanisims and that it is so far away from the fancy free frolicing of child like innosence?

Another scene after a meeting the last detail when Vito is presented with a corination of flowers from Johnny Fontaine...Another memorable and seemingingly inconsequent detail but isnt that also a way to "Show-Express" that the formalities and pagentries are simple decorations quite worthless and lacking substance compared to the realitities of "Business" and yet a nessisary token in demonstrating ones respect through petty acts of gratitude?

I guess I am curious about how you view and regard the process of making choices and what guides and informs your mental process to arrive at the final material and its organisation.

Thanks for your time!

DogDay

 

[10s]

David, what sort of rules, logic, motivation do you/& director use for when to move the camera? I noticed the ASC was having some event with a title suggesting something similair to this, so I thought I'd ask

Example: Lighting has motivation, characters too, what about the camera movement. Why & when is it best to go from static to dynamic?

Some will suggest it to create: eye candy, excitiment, take a small tour at the begining of a scene for audience orientation, to follow the character, to reveal new information, to play the POV role of a character, to add new information when a static has already delivered it's information, and when moving from static to dynamic it hints at pending action.

What is your take on this?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, you pretty much nailed it. You have to first determine the visual language of the whole piece to have some sort of guidelines for lens choice and movement, though you will bend those rules. Often the movement, unless there for obvious reasons, like following someone around, is tied either to emotional dramatic elements (how emotions are captured, portrayed, enhanced, etc.) or plot elements (how information is revealed or concealed). And it also depends on how subjective the scene is, how much does it follow a character's perspective on the action.

 

[10s]

David, I watched again "Fiddler on the Roof" (it's been a while) and the deep staging/blocking blew me away. I guess it's the Broadway choreography influencing the shot designs. I also have been reading David Bordwell's "Figures Traced in Light" and he explores the underemphasis of staging in depth in modern cinema. Everything is "stand and deliver" 2.5 to 5. second shots, masters, two-shots, singles, inserts, mainly CU -- on to next scene. As Bordwell says, the most radical thing to do now is keep the camera shot still and let the drama take place.

Are there directors/cinematographers still interested in deep staging of long 10-20...(I dare say) 30 second static shots?...or is the industry largely accelerated in an ever increasing quest for creating hyper stimulation?

I would think both static and dynamic camera movement, deep staging/focus and shallow focus/seperation would be full range tools used to their fullest so one can create the tension & release good art requires.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

DP's have to follow the director's lead in regards to staging to lens and coverage, though I often help out in that. But both DP's and directors are subject to popular trends, for career reasons (to be perceived as hip) or because they actually like the popular trends.

There are still directors who like long takes, group shots, etc. -- you see that in David Fincher's "Zodiak" for example, or Wes Anderson's comedies. Some directors like a moving wide-angle master with minimal cutting in a scene, or at least, now and then. I noticed that Verhoeven's "Basic Instinct" was shot in anamorphic on a Steadicam with lots of complex moving master shots. Same goes for a lot of Brian DePalma's movies.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

What about "There will be blood"? I was just watching the DVD and notice how much the camera is used as a tool to influence the audience/character interaction. There are 15,20, even 30 second shots where the camera does not move one inch and the action keeps getting progressively farther from the camera, to the point where, VERY important things, such as Day Lewis' character being reunited with his long gone son, or meeting a brother he never knew he had, take place VERY far from us, succeding in making us isolated from the character, but also alienating us from most of the emotional impact of the performances IMO.
Then again, Day Lewis won the oscar for this role, so the academy must have been able to see right through all that, but this is definitely one case where long and distant framing is the norm, and at least for me, it did not work towards keeping me emotionally involved in a story that is almost three hours long with a very slow plot...I don't know, sometimes it feels like going against the grain, which nowadays is movies with average cuts every two seconds, just to go against it, does not neccessarily serve the story telling process.

 

[J.R. Hud]

Longer takes and minimal cutting are exactly what excites me when visualizing a scene. I like to approach it purely from a visual standpoint and not let the dialogue dictate it.

Moving the camera or the actors can change the entire composition of a frame without a single cut and is much more interesting eye candy than cut after cut after cut.

I think many filmmakers cut too much for lack of confidence (or planning). Like too many close ups that end of muddling the frame instad of coming out wide and letting the audience into the world you're trying to create.

Films like NO COUNTRY and THERE WILL BE BLOOD feel like pure cinema with every frame a masterpiece.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

What about "There will be blood"? I was just watching the DVD

Well, that says something right there... a medium or wide shot on a 75' theater screen has a different impact than on a 40" TV screen.

The environment was just as much a character as the people in that movie... so it makes sense to constantly frame people against it. Also, with a performance that big, it isn't a bad idea to back off a little with the camera... :wink:

 

[Nick Wolf]

Dave sorry for being a pest...I have something to shoot and am having trouble organizing the material and getting to the heart of it...I have been to the locations and what I want to stage there just doesnt seem to be working visually...So I am wondering maybe if its a glut of info on the visual line of expression...Should I seperate the grammar and dispurse it over the different elements or what sort of system is needed for arriving at the scenes visual logic...You mentioned about determining the type of language...Can you eliborate on that, are you talking about genre or what?


DogDay

 

[J.R. Hud]

Try and look at each scene in the context of emotion. What is the purpose of the scene ?

Have you determined the visual style for the piece yet ? Hand held ? Locked down ? Hyper spaz epileptic THE SHIELD style ? Steadicam ?

Imagine telling the story in visual terms if the dialogue was completely removed. Would the audience still get it ? That is how I would approach it; shoot it with the idea that the only the visuals are going to tell your story.

Eagerly awaiting David's opinion !

 

[Nick Wolf]

Yes but I want to hear if there is an order or hierarchy from where sub-choices are made from, the determining factor that inform all other choices...For example a premise, a context, yes a genre, but a choice as to if its hand held or locked down is made based on what?

You have the circumstances and the situation, the plot and the subtext of the scene, story points, and you have an interpretation, a subject and a premice or point of view, what are the elements that these facts will be distributed over? and how to determine what gets what?

Landscape, int-ext, art direction, color, light-dark, casting etc all the elements combined but if you where to line these elements up one after the other in an order of their existance layer after layer, how would you load each layer, everything striving for the same effect at once or syncopating them or contrasting them? and most importantly is it that you first make a phrase in verbal language and then find a visual to express it or how to break it down to convey the meaning of the scene so it works.

I suppose the first thing would be to find a key word for a theme or motif??? or?

An example of a telling chioce based on a hiden determining definition is in "Raging Bull" when after a fight the public goes nuts and starts tossing chairs there is a quick insert of a woman sitting playing an organ through it all...That says something about the nature of organized conflict as a channeling force for the inherent chaos in us the spectators, having the ultimate symbol of ordered chaos the key board of a organ and a woman bound to it churning out a melody is quite clever, and more importantly serve a function in not only the story but in the dealing and treatment of the premise of the subject..."Demons"??? Perhaps???

Everyone talks of beautiful pictures but I think its a difference between a picture and an image...An image is something that is emblazoned on ones memory cutting through all the other visuals we pick up on. To have an image be symbolic there has to be an invisible factor informing the choice determining it, a blue print, an interpretation that conditions all else.


dogday

 

[10s]

I hate to butt in, but here I am! Dogday, it sounds like you're after those wonderful iconic mise-en-scene allegorical images we all want.

allegory
an art form, as a story, painting, or sculpture, in which the components have a symbolic, figurative meaning. — allegorist, allegorizer, n. — allegorical, adj.

I think the answer lies in understanding whose story it is,...most often it's the Hero's story-- they are the cornerstone of this design. The heart of the hero's journey often is not just the outer physical journey but the inner mental/spiritual journey. If this is so, then the images i would seek would symbolically reflect this character arc, and the forces opposing the hero throughout the conflicting drama. Even basic simple screen direction starts to give clues to blocking: hero journeys from right to left > while the opponent moves left to right< to eventually clash. I know you're way beyond this but it still is informative for creating a pictorial foundation of blocking.

You might look into art theory, cultural anthropology (symbols) Joseph Campbell and theater set design. This reminds me to once again watch Visions of Light....it should be mandatory viewing for everyone here

Your reference to Raging Bull and the cut to the organist suggest theory of montage, Eisenstien. The power of the contrasting images in your mind produce a 3rd image (demons?) in your head, that's the synergy of montage.

 

[Nick Wolf]

I cant believe your words! I was jsut thinking the word allegory when reflecting over that scene again with the organist...Because it somehow seems to step outside the immediate circle of "Who story it is" into another circle that has more to do with the thematic conflicts surrounding the issues, that yes we characters embody but in the Greek-Mythological sense also exist in everything that is present within the realm of a particular story.

So somewhere when trying to deduce or divine a line of expression its vital to find the characters archetype and journey type???

That approach is more explicit in "Oh brother where art thou" blending that philosphy of story treatment with the actual origins of that insight in the adapting of the old greek epos.

But where certain directors use figures to express these forces I like also to experience the ones who actually give the forces of nature IE art direction also a role in it, using atmosphere to also convey things so its lighter and not so heavy handed.

And yes Eisenstein and Meyerhold and Pudovkin with that concept of the moment before and after adding inflecting to what fact needs to get across.

Its a kind of reasoning and retorik, sometimes it can be too well made.

The bloody analysis to find those nuggets really is demanding. I guess its also important to deside what the grammatical purpose is in relation to who the story is being told. Thats one of the key determining factors.

I think starting with the place and the actions in the place against and in relation to the norm could lead to some usable information to start making choices from.

A house can be a home it can also be a prison.
A prison is a jail but can also be a sanctuary.
Etc etc etc.

DogDay

 

[David Mullen ASC]

For one thing, it helps to simplify everything down to the basics, whether it is the lighting in the scene, the framing, the movement. You can't have twenty ideas in one shot and expect the audience to digest it in the ten seconds it may be on screen. So don't get too subtle, too complex, too diffuse -- this isn't a novel, it's more like a short story or poem, condensed and pithy.

When I'm lost trying to figure out how to cover a scene, I sort of fall back on the Hitchcockian notions of point of view and subjectivity, i.e. shoot what the main character sees and shoot the reaction shots of the main character to what they are seeing.

I just shot a funeral scene yesterday and the questions of how to cover it came up. We did a conventional wide master and two-shots and singles, but we also shot the whole scene, wide and close, from the point of view of the main character, who was standing off in the distance watching things unfold. So now in editing, we have options in terms of how to play the scene, when to break from the strictly POV approach. But the POV shots are also a fallback, and a way of shortening the scene because perhaps in editing, they may decide not to concentrate on the emotions of the other characters at the funeral but just play the main character watching things happen from a distance and catching only snippets. You can then cut back to the main character watching and hearing, off-camera, a lot of the big feelings being expressed by these people at the funeral, who are ultimately minor characters to the story, but going through a big emotional moment. So there is always the issue of how much do you want to give a smaller character a "big" scene, or whether the scene only matters in context to how the main character feels about it.