Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

[Nick Wolf]

Yes when you say that it helps I automatically started visualizing in a more concrete way...

So moment to moment starting from the last moment ( Or point of scene-Conclusion ) tracing a logic of thoughts that need to be captured. Then build some coverage from MC-POV and some reaction of SC-POV in scene.

Man o Man if I can get a Hitchcock kinesthetic reaction from the scene I am going to do I will be very happy.

That scene in the Cemetary in Vertigo where they are so close yet so far from discovering each other. But also James Stewart was so specific in his mimic-expressive abilities you really could literally see what he was thinking and the story could move along just by close ups on him and some coverage.

I find working with actors very often because of lack of tecnique not talent they dont know what to think when and it becomes very general and white washing with broad cliche emotional fire works instead of concrete moment to moment readable behavior and expression.

I hear you and it helps David. But I am still worryed about the cohesive quality that binds it all. I have seen so many productions with huge budgets that still miss an essence because it doesnt have the intention injected into every element. But maybe as David Mamet suggests in his book if I understand correctly he talks about not inflecting and letting the editing and music lift what is dorment in the takes. In that case less would be more.

And maybe even to willfully play against whats going on in the scene..."Take the gun, Leave the Canoly"

DogDay

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The problem with Hollywood movies is less about how they are shot and edited and more about a lack of interesting ideas in the writing itself to build off of for the performers or the people shooting. Sometimes there's no "there" there, no heart to the scene, no nugget of truth to get to. It's just there for eye candy, plot exposition, or for no reason at all.

 

[10s]

Let a nail do a nail's job and not try to be the house. As Mamet would put it, let your shots be uniflected (simple, raw), together they will build to say something meaningful, (montage). I believe David just said something similair.


David, maybe these stories need a little: http://www.moralpremise.com/

 

[Nick Wolf]

I agree. Though I believe that quality is on its way back big time. We now know both ends of the spectrum are possible to create a hybrid from as several TVS have demonstrated this last decade proving that great writing and acting can coexist within a medium designed to sell wheaties. Some of these series have set a new bench mark for all else to be measured against.

Also with saleries plummeting I think folks in the Biz want to do stuff at least with some sort of merit if not for the cash than for the challenge and prestiege.

Maybe off topic...For anyone on the inside and you David specifically: I have a story I really believe in, I will be shooting a teaser for it mid June. I have been rubbing sticks together and some things are happening yet its still little means and no backing as of yet. I have a dream actor who I had in mind while writing, John Savage. How to get to a known actor without having to harang with managers and agents who are only interested of a fat wad of cash waved at them through the peep hole at the gates?

I am sitting on a great vehicle and could do it as is with unknowns, I have a line up and am itching to do it even hyper indie micro budget but I feel if I can just get to this guy and pitch him he might just bite.

The other option is I have a project tailor made for a European audience which is a very controversial down and dirty gritty psycological-political thriller...That is possible to do now-soon and can fly with unknowns and using an indiginous language say of French or German...I like this story too maybe thats the way to gain access by building a track record.

Preferably I want to do both and have the one working parrallel while the other is in the works.

Any advice? I have some pieces of the puzzle in place. I need however to get my Ace of Spades and that is my leading Man & Woman.

I might add that yes the fact that he is known plays a role in my choice of him but that is maybe 15% of my motivation the rest 85% is really because I think he has the acute sensitivity to understand the trails and tribulations of the main character and also the chops to express them. Had I found an unknown with his artistic prowess I wouldnt hesitate a moment doing it with that person instead.

DogDay

P.S.
I just got that book from Amazon a week ago its really good.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't really help you much on issues like casting, finding money, etc. -- I'm only a cinematographer. People find name actors in a wide variety of ways -- either they know the actor or they know someone who knows them, or they hire a casting director who knows how to reach actors, or they contact the actor's agency. The trouble with name actors is the money issue, not necessarily that they will charge top dollar all the time, but even on a small film, there are certain requirements to prove to them that you have the money before they will sign a contract.

 

[Nick Wolf]

I am determined to say the least and will keep all posted as to what transpires...

Thanks again you have helped tremendously with every bit of knowledge and encouragement not only to me directly but to everyone who visits this amazing fountain of wealth and generousity !!!

Many Thanks David,

DogDay

 

[jpp]

If I may, I think the search for "allegory" or "symbolism" is a often a backwards and misguided one, that Joseph Campbell really won't help anyone to either write or direct material, because Joseph Campbell only works after-the-fact, for analysis, but not creation.

While the shot of the organist works wonderfully well, particularly in that marvelously cut scene, you could argue that it doesn't mean anything more than what it is: a woman doing her job while the riot proceeds below. And I'd wager a dollar that it was the writer, not the director, who came up with that shot, because it's more of a literary conceit than an obvious directorial choice. If that claim sounds counterintuitive, you can find exactly that kind of cross-cutting in literature long before the emergence of cinema.

Which kind of gets back to what David was saying: sometimes there's no "there", there. We could point to all sorts of brilliant moments in classic films, but the only explanation for them is inspiration, wherever it may have come from. It's not really a question of allegory or symbolism, because the idea is internally conceived. There is no external reference or meaning; what meaning there is develops from the scene itself and grows outward. That it seems larger than it is doesn't mean it's "symbolic". This quality of "largeness" is what distinguishes brilliance form mediocrity, but there's no obvious means to achieve it.

 

[Nick Wolf]

Yes sometimes an ice cream cone is just an ice cream cone except when the girl licking it happens to be called Lolita.

I disagree but do enjoy listening to your point of view.

The roots of certain schools of thought both in the theater and the cinema especially the American cinema are decendants of the Stanislavsky system. Its not only a school for actors but a school of thought obsessed with choices and how to make them so that with a minimum of expression you can express a maximum of relevant information.

Most European films have this tradition for different cultural reasons. A sofisticated way for getting through censorship. Things must be disguised. Meanings incrypted.

For a story to work on a larger level someone lets say a director has to deside what its really about...A theme, a point of view, all material serves the purpose of delivering that information in a hidden way so as not to distract from the illusion. Information is interwoven and becomes symbolic since it isnt explicit. A detail implies something else thus becomeing significant of something more or else that isnt necissarily present. Its a conclusion drawn by us the spectators speculating around that detail, Conciously or unconciously.

Setting up such a shot of that organist must have taken lots and lots of labour. Costumes. Props. Lighting. Casting. Composition. Etc etc etc. An accident you say? Without a function serving the whole?
They are not finger painting these are masters at work here.

Scorcesse and De niro reherse for hours trying to figure out the way a character would tie their shoes because it has to speak. Some of it is prose as you say in a script but most of the time its a choice deduced based on other analysis.

When De niro in GodFather II Wraps the pistol in a towel and then assinates Don Fanucci in the darkened hallway...That was a choice neither written nor desided by the director that was the actor as collaborator determining the choice of what to do in the scene...There is a system for that, its based on deductive reasoning, its about locating archetypes, its all sybolic and historical. Interpretation. Thats what seperates one director from another one version of Hamlet from another. The vision is called in-sight, the ability to penetrate into the deeper and hidden meaning of things. You need to first know "What" to express. That is the ultimate choice that informs all other choices within the context of the storys realm. Thats why its important to as soon as possble determine what genre it is and isnt.

What is a towel archtypically? what is it used for? what is its norm? now how is it being used in this context? what is the significance? yes on one level its a silencer on another level however it speaks of never being able to be clean again.

I think its called conotative & denotative language, correct me if I misquote someone.

Watch "Close encounters of the third kind" and look at the art direction its so many covert referances to the Bible as a source of myth embedded in the background.

DogDay

 

[jpp]

The roots of certain schools of thought both in the theater and the cinema especially the American cinema are decendants of the Stanislavsky system.

Only in the most bastardized of forms. Very few people in this business have actually read Stanislavsky, and most of those have only read the first volume, which doesn't really account for his thought. The American "method" approach is based on a partial and distorted reading, and as a training manual it's been a disaster, apart from the few notable actors, like Brando, associated with it.

Most European films have this tradition for different cultural reasons. A sofisticated way for getting through censorship. Things must be disguised. Meanings incrypted.

There's no doubt encryption went on in totalitarian societies, but I wouldn't want to argue that censorship is at the heart of mystery in art. Might there not be a deeper impulse at play?

For a story to work on a larger level someone lets say a director has to deside what its really about...A theme, a point of view, all material serves the purpose of delivering that information in a hidden way so as not to distract from the illusion. Information is interwoven and becomes symbolic since it isnt explicit. A detail implies something else thus becomeing significant of something more or else that isnt necissarily present. Its a conclusion drawn by us the spectators speculating around that detail, Conciously or unconciously.

This probably isn't the place, but to my mind, you're going at it backwards. This is not how works of art get created, with themes or points of view or information to be disposed of. If a director really has to decide what it's all about, he's probably already lost.

Setting up such a shot of that organist must have taken lots and lots of labour. Costumes. Props. Lighting. Casting. Composition. Etc etc etc. An accident you say? Without a function serving the whole?
They are not finger painting these are masters at work here.

I never claimed it was an accident, but that it probably wasn't the director's idea, because it's a literary technique which pre-dates cinema. And somewhere or other I think I've seen a George Bellows painting of this shot, Scorsese may have "stolen" it.

There is a system for that, its based on deductive reasoning, its about locating archetypes, its all sybolic and historical. Interpretation.

I don't believe this kind of thinking is going to help you much, but this is David's thread, and it would be bad manners to really go at it here.

 

[Nick Wolf]

You are right, lets shake and break it up. Very interesting points you made, though I still disagree.

Food for thought.

Chow,

DogDay

 

[10s]

David, this is a somewhat vague half cooked question, but when using a Steadicam operator, how (if any) does your role as DP change. I guess what I'm driving at is, given the infinite possible shots, selection/framing, how do you/DPs fit into this?

 

[Davide B.]

Maybe off topic...For anyone on the inside and you David specifically: I have a story I really believe in, I will be shooting a teaser for it mid June. I have been rubbing sticks together and some things are happening yet its still little means and no backing as of yet. I have a dream actor who I had in mind while writing, John Savage. How to get to a known actor without having to harang with managers and agents who are only interested of a fat wad of cash waved at them through the peep hole at the gates?

I am sitting on a great vehicle and could do it as is with unknowns, I have a line up and am itching to do it even hyper indie micro budget but I feel if I can just get to this guy and pitch him he might just bite.

The other option is I have a project tailor made for a European audience which is a very controversial down and dirty gritty psycological-political thriller...That is possible to do now-soon and can fly with unknowns and using an indiginous language say of French or German...I like this story too maybe thats the way to gain access by building a track record.

Preferably I want to do both and have the one working parrallel while the other is in the works.

Any advice? I have some pieces of the puzzle in place. I need however to get my Ace of Spades and that is my leading Man & Woman.

I might add that yes the fact that he is known plays a role in my choice of him but that is maybe 15% of my motivation the rest 85% is really because I think he has the acute sensitivity to understand the trails and tribulations of the main character and also the chops to express them. Had I found an unknown with his artistic prowess I wouldnt hesitate a moment doing it with that person instead.
.

There are a couple threads on DVXuser.com (which used to house this forum) which touch on the topics of getting funding and finding hollywood actors for indie productions. I'd suggest reading through both as they both are success stories of directors getting funding and big-time actors:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=126339

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=108831

I hope this wasn't too much of a hijack.

davide

 

[Nick Wolf]

David is down with us getting ahead...Thanks a bunch man...I am going to start a thread soon devoted to my project maybe it will be a help for others so they dont have to make the same mistakes ... I will let you know when its up.

Its so strange how things work. I havent slept in about 36 hours I have discovered a new blend of coffee "Robusto" and Man o Man is this stuff powerful. I am exhusted but forced myself to continue writing a 15 page sequence in my script. Its killing me but I kept going and when I finally finished you posted this to me.

Thanks so much!

DogDay

P.S.
Davids advice did help also. I did a little quick net working check and found some leads that have the contact I am looking for.

BTW; Davide ( And anyone else in this community ) let me know if theres ever anything I can help you with anytime!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

David, this is a somewhat vague half cooked question, but when using a Steadicam operator, how (if any) does your role as DP change. I guess what I'm driving at is, given the infinite possible shots, selection/framing, how do you/DPs fit into this?

Most Steadicam shots are very well-designed, rehearsed, and shot, like any dolly or crane move. So the operator works the shot out with the director and DP.

Some shots, can be Steadicam, handheld, or on a tripod, are occasionally "freestyle", semi-documentary, where you ask the operator to "find things" -- like when you shoot a dinner or party scene and after getting the shots you need, you ask the operator to just shoot the scene like a documentarian, get improv moments of people laughing, eating, dancing, whatever. In this case, you are asking the operator to do a lot of independent decision-making on the spot. But not being a documentary, you do have the option of doing another take and asking the operator to make adjustments. Remember, this is the day and age of video taps and playback.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

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

Sorry for the late response, but thanks for the information! But my english understanding is not perfect. By composite, do you mean shooting one "plane of action" against a green screen and then but it over another shot with another plane i focus?

Can you buy the article online, or do you have to order a psysical copy from the States?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

By composite, do you mean shooting one "plane of action" against a green screen and then but it over another shot with another plane i focus?

Yes. A composite is a combination of two shots.

 

[J.R. Hud]

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.

Thank you for this answer David. It is exactly how I have always felt but didn't realize it until you said it. That post is worth of printing and keeping in my pocket.

Most Steadicam shots are very well-designed, rehearsed, and shot, like any dolly or crane move. So the operator works the shot out with the director and DP.

Some shots, can be Steadicam, handheld, or on a tripod, are occasionally "freestyle", semi-documentary, where you ask the operator to "find things" -- like when you shoot a dinner or party scene and after getting the shots you need, you ask the operator to just shoot the scene like a documentarian, get improv moments of people laughing, eating, dancing, whatever. In this case, you are asking the operator to do a lot of independent decision-making on the spot. But not being a documentary, you do have the option of doing another take and asking the operator to make adjustments. Remember, this is the day and age of video taps and playback.

ON Video taps and playback:

How much time is spent on this during a days shoot ? Is every shot reviewed after the fact ?

I worked on a project last fall (2nd unit) and the director stayed in 'video village' the entire time, leaving myself and another person to 'direct' for them. It was a bizarre experience. We ended up blocking and lighting and teling the actors between takes what and how to do.

Have you ever exerienced this ?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

How much time is spent on this during a days shoot ? Is every shot reviewed after the fact ?

I worked on a project last fall (2nd unit) and the director stayed in 'video village' the entire time, leaving myself and another person to 'direct' for them. It was a bizarre experience. We ended up blocking and lighting and teling the actors between takes what and how to do.

Have you ever exerienced this ?

How much you play back depends on the director and the nature of the shot. A complex (and perhaps expensive) camera move may need reviewing before you decide to move on. We did a lot of that on the last movie, so there was a lot of playback. For simple performance coverage, most directors don't play back much of that.

I haven't worked with a director who wasn't involved in blocking, though I've worked with some green directors who needed a lot of help to get through it. I have a policy of never getting involved in performance issues, letting the director communicate that to the actor, even if I have an opinion, I'll pass it through the director. But I try to keep my opinions to editorial and photographic things (i.e. "we need her to hold that glance longer because we have to cut into it for that POV shot we are doing...") At most, I may congratulate an actor after a great scene in a generic way, but I really don't want actors looking over at me for feedback on performances, they need to look at the director for that, not DP's, producers, soundmen, etc. It has to be a close one-on-one relationship between the actor and the director.

I have winced now and then when I realize that the director has no clue as to how to talk to an actor, but I don't consider it my business to get involved because that opens Pandora's Box. A DP really walks a fine line because when you have a weak director, it is all too easy for the DP to start telling everyone how things will go on the set, what the set-ups are, when to move on, etc. Because they know the material and they know how it was planned to be shot, and they know how to improvise when there is no plan. But then all you do is undermine the director when you do that. I've been guilty of that, not intentionally, just because sometimes I think faster than some directors and don't slow down to their level. And suddenly I'm jumping the gun on opinions as to the next set-up, what lens to use, how the scene will cut, etc. when I need to stop and listen. It's due to the stress of shooting, where you always feel you have a gun to your head and you feel you have to make snap decisions a thousand times a day. Some directors won't let themselves be rushed, and you have to respect that.

 

[Tabula Rasa]

You were right about the composite, Mr Mullen.

Quote ASC article:

What eneabled the filmmakers to achieve extreme depth of field was a method visual effects co-supervisor John gaeta (The Matrix, Matrix Reloaded, Matrix Revolutions) dubbed "photo anime". Seperate foreground, mid-ground and background elements were shot, all in sharp focus, an then composited to create an image with a depth of field well beyond optical limits.

 

[Chris Newman]

Thanks for all of the useful ideas, David.

I searched all of reduser for "haze", and was surprised to not find anything. It seems to be a very commonly used technique to lower the contrast of the background, make light sources more apparent, and soften things a little. How do you decide how to balance using haze vs. DOF, lighting, etc. for separating the subject from the background?