Eyes Wide Shut has no Cinematographer or DoP?

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think anyone debates that Kubrick had a heavy hand in the photography of his movies -- he shot his early movies and he probably could have shot his later movies without a cinematographer. The question is whether the cinematographers he did hire -- Gilbert Taylor, Ozzie Morris, Geoffrey Unsworth, John Alcott, Doug Milsome, etc. -- were "stand-bys" who sat in a chair to satisfy union requirements, or whether also actively participated in the cinematography and lighting, and as far as I've gathered from interviews, yes, they worked and did their jobs, they weren't just stand-bys. Kubrick was too cost-conscious anyway -- if all he wanted was a stand-by to make the union happy, he would have hired some up-and-comer at the bottom union rate. Instead he hired some of the top cinematographers in the U.K. Everyone worked hard on a Kubrick movie.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I don't think anyone debates that Kubrick had a heavy hand in the photography of his movies -- he shot his early movies and he probably could have shot his later movies without a cinematographer. The question is whether the cinematographers he did hire -- Gilbert Taylor, Ozzie Morris, Geoffrey Unsworth, John Alcott, Doug Milsome, etc. -- were "stand-bys" who sat in a chair to satisfy union requirements, or whether also actively participated in the cinematography and lighting, and as far as I've gathered from interviews, yes, they worked and did their jobs, they weren't just stand-bys.

There's a famous story I think from Paul Thomas Anderson or a filmmaker of that level who was invited by Kubrick to drop by the set Eyes Wide Shut, and he was flummoxed by the relative lack of people on the set. Apparently, Kubrick's crew was only about 25 people, which is microscopic compared to a normal Hollywood union picture. Kubrick chided the guy for what he felt was the waste expense of larger crews, but acknowledged that shooting his way took a lot more time, though the cost was somewhat lower. I think they went more than 300 days on Eyes Wide Shut, which is pretty crazy.

 

[Manfred Lopez]

On the bigger budget/complex storyline movies I completely agree.

But on a certain type of small budget movie, I think it is important NOT to specialize but instead become writer, director, cameraman, and even DoP if one has the basic skillset. For some it is easier and more precise to holistically get a scene recorded the way they see it in their heads rather than shoot it over and over trying to get someone else to understand what you see.

ON DIRECTORS OPERATING CAMERA THEMSELVES

I completely agree with what you say. I especially believe that on certain kind of scenes the camera movement is so important that basically whoever is operating becomes part actor or performer themselves. Their camera movement has to be completely in sink with the energy of the actors in front of the lens. In this scenario a small micro movement too late or too early or too to the right can greatly cripple the performance of the actor. For example, sometimes the energy and flow of the scene calls for the camera to reposition itself slightly just at the right beat. A good example of this is when an actor is going through the stages of producing tears. A small, organic frame adjustment at the right moment can greatly enhance how the audience perceives the emotion. This is why as a director I sometimes I find it easier to just operate myself in these situations.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

ON DIRECTORS OPERATING CAMERA THEMSELVES

I completely agree with what you say. I especially believe that on certain kind of scenes the camera movement is so important that basically whoever is operating becomes part actor or performer themselves. Their camera movement has to be completely in sink with the energy of the actors in front of the lens. In this scenario a small micro movement too late or too early or too to the right can greatly cripple the performance of the actor. For example, sometimes the energy and flow of the scene calls for the camera to reposition itself slightly just at the right beat. A good example of this is when an actor is going through the stages of producing tears. A small, organic frame adjustment at the right moment can greatly enhance how the audience perceives the emotion. This is why as a director I sometimes I find it easier to just operate myself in these situations.

Which is fine if you are actually good at operating. Operating is a learned skill like playing a musical instrument and you get better at it the more you do it. So while a director might be best in tune with the actor and know when is the right moment to move the camera, to zoom in, etc., there is no guarantee that the director is skilled enough to do this compared to an operator with years of experience. There is a certain physicality to operating, especially if there is a dolly rise while the camera pans 180 degrees, let's say, causing the operator to have to step over the arm of the dolly and switch sides in mid pan, all the while slowly standing up with the rising dolly arm. And it gets worse if you are shooting film without an onboard monitor and have to keep your eye against the eyepiece the whole time you are standing up and turning your body 180 degrees while you are switching sides of the dolly, etc. Oh, and operating a micro force zoom at the same time...

And what if you are running a second camera, maybe even on another actor's performance?

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Which is fine if you are actually good at operating. Operating is a learned skill like playing a musical instrument and you get better at it the more you do it. So while a director might be best in tune with the actor and know when is the right moment to move the camera, to zoom in, etc., there is no guarantee that the director is skilled enough to do this compared to an operator with years of experience. There is a certain physicality to operating, especially if there is a dolly rise while the camera pans 180 degrees, let's say, causing the operator to have to step over the arm of the dolly and switch sides in mid pan, all the while slowly standing up with the rising dolly arm. And it gets worse if you are shooting film without an onboard monitor and have to keep your eye against the eyepiece the whole time you are standing up and turning your body 180 degrees while you are switching sides of the dolly, etc. Oh, and operating a micro force zoom at the same time...

And what if you are running a second camera, maybe even on another actor's performance?

Well, yes... of course. We asume the director has to be really good at operating. If not why even get in the way. In my scenario I was referring to certain emotional scenes, not acrobatic or complex camera-movement scenes where proper rehearsal by all parties involved usually takes care of it. By the way, your camera move reminds me of this video:

 

[C. Burkhart]

Having spent 20 years as a fashion photographer and 10 years before that in more general photography, it is hard to just simply hand the reigns to another cinematographer. Part of the dance with a subject is organic and can only be felt by the operator. My policy as director is to assess my own skill set and decide if there is something outside of my capacities which can only be performed by someone else. Sometimes I am the DOP, sometimes we share the credit and other times I hand it over completely. In those situations I am grateful for the DP's I work with because our collaboration can only be richer. It is my job to be teachable in those situations. However, even in those projects, I find that my years of experience around lighting allow me to have an eye for what is needed. I might not know exactly how to get there on the scale of some sets, but I do know what the light should look like.

Ultimately, I love working with the people around me, but I also choose well. Hierarchy has very little place on my sets, so people need to understand how to be creative contributors without descending into power games. I am not the chief. The idea is the chief. I am more like the concierge of a building, I hold the key (the idea) and I make sure it fits in the lock but I am not the owner. We are all the owners of the building we put up together.

 

[Brett Harrison]

Kubrick operated wheels on the HotHead in EWS (he's pictured above at the wheels) and was pretty good according to Jan Harlan. I doubt he did any of the Steadicam shots

Kubrick was a great camera operator by all reports, which I am sure branched from his early stellar success as a stills photographer in his teens and early 20s. He worked out a new way of holding the ARRI 2C on A Clockwork Orange. He's also pictured filming the handheld shots on Barry Lyndon. Day of the Fight, the short documentary that is Kubrick's first work, has some great hand held operating At the age of 23

https://youtu.be/ge16uzVyFLU?t=610

 

[David Battistella]

I think ultimately you have to look at results and body of work. One can obviously tell Kubrick had a very strong eye and was very meticulous in his composition of each frame in the overall telling of his movie. It makes a lot of sense for a director to operate if he is a competent operator. Sometimes it's easier and faster. I would also bet that most of the greatest directors could be handed a camera and make a very competent looking film with sequential shots, excellent compostion, etc.

Not all directors may be masters of lighting an compostion and possess the technical knowledge a DOP, Lighting cameraman, Cinematographer might possess.

The whole difference might be perspective. A director might look through the frame and is keenly focused on the actors, dialog and movement. The DOP might be seeing more how the light is distributed throughout the frame. Sometimes this marriage can be done by a director/cinematographer/operator and many times it is better divided between people. The worst might be when there is too much crossover. IE:. "a little more right, back a little left, tilt up, no tilt back down." You get the point.

In any case it seems the films we love and scrutinize are the ones crafted to a degree we as professionals need to revisit and study them, hence the term "masters".

David

 

[Elsie N]

Which is fine if you are actually good at operating. Operating is a learned skill like playing a musical instrument and you get better at it the more you do it. So while a director might be best in tune with the actor and know when is the right moment to move the camera, to zoom in, etc., there is no guarantee that the director is skilled enough to do this compared to an operator with years of experience. There is a certain physicality to operating, especially if there is a dolly rise while the camera pans 180 degrees, let's say, causing the operator to have to step over the arm of the dolly and switch sides in mid pan, all the while slowly standing up with the rising dolly arm. And it gets worse if you are shooting film without an onboard monitor and have to keep your eye against the eyepiece the whole time you are standing up and turning your body 180 degrees while you are switching sides of the dolly, etc. Oh, and operating a micro force zoom at the same time...

And what if you are running a second camera, maybe even on another actor's performance?

The scenario you refer to of course requires a skilled cameraman. But in a situation such as the one I made reference to the director/cameraman would not require such acrobatic camera moves. As director/DoP/cameraman, one would stay within ones abilities.

To be clear, a properly funded movie can and probably should be shot with a delineation of duties between people who are on the same page. Small budget movies cannot afford those experienced people so may have to approach the problem from the perspective of least path of resistance to getting the scene right... and that may turn out to be the holistic approach.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the phrase "Know Thyself" applies to directors as much as anyone. If a director feels he will make a better movie and have a better relationship with the actors by operating himself, then by all means, let him do his own camera work. He just has to be honest with himself about whether this approach works or not given his skill set.

I've talked to some actors who have worked with directors who did their own cinematography and camera operating and they felt that the cinematography work pulled the director's attention away from their acting.

(I am suddenly reminded of the crude joke that Robin Williams delivered at the Oscars when he talked about the various types of directors... "There are writer-directors and there are producer-directors, and then there are the writer-producer-directors... the only people in Hollywood who can blow smoke up their own a----!")

 

[Elsie N]

I think the phrase "Know Thyself" applies to directors as much as anyone. If a director feels he will make a better movie and have a better relationship with the actors by operating himself, then by all means, let him do his own camera work. He just has to be honest with himself about whether this approach works or not given his skill set.

I've talked to some actors who have worked with directors who did their own cinematography and camera operating and they felt that the cinematography work pulled the director's attention away from their acting.

(I am suddenly reminded of the crude joke that Robin Williams delivered at the Oscars when he talked about the various types of directors... "There are writer-directors and there are producer-directors, and then there are the writer-producer-directors... the only people in Hollywood who can blow smoke up their own a----!")

Heh... point taken. '-)

 

[Darko Gavrilovic]

The scenario you refer to of course requires a skilled cameraman. But in a situation such as the one I made reference to the director/cameraman would not require such acrobatic camera moves. As director/DoP/cameraman, one would stay within ones abilities.

To be clear, a properly funded movie can and probably should be shot with a delineation of duties between people who are on the same page. Small budget movies cannot afford those experienced people so may have to approach the problem from the perspective of least path of resistance to getting the scene right... and that may turn out to be the holistic approach.

I wonder if with the more tech savvy skills sets and abilities of newer entrants into the field and the change in budget models, you will see a proliferation of more "director/DoP/cameraman" working in the field.

 

[Elsie N]

I wonder if with the more tech savvy skills sets and abilities of newer entrants into the field and the change in budget models, you will see a proliferation of more "director/DoP/cameraman" working in the field.

I certainly think this is probably going to be (if not already being) the case. But I think it can only work if you include writer or writer collaboration to write the story so it is easier to shoot. One way of doing this is to include more dialog... talk is cheap... to shoot. '-)

To further punctuate your point, I suggested a few years ago on REDuser that in future we may can have a talented director sitting in an HQ building directing more than one movie at a time via streaming from the set. Sort of a movie-making James Patterson.

By then, there will probably be multi-lensed cameras recording a scene that is manipulated in post to determine focus etc. More than likely the camera moves will be programmed into a robot.

 

[Marc Wielage]

To further punctuate your point, I suggested a few years ago on REDuser that in future we may can have a talented director sitting in an HQ building directing more than one movie at a time via streaming from the set. Sort of a movie-making James Patterson.

People have been directing hundreds of feet away from the actors for 50 or 60 years I know of, since the invention of broadcast TV. But real actors have to be coddled, convinced, rehearsed, listened to, and sometimes argued with, and most of that you can only do face to face. Sometimes, technology is a detriment to art, not necessarily an enhancement. I know of directors that barely look at the camera and mostly concern themselves with the actor's performance, and they trust the DP to frame the camera and get the shot right.

I've talked to some actors who have worked with directors who did their own cinematography and camera operating and they felt that the cinematography work pulled the director's attention away from their acting.

I think this is 100% true. I can recall a fairly high-level director I worked with some years back, and every so often, I'd see a shot in the film that had some pretty jerky camera work. Sometimes I tactfully commented on it and asked if we should try to fix that, and the director would sigh and admit, "that was one I operated." He was clearly not happy about it.

 

[Elsie N]

People have been directing hundreds of feet away from the actors for 50 or 60 years I know of, since the invention of broadcast TV. But real actors have to be coddled, convinced, rehearsed, listened to, and sometimes argued with, and most of that you can only do face to face. Sometimes, technology is a detriment to art, not necessarily an enhancement. I know of directors that barely look at the camera and mostly concern themselves with the actor's performance, and they trust the DP to frame the camera and get the shot right.


I think this is 100% true. I can recall a fairly high-level director I worked with some years back, and every so often, I'd see a shot in the film that had some pretty jerky camera work. Sometimes I tactfully commented on it and asked if we should try to fix that, and the director would sigh and admit, "that was one I operated." He was clearly not happy about it.

I completely agree, but instead of the top level director doing the face to face you put an assistant director there to take care of that. And after viewing the instantaneous streamed rushes, the super director can convey any changes to the director-on-set or to the talent directly via a virtual reality hook-up.

As far as having a jerky camera in a shot, in edit you can probably fix that by intercutting the camera 2 angle or even fix it directly with something like Adobe's morph cut.

I think we can finally retire that tired old saw "The past is prologue."

ADDITIONAL: Answer to green statement.

I'm of the notion that art and movie-making are two different things... especially among Indie moviemakers. Granted, big budget movies can have egos. The purpose of a $50,000,000 movie is to put talented tradesmen, actors, etc. to work. The purpose of a small budget movie-maker is tell the best story you can as efficiently as possible.

This was brought home to me when reading the Hateful 8 70mm thread. Many of the people on this forum noticed the flaws while the average movie-goer isn't looking for those. They aren't looking for art. They want diversion from their daily lives by a good story, IMO.

I think art in the digital realm should be done with still imaging.

 

[C. Burkhart]

I think art in the digital realm should be done with still imaging.

Oh give us a break with all of this didactic crap.
Why not just say that art should only be limited to oil painting or classical sculpture or realistic pen and ink drawings?
It has nothing to do with the medium or whether or not it is collaborative.
No one would argue that an Opera or a ballet is not artistic simply because it is collaborative.
Nor does it have to do with the expectations of a public. If that were the case paintings of elvis on black velvet done in a chinese factory would be classified as masterwork's in modern American art circles.

Art is the process of bringing imagination to a creative discipline.
Nothing about it excludes the possibility of it actually appearing in a Hollywood film (even if that seems like a highly dubious proposition at times).

 

[Elsie N]

Oh give us a break with all of this didactic crap.
Why not just say that art should only be limited to oil painting or classical sculpture or realistic pen and ink drawings?
It has nothing to do with the medium or whether or not it is collaborative.
No one would argue that an Opera or a ballet is not artistic simply because it is collaborative.
Nor does it have to do with the expectations of a public. If that were the case paintings of elvis on black velvet done in a chinese factory would be classified as masterwork's in modern American art circles.

Art is the process of bringing imagination to a creative discipline.
Nothing about it excludes the possibility of it actually appearing in a Hollywood film (even if that seems like a highly dubious proposition at times).

I suppose if you subscribe to the idea that everyone gets a participation trophy, then you could say any creative endeavour is art.

The next time I have a sit down on my throne, I will be grunting out some art. '-)

 

[C. Burkhart]

The next time I have a sit down on my throne, I will be grunting out some art. '-)

Why? Does that too need to be a collaborative effort these days ?

PS:
If so, I can probably relate.

 

[Darko Gavrilovic]

I think some of Malicks films are art. To me they are a much richer medium just because its story, film and music and not just still pictures you are looking at.

 

[Elsie N]

I think some of Malicks films are art. To me they are a much richer medium just because its story, film and music and not just still pictures you are looking at.

I agree with your implication that art is in the eye of the beholder. I also believe that every brain has wiring as unique as our fingerprints, and while we may be collaboratively led to hold similar beliefs, in isolation we vary, albeit to a small degree in some cases.

And while I may differ on what is art and what is storytelling in re: movies... that only goes to show we have different thresholds for what is art.

Not saying a shoot can't be art... if it was shot to be art and not to tell a story.