If you'd like to see my credits click here......
If you want to view or save the essay in .pdf format click here.........
A response to people who ask: What do I do to get into Movies?
By Oliver Stapleton BSC
So you have to ask yourself the question: Am I Any Good at Anything?
I'm
totally useless at everything.
This is not necessarily a problem as plenty of people working in the industry are totally useless. Some of them are Executives working in the Studios. If you don't know what this means, go to the part on Studio Executives, although it may not be very helpful, as I've never quite worked out what they do. Some people who work on the floor, i.e. actually making the film, are totally useless but they usually don't last very long, unless they are either very enthusiastic or very entertaining or very pretty or all three.
I'm totally useless at everything but I'm willing to learn.
Now this is much better. Modern schooling damages more people than it helps*. This is because the grade system means that you are never first. And if you were, you wouldn't be reading this. So you may feel useless because people kept telling you from childhood that you could do better if you worked harder. So you worked harder but never got to be first. So then you got very pissed off, set fire to some things, smoked some joints and decided you were useless. Many successful film people started life like this. Film People are kind of outlaws anyway: it's not a proper job. So if you've got bored of being bored, then working in film might just prove to you that you're good at something, even if you can't figure out what it is. Yet.
*This is obviously untrue: education is the key to a better future. However, bad education is also responsible for a great deal of the problems of the world today.
I am good at figures.. numbers that is.
This is easy. Films employ Accountants by the bucket loads. When there’s a few million dollars to control, or a few hundred million, the Accountant is a rather important figure. He or she (and it seems to be she quite a lot of the time) does the same job that accountants do elsewhere but they can say "I'm working with Meryl Streep at the moment" and stuff like that. Accountants rarely see anyone connected with the film, unless they don't pay them. So if they see someone, they are usually angry. This makes the job quite hard, as sometimes films run out money to pay people, then the crew turns quite ugly. The producer or the director will make some kind of encouraging speech - "The money is definitely coming next week.." that kind of thing. When it doesn't, the accountant is first in the firing line. You may not want to be a movie accountant. If you're good at numbers, you could ignore that and do something more interesting - but don't ask me what. On the other hand, film accountants are usually pretty happy because they get really well paid!
There's a fella called Andrew who left a message in the guestbook (2008) and disagrees with some of what I say here.
Well this opens up a host of possibilities. This might be the moment to confess that I am a Cinematographer, or Director of Photography, which sounds rather more grand. This means that I only really know about what goes on when we shoot a film: what goes on before and after is not something I know much about but I can guess, and I hear stories. Anyway, if you like reading then there are people who read, and get paid for it. Oddly enough, they are called readers, and work for studios and producers who attract more scripts than they can read themselves. There are some pretty amazing statistics for the number of scripts written versus the number of films made. I don't know what they are, but I know they are amazing. This need not put you off being a reader however, as it means there’ are plenty of jobs for readers.
Now as you may have guessed, after you read a script you have to say something about it, so just being able to read doesn't really get you the job - you have to be able to digest and regurgitate the material in marketspeak. Marketspeak may or may not exist as a word, but what it means is that the some Studios don't really care whether you think the script is any good, they care if you think it might make money. This might also mean that it is good. There's some really complicated system of analyzing scripts that is all entered into a computer which is supposed to say whether the script is going to be a hit. It's usually wrong, but sometimes isn’t. If the producer you work for actually is interested in good films, then you're lucky. And he or she might be able to converse with you at a higher level than marketspeak.
This might be good moment to remind ourselves that films are many things, from shorts, docos, nature films etc to Titanic type films. It's important to realise that the words Film Industry are significant. Film is an Industry, just like making cars, and on one level is rightly perceived as such by the major studios. At the big end it is: Big Industry. At the little end it may be pure art. And some big films are Pure Art because someone decided they wanted to make the Big Meaningful Statement and they had the money to blow. And they probably did blow it. And some little films are pure industry because they are conceived, shot and designed to make money. They sometimes don't. In between these things are most films, and most films have every combination of people working on them. It is all started by the Writer.
Well this is good. So do I, but I'm not a script writer. Script writers kick-start the whole process. Directors like to think that they are The Business, but the truth is that Script Writers should be right there on the Pedestal with them. Unfortunately, a lot of good scriptwriters are really unpresentable to the modern world. That's why Directors get the media interest, because Directors can talk, which many scriptwriters can't. Or at least they might not be able to be suave and charming and er.. well.. tell... er.. partial truths. Being able to tell partial truths is very important for publicity, so if you don't think you can face the camera and say that you think the leading lady is an Absolute Dream when you know that she is 9/10ths SuperBitch, then don't be a Director. (Or don't do publicity). But Writers can be any kind of personality, as they don't have to appear in public. And they don't have to tell partial truths.
Writing film scripts is very different from writing novels or journalism or any other kind of writing. This is because it's not really writing. It's a PLAN. Like an Architects Plan. The dialogue is the only bit that really survives, and even that gets changed by the Director or the Actor or both. So if you want to write and have what you write filmed exactly, then you have to Write and Direct. Lots of people want to do this, but God made very few creatures who are able to do this. This is because the personalities of Writers and Directors are so different: and even when such a person exists, usually one side of that person fails in the end. Unless they are one of the few i.e. A BRILLIANT ONE.
Anyway, back to writing scripts. There are people who write and re-write scripts their whole lives, get paid bucketfuls of wonga (money), and may never have had one of their scripts turned into a movie. This is strange but true. These people are usually rich when they are middle aged, and pissed off. They only live in Hollywood; other countries in the world don't appear to support this species. You could be one of these people if you like to read scripts, then go to meetings and say in a knowledgeable and forceful manner why it doesn't work and then suggest better ideas which you, naturally, would write after your Agent has asked for a suitable 6 figure sum. I guess the people who do this job started by writing original scripts, or adapting books and then got employed by Studios. Most of them have degrees in English Literature.
Then there is writing scripts because YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. Now this is something else entirely. I have had the good fortune to photograph a number of films where the Writer has something to say. Sometimes the Writer may be a person of "First Order Originality". This phrase was coined by a friend of mine to define an Artist. (Not an Actor). The word Artist should be reserved for "A Person of First Order Originality". This means a person who HAS SOMETHING TO SAY and can say it in a way that has meaning for others. This idea can be applied to any Art, but it does mean that the only true artist working on a film is the Writer, or a Writer/Director, or sometimes a Director working in close collaboration with a writer. The rest of us are working to execute and contribute to THE IDEA. So if you think you have something to say and want to say it on Film, you may be a Writer or a Writer/Director.
Kieslowski famously said,
when asked why he stopped making films: "I've nothing left to say."
If the rest of the Worlds Directors were that honest, they'd quit tomorrow.
This is something that Producers do. Well, some of them. Stephen Frears once said to me that a Producer is someone who organises Airline Tickets. I think he meant a Production Manager but I'm not sure.
Producers are the top of the tree for people who work In the Office as opposed to On the Set or In the Studio. Producers come in all shapes and sizes. I used to just not like them in principle because I must have been influenced by all the bad things I read about them, as well as the fact they employed me, and naturally I resent authority figures. Anyhow it turns out that now some producers are my friends and I not only like them but really admire them because they do something I could never do: persist through thick and thin for years on end believing in a film and getting it made. This is very very hard as well as often financially very precarious. This is because everyone thinks Producers are rich and whilst some of them are, many of them are not. There are other kinds of producers too: lying, cheating nasty people who snort coke and mercifully go to an early grave. Try and avoid this kind.
If you want to work in the Production Office, you call the production (get the number from a trade magazine like Hollywood Reporter) and ask for the Production Manager. The person who answers the phone is called a PA or Production Assistant and is doing the job that you want. They won't put you through to the Production Manager who has better things to do than listen to another 18 year old asking for a job. So he or she will tell you to send in a Resume, which is hard if you haven't done a job yet. Blank sheets of paper don't go down very well.
Now a very useful phrase to use here is Work Experience - providing that you can pass for under 20. The word Work Experience might get you through to the Production Manager, because they don't have to pay you. So you can only do this, if you can support yourself in some other way. But the Good News is that if you offer to work for free to GAIN EXPERIENCE, they might take you in, at least for awhile. Once you are through the door then the sheer CHARM and ENTHUSIASM of your personality may make you so indispensable to the production that they hire you forever. Or not. Or you may fall in love with the Accountant.
The bad news is that when you finally get employed as a PA, you work ridiculous hours and get paid really, really badly. And you have to use your own car. A lot.
The other kind of Good Organiser is the First Assistant Director (the 1st AD.). To attain this lofty position you start as an On Set Runner.
You apply for this by doing the same as above but phoning the 1st AD during pre-production. He or She won't talk to you for the same reasons as above, but you can pull the same Work Experience trick, only On Set as opposed to In The Office. The relationship between the First AD and the Director and Cinematographer is crucial to a good working situation on set.
So am I.. Or at least I thought I was until I went to Drama School and learnt that I wasn't. If you think you're a good actor then you've got yourself into a really tough place. Actors spend most of their time being rejected and, after rejection, Unemployment. Withnail and I was a hell of a Movie, but imagine actually being in that position. Acting for film is very different to stage acting, and seems to require different talent. I'm still puzzled about what makes a Film Star as opposed to a Good Actor. A Star is not necessarily a Good Actor, but sometimes is. To become a Film Star or any kind of Actor, you have to have totally one hundred percent conviction that this is what you are, and want to be. If you don't have that, GET OUT NOW! It's the lousiest life in the world if you don't make it. And it's sometimes pretty terrible if you do! Film stars somehow make sense of the phrase "Born to It".
If you just like doing some acting, and being around actors, then you might want to think about being a Casting Director, and doing a bit of stand-up at the local pub.
Doesn't everybody. It's the control thing, and the power. All those people doing what you tell them. Or maybe YOU’VE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY. Or maybe not. You want a career, power, and glory. The big question is: DO YOU SEE PICTURES IN YOUR HEAD. If not, forget about being a Film Director, or a Cinematographer. Directors and Cinematographers can string pictures together in their head, like a Composer can "hear" music and then write it down. Now some musicians (like me) tinkle about on an instrument until they work out a tune: this is not being a real musician. Real Musicians hear music in their heads, then write it down, or play it. The rest of us are just larking about, and a lot of fun it is too.
Some people say Directing is a vocation, like being a Priest or a Doctor. It's not remotely like being a Priest or a Doctor, but it may be a vocation, because no-one in their right mind would voluntarily go through the kind of hell that a Film Director has to go through.
Film Directors not only have to be able to visualise in their heads, but they also have to be able to deal with a lot of very demanding and very different types of people. Occasionally someone like Karasawa or Hitchcock appear. People like them are so brilliant that they clearly don't live in the same world as us mere mortals. And it is up to us to Protect and Preserve People like Them - the Brilliant Ones. In the Good Old Days (a phrase banned from my vocabulary, but I'm allowed to write it), the Brilliant Ones were revered by society: Philosophers, Writers, Composers, and Artists. Nowadays Film Directors of all kinds get the treatment, but most of them are not The Brilliant Ones, but are just Ordinary Mortals trying to get in the limelight and make a decent movie. Good luck to them.
I don't like working with Directors who don't have anything to say, and are horrid to everybody because they perceive themselves as being important. They don't like working with me much either (fortunately). Some Directors are really nice people but not very good Directors, and some of them are really Brilliant but not very nice. Occasionally you will find one who is really Brilliant and Really Nice. Try and work with these!
The thing to remember if you aim to become a film director is that it is not necessary to behave badly (unless you're a Genius, in which case you can't help it.) And also that the one person on the film set who doesn't have to know anything technically is the Director. He or She can have their heads completely immersed in the Script and the Actors and that's all right by me. Because that's what we do - the Crew: we supply the technical expertise. Actually, when I wear a free T-shirt that says CREW on a film, I can't work out whether the DP (Director of Photography) is really Crew or Management. Anyhow, the DP, Operator (maybe the same person) and the Script Supervisor can work out how to shoot the film with the Director. Directors who dictate everything are really boring to work with - especially when they are nasty. If they are a Brilliant One people forgive them, but if they are just dull then they don't.
Directors have 6 phases of collaboration to make a movie. This involves the following procedures, amongst a ton of other things.
Development.
1. Collaboration with the
Producer(s) (or themselves).
2. Collaboration with the Writer(s) (or themselves.)
Pre-Production & Shooting
3. Collaboration with the
Production, Costume Designer & Make-Up .
4. Collaboration with the Cinematographer.
Post-Production
5. Collaboration with the Editor & Composer.
6. Collaboration with Marketing (or not!).
Unfortunately Development
sometimes takes years and doesn't get paid, so it's a good idea to keep that
Cafe Job during this period. Pre-production is an exciting period because there
arises the possibility that the film you've
been working on for years might actually be shot. Shooting is even more
exciting because it's the REAL THING, the PARTY. Some directors hate shooting
because of this. They like to be holed up with the material and play with it in
the peace and quiet of the cutting room. Shooting is exciting because you get
to see what the writer wrote on the screen. You get to go on location, travel
in Business Class, and stay for free in Nice Hotels (sometimes.) And there is
DCOL (doesn't Count on Location) Sex - so I'm told.
Index
I wanna work on the movie set but I don't know which job.
Good Directors and
Cinematographers, Production and Costume Designers, are people who don't have a
real choice. They know by the time they are 30ish that that's what they want to
do. They may not know before this, if they are in the "I'm Useless"
category from previous life trauma. It might be useful to describe what the
other jobs are, to see if there’s one there that grabs your fancy. I'm sticking
to the US system here, as I
find the UK
system completely confusing. The departments are alphabetical in case you think
there is some significance in the order.
Index
I used to hate Agents because they always struck me as everything that I despise in people: people who live off the talent of others. Then I discovered I really like my own Agents so whilst I still feel the same about Agents in general, I find it hard to be nasty about them.
I worked with young actors doing his first job a couple of years ago and asked him what percentage his Agent took. "10%" he said, "but then the Business Manager gets 15% also." Getting out my calculator I realised this added up to 25% which I thought was outrageous for a young man doing his first job and probably not getting much for it anyway. I asked him why he needed an Agent and a Business Manager and he shrugged and said that all actors had them. So if you're thinking about being an Actor, take this on board now!
Agents work in large corporations like ICM and William Morris and spend a lot of their time on the phone and doing lunch. When you start out you will hear people saying "I need an Agent to get a job" and then "I can't get an Agent because I haven’t got a job." Agents won’t talk to you when you're nowhere and they won’t stop talking to you when you've arrived. The best way to start work is to work with your mates: hopefully you all get successful together then you pick and choose your agent because they all want a part of you when your WOM (Word of Mouth) gets to be on the ascent.
As far as I am concerned, Agents do my deals (and that's a great relief to me) but they don't usually get me jobs. During my months off in Deepest Darkest Devon they call me up to gossip which is nice. My English Agent doesn't want me to publish this in case people think I'm cynical and nasty... (I'm not). My American Agent thinks its just funny. Both of them would prefer it if I just stuck to Cinematography.
The Art Production Designing is a
fascinating job, and is what you get to be when you've either climbed the
I copied this from the guestbook: So under the auspices of
the Art Department come all sorts of people, and
there may be a skill here you fancy. Painters, Carpenters, Scenic Artists,
Construction Foreman, Riggers (Grips),etc etc. It would not be
unreasonable to think that this department might be one you would enter if you
thought you might direct some day. Strangely enough, this is not usually
the case - with some notable exceptions. At the runner level, this job can be quite interesting for awhile, as the tasks you
get to do are many and varied.
"Get me some Tea, get the Actor some tea,
get someone else some tea and then ... get COFFEE!"
That's about
it. Well, apart from driving 30 miles to get a Starbucks Maciado for Mr Superstar, then putting up with being blamed
for it being cold. If you survive a couple of years of this, you get to
be a Third which involves trying to get the actors out of their trailers which
can take considerable skill, then a Second which means you get more involved
with the schedule and spend more time on set, covering for the First when
he/she has to go to the Dentist etc. The First Assistant Director is
probably the most under appreciated job on the set, and certainly in the wider
industry. In a world where you can just about get an Oscar for Craft
Service, it is surprising there is no AD Oscar. It could be because only
those who work on the film know whether the AD did a good job - it's quite
impossible to tell from looking at a movie, unless you are one of those strange
people who look at background action, which is set by the AD, mostly. A
good AD makes my life a lot more pleasant. The worst ones are mostly
English (with notable exceptions as always). That's because there is a
certain kind of Englishman who thinks anyone foreign is crap. They shout
a lot and think they are very important, which is very tedious. A good AD
makes everyone efficient by exerting quiet authority and competence, which
makes everyone work well and enjoy making the movie. The First AD is
chosen by the Producer and Director, but the DP needs to be involved or at
least aware of who it is, because if they don't like each other it makes for a
Bad Movie Experience (which of course has nothing to do with the result being
good or bad). Remember that Making a Movie is a completely different
thing from Watching a Movie. I sometimes wonder if they are connected at
all!
I have had a very good experience with a "new generation" English AD (2007) which I am
happy to say has transformed my opinion of English AD's. He didn't call anyone a
nasty name and he and his team were a real delight to work with! This strikes me as rather a
good job, as the people who i've come across who do it seem to have lives. In
other words, they are not constantly on the road, working ridiculous hours and
looking harassed. Quite a lot of women do this job for some reason - maybe the
above reason. It involves reading the script and understanding which actor would
be good for what role. This is not as easy at it sounds as you have to (a) know
every actor in the world and (b) know which one fits the role. Once you've
worked that out you have to find out if they are
interested/available/affordable etc. You do all this in collaboration with the
director and producer who naturally get the credit - or the grief - for the
choices. Curiously you can only offer a role to one actor at a time, so movies
frequently get hung up waiting for an actor to accept or reject an offer: naturally
they hang on as long as possible to reply, knowing that the Producer can't move
on till they have. I think this is completely ridiculous but what do I know. So
Casting Director I would rate as an OK job, as long as you don't mind never
being thanked and getting no public acknowledgement for your contribution. You
have to like eating. A lot. And
often. I forgot to put this in
until a friend pointed out it was the most important department on the shoot. I
can't imagine people dream of being caterers when they are little, but maybe
they do. It's a terrible job with absolutely no glamour attached in any shape
or form. The actors don't usually talk to you as some hapless PA (maybe YOU)
has to take their lunch to their zillion dollar pop-out (that's a trailer). But
then some actors don't do this: they join the queue like ordinary mortals, call
the caterer by their first names and ask politely what's on the menu. Then they
come to the lunch tent - unless you're in the UK where you are more likely
standing by the side of the road with your lunch balanced on a traffic signal
box... then they sit with the crew i.e. us. I like these people! All I know about catering
is that they get to the set very very early in the
morning (probably 5am) and never stop working for one moment in a hot cramped
steamy hellhouse truck. They do Breakfast in 5
languages, then Morning Tea, then Lunch for 1pm which might be 4pm and then
Afternoon Tea. Somehow these miraculous human beings remain cheerful and bright
and often serve astonishingly good food in appalling conditions. Naturally half
the crew always hate the catering which shows that people have different
tastes. I salute you if you decide
that Catering is your thing. One of the crosses I have
to bear is that I’d rather be a Composer than a DP. Unfortunately I've only
composed about 3 tunes in 50 years which wouldn’t really pay the mortgage. I am
more jealous of Composers than any other person in film, because these people
don't need a hi-fi to hear music — what a gift! Composing for film I would rate
as qualifying for the word Artist, as Music for Film stands on it's own outside
of the film, just as The Script does (and everything else doesn't). You don't
need to think about being a Composer — you either are one or you aren't. And
don't forget being a Composer is different to being a Musician, or mucking
about on a Guitar. Strangely enough, some Composers can't write music,
but rely on others to do it for them from their ideas. These people are
more like Producers, and sometimes come from a DJ background. It's not hard to imagine
what they do. If you're handy with a sewing machine or like laundering sweaty
famous peoples clothes or are a Brilliant Costume
Designer, there's a good job at the bottom of the "costume" ladder
here. The Costume Designer is working behind the scenes, with an assistant who
is actually responsible for the day to day fitting and maintaining of the
costumes. Costume and Production Design is sometimes (but rarely) the same
person. If so, they are kinda busy and may not be
able to take your "I'm really handy with a knitting needle" type
call. Dating a sewing girl may be the answer, or if you're not that way
inclined, try the "I designed this dress myself" approach. But only if it's any good. Costume Designers for film
definitely can be "I Like This Job" type
people, as it is very creative and influences strongly the overall look and
colour of a picture. Costume Designers on the
whole are pretty obsessed, and know more about clothes from every country and
every century than any human being has a right to know. They usually come from
some Art/Fashion background and are often good painters or musicians. As you can guess, I don't
know much about Costume Design, and wear the clothes to prove it. I would love to be a film
editor (if I can't be a Director or a Composer). I spent a year cutting a
film of my own once a long time ago. It was absolutely fascinating! But I
couldn't take being locked up in a room with monitors all over the place for
weeks, months and years on end so it's not for me really. Editors are
incredibly important to the film process as they can literally save a film from
catastrophe. They don't get a lot of credit in Public but the industry really
values a Brilliant Editor. If you like putting images together on computer and
playing with sound/image combinations then you may be on the road to being an
Editor. There are lots of very intellectual books written about film editing.
Good luck reading them. Actually, there are a lot of intellectual books written
about film: this isn't one of them.
I have to love the editor who is cutting a film I shoot, because all my hard
work winds up in his of her hands. Occasionally an editor cuts a film against
the way it is shot, which is a catastrophe and never works. Mostly editors
improve enormously what was shot in the first place by juxtaposing it in the
right way and adding all sorts of ideas that were never thought of during the
shooting. It's a fascinating job, but you have to like sitting down a lot, and
persuading all sorts of people that your way is the right way. This title seems to baffle
the public more than any other - along with Best Boy. The Gaffer and the Key
Grip both have a Best Boy, or should I say, employ a Best Boy. Sometimes the
Best Boy is a Girl but she's still called the Best Boy. Now that really
de-mystifies it doesn't it? Perhaps not. The Best Boy
is simply the next one down the line in Seniority from the Key Grip or the
Gaffer and is usually responsible for the paper work and liaison with the
Production Office. They aren't either Boys or Girls but usually Real Men. don't
ask me where the title comes from, but all things lead back to the Old Days in
the Studio, - so ask someone who was there. A Key Grip said this:
The term Grip and Best
Boy come from English theatre. The "Grip" is a term for a bag of
tricks. So get the grip, or bag if tricks, became the
guy with the bag of tricks. "The Grip". And
the Best Boy as the first assistant was the best boy Apprentice of sorts, to
the gaffer doing lighting with limelight. The Key Grip is the Chief
Honcho of the Grips. Grips, like it sounds, do stuff with their hands, and after
a few rounds at the pub, occasionally use their feet. Carpenters, Riggers,
Stagehands (UK) are all Grips in the USA. In the UK they are Carpenters, Riggers and
Stagehands. In the UK
they don't have an on-set boss, and are employed by the Construction Foreman
who is not part of the on-set crew. This is the daffiest system ever invented
and causes a lot of grief. In the USA all the people on set concerned
with lighting the set either fall under the Key Grip or the Gaffer so everyone
has a Leader. This is a good thing. Italy,
Germany, The Key Grip accompanies
the Gaffer and the DP - and representatives from all the other departments on
the Recce
from the word "reconnaissance" or Scout from the word er.. "Scout".. before the film
commences. This is where everyone finds out what is going on - sometimes. The
Key Grip makes all the notes about Camera stuff, Tracking, Cranes etc and the
Gaffer makes the notes about the lights. In the UK, the Gaffer is supposed to make
notes about everything but can't because it's too much work for one person. In most countries other
than the UK,
The Key Grip owns a truck full of Grip type stuff. These are things like Track,
Speedrail (an improvement on scaffolding), Nets (for
Lights), Reflectors, etc etc. This is called a basic
package and you hire the man and his package - as it were. Then he has his
Grips who often he will work with for years on end. This team is thus very
coherent both in terms of equipment and personnel. In the UK, this type of equipment is
rented from Rental Companies, as we don't have Key Grips with gear. We have a
Dolly Grip who pushes the dolly, but usually they
don't own any equipment, and if they do it's restricted to camera type
equipment, as the Grip in the UK
has nothing to do with lighting. Because the Grip Gear is not privately owned
in the UK, it's usually not
in as good condition, nor as up-to-date as the equivalent in the On-Set
Dresser/Standby Art Director (UK) This is a post that happens
on some movies and not on others. It's a position that is very helpful to the
Production Designer as the On-Set Dresser looks after the "integrity"
of the set. A good one also keeps a constant eye on the frame, and makes
helpful suggestions to the DP about alternative ideas for the dressing. Some on
the more anal ones make constant complaints about anything that is slightly out
of continuity, like my teacup. I don't like these kind of people and do
everything I can to avoid them. Luckily they are in the minority. The Gaffer runs the
lighting crew, who are called Electricians (UK) or sometimes Lamp Operators
("Lamp Ops" - US). In the UK
an Electrician has to actually be a qualified Electrician, whereas in the Grips and Electricians on
location are not far removed from when the cowboys rode into town in times gone
by. They work hard, play hard and are the worlds nicest people. A famous
Make-Up artist said to me once when I was talking to her about Male Actors:
"Of course, they're not Real Men. Real men are Grips and
Electricians." Actors are highly paid, pampered and flattered. Grips and Electricians
are moderately paid, work long hours often in
appalling conditions and rarely complain. Real Men.
But then some actors are real men too, so they're OK. This department is one of
the hardest working and the least rewarded in the industry, During
the pre-production phase they have to come up with a thousand folders full of
pictures which the Production Designer then chooses from and takes the Director
to see. Getting the pictures involves extreme amounts of charm and ability to
drive great distances for a very long time, with very little sleep. Just when
you think prep is over and it's time to relax, you become responsible for
parking the 8 thousand equipment trucks and star trailers, as well as all the
crew cars and anyone else who cares to drop in. This means being on set hours
before call (when you get there) and wrap (when you leave). Just in case you
thought you could take a nap during the shooting day, the cameraman announces
he or she needs a very large light on the balcony three stories up owned by
some fella whose been yelling at you for half an hour
to get the hell out of his neck of the woods. This is where the charm comes in.
If you are mad enough to want to do this (and plenty are), call the production
office and ask for the location department. Explain that you never sleep, don't
want any money, know the area intimately and own a Ferrari. Who knows what
might happen. This sometimes is one job
(like at the BBC) but usually separate on Big Features. This is a job that you
can actually train for outside of making films. Successful "Star
Attached" make -up and Hair people can make outrageous sums of money for
some reason. Probably because they make the ageing female
star more comfortable and flatter her with "youthful" make up
techniques. Traditionally there is a kind of war between Make-Up and
DP's - usually because the Make-Up People want every female to be lit with flat
light near the camera to iron out the wrinkles, and the DP may be more
interested in dramatic lighting. Usually it's the DP that gets fired, because
the make-up people are "career dependent" on the Star, and they can
whisper in their ear whilst they twiddle their hair. Quite ordinary people do
make-up and hair jobs in some quite fancy films. It's a good job providing you
don't mind getting up very early in the morning and working long hours - albeit
with many breaks. It's quite mixed in gender - more so than any other
department. Some Make-Up Chiefs are very fierce and often quite Brilliant at what they do. And some of them should go back
to doing manicures in a LA highstreet. If the Make-Up
and Hair is full of good humour, the actors are more likely to arrive on set in
a good frame of mind: something I very much approve of. But if they keep
telling the actor/actress that "out there" is a bunch of no-goods
hell-bent on making them ugly, then that makes my job a tad more difficult.
I've only had a couple of nasty experiences with Make-Up people: as for the
rest, I love them! This falls under This is a very important
element of making films, which can make or break the release of a film in terms
of box office. I've shot a couple of really good films that no-one went to see
because of inadequate marketing, as well as the reverse. Someone should e-mail
me with something about this department because I know so little about it.
There are people called EPK (Electronic Press Kit) who actually are humans (I
think) who lurk about the set - usually on the day when you are shooting a
close-up of a newspaper or a frog - then they aren't there the next day
when you have 14 cameras and drain the Red Sea. The hapless video cameraperson
(note the non-sexist terminology), endlessly rolls tape of people doing very
mundane things - then when they try to photograph the Star they get shouted at.
They interview the important people - and some
of the less important people but they don't use that footage.
The "Making Of...." docos have become very popular on
TV and DVD so Marketing people have more to aim for than they used to. Script
Supervisor or Continuity Girl (UK
- but changing name to SS) For some reason a woman
always does this job. Perhaps because it's a kind of
"keeping house" type job. (Oops!) The script supervisor in the
USA does a lot less work
than the equivalent in the UK.
In the USA
the script supervisor doesn't appear to be responsible for continuity: this job
is given to the relevant department - props for props, wardrobe for wardrobe
etc. In the UK,
continuity is taken VERY SERIOUSLY by the Continuity Girl. Some of them are the
most annoying people that God has ever created. Many times as the Actors get
themselves revved up to some pinnacle of performance, the hard and bitter tones
of the English Continuity Girl chime in with some irrelevant detail of
continuity which as often as not is not even in the frame! This drove Michael
Winner to mutter the immortal line: Continuity is for Cissies! People who watch
movies for continuity mistakes clearly don't enjoy watching movies. Fortunately as the younger
generation of UK Continuity girls take over, the old dingbats are retiring.
Many of them of course are absolutely lovely and very very
good at their jobs and I shall miss them dearly. And some of them.. Well, enough said. In the USA, the job has a different
emphasis, as they don't get involved in the Continuity of the different
departments. But this drives me bats as well, as No-one seems to Care! So I
find myself watching out for Continuity when I'm doing a picture in the As far as my job is
concerned, the most important contribution that the Script Supervisor makes is
listing the shots we have decided to shoot, then reminding the Director and I
about what we decided, as well as pointing out Eyeline
blunders, and occasionally making brilliant suggestions that everyone else has
missed. Some do this really well and frequently save both the Director and me
from terrible blunders. It's a good job to do for a
while if you are a budding scriptwriter, because you work closely with the
script and see at first hand the triumphs and failures of the written word
being translated into film. Just recently some second
unit shooting was all rendered unusable because the production didn't want to
pay for a Script Supervisor for the second unit, resulting in a whole slew of
glaring continuity errors that could not be consigned to the "never
mind" category.
Oct 2005. Just finished shooting The Hoax directed by Lasse Hallstrom. The script supervisor (the Really Excellent
Mary Kelly) took great delight in chuckling about my apparently bad attitude
towards Script Supervisors as evidenced in this document. In re-reading it, however, I feel no need for
apologies or changing anything as it really amounts to the same thing as any
other job in the business: there are people who do the jobs well and people who
do them badly. Mercifully, I mostly work
with people who do them well! People who record sound on
pictures are often very eccentric. This could be because the job requires a
great deal of technical skill, an "artistic" vision, and a thick
skin. The latter requirement is very important because no one on the set really
cares about sound. This could be for a variety of reasons. One would be that it
can be re-done afterwards (called ADR), another would be that it is regarded as
secondary to the picture despite the fact that it is 50% of the sensory input
of Cinema. Above all the microphone just doesn't have the same "pull"
as the lens - put a microphone in front of someone in a public place and you
get a very different reaction to concentrating a lens on them. People tend to
go mute in subtly different ways when confronted by the camera or the microphone
for some deeply mystifying reason. The well known idea that the camera steals
your soul applies just as well to microphones, albeit in a different way. Yesterday (well yesterday a
couple of years ago) we filmed a lot of love scenes (for Birthday Girl) and
decided to do them without sound. The set was "off-limits" to
everyone except the Director, DP, Focus Puller and Make-Up. This had a
curiously liberating effect as all the razzmatazz of film technique was left
outside the door. We didn't call for quiet as we shot, so everyone in the
studio just carried on talking while we shot these breathy love scenes. This is
how they shot before sound came along and people had to shut up during the
takes. What is interesting is the process is less reverential to the Actors,
allowing it to be just one activity on the stage amongst many others. So, over
here we have a man sawing a piece of wood, over here the Producer and
Production Manager discuss what is wrong with the Catering, and over here
(behind the wall) the leading Actor and Actress are pretending to shag each
other. Mmmm.... Anyhow, back to the Sound
Department. The Recordist is the Chief Honcho,
followed by the Boom Swinger who wields the microphone on a long pole across
the set (and has long arms and big biceps), and on bigger pictures there is an
Assistant who helps. Good Sound Recordists are a
great asset to a picture through their good humour and temperament. When you
come across films set and see someone standing behind the leading Actress with
a hand up her skirt, this is only because they are placing a radio mike. This
job is often given to the "Dresser" if she is a woman. Some Sound Recordists are permanently in a Bad Mood because they've
had a lifetime of abuse, mostly from Cameramen who think they are Gods Gift to
the Universe. If you put headphones on
your head for 40 years you might feel a bit strange too.
A sound recordist called Will Masisak left a pretty funny rant (number 74/75) in my Guestbook recently
(Jan 2008) which you might enjoy reading.
For some reason, when
people on set who do all kinds of jobs are asked which department they would
most like to be in, most of them say the Camera Department. The Camera is the
"focus" of cinema, so Sound always plays second fiddle. And, anyway,
you can fix it afterwards. On the other hand, go to this site and you'll
find everything there is to know about recording sound. This is a very interesting
department that is often maligned (special defects etc), but does require a
wide ranging knowledge of all kinds of things from guns to building bridges to
rigging explosions, flipping cars and, (ugh) making smoke. It often is
populated with really talented interesting people who make everyone feel very
safe and when they press the button, something goes bang in just the way they
said it would. Occasionally, something goes bang in just the way they said it
wouldn't and you have one less camera on the shoot and hopefully no injuries.
You have to be the kind of person who got given a tractor when you were three and
immediately pulled it apart to see how it works. There are very few (any?)
women working in this area, probably because women have more sense and don't
feel like pulling everything to pieces. Like props, quite a lot of families
work in special effects, and a good job they do. If you're interested in
this department, drop by the effects lock-up (the place they work) and show the
guys your latest radio controlled amphibious tractor/submarine that you built
out of elastic bands and sticky tape. You might find they like you.
If you can't figure out how to get past the gate at the studio there's easy
ways to do this. Borrow a beaten-up old van, and put clothes on that you
last used to decorate your house. Put a pile of old paint brushes on the
passenger seat and wave as you go past the security guard. Find out the name of
any of the productions shooting at the studio, and if they ask, quote the name
and say you're "helping the scenic". Good luck figuring out
what that means.
The above was written in 2001. Nowadays (2007) it might not work anymore.
Now you have to wear a suit and look like an Executive. Go to security and tell
them you are visiting "the Bond" or whatever else big production is on the lot.
Find out what studio is making the picure. When the security guard rings the PA (remember this is
the job you want!), have him say it is "Jeff" from "Disney" (substitute studio name).
There are so many executives visiting these days that the chances are you'll be
through!
Once through, change our clothes as Effects Guys don't wear suits.
Curiously I left this
section out on the first go: curious because that is how I started in the
business way back when in Cape Town.
A gentleman called Lightning Bear sent me an e-mail reminding me of my omission
- so a thank you to him for taking me back to my own past.
The good news is that if you have enough sense of yourself to get through a
lifetime of abuse, they might give you a really big exhibition and a huge
coffee table book full of your photos, although you may already be too weak to
lift it! This is definitely the hardest job in the industry to pull off
without falling into a full-time depression. I really respect still
photographers. The problem from my
perspective is that very few of them actually know how to make a film, so
discussion is limited to a few casual remarks about say..
the weather? No seriously, I don't know anything about
Studio Executives. Bear in mind that we don't really have Studio Executives in
the UK
because duh.. we don't have
any studios! A Director or an Independent Producer will have a very
different perspective on Executives from anyone else, because they have to deal
with them on a creative level which can be quite frustrating. Some Directors
(usually already famous) refuse to deal with them at all. Here's a
friend who is an Executive so I'll let her give a first hand account...
Here's what I do. Keep
in mind that there are two kinds of "production executive" in a
studio. One is "creative" and I use that terms loosely, and the other
is "physical production" which is what I do.
The "creative"
exec, purchases properties on behalf of the studio - scripts, books, plays,
articles, pitches, etc. and develops them, with a writer or two, into a script.
They will also attach the creative elements- writers, directors, lead actors to
the project, with an eye towards getting it into good enough shape to get greenlit. They read a lot of stuff,
do a lot of meetings and go to a lot of lunches. They're generally fairly
articulate and somewhat charming, but usually know very little about film or
production. Which is why most scripts suck. Nobody
knows what makes a hit, so these folks follows opinion
polls, screening cards, etc. and make wild guesses about what the audience
wants, usually disregarding a writers original vision. They sit around
inventing stuff for the writer to change, years will pass between drafts, and
projects will be developed into the ground. Writing by
committee basically.
Once a project is deemed
interesting, it will be sent down to someone like me. I'll hire a line producer
to do a schedule and budget and then we'll work on it to try to get it to a
number that's acceptable to the studio (which is usually several millions of
dollars less than it takes to actually make the movie). For example, I'll be
given a script for a drama about a family - no stunts, no VFX, just straight
talking heads. I will be given a budget number of $15 million to make the
movie. Fair enough. Unfortunately, in order for the movie to be worth the
studios investment, we have to hire Jack Costs-a-lot which is $10 million in
salary and $1 million in perks. That leaves me $4 million to make the movie.
Not possible. Nevertheless, I have to figure out some way of squeezing a
production into that number. Usually, there's a lot of tugging and pulling and
more often than not, the picture just doesn't get made. If, by some miracle,
the budget is met and we go into production, then I'll talk to the producer on
a daily basis to make sure they're OK schedule and budget-wise. If they're OK, then that's all I do,
check the numbers, etc., talk to the producer - it's actually kind of easy. If
they're not doing so well, then I have to show up on set and help solve the
problems. Sometimes this is fun; most times it's not.
Luckily for you, dear
reader, and my reputation with Executives, Gregor
Jordan (The Director I shot Buffalo
Soldiers with in 2000) sent the following to me (used with his permission).
Dear Oliver, As more and more Making Of docos got shown on TV,
the publics fascination with this department has grown. Interviews with wizened
old cowboys who bounced off horses firing guns, got
trampled underfoot and speared by whooping Indians, have fired the imagination
of TV viewers. We used to kill more stuntmen than we do now, but it's still a
very dangerous job - hence the fascination. The requirements to be a successful
stunt person in today’s world are pretty hefty in terms of what you need to
know about - and you have to be very fit and athletic, apart from the obvious
skills of Karate, Driving, Diving off Cliffs and High Buildings
Visual
Effects I recently shot Casanova (2005)
for Lasse Hallstrom and there are 160 VFX shots in it, so times are
changing. I also did my first 4k DI (Digital
Intermediate) on this film which I thoroughly enjoyed.
The Waterhorse
(2007) became my real into to VFX. Lucky enough I worked with the Weta Digital team
in New Zealand - the people who brought us Lord of the Rings and King Kong. This was a real break for me:
to learn from and collaborate with the likes of Joe Letteri was a real treat.
Creating "Crusoe" (the Loch Ness Monster) was a truly collaborative process with a terrific end result.
Again, it all come down to PRE-VISUALISATION. All the decisions we made at the beginning led to all the good
stuff that's in the film.
Oct 2005. This has now changed quite a bit: at least
at the "high end" of film production and commercials. It's become a real job, together with
sophisticated and fancy digital recording equipment that enables Directors who
have no confidence in what they have shot to cut it together on set and make
sure it cuts OK. Great.. another way of slowing down the shoot! Actually, when a good person does this job,
it makes life at the Monitor a lot more tolerable as he (not many "She’'s" in this
department!) is able to whizz around everything you
have shot at lightning speed and print out little pics
of the frames which can be very handy for reference later in the shoot. The "animatics" or
pre-viz storyboards can also be played through this equipment and half-keyed on the monitor
when lining up shots is important.
If you've noticed that this
heading is out of alphabetical order, then that might tell you something about
the kind of mind you have. I've put it last because it's the only department I
really know anything about. This is called a department
although in reality it is quite small. It consists of a Trainee, Loader,
Focus Puller, Operator, and Lighting Cameraman. In the USA the same jobs are called
Loader, 2nd Assistant, 1st Assistant, Operator and Director of Photography (or
DOP or DP). The Intern or Trainee is
just that - a learner. In some countries this person drives the camera truck,
but only in sensible places like Australia. In the The LOADER loads the
camera, oddly enough, with Film made by either Kodak or So this job is important,
as well as being the bottom rung of the ladder to becoming a DP. There's at
least one loader in the UK
who is over 50 years old so it shows you don't have to move on. The 1st AC (or Focus
Puller) has one of the hardest jobs on the set. And it's one of those jobs that
are never noticed until it is wrong. Then you get an almighty bollocking, or
you get fired. If it's my focus puller I usually laugh, because my Focus
Pullers are absolutely Brilliant so they rarely make
mistakes. I only ever fired one guy, but he wasn't a focus puller. Focus
Pulling not only involves what it sounds like, but also the Focus Puller
"runs" the department, in the sense of taking care of all the camera
gear, and making sure that everything is tickety-boo.
I have my own camera, so it's treated very well! A focus puller relies heavily
on the Operator to tell him if the shot is out of focus - after all only the
operator is actually looking through the lens. The Operator is a very
different animal in the USA
to the UK Operator. And then again, many films in many countries are lit and
operated by the DP, so it isn't a separate job. In all unionised places, it's
looked at as "2 jobs" for obvious reasons - more employment. There's
a lot to say about Camera Operating, and this isn't the place to do it.
Operators often stick at the job and never move up to DP, as they like the job
so much. Can't blame them, as I like it too, and often operate my own films. I
look at being a DP as a two-part process, one Mental and one Physical. The
lighting requires you to stand or sit and point your finger at lights and talk
to your Gaffer and Key Grip. Not much physical activity here. Operating means
that your body is bent into all kinds of shapes, and made to endure the most
uncomfortable positions for as many takes as it takes. This can be quite
physical. Hand held work is very physical as the camera is quite heavy and you
have to have good balance and strength to move a camera well. I trained in Pa-Kua (which is like Tai Chi) to help with Hand Held work, as
well as cause I fancied it. I still do it now, 25 years later. Steadicam is a device that
means the Operator can move about with the camera, but it is steady. The best
Steadicam Operators achieve a level of steadiness, and exactness of composition
that is virtually equivalent to a Dolly Shot. The worst ones make you feel as
though you are on a cross channel ferry in a winter storm. I never learnt to
use this device, as I never fancied it. Anyway, it's only for Tough Guys/Girls.
In the UK the tradition has been that the
Operator sets up the Shots with the Director and the DP lights them. This means
that the DP is essentially a Lighting Cameraman i.e. a Cameraman who does the
Lighting - and doesn't do the set-ups. This is changing as the new generation
of DP's find this less acceptable as many of them come from Film School
or Documentaries, where they have Operated their own camera. These people - and
I include myself among them - find it hard not to be involved with the set-ups
and so prefer either to operate themselves, or use an Operator who is
comfortable with the notion that the DP is the Boss and will be happy to
"execute the shot" that the DP and Director decide on. This is the
accepted method of work in the USA,
which is why I find it much easier to work with US Operators than UK Operators.
But I still find the easiest Operator to work with is myself:
keeps the talking to a minimum. In the best situations, the DP, Operator and
Director work in harmony - each contributing to the others ideas, and deciding
to go with the best idea without "scoring points" for
"your" idea being adopted. Sometimes there is a lot of competition
between any two of the three people, and then it is very tiring. I get much
less tired when I Operate and Light - which shows that the most tiring thing on
a film set is Stress. There is an article on
Operators at the end of this piece: Some thoughts about Operators.(1989). I mostly
still agree with what I thought back then.
I have, in fact, now stopped operating myself (in 2004), as I now find
it a bit much. Luckily I have worked
with great guys (and girls) in the last couple of years, so my opinion of
Operators in general is on the UP: especially with the now-normal "A"
Camera/Steadicam combo which makes for a very versatile way of shooting. People like Mike Proudfoot,
Daniele Massaccesi, Larry & Jim McConkey, Pete Cavaciutti etc make such an enormous
contribution to a film that it is a shame to find their names in a rolling
title when they should be listed along with the DP.
The Director of Photography
is the Chief Honcho of the Camera Department. In the past, the only way to get
to this position was by going up the ladder. This meant that most DP's were
over 40 in the UK and Hollywood, because it took
that long to go up the ladder..... A lot of gravity I guess. But then Film
Schools started in the 70's, and suddenly there were people in their twenties
and thirties appearing and saying: I am a DP. In the UK they were called Clapper
Lighters: a jokey kind of insult. The Camera Department
in the form of the Union and the BSC took a
very dim view indeed of Film School Graduates. I don't know if this was the
case in the USA,
but I wouldn't be surprised. It's very different now as there are so many
well-known DP's who went to film school.
The DP on a film sets the
"tone" of the shoot. If he takes a long time to light, and is grumpy
and surly then the crew suffer because of it. Some DP's have really bad
reputations with film crews because they are egocentric, surly, arrogant and over-paid. These same people are occasionally a
Brilliant One. But more often than not, they just give the profession a bad
name. Because the DP is the only person on the set who has an idea of what the
picture will look like, they have a kind of shaman-like power. This is because
the picture "disappears" into the camera, only to magically re-appear
at Dailies (Rushes) the next day or next week if you're working in So long as there is Film in
the camera, the DP has a job. Once the film is a chip, the DP becomes a Videoperson, because his/her power over the image is lost. It is worth describing
exactly what a DP does, as few people outside of the Industry seem to
understand this. The word Director of Photography is really a title conferred
only on Cinematographers who photograph Feature Films, as distinct from
Television Films and Documentaries. There are arguments about this, but
essentially the role is different, not so much between TV and Features, but
very much between fiction and any other kind of film making. This is because
Fiction Filmmaking is Drama, Storytelling.. A Movie. A DP's first requirement is to understand Drama.
Understand that his or her job is to tell the story in Pictures. This isn't as
simple as it sounds. Every day at 7.30 AM I go into the Studio or on to a
location and bleary eyed Actors and the Director turn up on set with their
scripts, and try to make sense of Scene 128 on Page 54. Yesterday was some
other scene from some other page that was before or after the scene we are
currently doing. It's like a jigsaw puzzle, except that the pieces haven't been
cut, but you know which bit of the picture has to go on it. The shape of the
piece is what you decide, and as you continue to make the film, the shape of
other pieces gets to be more restricted, because some of the pieces that you
are joining it to have already been cut. Fortunately, the Editor can take a
hacksaw to the whole thing and recut stuff if you got
it wrong. But the truth is that if the Script is wrong, or if the Actors don't
get it, or if you shoot it badly, then no amount of tinkering is ever going to
fix it.
If the script is right in
the first place, and you have the right Director and Actors, then the film
seems to shoot itself - like playing the jazz piano and becoming unaware of
what you are playing. There seems to be no
"right way" of making a film. Nor does the on-set atmosphere
necessarily reflect anything about what the film will be like to watch. Bad
atmosphere on the set can lead to wonderful movies and vice-versa and
everything in between. Celluloid just has a life of its own that only starts
when the projector rolls. When the actors and the
Camera are doing the right thing, there's a thread between them and the camera
that sucks the audience into the experience. Altman talks about Real Cinema,
meaning that Celluloid delivers a Real Cinematic Experience which is Not
Artificial - unlike Remote Cameras, Digital Effects etc. He won't use
mechanically operated cameras as he maintains that it distances the
audience. I've noticed an increase in Critics reviews talking about
"digital effects" in a generally negative way. The reason why I find it
hard to let go the "set-up" i.e. the choice of lens and camera angle,
is that I see Lighting as intimately connected with Framing. Composition is
often set before the shot is lit: but the way it is lit can have a profound
effect on the composition - meaning that after lighting a shot it may be
necessary to alter it in a subtle way to accommodate the change of balance
because of the light. Sometimes I'll alter a shot to accommodate a lighting
unit that I know is crucial because of the angle of the light in relation to
the actor. When I'm operating myself, this process requires no discussion, but
is internal: I just say, Let's change this Mark (where
the camera is positioned at a particular point on the Dance Floor) and that's
the end of it. With an Operator it's a discussion: hopefully short! And if I
give myself a hard time with a lamp that is very close to the edge of frame
that's my problem. Operators often request that you move a light out just that
bit further - "for safety". This can make the difference between the
light doing its job well and doing it OK.
At this particular moment
(June 99) I'm having a rather interesting experience on Birthday Girl, shooting
the Russian Dialogue sequences. It has
really underlined how the process of deciding how to light and shoot a scene is
completely dependent on understanding the nature of the scene. When Nicole
Kidman rehearses a scene in Russian I find myself completely at a
loss as to how to shoot it, because I don't know what she's talking about! So I
ask the actors to play it once in English then it all falls into place - but Jez Butterworth
(the Director) doesn't like it because the
actors fall out of character when they play it in English! The cinematographer
is the person on set who has to translate the Actors performance into pictures,
and understand what is the right shot with all its elements
of movement, size and lighting. There's always a shot that's the right
shot for that moment in the film: the trick is finding it. I seem to find it by
allowing the rehearsed scene to flow as a series of pictures in my head: and if
that doesn't happen I'll work with the Director until it does.
There's nothing very mysterious about lighting. An old time Hollywood Cameraman was asked how he lit
the set and he said: You put a light up and turn it on. If you like it, you leave it. If you don't, you move it.
I like this approach because it undercuts a lot of rubbish that gets talked about lighting. It's
possible to read all kinds of intellectual symbolism into approaches to
lighting, but I can't do that because I'm not an
intellectual. (Someone once described an intellectual as "someone educated
beyond his or her own intelligence).
The only approach that
makes sense to me is to become completely absorbed in the Story in
Pre-Production, talk to the Director about Films or Paintings or Novels or
Music or the Script, talk to the Production and Costume Designer, forget about
any work you may have done in the past and then do what comes naturally. This
is sometimes quite hard, because it's easy to get an image on the screen, but
much harder to make that image uniquely belong to the film you are shooting. If it's a genre piece i.e.
a Romantic Comedy or Horror etc then there is an expectation of what the film
should look like based on the genre, and generally speaking it would be
foolhardy to go against this. But it's possible to stay in the Genre and still
make the film your own.
If the film does not
obviously fit into a category, then life becomes all the more interesting as
you then have a wider choice of possibilities. I always do a lot of testing in
Pre-Production and some producers tell me that this is not generally the case -
but they would say that wouldn't they? I like to start each Film as though I've
never shot a film before, so I have to look at everything that bears relation
to the Film at that particular moment. The types of lights available change,
the film stock changes, the lenses change so each film has it's own possibilities
both in space and time, so if I find myself just relying on some old formula to
make the next movie, then I'll know it's time to quit! The Photographic Process is
at the heart of Cinema, and it is this process that may be about to change, and
with this change Cinema is about to turn into a different medium from the one
that has existed for the last Hundred Years. This is because the "fix it
afterwards" mentality is invading the filming process because of Digital
Post Production. When you transfer a photo of your sister on to the body of a
donkey on your home PC, you are performing a manipulation that only 5 years ago
was only able to be executed by a skilled artist/photofinisher. Computers have
put an end to this skill: the skill is transferred to the programmer and
computer technician. When George Lucas makes Star Wars Prequel 6, he probably
won't bother to go to any location as he will be able to make the whole movie
right there on Skywalker Ranch. He'll pay a license fee to the actor, haul them
in for a couple of days to do a computer model of their face and body and
that's that. Actor goes home. This process will only exist at the expensive end
of cinema for the next few years, but after that the technology will become
cheaper and cheaper to the "crossover" point where it will be cheaper
to make a film on a computer, than go on Location. At this point "Real
Cinema" will only apply to films made on location, and "Real
Cinema" will be a minority thing for aficionados. The main reason, apart
for economics, that this will come about, is that it gives the Hollywood Moguls
more control over their films, as they will be made right there in the office,
and subject to endless Previews, meetings, marketing and all the committee
forces that are the antithesis of creative film making. Studio Executives right
now are sidelined by the technical and logistical nature of filmmaking. When
they visit the set, they are the outsiders - only granted access to the rushes
the day after. Once the on-set process is digital, or has disappeared
altogether, then the Executive will assume more powers and have more influence.
The non-filmmakers will become the filmmakers. Scary.
Why is this? Because the FilmMaking Process right now
is so technical in nature that it takes years of training and experience for
Directors, Cinematographers and Editors to learn their craft. But once the
process is on a computer then the following catastrophes are "
No Problem". 1. Actor wears wrong
clothes and no one notices. 2. Actor eyeline is wrong - Doesn't match. 3. Single is needed but
only 2 shot available. 4. Shot is "Too
Dark" or "Too Light" or "Not Contrasty
Enough" or "Not Warm enough" etc etc. This list could go on and
on, and cover about every available catastrophe that occurs during current
filmmaking. The real problem is that the people who do the "Change in
Post" scenario are Editors who not only work alongside the Directors, but,
more scarily, are employed by and subject to the whims of the Producers. Some
Producers have no taste at all when it comes to the Film Process, and are
hopelessly swayed by Public Opinion and the Marketplace. If you'd come up with
$50 Million, you might be interested in a result too. For every producer who
has an Artistic Soul, there are 100 who don't. At the moment, the only
constraint on doing the things outlined above, are Cost and Quality. To their
credit, most Producers are very concerned with quality and want their film to
Look Fabulous. At the moment, they turn to the Cinematographer to achieve this
as the Timing Process at the Laboratory is quite technical and most Producers
do not have the confidence or expertise to go into the Lab and tell them what
to do. But within the next 10 to 20 years, the Labs may close and the Timing
Process may take place within the PostProduction
Computer and I suspect the Cinematographer will not be invited. This is because
he or she will not be the hallowed figure that we are now, but mere technicians
who turn up with the digital camera and say "What's next Guv?" The only way to prevent this situation from
occurring is to get the Cinematographers Right over the Image enshrined in our
Contracts. But this will be a tough fight to win, as the Producers have made
sure for years that your work is bought outright at the time of shooting, with
the Cinematographer having no right or control over what happens to it after
that. In practice, the majority of Producers still seek the advice of the
Cinematographer when it comes to printing for the reasons outlined above -
but.... This is what happens after
the Principal Photography has wrapped (finished). It's a daft name, come to
think of it, as the Production is really the whole thing, from the Writing to
the Release. But traditionally it means the period after shooting. It should
really be Post Principal Photography, but that doesn't sound right. After shooting, the Crew go
home (sometimes), or move on to other jobs. The Director has a short break
whilst the Editor completes his Rough Assembly. This is the first time that the
material that is shot is seen in its entirety. When film is edited on a Steenbeck or Movieola, it is
quite a slow process to move from one version to another. Some Editors and
Directors still like doing this, as it gives you more time to consider each
version - like the difference between a typewriter and a word processor. But
when it is on "Avid" or Electronic, then each version is easily
stored in the computer, and so the Director, Producer etc can easily see this
or that version. One thing still remains the same - when it comes the time to
show the film to an audience, it has to be "conformed" which means
turning the actual Film Print into the same order as the Electronic Pictures.
This is still a pain, and expensive, and of course the problem will go away
once films are projected electronically. But once films are
projected electronically, the film lab won't be economic anymore and will close
its film processing division. This is because over 80% of the film going though
a lab is for release prints (the movie): so take away projecting on film and
hey presto you can't print a hundred years of cinema anymore. No lab to print
it in. This doesn't seem to bother all those advocating electronic projection,
because they are obsessed by all things digital. Sound recording went through
the same hoops, but after going to digital recording, some of them
decided they didn't like it much, and changed back to analogue for the first
recording (like shooting on film) and digital for editing (like Avid etc).
Unfortunately, if Film goes through the same process, i.e. shoot everything
digitally, then after the labs close there will be no going back, it's too
expensive. Moral of the Story: Shoot On Film! Anyhow, I'm supposed to be
talking about Post-Production but it's easy to get sidetracked into more
important things. Actually, EDITING is part of Post -Production and a fine and
important job it is too. (David Lean was an Editor before he became a Director).
The Editor like everyone else is subject to the whims of the Director (and
often the Producer), and you have to be a super-hero of Politics to balance all
the egos involved. But apart from all that is the fascination with the heart of
film construction: deciding what shots have to go where and for how long. And then figuring out the sound and music to go with it (with the
Sound Editor and Composer). This can be very exciting and fascinating,
and I deeply regret that I only got to do it once (so far). Oct 2005. I received this interesting
question/comment from the IMDB site so thought I’d put it here:
From: Bryce E. Prewitt
It has been years now since the first iteration
of "So you Wanna work
in the Movies" was written and posted for all to read. Then, you seemed to
have a stigma in regards to digital "film." Since, more and more
folks are recording in digital (Lucas being the most well known to do so) and
fully digital movies (Sky Captain and Sin City)
have been made where living, breathing actors were the only real piece to the
entire film. While many young (some respected) filmmakers are embracing digital
filmmaking as a way to ease production, (seemingly) the old guard (some
respected as well) still staunchly supports traditional film. Most notable
(see: vocal) among the proponents of film-over-digital is Quentin Tarantino,
who quipped "Mission Accomplished" when asked how he felt digitally
filming a scene for Sin City. On the set of King
Kong, Peter Jackson said part of the beauty of digital filmmaking is to fix the
inevitable mistake which is made on set, yet he adores film as well.
With the foresight to have seen it purely
digital filmmaking coming and the experience in the industry that you have,
how do you feel about digital filmmaking nowadays? As someone who wants nothing
more than to pay his dues to the system, be abused by the production staff, and
one day (after many long days) hopefully be a DP myself, is the job I want
doomed?
It seems that some directors (Lucas) feel that
digital filmmaking is the wave of the future (and then turn around and predict
doom for cinema because of it). Others(Tarantino) feel
that a vivid film can only come from true reels of film. Still, some (Jackson,
Spielberg, Fincher) seem to believe that a happy medium can exist. All of this
talk comes from directors. Where do the people who actually film the movie, who
get the shots, who control the initial look and feel of the film, where do they
stand?
To the untrained eye, the
pro-digital-everything camp might seem to have a total control of their movie
obsession going on, and with millions of dollars bankrolling a film, who cares
about the cost? On the other hand, if the shot can be done with a smaller, less
expensive, still high quality digital camera, what is the film-over-digital
proponent's argument aside from personal preference?
>Thank you. Your articles have always fascinated
me and are a wealth of knowledge.
Thanks for
your thoughts: very apposite. It probably is time for a revision of SYWWITM,
especially the digital section. As you
say time has moved on, but also little has changed. My own theory is that when the first Digital Star Wars came out it looked so terrible
that the industry was really shocked - especially after all the hype. The irony is that the next one looked OK (not
great but OK), but it was too late - the damage was done by the first one.
I am not sure there is a single top DP who prefers digital over film, although it may be
that we just don't hear from them as the journalists think Directors make the
photography and we are just assistants. When was the last time you saw a DP interviewed in the National Press? The “talk” comes from Directors because they
get quoted. The move to Digital will not damage the job of Directing and some would argue that it will make it easier,
freeing them from the “tyranny” of the DP. I sympathize with this as I have heard that a number of members of my
profession are power-hungry noisy bastards who get their rocks off by
mistreating those not as powerful as themselves. A director might get put off the profession
after just one film with such a person: go to Digital and the DP suddenly
looses power as the picture is right in front of you for all to see (and
comment on!).
Although I think the job as it has existed in my lifetime is doomed there is another job
slowly emerging. This job is kind of the
same but has not been defined yet. At the moment you have the DP and then the “colourist” who is slowly becoming a
co-maker of the image. And then there is the Visual FX supervisor who is slowly becoming a Designer as more and more
images are composite. This affects the world of the Production Designer as the images are shot by the Cinematographer
but in a sense are designed by the Production Designer. The Director may or may not have a key roll
in all this: some pay great attention to the visual landscape of a film and
others do not.
As Directors become more aware of the post-production possibilities, some are
embracing it and making the most of it, and others get lazy with a
fix-it-afterwards mentality. The challenge for me is to stay current with what is possible and what it costs so
that I can make intelligent decisions on a daily basis as to what I should
spend time on and what I shouldn’t.
As an example, there is a location in Casanova which is Heath Ledger
running down a very very long hall which was
impossible to light. Instead of rejecting the location (which a number of other DP’s had done for other
movies!), I was able to place the lights in shot on one side of the hall, and
then remove them with a relatively simple digital split screen shot where the
one side was joined to the other - also halving the cost of the extras!
Being aware of CGI and what it can do is now a very important part of the DP’'s work, and a
part that will become increasingly important.
In effect, on a smaller film, you become the Visual FX supervisor as the
production doesn't employ one because they are so expensive.
So I guess my rather dour thoughts about Digitial 5 years ago
have been a little elevated by the thought that the DP may become the "image
maker" which of course he or she always was: but this time it embraces the post
processes also. It is vital that DP’s
today take control of the DI and CGI processes otherwise the job really will
slip into the hands of editors, producers and VFX supervisors.
So the challenge for the younger generation is to train in both film and digital and be very
aware of all the possibilities of the post house. In the old days many DP’s would do time at a
lab to learn about the chemistry. Today’s equivalent would be to do time at E-film or one of the other
post houses to get to grips with the post processes. In a sense exposing film is not the arduous
task it once was as film is now so forgiving and with such extraordinary
latitude that some DP’s are just putting their meters away and shooting it by
eye, knowing that all the controls are post controls. I don't see much wrong with this: as was the
case 20 years ago, every time Digital thinks it is catching up with film Kodak
and Fuji produce another amazing film stock which re-writes what film can do.
I think Digital will eventually take over, just as it has in the stills market. The timescale is not the one that Sony and
Lucas envisaged but it's coming....sometime. The studios spend $50M on a film and they are very interested in archive
and the effects of time on their $50M investment. The first thing they do when a Digital Film
is shot is transfer it to film: strange huh? It's hard to say what the
future of film production will be. Some things are clear: it's possible to
shoot a film on digital and do it very cheaply which is a very good thing for
obvious reasons. Less clear is the future of film itself, and the
"location" experience. As computers become cheaper and cheaper and
more and more powerful, convincing images of just about anything can be
produced right in the studio in California.
Executives love this because they have total control and it's cheap
(relatively). But it's still Animation however you look at it, and those of us
who believe in photographing real people - actors or otherwise - in real places
may become increasingly marginalized by the super computer. But this has a way
to go so I wouldn't put anyone off entering the industry right now as there is
at least another generation who will experience the real world, or what's left
of it.
If you're thinking of the
Camera Department and you're 19 years old, you might want to get real familiar
with video and digital, as well as learning the traditional film process. And
understand that the Director Of Photography job only
exists in its present form because it's film i.e. not seen on set. If you're
thinking of one of the other departments, they should continue more or less in
the form they are now, so long as the locations are not added on the computer.
A student asked me the following question recently on the IMDB “Ask a Filmaker” site: http://indie.imdb.com/Indie/Ask/
Do you think that a
young wannabe cinematographer should learn all the stuff about shooting with
film (is film gonna be a thing of the past?) or concentrate his energy on
video? This is what I replied: 1. Whatever image
making/recording technology you use, the skill of selecting compositions and
lighting them remains the same. The skill of working with the Director and the
Actors to determine the shots stays the same. 2. The Lighting
requirements for video are mostly a question of lowering the contrast to the
point where video can deal with it. The dynamic range of film is something like
10 times that of the best currently available Digital Video format. Some
say it takes longer to light Digi, as the image has such a
a low dynamic range that it takes longer to balance
the lighting. 3. When you learn with
film, you learn to "pre-visualise" the result since it not available
to you on the set. You do this by lighting something,
imagining how it will look, then when you see it the next day, compare what you
got with what you imagined. Slowly the two will come closer together. Then if
someone wants you to work on video, you can light the scene by eye, then look
at the monitor to confirm what you are doing, as opposed to "lighting by
monitor". 4. When a Lighting Director
from TV wants to go into shooting films it is a very traumatic process as they
are suddenly cast into a world where the result is not available. This tends to
make them very nervous! When the reverse happens, a DP finds it a breeze to
shoot with a monitor available as when, for instance, you can see no detail
outside a "hot" window, you just reduce the lighting outside until
you can, or put some ND on the window. Real Film is a passion:
once you shoot on it, you'll never want to let it go. 20 years of shooting film
has enabled me to lead a really interesting life, I've got a family I love and
a really nice place to live and - wait for it - I only work 7 months of the
year! I've done this for a long time now as a way to stay sane and shoot films
at the same time. As someone pointed out, the hours I work are probably still
more than someone with a normal job; even with 5 months off. Now that I'm the
right side of 50, I see younger people on set having a really good time, and
really appreciating that they are in a world that is unique and quite wonderful
for its absolute mixture of people. If a production is a brilliant experience
it's made the more wonderful by its brevity, and if it's a disaster, well it
ends soon doesn't it? So if you wanna work in the movies, I hope this has been helpful.
All the creative jobs on
film require intense co-operation with your colleagues. This is part of what
makes it so fascinating, so you need to understand that if you want to work in
Movies, your ideas will be just added to the pool, and will generally go
unrecognised, except by the few that know what you are doing. So you have to
congratulate yourself when you get it right and try not to be
miserable when you don't!
If you've enjoyed reading this (or even if you haven't!), please sign the guestbook:
it's nice for me to know that people read this site.
To see my credits click here...... Leave a
comment if you like (Guestbook)....
And here is a "proper" list of jobs in the UK industry, and a ton of other useful information:
Feel free to e-mail me with a question (no CV's please!), or go to my Q&A site on IMBD - http://indie.imdb.com/Indie/Ask/
I started writing for IMDB "Independent Film" in Dec 2000, and the latest additions to the list below were made Nov 2007. The IMDB.COM site is not indexed, so finding information on particular topics is not easy. Below you will find collected answers I have written on particular topics.
Occasionally I write an
article for either myself or someone else. Here are some of them.
Journey to South Africa (1966)
Dates and History of these Pages:
Dec 2000. Karlsruhe, Germany. (Shooting Buffalo Soldiers).
Copyright Oliver Stapleton
Hi,
I am a set dresser, I noticed that you didn't mention my line of work. Most of the time "I pick things up and drop things off". This is the by far best part of my job. I am also called upon to think on my feet. I fix things, wire things, hang lights and over pack everything. I have worked as a scenic and a construction utility on many productions,I was also a wife and mom for 23 years, they don't call it the mother of invention for nothing. My experiences comes in handy since we are constantly thinking outside of the box.
I was called upon to repair antique treadle sewing machines for a very large sweatshop scene on King Bolden. We are filming in Wilmington, NC. I made the mistake of admitting I can sew. I am now apparently an expert on antique sewing machines, nice.
I am enthusiastic, a fast learner and apparently not hard to look at, as you mentioned advantageous to keeping my job for months at a time. it is my belief that we have the best job of all the crews, unless of course the Head Set Dresser hires his tiny, inexperienced wife, then her problems become my problems.
If she can't do the job apparently it must be my fault because I am called upon to facilitate her, but her ineptitude is without bounds...oops I was venting. Oh did I mention set dressers have a lot of time to whine...hehehe.
Fix it in production..
Kelly
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
Index
As a sidenote, 90% of the newspapers, magazines, TV
stations etc etc are owned by the same few giant
companies (who also own the film studios): if you work in this field you
cannot, absolutely cannot tell the truth about anything. Publicity and Truth
are not on the same page: but if you attracted to Marketing: Good Luck -
someone has to do it.
Index
http://www.coffeyinteractive.com/phpbb2/index.php
This job is the most lonely on a film set, because you
a department of 1, and you are not making the film, unlike the rest of the
crew. You are, however, a vital and important contributor to the film, as
publicity relies heavily on your work in promoting the film. The problems for
the stills person are:
1. You get in the way - to varying degrees.
2. Most actors treat you like dirt for some strange reason.
3. No matter how friendly you are, you still get treated like an outsider.
4. No-one who you are working with sees your work, and those who do see it
aren't on the set so they have no idea what you went through to get the photos
they so casually throw in the bin. (See Publicity above).
Index
Just read
your article about the film business and was very impressed. It was a good read
apart from anything else. I agreed with almost everything and was enlightened several
times. At the end of the article you invited comment so here is mine. I hope it's welcome. The only thing I disagreed with was the
description of Executives. The one thing I've noticed about all film executives
is that they are film fanatics, often film school or Arts (Majoring in Film
Studies) graduates. These are people who are passionate about the history and
art of film. They are generally not practitioners but are somehow in awe of the
people who do the actual work. Sometimes they are misguided but generally
that's out of over enthusiasm. If it's out of incompetence then generally they
don't last. It's interesting when you look at bullfighting; an essential part
of that particular art (if you can call it that) is the aficionado i.e. the
person who is an expert theorist or outsider who rates the matadors
performance. This is an essential part of the whole process. In film, a skilled
overseer is neither a producer or director but a creative and financial
overseer who, when they are good, provide absolutely valuable feedback
particularly during the final stages of scripting, the casting and the then the
last stages of cutting...
Peter Weir said the hardest thing about being
successful is finding people who will give their honest opinion about your work.
It is so easy to surround oneself with yes’ men... I think one of
the most important processes in the life of a film is in associating with good
smart executives whose judgement you trust. The relationship between director
and executives is key.
Index
With so much emphasis on action movies, a young person interested in this
department has a potentially bright future - but go and hang out in the bars
where stunt men go after work - just to check this is the life for you. Stunts
are a lot safer than they used to be, thanks to legislation, but there are
still more accidents than there should be. Curiously, in an industry obsessed
with awards, there are very few (any?) for Stunts.
Index
You can get an Oscar for this, and it is a fascinating and growing area of Film
Making, so you would still be working if no films go on location in 50 years
because it's all done on the computer. I'm trying to get a pal to write for
this section but they're all too busy working. The skills you need are
high order graphic computer skills and a lot of patience: as well as the ability
to draw painstaking frame-by-frame mattes around some actors
wispy hair when they suddenly decide the monster should appear behind him
instead of beside him. The latest Star Wars (2002) shows what happens
when you shoot digitally and then scale everyone into a group shot. Each person's face "artifacts"
in a different way. Very disturbing to me, but still makes a whole
ton of money!
Video Tap/Split Operator
There is a curious job available on Features which is recording the Video
output of the film camera. In days gone by, the Director had to Trust the
Operator. At the end of the shot the Director would turn to the Operator
and say "How was it" and the Operator would say: OK, or We need Another or I screwed up, or whatever. The point is the
Operator was the only person who actually saw the shot through the camera, so
he (it was always he) had a lot of power and input as to whether a shot was any
good. The old style "A" camera operators were not just
commenting on framing and operation of the camera: they often was a tacit understanding between them and an actor.
If they actor gave him the nod, the Operator would ask for another take
whatever the Director thought. And if the Director wanted another take
but didn't want the actor to know it was because they were lousy, the Operator
would say "We need another for Focus" or some such thing.
This interesting 3 way event disappeared with the invention of the Video
Split. In many ways this was a shame. Directors under 40 now remain
glued to the monitor and none of them look directly at the actors. This
strikes me as very strange as the Monitors are pretty low quality and it's hard
to see the subtleties of a
performance. Essentially today's Directors are more interested in the
framing of the shot than the performance, so they watch "the shot" on
a tiny monitor to make sure it's OK. So the Operator's opinion is often
no longer required do "Check the Gate" is called from the Monitor
tent before the Operator is even asked what he thought. Anyhow, this job
- for better or for worse - is operating that equipment. It's quite
boring to some people because of it's mechanical
nature: but if you're interested in the process of making a film, it's a golden
opportunity to be at the heart of the action and you get to stand right next to
Mr Big for months on end. If Mr Big is an interesting individual it's a
great job, but then... oh yeah, it's really badly paid because usually
the Producers niece is doing it.
Index
Solution: Change in Post.
Solution: Change in Post.
Solution: Cut singles out of two shot, re-orientate in 3D to
Singles, and cross cut.
Solution: Change in Post.
Index
Bryce
Prewitt
This is a very tough prediction to make, as you can see by reading the many
articles about "the future" and digital etc. However, the good news
is that if you learn to shoot with film, you won't have any problems shooting
with video, as it is a "reduction" in skill requirements. This is
what I mean by this.
http://www.cinematography.net/
http://www.cinematography.com/
http://www.skillset.org/film/jobs/
To move around the essay more easily use the INDEX below:
(substitute the "@" sign for "at")
Absolute Beginners (1985)
Coke (1989)
Some thoughts about Operators.(1989)
The Role of the Cinematographer
(1990)
Shipping News (2001)
Giving Up God.htm (2005)
June 2001. Additions: Nova Scotia.(Shooting Shipping News).
Feb 2002. Added Assistant Director section. (Home) (That's a place, not a movie).
May 2002. Added Index (courtesy Hugh Macdonald) (Shooting Ned Kelly- Australia)
May 2002. Added Archive and Articles.
Nov 2003. Added further Q&A's.
June 2005. Added "Giving Up God" and various small changes.
Nov 2007. Added further Q&A's