by An Tran - Cinematographer.com
With "The Shipping News," Oliver Stapleton, BSC shot a big-budget Hollywood
film for director Lasse Hallstrom, making it their second collaboration
after "The Cider House Rules." Now playing in theaters is "Birthday
Girl," a
low-budget film shot by Stapleton almost three years ago and
written and
directed by budding filmmaker Jez Butterworth. On the different nature
of
the two projects Stapleton notes, "I want to do a mixture of movies,
some of
which cost $50 million and some of which cost $5 million. I think
that way
you keep in touch with the younger generation, with the ideas coming
around
now, rather than the ideas of around 20 years ago."
In "Birthday Girl," which premiered at Sundance Film Festival this year,
a
lonely banker named John (Ben Chaplin) picks out a mail-order bride
on the
Internet and receives her in the form of a woman named Nadia (Nicole
Kidman). Chain-smoking Nadia arrives, speaking no English but finds
a way to
charm John anyway. As they overcome the language barrier and become
comfortable as man and wife, two men from Nadia's past abruptly appear
and
turn John's life upside down. In this interview Stapleton describes
the
experience on the small movie, which required shooting interiors on
one
continent and exteriors on another.
How did you get involved with shooting this movie?
Many, many years ago I read "Mojo," written by Jez Butterworth. Jez
at that
point, was an unknown film director but quite a well-known English
playwright and theatre director. He directed "Mojo" in the theater
and I
read the screenplay of "Mojo." When I saw the film, I thought, here's
a
beginner, doing something that looks like the work of a beginner, but
it's
got a spark and it's interesting stuff." When "Birthday Girl" came
up, I
heard it was going around and I asked my agent to send it to me. I
read it
and thought it was a really quirky idea. I like to always keep my eye
on
smaller films. I have made it my business not to get what you call
"stuck in
a rut" doing only Hollywood movies. That's important to me because
I enjoy
the stimulation of working with people who are the next wave of filmmakers.
That was really my interest of doing the film and of course, Nicole
Kidman
was a big attraction to the film, understandably. She's a great actress
and
I thought it would be interesting to be able to work with her.
What kind of things did you talk to the director about regarding
how the
film would look?
The main point of the movie was to try and situate the film on the edge
of
town. You'll see that there's a lot of juxtaposition of urban landscape
or
countryside. John's garden opens up into a forest, yet he lives in
a
suburban housing estate. When they are in the motel by the airport,
there
are a couple of cows in the field next to it. Jez had this constant
idea of
wanting to use the countryside as being just an adjunct to the city,
so we
had a lot of framing and ideas that try to incorporate the town and
the
country where the country's not really considered in its own right
and it's
a space where a town ends.
In terms of the tone of the movie itself, I wanted it to be very plain,
very
ordinary, very suburban and not do anything extravagant with lighting
or the
camera. I didn't want it to be a film noir or a thriller and in fact,
I
think the US poster campaign is a little bit misleading. I think it
tries to
make the film out as a thriller, but of course it isn't. It's really
a black
comedy. It's got these curious juxtapositions of being kind of awful
on a
certain level but also funny and also romantic. Nicole's character
after
all, is pretty bleak. It's pretty hard to make a character who you're
going
to like, and be sympathetic to who is basically someone who goes around
sleeping with men so her friends can rob banks.
She's a pretty amoral person, but when John yells at her, "Who do you
think
you are? You're just a prostitute!" she comes right back at him and
says,
"You work at a bank, you look at pornography and you order a bride
from
Russia. What kind of person is that?" The one person is respectable,
supposedly, but of course underneath that respect is this kind of quagmire.
The other person is a criminal, but underneath, is rather sympathetic
and an
extraordinary person who has had a really bad time. So these two kind
of
hopeless figures are really drawn to each other in the end that I think
is
really charming.
This film marks a departure from your other films with quite a bit
of
handheld camera work.
I think photographically one of the interesting things of "Birthday
Girl,"
was the use of handheld. I used to do a lot of handheld in my pop video
days
in the '80s. That's pretty much how I got well known, was doing handheld
work. Because of the long spell I spent with Stephen Frears, who doesn't
like handheld cameras, I didn't do any handheld really for over 10
years.
This was the first picture I'd done that really used quite a lot of
handheld. I really enjoyed doing that and getting back to putting the
camera
back on my shoulder. We used it in a way that I think, worked well
for the
movie. It's quite subliminal, we didn't throw the camera about. I'm
not a
22-year-old with a DVCAM running all over the place. It does tend to
be
fairly controlled. In fact, Jez kept telling me, "Fall over a bit,
don't be
so steady," because he wanted to have a little bit more of movement
in the
frame than I was actually doing. But it was enjoyable for me, I like
the
freedom of being able to move the camera around like that.
For instance, when Ben's looking through Nadia's stuff in her bedroom
and
she comes in -- that's all shot handheld and I think it gives it a
good
edge. It really contributes to the feel of the movie. I wish in a way,
more
directors I worked with did like using handheld. I think it's a good
device.
People tend to use Steadicam so much they forget that you can actually
hold
a camera. It's used commonly in war films and stuff like that, but
with
drama it's used occasionally, I think inappropriately where people
think,
"Why is it handheld?" If it isn't subliminal and you notice it, then
I think
it gets in the way. You think, "Why is the camera wobbling about?"
In
"Birthday Girl" it's just a part of what's going on because you're
still
interested in the subject rather than the fact of how it's being shot.
The sex scenes were shot in an unconventional way. Can you describe
how they
were done?
We decided not to record sound for the sex scenes. We were on stage
in
Sydney and usually, for a sex scene shot on a stage, you close the
door and
tell everyone to go away and everyone hangs around the craft service
table.
If somebody says, "roll camera," it's silent. Of course, the 100 people
hanging around the room are hearing klunk, klunk, gasp, etc. We didn't
record sound and shot it with a wild camera and we didn't tell anyone
we
were rolling. It was just a small crew in the room and because we never
said
"rolling," no one ever shut up. All around the studio, everyone was
chatting
and making phone calls and it very much reminded me about what I've
read
about the silent days -- when people made movies, everyone just carried
on
talking. No one would be quiet because there wasn't any reason to.
In many
ways, I think it helped the actors because it made it all very
matter-of-fact, normal day's work. They just put in the sound afterwards.
Can you talk about shooting the birthday cake scene? The lights are
off and
the cake is lit with candles. There is also a 360 around the table.
That scene was done in three pieces. It begins with this nice, romantic
dinner for two -- a wide shot with the lights off. Then you've got
the
doorbell ringing and the Russians, Alexei and Yuri (Vincent Cassel
and
Mathieu Kassovitz coming in. That was shot in a very staccato way,
with
close-ups and cutting back and forth. The third piece of the scene
was all
of the characters settling down to their talk at the table. I wanted
to
convey the idea of that scene being both potentially romantic, but
also kind
of tense. What I realized about that scene was, it was very long and
it
involved quite a lot of reminiscing about the past and thinking about
the
past. That was one of the reasons why I wanted to introduce this moving
camera that went around the room.
We floored the whole thing out with tracking boards and then we had
a whole
rig with people on stools instead of chairs because the actors had
to keep
moving if they weren't on camera. It was quite difficult because it
was a
set, but it was a small set. It was a confined space and we couldn't
move
the walls since we were going all the way around.
I had lights to simulate the candlelight and we had other lights to
fake the
real lights coming on. Everything was through a dimmer and just cued
up at
the right time. Also, when you go around the table like that, I wind
up
fading the light up and down on the actors because otherwise it gets
too hot
from certain angles as we come around. You'll want to reduce the amount
of
light when you come around that's on the key side of the actor and
when you
go in the opposite direction, you'll bring that same light up. The
light
that's on the camera side, you'll bring up again and the one that's
on the
subject, you'll bring down again. Usually those roundtable shots involve
a
certain amount of finger work from the gaffer or one of the electricians.
I
will shoot that type of stuff through dimmers and then to differentiate
the
color between the candles.
The candle color was probably about half or even three quarters CTO
warmer
than the moonlight color, so that it would just get the feel of the
warmer
candlelight and the cooler room tone. The moonlight would've been cooler
still, probably another half blue beyond that. So you've got three
levels of
color temperature working in a room like that. I'm not a fan of blue
moonlight so I tend to do moonlight in a kind of gray as opposed to
blue.
Most of the interiors were shot on a stage in Sydney before going
to England
for the exteriors. Is that correct?
That whole scene was shot in Sydney before we'd ever shot in the house
in
England. All of those interiors in the house were shot prior in the
first
few weeks of coming to England and shooting the exterior stuff. Sometimes
this can pose a problem, but the best thing to do with that is to see
out
the windows the least amount you probably can so that you're not making
some
kind of glaring continuity error. It was fine, I was quite happy with
the
way that scene turned out.
During the birthday scene, Nadia talks about her childhood memories
of being
given a pair of binoculars. These flashbacks are extremely grainy
and look
as if they were shot on reversal.
That was shot handcranked on 16mm reversal. We got a specially modified
camera where you could turn the film by hand like they used to in newsreel
days. We ran some tests and Jez said he liked that effect. I think
probably
in post they might have even added more grain than it even had to it
in the
first place.
We wanted to almost give the idea of a home movie, that works fine with
a
memory. I suppose the rule of thumb I tend to use is I ask myself,
"Could it
be a home movie with a memory?" In "Shipping News" for instance, we
had some
memory and flashbacks and for that film, I felt no, this should never
feel
like a home movie because there were flashbacks scenes of pirates and
family
background of a 100 years ago. I thought if you shoot that in a handheld,
grainy way, than that would give all the wrong signals really. It would
feel
fake, because you couldn't possibly have film of that at the time.
Those
memories are treated in a completely opposite way I feel. I made them
kind
of sharp and rather blown out and overexposed, but very steady. So
that you
very much located that memory in somebody's mind. The one in "Birthday
Girl"
was OK to shoot like a home movie. Really in any memory sequence you
just
have to try and figure out what's appropriate to the particular piece
you're
dealing with. I tend not to favor the old movie technique unless it's
realistic to what you're making.
When John politely asks Alexei and Yuri to leave his home, the next
day he
finds Nadia bound and gagged with Alexei threatening to pour boiling
water
over her. This was an extremely intense scene. How did you cover it?
We rehearsed that scene from beginning to end. John comes in, Alexei
grabs
the knife and the boiling kettle and John stands against the wall.
Basically, we shot it doing the whole scene every time and I shot it
differently each time. Sometimes I would follow John coming in through
the
kitchen door and sort of whip pan to Alexei with the knife. Sometimes
I
would start on Alexei and whip pan at the door. I just varied what
I did on
each take. When we watched the rushes, we thought we would leave this
as one
take, but in the final cut of the movie, it was an amalgamation of
all the
different takes we did.
Was only one camera used for that scene?
Yes. I think in those situations one camera is actually beneficial because
it means you can use that camera without a fear of seeing the other
camera.
Also, you're wandering around the set all of the time and moving about
in a
fairly random fashion. A second camera either wouldn't get much or
would
just get in the way. A second camera is good in situations where you're
hanging back a bit or doing longer lens stuff. Then it's great. But
when
you're shooting in a handheld way, I think it's detrimental because
it also
splits the focus of the director. There are often things about a second
camera that people don't even realize. You put two monitors in front
of a
director and he's going to watch both, so he's going to miss half of
one of
them. It takes more time to look at the replay and by the time you've
looked
at that replay, you could've done another take. In a way, you'll get
more
footage in the end with one camera because you're putting all your
energy
into one place.
John is later taken to a motel and bound and gagged to the toilet.
The scene
in the bathroom was very cool, with a lot of sidelighting.
I wanted to make that room cooler than the other rooms, to give the
impression that the lights weren't really on in the bathroom. I lit
him
through a glass door that was on the other side of the bathroom from
a room
that the other characters weren't in and the light was just shining
through
that room. In the motel room on the other side of the bathroom, I wanted
it
to be very much like a motel room, sort of dull and boring. The bathroom,
I
didn't want it to have the same feeling so I made the lighting cooler
and a
little more dramatic, so it just felt like it was not a very nice place
to
hangout.
Towards the end, there's an extremely long shot of John running down
the
road and then following him into the hotel where Nadia is taken
hostage.
That was one of those shots where we were fortunate and we had a side
door
that was next to a revolving door. Occasionally you get lucky in the
location and you find that a character can come in through the revolving
door and the camera can come in through a side door that's parallel
and you
get a continuous shot. The Steadicam actually started on top of a crane
outside and as Ben Chaplin is running towards it, it cranes down and
the
operator steps off the crane. Ben runs towards the door and the operator
goes in parallel towards the side door. The revolving door goes around
and
there's kind of revolving chaos in the shot because Ben got quite close
to
the operator. Ben comes out in the foyer and in the previous incarnation
of
that shot, the camera went all around him in 360 degrees and then he
shot
out through the door.
John searches for Nadia by peering into hotel windows from outside.
The
shots are done completely in his perspective, voyeuristically looking
into
people's hotel rooms. How did you shoot those shots?
That's one of those things where I think, you shouldn't break the rule
about
who you are with. In that situation, it seemed very clear to me that
you
come to the hotel with Ben Chaplin, you come outside and walk down
the
windows. Incidentally all of those exteriors were shot in England and
all
the interiors were shot in Australia. So that gave us an extra challenge,
because we'd actually shot all the points of view on the stage and
through
the window and through the curtains. When he breaks through the bathroom
window and goes down the passage and into the room, that's all shot
on stage
in Australia in the first half of the production. When we came back
to
England, we shot the shot where he walks along and looks through the
window
and ducks down.
We had the challenge of marrying those pieces together but the main
dramatic
issue, involved that you don't go inside of the room and shoot back
on him
looking in. You can do that, and a lot of people do do that. But I
think we
clearly wanted to be in his point-of-view at this moment. You gain
a lot of
power by just staying outside the window with him and everything that
you
see is what he sees. The first time the camera goes into the hotel
is when
he actually breaks in through the window and you come in with him down
the
passageway. I think that's exactly the way to shoot a scene like that
because it builds a lot of tension. You're using the curtains to just
create
a thin slit. You do have to take some license however, obviously two
bad
guys who've got lots of money and are holed up in a hotel are not really
going to leave big gaps in the window. Sometimes I think it's OK, it's
acceptable. That was a reason why we made it such a small gap and he
couldn't see too well and didn't know what was going on.
Anyone on your crew you'd like to mention?
Larry Prinz is an American who I work with a lot in England -- he was
the
gaffer on the shoot and he came with us to Sydney as well. Having him
for
the entire shoot tied everything together for me. He had a really nice
Australian crew that was very good. It was great to have him on both
sides
of the shoot and keep that all together, because when you split a shoot
up
like that you've got a lot of problems to deal with in terms of matching.
It's important that you have someone else there who's made notes and
kept it
all together. He's great. I've worked with him on many films for a
long
time. He did a really good job on that movie.
We also did take the first AC Sam Garwood who is now an English cameraman
and not an AC anymore. He came out to Australia too, again to keep
the
continuity of the camera equipment and lenses and all that because
we took
the gear over from London. To me, it's important to shoot a whole film
with
one set of lenses. You don't really want to be renting different stuff
from
different places. It just makes life harder really.
You've worked with veteran filmmakers like Robert Altman and Stephen
Frears.
How was it working with an emerging director? This is only Butterworth's
second film.
Jez is a playwright and he's a very good dialogue writer. I think his
films
will gather strength as he goes along. His second film was better than
his
first, and I think his third will be better than his second. I think
that's
a very good sign in somebody. Occasionally, a young filmmaker makes
a sort
of brilliant first film and then after that, nothing. I feel Jez will
go
from strength-to-strength because he's a very original thinker and
a great
dialogue writer. He creates very interesting scenarios and good characters.
His films right now, they're not very mainstream and that's because
they're
not conventional. But sooner or later with his sensibility, I think
he will
strike a big hit .