I came across this list recently:
World-Wide Film Schools
and also this:
The BEST 25 Film Schools (Jan 2013)
CAUTION: Never consider going to a particular film school without doing a HUGE amount of research. Top of the list would be to meet students in their 2nd or 3rd year and ask them what they think of the place. Also get a list of the tutors and see if any of them HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ON A FILM SET! You might be surprised by the answer...
If you would like to watch the graduating film I made at the National Film and Television School in the UK shown in 1980 at the London Film Festival and various other festivals around the world you can see it here: SHADOWPLAY
QUESTIONS SPAN THE PERIOD 2000-2010.
I was wondering: What are some good cinematography schools to look into? JP
In the UK there is the National Film and TV school. This is now a 2yr MA course, but is still probably considered the best "hands-on" school in the UK, along with The London Film School.
For the USA, I asked cinematographer Cris Lombardi to reply and this is what he wrote:
The idea of having a Film Studies or Media major has become a very popular idea at many colleges and universities here. However there is still a short list of "big names".. UCLA, USC, AFI, and NYU. This is the "Ivy League" of film schools. Nearly as prestigious are Cal Arts and Art Center College of Design. Another school dedicated to film studies was recently founded, Los Angeles Film School, which might be worth looking into. An internet search will get you more info on any of these programs. Like any scholastic pursuit, all of these programs come with a big pricetag. It's worth noting that, unlike many other professions, a college degree is not a prerequisite for getting hired in this business. Before committing yourself to the time and expense of going to film school, you should take a long hard look at what the potential benefits of such a pursuit would be. It could be argued that the best education in this field is a practical one. Start by going to work at a camera rental house. Get trained to be a prep tech. There's a dual benefit to this; you get familiar with the tools of the trade, and you'll meet and establish relationships with camera people who work in the business when they come in to check out gear. These are the people who will be in a position to hire you.
At film school, chances are that you won't get a chance to get your hands on state-of-the-art camera gear, and you won't be meeting people who are in a position to hire you. So what's the upside of film school? If you're really talented, and you can step up to the plate and hit a home run on your first try, this may be the route for you. A really well-shot student film coming out of a reputable film school can make enough of a splash to get you hired to shoot more films. Thus, you can skip the process of working your way up through the camera department, and proceed directly to the top. The caveat; you'd better be ready when you get there! There's a lot of savvy and politics involved in running a big crew which a student film might not prepare you for.
It's up to you to decide which route to take, but don't just assume that film school is the best way to go.
I am passionate about light and am facinated by the way it
can be
manupulated to appeal to the senses. As a (female, British) Theatre
lighting
designer/technician please could I get some advice on how I make
the move
from a 'live' environment to the cinematic? I believe that I understand
light but have no training in film technique (apart from basic photography
knowledge) so how is the best way for me to get taken seriously?
and should
I be aiming to do a cinematography training course or going straight
in and
trying to get work on a camera/lx team?
Sharon
If you are say, under 27, then consider enrolling at the National Film
School (in Beaconsfield). If you are under 23ish then you could
become a
trainee under the BECTU trainee scheme then work your way up the camera
department (tough and long!). Try and fall in with a group of contempories
who make movies (any kind) as this will get you going. You can
always call
a local university and say you are willing to help crew on student
movies
(always popular!).
Hi Oliver, Sorry to bother you with an off subject question,
but
I noticed that you mentioned you went to film school in the UK.
I´m American
but living in Europe and thinking of going back to Grad School to
study film
production on this side of the Atlantic, in English. Any suggestions
on good
schools in the UK or Europe or how I should start looking for one?
What are
good criteria to use when reviewing different departments?
Thanks very much for your help, Kathleen Fox
I can only guide you to schools in the UK as I don't know about the
European
ones. Amongst the plethora of Media courses, there are only really
a few
that will allow you to seriously make some movies. I went to the National
Film and Television School (in Beaconsfield) which was excellent, and
there
is the London Film School and the Royal College of Art film department.
When
making your choice, decide how much you are interested in theory and
how
much in practice - making films is a whole different thing from talking
about them. Then look at the courses offered and speak to some
students in
their 3rd year (canteen?) and ask them what it's been like. Good luck.
Regarding the recent advice to the question about
appreciating films and making better home movies (6-6-01).
I had a friend
who had back issues of 'American Cinematographer' and several other
magazines whose names I can't remember. I have no interest
in ever making a
movie or even a home movie, but it was fascinating and very informative
to
read how they shot various films and TV movies.
This might be another avenue for students and others who have a passing
interest in film to learn about the process.
(BTW, I was surprised to read about the 'ad hoc' ways of making films.
I
remember that the 'photon torpedo' sound in the first Star Trek
movie was
captured by recording the sound of a fire extinguisher being set
off in a
van being driven past the microphone. Interesting stuff!)
----------
I just wanted to ask about people who work on movie sets. Are they
all
really confident people? The reason I ask is because I really want
to write
and/or direct, but I completely buckle if the spotlight is on me,
e.g. at an
interview. Do/did you ever get dumbfounded upon meeting really big
names or
stars? Anon
First of all, yes I still find meeting "big shots" a trial, although
after
20 years some of the angst has gone away. It becomes apparent
after a while
that these "icons" are just people with the same troubles as you and
I,
though they are buried and not available for public scrutiny. I worked
with
Meryll Streep years ago and she taught me the following - without knowing
she did. 1. She knew when to be an actor. 2. She knew when to be a
star. 3.
She knew when to be a mum. 4. She knew when to be herself, and private.
Remember that fame is manufactured by the press: without it there would
be
no fame, other than down the local pub. Those who are the subjects
of this
process vary in their attitude towards it: to some it is drug they
can't do
without, to others it's a necessary evil of their job. When you
encounter
or meet one of these big shots it's helpful to remember Dylan's song
"You've
got to Serve Somebody" - they do, just as much as you do, and some
of them
are the nicest most pleasant people you could hope to meet and some
are just
the opposite. If you are a strong writer, but fearful of directing,
it may
be better to gain your reputation as a writer, then add directing later
as
your confidence increases. If it's the other way round, then
try to get
jobs directing absolutely anything, as even the daftest project will
teach
you something: directing a play in the village theatre will have it's
own
learning curve. The crew” are for the most part the nicest and most
ordinary people in the world, with all the stark variation of personality
that you find in any walk of life. As a famous make-up artist said
to me
once when I asked her is she every fancied the actors she was working
with:
“Actors? Not likely. I like real men: Grips!”
As of now my major in school is Film and Video studies. I don't want
to be a
teacher in the film industry, but it's the closest film major that
they
offer here. I recently applied for a 1 year film school, with total
hands on
production in learing how to be a cinematographer. Do you think
it is worth
it to take a year out of school and go to this film school? Do you
think
that it could help getting jobs as a cameraman?
--Jacob
If you want to be a cameraman, it sounds like the 1 year course would serve you better than the Film and Video studies. As far as employment is concerned, a one year course will not land you any jobs as a cameraman, unless you happen to link up with a future Spielberg during the course.
Mr. Stapleton,
All the advice I read for aspiring cinematographers is for young
people. So tell me, if you're over 30 and are just now considering
seriously pursuing cinematography, are you just simply starting too late?
Thanks,
Gerald
It's never too late to start anything as far as I am concerned.
I’ am 53 and starting to learn to sail: remember that to someone in their
eighties, I'm quite young!
In your case, I would say that if you have a background in photography
in some shape or form which has been with you for some time, it's not too
late. If you'’re literally coming into the field having never thought
about it before, that might be tough. I was 27 when I returned to
London and decided to go to film school: I started working professionally
when I was 32. For someone over 30, I wouldn't recommend climbing
the ladder ie going into the camera department and then going from grade
to grade slowly over the years. You'’d be better off going to Film
School (many of which accept older students if you can show good reason
why you’'re applying), and come out as a DP. Alternatively, you have
to find chums you can work with shooting low-budget/no-budget films/videos
and hope that the director you’'re working with takes off, and takes you
with him. Good Luck!
What is the difference between a cinematographer and a DP? I am confused as to whether or not these are different jobs or merely synonyms for each other. Also, as far as camera credits go; when you see something like "photographed by" (as opposed to "director of photography") what job is that credit an indication of?
- Jordan
None. DP's sometimes give themselves fancy titles, but in the end the only one that really means something different is the English expression Lighting Cameraman which usually means the Cinematographer didn't operate (but not always). If there was a God, these various terms would actually mean something consistent: for instance, one term like "Cinematography By" for when the DP operates him or herself, and another like "Director of Photography" for when he or she doesn't. But, take it from me, if there is a credit that seems to imply that somebody shot the film, then that's what they did: the rest doesn't really matter.
So, is internship a viable way of breaking into the business? For some one who has recently graduated with a B.A. in Film Theory where is the best place to embark in a career in film cinematography?
-Sean
If by internship you mean Camera Trainee (which most people seem to
call it), this is an excellent way of entering the department. Most
union locals run such a scheme and I always have a trainee on the films
I shoot. Trainees often send me resumes which isn’t a bad idea if
they have something interesting in them.
Usually the trainee is chosen by the first assistant cameraman (or
focus puller as it's called in the UK), but sometimes I'll ask for a particular
person if someone has impressed me. One problem with being a twenty
something year old in the camera department is that most of what you will
learn (about film cameras) will not be in use in ten years time and certainly
not in twenty. Digital will revolutionise the film-making process (not,
I think, for the better), so you’d best keep track of what is going on
in the world of Sony 24p etc if you want to be employed as a DP (DV?) in
ten years time.
I’d also encourage you to shoot anything you possibly can, on any format,
to gain experience and make friends and contacts in your own age group.
Editing is also an excellent place to learn about cinematography: to know
how to shoot a scene, you need to know how to cut a scene. These days you
have the possibilty of shooting video and cutting on a computer: play around
with this to find out about editing: this can be invaluable when the day
comes to line up some shots where actors are walking all over the place
talking to each other, you’ve with a director who doesn’t know anything
about eyelines, and everyone looks to you to figure it out.
Good luck!
I live in the UK and currently taking a Bsc. I have taken an active interest in film for many years but am at a loss due to the distinct lack of courses on offer in England. Do you have any advice as to where I should start in pursuing a graduate position in film?
--Keith
As I have been looking at courses for my oldest daughter recently, I have to disagree with your opinion about the lack of film teaching. Most of them are undergraduate, but you can take an MA in film in many places. As far as practical courses are concerned that lead to a job in the industry, the best is undoubtably at the NFTS in Beaconsfield (that's where I went, so naturally it's the best!).
Oliver,
You have worked on many projects ranging from music videos and TV
movies to big-budget features. Is this a natural progression, or
is
it hard to break out of what you are used to?
Brian, Ireland.
Well Spotted! Of course in my life it feels like a natural progression,
but
then I know plenty of Cinematographers from the rock and roll days,
who are
still doing that, or have moved to commercials but not to features.
I would
say it is very much about intention: I always intended to either Direct
or
Shoot Movies, so the other things were stepping stones. The only
way to
progress as a Cinematographer is to Shoot Film, so at the beginning
anything
goes: but the moment you feel you’ve learned a phase, then move on..
but
plently of Cinematographers are happy doing commercials or rock videos
and
don't want the salary drop, or absense from home that low budget features
entail. I was/am always driven by Movies..
A friend of mine said that when you want to move on, you have to burn
your
bridges. She's right.
I know that directors can sometimes get their start by just working
behind-the-scenes on a lot of movies (instead of going to film
school). Is the same true for cinematographers, or is film school
pretty much the only way to get the training you need?
--Ash Jacobson
Absolutely not. Most Cinematographers trained the traditional
apprentice
route - trainee, loader, 2nd A/c, Focus, Operator, DP. This was
the only
otion till 20 years ago when the film schools produced the first graduates
-
me included. There's really three options:
1. Traditional as above, but can take a long time to get to the top,
on the
other hand when you get there you’ve seen it all/done it all.
This might be
a good or bad thing depending on what sort of shape you are in when
you
finally make the summit. You make a living!
2. Film School, where you might meet/work with someone who goes on
to direct
good things and takes you with them. Advantages are that you get to
go a bit
of everything: writing, editing, sound, directing etc. Editing
is a very
important thing to learn if you want to be a Cinematographer who knows
how
to break down a scene into shots - as opposed to a Lighting Cameraman
(UK)
who may hire an Operator to do that. Disadvanges are that you
get to be
broke for a very long time!
3. Low-budget docos, music videos - just anything where you work with
a
director who goes on to become Mr Super Big and takes you with him.
Or your
work is so startling that someone talent spots you and gives you a
job.
There's numerous other strange ways that Cinematographers are made,
but
generally I’d say they know who they are by the time they’re 30.
Cinematographers can run sequences of pictures through their mind,
the way a
poet might think of verse, or a chess player plots seven moves adead.
Pre-visualisation (an Ansel Adams concept) is an essential skill for
a good
Cinematographer. Although the lighting techniques are different,
the
ability to break down a scene into component shots that make up a suitable
montage is common to both film and video. The differences from
a lighting
standpoint are large, simply because Film isn’t seen until the next
day,
whereas Digi is immediately available - and hence available for general
discussion: often the enemy of the artist! The Digi versus Film
arguement
is raging right now, but as far as I am concerned, I’ll be shooting
film for
the forseeable future.
How did you get your start in features?
I went to film school in the UK and met some other students who were directors and writers. After school they asked me to shoot for them. I did Absolute Beginners and Earth Girls are easy with Julien Temple who was a fellow graduate.
How do you think one goes about continuing to improve and get better as a cinematographer?
Shoot film at all possible opportunities and challenge yourself with
new subjects.
Test everything to extremes, and don't be afraid of failure!
Dear Mr. Oliver Stapleton:
Hello. I know this is supposed to be an e mail address for people
who
are knowledgeable about movies to be writing to. However, I just
finished
reading your essay and I found it very informational and helpful.
My name is .........., I'm 17 and live in Michigan. I am obsessed
with movies and can think of nothing more I would like to do with
my life
than to work with them. This is the point in my life when I need
to decide
what I'm going to do with my life and what I really want to do is
become a
casting director. I really believe that I would be good at this
and find it
very interesting. What I was wondering was if, since you are so
experienced
with working in the movies, is if you could give me any information
on how I
need to go about persuing this type of career. Is there some sort
of special
college I need to attend or do I just fill out and application?
This is what
I really want to do in life and anything at all that you could tell
me would
be GREATLY appreciated. I realize you are a busy man, but if you
could just
take a bit of time out of your schedule to write me back, I would
be SO
grateful.
Hi ,
Good that you have focussed in on an area you are interested in.
There are only really two towns to head for in your country: LA and New
York.
At your age, your best bet is to get hold of one of the "resources" publications like Hollywood Reporter, and look at the names of Casting Directors (or on IMDB). Find out their addresses and write to them (preferably hand-writing), saying you would like to do a few weeks work experience, helping out etc. If you are lucky someone will take you in. The more clear and positive you are about why you want to go to X (you like the movies etc) the more helpful that is. Quote dates/months when you are free. Give any relevant details of anything you have done outside of normal schooling (theatre?).
You will need to find somewhere to stay cheaply, so if you know anyone in either of these towns who will put you up for awhile, then head for that one!
Good Luck.
> Like...how not to bug people.
Bugging people is the only way to get anywhere in the film business
- at least in the beginning.
>
> What makes you notice somebody?
Honesty, Truth and Integrity.
>
> Would you recommend going to film school?
Not straight away in your case (18) if you've just finished a zillion
years of non-stop education. Get some work (any work), travel, have
fun and get to know the world wide generation of people your own age.
After all, you will be spending the rest of your life with them.
>
> How long do you have to suffer and re-live with you parents again
> before you make it?
Totally unnecessary. If you don't like being at home, leave.
>
> Plus what made you decided to become a cinematographer?
I always wanted to either Direct or be a Cinematographer.
> And is the old mantra true that it's not what you know, but who
you
> know?
I would say that who you know often comes from what you know, since
those who are listening will listen to those who know.
Hello. I stumbled upon your site and I must say I love it! I am a
film
student at a small private school in Southern California and get
little
exposure to "Hollywood" through my studies here. While I am learning
technical things in my classes I feel like my I am not getting the
best
possible education in film that is possible. However I was wondering
how
important film school really is? Of course a college education is
important in any arena, but can i make it with my talent, charm,
and
persistence once I make contacts? I have found independent study
much more
beneficial than class work. My goal is to produce, is there anything
you
can recommend?
Hello Dana,
Think of film school as a kind of shelter before the storm.. In it
you have all the safety to experiment, try things out, give it a go, without
the economic and social ramifications of the work place.
When you leave, you face the big future where you go on to learn new
things in the commercial world. The course you have done will help
in some areas of the future, but in a way you just start again entering
the real world of film-making. You are right to value college education
for it's special status, but the connections from what you are learning
now to what you will learn in the future are quite oblique.
If you have a holiday, write to the studios and see if you can get
some intern work with a Producer.
Good luck,
Oliver S.
.....I have my heart set on Screen Writing (which i do in my spare
time), directing, producing or acting. Do you think moving to America
would
increase my chances?
Working in the US requires a permit so if you don't have this you can
visit but not work, other than washing up etc. Having said that thousands
of "illegals" make it in the US every year so some rules are there to be
broken. If you can make it to the US, they make a lot more movies than
we do, so there is a lot more work, but more people chasing it.
As a first step you might consider going to London for a while and
trying to get a PA job at any film related company. These are advertised
on the various web sites (the Knowledge etc). Alternatively just
find any job whilst you settle into the city which always takes a couple
of years.
see also: Journey to South Africa
How did you first get started in the business?
What was your first job?
When a film you've worked on gets bad reviews how do you feel?
--David
I got started in the business when I was in Cape Town and was offered
a job taking Stills for small Comedy films being made for the Drive-In
circuit. This made me appreciate the work of the Cameraman and see
the whole team process in action. I felt like an outsider” as I
was not part of the team, except in the peripheral way that is the lot
of the Stills Man. I returned to the UK and went to Film School for
4 years where I shot a lot of films on 16mm. I then got a lot of
work shooting promos” which are now called music videos”. They
are a great way to learn to shoot, as long as you don't get marooned in
the field..
When a film gets bad reviews it's depressing if the film is good, it's
just trying when the film is bad but the reviews are, ultimately, of no
interest to me at all, as they never tell me anything I didn’t know already.
When Pauline Kael wrote the review of My Beautiful Laundrette I actually
saw things in the film which I had not seen without her help. Sadly
there are not many reviewers of that kind of perception and quality around,
so I don't read them much these days.
I find the judgement of a film I have worked on has to wait around
5 years. Then the razzmatazz has died down and you can see what sort
of film you made. Some just disappear, and if you are lucky, one
or two will enter into the hallowed hall of classic”.
Critics rarely mention Cinematographers by name. When they do they
usually credit the Director for the look” of the film. This is OK:
it's just the nature of the media which can only handle a few recognisable
names at any one time.
As I have said elsewhere, if you want to be a Cinematographer there
is only one person you have to impress. Yourself.
2004
My question is this: I have operated the camera on all my shorts to date and to be honest with varied degrees of success, now as I am investing all my money into this film, I am considering shooting this film myself but I don?t want to shoot the thing and then have nothing turn out right as I have very little experience with 16mm film and even less of lighting for film. Would this risk be eliminated if I had a DP? - but this presents a difficulty as the camera is so old that it won?t hook up to a monitor so I will have to put 100% faith in the DP to shoot what I need, is this realistic? Also what are my chances of getting a DP for zero cash up in Manchester? ??
--Geof
This must the most impossible (and longest) question to answer I have had to deal with! Yes, a DP will make the images better (if you choose a good one), maybe you can get a DP for zero cash in Manchester, and yes you will have to put your faith in the DP. Many of the world?s greatest movies were shot before the video monitor was invented? If you are obsessed with the precision of the operating then you could do this yourself and get the DP to light the film. Or you could work with him or her and see how you get on with the collaboration. You might have to work on your ?5 short films? logic a bit more: is a novel the same as 5 short stories strung together?
How does a cinematographer with independent feature experience jump to mainstream or bigger budget features? From what I've read, it seems like you need an agent, but any time you phone an agent, you are brushed aside. Living in Philadelphia certainly doesn't help with any of these answers, and I have been unable to find a cinematographer here that has successfully found an agent. Any words of wisdom are greatly appreciated. ??--Leslie
This is a common problem: how do you get from the low budget indie world to the big time? Agents are interested in success: they want to make you successful because they get to be 10% of everything you are. Then they have loads of clients so all those ten percents mean they earn a lot more than you do in the end! They like to take on new people, but only if they think the person has a future. How do they determine this? Awards help a lot, even if they are obscure. Being able to 'talk yourself up' helps a lot too. When directors interview cinematographers for a job, they don't always give it to the 'best' cinematographer. The interview is more of a meeting for both of you to determine how you are going to get on. Some big name DP's have shot really bad work when they are shooting with the wrong script and director. So it's about the relationship and the same applies to the Agent/DP relationship. Oh yes, you have to move from Philadelphia, at least to NY, but preferably to LA if you want to shoot studio movies. Sorry.
What is the best way to become knowledgeable with all the different types of film stocks, camera lenses, and lab processes for someone who does not have access to, or the money to experiment with, the actual equipment???--Michael
Working at a lab or working at a rental house (like Panavision) is a very good way of learning on the job. The jobs in themselves are not so great, but it?s the opportunity to be around all the stuff that making movies consists of. Going to film school is another option, but very few these days are involved with film as it is ?expensive?. Maybe they should rename some of them Video School. Learning film involves a great deal more than learning video, which is a fact brushed under the carpet in a lot of so-called film schools. So I would recommend working in the industry rather than going to school to learn the things you are talking about. This is the reverse of what I would have recommended even 3 years ago.
Imagine that you have just finished college at The University of Georgia with a Bachelor's degree in video production. A couple of nights ago you viewed the Ron Fricke documentary Baraka and decided that you want to either work as a DP, camera operator, or even a P.A. for National Geographic Explorer or any production company that requires you to travel around the world making documentaries. You have limited professional experience with camera work at some amphitheaters in Atlanta. What is your next move that will lead you down the right path???--Ian
I guess you have to go somewhere where there are a lot of documentary production companies. This shouldn?t be so hard to find out.
One note of warning: documentaries are notorious for paying NO MONEY, especially now that every 19 yr old girl seems to be making an extreme sports docu with a digi camera and no crew. However, there is some incredible work being done in documentaries at the moment which puts a lot of feature film work to shame. It's a fantastic field, so if you are set in going into it, make a list of 10 companies that have made films you really like in the last two years and keep on pestering them until one of them gives you a job. Having a portfolio of amazing photographs would not do any harm either.
Can you avoid being a loader or a camera assistant on your way to becoming a DP? If you can't, how can you get hired as one of the lower positions if you've never done it before? ??--Megan
I was never a loader or camera assistant: I went to film school after teaching myself photography and then emerged to start being a DP. I could have bypassed going to film school, but then I wouldn't have met the directors who were my fellow students who then employed me when we all graduated. On the other hand, you can follow the traditional path "up the ladder". You start working as a trainee, either officially through a union (like IATSE Local 600), or helping out in local filmmaking. You can work at a rental house too: this often leads to working on set. I can't recommend the one course over the other: there are many fine DP's who've got to where they are in all sorts of ways. The opportunity to shoot a film yourself is one of the key factors - leaving this too late is a mistake often made by those going "up the ladder".
Do you mind explaining what sort of artistic experience and practice you did prior to getting involved in film, professionally? (ie. photography, experimenting with a video camera) and what did you do when entering the film industry to show off your talent? Portfolio? Lastly, since I'm not familiar with the exact roles of a cinematographer on set, was their any training or schooling involved prior to being hiring professionally? Any advice you can give a 17 year old aspiring cinematographer would be great. ??--Amanda
That's a lot of questions! In essence, the role of cinematographer is many and varied. The training (and by that I mean both formal and informal) involves everything from photography/art to drama and music. I never had much luck with portfolios: I always found that it is the "face-to-face" meeting that creates a job. At the beginning of course you have to have work to show people: but showing up with the work is a lot better than sending it in. Shooting movies is done with a small or large number of people, so the job involves a lot of interaction with our colleagues/friends etc. Anything involving a camera, some actors, and a script is a learning process. At the beginning it might down the bottom of Mum's garden, and later on it might involve spending $100K a day. Whatever it is, you'll still be learning, so starting now and not seeing an end to it might be a useful way to think about the journey.
2005
I just started my career as cameraman and I had some work as DP, but I am having some troubles finding jobs because here producers prefer technicians with strong personality and technical knowledge but almost no artistic [knowledge]. I have both technical and artistic knowledge, but I haven't (and I don't want to pretend) an overwhelming personality. What are the ideal characteristics for a DP and/or cameraman? ??--Cristian
This is rather a good question as there are many brilliant DP's with the kind of shy and retiring nature you speak of, and some of them are not being given the jobs they deserve because of this. The "ideal" personality for a DP is the one that gets on with the director (not necessarily the producer!). Directors differ enormously in what they are looking for in a DP and a loud, aggressive "love me, love my gear" type macho-man does not always win the day. If you are doing good work, you'll be noticed and people will employ you -- don't worry about your personality, as that is for others to decide. Overwhelming personalities are best left to actors.
How does a cinematographer with independent feature experience jump to mainstream or bigger budget features? From what I've read, it seems like you need an agent, but any time you phone an agent, you are brushed aside. Living in Philadelphia certainly doesn't help with any of these answers, and I have been unable to find a cinematographer here that has successfully found an agent. Any words of wisdom are greatly appreciated. ??--Leslie
This is a common problem: how do you get from the low budget indie world to the big time?
Agents are interested in success: they want to make you successful because they get to be 10% of everything you are. Then they have loads of clients so all those ten percents mean they earn a lot more than you do in the end! They like to take on new people, but only if they think the person has a future.
How do they determine this? Awards help a lot, even if they are obscure. Being able to "talk yourself up" helps a lot too. When directors interview cinematographers for a job, they don't always give it to the "best" cinematographer. The interview is more of a meeting for both of you to determine how you are going to get on. Some big name DP?s have shot really bad work when they are shooting with the wrong script and director. So it's about the relationship and the same applies to the Agent/DP relationship.
Oh yes, you have to move from Philadelphia, at least to NY, but preferably to LA if you want to shoot studio movies. Sorry.
Hey Oliver, I was wondering what the incentives and benefits of your job are? and why did you choose this career???-Aka
Nothing like a direct question! So...
Incentives:
I guess that is the sheer thrill of making images for the cinema screen with great actors, scripts and directors. There is something very satisfying when you shoot 14 hours a day for 6 months and see the result in 2 hours of screen time and LIKE IT! This of course, is rare, and Good Films are very rare. However, you live in hope that each shot you make will add up to a piece that sings.
Benefits:
Material: It's well paid so that is good: I use this to make my working life 6-7months of the year which is about all I can take with the intensity and pressure of the job.
Physical: I like being "out and about" in the world. I enjoy the special places you get to go when you make a film. I enjoy working with "locals" in different countries and languages. I love being outside all day (not so keen on all night!) Mental: The job combines art, science and planning/management so your brain is kept very busy. I never have the feeling of "done this, got the T-shirt" as each film is so different.
Why did I choose this career? Not sure I did really, it seemed to choose me.
2006
Can you offer some depth as to how location scouts operate? Are they employed by a studio or do they work in a particular region for whatever films come to their area? What sort of experience/education do they possess to do this job well?
Sean
You might want to read what I have to say about this job on www.cineman.co.uk before you commit to it! They are all freelance and employed for a particular film/TV production. Most operate in a particular area like LA, NY etc. The problem with being a location scout in say Paris, Texas, is that not too much work will come your way. If, on the other hand, you set up in LA then there is plenty of work but lots of people wanting it.
In principle a bigger film will have a location manager who oversees all the locations and employs local locations people to help him/her. A smaller film might be done by the same manager also managing the smaller locations. The interesting part of the job ? and the reason that the best location managers are paid well ? is that you become attached to certain production designers who take you on to their films. In Venice last year for Casanova, the location manager was American and had never been to Venice. This irritated the local producer, but in fact the location manager has to have a good understanding of not just the geography (which he can employ local people for) but also the tone of the film which comes from the director and production designer. As far as experience/education is concerned I would say the following qualities are essential:
1. Own a Car.
2. Speak English.
3. Good memory.
4. Reasonable Photographer and able to cope with digi technology.
5. Able to cope with harassed and violent members of the public.
6. Able to cope with harassed and violent members of the crew!
7. Able to function on 5 hrs sleep.
8. Not mind standing in cold and rain at 5am.
9. Charm.
10. Present bad news in meetings with very sprung-loaded people.
The good news is that you don't have to have one single exam pass to your credit to qualify as above!
Working as a camera operator for some time has only been half satisfactory... granted I've worked with some wonderful people like Gary Kibbe, but most have moved on to smaller things or left the industry entirely, leaving me with no cinematographer to grow with. Is it possible these days to find such a connection with a cameraman's crew and work consistently with that person? I'm dying to work with a leader so I can grow and learn with that cameraman ... I see so many repeat camera operators working with their cameramen over and over...it's like other talented operators can't get a chance to ever work with people they admire and want to work with. I love your work... your talents far extend the canvas when you step on a set. I would kill to work with you and learn.
But do you ever take on new operators? Or do you always use the same guys again and again without trying out fresh ideas from up and coming operators? Please let me know...
Jeff
It's true that operating for a particular DP over a longer spell is a great way to learn. Unfortunately this gets harder with DPs making films all over the world and producers being insistent on them using "local crew". As someone who operated most of my own films (until Casanova when I stopped), I always found operator input both a blessing and a curse. It was always a blessing when the operator did not try to exclude you from the camera process and contributed in a true spirit of creative participation without ego and game-playing involved. It was a curse when the operator tarts about with the director and tries to relegate me to the "lighting guy". Mercifully this only happened to me a few times on commercials and then I just noted the name in my Black Book and moved on.
The other problem is that IATSE has just given away the operator role in one of the most stupid negotiations imaginable. This might have quite bad repercussion in the future as lower budget producers insist on the DP operating to save money. This should be a choice made by the creative team, not by a line producer. I am using 2 "new operators" here in New Zealand as I write this in July 2006. The producer told me I could have the team from King Kong and Lord of the Rings so why would I complain about that! I like to use "local crew" and get fresh ideas. On the other hand, I teach when I am not shooting: shooting is best done by one's fellow professionals and colleagues who already have learned their craft. The role of operator is not always a "stepping stone" to being a DP and the "A" camera role on bigger films is nearly always filled by a Steadicam/A camera guy so that Steadicam is always an option that is available: something that directors of bigger films are expecting as the norm.
We are all learning all the time: getting together with a colleague you can stick with is definitely a good aim.
Hi. I'm a camera assistant who's dabbling in lighting when I can. My question for you is regarding crossing over from assisting to lighting. At what point do you think it's wise to call yourself a 'cinematographer' and concentrate on being a DP? The more I light the more I'm learning but I still would not consider myself in the same league as the cameramen I work for as an assistant.
At some point I think I've got to draw a line and stop assisting. Is it only finance that dictates when or is there a level of work that should dictate?
Chris
I can only thank my lucky stars that I never had to make this decision, as I was never an assistant! It's one of the hardest decisions you will make in your life and getting the timing right is crucial. If you hang on too long you will be "past it", and if you go too early you might come unstuck on your first job. However, my instinct would be that if you are asking the question it might be time to move on. There is a rule in sailing that if you thinking it might be time to reef the sail then reef it - don't wait! I have seen some assistants cross over without any apparent effort into being a DP and others who literally ended their careers and now are working outside the business.
Generally it is good to time the transition when the market is "up" - ie there's lots of work around both in commercials and films. Of course you have to aim for what you want: Features? TV? Documentary? Commercials etc. Another crucial factor now is what is on your showreel - you can't show people your work if there isn't any and you can't get any work if you don't show what you can do!! It's a miracle really that any of us get employed?
I always think that having a connection to a least one director is pretty crucial. Your mate that you did a couple of free shoots with: when he gets a job and you figure he might ask you to shoot it then go ahead - don't think of it as giving up the assistant job but anyone who offers you something to shoot should NEVER be turned down as this is always an opportunity to learn and get those crucial pieces on your showreel.
2007
I'm a student who's trying to volunteer on productions.
I've written letters to producers in pre-production, asking them if they would like my assistance in the camera department. I've explained that I want to be a cinematographer and that I'm currently looking for any association with 16mm and 35mm film that I can find. The problem is: they never get back to me! What am I doing wrong? I know your film school friends got you to shoot for them, but did you ever write letters to producers? And what did you say?
Nick
Actually I didn't as I guess I never thought that would work. Producers don't really concern themselves with the lower echelons of the camera department as they have more important things to worry about - like getting the money to pay you! Your letters should go to either DP's or Focus pullers: if you target a particular production that you know about and focus your letter on the people involved, as well as showing some knowledge of the particular shoot - even if that knowledge is just research - you will stand a better chance than with a general plea.
Although this is what you have been doing, go the next step and try to turn up there they are actually doing the prep and see if you can spot the camera team working. Nothing like personal presence to make things happen: if you can ask one of the guys for an email address to send your CV to at least there will be a face with the email.
When I am older, I wish to pursue a career in cinematography. I'm starting my A-Levels soon & have been thinking about my subject choices. I would like to choose subjects relevant to cinematography & filmmaking. I was wondering if you had any advice on what sort of subjects are relevant because I don't really have any idea!
Caitlin
The subjects most relevant are the ones that most interest you because those are the ones you will do best at: always pursue that you are interested in rather than something that somebody thinks is "relevant". Having said that, if it is feature films you are interested in, then drama, English, any of the arts are all good subjects. Cinematography, however, is also very technical so physics, maths, and chemistry are also all good. In a world obsessed by grades, your best option (as I said) is to do the subjects that you like and will give you the best grades.
A-levels seem big at the time, but no one later on is interested in your A levels outside of University Entrance requirements: this is why they are important if you want to go to a good university. The single most important thing about A levels is that they don't put you off education for the rest of your life...get the grades you can but remember that many of life's most successful people didn't get good (or any!) grades at school.
How far can stylized filmmaking take someone in the business?
Andi
This perhaps is a trick question? It depends entirely what you mean by "stylized". For the sake of this answer, let's say it means "out of the ordinary", "striking" etc. Clearly images that attract attention will promote the careers of the director and/or cinematographer, given that the attention is generally positive. Like all work that is a bit unusual, it may have also have it's detractors, but then debate is better than silence...
It comes down to the judgement of whether a piece of work is superficial and gimmicky ("clever"), but without substance, or is it genuinely original and has depth. Depth might be that quality that means you wake up in the morning thinking about the film you saw the night before: something superficial might mean it's more likely you'll be thinking about breakfast. When images are a layer on top of a story that have no real connection to the story, they can be as "stylized" as you like but they won't really work because they are not part of the whole. If, however, like in a Terry Gilliam film, they are an intrinsic part of the fabric, then they will work well.
How do you feel about film schools abandoning celluloid for digital?
Jack
This is a economic decision and a really BAD ONE. It is also not true of all film schools, and I would recommend that serious cinematography students who are considering a school find out whether there is any opportunity to shoot on film and, if not, consider going elsewhere. It is inevitable that film will be abandoned but it has taken a lot longer to go than those who said in 1985 that it would be over by 1990. And so on. In the meantime I would encourage anyone interested in images to "learn the craft" which includes film. 99% (or whatever is the statistic) of the world's cinema audiences are seeing films on film, not matter how they were originally shot so not having an understanding of celluloid is a major disadvantage for a cinematographer.
The current generation of students are probably the very last that will have the opportunity to shoot film, so I say seize it while you can!
Hi, I've just spent the last hour or so reading your 'So you want to...' article, and found it incredibly refreshing to hear an honest analysis on what the movie industry is REALLY like. Unless you were cleverly concealing most of the horrid parts I've come to expect when thinking of the big corporate monster that is 'Hollywood'. My question is simply: Do I need to get myself a degree in something media based, or know someone who can usher me in through the back door, to truly become part of the film industry? It is INCREDIBLY competitive and there are hundreds of kids (in the US especially) that are churning out of 'film school' who have much more ambition and likelihood of reaching their goals than I ever will. So is there really any hope for me?
Me, I should mention, is a 23 year old from the south of England who once dreamed of being a DP but backed out due to lack of belief in ones ability and a fear of failure... It is also the person who has just started a much respected psychology degree but is now slapping themselves round the face wondering why the hell they're not doing something they'll enjoy.
I'm fairly lost, feeling old and hoping there is someway I can follow a passionately revived dream.
Jay
Confidence in yourself is one quality that cannot be taught or learned at school. As I implied in the essay you read, being "damaged" by education is a reality for a lot of people with degrees and good school grades. The key sentence in your question is ..." ...who have much more ambition and likelihood of reaching their goals than I ever will". You have to ask yourself WHY are these others any more likely to succeed than you? What is it that makes them any more likely to get into the film business than you?
With an attitude of failure before you have begun you will not succeed. "Feeling old at 23" is a psychological state that you need to move yourself away from as soon as possible. On the whole I encourage people to do what they like in their 20's: this might be studying Astro Physics or learning to Kite Surf in Corsica. Your 20's are the only truly free time in your life: free from your Parents and (not always!) free from your own partner and children. It's the time to explore and follow dreams and if they don't work out, in the words of the song: "Pick yourself up, dust yourself down and start all over again."
Stop worrying about other people and get on with what you want to do. You obviously have a good sense of humor and that goes a long way in the Movie Business.
Working as a camera operator for some time has only been half satisfactory... granted I've worked with some wonderful people like Gary Kibbe, but most have moved on to smaller things or left the industry entirely, leaving me with no cinematographer to grow with. Is it possible these days to find such a connection with a cameraman's crew and work consistently with that person? I'm dying to work with a leader so I can grow and learn with that cameraman ... I see so many repeat camera operators working with their cameramen over and over...it's like other talented operators can't get a chance to ever work with people they admire and want to work with. I love your work... your talents far extend the canvas when you step on a set. I would kill to work with you and learn.
But do you ever take on new operators? Or do you always use the same guys again and again without trying out fresh ideas from up and coming operators? Please let me know...
Jeff
It's true that operating for a particular DP over a longer spell is a great way to learn. Unfortunately this gets harder with DPs making films all over the world and producers being insistent on them using "local crew". As someone who operated most of my own films (until Casanova when I stopped), I always found operator input both a blessing and a curse. It was always a blessing when the operator did not try to exclude you from the camera process (which only really happens in the UK) and contributed in a true spirit of creative participation without ego and game-playing involved. It was a curse when the operator would tart about with the director and try and relegate me to the "lighting guy". Mercifully this only happened to me a few times on commercials and then I just noted the name in my Black Book and moved on.
The other problem is that IATSE has just given away the operator role in one of the most stupid negotiations imaginable. This might have quite bad repercussion in the future as lower budget producers insist on the DP operating to save money. This should be a choice made by the creative team, not by a line producer.
I am using 2 "new operators" here in New Zealand as I write this in July 2006. The producer told me I could have the team from King Kong and Lord of the Rings so why would I complain about that! I like to use "local crew" and get fresh ideas. On the other hand, I teach when I am not shooting: shooting is best done by one's fellow professionals and colleagues who already have learned their craft. The role of operator is not always a "stepping stone" to being a DP and the A camera role on bigger films is nearly always filled by a Steadicam/A camera guy so that Steadicam is always an option that is available: something that directors of bigger films are expecting as the norm. We are all learning all the time: getting together with a colleague you can stick with is definitely a good aim.
You have worked on many projects ranging from music videos and TV movies to big-budget features. Is this a natural progression, or is it hard to break out of what you are used to?
Brian
Well spotted! Of course in my life it feels like a natural progression, but then I know plenty of cinematographers from the rock and roll days who are still doing that, or have moved to commercials but not to features. I would say it is very much about intention: I always intended to either direct or shoot movies, so the other things were stepping stones. The only way to progress as a cinematographer is to shoot film, so at the beginning anything goes: but the moment you feel you've learned a phase, then move on... but plenty of cinematographers are happy doing commercials or rock videos and don't want the salary drop, or absence from home that low budget features entail. I was/am always driven by Movies.
A friend of mine said that when you want to move on, you have to burn your bridges. She's right.
I came to film through photography, and like an Agnes Varda, find myself in love with both mediums. I find myself however, torn between directing and cinematography. The two cross paths, but yet there remains a certain place for each. Certain artists with a particular visual flair, an Andrei Tarkovsky, or a Theodoros Angelopoulos, have managed to lend their talents to both aspects, so that the union between the director and the cinematographer is one that translates into a better film. How were you able to decide, doing one and not the other? And what sorts of directors have you found it easiest to work with? Thank you in advance for your time.
Dalmar
I made a film at the NFTS in my final year (1979) called Shadowplay which was precisely about this dilemma. It is one faced by all of us that want to tell stories through pictures. The film's narrative centred on a still photographer who decided to re-interpret reality by turning the pictures he took every day "automatically" into film and adding the story that seemed to come from the pictures to the soundtrack of the film. This slowly became a conflict of what was "really" happening against the fiction he derived from the pictures. I made the film more as an act of self-exploration than with any intention of it being a "finished" film.
When I graduated my heart was in continuing to Direct (as it is to this day!), but reality intervened as I was continuously offered jobs as a DP and not as a Director. So with a family to support and for mostly the wrong reasons, I became what I am today - a successful DP or a failed Director depending on how I am feeling that day!
Because I have this Director lurking beneath the surface, I much prefer Directors who I consider can do a better job than I would, for obvious reasons. There is nothing more frustrating for a DP than being on set with a useless Director when you know you could do the job much better, quicker and cheaper. I am also not fond of Directors who are obsessed with the Picture and leave the actors stranded with no direction: particularly those that are only interested in moving around some foreground salt shaker whilst the Actors are giving their all in the background. I am aware that many famous visual Directors like Stanley Kubrick and the Scott Bros. make great movies: it's just that I would rather be elsewhere whilst they make them as I am not a very good assistant.
I like collaboration in the true sense of the word.
Mr. Stapleton, I was wondering if you could shed some light on which way you believe is the best way to becoming a cinematographer. Professors have either told me through the avenue of lighting, or composition. I think it's a combination of both. In everything I have shot, whether in 16mm Bolex to DV and HD, I have always taken into consideration lighting, framing, and composition, nowadays people are more so interested in after effects, editing, in my opinion is no substitute for good camera work, where do you see these trends going? Lastly would you suggest picking up a still camera for pre-shoot insights? Thank You.
I found both the study and practice of still photography to be excellent (and cheap!) training for Cinematography. In a real sense Cinematography is just 24 stills every second, so studying Still Photography is the basis of all things: framing, lighting and the way these translate into making an image. The photo-chemical method will teach you about film (which, believe it or not, still exists!) and digital cameras will teach you about er.. Digital.
You are quite right that there is no substitute for good camera work. It is a myth that you can "fix it later".. No self-respecting professional will work with such an attitude. Human beings have a habit of thinking they can get something for nothing: history proves otherwise. Pre-Visualisation is the all-important tool for creating fine images, whether making "elements" for VFX work or making a final photo-chemical image. No thinking means no power to the image: a "snap" is not a Photograph.. waving a video camera about is not Cinematography.
Fine images will continue to be made by people who put in the effort with the tools available now and those of the future. No Strain - no Gain!
Oliver,
I'm going to be completely honest with you, i have only seen about 1/5 of the movies that you have done the cinematography for. Making movies is what i am passionate about. I have been making them since I was probably about
9 years old. Holding that huge camera on my shoulder that you slide a whole VHS tape into was the greatest! But i have a question for you...my friend and I are taking film classes in college and we have a lot of great ideas. He takes role of the director and I the cinematographer. I have a great eye for different angles and what is going to accent the point we are trying to get across. We don't make movies for anyone else but us, but I would like to ask you if there is any advice that you have for me. You have some great movies under your belt and I would love to have my eye behind a camera for the rest of my life. Is there any advice that you could give me? I would really appreciate any tips you had for me.
Brandon
The web is now full of this kind of advice.. My own is on My Website.
You seem to have forged a relationship with a Director already: this is a VERY GOOD THING! Not only does this mean that if this particular person does well after you leave college, then he or she might take you along for the ride. And even if that doesn't happen, the experience of working with one person for a while will stand you in good stead. Another way is to get yourself inserted into the "scene" in either New York or LA or the main movie city of whichever country you are in.. You can do this by crewing for free on small productions and getting to know the independent scene, or by lugging boxes about in a rental house and getting to know everyone that way. Making movies is all about relationships.. People who "network" a lot sometimes make some progress, but in the long run it's about your skill to do the job for which you are employed.
I am an absolute film nut, and after studying at film school (Vancouver Film School (very hands on school that takes you through the entire process of filmmaking on a small set, still teaches DP for film, which was a blast!), I know that making films is that thing I love to do, and feel like I have to do.
I decided to move to Austin, Texas to work in their young, union-free film industry. But the issue I'm having is this - everywhere I've gone to find work has come up empty handed. I'm on sets now doing mostly in camera departments (a dp here, a grip there, a first ac on occasion) but all of it's free, and although it's fulfilling, I need money, too. Not even a lot, just enough for the old rough over the head bit.
I figure my best skills are in the camera department. What's the best way to get myself onto a paid set? I know my roles, and I'm happy to start as a trainee - can I just contact local DPs and ask? Would you ever take on a trainee who asked out of the blue?
Yes I would: especially one like you who has been working hard for free and gaining experience. Try and get your money elsewhere and keep doing what you are doing. Sooner or later you will hook up with someone who takes you on to a paid job, or recommends you as a trainee with a paid camera team. Moving to Austin was smart to get the kind of experience you are getting, but eventually you will have to got to LA or New York to get with the Big Boys.. If that is what you want. Lifestyle is matter of choice (for some!): it's tough to work at the top of the movie industry and live somewhere pleasant but it can be done... Generally the trainee is not hired by the DP but by the 1st a/c. So if you want to send your CV out, get a list of 1st a/c's and send it to them, but it's not worth sending until it is obvious that you have a couple of years of experience in various roles. Another route is to start working lugging boxes in a rental company..