                 
|
director of photography, peter gray, dp, cinematography, dop, cinematographers, lighting cameraman, videographers, dv, high definition, 24p, digital films, HDW-F900, CineAlta, Varicam, AJ-HDC27F, 70mm, independent films, lighting directors, filmmakers, filmmaking, HDW-700AFOOTLOOSE AND FANCY-FREE
.....the Minimal Movie experience, by Peter Gray BY THE SKIN OF OUR TEETH "Fantastic, fantastic!", the words echo out across the warm waters. It is the final swimming pool scene. Many hands are shaken. Congratulations to all. Without a doubt, we've witnessed something special. Would you believe that's another one ‘in the can'!!! If I haven't lost count, that's the 14th Minimal Movie to finish shooting in just over 3 years. That's 14 feature-film dramas, "1" mostly shot on 35 m.m. "2" all with extraordinarily high ‘production value' when you consider the overwhelming restraints of time and budget, and mostly designed and executed in a truly unique way in the context of international cinema, past and present. "3" A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE Before I came to The Netherlands, I would not have believed that Minimal Movies were possible. If somebody told me you could shoot a quality feature film in only 3 or 4 days, I would have thought them crazy, especially when it must be done (as sometimes happens) virtually without a shooting budget. No problem for Minimal Movies, they somehow achieve the impossible with relative ease. One reasons I got involved with Minimal Movies is to experience for myself the "how in the hell is all this possible!" To me, that is a kind of magic. How, you might ask, is the trick done? I'd be happy to explain it if I could. It has got something to do with assembling 60 to 110 people (not all of whom are necessarily experienced) who simply believe they are going to make a movie next week. It is like creating a Frankenstein monster; it quickly takes on a life of its own. Once you breath life into it, there is simply no stopping it. Ah, you might say, all this must be offset by long and extensive pre-production. Not true. The nitty-gritty pre-production typically starts not much more than a week before shooting commences. "4" The life-giving dynamic has something to do with the world of possibilities available within the spontaneity of the moment. Ah, then this must mean a sort of chaos? Also not true. I can assure you any notion of a "badly organized Minimal Movie" is an unfounded myth. In my experience of working on seven Minimal Movies so far, the general standard of organization is usually as good, and often better, than a lot of normally budgeted productions. It has to be good, when you consider that Minimal Movies forge bravely ahead when a ‘normal' production would be cancelling the shoot in a panic. It is a great credit to production managers, like Marc Craane, and his capable team for their impressive achievements against all odds. STRANGE BEDFELLOWS Not all Minimal Movies are shot in 3 days with "no budget", although some have. I can think of four movies that were shot in either 3 or 4 days. "5" Six shooting days is about average, and I remember two movies that shot for a very luxurious (and tiring) 10 or 11 days. "6" Shooting budgets have been as little as an amazing 5000 guilders, which might create the illusion that you can make a feature film in Holland for next to nothing. That is not true; the average finished cost of a Minimal Movie would be around 100,000 guilders. Relatively speaking, that is exceptionally cheap, but don't forget, that's still a hundred thousand guilders that has to be found. Yes, we can shoot them ‘inexpensively' sometimes for the cost of ‘unavoidables' like insurance, transport, catering, telephone expenses etc., which can be as little as 5 to 10,000 guilders. This is partly due to the very generous and commendable support of the facilities companies in Amsterdam servicing the production end of the spectrum. Most notably, HOLLAND EQUIPMENT and STAN SCHRAM STUDIOS, for their consistent support, although many other have helped on a regular basis. "7" I think these companies believe that you build a viable film industry and cinema culture in The Netherlands by helping people get on with the job. Otherwise, film makers are condemned to sit around endlessly waiting for the all elusive ‘right conditions'. It is the post-production and distribution that is the thorn in the side of Minimal Movies. This is where most of the money goes, nearly all of it to the lab and to post-production sound. These harsh realities have held up the release of three of the Minimal Movies from 1991. "8" Although a highly productive year for Minimal Movies, only one of the four features shot that year has been released so far. "9" However, when you consider that is an average of one feature film shot every three months, I think you'll agree it was not a bad effort nonetheless. 1990 was even more impressive. Seven Minimal Movies were completed by various producers and directors. All were released, and most of them with recognized distributors. FORBIDDEN FRUIT Minimal Movies play with extremes, some of them contradictory. While confronting you with many restrictions, it can also give you almost unimaginable creative freedom. You often get the chance to do anything you want, but not always the means to achieve it. What an idea, instead of knocking down barriers to promote creative freedom, in a sense, they are created by the process. Perhaps it is fundamental incongruities like this that are the basis of the process .... one of the motors driving the machine? That's Minimal Movie Mania folks! But remember, as always the obvious or expected doesn't necessarily exhaust the creative possibilities. Hardship often stimulates the creative juices. The former leads to cliche, while the latter leads to innovation and freshness. The Minimal Movie cast or crew member does seem to feel an increased sense, even overwhelming sense, of creative freedom. Maybe because you don't have to please a director or producer with a pre-conceived idea of the end product. Instead, the Minimal Movie producer/director wants whatever it is you want to give the project without, of course, prejudging that outcome. You are creatively responsible to yourself and the integrity of the movie, and not so clearly to some higher authority. O.K., something like that happens in normal production hierarchy, although it is more orchestrated from the top and filtered downwards. In Minimal Movies, it is more a question of personal responsibility. Is that a subtle, or a profound, difference in approach? There is no clear answer. It comes down to people in the end, and not only the system they are working under. It depends so much on the dynamic of the personalities involved in a production and their sense of co-operative, team spirit. It is certainly not the case that Minimal Movie participants feel ‘morally' superior or anything like that. There is no scorn for the established practices of the wider film industry. Any approach might work better, or have certain advantages, depending on the circumstances. But that approach, whatever it is, will certainly influence and flavour the end result. And perhaps that is the point .... to make a refreshingly different sort of movie because it is made in a refreshingly different sort of way. DUCK AND COVER You often hear people say that working on Minimal Movies must be wonderful because it gives you the chance to experiment. Or moreover, that Minimal Movies should be the place to knock down existing boundaries and forge new approaches to cinematic expression. Why, I even hear myself saying things like that. It certainly rolls off the tongue easily. Instead of the catch cry, "dare to struggle; dare to win", maybe it should be dare to experiment; dare to be innovative? But who has the guts to do it? Especially for those just getting established in the film industry. Understandably, they want to make a good impression for the sake of their careers. It seems so much better to play it safe. It feels as risky as hell to be innovative. Yet, Minimal Movies gives you that opportunity, if you only dare to use it. ITS UNTHINKABLE...... Maybe its interesting to take a more detailed look at my general approach to a Minimal Movie, and especially for FEAR & DESIRE. You inevitably have to decide on an overall style or approach to the film. If you don't, circumstances will quickly force that upon you, whether you like it or not. If you don't start to control the cinematography, it will end up controlling you. Therefore, I always plan a concept of camera and/or lighting based on what information I have before shooting. This is very, eh .... what's the word, .... minimal, as pre-planning is discouraged beyond the barest essentials. But I find I have to try and do the impossible. I really need to plan in relative detail, first and foremost, so I know what sort of camera and lighting equipment to order. The idea of a ‘standard camera or lighting kit' doesn't exist. Nearly every piece of equipment needs to be carefully chosen to suit the specific situation and approach. I usually don't get to see many locations beforehand, if any. Moreover, the script and/or ideas are evolving so rapidly that I can be sure of only one thing that, it all will be totally different by the time we shoot it. But still I ponder, and dream, and plan, as much as possible. I have the overwhelming feeling that planning is somehow fundamental to my craft. It is one thing to improvise actor's performances, but the spontaneous execution of a complex craft skill seems a little out of placed to me. I believe that the more preparation, the better the result. Of course, I can come relatively unprepared and do a reasonable job, "10" but my work will lack scope and finesse. I can't just plan for one film as I have no idea what that will be. So I plan for many possible films, although we wont make any of them the way I imagine. It maybe sounds silly, but it pays off in the end. This preparation always seems to help me come up with good ideas at the appropriate time, especially in the heat of the moment. It helps me create a consistent and meaningful style, or mood, or feeling, that reinforces the drama and artistry of the project. That's because my thinking behind those ideas, although abstract, has been developed to some extent, and therefore, transposes more easily to whatever reality I'm suddenly faced with. A scene may take an hour or more to set up and shoot, but the fundamental creative decisions behind that scene are usually made in seconds .... certainly not longer than minutes. Nobody, in an enthusiastic crew conscious of time, wants to sit around while I try and figure out what in the hell to do next. And it is not just me. There is a chain of decision making, usually starting with the director, that must travel across the whole cast and crew of maybe 40 or more people, as quickly as possible. That is necessary to start up the unwieldy monster and get it working in an efficient and co-ordinated way. Frankenstein stirs, as he gets zapped with another 50,000 volts to its smoking, skull cap. BRILLIANT DISGUISES We're in the business of shooting drama, but in a fashion more like shooting documentary. To put it crudely, a Minimal Movie is like making a documentary record of a performance workshop. If only it was that easy. Firstly, it has to look like drama and not documentary. More than that, it has to appear to have a certain quality, known in the trade as "high production value". That means the movie must look sophisticated and expensive, even if it isn't. The standards of production are so high nowadays, that your film has to try and look like a masterpiece if you expect anybody to watch it. Even during the course of my own career, I've seen those production standards continually soar to ever more dizzy heights. You only have to look at those old re-runs on T.V. to get an idea of what I'm talking about. State of the art production standards of 20 or 30 years ago, can be laughable today. ONE SIZE FITS ALL But despite all the preparation ..... and despite all that nice equipment you've begged, borrowed or stolen .... and despite the wonderful crew you've put together .... and despite the feeling that you are ready for anything .... cold, hard reality strikes. Circumstances dictate so much of what you end up doing. Here I would like to explode a myth. The cinematographer is not in complete control of the visual side of the film. Perhaps more than most people realize, much of the visual domain is outside the immediate control of the director of photography. A hell of a lot of people have a say in it first. The big three are The Location Manager, The Art Director, and the Director. The whole craft of cinematography is largely dependent on the decisions of these three. There is nothing to shoot until others provide it. Then the director decides what is going to happen and how that should be seen. Only then can you start to set up a camera and lights. And that's not all. Other important people contributing to the visual side of things are Hair Styling, Make-up and Wardrobe. And I'm not even including whatever influence the producer might have in all of this. For example, the decision to send the crew to that special, exotic location, or not. Film is a very visual medium and ‘the visuals' demand the talented contribution of at least the 8 departments mentioned above plus camera and lighting. On a Minimal Movie, that's at least 15 people directly concerned with the visual side of the film. All of these departments are somehow dependent on each other. Generally speaking, a decision by any one of them, effects the others. It might be in a matter of detail, but more likely, it will have more significant consequences. For example, the wardrobe's decision to dress the actor in say, white, or, perhaps, black. Either decision can greatly influence the lighting possibilities, and hence the resulting style, or mood, or feeling. This is why I, as a D.P. or lighting director, want to work as closely as possible with all of the ‘visual artists', especially in pre-production. Not just to lobby for my directs interests, but rather, to co-ordinate and optimize the invaluable input of the various visual-craft areas. Remember, cinema is a co-operative art form; the magic does not come from any one person alone. Surely it is better to create a dynamic and integrated whole, rather than the sum of loosely connected parts. During the course of making a Minimal Movie, a team of well over a 100 people needs to be in tune with each other in a million subtle and overt ways. Why this tendency to separate the combined ‘visual artists' from working more closely with each other ..... not so much on the set, but especially in pre-production? Mind you, I think it is more by default than by intention. The big worry is, the more you plan before hand, the more your ideas become fixed, and the less potential for that ‘magic' to come from the spontaneous situations created during shooting. Probably, this concept is more for the actors, "11" but the-behind-camera-people get dragged into it as well. This is the only thing that truly frustrates me in the whole Minimal Movie process. I can accept all other limitations easily, including minimal time and minimal money, but this is the hardest one for me to deal with. I always believe I could give so much more to a Minimal Movie if I could prepare myself better. I wonder if that would be true in practice? Would I remain as fluid and open to embrace whatever happens on the set? Would my preparation really be a hindrance or a help in the context of the Minimal Movie process? Remember, the process is unique. A shift of emphasis might quickly turn the progressive, Minimal Movie approach, to that of the more conventional, low-budget feature. Perhaps, like all things in life, the right balance must be found. If you want to build your overall concept of production around a spontaneous dynamic, then that, by definition, must somewhat limit the place for planning. It is more a question of where to draw the line between spontaneity and preparation. Maybe those whose quality of work is more dependent on preparation should be told more, so they can prepare more than the others. Wardrobe, perhaps, is a clear example of a non-spontaneous craft-area. Limited planning usually means the same thing as having limited choice of clothing and costumes on the set. Selective ‘enlightenment' may sound like a good idea, except for one thing. Nobody, including the director, has a reliable overview until we actually start shooting a scene. What we are really ‘doing' ultimately becomes clear to everybody at the same time. DREAM OF A SHADOW I forced myself to be brave and to try for an adventurous approach to lighting this film. I continually have to tell myself to follow my whims, take more risks, and not to shy away from an idea or approach just because its different from what I normally do or see. These ideas were discussed with the camera operators and key lighting crew members prior to shooting. It was important that our thinking be as much in line with each other as possible. With three independent units on this production (a Minimal Movie first), we thought we couldn't go for any one lighting style or concept and hope to keep it consistent. So we chose an overall style that was a deliberate combination of styles. Surprisingly, the film ended up with a much more consistent style than we originally thought possible. We made a clear decision to use "hard light" as opposed to the soft-lighting styles widely used in Holland. What's that? Well, ‘hard light' is more direct and focused, while ‘soft light' is more indirect (meaning, bounced around the set) and diffused. The feeling created by one style is radically different from the other. ‘Soft light' is often more subtle, and flat and naturalistic; while ‘hard light' gives a more striking dramatic, moody effect. ‘Hard light', although it can be more complex to set up, is much easier to control. That is the one big advantage of using ‘hard light'. You can maintain a much higher degree of control over where the light falls within a scene. We wanted to exploit that particular characteristic in order to play more dramatically with the difference between light and shadow. This approach was accentuated by concentrating on a lot of ‘back light'..... that is light coming from behind the actors directly towards the camera lens. You have to be careful, as shadow is not always aesthetically pleasing. There is a thin line between it being ugly, on the one hand, and creating a exquisite mood or atmosphere, on the other hand. And because 16 m.m. lacks so much of the detail and subtlety of 35 m.m., especially in the shadow (or darker) areas of the image, the technique is even harder to perfect. Also, you can't project 16 m.m. with anything as near the brightness of 35 m.m. on the big cinema screen. It is always ‘darkish', even well-exposed scenes shot in bright daylight can look dull. So we dared to accentuated the inherent ‘darkness' of the 16 m.m. image. Normally you would try to go the other way, in a desperate effort to make it look like something that it is not, namely, brighter looking and more detailed. It was a case of if you can't beat ‘em, join them. We even had the idea to use ‘super hard' and highly controllable light sources of a type that are not commonly used in filmmaking. These are lights with a true spherical lens and not just the cheaper imitation fresnel lens. A theatre-type ‘follow spot' is an example. Such a light source is so controllable, you can define the difference between light and shadow as a hard-edged line. You can also do something similar with reflecting light from mirrors into the scene. O.K., so we had some good ideas along these lines, but it didn't work out in practice. This was partly due to equipment availability problems but it was mainly because of the limited opportunity to exploit such an effect. It works best in relatively static situations, especially within the frame (i.e. where there is little movement of the actors). Those sort of scenes were relatively rare in this particular film. Moreover, any lighting design, especially a highly stylistic one, must fit the situation both dramatically and logically. Most cinematographers play around creatively with the underexposure end of the emulsion spectrum. We thought it would be interesting to exploit the other end, the more critical overexposure area. On a few occasions, we tried using controlled overexposure, together with diffusing-type, camera filters, to give a specific highlight in the image a sort of magical glow. "12" It worked best on the marble table in the ‘Spanish apartment' but again the opportunity to exploit the effect was a rare event. Unfortunately, most of the more sophisticated lighting techniques depend on a higher degree of control of the light, and therefore, aspects of the situation as well. Especially, with how the actors are placed and choreographed within a scene. It requires the cooperation of other departments, especially ‘the big three', as outlined earlier. A director or art director can't always be expected to work around the cinematographer, but sometimes the amalgamation pays off in a big way. LOSING MY RELIGION It is hard for any Minimal Movie to get away from the ‘master scene' approach. There is never enough time (and sometimes enough film material) to shoot ‘coverage' of a scene. This means to shoot the same scene, or parts of the scene, again, using different lenses and camera angles e.g. the close-up, the reverse angle etc. This gives rhythm and pacing to a film. It also gives the editor something to play with, by increasing their creative possibilities many fold. Minimal Movies scenes tend to be shot in just one take with a single camera and lighting set-up. "13" On top of all this, Fear and Desire, had a small army of actors .... six main roles, but a battalion of supporting roles. So what does all this mean in terms of lighting? It means we shoot a lot of wide shots (far too many in my opinion "14"), with a lot of actors and movement within the frame. It is a cruel fact of life that the possibilities for interesting lighting is especially limited in situations like this. Sometimes the location works against you, as well .... imagine a small room with light-coloured walls and a low ceiling. That sort of space can be very depressing for a lighting designer. Why? The more light you use, the more it bounces around and around, spilling everywhere, and very soon you lose control over where the light is falling. Before you know it, the lighting ends up looking flat and uninteresting .... possibly ugly, and certainly unrefined. In short, this is how circumstances, partly caused by fate, and partly by other people's decisions, dictate the type of lighting despite whatever skill, planning and good intentions are deployed by the valiant lighting team. CAMERA JUNKIES ARE EVERYWHERE .... ANECDOTES I'd like to discuss a few peculiarities I've found working in the Netherlands. As an outsider, I've discovered some ‘strange' practices here. The most fascinating is that a Dutch director of photography always operates the camera. The rest of the world usually considers it two different sorts of jobs for two different sorts of people. In Holland, the system is so normal and so ingrained, it is nearly impossible for anyone to imagine any other way of doing it. Even famous Dutch cinematographers working abroad, including in Hollywood, still stick to their roots and operate their own cameras. "15" I've been trying to figure out the historical reasons for the evolution of this system. The best I can come up with, is that it might come from Holland's strong documentary tradition. It is the classic documentary ‘lighting cameraman' directly transposed to the dramatic film. To me, it is clearly a case of getting one person to do two jobs that are only loosely related. "What!" you say. I imagine that statement will surprise a lot of people. Why? ..... because they are two very different types of skills. What does a D.P. do? He or she is a designer of camera and lighting techniques to suit the dramatic and artistic intentions of the movie. In other words, a thinker and a planner. Its purely a ‘head job'. What about a camera operator? They are concerned with a very different world. They judge and manipulate things like composition and framing, anticipation of events, precise control of movement, and having a trained eye for all sorts of technical detail, especially those in the optical system, like focus and flare. They don't even have to know anything about a camera, except, perhaps, how to turn it on and off. It is very much a manual craft skill; a real ‘hands-on' job. It takes years and years of dedicated practice to even begin to get good at it. To me, that is clearly two very different functions ..... one is very much a mental skill; while the other is very much a physical skill. It is like the difference between the aircraft designer and the pilot; loosely related skills in the same general area of expertise. I've adopted the Dutch system because I've had to. In this country, I can't get work just as a D.P. or just as a camera operator. I'm sure nobody would take me seriously, especially in the field of dramas and features. I'm compelled to do, what seems to me, to do two jobs at once. I have to admit, it feels good to have that direct contact with the camera, instead of an indirect contact through dialogue. I find camera work extremely seductive, and perhaps that is the reason it is hard for people to give it up. Camera junkies are everywhere. But here is the catch. All that time I spend with my eye stuck to the back of that viewfinder, absorbed with a lot of minute detail, is at the expense of conceptual work. While I'm operating, and it is a very time-consuming job because of long set-up and rehearsal time, I'm not doing my job as a DP .... and vice versa. Both are tiring jobs; so any stress in one area directly affect your efficiency in the other. As soon as you get too tired to think properly, you're simply not functioning as a D.P. No doubt, your operating gets a little s1oppy as well. O.K., you find other examples of role doubling in the film world; actors who direct, directors who operate the camera, and so forth. Some of them even excel in both roles, but they are a very small, freakish minority within the industry. To take a ridiculous extreme, it makes about as much sense to me as asking, say, the make-up artist, to operate the camera. If they have some aptitude and operating skills, why not?. Surely that cue of impatient actors can wait a little longer for their turn at the make-up mirror. So where do good operators come from in Holland, which is the same as asking, where do the D.P.'s come from. A lot of them, maybe most of them, were camera assistants ..... that sounds logical, right? And what sort of an activity is that? A highly-skilled, repetitive job, mechanical in nature, requiring high standards of dexterity, cleanliness, alertness and personal organization. I can assure you a good assistant is worth their weight in gold. They have to be 100% perfect. Mistakes are not allowed in this job. There is only right and wrong, and no shades in between. There is no room for argument or interpretation. A D.P. by comparison, can do almost anything they like, including outright mistakes, and call it (perhaps not unreasonably) "artistic expression." For the assistant, there are no creative methods of lens mounting ..... only precision and extreme care. Some people have it, and some don't. That's why a poor camera assistant can make a great D.P., and vice versa. I ask you, what sort of background training is that for the sort of skills needed to be either a camera operator or D.P.? Well, at least they are working around cameras, right? Like the person who wants to be an automotive engineer ..... so they start out by working in a car wash. O.K., O.K., I shouldn't make fun of long established institutions like the camera apprenticeship system. Perhaps it is interesting to mention that I shot my first Minimal Movie, VAN GOGH'S EAR, using a camera operator. So why not convince more producers and directors to adopt the more universal system? Two problems ..... it makes about as much sense to them as ice-skating without ice-skates. Secondly, there are no good operators in this country that don't already see themselves as D.P.'s. The terms ‘director of photography' and ‘camera operator' are totally interchangeable. It is nearly impossible to get somebody to operate without being the D.P. I think the best long term solution is to find some young, promising camera junkies, and train them in the very fine art of camera operating. Then they can be called upon to work in either system as the situation requires, which might be especially useful for them when working outside The Netherlands. WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? I know a lot of very good D.P.'s here, who are, frankly, not very good operators. In other words, they are more talented cinematographic designers than they are at practiced hand-eye co-ordination skills, although, like I say, it depends on long experience as much as anything else. One of the biggest problem I find with camera operating in The Netherlands is ..... wait for it, folks framing. I cringe when I see bad framing. It is painful for me. I feel it physically. This problem is not helped by the fact that the Film Academy does not even attempt to teach it to their students. Framing is more than a personal choice about where to draw that line around the scene you're filming. Unfortunately, it is neither a purely creative choice nor something you necessarily pick up instinctively. You need to learn it, therefore, it can indeed, be taught. It is part of the rules of cinematic language ..... a sort of rule of grammar, if you like. Wait, you say, show me the book of rules for cinematic language. There isn't one. That's because you can't precisely define the ‘rules'. Moreover, they are slowly changing and evolving as they parallel refinements in artistic expression. So what do they do? They give the ‘rules' that are not really rules, another name. They call them conventions. Acceptable framing is governed by a set of conventions that are historically in vogue. Don't worry, the framing conventions are some of the most stable there are, in other words, they don't change much over time. The main principle is to set your frame in such a way that the main focus of the audience's attention (which is an area and not a spot) does not bisect your frame line. It is especially bad to get a person's head too close to the edge of frame. The upper frame line is the most often abused. That is where you are meant to leave a comfortable space, called, ‘head room'. Usually the bottom frame line is the least critical. It nearly always gives you room to move especially up, go on, inch it up a little ..... up!, please .... up! If you direct your viewer's attention to the edges of the frame, what do they see? They see the cinema they are sitting in, or that box called a television set. Whenever you remind the audience, even subconsciously, that they are looking through a window, you begin to shatter that carefully constructed illusion called cinema. It is like the conjurer who accidently reveals how the trick is done. Camera and editing are areas strongly governed by conventions, while, on the other hand, lighting and direction have far fewer conventions, or weaker ones more easily overridden for the sake of artistic expression. There is a sophisticated way of presenting and juxtaposing images so they make sense to us. Broadly speaking, people like Griffith and Eisenstein started all this when they "invented", or developed, the techniques of film editing. It is not only, historically, but also, culturally dependent. Don't underestimate the power of cinematic convention, deep down, everybody knows about it, not only film makers. Of course, the average person probably doesn't know they know it. Yet, they do ‘know', in the sense, that on some conscious or unconscious level, they react. Something looks wrong or silly to them, perhaps they get confused, or at the very least, they feel uneasy or uncomfortable. That is all it takes to reduce a profound cinema experience to the cheap spectacle of a magic lantern show. BACK TO THE FUTURE O.K., I better stop raving on. Finally, I'd especially like to thank my two gaffers, Ivan Haentjens and Arno Vaneman, for their affability, expertise and creativity. I would also like to congratulate Janneke Hoogenboom, in her debut feature-film role as D.P./operator, for a most commendable job. Finally, for everybody involved in making Minimal Movies, its been a fun-filled, exciting and rewarding experience. Planets willing, I hope to see you all, both newcomers and veterans alike, for number 15!!! Arkansas USA, January 1993. Footnotes: "1" One of the Minimal Movies, THE BLISSFUL SUFFERINGS OF DEREK BEAUJON, is "a work in progress" running about 50 minutes, and is therefore not yet feature length. "2" Four of the Minimal Movies were shot on 16 m.m, VAN GOGH'S EAR, THE PHOENIX MYSTERY, MAX AND LAURA AND HENK AND WILLY, and this latest production, FEAR AND DESIRE. I just heard that M & L & H & W will be broadcast on Australian television (SBS) on 12th March, 1993. "3" I have seen some other features that are similar to Minimal Movie production methods and philosophy; especially the Canadian film, JULIA HAS TWO LOVERS, shot during ‘a long weekend' (3 or 4 days) with an evolving, and largely improvised, script. "4" I remember VAN GOGH'S EAR took a very luxurious one month, but that is the exception rather than the rule. I'm taking the start of pre-production as the first day the production office comes into operation. "5" REVELATIONS OF AN INSOMNIAC and EXTRAVAGANZA were 3 day shoots, while TWO PEOPLE: ANALYSIS OF A SEDUCTION and THE BLISSFUL SUFFERINGS OF DEREK BEAUJON were about 4-day shoots. "6" Namely, VAN GOGH'S FAR (1990), and later that year, HOW TO SURVIVE A BROKEN HEART, the most commercially successful of the Minimal Movies to date. "7" Like Ken Dyer from EGRIPMENT CAMERA RENTALS, COMPACT LIGHT and FLASHLIGHT (Utrecht). "8" Namely, LABYRINTH OF LUST, EXTRAVAGANZA and THE BLISSFUL SUFFERINGS OF DEREK BEAUJON. These are the only Minimal Movies that, so far, have not been released. "9" This was, TWO PEOPLE: ANALYSIS OF A SEDUCTION, which was shot and premiered at the 20th Rotterdam Film Festival within a month of the first day of shooting. Since then, it has screened in a number of festivals including Sweden, Portugal and Egypt. "10" Of course, it is all in a day's work for the typical documentary cameraman/camerawomen, for example. "11" Although most, if not all, of the actors I've asked seem to think that preparation is just as important to their craft, as I feel it is to mine. "12" Last year's Academy award-winning cinematographer, Richard Richardson, is a pioneer of this approach ..... remember J.F.K. "13" Moreover, it is pretty close to a 1:1 (one to one) shooting ratio. That means there is usually no "take two." "14" Contemporary dramas mostly employ relatively dose shots (medium shots and close ups) "15" Jan de Bont (Basic Instinct) and Robbie Müller (Down By Law) are examples. Believe it or not, Robbie Müller was originally invited to shoot FEAR AND DESIRE. He was considering it until another production called him away to America. Copyright © Peter Gray (January 1993)
Peter Gray
|
