A tough one. Directors designing shots...

PerroneFord

PerroneFord

Deals in Lead
Ok, we've all seen it. Directors seem to have "signature" shots they love. For a few it's the Zolly. Some just HAVE to have a crane up somewhere. Others need off-speed ramps in darn near everything they do, or flying dirt and debris. Some only like wide lenses (Frankenhammer), etc.

So for those of you who are cinematographers or DPs, especially on full crews, how do you deal with it? How do you tell the director that the shot he or she wants, is NOT the shot that makes the scene work or in fact may undermine the scene.

I have a pet peeve against unmotivated big moves. But some people I've worked with recently LOVE them. I think they reduce the power of the scene and draw far too much attention to themselves, but that's just me I guess.

So I'd love to hear advice from some of our esteemed members here. Who designs the shots on your films. You or the director, and who has final say on them. Who makes the lens choices? Who decided on the camera and lens package, and the lighting package?

Let's kick this one around a while and see what comes out of it.
 
1) The director usually comes up with the ideas for how he wants to shoot, then I work with him by being more like an editor (not in the film sense) and we go over what I think is good and what I recommend not doing, and why for both. We work out a shot list together, but the overall approach, direction, style and everything is initially from the director. He chooses the language, I just supply the right words. I may have ideas which he/she likes and their method is abandoned, so it's not set in stone either way.

2) Camera, lens, and light package are usually my suggestion and the producer's/budget's final say. 99% of directors say they trust me to choose, thus I usually pitch my preference and I always tell them why, technically and artistically. But in the end, it's almost always a compromise between what I want and budget. Sometimes I am stuck with something I don't necessarily want, i.e,: no money for a generator so we have to stay at 2k and below, etc.... or we are usuing X camera because it's free to use from X camera house.

3) As far as directors making decisions to do shots that are purely for 'cool' and not for story, if is the DP's responsibility and duty to mention in private, to the director, how they feel the shot is wrong for the story. Make a calm and thorough case, backed up by some kind of logic. If they refuse to listen to you, in the end, that's their decision. If you are right and they are wrong, the director is nothing more than a bad director at that given time, we all make bad decisions every once in awhile. But then again, I've been surprised by some directors in the past. I didn't 'get it' on set, shot it anyway, and it turned out great in edit. It's about trust. A calm discussion, either way it goes, will most likely have the better idea prevail; as long as you trust each other.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ryan. I was actually rather hoping you'd chime in here as you are one of my favorite posters on DVXUser and I always learn a lot from you.

As you may have guessed, I have an issue at hand with a director. We have a fairly good working relationship though I can't say we "share a vision" on most things. I think he's a pretty good director, but his talents lie more in the realm of handling actors. My background is in photography and more recently cinematography. He likes and organic camera, and isn't fond of sticks. Of course I argue that sticks are absolutely the right choice for certain shots and he's recently conceded that.

We have a shot tomorrow, that is a rather long, continuous shot. It starts on a seated character in profile, makes a semi circle through about a 10-12ft radius, and ends up in an OTS of a character who is angled about 45 degrees and 5 ft back from the character we started on. The character we end on is standing.

The camera move starts as a tight on the original subject, a basic crab to the standing character, and as we loop around, there is a slow crane so that we end up OTS. My issues with the shot are that:

1. We are in confined space and there isn't room for the first AC to do their job. So the camera op is going to have to pull focus blind.

2. We do not have a dolly. So this is going to be "wheel-chair". That's not necessarily bad, as the chair is quite smooth as is the floor. But it complicates matters since the radius will not be constant, thus the focus pull can't be dead on.

3. I originally lit the set to F4 so that we could have the standing character have some freedom of movement, and not make the low budget background stand out TOO much. However, with this major move, I am having to re-adjust to F8 just so we don't lose the focus too much.

4. The shot is completely un-motivated. One seated character, and one standing character. And the standing character moves perhaps 2ft during the course of this 8-10 second move. Maybe I am just too tied to the idea of motivated moves and conservation of motion.

Again, I don't want to seem as though I don't respect the director or his vision. I signed onto this project knowing the director and his desires. I just feel like the scene would be stronger with more motion from one of the principle actors as we moved with him on set. Maybe just a stylistic choice.

But it's telling that you work with the director to develop a shot list. I wish I had that opportunity.

We have a very constrained light package, but that's not too big an issue honestly. I've got what I need. I'll check back in tomorrow night after we shoot this scene to detail how it went. And if I don't think it's working, I may try to shoot it a different way just for coverage. We'll see. :)

Wish me luck!
 
I dig what Ryan has to say, although if I were directing, I'd want to be making the very first visual decisions equally with the DP. I feel I'd be inhibiting the DP's creativity by telling them all of my ideas before hearing theirs.
 
I think it's very give-and-take. I don't think it's the director's job to memorize and recite technical details, personally. I remember when I was first learning there was a lot of discussion about how the director chooses EVERY lens selection and all of this, like I should walk into a room and say, "Ok we need the 50mm lens here," or "Let's go with an 85mm," and that just seems absolutely absurd to me. That's a technical thing, and I'm not a technical director, nor is the director in general supposed to be that technical. It's enough to say, "Here's what I want to see in the master shot, from there to there," and let the camera department figure out how to make that happen. It's like me saying what lights should be used, rather than just saying, "This is a dimly lit room, where our character sits here playing video games all day," or something like that. I don't need to speak in technical terms, anyone who is good at what they do should be able to translate common sense and story language into technical language. The same is true with an editor. I'm not going to tell them how to cut the movie, I'm going to tell them what I want out of a scene and they can use their technical expertise to get me there.

I like my relationship with the DP to be very collaborative, not me telling them what to do, but talking about my shot ideas with them and having them bounce their ideas off me. In general, I'm content to let the DP suggest a good portion of the non-obvious shots, and a lot of things are totally obvious, like yes we need matching OTS shots and a two-shot, duh, it's not hard to understand that. But maybe we have time for something more interesting, maybe we can use a slider and pull back from the TV to our two characters sitting and watching it. Or whatever.

I have a very solid knowledge of cinematography from a critical and theoretical perspective, from being a critic and film historian for many years, so while I may not have an immediate grasp of what lens to use, I have an immediate reaction to how the camera movement should make me feel. There are scenes where I want standard type of coverage, where it's nothing fancy, and sometimes that is dictated by budget anyway, like what tools we have available. I guess the best way to put it is most scenes you can cover in a relatively conventional way, and DP and director know you're doing that. There are other scenes I'm comfortable letting the DP take the reins and suggest something cool. Then there are scenes I absolutely do not allow any input because I know what I want to see and I'm completely convinced of the rightness of that decision. Those are few and far between, because in general I love collaborating with anyone who can give me their input, but there are times I know what I want and have thought about it for a long time.

For instance, I had a scene in my feature where my main character, Jay, walks in the house after hanging out by the pool with his friend. He walks through the living room, into his office (a converted bedroom) and into the bathroom to take a shower. His girlfriend, Amy, comes home early from shopping, walks into her room and puts her bag down, then walks through the living room (opposite side) to Jay's office, finding something she wasn't supposed to discover. Then a fight ensues. I knew from the start I wanted him walking in to be a completely locked off shot, in both rooms, and I wanted to return to the same locked-off shot for her entering, and I didn't want to follow her into her bedroom, I wanted her to exit frame with the bag, return to frame without it and walk towards his office. Because there was a big fight about to ensue, I wanted the calm before the storm, and I'm a big fan of the camera not always caring what the characters are doing. There's something I enjoy about the camera not following someone out of a room, just staying put, because what they're doing in the other room is uninteresting. It's voyeuristic, like a security camera, and almost makes the audience uncomfortable that there's nobody in frame for a few seconds. They know what's coming, in this case. In other cases it may make them wonder what the person is doing off camera.

Then when the fight ensues it's all hand-held, up until she kicks him out, and then it's back to our wide shot, with her on the left of the frame, alone in an empty house, sitting against the door. It's a very nice scene and I knew from when I wrote it that I wanted to play it out exactly like that.

There are other times I suggest a shot because of time or other constraints and I know we're looking for a solution to speed things along. For instance, we were nearing the end of a day once, behind schedule, we needed a master shot of something that was going to be pretty stale just played out as a two-shot. I started thinking about the scene, and remembered a shot that I loved from Contempt, the French film from I think 1964, where the couple is talking at a table and the shot dollies between them both, sometimes as they are still talking, without cutting. I decided we should play the entire scene as a master, with her sitting down next to him, and using our slider (instead of a dolly) we moved between them. It worked perfectly because it was supposed to be an awkward scene, where he's lying to her, but she's mainly paying attention to a script she's going over for an audition that night. So they aren't too focused on one another anyway, allowing time for the slide to occur between the pauses. I trimmed 3-4 lines of dialogue knowing that we'd just have the master shot in editing, so I didn't want it to run too long. I think it worked really well and everyone was impressed with the shot, because I don't think most people think about that and I've certainly not seen it done in a LONG time. But to me, I've seen movies from 1894 through present, all of that stuff rattles around in my head, so when I come upon a situation like that it's fairly easy for me to recall something odd like that and dig it up. Why not, the movie is 50 years old almost, haha. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," haha.
 
I don't gel with this notion of divorcing technical prowess from creative intent. They, along with composition, color, luminosity, set decoration, wardrobe and a host of other tools, are inseparable from each other, imo. I couldn't imagine not calling for specific lenses, because I know what they do, how their unique distortions affect an image, how they open up or compress the space between characters, and what they contribute to the language of the film in the same way one would call for using handheld or locked off shots.

I'm big on pre-pro and that includes establishing the language of the film beforehand with each key dept head by going to each location and visualizing key scenes and discussing it until we're all on the same page. This has the effect of unifying the point of view, of cohesion. So we are all collaborating under the same guiding principles. Even if the content is to be improvised, the point of view is specific. Editing is the same. I'm fortunate to have found an editor with whom I share a frequency, a wavelength. While I definitely hand the film off to her, so to speak, that is only after she and I have discussed the language of the film, intentions and objectives, and the parameters under which she will, in effect, rediscover the movie within the footage we shot. She has authority to kick me out of the bay at any time but I am there for guidance every step of the way. My editor doesn't even look at the screenplay, preferring to let the film unfold before her. It's an amazing process to watch -- everything gets explored, no stone unturned, which is extremely reassuring to a guy like me. She's going to win an Oscar one day.
 
From your description Perrone, it sounds like that scene would be more powerful with straight cuts, letting the actors (the director's admitted strong suit) drive the scene. Is it really impossible in your scenario to have some kind of actor motivated movement? Perhaps the argument that such a distracting camera move would draw attention away from the real "meat" of the scene?
Sometimes a director, even those with a strong technical background, can become enamored of "the shot" and lose sight of "the scene". Such self discipline can be particularly difficult for those of us who direct AND shoot. A million years ago, on one of my first jobs out of film school, I described what I felt was a really great shot to the director (who was a real old pro).
He listened politely and said "Great shot...but what goes right before it and comes just after it?" I listened and remembered. The best directors can pretty much see the edit in their head and cover a scene that way. Any argument you can make to reinforce that will benefit the production.
Just a thought.
Ken
 
I don't see it as the DP's call to decide what visually works for the film. Story,tone, pacing are the director's vision.

As a director, I storyboard down to the last detail including lenses, camera height, the all important comp.,blocking, general lighting schemes. I relay to the DP what the feel and tone of each scene is. He/she then helps to achieve that feel. The director is not in the business of giving the DP a chance to shine. Nor the editor, or cast et al. Everybody does the best job they can do. The director's job covers many aspects of telling the story.

As a DP, I listen to the director and hopefully they have covered all the bases. Makes the show run smoothly. I'm not looking for a chance to make myself look good. It's about the vision of the director. Good or bad, they tell the story their way. In the case of a weak director, yes the DP is an undercover director and ends up saving the film or at least ensures that it wraps.
 
Eh

Eh

Yeah, I agree the director should absolutely have a hand on every aspect, but let the creative professionals you hire do their best work. It's about your vision, but a lot of times those people can add to your vision if you give them the chance to make creative suggestions. Of course there are times you know 100% what you want as the director and can't really bend on that, for important reasons. But a lot of times you have a good idea what you want in general, which covers a range of outcomes and possibilities, and the people you hire help fine-tune that.

I know how I want to see a scene in relationship to shots, i.e. close-ups, mediums, two-shots, masters, and tools, whether dolly, steadicam, handheld, etc. But I don't come into a scene saying yeah we need to pull out the 85mm lens for this one. It's nice to say the director should do that, but there's no practical difference between telling the DP the type of shot I want and him translating that to the lens. If I have to tell the DP what lens to use to get a two-shot of these two characters, there's a problem. He has his knowledge and a 1st and 2nd A.C. to figure this stuff out. I would rather be worried about my performances, frankly. I don't need to be worried about the lenses. It doesn't matter to the viewer whether this is a 50 mm lens or a 85 mm lens, what matters is the shot and how close we are to the characters, what the framing is, etc., and that is the director's responsibility.
 
jimpatro said:
I don't see it as the DP's call to decide what visually works for the film. Story,tone, pacing are the director's vision.

As a director, I storyboard down to the last detail including lenses, camera height, the all important comp.,blocking, general lighting schemes. I relay to the DP what the feel and tone of each scene is. He/she then helps to achieve that feel. The director is not in the business of giving the DP a chance to shine.
Click to expand...

You can work however you'd like, but that statement is generally borderline inaccurate for most working director -dp relationships. Story, tone, and pacing.... yes. But despite knowledge of the craft, the DP should have a huge role, although not final say, in lenses, camera movement, composition and especially lighting. Despite how much you storyboard down to the last detail, 80% of things change when you get to set. I don't know your level of experience, but it happens all the time.

I do however enjoy working with directors who know lenses, and can tell me they think a long lens would do this for the shot and do this for the emotion of the scene. I like when they know basic lighting and can understand my ideas and my goals. I like them knowing and understanding the power and tools of cinematography... but I don't want them handing me a list of what they want as far as lighting diagrams and etc. That seems borderline Director and DP, and me being a gaffer/camera operator. That's not my role as a DP, so I'd find a director that better suits my taste. Like I said, you're not necessarily wrong, but different people seek out different working relationships. You can call yourself Stanley Kubrick all day, but even he let his DP's contribute and 'shine'. About 80-90% of the time, directors give direction to the DP and the DP can make decisions for the visuals he was HIRED to make. If you don't need someone like that, don't hire a DP. Hire a gaffer and camera op and pay yourself the DP's salary.

Like i said earlier, it's about the director-DP relationship. If you are both on the same page and trust each other (and are both talented) it's a relationship for the better, not a one way or flip flop dictatorship of decisions.


I don't see it as the DP's call to decide what visually works for the film.
Click to expand...

By the way... worst quote of the week.
 
Last edited:
Although I don't work with a DP, I have considered it, just haven't done so. However, if I ever do work with a DP, I'll have the same policy I have with my actors: I'm open for collaboration, but for instances when I say I want something done a specific way, just do it. As has been pointed out, there's usually a reason for it, being that the director see's the "big picture". I personally enjoy running camera while directing, and the advent of tapeless media have made it even easier. When I'm shooting, I stay focused on my camera-work, then I bring the actors over and we review the take, watching their performance. I will admit that where I do need help is with lighting, so in that regard, I'm much more willing to give a DP free range, but I would probably still operate.
 
Ultimately, the DP is in service of the director's vision, and you do what he/she says. If it's a small indie production, minimal, low budget, then sure, if the director wants to decide everything down to focal length or placement of lights, it may or may not hurt the production.

But the reason a DP is valuable to a larger production is not strictly for creative reasons, though that's some part of it. He/she also heads up/manages THREE crews: the camera dept, electric, and grip. On a large picture, the task for a director to direct actors, make artistic decisions on wardrobe, art, AND head up those technical departments is all but impossible.

That's why it's a wise director who collaborates with a good DP, who takes part in a give and take. Because a good DP will give his best energies to everyone, including his crew and the director's vision, when he/she feels they are part of the creative process. When you enable somebody, that's when they'll do their best for you.
 
I love it when a director knows what s/he want shot-wise... if they know what they're doing. When dir. starts insisting on shots that cross the line and violate other Film 101 rules, then I wasn't a good pair with that dir. to begin with.

When it comes to technical requests, I don't feel a dir. should micro-manage a DP for the same reason giving a line-read to an actor is a poor idea. By doing either, the dir. will deprive themselves what a talented individual can bring to the table.

Effective direction may be to explain that the dir. envisions a scene played out in near silhouette, but when a dir. starts dictating where and how the lighting units are set up, s/he has just failed to take advantage of the strengths their DP can offer.

I've found myself in the situation of having a dir. insist on coverage I didn't believe would cut together. I explained my stance on the situation, but the director was very insistent on their choices. When it becomes apparent the director will ignore the advice of their crew, my artistic input will cease in favor of ensuring production stays on schedule. Simply put, this is where negative reinforcement will lead.

Of course, like casting, creative differences are best resolved by pairing the right creative heads from the start. I've learned to spot a director who is merely seeking a camera operator and gaffer, and will explain that there are many individuals appropriate for those roles who aren't me.
 
dcarstens said:
I

When it comes to technical requests, I don't feel a dir. should micro-manage a DP for the same reason giving a line-read to an actor is a poor idea. By doing either, the dir. will deprive themselves what a talented individual can bring to the table.
Click to expand...

totally agree here. when i say we set-up guidelines and parameters, I mean to say i'm defining the DP's objectives and intentions for a shot or scene in the same way I would for an actor. knowing what a specific lens will do helps me in that conversation. If we agree a specific lens is the right tool, it's akin to me telling an actor how to arrive at the result we need -- "this is the line of dialogue you'll use to make him jealous".

my saying that I like to call for lenses isn't entirely accurate. I want to be involved in the discussion so I know there is cohesion throughout the shoot -- for example, I might prefer that all close-ups will be done with a 40mm, or that we will avoid or embrace extreme barrel distortion, or that lens flares are appropriate or not appropriate, that sort of thing. because from my point of view, I'm doing everything I can to make the content of the film (actors, story, dialogue, set design) completely unified with its form (cinematography, editing) so that the two elevate each other. not that one is in service to the other, but that they are inseparable.
 
Well, this has sparked quite a nice discussion with some good difference of opinion. Glad to see that some of our more experienced DPs and Directors are chiming in.

Yesterday was the day. I showed up before crew call and spoke privately to the director about my concerns. I first asked if he planned to use the shot to stretch time in the edit suite but that was not the intent. I then expressed my feelings and why. He still wanted to do the shot, and I said ok. Then I suggested we do the shot fairly early in the day while everyone was quite fresh since I knew it would take a lot to get there.

It was slated as shot 5 of the day with the anticipation it would come mid morning. Due to some other circumstances it came right after lunch. Temps were soaring in the 100+ degrees range, and we were working in a warehouse with no air conditioning. It took 7 takes, and about 15 practice runs to get the shot. Overall time on it was about 1 hour. Not awful in the grand scheme but in that heat, it took a lot out of some of the crew. But it's done and the location is wrapped (but not struck).

I have enjoyed the banter here and hope others will chime in. I guess I tend to prefer the director and cinematographer or DP peers if not equals. One having a vision of what they want, and one set on providing that vision by using their talents to execute it. As noted in this thread, when that creative trust is broken, things become more or less mechanical. The shot list if followed, lens selected, storyboard consulted, shot taken. A very nice, orderly process that stays on time and keeps the producer happy. But bereft of creative flow.

I am doing my absolute best work in bringing the vision of my director to fruition, but I am probably not going to be offering more creative input. I did make a suggestion today to the director about something I was seeing scene wise and that advice was taken and printed. So it's not crew input isn't welcome.

Thanks to all so far for being open about their feelings. I hope and feel that discussions like these will help those of us who are perhaps graduating to slightly larger projects with more players involved. I know this has been a great learning experience for me.
 
One of the best series to learn about interaction of director with DP is Kieslowski's "Decalogue" - a series of 1h long episodes made for Polish TV - all written and directed by the same guy but every single one of them looks different (as each had different DP).

Even though each is a melodrama with a soap opera story its strong directing and strong cinematography lifts the series to level of art.
 
Try working *with* this guy:

1279076975.jpg
Click to expand...
I think we can agree on this DP/Director relationship... yikes!

He's obviously damaged goods and a complete amateur... but on topic of calling cut... I'll ONLY call cut as a DP for one reason... Safety. If someone is in danger or there is a potential issue. I'll call cut. Otherwise, I try to establish a signal to the 1st AD and/or Director to let them no the take is no good in my opinion, and I'll let it go on. It's up to them to restart the take immediately or let the actors run it out. I don't think this is anything but a simple courtesy... actors are fragile people and I'll let the director interrupt their performance and not me! :P

But the fact he is so angry and hung up is strange... if the DP does that, just tell the guy to do a signal or something, if it's a big deal. Jeez. No one will respond to that want ad who has half a brain or an ounce of talent.
 
Last edited:
By the way, what's the difference between God and a cinematographer?... God doesn't think he's a cinematographer.

BOOM!

PS: What I don't like is the old trick of blaming the camera dept for an actor's issue. IE... the director trying to protect the actors ego and not anger him/her, by saying we have to reshoot or redo a scene because of a technical camera issue when in reality it's because they need a different performance from the actor. I don't mind this when it's done in private... but when the director says it infront of the crew, it's not cool to the DP and camera dept. This doesn't happen very often, but some directors do it for primadonnas and actors with big egos and short patience. It makes sense to me, but it sucks to be made to look incompetent in front of the crew and others when you're not. :P The director obviously doesn't mean it that way, but they dont think.

The same goes for ANY dp who discusses things with the director on set. DP's are known to be the directors main adviser, confidant, and creative partner... but if the DP objects to the director's decision... or has an alternative suggestion, (unless it's small or in the DP's job description) the DP should always talk to the director in private. Like any chain of command, even creative, it's not good to do these things infront of other crew, clients, or producers. It's another courtesy issue that goes a LONG way!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top