Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Doug, let me ask you this, would you rather hire a DP who reads the script and cares about your project but shoots crappy images due to lack of skill, or a DP who doesn't read the script and doesn't care about your project but shoots quality images you're happy with because they know what they're doing?
The thing is, there's often a correlation; the young whippersnapper fresh out of college is thrilled to get on a project and excited by good and bad scripts because it's work and fun, but they're also inexperienced so may shoot low quality images. Meanwhile, the grumpy old DP who's been schlumming it at the same job for 20-40 years and has lost a lot of excitement about it, as well as having developed trends and styles, they may be considerably less excited to read yet another script, as well as not able to act excited about it after having read it, yet, due to their years of experience at their craft, they're still way more talented than the excited young whippersnapper, and would do a much better job as the DP. Some producer/directors would rather have their ego stroked by the whippersnapper, while the more experienced producer/directors will make their choice based on who they think is best qualified for the job.
I'm technically proficient enough to get shots that generally make my clients happy, and to me that's more important than if they got worried for a bit when during the interview I had said I had not read the script yet.
Do I care about other people's projects? Not typically. As a DP I'm there to make quality images to the best of my ability; they're not hiring me to care about their project. I generally don't care much about the project unless I'm producing it, because when the movie is finished, as a DP, it's not my movie, it's just some movie I contributed a small part to, the part of DP. So many things tend to be more important than cinematography on a production, such as script, acting, directing, sound, and producing, that as a DP, your contributions are on the lower end compared to some of those other positions.
A lot of DPs tend to think, "If the script is good, this may be worth my time." But, at least to me, does the quality of the script really make that much difference? Whether the movie turns out good or bad, it's not my movie, so, what difference does it make to me how good or bad the movie turns out? Sure, if it turns out so awesome it wins Academy Awards that's pretty cool and worth bragging about, boosts your career, etc., but at the low level of ultra low budget films, they're not winning Academy Awards, and even if they turn out good, they're maybe getting 1000 views on YouTube, playing at a few film festivals, and then getting forgotten.
I guess I think of it like a plumber who gets hired to do the plumbing for a home that is being built. Now, the main architect and builder of the home may take pride in how the final home turns out, and the plumber may take pride in their plumbing work, but, does the plumber take much pride in the overall quality of the finished home? Does the plumber ask to see the architect's plans for the home, not just to see where the plumbing should go, but also to verify they actually like the floor plans and designs? Or, does the plumber not care about whether or not they personally like the architect's design choices and is there to just do their job, which is installing the plumbing?
What I think it comes down to is, criticize the results, not the methods. My methods of cinematography do not necessarily rely heavily on the script. It's simply, setup lights, setup cameras and lenses, choose shots and lighting that looks interesting to me, and voila, you've got cinematography that is of similar quality to my previous work, the work the client hired me for in the first place. I don't think my work is bad, you can judge for yourself at TwoSenseFilms.com/narrative.
My work is not high level Hollywood, but at this point of my career I don't aspire to be a high level narrative DP.
And if I'm producing a movie I'm DPing, who am I disrespecting if I don't read the script? Myself? Well, I don't mind, I already know I can get results without reading the script which I'll be happy with. And again, to reiterate, I'll typically read the script before filming, just not always, and often not prior to an interview.
You ever film an interview with a teleprompter script without having read the script? I sure have, practically never read those things, particularly if they're long. Turns out, the specifics of the teleprompter script typically has nothing to do with how one would go about shooting the interview. Sure, the client may say they want it to be lit flat or lit dramatically, may send reference images of previous interviews for that shoot, but aside from them saying those guidelines, generally speaking, the teleprompter script is not that relevant to how a DP would typically choose to shoot a teleprompter interview.
Imagine a DP who shoots every movie with a similar look regardless of the differences in stories. They're a talented DP so they're regularly making quality images, but it's the same each time. Whoever hires them gets quality, but not anything unique to that particular DP (while it may be unique to that client since they hadn't worked with them before). Now imagine another DP who constantly molds their choices to the script, they're trying a lot of different things, different filters, lenses, lighting designs, etc. The problem is, with all this experimentation, it can be hit or miss. Some of their work turns out good, other work turns out bad.
Now as a producer, you've narrowed it down to these two choices, the safe DP who constantly does the same look and quality, or the unique DP who takes risks and some fail and some succeed. Who do you hire? Depends, but I think the answer is it could go either way. If you're producing Avengers, Marvel probably doesn't want you to take huge risks when they know the safe choice will definitely make money. But if it's a lower budget indie that is trying to get it's name on the map, perhaps you're more keen to take risks.
I've got to imagine a lot of DPs read scripts but choose to shoot them the same way they would have if they had not read the script. Imagine a Judd Apatow movie or many standard comedies, pretty flat lighting, nothing unique or artsy about them, but they're competent because they hired a legit DP with a full support crew and gear. It may be as simple as, generic lighting, master shot, closeups, and done. You still have to worry about technical aspects like balancing light coming through windows, lens choice, ISO, etc., but, are you really in those scenarios having your decisions heavily affected by the actual script, or are you just making fairly standard content that is competent but nothing special and could be easily handled and setup just by knowing the general idea of the scene at hand?
The thing is, there's often a correlation; the young whippersnapper fresh out of college is thrilled to get on a project and excited by good and bad scripts because it's work and fun, but they're also inexperienced so may shoot low quality images. Meanwhile, the grumpy old DP who's been schlumming it at the same job for 20-40 years and has lost a lot of excitement about it, as well as having developed trends and styles, they may be considerably less excited to read yet another script, as well as not able to act excited about it after having read it, yet, due to their years of experience at their craft, they're still way more talented than the excited young whippersnapper, and would do a much better job as the DP. Some producer/directors would rather have their ego stroked by the whippersnapper, while the more experienced producer/directors will make their choice based on who they think is best qualified for the job.
I'm technically proficient enough to get shots that generally make my clients happy, and to me that's more important than if they got worried for a bit when during the interview I had said I had not read the script yet.
Do I care about other people's projects? Not typically. As a DP I'm there to make quality images to the best of my ability; they're not hiring me to care about their project. I generally don't care much about the project unless I'm producing it, because when the movie is finished, as a DP, it's not my movie, it's just some movie I contributed a small part to, the part of DP. So many things tend to be more important than cinematography on a production, such as script, acting, directing, sound, and producing, that as a DP, your contributions are on the lower end compared to some of those other positions.
A lot of DPs tend to think, "If the script is good, this may be worth my time." But, at least to me, does the quality of the script really make that much difference? Whether the movie turns out good or bad, it's not my movie, so, what difference does it make to me how good or bad the movie turns out? Sure, if it turns out so awesome it wins Academy Awards that's pretty cool and worth bragging about, boosts your career, etc., but at the low level of ultra low budget films, they're not winning Academy Awards, and even if they turn out good, they're maybe getting 1000 views on YouTube, playing at a few film festivals, and then getting forgotten.
I guess I think of it like a plumber who gets hired to do the plumbing for a home that is being built. Now, the main architect and builder of the home may take pride in how the final home turns out, and the plumber may take pride in their plumbing work, but, does the plumber take much pride in the overall quality of the finished home? Does the plumber ask to see the architect's plans for the home, not just to see where the plumbing should go, but also to verify they actually like the floor plans and designs? Or, does the plumber not care about whether or not they personally like the architect's design choices and is there to just do their job, which is installing the plumbing?
What I think it comes down to is, criticize the results, not the methods. My methods of cinematography do not necessarily rely heavily on the script. It's simply, setup lights, setup cameras and lenses, choose shots and lighting that looks interesting to me, and voila, you've got cinematography that is of similar quality to my previous work, the work the client hired me for in the first place. I don't think my work is bad, you can judge for yourself at TwoSenseFilms.com/narrative.
My work is not high level Hollywood, but at this point of my career I don't aspire to be a high level narrative DP.
And if I'm producing a movie I'm DPing, who am I disrespecting if I don't read the script? Myself? Well, I don't mind, I already know I can get results without reading the script which I'll be happy with. And again, to reiterate, I'll typically read the script before filming, just not always, and often not prior to an interview.
You ever film an interview with a teleprompter script without having read the script? I sure have, practically never read those things, particularly if they're long. Turns out, the specifics of the teleprompter script typically has nothing to do with how one would go about shooting the interview. Sure, the client may say they want it to be lit flat or lit dramatically, may send reference images of previous interviews for that shoot, but aside from them saying those guidelines, generally speaking, the teleprompter script is not that relevant to how a DP would typically choose to shoot a teleprompter interview.
Imagine a DP who shoots every movie with a similar look regardless of the differences in stories. They're a talented DP so they're regularly making quality images, but it's the same each time. Whoever hires them gets quality, but not anything unique to that particular DP (while it may be unique to that client since they hadn't worked with them before). Now imagine another DP who constantly molds their choices to the script, they're trying a lot of different things, different filters, lenses, lighting designs, etc. The problem is, with all this experimentation, it can be hit or miss. Some of their work turns out good, other work turns out bad.
Now as a producer, you've narrowed it down to these two choices, the safe DP who constantly does the same look and quality, or the unique DP who takes risks and some fail and some succeed. Who do you hire? Depends, but I think the answer is it could go either way. If you're producing Avengers, Marvel probably doesn't want you to take huge risks when they know the safe choice will definitely make money. But if it's a lower budget indie that is trying to get it's name on the map, perhaps you're more keen to take risks.
I've got to imagine a lot of DPs read scripts but choose to shoot them the same way they would have if they had not read the script. Imagine a Judd Apatow movie or many standard comedies, pretty flat lighting, nothing unique or artsy about them, but they're competent because they hired a legit DP with a full support crew and gear. It may be as simple as, generic lighting, master shot, closeups, and done. You still have to worry about technical aspects like balancing light coming through windows, lens choice, ISO, etc., but, are you really in those scenarios having your decisions heavily affected by the actual script, or are you just making fairly standard content that is competent but nothing special and could be easily handled and setup just by knowing the general idea of the scene at hand?
Last edited:
