Directors who operate camera

Gohanto

Gohanto

Veteran
I've read lot of discussions on whether or not a DP should operate camera on-set or have a separate person for it. Aside from a few A-list directors I've read about doing it (Michael Mann and Rodriguez) how common is it for other directors?

I come from a photography background and always design the camera framing and moves very precisely beforehand, so it just always felt natural to operate as well (unless there's a complex move and strong character moments in the shot then I prefer watching the monitor) but I was just curious how common it is on professional sets? Is it just uncommon to be good at both tasks?
 
I personally think that any good director should always operate the camera, but it is said that if that heppens then the direction for actors suffer due to the director having to worry about camera placement and choice of lenses and all that good stuff, me personally if this was a perfect word and I had all the time in the world to shoot and no problems I would operate the camera and direct actors because time is not a problem but we all know this is crazy talk, plus I have seen and learned that directors work with the same dp's and camera op's
many times over, so that is a great thing for the director to trust his crew is going to do a good job but you always wanna chack that framing before calling action nevertheless :) just my mind poured out on html jajaja
 
In the Indie and small crew market this is very common. I DP 95% of everything I Direct. It is not my favorite way to operate, but it is fast.

Keep in mind that when we talk about Mann, Soderburg, Rodriguez. They DP their own stuff, but have quite a great support crew. It is not like when many of us Direct/DP where we carry the camera to the set up and change the lenses ourselves.

In my experience when a director (especially myself) shoots his own stuff it is often not the action that suffers, its the photography. Directors are often more inclined to let a sloppy dolly move go than a sloppy read of a line.
You can certainly direct/dp, just learn and understand your limitations so you can work inside them and get the best scenes possible.

Just my Opinion
 
- Ridley Scott used to operate himself (mostly b or c cam)
- Steven Spielberg operated on some of his movies (before he started his collaborationship with Kaminski)
- Doug Liman
- Lars von Trier
 
jason.adams said:
Directors are often more inclined to let a sloppy dolly move go than a sloppy read of a line.

Just my Opinion
Click to expand...

I think an audience will be inclined to do the same.

I usually mess up something with the shot, a move, lighting, focus...etc if I'm DP'ing and directing, but it gets better with practice.

If you can do it, I say do it!
 
When Michael Mann operates camera a lot on his films I don't think he actually DPs them. He still has someone decide where to set up all the lights, at least I hope he does or else his DPs are getting paid to do nothing. I think some directors thrive when operating camera and directing at the same time. But being in charge of the lighting too would really be taxing. I've done it (and still do it) but only when I can't afford to get a DP that I trust.

Hitchcock claimed that he was responsible for all the visuals in his films moreso than the DP. So he may very well have chosen the lighting setups and lenses on top of the fact that he picked out all the costumes and designed the interiors himself. But he didn't do all that work on set. Hitchcock would spend months keeping diaries that laid out exactly how he wanted each scene to look. Since all the creative decisions had been made before hand, he could just focus on the acting when he directed.

davide
 
It is not very professional to have a DOP/director combination! Most of the professional directors you guys mention operate the camera, but are not the DOP. You need a person who is highly trained to make the crucial light and camera decisions.

As a director you have to communicate with all the people on set. Hitchcock didn't cut the fabric for the costumes, and I'm almost centrain he didn't opperate the camera. He knew exactly what he wanted to see, and all he did was: he communicated with the cast and crew in a very good way.

If you want to be a director, you shouldn't scream directions from behind the camera, but you have to be the most energetic person on the set, who talks with the actors about their performance, with the crew about how they operate. You have to be the guy (or girl) who knows it all. You can't do that while setting up the lights and the DIY rails. It's just not possible.

If you want to take yourself seriously as a director, you put your whole energy in directing. If you don't, you're just some DOP who wants to yell directions.
 
Isn't it against union rules for a director to operate the camera? (talking about union films, of course)
 
yes something has to be sacrificed when one person does multiple jobs...sometimes that works for the story and character... sometimes not...

but you brought up somethings I've been thinking about...

1. Should the director know everything? the DP's job is the Apex between Technology and creativity... does the director and actors need to know about the machine behind the magic...

2. does the director need to have the most energy on set? I often work with quiet subdued directors, where I have much more energy and Alpha dog the set... is that bad? or even the way it should be?

3. should the director be the most experienced on set...It's almost impossible to find indy directors that have directed as many projects as I have shot... or even been on set as many days as I have...

random thoughts...

VP

www.vincentpascoe.com
 
Interesting questions/thoughts. I have finally concluded that while the director is the "most important" in terms of being final arbiter of creative decisions, he's also the least defined. A DP has to know specific technical details--if he doesn't know them, he's not a DP. Similarly, a make-up artist or a grip has to have a specific understanding of his tools and craft. A director might know all those things too, and that breadth of knowledge might contribute to a director's approach to a project, but a director can also be from theatre and never have been on a film set, but have an incredibly deep understanding of story and performance.

So I guess the director is a mysterious animal, and every one is different, and every set is different. In some ways I think this detracts from directing as an "art," because a director's contribution to the film can really be very unclear unless you were there on set (did the DP choose the shots? did the actor nail their performance without any notes? did the Production Designer deliver a completely original look, independent of the director's abilities?).

Maybe it's only over time, seeing a director's body of work, you start to see where the "real directors" are leaving a signature mark. A consistency of style, tone and subject matter. But there is no one director type or skill. The guy directing the latest Saw is (for better or worse) a "trap designer." He designed all the macabre killing tools on the previous Saw movies, but he isn't a dramaturge nor does he have previous directing experience apparently. Some directors specialize in special effects. Some are simply stern commanders of precarious ships. Sometimes, aren't directors really the least important in the chain? And only when they're the real thing do they become the most important?

I love to operate camera. But I find the more productions I direct, the less I'm getting on the camera, because I'm doing too many other things. I really want to get on the camera more. I think if I didn't have to also wear so many hats (producer, coordinator, etc.) I'd insist on being on camera more.
 
Last edited:
Its funny that this thread was posted because I'm in this situation right now.

I'm shooting my first feature in about 30 days and in the end I'm splitting the DP job into 3 different people. In my case I have a small crew where experience isn't extremely high but everyone has a decent amount. Since we're all going to work together a bit more collaboratively then is usual, I'm hoping things go easier.

I'll have most of my shots drawn up and planned before the day and I have a very specific idea on how I want my shots done, what angles, etc. and I will be in charge of that and approving the shots BUT lighting isn't my strong point. I know how I want it to look but don't have the experience to get it there. So my Lighting Director will be helping me get the shot where I want it. I have a guy who will actually be behind the camera to execute the shot while I pay attention to the performance.

So its a three way deal, we're all going to work together to get it done but I'll be making the decisions. Different way to go about it but thats all I got.
 
this is one of my main concerns as I find my niche in film-making. so far, all the projects I directed I have also shot, with the exception of a few sequences where I appear in the film. the question I always asked myself is if I can continue working the camera, directing, and designing each shot and frame of the film. I find that I really, really enjoy crafting the lighting, framing, color, and everything that is included in mise-en-scene but at the same time I feel like my knowledge of performance and narrative trumps my visual creativity and that if I keep doing both, one or the other will suffer.

so, what it really comes down to is this: am I better off doing both until I can't any longer do it without sacrificing some part of the film as a whole, or do I find myself a good DP early and focus on my strengths?
 
Vincent Pascoe said:
yes something has to be sacrificed when one person does multiple jobs...
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.

1. Should the director know everything? the DP's job is the Apex between Technology and creativity... does the director and actors need to know about the machine behind the magic...
Click to expand...
Let's try it in a different industry: does the driver need to know how to repair the car? Obviously not. Driving skill is what the driver needs; the mechanics and operations are better left to someone else.

I'd take a stageplay director who knows character and motivation and blocking, over a D.P.-who-thinks-he's-a-director, any day of the week.

2. does the director need to have the most energy on set? I often work with quiet subdued directors, where I have much more energy and Alpha dog the set... is that bad? or even the way it should be?
Click to expand...
The energy level is in no way tied to what they know and how they go about getting it. The director should know how to direct. They should know the story inside and out, upside and down, and have a vision for bringing it to life.

3. should the director be the most experienced on set...
Click to expand...
How is that even relevant? The director should know what they're doing, but -- again -- I'd take Jack Daniel Stanley working on his first film ever, over some 1st AC who's been working on sets for the last 40 years. The director should know how to direct films. Anything else is irrelevant. Dale Earnhardt Jr. does not need to know what the spark plug gap is, in order to win a nascar event. I don't think a film director NEEDS to know what the difference is between a 50mm and a 35mm lens. It might help, but that's just a bonus.

What the director needs to know is how to turn a great script into a fantastic film, keeping the entire movie in his/her head at all times, employing a creative vision for first-rate storytelling and knowing how to cast the perfect actors for the role and extract the ultimate performances from those actors. If they also happen to know the difference between a PAR and a Mickey, well, that's a bonus in that they can maybe communicate with the crew a little faster. But if the director knows nothing of those things, that's fine too -- they just need to surround themselves with people who will competently do those jobs.
 
Gohanto said:
Aside from a few A-list directors I've read about doing it (Michael Mann and Rodriguez) how common is it for other directors?
Click to expand...

On the commentary track for the most recent release of 2001 a Space Odyssey, I think it is mentioned that Kubrick is actually operating the camera for a couple of the hand-held shots in the movie -- one where the scientists are posing for photos in front on the monolith and the other where Dave walks through the entire spaceship before disconnecting Hal.

I think the commentary even said that on the moon monolith shot, you can see Kubrick's reflection in a space helmet that passes close to the lens. I paused there and I definitely saw the operator's reflection but couldn't really tell if it was Kubrick.

What wasn't discussed was how interesting it was that these shots were handheld in an otherwise very controlled movie, and why Kubrick felt the need to do the handheld work himself.
 
Barry_Green said:
What the director needs to know is how to turn a great script into a fantastic film, keeping the entire movie in his/her head at all times, employing a creative vision for first-rate storytelling and knowing how to cast the perfect actors for the role and extract the ultimate performances from those actors. If they also happen to know the difference between a PAR and a Mickey, well, that's a bonus in that they can maybe communicate with the crew a little faster. But if the director knows nothing of those things, that's fine too -- they just need to surround themselves with people who will competently do those jobs.
Click to expand...

Experience is not only based on knowing the language of the filmindustry. A director needs to be experienced in some way I think, but not nessaceraly in filmmaking. A good manager can be a good director, for example. A director is the person with the final cut of the film hidden between his ears, he just has to communicate with all the different people on the set to make it work. That doesn't reallyrequire technical knowledge, but sometimes it helps.

And on the energy of the director: I think a good director is in some ways still a child. You have to be enthousiastic about what you're making! The crew will notice that and feel better themselves. In a dutch filmmaking book, there's a line: "If daddy's not happy, the children aren't happy." You don't have to jump around the set yelling "oh, man, this is freakin awesome!" but you (imho) must always be the healthy energy on set.
 
The size of your production and budget will most likely be the determining factor in this case. If you are big enough to be a union picture (at least in the US anyway), the director, DP, AND camera op are all separate, required positions..... for all intents and purposes.

This is probably a hot topic because a couple years ago, the unions voted that the camera operator position was no longer a requirement, but an option. Now, if a DP wants to operate, he/she needs to make a formal request which may then be approved or denied by the Local 600. If that request is either denied or not made in the first place, a camera operator is required. Unions are pretty strict about working within your classification. This means a director is not supposed to operate, and if a camera operator is hired and on set, a DP is not supposed to operate.

Operative word in that last sentence is "supposed". The rules are stretched and broken all the time for a variety of reasons. Many of those reasons are the same reasons many non-union films DO have combined positions on set. Time, money and other resources just might not be readily available to allow everybody to focus on only one thing.

A one-position, one-person set is ideal is most situations. We're all aware of the pressures involved during principle photography, even on the smallest of productions. Relieving people of multiple duties allows each member to do the best job with the tasks they're assigned.

Regarding creative freedom being given up by the director if he/she has a separate operator I think is a poor argument. The director is the first person to make the decisions as to who is hired onto the crew. They're not just throwing darts at a production directory. It is their responsibility to seek out and hire people they trust to be able to execute their visions. This is why you see the same director/DP collaborations over and over again. This trickles down to the DP's as well since they have just as much responsibility to find, suggest, and/or hire their camera crew. If the crew is assembled properly, and that synergy is established, the production will run like a well oiled machine.

The reasons for having (and requiring) a full camera crew are based in good wisdom, and most veteran directors and DP's refuse to operate, and recognize the importance of the camera operator's position. We operators are seeing problems with the next generation of cinematographers that are coming into the business in an era of "pick-it-up-and-go" filmmaking, where the equipment is cheap, easy to use, and well made, allowing them to produce finished products relatively quickly and easily. It is difficult to explain to them why certain positions are suggested/required since that is often only the case for the future, when the productions are larger. But what happens when we get to that future, having known only one way of working in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top