The Girlfriend Experience

[Brian Parker]

Was looking at trailer/stills for Steven Soderbergh's new film and really liked some of the imagery. Now I know he shot it with a Red but I heard that it was shot with all natural lighting and no studio setups. That part I'm not sure about. There was some great light in some of these shots that I'm not sure you can get naturally, even with a Red.

So any of you guys checked this out and can give some insight?

 

[Zak Forsman]

All natural light. I'm beginning to follow the same philosophy of capturing the inherent beauty of natural light and blocking scenes in a way that is organic to the space I'm working in. I started playing with this in Heart of Now and I didn't use any lights in Model/Photographer. This appeals to me for two reasons: it looks real and i have a very low tolerance for scenes that look lit, and second I don't like losing momentum with the actors waiting for the next set-up. working this way allows us more freedom to move within the space and not have to move a ton of stuff around so we can resume shooting.



Soderbergh only set up a light for a bar scene (and later regretted it). there is an article here.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/spring2009/girlfriend-experience.php

excerpt...

How was using the RED camera different this time than when you worked with it on Che? It was more sensitive than when we used it on Che. You know, I shot The Informant [with the Red] last spring, but I wasn’t really in a situation where sensitivity was as much of an issue as it was on GFE. So for me that [heightened sensitivity to light] was a big plus because we were shooting anamorphic and I was kind of restricted to shooting stuff at 2.8. Basically I can’t go much wider than that, stop-wise, and so I really needed that extra sensitivity. It meant I could go out on the street or be in a car, still be able to shoot available light and be really pleased with what we were getting. So, [the Red] just keeps getting better.

What about your approach to lighting? There are only two shots in the film where I pulled out a light.

Wow. Literally. And frankly I wish I hadn’t. They’re my two least favorite shots.

Can I ask what they are? There is the one scene in the restaurant where she meets with this manager that her accountant wants her to talk to, and there’s one shot near the end, after she’s come home from the weekend. She goes across the street and there’s a quick shot of her having a drink in a bar across the street. In both situations I added a little sort of red fill light, and I look at the movie now and I hate it. Literally, everything else was available light.

Going into those scenes where there’s natural backlight and the actors in the foreground are completely in shadow or in profile, did you know that that’s what the effect was going to be? What I’ve been trying to do lately — especially on these films because it’s harder to do on the Ocean’s films — is to design the shots based on where the light is and not where I want it to be. It’s been an almost decade-long process since Traffic, and it’s a different way of working and thinking. I find the results are more interesting. And it’s not just [natural light] because sometimes you’re walking into environments that have artificial light. But again, I’ve tried to be really, really rigorous about going after something that feels real, not imposing my will on the frame but adapting. For me it’s just more exciting, more distinctive and less predictable. I’m not controlling the environment; I’m keying off of the environment.

I take it The Informant was more conventionally lit? Yeah, a little bit. It’s still mostly me walking in and sort of saying, “Okay, here’s what the place looks like and as a result I’m going to compose this way.”

In terms of the color correct, did you accentuate in post any of the color palettes that seem to be present in the film? Not a lot. I mean, it’s a raw capture.The [Red camera] raw capture arbitrarily is sort of set at the daylight Kelvin level. What I’ve been doing lately is just keeping everything like that. So basically the whole movie is balanced to daylight, and what I find interesting about that is the way all the artificial light responds and mixes. All the incandescent light goes really, really warm, and fluorescents go in many different directions depending on what kind of tubes you’re dealing with. I just like the fact that the artificial light sort of explodes with color because you’re shooting everything in daylight balance. In a couple cases even shooting [daylight] balance for daylight stuff tended to cool off depending on what time of day we were shooting.

I presume you used a very tiny crew. Right.

 

[Jon Starr]

I don't know much about the red, and I'm no expert in lighting, but does that mean it picks up more light?

From my understanding, the intention of using lights, aside from controlling the lighting, is so that cameras can pick up something on screen. I mean I'm learning with 16mm film stock, and that obviously needs more light, but working with DVX's I've always needed a bit of light.

Also, isn't the intention of lighting to mimic real light anyways? Say to mimic the light coming from that lamp? Plus controlling the lighting also allows you to control the DoF.

It's a good look anyways. but I know in the few times I've done lighting, it's to mimic real light, nothing more. Maybe a bit of edge just to give a surreal stylistic look, only if it asked for it.

 

[Brian Parker]

Thanks Zak. I guess the Red is just that good. Wow.

Yeah, I really liked the organic feel that Model/Photographer had. Between your work, and the other stuff I've seen like GFE, I'm beginning to develop a love for natural lighting as well. There's just something about it that keeps me involved but I haven't seen it used in a way that feels "artsy" or pretentious.

I'm still trying to learn as much as I can about lighting and or using natural light.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I don't know much about the red, and I'm no expert in lighting, but does that mean it picks up more light?

From my understanding, the intention of using lights, aside from controlling the lighting, is so that cameras can pick up something on screen. I mean I'm learning with 16mm film stock, and that obviously needs more light, but working with DVX's I've always needed a bit of light.

Also, isn't the intention of lighting to mimic real light anyways? Say to mimic the light coming from that lamp? Plus controlling the lighting also allows you to control the DoF.

It's a good look anyways. but I know in the few times I've done lighting, it's to mimic real light, nothing more. Maybe a bit of edge just to give a surreal stylistic look, only if it asked for it.

it's a pretty rare thing (for me at least) to see lighting intended to mimic available light, that actually looks like available light. this is just "my look". either way is valid. i just prefer spaces lit with practicals so we can move around and discover what works organically rather than to light each shot. and making it beautiful is a learned skill just like conventional lighting.

some screenshots from HEART OF NOW that had no lighting set-up. they are locations that were scouted and scheduled for when the light was at its most ideal. or in the case of the third one, the actor is interacting with the practical light source.

and these from ELOQUENT GRAFFITI. the second one down is me shooting thru the necks of two beer bottles that were doing interesting things to the light in the bar we shot in.

 

[Jon Starr]

Well it's definitely a very beautiful look. I love how Model/Photographer looks.

I'll be sure to try just using practicals. But surely you sometimes chose the practicals and carefully decided where they went? Did you diffuse any of the practicals? Gels on windows I'm assuming?

 

[Simon Höfer]

How about reflectors?

 

[pmark23]

I'm still trying to get through this film, but I can't get over how BAD the lighting is. I literally can't watch more than 10 minutes at a time. (To be fair, the problem isn't only with lighting -- the dialogue is atrocious and I fear that eventually my eyeballs won't return after yet another roll to the back of the head.)

For being called "natural lighting", it doesn't look very natural at all because it's either underexposed and noisy, or half underexposed/have overexposed. It's distracting and dis-attaching and I find it harder to get pulled into the film.

While I like the concept of "natural lighting" -- and the reason I'm watching this film is because of the comments earlier in the thread -- it's very quickly losing it's appeal to me. Motion camera technology isn't there yet.

I think there's a happy medium where just enough lights and controls are used for proper exposure, but not so that it looks lit.

 

[Austinv]

I am with you pmark23. Natural lighting is hard to pull of and from what I have seen from the movie, the lighting is bad. I think even for a non-filmmaker that it would be distracting.

If I were to use natural lighting it would have to be like Children of Men. That movie was all practicals and it worked wonderfully because they were bright enough to light the scene evenly.

 

[Finnegan]

Zak Forsman, first off, Model/Photographer is phenomenal. One of the better shorts I've seen in quite a while. I love the color, it's so vibrant. I have a couple questions though about how you went about shooting Model/Photographer without any lights at all. I realize that the use of practicals must have been absolutely key for the indoor locations, but for your exteriors, for instance the roof scene - what is lighting your subjects there?

For instance, in this screengrab, there are clearly defined shadows cast on his jacket, and his face (though properly exposed) is hidden by what appears to be a light source casting blue from above and behind him. Is this just a big neon sign on top of the building or something?

 

[bill totolo]

If you don't mind, Zak, can you discuss the cameras involved (with or without adapter) and the color grading, if any, that went into after? I think you have a great look.

 

[Zak Forsman]

thanks for the compliments, guys. the first four screenshots above are from HEART OF NOW and were shot in 2007 with an HVX200 and Brevis 35mm adapter with a 50mm f/1.2 lens. The second set of four are from ELOQUENT GRAFFITI and were shot with a Nikon D90 and a 28mm f/2.0 lens.

sean, the light source on the MODEL/PHOTOGRAPHER exteriors [link] is, as you guessed, a giant blue neon Samsung sign about seven stories above where we were shooting (third floor rooftop patio). largest practical I've ever used. however, the shot that established it as such, didn't make the cut. although you can see it when the male character is driving at the beginning.

Mo/Pho outtake

 

[Finnegan]

That is a very large practical indeed. Now, from my own experience with cams (I haven't shot on a DSLR) even a sign that bright wouldn't cast enough light to get a proper exposure. Did you just bump up the ISO to some enormously fast speed to be able to get a proper exposure from just that light at night?

 

[Zak Forsman]

Yes, although the Nikon doesn't have that option exactly. you've got to trick it a little. I just black out the lens with my hand, set the exposure lock on the camera and adjust the f/stop on the lens to fine-tune the exposure.

 

[Jackson Miller]

Are you getting a 7d zak? I'll be selling my 5dii for one. It's exciting what they can do.

Also, do you use a rig? I think I hear you say you didn't but that seems impossible to me and I have steady hands. Maybe I just need to shoot more to figure it out.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I might. I won't be shooting anything for the next two moths so I'll wait to make a purchase. 7D or whatever comes next.

Sometimes I use rails with a shoulder mount, grips and a follow focus. sometimes I don't because i feel like i can move that much faster and have more choices on placement (when actors are improvising, it helps). on Mo/Pho I was purely handheld which you can see here -> please don't laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8-Iv_h4y-8

 

[Finnegan]

You know what's funny? This morning as I was driving to film class, I passed by the very building you shot Model/Photographer at. It's right on La Brea and Wilshire. I can't believe I didn't recognize it when you linked me the still frame, but I pass by that building every day.

 

[Jon Starr]

So decided to finally check out The Girlfriend Experience... and I turned it off after 20 minutes. Haven't done that since Hitman.

It was more just a bunch of conversations that mostly went nowhere I cared for. My girlfriend watched it and said 'I thought this was a movie'. Not to mention there was very little about the "girlfriend experience" and everything was about the economy and US politics (of which I don't care for being Canadian). Not to mention only 3 years later this film is dated. Reading reviews, it wouldn't have changed much if I watched more.

I just felt like so much more could have been done. The girlfriend experience is a concept that hasn't been touched upon much by cinema. Sure prostitution has, but not to the extend of paying someone to be your girlfriend.

Plus some of that lighting was UGLY. I know it was all practicals, but man, they didn't utilize them well at all times. Sometimes it worked, even if it was mostly under-lit, but sometimes it really didn't.

 

[vcassel]

Zak, I echo everyone else's sentiments: you capture lovely images. I'm inspired.

 

[Zak Forsman]

jeez, this thread is two years old. all the more reason that i need to get on the ball and make another movie.

vcassel, thanks for the kind words. i don't really know what i'm doing half the time so I feel like a bit of a fraud. which makes the encouragement all that much more appreciated.