Some Q&A with Roger Deakins

(extracted and compiled from his forum: rogerdeakins.com)

ON CHOOSING A LIGHTING PLAN

QUESTION -- Mr. Deakins, when you are composing a scene, how do you begin to shape it with elements of light? Do you have a clear understanding as to the source and quality of light you want, and the tools to create it?

ANSWER -- My starting point is always the same and it begins with the script. I decide on the look of the lighting I am after for each moment in the script and, from that, for each specific set. Only having made that decision will I choose the kind of lamps, diffusion, reflectors etc. I will use to create, as close as I can, that predetermined look. These technical decisions need to be made with as full an awareness of the sets and locations as possible. That sound very predetermined but it's not really. Once I have a plan I can throw it away and I always allow myself a lot of flexibility on the day of shooting. Everything can change when the actors take the stage and the visuals may need to change to reflect that. Today's lighting styles are, broadly, not the same as they were in the day of Murnau and Fellini. For a start the kinds of lamps that are used today allow for quite a different approach to lighting. Bouncing a lamp off a muslin sheet and getting an exposure would have been all but impossible with the kind of output lights used to have even with modern fast film stocks. Combine that with the slow emulsions of the past and the equally slow lenses and it is easy to see why lamps were shone directly onto a subject. Other than the technical changes the style of shooting has changed considerably. A fairly common practice today is to shoot with multiple cameras and to shoot for 'coverage' rather than for a specific shot. This impacts what the cinematographer can do in the way of specific lighting effects as using a soft lighting scheme is far more accommodating to multiple camera set up and allows for a quicker change around from one set up to another. That is not always the case and one can see some great work out there but......

ON CHOOSING B/W NATURALISM & NON-NATURALISM

QUESTION -- Do you approach a movie deciding on weather you want a natural feel or a heightened sense of reality? Do you light with your knowledge as a cinematographer imagining what it would look like to someone who knew nothing about it?

ANSWER -- Surely, what is creatively 'acceptable' is dependent on the nature of the project. Most of the films I have shot have been based in reality, so it follows that much of what I do is founded in a naturalistic approach. That said, there are scenes within many films I have worked on where I have felt it 'acceptable' to stretch what might be considered naturalistic, sometimes to an extreme (The Man Who Wasn't There). Of course, what I might deem 'acceptable' is in no way a universal norm. I wouldn't say that I ever think about how an audience will perceive the way I light something. To me Cinematography is a personal interpretation. In response to a script and a Director, I will light a film in a way that I feel reflects the Directors viewpoint, compliments the story and hopefully enhances the telling of that story.

ON SHARP / UNJUSTIFIED SHADOWS

COMMENT -- today the use of sharp shadows throughout a film would most likely be rendered unexceptable, unless of course it was a direct address to films of Howe's time. I am not suggesting that his films fall short, only to point out how things have changed and evolved.

RESPONSE -- There is a difference between shadows that appear to be natural and the multitude of confused shadow play that you see in some poorly photographed films. I like it when I can justify playing with direct light and strong shadows but, as always, you have to be careful not to create something that is just showy for it's own sake. 'Hud' was about as perfectly a photographed film as any I can think of, whether that includes the odd 'unjustified' shadow or not. The bottom line is whether such artificial shadows are ever a distraction and whether the photography helps the story. With all of our modern technology there is no one who can match James Wong Howe's ability to control light in the service of the story. I don't suppose it was any different for James Wong Howe than it is today. Sometimes we will accept a shadow that we don't like because other aspects of the shot override this 'blemish'. It's is all a matter of compromise in the end. We all strive for our own perfection, which to some people is a shadow less environment, but we all have to shoot a schedule and keep to a budget.

ON THE CINEMATOGRAPHER VS THE TECHNOLOGY

QUESTION -- There is something 'blazingly' brilliant about the look of "Apocalypse Now." To start with, the colors strike the eye, almost in an unpleaseant excess, but then settle into a beautiful look. The resolution seems incredible. It seems almost wierd that the filmmakers achieved this look in the 70's (compared to how other films from that period appeared). Was there a special technical process used to create this look? Especially one that was expensive and could not be afforded by cheaper production budgets of the time? I haven't seen any other 70's movie that looks this "technically" high in quality. Any insight appreciated.

ANSWER -- The special 'technique' used on this film was called Vittorio Storaro! It is films like 'Apocalypse' which clearly show the difference that a true expert in cinematography can make. How could you expect every film from the same era to look as good when they were not all shot by cinematographers with comparable expertise.

RESPONSE TO ANSWER -- Thanks. The differential is just so great that my first response was to attribute it to technology :)

RESPONSE TO THE RESPONSE -- I can understand that but we all have access to the same technology. Sometimes (actually much of the time) I am saddened that the human aspect of what it takes to create telling images takes a back seat to the technology that is used. A film like 'Apocalypse' shows that there is so much more to film making than just using the latest technical wizardry.