role of cinematographer

[Lazlo]

David, I've had a concern for sometime now, and I was really interested to hear your thoughts and experience on the matter.

In working with directors on a professional level (i.e. not student films), how often is your role as DP simply a "technical" position in which you do exactly what the director tells you to do? Because I love cinematography, but I'm worried about coming into the business, and then having little/no artistic say in stuff, just carrying out exactly what the director tells me to do... which is a depressing thought. Obviously this varies from director to director, and production to production. But generally, how much artistic control/license do we get as cinematographers? Thanks.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It varies from director to director, but it hasn't been a problem with me because if I sense during the job interview that that's all the director wants, just someone competent to push the trigger on the camera, etc., not an artistic collaborator, then I don't take the job.

I tell them that up front when I sense that, that I'm not interested if all they are looking for is competency because there are hundreds of people capable of working at that level. I'm looking for an artistic challenge.

Most directors want an artistic DP though.

Now when it comes to staging & covering a scene, what lenses to use for that, some directors are more dictatorial than others, but it's only a problem for me if I sense they don't know what they are doing. What I don't really tolerate is when a director tries to micro-manage my lighting. If they want to light the movie themselves, then they should just act as their own DP and not waste my time. That doesn't mean I don't collaborate with the director on decisions that affect the lighting -- we discuss the intended mood, I tell the director what I'm planning on doing, we discuss any adjustments he wants to make, etc. If he says "I pictured this scene much darker" then I'll try and make an adjustment to capture that feeling.

Now I supposed if I ever worked for a Ridley Scott or Kubrick, I'd sit back more and let them show me how to light when they felt like interfering -- at least one experience like that in my career would be tolerable, even useful, instructive. But most directors have a rudimentary knowledge of lighting, or simply are too busy to get involved in it.

Your main limitation in artistic control over the process won't be the director... it will be the schedule. You're allowed to create art, but only if it's fast, fast, fast. Time is everything. The lack of time is probably the single most frustrating aspect of shooting for an artistic effect.