-
Good problem to have….I must EDIT lighting package!
-
Bob,
As someone who brings a “truck load” of equipment to every shoot, I have often heard this sentiment about “intimidating” the subject. I firmly believe however, after more than thirty years of doing this type of work, it’s not the number of light stands or amount of kit that intimidates people, but rather the more common problem of insensitive crew and/or producers who fail to put themselves in the subjects position and create a tension that is poisonous to the task at hand.
The manifesto you refer to (and which I also forget the name of) has nothing to do with putting any subject at ease, but rather creating a more democratic playing field where production value created by higher resources is trumped by content and technique that does not cost anything. The fact is that neophytes with good ideas or skills they bring from other disciplines, often make better films than multimillion dollar Hollywood productions.
JS
-
Dogme 95 was the Danish movement. The rules are included in a good Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
Rick Wise
Cinematographer
San Francisco Bay Area
https://www.RickWiseDP.com -
Bob, hopefully that was “interesting choices” in a good way 🙂
Keeping interview talent comfortable in the sense you describe is always a case-by-case basis for me. Speaking strictly from the perspective of gear amount I can’t say that I necessarily go out of my way to do so (aside from issues of heat/temperature). I also don’t think I’ve ever heard about anyone expressing such discomfort. I certainly concur with John though, being personable and easy to work with is always a must. Hopefully funny and charming too!
I do usually keep my subject lighting (fairly) minimal, which itself might lessen any potential intimidation factor. I use as large a soft source as I can from one side of the face and often don’t use fill, or if I do it’s a subtle, passive bounce. I never use an actual light for fill on a single-subject interview unless I absolutely have to! I will often times eschew backlight as well, preferring instead to light the background behind the subject’s head, which accomplishes the same task and often looks better to me. So generally the subject doesn’t really have much staring them in the face to be intimidated by.
I’m curious as to what others’ answers to your hypothetical scenario would be!
Erik
-
Excellent point. I couldn’t agree more about the importance of good manners and empathy on the part of the crew and producers. When I read your comment, it immediately called some scenes to mind, of strutting, self-important production people (including myself, when I was getting started. Cringe!)
The relevance of Dogme 95 (thanks Rick) is that it is possible to achieve good results with less gear.
While I agree with you, John, that the attitude of the personnel make by far the biggest difference, I still believe that there are situations where a more intimate approach (fewer people and less equipment) can be helpful. As with features shot under Dogme 95 as opposed to Spielberg 2013, the results will definitely be different, though!
-
[Erik Anschicks] “Bob, hopefully that was “interesting choices” in a good way :)”
Yes. I was thinking particularly of the effectiveness-to-weight/bulk ratio of stuff like diffusion, small fixtures, and those light stands. (I’d include a Tota-lite with a ex-small Chimera – that’s a pretty high bang-for-the-ounce.) And I like the Home Depot shopping list. Time will be short, by the time you realize you’re not getting the checked gear!
To avoid the delayed bags problem, the best strategy, though, is to try not to fly out on the last plane of the day.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up