[Jason Roberts]

Well, I promised to report back on my experience with the cameras if I got to play with them. I got to play. My student has decided to go with the Sony, and I agree. He is considering the A7sII for the OIS and greater flexibility. We both shoot footage and looked at it on a good-sized plasma, and I have to say, I liked the finished Sony footage better – a slightly softer look, felt good in the hands, and the low light blew my mind. Here’s the impressions I came away with when I took the time to play:

1. The Slog2 feature is . . . . I will say damn. I was able to grading like I’ve never done before. I managed to get the closest I’ve ever come to a Kodachrome look (I know, odd for filmmaking, but I’ve always wanted to try it). Couldn’t get close with the GH4 like I did with the Sony. Used Premiere Pro for manual grading.
2. The menu system for both drives me insane – but that’s because I’m so embedded in Canon’s way of thinking.
3. The GH4 – I will admit, the ability to shoot 4:3 4K externally is … enticing. To get a hold of 2x anamorphic lenses and shoot ultra-widescreen. I would love to try that. Not Lomos – much as I love the look, I’m not nearly a skilled enough cinematographer to get the most out of Lomos. I wonder if the SLR Magic 2x lenses will be worth a damn. And I know one can do a 1.3x on 16:9, I would just love to do something super widescreen, and not through a matte box in post. I have such fond memories of seeing Ben Hur in the local arthouse theatre when I was a teenager. Super widescreen cinematography astounds me.
4. All that being said about the GH4 – I’m not going to lie, the body felt a little cheap. I felt like I might break it if I had to do something risky or rough and tumble with it – I wouldn’t want it within six feet of a fight scene for fear of it getting knocked over and shattering. Of course the Sony would probably shatter as well in that situation.
5. At the end of the day, it comes down to image quality, and shooting to a Shogun (10bit Pro Res), a little grading, and then export – the Sony did better with dark areas, shadows, blacks, etc, even when not in Slog 2 mode. I give them a lot of credit for that camera.

So that’s my two cents on it, and I feel my former student is making the right choice on camera. I think he’ll stick with the Canon lenses as well. So at this point, my work is done. Thank you for all your help (even when we got off topic – but hey, tangents can be fun and educational)

[Jason Roberts]

[Rick Wise] “I am glad to see this thread is getting back to the point of the original question. In my view, disrespect has no place on this forum – or anywhere else, for that matter.
“

Thank you. Getting back on track – he is renting a Sony A7S, a Metabones (non-Speedboost) adapter, a Shogun and some Canon EF primes for three days (35mm, 50mm, and 85mm). They should be arriving tomorrow I believe. I’m hoping he’ll let me play with it a bit when it arrives – I’d love to play with the Slog 2 feature. Three days of that, and when the Sony is returned, he’ll get the GH4 with the Metabones MFT adapter, and different lenses (I wish I could remember which ones, but I know they’re much wider angle to compensate for the MFT, so it’ll be interesting to see how he works with that) for three days as well. I’d like to play with that as well. I’ll let you know how it goes and what he decides.

[Jason Roberts]

[Gary Huff] “You should be right if you want to teach, because if you’re wrong, then what is the value of what you are teaching?
“

I’m referring to being emotionally right. There I have no interest because emotional arguments aren’t ever really won, they just kind of stop. And when it comes to emotional argument, the worst is when you’re trying to argue the “truth”, because truth is a slippery thing. Intellectually, I will argue right and wrong when dealing with provable facts. Being in the arts, I tell my kids to stop worry about right and wrong when it comes to art, and worry instead about strong vs weak – make the bold choice in a shot, make the comment that uses the vocabulary to the discipline in a useful way – don’t take the easy and quick way out.

[Gary Huff] “In fact, I think auteur attitudes would do your students a great disservice in not discussing the equal contributions of everyone who was involved, from Toland having a “fresh” director that allowed his suggestions to be implemented for the visual style, Robert Wise’s editing (a man who went on to also leave his mark on cinema)”

I know auteur theory has come under a lot of fire, particularly in the past few years. And I understand why. Film, by its very nature, is a collaborative art form, with a lot of people working together to bring about something that’s worth 90 minutes of people’s time. Not everyone can be a Robert Rodiguez or Shane Carruth (director, writer, editor, cinematographer, composer, and who knows what else). At the end of the day, however, an army must have one central authority, a person who has the ability to say “Go this way” and everyone will go that way. Under current theory, that’s the director. Years ago, at the height of the studio system, it was the producer. I have heard arguments in recent years that writers don’t get enough credit (which I agree with). One of the most educational experiences I had learning about film in my youth was listening to the commentary track on “The Limey”, done by Lem Dobbs and Soderbergh (and it tells you something that I can just say the last name of the director and people will know who I mention, whereas the writer I have to give the full name), in which Dobbs kept talking about what Soderbergh had done to “his” film, and Soderbergh remaining polite and nice throughout the almost-tirade, trying to explain that the page doesn’t always make it to the screen in an exact way – and in fact, probably shouldn’t (Soderbergh’s point), and if Dobbs didn’t like the end result, he should direct his own film. Listening to the compromises that were made along the path are fascinating, and the whole team is talked about when he talks about the process. Dobbs focuses on the differences between the script and the film.

But I digress. You’re right, there are many great names that most kids don’t learn about when it comes to filmmaking because of their role in the hierarchy. They may not know the names of Bert Glennon, Dede Allen, Gordon Willis, Thelma Schoolmaker – obviously I could on, but basically the names that aren’t above the title on the marquee, and are buried somewhere mid-credits before the start of a movie. What I do encourage is for students to look at director’s work over a period of time, and see who their most frequent collaborators are, and then have them analyze why that may be – beyond the shorthand that comes from individuals who collaborate often. And then look at the work of those individuals on films outside of those common collaborations. So while the director is a starting point and the general, the lieutenants do deserve credit, and I try as best I can to give it where it’s due.

[Jason Roberts]

[Gary Huff] “Oh please, get over yourself”

As much as I am not one to ruffle feathers – I have looked at many of your posts, and you have used this phrase quite often. Have you thought of applying it to yourself? Because as opposed to practicing kindness in intellectual debate, you tend to talk at people, and not with them. Let me ask this – had I inserted the word “film” in the phrase “first-time director”, would you have decided to question whether I should be practicing my profession? If so, why? And I did mix up DP and Producer, that is a certainly a mistake – what I get for responding too quickly without checking the facts I’m sure of in my head.

[Gary Huff] “then what is left that is explicitly different from directing stage vs directing cinema”

As a director of both, I will be happy to offer my view on this.

Directing for stage – the fourth wall through which the audience looks is not moveable. There is no closeup, or 30 degree rule. Theatre is just as much a visual art as a performing art, and visual technique is used by way of levels, placement of actors in physical space – such as creating a diagonal across the downstage and upstage areas – in order to create emotional tension. Additionally varying levels can and are used. The visuals and physical placement and movement of actors are used to display and further emotion, because on stage an actor’s primary tool is the body. In theatre, actors have more freedom of movement – there are times when actors must know their marks because of special lighting cues, and lighting and movement in combination with carefully crafted vocal work are all used together to direct the audience’s focus at a given time. That being said, one night an actor may suddenly walk towards another actor as a result of an emotional response, and the next night walk away for another emotional reason. The whole body is used by an actor because of the distance between the furthest audience member and the actor. In additional to all those elements are sound and set design. Sound is meant to enhance the vocal work of the actors, and the set both establishes space as well as serving as an obstacle course for actors to traverse as they move about the stage, using them as barriers or something to tie into.

Directing for film – the fourth wall is somewhat to totally moveable (depending on how one wishes to use the 180 degree rule and 30 degree rules, from slavish to throwing it out the window). Film is, at its core, a visual art – at its most basic, film does not NEED actors, dialogue, sound, or anything else except a series of images juxtaposed against each other to create tension and meaning. Of course the vast majority of people prefer their movies with good actors and sound and dialogue. In film, the primary tool of the actor is the face, particularly the eyes, because of the popularity in mainstream film of using a medium shot or closer. In film we see much more of an actor’s emotion and thinking in their eyes because of how most directors chose to place a camera, whereas on stage the whole body must be used to convey such things. Example: look at Jessie Eisenberg’s performance in “The Social Network”. He barely, if ever, moves his head to look at people, or to think – but his eyes quickly move from point to point, and we can see what he’s thinking. Or Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”, and he choses to look directly at someone with his eyes as opposed to when they’re looking at something else, even when his face is turned towards them. This is an entirely different mode of acting than on stage, a different mindset, and both the director and actor need to be on that wavelength. In film, focus of the audience is decided quite often by the use of focus on camera – a shallow depth of field and the audience has little to no choice where to look, whereas deep focus gives an audience much more choice where to look, how to interpret an image. Focus of an audience is also directed through use of lighting and color (which is also done on stage of course). In film, unless truly deep focus is used, there is little room for an actor to be spontaneous in terms of movement – they must hit their marks as the focus dictates. If the actor deviates from that, and the director decides it works, lighting and focus must be completely changed and the movement replicated – and what if on the second or third or fourth take the movement has lost its emotional authenticity? Also, an actor on stage, if they are a lead, is working for about two hours straight, lights up to curtain call – there is a immersion in the world, the ability live truthfully in imaginary circumstances that is sustained over a long period of time. If shooting on 35mm film, the longest an actor is immersed in the world (unless they decide to never break character even when cameras aren’t rolling) is 11 minutes (I believe that’s the running time of a 1000ft of film?). Then there is a break, the changing of lights and setting up for a new shot, etc – the imaginary circumstances are “broken” for a period of time. Vocal work is much different for film than for stage. On stage, unless you are wearing a mic, you must know how to train and use your diaphragm in order to project properly so that the cheap seats can hear and understand you – and with that amplified voice, still approach something that resembles natural speech. In film, one always allows for a mic, so that the actor does not have to think about intonation and inflection in combination with projection (which is much different from loudness vs softness of course, and why actors who grow up in one world often have difficulty moving successfully into another medium. The same goes for writers and directors). I know that I have talked much about the differences for actors, and that’s because a director has to know these differences and coach actors differently for each medium. That would be one of the key points. The other key point would be using the camera’s focus and light and color to direct the audience’s attention, whereas on stage it’s lighting, physical placement on the stage, levels, lines & diagonals, and voice.

Here is my final argument – once a play starts rolling, it’s the actors who are really in charge, along with the stage manager. They can decide what to do on a given night to give a performance, and the technical crew is usually good and fast enough to change things as necessary if an actor does something spontaneous – the performance isn’t going to stop for anything short of a heart attack or fire. On a contemporary film set, the director is theoretically the one in charge, and can stop things at any time, and dictate every aspect of what will be caught on the camera, and what of those captured items will make up the final product.

I am not bothered if you disagree with my breakdown of what I feel is different, this is reflective of my experience in the two worlds. I only ask that if you wish to engage in debate with me, please do not condescend. I have no interest in being “right” with someone I do not know and will never meet – I don’t have that interest with most people I know, to be honest. Yes, I enjoy debate, because I enjoy listening and responding to what others have to say. I responded to only two of your sentences because I felt they were the most relevant to respond to – there is much more I could give my opinion on, but I get the feeling this missive will be dismissed. If that is the case then so be it – really, if your dismissal of others because of your sureity of your expertise gives you pleasure, then by all means enjoy any pleasure you may derive from me. Personally, I don’t feed people who think in such ways, and I would like to believe that you don’t either Mr. Huff.

[Jason Roberts]

[Gary Huff] “Which isn’t true. Everyone had a lot of experience by the time it came to Citizen Kane, they weren’t a bunch of newbies who had never done anything similar before.
“

I am referring to Wells as a first-time director. Yes, he was surrounded with incredible talent, coached by a great producer – yet at the end of the day, he was the guy with the bullseye on his head. I know he spent a lot of time studying John Ford to learn technique and technical information (I have yet to see anyone do a talk of the influence of John Ford on Wells and I’d love for someone to do it), and he was an incredibly accomplished storyteller, actor, writer – but not in the medium of film. I live in both the theatrical world and the film world, and they’re so vastly different it makes my brain hurt to think of it. So to think that he was able to take the fantastic visual imagery of his stage work and his words and turn them into the shots he did – while being supported and surrounded by all the right people – into the visual astoundingness that is that movie (I know it’s not a word, but I’m going to use it anyway). That’s what I mean by “didn’t know any better” – I don’t think there’s a better first film by any first-time director than that. He knew what he was doing by not knowing what he was doing – he learned technique and also trusted his instinct, and to see that in a first-timer is rare to never.

[Jason Roberts]

[Mark Suszko] “This amateur movie is going to need very good audio, or even good camerawork will fall flat.”

You’re absolutely right, and when I did a site visit, that was another point of discussion (disadvantage, or maybe an advantage of being a high school-level filmmaker, is that you have to know a little about pretty much damn everything). One great advantage of the apartment is that is a hundred year old wooden floor – nice and creaky and clunky. We talked about how he was going to need to use a lot of that kind of noise for mood and tension – maybe even use a wooden chair for the younger actor, because that in combination with the wooden floor would make for some excellent use of ambient sound at the right times.

He knows the importance of sound design. He did a short film his junior year for me (8 minute variation on “The Most Dangerous Game” that mostly took place in a huge abandoned barn) that he entered in a local film festival. Excellently shot, but the sound – it was terrible. He got rid of most the natural sound in favor of overbearing musical score to jack up tension. He didn’t place. His senior year I hooked him up with another student of mine who was interested only in sound design and musical composition, and they spent six weeks completely redoing it – almost all of the music was gone, replaced almost entirely with environmental sound (wind howling outside, creaks, crashes, etc). I also had him cut 45 seconds out of it (and man, who would he look at me with near-hate when I’d say things like “you need to cut the last five frames from this shot”), and he submitted to another film festival, and won the Drama category. Based on that and our conversation they’ve become almost adamant about using no music, which isn’t as far as I would go – but hey, it’s not my movie, I’m just trying to provide a bit of advice.

I emailed his parents last night and said they’re just going to have to let him rent a package of each camera with some primes for the weekend and see what he likes better. I know I’d personally go with the A7S just because I’m a full-frame man and I get so particular about color grading it borders on OCD, but then again it’s not my money.

[Jason Roberts]

[Todd Terry] “Which is technically crazy, but from an actor’s standpoint isn’t a bad idea. Being his first movie, John Hughes shot The Breakfast Club in sequence because, unbelievably, he didn’t know you didn’t have to do that. Which did make for a crazy shoot for the crew, but allowed for perfect character growth for the actors… so in this case it might not be a bad idea.”

You know, I love it when a director doesn’t “know any better”, and amazing stuff happens as a result(Citizen Kane, anyone?). That shooting in sequence did allow the actors to improvise the whole “why are you in detention” sequence, which may have had a few moments that were a little too on the nose, but goddamn if there aren’t some of the most honest moments about being a teenager ever captured on film in that sequence. We have talked about the in sequence idea for this project, and it may be the only way to go because of the nature of the conflict and its climax.

[Todd Terry] “And yes, I think Hopkins is our finest living actor. I would gladly give a year’s salary just to sharpen his pencils for a week. His ability stuns me.
“

Can you imagine being Bryan Cranston when he got that letter from Hopkins about Breaking Bad? If I had been Cranston, I would have framed that sucker and retired immediately – because where the hell do you go from there?

And sorry to all Cinematographers that this has turned into an acting discussion. Well, not really – after all, the performance can be the greatest in the world, but if it’s not filmed properly, it won’t work. Think of “Silence of the Lambs” without those straight-on closeups of Foster and Hopkins in the jail – I think done with a 50mm lens to make it almost perfect eye-like perspective, like you were right in their face. Demme and Fujimoto made such a brilliant choice with those shots – Hopkins staring directly at you with eyes of evil. I’m shivering thinking of what it must have been like to look through a viewfinder for a full day looking at that facial expression.

[Jason Roberts]

[Todd Terry] “‘d be as much (or more) worried about talent on this project… something that weighs so heavy on just two actors constantly on screen is going to require Anthony-Hopkinsesque acting ability to pull it off… or you are going to wind up with something 10x more boring than “My Dinner with Andre.””

I think we spent almost five straight hours talking about this very problem. My other career is acting / directing stage stuff. Six years ago I played the lead in “Talk Radio”, and described the experience for having to deliver a performance sitting behind a desk and wearing aviator sungalsses for an hour forty five minutes – and having 70 percent of the lines – as the most mentally grueling experience of my life. If you know the play or the movie – the mental breakdown that Barry has at the climax of the play? Yeah, I didn’t have to “fake” that too hard when I did it, I was at the point of nervous exhaustion every night from sheer intensity. And their emotional climax – it’s a whopper to pull off, and they want to shoot in sequence – and I could not imagine delivering what the script calls for on the 14th day. Just to give you reference – they said their ideal Hollywood actors would be Paul Giamatti (guy who doesn’t move) and Paul Dano (guy who does move, and there needs to be a significant age difference between the two). I can the Hopkinese idea – I will maintain “Remains of the Day” is two year’s worth of acting master classes in two hours.

They don’t have actors cast yet – they want to do open call / auditions and are willing to pay scale, which means they better pray for some kind of unseen miracle to come out of local talent.

And goddamit, great pic – as a younger man I really wanted to play The Dentist. A little too much grey in my hair and a little less swagger in my step now to make it believable.

[Jason Roberts]

[Mark Suszko] “Or is the script the excuse for buying a lot of gear that will be re-purposed for other projects year-round?”

That was the first question I asked before reading the script. I read the script, and it’s doesn’t strike me as an excuse. I did explain that, if they were going to go with a full-on 4K rig purchased with either of those cameras, I didn’t see getting out of it for less than $10K (tripod, sound equipment, external recorder, follow focus gear, etc).

One of the actors does get out of his chair and move around, the other cannot move around. There’s dramatic purpose to it. I know, I’m being vague, I apologize. An

[Mark Suszko] “This almost demands some dolly work, I’d think.”

They do actually wish to use a gear-based slider, one that can be center mounted on a tripod, so not utterly static.

[Mark Suszko] “I don’t get why these kids don’t rent the entire setup just for the duration of the shoot. That’s how the cool kids do it (Businessmen)”

I checked on the three rental houses closest to us (as I said, four hours away), Sony A7S rents for $150 a day, body only, all three houses (New England). Their schedule calls for two days of camera tests (what they want to accomplish in the bathroom scenes will be a miracle if they can pull it off) and fourteen shooting days – so rental outstrips buying costs at that point. Family is pretty firm on this one – the fun of financiers

[Mark Suszko] “Have the kids re-watch the original “Little Shop Of Horrors” with the sound turned off, to get an idea of what can be done with a single room.
“

Believe it or not, I recommended that one! I directed a stage production of that years ago, and I watched the original so many times, had fond memories of it. I also recommended “The Sunset Limited”, “Sleuth”, and “Phone Booth”.

[Jason Roberts]

[Gary Huff] “Considering that’s the only DP you probably know about (in a pool that includes many talented ones), I don’t think that’s something you can really hold against him.”

Mr. Huff, I decided to wait a couple of days before responding to you, because the day you posted I most likely would have responded with a rather flamish and immature response – I was having a bad day. Therefore, I have waited to respond.

It seems to me that you may not have read my entire post, as earlier in the thread I referred to both the Master of Darkness and one of the best Cinerama cinematographers, so therefore Deakins is not “the only DP” I “probably know about”. I am well versed in the work, theories, and applications of many talented DPs, editors, and 2nd unit directors, both current and historical – the people who are often overlooked in the process when people give a film accolades because their work is fundamentally important to the final product, and if I am to be involved in the filmmaking process on multiple levels, it is in my best interest to learn all the history I can.

Your assumption, based on one post which I talked about Deakins in a particular way and the statements you made based on my (admitted) ranting on a bad day, are both specious and unfounded. I do approve of your attack on my character or knowledge when you know nothing of me, my background or training, and I suspect that your attempts to discredit me through an attack on my authority for which you have no proof is a classic example of appealing to people’s ethos in a negative fashion – and that I consider unacceptable. Sir, you owe me an apology for your first statement.

[Gary Huff] “And it would be a very blah world if everyone tried to emulate Deakins. I bet even Deakins doesn’t always emulate himself.”

And on this I agree with you completely. I don’t think everyone should try to be Deakins – he tends to keep a greater distance from subjects than most (perhaps part of the Coen’s reputation for “coldness” in much of their work) Concurrently, there is nothing wrong with studying a master working at his or her top form – as legend has it, Orson Wells spent weeks watching “Stagecoach” over and over again to study John Ford and Bert Glennon’s techniques so he could make decisions about shooting “Citizen Kane”. And there are of course other master DP’s today and in the past who should be studied – broad and deep study is best. And yes, Deakins does not always emulate himself – “Barton Fink” does not look like “True Grit” does not look like “Skyfall” (though I have to say that the shots of the hallway, particularly the climatic fire-ridden shots, will always hold a special place in my heart, as well as Bond silhouetted against the inferno of his house across the distance of the swamp, and almost anything from “No Country”). The best in the business adapt to what the material requires – which is why someone like him is a master, I consider one of the best working today, and should be studied.