my cinematography style | by eric gustavo petersen

FIRST OUTLINE: 3-Jul-04

For some time, I've been meaning to put in writing my views on cinematography and my aesthetic style and now, here it is. This doesn't mean I follow them dogmatically - it's simply what works for me in broad strokes. As a cinematographer, I should be able to give the director or production whatever look I'm asked. But within the visual and aesthetic constraints of any production - or the occasional lack thereof - an element of me is always there. Rules were meant to be broken - but only when you have a full understanding of the rules. While I can't claim to know all of them, I'm learning with each production. Here are some of my thoughts...

The aesthetic of a project needs to be established early to the audience. It's distracting to introduce a new aesthetic or editorial style too late in a story without a proper justification or motivation.

Often the coverage for a scene, whether a single person or an exchange between people, can have shots of the environment that the actors find themselves in. These are reflective moments for the audience and the images may not necessarily be pertinent to the dialogue that is taking place. It's a very Japanese thing - a device often used in anime. I liken it to the wondering thoughts that happen during a conversation.

Coverage without purpose is wasteful in time and resources. It's better to spend extra days in pre-production to focus on what's necessary to tell the story then to shoot a bunch of footage that ends up on the editor's floor. What's more, sometimes playing the scene from the master is the right choice. Let the actor's act and let the audience hold the moment by taking in the scene and by letting it breathe. The advantage of using just a master is that it lets the actor's determine the pace of a scene instead of the editor.

Another area that gets too little attention is on atmospheric shots - those shots that fill the space between scenes. It gives the audience some time to breathe and to think and can be a moment for the music to affect the audience.

I find graduated filters too fake and unnatural. It doesn't focus our attention and instead, usually calls attention to itself. I don't think I've ever used them and have yet to be criticized for my decision.

Light for the scene, not the actor. This is true for me most of the time and I've found it to be a view held by many European filmmakers. But, this can be a touchy area. The actors are paid well because audiences want to see them. And on more than one occasion, an actors facial expressions or gesticulations have created a stronger impact on a scene. Still, there are those times when a silhouette says more than seeing an actor's face.

Techniques such as handheld, dolly, Steadicam, and cranes must all be thought out carefully. Camera moves should be dictated by the scene and work to enhance the story at that time and as a whole. Movement for movement sake is sloppy. Each has a special and specific emotional connotation to the audience and should be used to move to follow or capture an emotion, or reveal or emphasize an emotional change. One way of looking at it is that the closer the camera operator is to the camera the closer the audience is in the scene. Hand held is the most intimate, while cranes and cable supports place the audience the furthest away.

Most directors cut too soon both on set and in editorial. On set, wait to say, "Cut". Sometimes an actor can give a gem of a moment at the end of a scene if you wait. It's worth it and I'm surprised how often a director will use that moment in the final cut. It's nice to hold on an actor at the end of certain scenes to allow the audience to take in the moment and reflect.

I love the eyes-of-god shot - with the camera straight down. It's so different from what we see in our daily lives. And yet, I'm not a big fan of extremely low-angle shots. They tend to be a "student filmmaker" aesthetic.

Low budget looks low budget, often because it is. If I can make a contribution to a production by making it look like more money was spent on it then that's a good thing. For example, often I avoid handheld in low budget projects because it can look like, well, low budget. I know there are times when "shabby chic" is cool, but most of the time directors and producers are looking to impress a distributor or agent or a judging board. Steven Soderbergh can use handheld for a whole movie because he's Soderbergh - but if you're not him, shooting handheld can sometimes be looked at as being lazy or sloppy. Consequently, some of my decisions are made to avoid that view. If I can help a production meet their needs and look like a bigger show, than so much the better.

People change and so do their views. So I'm sure my views are likely to change, too. Till then...

COPYRIGHT 2005.

This material is the sole property of Eric G. Petersen.

This material may not be changed, reproduced or cited

without the expressed written consent of Eric G. Petersen.