I approached Jamie with a list of questions and received the following answers:
1. How did you decide on the style in which The Thick Of It was shot? Was this mainly through discussion with the director or did you push your own ideas forward?
As with everything I shoot, the style was a joint decision between myself and the director; in this case, Armando Iannucci. I'm a big believer in the story should always lead the shooting style and I approach every project with a blank canvas..
In our initial conversations, Armando was keen to explore a shooting style that would reflect the frenzied, petty and high stakes world of politics. Neither of us wanted the camera to be static or too 'controlled', so the first decision was to keep everything handheld. Armando wanted to take things further and we explored visual styles which ignored convention. We watched the film 'Festen' and a fly on the wall documentary which followed Tony Blair and Alister Cameron in their early days of power: 'The News From No.10'. I also re-watched some of the early work of Barry Ackroyd BSC whose work was big influence on me when I was in my teens.
It was from these references that we devised a hybrid 'dogme' and fly on the wall style which we employed for the 1st three episodes of the show:
1. We didn't formally 'block' or rehearse the scenes or give actors marks.
2. The actors would regularly improvise dialogue and ignore continuity, so no two takes were the same.
3. We used two cameras 99% of the time. The other operator and I would follow the action trying NOT to anticipate what was going to happen, so it would feel more spontaneous. We also over accentuated the 'handheld' feel by being less precise with our camera operation and steadiness.
4. Lighting would always feel 'found' and real as opposed to perfect.
5. The editor would cut just the sound to make the story work and then added shots that worked (I believe this approach was abandoned in later series).
2. How did you decide on which equipment to use?
Over the course of the 3 series technology was beginning to change, however, the show reached it's last episode before modern digital systems like Red or Alexa (and 35mm zoom lenses) were affordable or lightweight enough.
The 1st three episodes we shot on the Sony DSR570 in standard defintion. The reason for this choice was because the CCD sensors this camera had were more sensitive than others available at the time. In addition to this, cameras were smaller and lighter than Digital Betacam (the ubiquitous format at the time) but used the same B4 mount zoom lenses for 2/3" inch sensors (note we always used zoom lenses).
In testing, I really liked the images from the 570 and I found that increasing the gain (essentially increasing ISO) gave the images a 16mm feel, a bit like Kodak 7219. So we shot the whole first series with 6db of gain. We also used a polariser a lot to help with shiny foreheads caused by toplight.
The second series was shot in HD using the Sony HDW750 HDCam camera.
The third series was shot using PMW800 XDCam cameras.
If we were still shooting now, I would have certainly switched to Amira, using the Super 16 setting of this camera.
3. How was the production lit? It appears to have such a natural look but was lighting equipment required to create this look?
I tried to use natural light and adapted practical light where possible. On the first series, this was a problem as we shot in winter, so we had to light some scenes night for day. However we only had lights outside the windows, we barely ever used any lights on the floor of the sets. I used a 4kw HMI Aurosoft, through a 1/2 grid cloth a lot in these situations, for speed.
If we did need to use lights on set, we would rig them above. The reasons for this were so we didn't get in the way of the actors and also, so we could point the cameras anywhere, anytime.
4. What were the main aspects you considered during preproduction?
My main concern was to achieve the style we had agreed upon for the show and maintain it across the series. From a more technical point of view, as always I had to consider the organisation of lighting and camera crews and equipment across the shoot.
In all locations, my gaffer and I would devise a scheme to change or add practicals and if necessary rig film lights. This would all be done in advance so there was no lighting time on set.
5. What would your main advice be to someone hoping to achieve a similar handheld style?
Firstly, ensure this style is right for the story you are telling. Once you have decided, stick to your guns! I got quite a lot of flak from some bitter older DoPs who felt I should have shot the show like a traditional comedy. But I stood firm and I don't regret any choices we made. Actually I have been asked many many times to shoot other projects using this style. I've always turned them down.
Secondly, from a technical standpoint you are in a much better position than I was when we shot 'The Thick of It'. The CCD cameras we were using had very little dynamic range, maybe 2-3 stops, so exposing naturally lit situations was regularly a problem, especially balancing hot windows. The modern CMOS cameras are far superior not just in dynamic range but also colour depth and the ability to shoot raw. I do wish we'd had these cameras back then!
From this research I have learnt:
- It can be good to not anticipate the action within a scene, this can aid the natural and observational camerawork and add to this sense of realism. A slight bit of unsteadiness can help the scene to feel spontaneous and natural (which is the desired outcome for the production of VET-MAN).
- Jamie mentioned increasing the gain in order to give the production a 16mm feel, suggesting that the visible effects of increasing gain (e.g. increased noise within the shot) are not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, they can contribute to the look of a production. This again gives The Thick Of It a realistic and natural feel which adds to the fly on the wall / observatory style. This shows that all decisions relate back to the intended style. This means that all my cinematography decisions within VET-MAN need to relate back to the realistic style I am aiming for.
- Not every production needs to be artificially lit - the lighting needs to be appropriate for the production and the desired look so if this needs to be achieved through natural and practical lighting then this can be done. Lighting equipment can also get in the way if shooting in a spontaneous and realistic way such as shown in The Thick Of It, therefore, natural lighting may not only be an aesthetic choice but also a practical choice.
- When testing lighting I should attempt to find ways to make it mimic natural / practical lighting like Jamie did in The Thick Of It so that the realistic quality of VET-MAN is maintained.
WOW! Well done on this research!
ReplyDelete