Link to original article.
Interesting news. It should be cool to see how Anderson takes on the role as well as writer/director.
What do you guys think of this?
Jump to content
PTA as his own DP for 'Phantom Thread'
9 replies to this topic
Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)
Posted 01 July 2017 - 11:21 AM
I think it's smart of him to try, why not? I've always said, if you know what you want and you're experienced, all you really need is a good gaffing team and camera team, the 'DP' is more of a creative role at that point. I think it's going to look just like every other PT Anderson movie.
Posted 01 July 2017 - 08:33 PM
I've wondered, when a director does this, does he have to walk around with a light meter and decide what exposure he wants, how many fixtures he's going to need to expose the scene, decisions about diffusion and color temperature, or will he leave all the real work to someone else?
I can understand someone like Reed Morano being her own DP when she's directing, because she's done it for a very long time, and she's pretty damn good at it. Even Stanley Kubrick, knowledgable as he was, he still hired a DP that he could use as his own little puppet to get things done more efficiently.
Posted 01 July 2017 - 09:40 PM
Steven Soderbergh makes a pretty good job of it as Peter Andrews.. and edits under the name Mary Ann Bernard .. on his films.. although I think this was to do with credits and the unions..
I saw some making of video and he openly admitted to not being the best DP and even showed some scenes he wished he had lit better.. I think it was one of the Ocean films.. I was really surprised when he said all the casino interiors there was no lighting at all.. I,d seen the film before and thought it looked pretty good.. and presumed there must have been a few big HMI,s in those scenes .. but apparently nothing..I would guess alot of DP,s would have spent quite a few hours lighting it.. or some days !..
If it works it works I guess.. but I think there are only a few directors who could do it and not let something suffer along the way.. Im not sure if he operated the camera too.. ?
Posted 02 July 2017 - 08:24 AM
Which of Kubrick's DPs do you mean? John Alcott? Geoffrey Unsworth? Russell Metty?
Look them up. Then you can decide who was whose "puppet".
Posted 02 July 2017 - 08:36 AM
I was referring to Douglas Milsome, I remember watching a Full Metal Jacket documentary where Stanley threatened to fire over him over lens choice.
Posted 02 July 2017 - 09:10 AM
Kubrick had a rather dry sense of humour, another line he used with Douglas Milsome,was that he couldn't light a match.regarding the lighting on one scene..Milsome had worked for many years as a 1st AC on Kubrick films, so I suspect he knew how to handle Kubrick in these show downs..
Posted 02 July 2017 - 09:31 AM
Kubrick and Milsome had a long relationship over a couple of films, so I suspect, as Brian was saying, that Kubrick was not serious about firing Milsome.
He did threaten to fire Lucien Ballard on the first set-up in "The Killing" (Kubrick's first time not doing his own cinematography), or at least, told him to leave if he couldn't follow instructions, when Ballard did a set-up on a 35mm instead of the 25mm that Kubrick asked for. But besides Kubrick being right, that moment was about Kubrick proving to Ballard that he knew what he was doing and was in charge, and after that, Ballard respected Kubrick. Considering Ballard worked a lot with Peckinpah, he clearly knew how to get along with tough directors.
I think Kubrick could have shot his own features, but the fact that he didn't tells you something -- I suspect there were two main issues for Kubrick: (1) directing is time-consuming enough so adding the duties of cinematographer to the work day is not always time efficient, despite Kubrick's long schedules; (2) Kubrick had a healthy-enough ego to like collaboration with talented cinematographers and production designers, he wasn't someone who just decided everything in advance for every department, he wanted their ideas and knowledge, to the point of almost indecision.
Kubrick believed that it was a mistake for a director to make decisions too early because a better idea might come along later. So if anything, the reason why production designers and cinematographers would later decline to work again with Kubrick was just that it was too draining, Kubrick wanted more than 100% of their time, their ideas, their knowledge. James Cameron called Kubrick a "brain vampire". So Kubrick's form of directorial control wasn't about avoiding collaboration.
As for other directors doing their own cinematography, it's similar to them doing their own writing, or own editing, whatever -- some are more talented at that than others.
Posted 06 July 2017 - 01:22 PM
Which doc is this? Assuming the stuff Vivian Kubrick shot? I don't remember that bit.
I think by the time of Eyes Wide Shut Kubrick was effectively his own DP.
Posted 06 July 2017 - 01:59 PM
I used to work as an AC with Mark Milsome, Doug's son. As far as I remember, Doug was going to shoot 'Eyes Wide Shut', but had to leave the project because his wife was ill.