This array of space lights, supplied by Lee Lighting, was controlled by computerized dimmer systems. Complete systems of space lights and dimmers were installed within the largest stage at Leavesden, as well as in Shepperton's Stage H. In order to match this toplight approach while shooting real exteriors, Lubezki and Higgins devised their softbox strategy. "Once I realized that I was going to use this soft toplight for the 'exterior' scenes shot in the soundstages, I wanted the real village to look exactly like those stagebound sets," Lubezki says. "The big fear that Tim and I had was that our real exterior locations would suddenly have another look that was too naturalistic. The trick was to strike the proper balance between pictorialism and realism. The cranes we used helped me a lot, because it was almost like bringing the stage ceiling to a location. In the finished film, you can't really tell if the movie's exterior scenes were done on location or in a soundstage; it all matches very well.
"In a funny way, using the cranes was cheaper than lighting the sets any other way," he attests. "When you rig immense softlights up on cranes, you can move them really quickly. Each rig has only one light, and you can put it anywhere you want, which allowed us to do more setups per day. We also didn't have to use much supplemental lighting at all almost none, in fact. Sometimes from the ground we'd add a bit of fill light just to see the actors' eyes and so forth. Any extra lights we used on the ground were always aimed through diffusion grids. By the time the light reached the subjects, it was simply a 20' by 20' grid of light, so it almost didn't matter whether we were using 10Ks or Mini-Brutes. A cinematography purist might not agree with that statement, but once you put the light through so many layers, it really doesn't matter what kind of fixture you're using. I would basically tell the crew which stop I wanted, and John Higgins would pick a light and use it to fill a 20' by 20' frame."
Lubezki extended his softlight approach to the film's interior sets. He used tungsten fixtures, most of which were were aimed through several layers of diffusion. The cinematographer then used an array of flags to keep light off the set walls, which were often wild. He adds that he did not always adhere to cinematography's general rule of motivated sources. "In A Little Princess, all of the light was motivated, but Sleepy Hollow is not a realistic movie, and I didn't want it to be like a typical movie, where if you have a candle, the light is coming strictly from the candle. My approach was to position a light so you couldn't tell where the light was coming from, while creating an atmosphere that was correct for the scene. The Hammer films weren't always perfectly lit; sometimes they would just create lighting that would enhance the feel of a scene, to make it more scary or mysterious. I took the liberty of lighting from wherever I wanted, almost to the point where the light was sometimes coming from the wrong side of the frame. For example, the candle might be on the left with the lighting coming from the right. My approach to close-ups was basically to use one light in what I considered to be the best position possible even though that position might not be what other cinematographers would consider to be 'good lighting.' I would generally use light aimed through 20' by 20's or 12' by 12's; I used full-grid diffusion through most of the picture, often in combination with a half-grid. Sometimes the light was a bit low, or in a position that wasn't consistent with the 'source' in the scene, but I didn't mind doing that cinematographers may notice it, but I don't think audiences will."
Prior to the shoot, Lubezki and Burton consulted on a number of other important visual issues. The duo agreed that shooting in the 1.85:1 format would better approximate the look they were after, which the cinematographer describes as being similar to "a series of illustrations from a classic book." Widescreen anamorphic was ruled out, since both filmmakers agreed that the wider format "immediately looks more contemporary and less classical."
The cameraman chose to shoot with Panavision cameras equipped with Primo lenses. He used no filtration save for neutral-density, and kept the number of lens changes to a minimum. "We didn't use a lot of lenses to shoot the movie," Lubezki confirms. "The 40mm was our long lens; sometimes, when we just couldn't get the shots that we wanted with the 40mm, we used the 50mm, and once or twice the 75mm. In general, though, the 40mm was our longest lens and the 21mm was our widest. The 27mm was our normal lens, and we also used the 35mm. In my opinion, when you start combining a lot of lenses, the look becomes a bit too rococo or baroque there are too many different variations, and you lose something intangible. We wanted to keep the look of the film consistent.
"I definitely like using wider lenses, because they immediately put the actors in a context. I don't like looking at anamorphic movies where they shoot the actors with a 180mm lens and the backgrounds go soft you don't know where you are. I like to show the characters in their environments; I think that enhances the story.
"In a funny way, though, that approach made our sets seem more limited," he concedes. "To the eye, they looked big, but the reality was a bit different. Usually, your first instinct is to use a long lens to disguise those limitations, but on this film we wanted to audience to feel that the sets were slightly unreal. We wanted to create a hint of artificiality in the look, but not enough to take you out of the movie."
To determine his ideal photographic aperture, Lubezki performed exposure tests on the sets, shooting at f-stops of 5.6, 4, 2.8 and 2. "I found that to increase the film's pictorial quality, it was better to shoot almost wide-open," he says. "The lenses were wide enough for me to feel the sets, but we didn't want the sets to look too hard or harsh. We therefore shot the whole movie between 2.5 and 2.8. That was a first for me, because I usually shoot between 2.8 and 4. It was easier for me to light with a wider f-stop, though, because it became easier to see and judge the contrast by eye."
The cinematographer opted to record the entire movie on one film stock: Kodak's Vision 200T 5274. He explains that this decision was based on the filmmakers' desire to enhance the look of the picture with Deluxe Laboratory's Color Contrast Enhancement (CCE) process. "With the CCE process, you add a lot of grain, and I thought the Vision 500T [5279] was just too grainy. I love the texture of grain, though, and I think the grain [that the CCE added] works well, because the images have the quality of an old illustration. I don't like it when the grain starts to become obtrusive, and the audience begins to feel it. If someone who doesn't know much about photography mentions grain, it means they're perceiving it too much."
[ continued on page 4 ]