A few words from director Ernst Lubitsch on cinematic conditions, as told to William Stull, ASC.
The cinematographers of Hollywood have had some colossal obstacles placed in their way since we began to make talking pictures, but they have surmounted them wonderfully. I think the quality of photography they are making now has come back almost to the high level of the old days — almost, but not entirely! There are still a few things to overcome before we get back that absolute perfection again, but these last few months have seen great progress.
Probably the greatest evil has been the policy of using a number of cameras on every scene, and trying to do long shots, close-ups, and everything else all at once. The [soundproof camera] booths have been inconvenient, but in the hands of such a skillful cinematographer as Victor Milner, ASC, who photographed my last picture, The Love Parade, they are no more than inconvenient. On silent pictures, we only used to use one camera — and that kept the cameraman busy; now, on the talkers, we have to use three or four cameras always, and sometimes more. It is entirely the wrong system, unjust to the cinematographer, to the actor, and to the director. They tell us that by using so many cameras we are saving the company time and money; well, if we are, those of us who have been making silent pictures the other way these last 20 years ought to be in jail! Just think of all the money we must have wasted by concentrating on one angle of a scene at a time — and making it good!
Just the same, this change in the camerawork of the talking films has done one good thing. It has freed the cinematographer from the mechanical routine of running his camera. That is good. It takes a real artist to arrange the lighting so as to bring out the full beauty of the set and actors, and match the emotional key of the scene. That is a very great job in itself, and to have the first cameraman free to do this without the routine bother of cranking a camera is a very great help to the director.
For myself, I do not believe in this present craze for covering a set with directors of dialogue, directors of dancing, directors of music, and all the other would-be directors who are interfering with the director's work. I would not make a picture that way, for it could not be a satisfactory picture with so many minds trying to govern it. But to have my cameraman free to direct the photography is another matter. It is really what he has always been doing, and anything that gives him a chance to do his work better is just making things so much better for me. It is better too, for the company, for he can do his part better and quicker, and on the rare occasions when we have to work overtime, he can still remain to direct the photography, so that it, like the dramatic part of the picture, would be the product of a single mind's supervision. That is how things should be done in every department. That is the way it is often done in Europe.
There, for instance, the director is more active in preparing and editing his pictures than is usual here; and again, the art director is responsible for everything about the set — one man designs it, supervises its construction, paints it, and dresses it. Our art directors there are a much more intimate part of the production than they are here — they stay right with the picture from start to finish, even being on the set with us while we are shooting, ready to make any repairs or alterations that may be needed. Over here, there is a separate man for all of these duties — a separate mind to interpret the original design in its own way. Only once over here have I been able to have my art director work through the picture with me as we did in Europe; that was on Lady Windermere's Fan, a picture which I think had the most perfect sets of any I have made. And most of the critics were kind enough to agree with me on that point. So now, of course I believe in these changes which are giving cameramen a freer hand in their work.
In Europe, they are learning to cooperate more and more with the cinematographers. Just recently I saw a picture made by an American cameraman who has moved to Europe. Here, he was considered good, but only good, and he probably never got a real chance to do his best work; this German picture of his was much more than good, for he had been given a free hand, and the result was such great cinematography as any director would be proud to have in his pictures. But then, he had so much more to work with than we did there in Germany before I came over here.
| [ continued on page 2 ] | © 1999 ASC |