American Cinematographer - March 2009 - (Page 10) Letters Schaefer Joins “Grumpy” List Regarding the letters you’ve published by John Toll, ASC, and Jim Stinson about the recent Filmmakers’ Forum by John Bailey, ASC [“The DI Dilemma, or: Why I Still Love Celluloid,” AC June ’08], I have this to add: I, too, am a grumpy cinematographer, and I have some additional reasons to be grumpy. I agree with Mr. Bailey and Mr. Toll about the eroding control we have over the quality and integrity of our images. I agree when Mr. Toll takes on Mr. Stinson for being so cavalier when he writes, “ … the cinematographer’s level of control depends on his contractual and personal relations within the production. So get control, already.” Possibly Mr. Stinson was just trying to be provocative when he wrote that, but I find it annoying and insulting, as well as simplistic and naïve. A case in point is my work on Quantum of Solace [AC Nov. ’08]. I’ve shot every film Marc Forster has made so far; we have an unusual and wonderful working relationship, and on his films, my responsibilities include controlling the framing and grading of the film. I am expected to follow through all of the post to make sure the images correspond to what we discussed and I set out to achieve in production. I am expected to make sure the visual-effects work conforms to my original photography in color, contrast and tenor. I am expected to do a grade for HD previews as well as the final DI corrections and the grades for the home deliverables (i.e., pan-and-scan, DVD, Blu-ray, cable and airline versions). The problem is that although the director, editors and visual-effects supervisors remain on the payroll throughout post, the director of photography does not. The studios and producers have commended me for doing such a wonderful job of delivering a great film, yet they won’t reach into their pockets to compensate me for my time, which was considerable. They say they 10 refuse to set precedent. Some cinematographers have been paid for their DI work, but most have not. When I go off the production’s payroll, I need to find another job, and that usually means I won’t be available to do what my director expects me to do and I also want to do. With the tools available in the digital realm, it is too easy for anyone in post to change the images in terms of framing, color, frame rate, etc. Now, with the specter of largeformat digital acquisition looming on the horizon, there is talk of “capturing” images in formats comparable to Imax and then just “finding” the desired image within the larger frame. We now use large-format imaging for visualeffects work, to capture plates that can be repositioned later for specific needs, but considering that as a way to do principal photography is frightening to me. If Mr. Stinson could include me in his mailing list when he explains how to “get control, already,” I would be grateful. I also think that the ASC and the IA Local 600 should take proactive roles in trying to set agreements with the studios and producers to protect the cinematographer’s role. This truly feels like a “Wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am” way of being involved in the creative process. Roberto Schaefer, ASC Venice, Calif. Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters, American Cinematographer, 1782 N. Orange Dr., Los Angeles, CA, 90028. Letters must include your full name, address and telephone number. AC reserves the right to edit submissions for length and clarity. http://www.theasc.com http://www.theasc.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.