American Cinematographer - October 2014 - 70

Persistence of Vision

Willis discusses a setup with director Alan Pakula, who recalled his impressions of the
cinematographer in a 1978 profile of Willis penned by James Stevenson for The New Yorker:
"There's no better cinematographer than Gordon. Working with him is collaboration at its best."

get things done. I don't want people who
can't think on their own. I guess my
standard rule is that you should never
hire people who are dumber than you
are. If you hire an idiot, it's self-defeating - it won't raise people's perception
of your expertise. When you get tired
during a long day, you need people
around you who can think. They have to
be able to figure out what I've discussed
with them; I don't want to have to dot
every 'i' and cross every 't' for everybody.
If I get stuck with people who can't
think, they won't be around the next
time.
Do you allow for much input
from the crew?
Willis: Of course - that's the
only sensible way to be. If somebody
sees something that doesn't look right, I
want them to tell me. I have no ego
about it, or about saying yes or no. Just
tell me about the problem. If I forget to
say or do something, remind me; if I
forget to order a piece of equipment,
either tell me or have it ordered. Of
course, you have to watch out for the
'Gordon said' syndrome, as in 'Gordon
said we need the crane,' or 'Gordon said
no green cars.'
Do you often run into situations
where the priorities are misplaced in
terms of the budget?
70

October 2014

Willis: Oh, sure, but that's the
nature of the business: It's okay to
approve an extra 20 feet for the star's
trailer, but if you need one more grip for
a day, you can forget it! There aren't a lot
of savvy people in charge anymore, and
the ones who are in charge aren't intuitive. All they know is if they put all of
these movie stars in one place, and
someone takes off their clothes, 'We're
gonna make money!' The part where
you actually have to make the movie is a
passing thought to them.
Motivation and intelligence are
not necessarily synonymous today. The
hardware you need to make the movie is
always in direct conflict with someone's
comfort or someone's bottom line.
What productions spend money on,
and why, has a lot to do with the 'politics of decision-making.' Who wants it?
I've been in several very serious
confrontations about how to shoot
something and where. On two occasions, scenes that required a studio environment were being pushed onto
locations by directors who should have
known better. Why? Money. But in
these two cases, it could not be done; it
was technically and artistically impossible. Once they moved [the production]
inside, the reality of why [it was impossible] soon became apparent. The cost
American Cinematographer

was no longer an issue in these particular cases.
No one wants to spend money on
cameras, lighting and grip equipment,
but honestly, I haven't had too many
problems with this kind of thing. I don't
worry about having the latest gizmos, I
only care about what's necessary. I feel
that it's not good to design shots for
equipment. You should decide what you
want to do, and then pick the gear.
I think most of the problems I've
had regarding budget have been
confrontations about how people want
to do certain things - about getting
motion confused with accomplishment.
What about dealing with directors? They have their own issues, and
I'm sure that the relationship can get
thorny at times. Are there any general
lessons you've learned about the
'directorial personality'?
Willis: Just don't forget that
you're being hired to help make their
movie. Beyond that, I've been very
fortunate. The directors I've worked
with have all been really nice people,
and they've always allowed me to do
what I've wanted to do visually. I might
add that what I want to do is based on
what the director is trying to accomplish, but I've never had problems with
directors telling me how to light or
which lenses to use. In general, they've
just discussed the concept and what
they're trying to achieve.
Of course, one doesn't always
agree on how something should be shot
- whether a scene should be close,
wide, moving, et cetera. That type of
discussion can be touchy. Whatever you
suggest should improve or embellish
the director's design. Also, you should
never express your dislike for an
approach without being ready to offer
an alternative that you feel can make an
improvement.
I suppose part of what makes a
good cameraman is the ability to step
in and articulate your position in an
effective, well-informed and persuasive manner.
Willis: Absolutely. When you're
opposed to something, you want to give

Photo from the Alan Pakula Collection at the Academy's Margaret Herrick Library.

◗

American Cinematographer - October 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - October 2014