American Cinematographer - February 1990 - 64

Constantly fluctu¬
ating weather
conditions kept
Rousselot and his
crew on

their toes.

utes," says Rousselot. "Continuity
was vital, because the story takes

place over two days and two
nights."
Also, the five working
interiors of the 21 border town

buildings prompted Rousselot to
recall the classic complaint of
cameramen:

"If it's too small it's

difficult, if it's too big it's difficult,
and if it's in between, it's boring!
And the windows made interior

shooting seem like exterior shoot¬
ing. In the general store, for ex¬
ample, we would get a T:2 reading

Two hours later the level
would have jumped to T:22."
When pressed for answers on how
he coped with these various prob¬
lems as well as achieved the film's
at 7

a.m.

Rousselot delegated sec¬
ond unit work, such as the film's

interiors."
Rousselot's lighting
scheme for the massive, vaulting

Two truly beautiful set pieces were
shot late in production: a nighttime

scene.

monastery with its catwalks and

honeycomb-like monk chambers is
no less
impressive, though he
downplays its complexity as well.
Six 12K HMIs were placed outside
windows, and the cinematogra¬
pher traced as many windows as
possible. Two 6Ks were rigged
from above as the one and only
exception to his no-backlighting
rule; and tiny space lights with
HMI lamps were placed in one
corner to augment the overall set¬
up.

opening prison break, to Jim Devis.
snowfall using foam, flocking,
blankets and trucked-in snow for

landscaping, and the climatic bor¬
der town celebration which

em¬

ployed 700 extras.
In late May of 1989 We're
No Angels wrapped - despite
persistent rumors - on time and
on
budget, though it was only just
released in December. Mission
residents had plans to use the bor¬
der town as a tourist attraction.
The local crew geared up for Van¬
couver's summer television pro¬
duction and Neil Jordan returned

Panavision
lenses, mostly primes, no zooms
and fast film stock to compensate

retakes, master shots and pick-ups.
It's better for continuity and it's

Ireland. Philippe Rousselot
observes wryly that although he
has worked on this continent sev¬
eral times now, it has never been
with an American director.
"This project was the per¬
fect example of having to under¬
stand what's happening on set
from moment to moment and deal
with it instead of locking oneself in
a room to think. I was
surprised by
the fluctuating weather, and some¬
times DeNiro and Penn would
decide to do certain lines with their

better for actors because it

backs to the camera! These

for low

ese

pristine monochromatic look,
Rousselot becomes as evasive as
the film's veteran star, claiming his
solutions would make for boring

reading.
"What is difficult in my

profession is deciding whether
what you're doing at the time is
right or wrong; the technology of
photography, on the other hand, is
never difficult." When pressed
further, Rousselot grins and rattles
off statistics like a pollster: "I used
Panaflex

62

the light contrasts within each
HMIs compensated for the
variation of light in most of the

up

cameras,

Perhaps Rousselot's grea¬
joy in We're No Angels comes
from the script being shot, for the
most part, in sequence; an achieve¬
ment that is apparently not as dif¬
ficult as one might assume.
test

"I did a film with Alan
Cavalier three years ago, called
Therese, which was shot not only in

sequence, but cut by cut. We shot
dialogue scenes simply by cutting
back and forth instead of staging

ages

encour¬

character development. Ther¬

ing actors, an effect I hate, we built

is probably the best film I ever
shot - I wish more directors
would work in sequence."

American

February 1990

light. Instead of backlight¬

Cinematographer

to

are

improvisational elements that no
amount of pre-planning or intellectualizing

can

solve."

▲
American Cinematographer - February 1990

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - February 1990
