American Cinematographer - February 1995 - 47

people, and I don't think anyone
perceive it any other
way and I understand that. But I
never did
anything counterculture.
It's the wrong perception.
wanted to

You mentioned the

lution of

evo¬

point of view in film-

making.
Willis: By the way, this
doesn't apply to everyone. But for
a lot of
cinematographers, and a lot
of directors as well, how they see a

I've told

many times, to
the purpose rather
than the method of doing some¬
on

thing. It's not really "How do I do
this?" it's "What is the purpose of
this?" What it should look like is
on the
purpose of the scene.
Now if you think that way, you're
based

going to do things differently.
Within the context of the

lier. I think personal expression has
probably been responsible for a lot
of visual changes in movies, and a
lot of directorial and writing
changes as well - sometimes for
the good and sometimes not.
As people have become
more
visually sophisticated, has
the role of the cinematographer
become

a more

rap

to

ies.

efficient way?
Willis: Right. I've

ics,

had this
about dark mov¬
Well, I've only done several

hung

on me

more

important?

Willis: Based

story, the scene will do its duty in

film, or how they want to mount a
film, how they want the audience

perceive it, has changed. To be

myself,

concentrate

on econom¬

cinematographer's role has
become less important. I think
people's sophistication about visu¬
als applies more to special effects
than good cinematography.
a

So the skills that

come

into

importance are storytelling
though the medium, not necessar¬
ily the ability to make a striking
image.
Willis: Right. I think
you're seeing less capability. There
are fewer
people who are able to
mount a story on the screen that's
actually well-defined visually and
directorially. You see a lot of pie¬
throwing contests that are cut to¬
gether and perceived as movies.
You've said that relativity
is important in a good movie.
What did you mean by that?
Willis: Elements in a film
become interesting when they're
seen in relation to each other -
big
and small, light and dark, good
and evil. You structure your movie

KDiorkulgalnads

visually around those things, and
they are what makes it fun and in¬
teresting. There's no right and
wrong about what makes things
work. It's just in my mind that
those things work well. These
things are not complicated con¬
cepts. It's just that so often they're
overwhelmed by the process.
The process

of making

the film?
Willis: Too many

byPhot

people

get the making of the movie con¬
fused with the movie itself. What

absolutely mechanical about it,
you'd say, "Well, there was a cer¬
tain point in the golden days of
Hollywood where you'd set the
keylight, set the backlight and set
the fill light, according to a particu¬

scenes

lar method"

cess.

of that was]

and

by the way, [all
beautifully done. I look
-

at those films

today, and I'm in awe

of them because

ning,

many

they're
of them.

into that

category. And they were

designed that

way. It's what you
don't see sometimes that's just as
effective as what you see. The point
is that it came out of a thought pro¬
Has film become

a more

you

have to

film is far

Willis: Yes. There

of

February 1995

popular

through to make a
debilitating than it

With the evolution of

technology, some say everyone
will have the power to make
films. What's your reaction to
that?
Willis: I'm

are a

lot

boutique-type movies that

wouldn't have been

go

more

ought to be.

personal form of expression?

so stun¬

But I've told students and

in several movies that fall

ear¬

sure

they will.

Filmmaking in my mind has al¬
ways been organic, a process that
works in concert with other people.

American

Cinematographer

45
American Cinematographer - February 1995

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - February 1995
