As a
Director and D.o.P. who has worked my way up through the camera department, I
am only too aware of the value (both creative and financial) that the Camera
Operator brings to a production.
When I am
confronted with a producer who says “...can we save money by not employing an
operator?” my reply is always that, in the time saved and the pressure that is
taken off me, an operator is an imperative member of the crew. Over the length
of a production, that time saved as I concentrate on lighting, and not on the
setting of the camera or dressing the set for the best frame, translates to
money saved for the film.
Having my
camera operator allows me the time and space to concentrate on the look of the
scene. Schedule-related pressures mean that I am not detracted from lighting
while my operator can deal with the mechanics of the shot. Does this mean that
the operator as purely a technician? ...Far from it, he has a direct creative
input. Not only does he work in collaboration with me, using his trained eye,
to compose and frame the shot, but also to liaise with the other departments in
order to achieve the best production value.
Film-making
is a collaborative process. The way that the camera department is established; where someone works through the different
grades, ensures that each member gains a grounding and full working knowledge
of each discipline. But one thing that is not found in manuals or the
classroom, is the direct contact and interaction with directors, D.o.P.s and actors,
this comes with experience. When a person becomes a Camera Operator the
technical aspects of the camera are combined with the creative issues of
framing, camera movement and, film narrative and a large degree of diplomacy
and tact. A good operator uses his skill to mentally cut the film in the same
way as the editor does physically.
There
have been many well-known ‘career’ Camera Operators, but many are working
toward their own career as a D.o.P. As a result, both of these groups (whether
through experience or aspiration) have a keen interest in the photographic look
of the film. The close-cooperation between my operator and myself means that if
I am unavoidably away from the set, he can carry on with lighting until my
return.
Alexander Witt Director/DoP
Observations. -Working with Operators-
When I am preparing a shoot I try to assemble the most creative and efficient team I can. In prep the primary creative relationships are with the DOP and Production designer. On set, the primary crew relationship will always be with the operator. In pre-production I will have discussed extensively the look of a film and the shots that are to be achieved on the daily schedule with the DOP. I will therefore expect the DOP to be busy lighting a pre-arranged shot or sequence of shots whilst I discuss the fine detail of the action, framing and camera movement with an Operator.
I often use a very fluid hand held style and will walk the shots through with the operator and actors several times before an actual take. This is the point where a relationship of trust with an Operator is crucial. I will also expect the Operator to form a trusting, creative and polite relationship with the actors and for him or her to suggest through me ways in which their performances might improve the shot. I also allow Operators I trust to directly discuss the action with the actors when necessary, in the case of missing lighting marks or the way a prop is used or the direction of an eyeline. My visualising of a piece of action will always be improved by this process.
My favourite Operators are always those who are sympathetic to the effect I am trying to achieve with a shot but who are creative enough and brave enough to suggest improvements. I work with several operators who have a great photographic eye and who will always point out a better framing if they feel I am missing a trick. This obviously benefits my work immensely.
As regards production, a great Operator leads and disciplines the camera crew. Focus pullers tend to fulfill this role if a DOP operates. I prefer a good operator to be in charge, simply by experience this seems to work better. Great Operators form excellent relationships with grips, crane crews, actors and on set art department crew. In the end an Operator is the "eye" that sees what the camera sees and can point out mistakes or opportunities for improvement that nobody else notices. This is invaluable. A good Operator frees the DOP from this role, allowing them to concentrate on the lighting set up and on discussions with the director.
I find that most DOP`s are happier working with an Operator. In a complex lighting set up situation where I have honed a shot and a piece of action with the Operator whilst the DOP is busy, I will always make time before the take to show the DOP what has been rehearsed and allow input and alterations at that stage. Thus there are three sets of trained eyes on a finished shot. This can only be good for the work, and time efficient for the production as mistakes and re-rehearsals are minimised.
I would always prefer to work through an operator, unless the DOP makes a convincing case to me for operating and I felt that the subsequent loss of shooting time and rehearsal time would not damage my film.
It is a false economy. The crew can always move faster with an operator running the camera crew.
Obviously some DOP`s are brilliant Operators, but most aren`t. An Operator practises their skills on every production and their familiarity with equipment is therefore much greater than a DOP`s. I work with Operators who are brilliant at steadicam and handheld shots, which requires a high level of physical fitness, which obviously some DOP`s are not expected to provide in their range of services and abilities!
Some DOP`s insist on operating and I will always take this into consideration, however I can think of at least three instances where I have pulled rank and engaged an operator against the will of the DOP as I was aware that the shots and set ups would be too complex for a DOP operating to achieve. In each of these cases the DOP has subsequently thanked me for this decision. I have also passed on projects where the decision not to have an operator had already been taken by production as I felt I would not be able to achieve the quality of work expected from me. Time is money. You can always move faster through a day`s work with an Operator DOP team.
DOP`s and operators can always learn from each other.
My experience in the US and Europe has been very similar. I like the British crew system for its hierarchical orderliness, however, and British sets seem to "tick over" better. Roles are clearly defined on set and throughout the camera crew and there is an established ranking system. When an Operator is working with the crew they should run it as a team captain, ensuring both efficiency and creative spirit. This works for me. I like having a creative on the camera. It isn`t possible to discuss shots and acting in the same way with a focus puller who should be too busy using their particular and substantial skillset to keep the images sharp, or a dolly grip who should be ensuring that all sorts of other technical and safety details are taken care of.
A good Operator is a director`s paintbrush; a skilled, intelligent, creative, opinionated, living, breathing paintbrush. The best ones absorb your ideas about acting, framing, pace, atmosphere, staging and style very quickly. They ensure that the film looks and more importantly "feels" the same from shot to shot. A tiny reframe during a take can double the impact of a performance, a small alteration in pace over a tracking move can change the effectiveness of a scene completely. Creative discussions over sequencing, such as deciding whether or not a piece of action can be captured "in one" or by several shots can save thousands of pounds to production on a daily basis. The role of the Operator is therefore both technical, intuitive and creative, as well as providing potential financial benefit to production.
Andy Wilson, Director
Camera Operators
1. On set, a film only requires a few key creative personnel, and a good camera operator is vital amongst them. He / she is able to focus on the frame in a way that, due to other demands, a director and DOP are unable to a good camera operator is also vital in helping an actor with the technical aspects of their craft. 2. I`ve worked with a camera operator on every production since my first feature film. I would certainly not want to work without one. 3. There are so many tools at the disposal of a modern filmmaker, nevertheless, the composition of a frame and the movement of the camera are still amongst the most powerful of these tools. A camera operator who understands the story, emotionally and stylistically, can convey the directors choices, be they visceral or poetic, and bring his or her unique relationship with the camera to an audience in a profound way. 4. A camera operator is certainly not a luxury to me and I have been very fortunate not to be in a position to have been under pressure to cut this role. 5. No doubt there are some DOPs who are very fine operators too. But the skills of a DOP are certainly of a different kind to a camera operator. I find that having a camera operator whose sole responsibility is to think about the composition, movement and rhythm of the frame, means that the DOP is free to think in a broader sense. 6. As a director, my relationship with the DOP can only be enhanced by the collaboration of a sympathetic camera operator. That has been my experience. 7. I would always advise a DOP to work with a camera operator, for both creative and practical reasons. One is able to move far more quickly with an operator, and with the present pressure on schedules, this can only be of benefit both to the DOP and to the production as a whole. 8. I have worked with a small number of British operators, and only one American, and have not found there to be a great difference between their styles. 9. A camera operator must not only have an excellent eye and innate feeling for the cinematic art, but must also be an excellent communicator. Much of their role is to communicate between the camera team, art department, and essentially, the cast.
Joe Wright, Director
When I hire an operator, I tend to take on the person before the position. That is to say, I believe the individual brings to the job a unique alchemy that establishes the tone for the set. Coming to a foreign country, a cinematographer wonders just how to best tell a story ...and who his collaborators might be. While here I have found that the operators I have worked with are true artists, true masters of their craft and true friends. These people have a joy for the process of making films that is contagious and it reminds me why I love this business so much. They have invited me into their homes and into their family’s lives and have shown a generosity and loyalty that extends far beyond a brilliant composition or the construct of a sequence. They are the true definition of the thought that great films are hand made by no one individual, but a talented group that bring their spirit to the screen. You can’t teach that ...it can only be ...and there is not a day that goes by when I’m not thankful for these generous people.
Shelly Johnson, ASC
In defense of the Operator’s position.
What does an operator do? Well, he looks through the eyepiece of the camera. But, by the way of monitors, everyone else on the set does too. He also turns the funny wheels on the head, one wheel for the up and down, the other for right and left, and if this proves too difficult, then, there is always the handlebar. So, is the operator’s position justified, for such a minimal task? Apparently not, according to an increasing number of people, and sometimes, ones in executive positions. Then, is the DOP position also a necessary one? Would not a gaffer do instead? Especially now with digital photography, when the director can check the images on a monitor without waiting for next day dailies. With similar reasoning we could achieve the ultimate dream, the personnel-free film making, (save for catering and trailers drivers, as one needs comfort!)
At a time when the number of producers on set (and even more so on credit), seem to grow exponentially, there are growing attacks on the position of operator and multiple attempts to do without. (One of them, shamefully endorsed by Local 600 in the US). Would the solution be to put the surplus of producers behind cameras?
Until then, lets face an uncomfortable reality: Operators are human, (most of them), therefore they come with experience, knowledge, and craftsmanship. They are part of the machine of filmmaking, its physical, as well as its thinking process. It has been so for years, and I have made bonds with many operators, they have been essential collaborators, and I would not have done as well, (and certainly not as fast) without them. At times, people for the sole reason of reducing the numbers on an initial budget, aim at a seemingly weak link in the chain, not realizing this will weaken the all process, not only affecting quality, but the efficiency of a team, and in the end, affecting the schedule. Operating, while being DOP, however very pleasant at times, is exhausting, time consuming and takes one away from the director, making communications weaker. It takes away the benefit of someone else’s opinions, ideas and experiences. A film is no other than a sum of talents, doing away with one after the other is certainly going to raise the final result.
