Meet Micro-Budget Filmmaking’s Most Exciting Cinematographer

Broadly speaking, micro-budget indie films don’t exactly have a reputation for high-quality cinematography, and if anything the smallest films are lauded in spite of how they look, not because of it. Independent productions rarely have the luxury of hiring an experienced DP, and with the advent of affordable, passably “high-end” digital cameras, amateur directors often assume they don’t need one, even though the results usually look, at best, like hyper-glossy TV commercials for cleaning products or Sunny D. The American independent cinema, in other words, is starved for technical competence—so much so that even nominally professional-looking features ought to be applauded for clearing the low bar—and even if we’re occasionally treated to an aesthetic powerhouse like “Computer Chess”, those rarities are decidedly the exception rather than the rule.

But if you have been paying attention to the New York indie scene of late, where some of the most exciting films have been emerging in what feels like a kind of post-mumblecore new wave, you may have noticed a recurring credit: Sean Price Williams, who has quickly proven himself to be one of most exciting cinematographers working today. Williams first came to prominence with his eye-catching work on the documentary “Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo”, which artfully augmented its talking head interview footage with expressive panoramas of the Japanese skyline, and Ronnie Bronstein’s comedy “Frownland”, which distinguished itself from 2007’s mumblecore glut by being one of the few films of its kind to be shot on film. His work on Alex Ross Perry’s debut feature “Impolex”, which he also shot on 16mm, cemented his reputation in certain circles as uncommonly thoughtful and skilled.

Since then, Williams has kept incredibly busy, working at so brisk a pace that he has managed to complete nearly two dozen shorts and features since 2011 alone. And as the filmmakers with whom he regularly works begin to find acclaim and more mainstream opportunities, it seems likely that he will soon find a himself attached to bigger and more widely seen productions—like perhaps the new HBO series he just wrapped up with Perry, one of his most reliable collaborators. In any case, Williams is clearly a talent to watch, and as an introduction to his style we’ve put together a short list of some of his most essential work to date.

Five Great-Looking Films Shot by Sean Price Williams

“The Color Wheel” (dir. Alex Ross Perry, 2012)

Alex Ross Perry’s “The Color Wheel” is one of the most original and important American films of the last decade, and its grainy, high-contrast black-and-white cinematography is central to its appeal. Perry had intended to shoot the film in color and expressed an interest in shooting digitally, in order to better prepare the improvisations and comic riffs he’d planned between himself and co-star Carlen Altman.

It was Williams who insisted that the film be shot in 16mm and in monochrome—the two fought over creative choices often, according to interviews—and this proved a decision which fundamentally changed not just the look of the picture, but its overall character too. The climax of the film, a staggering ten-minute long take held largely in intimate close up, owes perhaps as much to Williams’ camerawork as it does to Perry’s conviction in the strength of the idea. Whether because they gel well or because they have the tenacity to fight, Williams and Perry are clearly ideal collaborators.

“Kuichisan” (dir. Maiko Endo, 2013)

Maiko Endo’s “Kuichisan” is, by design, a difficult film to classify, but despite its apparent impenetrability as a work of (non-)narrative fiction it is nevertheless exceptionally beautiful to behold. Working again in 16mm—though this time using a combination of color and black-and-white, equally striking—Williams traveled with Endo to the small town of Koza, in Okinawa, Japan, to soak in much of the local flavor.

What results brushes only briefly against fiction, as in the gradually crystallizing stories of a young American tourist, played by Eleonore Hendricks, and a mysterious child who resembles a miniature monk. But in general the film is a delight to simply absorb for its aesthetic flair: “Kuichisan” features some of Williams’ best work, and even without guidance through the narrative the experience is plainly mesmerizing.

“Lydia Hoffman Lydia Hoffman” (dir. Dustin Guy Defa, 2013)

Dustin Guy Defa has an unusual sensibility for a director of micro-budget films: though his style tends toward the kind of ascetic naturalism for which mumblecore is best known, his scripts (or improvisations, it isn’t always clear which it is) have a writerly quality that makes them feel a bit too determined. His last feature, “Bad Fever”, veered dangerously close to sitcom territory, mostly redeemed by a stellar turn by Kentucky Audler.

“Lydia Hoffman Lydia Hoffman”, his new short film—which played to much acclaim at the recent BAMcinemaFest in New York—doesn’t so much reconfigure Defa’s approach as it does find an aesthetic better-suited to it, which Williams is happy to provide: here Defa’s almost doc-like naturalism is exchanged for a more airily impressionistic take on the same, with Williams shooting the (typically) whimsical scenario as if it were a hazy daydream. The result, as you might expect, looks sublime, and this becomes the rare case of a film so elevated by its style that it transforms a good short into a genuinely great one.

“The Black Balloon” (dir. Benny and Josh Safdie, 2012)

The Safdie brothers, on the other hand, are in need of help from nobody, having long-since established a style and sensibility inextricable from their work. All Williams can do, lending his talents to this recent twenty-minute short, is deliver the best work possible, and he is glad to oblige—indeed, “The Black Balloon” might be the best summation of Williams’s short career to date.

He captures balloons floating through the sky with as much affection and nuance as the faces of the people the balloon finds wandering the streets, staying with several fleetingly as if passing through a number of self-contained films (“The Black Balloon” somehow seems to pass by more fully realized characters and snippets of completely lived-in stories across its 20-minute running time than most features can muster in 120.) What of the most intriguing things about this film is that it isn’t actually film at all: though it looks remarkably like 16mm, this was in fact shot digitally, and it’s a credit to Williams that he is capable of emulating the look of film so effectively.

“Somebody Up There Likes Me” (dir. Bob Byington, 2013)

Bob Byington’s “Somebody Up There Likes Me” is rather abrasive for a quirky indie comedy, but Williams lends the proceedings a lushness and vigor that greatly compensates for the dryness of the humor and the severity of the tone. These are the kinds of projects on which Williams will no doubt make his name, and even if they do not afford him the same opportunities for experimentation that Japanese fiction-doc hybrids and verite shorts do, it’s heartening to know that even his most routine engagements are made to shine.

Categories: Features

Tags: Calum Marsh, Kuichisan, Microbudget movies, Safdie, Sean price williams, Somebody Up There Likes Me, The color wheel

Cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt Talks Taking Over ‘The Bling Ring’ for Harris Savides

In the headline of their October 12, 2012 obituary for Harris Savides, the New York Times went beyond a technical description of the late cinematographer. They opted for “Visual Poet,” a description that spans Savides’ career of fashion photography, music videos, and feature films. Over a 30-year career, Savides shot for David Fincher, Woody Allen, Noah Baumbach, Gus Van Sant, James Grey, Ridley Scott, and Mark Romanek, who recruited the photographer for Michael Jackson’s “Scream” and Madonna’s “Rain” videos.

Savides’ final work can currently be seen in “The Bling Ring,” directed by Sofia Coppola (read our review here), with whom he previously collaborated on “Somewhere.” During the making of the film, the cinematographer became sick, forcing him to take a leave of absence from the shoot. Knowing the visual identity had been concretely established, Savides put “Bling Ring” in the hands of his longtime camera operator Christopher Blauvelt (who has shot is own handful of films including “Meek’s Cutoff,” “Nobody Walks,” and the upcoming cinematic diptych “Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby”). Thanks

Below, I spoke to Blauvelt about the inspirations for “The Bling Ring,” working side-by-side with Savides for many years, and carrying his collaborator’s torch in both Coppola’s film and in his future work. You will also find a conversation with Coppola on what Savides brought to the film and the shots he designed.

Matt Patches: What were the visual cues you were presented with by Sofia? Were there graphic design, cinematic, or materialistic inspirations that Harris had considered?

Christopher Blauvelt: Sofia had a lot of visual references that we pulled from. Her and Harris had already thought about this project well before I came on board but I was able to bring in some of my own as well. We referenced a lot of contemporary photo books of kids of this age with their parties, outfits and behavior. We watched movies like “Foxes” (1980) for the camaraderie of the bunch as well as “Over the Edge” (1979) for the kids running around without care of consequence. It was also good to keep some of the older films that we appreciated in mind when we knew we were making a very contemporary story. And when it comes to understanding the fashion of today, there’s no one better than Sofia.

Having worked with Harris many times, how easy was it for you to take on DP duties for “Bling Ring” after he passed away? What were the challenges of matching his cinematography?

CB: Harris was still alive while we were making this film, but he was having to deal with some medical issues so he asked me to come on board to protect Sofia and the film alike. Harris was aware of this situation early on even before prep. He and Sofia are great friends and had been talking about this film for quite a while. So when I came into the picture there was already a good idea of the aesthetic. Harris and our D.I.T. [Digital Imaging Technician] Jeff Flohr had been working on digital looks for the past few years and it was time to see if these would work on a film. We went right into testing these ideas to see what would be the look of the “Bling Ring.” And through a lot of trial and error we found it.

Why do you think the two of you were on the same page creatively? Did you see shooting a movie — stylistically, philosophically — in the same way?

CB: I was always on the same page with Harris because the philosophy has always been that every project deserves its own look. So with ultimate respect for the script, the genre, and the ideas that Sofia had for it, we would research and test as much as possible to get the look of our film. We would always find a way to tailor make the look of every film so I have been a part of this process with Harris on many films.

How did “Bling Ring” vary from your own and Harris’ previous work? Did he have a consistent mantra for solving cinematographical problems?

CB: We wanted to stay very limber and keep the camera handheld as much as possible to make it feel more in the moments and minimize the need for cutting. This was to keep things feeling more authentic and living in reality. We were always choreographing the scenes to make them happen in one take if we could, and we wanted to keep the lighting in the same vein.

Where do you see Harris’ influence in your own work and on all of cinematography?

CB: Harris has influenced cinematography in a way that very few have, he was one of the best people ever to do what he did and a beautiful human being. I personally have him in my heart for everything I do and hear his voice when I’m not challenging myself.

He always said you got to be a little bit scared or you’re just phoning it in. That was Harris and that’s why he always got the most unique looks in films. I will miss him dearly.

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Christopher Blauvelt, Cinematographer, Harris Savides, Interview, Matt Patches, Sofia coppola, The Bling Ring

Cinematographer Christoper Doyle Thinks ‘Life of Pi’ is a Disgrace

Recently, the gifted and infamously belligerent cinematographer Christopher Doyle (“Hero,” “Chunking Express”) became embroiled in a wee bit of controversy , which wouldn’t be such a big deal if he wasn’t, you know, so clearly wrong-headed on the topic of discussion. So, if only for the sake of Best Director winner Ang Lee and Best Cinematographer winner Claudio Miranda, let’s break down some of the juicer bits, and offer up our stinging refutation.

[Re: Claudio Miranda] “I’m sure he’s a wonderful person, I’m sure he cares so much. But what it says to the real world is it’s all about us, we have the money, we put the money in, and we control the image. And I say f**k you, wankers. Are you f**king kidding? That’s not cinematography. That’s control of the image by the powers that be, by the people that want to control the whole system because they’re all accounts. You’ve lost cinema. This is not cinema and it’s not cinematography. It’s not cinematography.”

First off, Best Cinematographers choose the Oscar nominees in their respective category before they turn it over to the approximately 5,900 Academy voters to determine the winner. Which means around 200 of Christopher Doyle’s peers felt “Life of Pi” was a wonderful example of cinematography. Of course, none of Christopher Doyle’s peers share his history of public nudity (thanks for the tip, Bill Murray!). So at least subjectively it sure as hell is cinematography, in the same sense that a duckling nominated for Best Actor would then be an actor. All of art is subjective, but the ruling bodies get to make some calls, or else it’s sheer chaos. For the record, Claudio Miranda was also nominated by the American Society of Cinematographers, so it’s not as though the Oscar nomination was completely out of left field.

But what of the other emotional argument Christopher Doyle wants us to consider? The key part is:

“That’s control of the image by the powers that be, by the people who want to control the system because they’re all accounts. You’ve lost cinema.”

There are actually a few separate arguments in here, the first of which alleges that Claudio Miranda didn’t have control of his own cinematography. This can immediately be struck down by any honest broker simply by noting Doyle has no idea of what went on during the shooting of “Life of Pi,” nor does he know who was in the editing bay or “controlling the image” after the shoot. Certainly Fox 2000 could have hired 45 cinematographers and CGI mavens to work on “Life of Pi,” but that’s pure speculation, and Doyle clearly has no insider knowledge other than his own crackpot theories. Absent of compelling facts to the contrary, we have to assume that the final look of “Life of Pi” was heavily influenced by Claudio Miranda, and that Doyle’s offhanded remarks are completely specious.

The next thought on the runaway Doyle verbal train is that we’re losing cinema, ostensibly due to CGI work. This is tricky, because on some fronts we certainly are losing cinema. You could watch any of the hundreds of poorly handled films released each year and get a little worried. You could note only 10 percent of the domestic audience buys a ticket to the theater these days, down from 30 percent a mere decade ago. But is this something we lay on the shoulders of cinematography? Are CGI-created shots ruining cinema? I’d have to say no. Of the multitude of elements strangling cinema, cinematography is way down the list.

Doyle continues:

“Lincoln”! Oh! Let’s talk about patriotism. Do you not f**king realize the rest of the world just sits back laughing. Do you not realize that you poor old f**k with your Academy bullshit, you’re just sitting back, holding onto straws. You’re holding onto straws. Let’s get on with it. I don’t give a f**k what you think about me. Some of us have to engage with the real world. And it happens not to be about the history of Mr Lincoln freeing the slaves – which was the most disgusting first three minutes of a film I’ve ever seen. Oh, Mr Lincoln, oh, but you understand… stop f**king fluffing yourselves.

The notion of The Academy being woefully out of touch is not a new one. However, “Lincoln” didn’t win Best Picture, and history is worth considering. Also, this could not be the most disgusting three minutes he’s ever seen because my guess is he’s watched a few Lars von Trier films. These comments are pure hyperbole and pot-stirring, and everyone has to engage in the real world, or else they’re likely in a mental institution. But nothing is obnoxiously stupid as what comes next, the very moment when Christopher Doyle begs not to be taken seriously:

“I didn’t watch the Academy Awards but I’ve had a lot of feedback from people, including people from the ASC [the American Society of Cinematographers], by the way, and then you see, you give an award to a totally digitized image. I may be wrong, because I haven’t seen the film, because I don’t give a s**t.”

There it is. “I haven’t seen the film.” That’s totally ridiculous! He has no idea of the ratio of CGI to practical, he has no concept of the depth of field or angles utilized, other than perhaps a trailer, which is like someone judging what pizza tastes like based on a commercial. You cede the right to critique if you don’t actually SEE the thing you are critiquing. There aren’t many pre-requisites to criticism, but attendance is mandatory.

The award is given to the technicians, to the producers, it’s not to the cinematographer … If somebody manipulated my image that much, I wouldn’t even turn up. Because sorry, cinematography? Really?”

Of course, maybe that’s better than what happens when Christopher Doyle does show up. (warning: NSFW language).

Okay, sure, but what is the definition of “too much”? Should no computers be used? And aren’t cinematographers technically technicians as well? Doyle continues maligning Claudio Miranda’s win with:

“It has no relevance to the way film is going. It’s just these old people wanking. Do you know the average age of the people who vote? Sixty-five. Check it out. I may be wrong. It may have dropped to 64. [According to a 2012 report by the LA Times, the Academy is 94 percent white, 77 percent male, and has a median age of 62.]

That Los Angles times report was certainly damning, but this is a total false equivalency. He doesn’t know the median age of the Cinematographers branch, nor does he ever cede that change is inevitable, and it’s often a failing of older generations that they hate change, just as Doyle is doing here, he’s the very problem with The Academy writ wmall. You could have looked at the Pacific Ocean and said “No one should ever cross that!” You can look at space and think “We need to avoid that area, it’s not real life or true Earth!” But his is idiotic, because it simply is happening. Cinematography is changing, and no amount of Christopher Doyles will change that. One can choose to accept it and adapt or one can choose to ignore it and be run over. But let’s not give credit for tilting at windmills simply because the subject curses a lot.

Just for kicks, because we’ve rented the studio for an hour, let’s look at a few of his other examples of Christopher Doyle fool-talk:

[Re: "Lost in Translation"] “It’s articulating the Bush doctrine of how to engage with the rest of the world. Let’s all be Americans, that’s what it’s saying.”

Totes. They were definitely showing “Lost in Translation” to the guys headed overseas for combat tours. Genius.

[Re: Hollywood cinema]“I think what we’re doing here [in Asia] is much more valid. We’ve got half the world’s population here.”

Yes, because total population always contributes to artistic merit. Sorry Hopi Indians, your art is invalid!

“I say there’s only three people in cinema, which means the actor, the audience and me in-between…the energy has to be transferred directly to the audience between what is presented on the screen and what the audience is engaging in. So our job as cinematographers is to be that bridge, that conduit.”

Which “Life of Pi” clearly does. Also, there are no writers or directors in cinema. Clever.

[Re: America and its movies] “And every single person in the real world looks at this, and that’s why we make our films the way we do. Because you don’t have the freedom, you don’t have the integrity, you have to remake everything we’ve done anyway. I go to see Martin Scorsese, and I say, Don’t you think I should tell you about the lenses? And he says, What do you mean? And I said, Well, you’re remaking my film, which is Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs was probably written in one week, we shot it in a month and you’re going to remake it! Ha ha, good luck!”

And with that let’s close the book on anything Christopher Doyle says going forward, instead focusing on his work, a field where he does fine work. Christopher Doyle is a talented guy, and he certainly has a knack for making the news, but he should probably leave the sweeping judgements of cinema to the professionals. I speak, of course, of Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

Laremy wrote the book on film criticism, a book which is, oddly enough, ranked #1 among all Kindle Cinematography titles.

Categories: Features

Tags: Ang lee, Christopher Doyle, Claudio Miranda, In the Mood for Love, Laremy legel, Life of pi, Opinion, Quotes, Wong Kar-wai