A major difference in using digital effects is in the way the set is organised. As has been observed in Chapter Four, films without digital effects have a substantial degree of freedom in terms of visualisation, while for digital effects films this is much less flexible. In fact, in digital effects films a rigid schematisation of actor and camera positioning, which is decided before the shooting, is consolidated. Storyboards, concept art, production illustrations, previs, postvis and animatics are only some of the pre-shooting techniques required to design the look of the film;
these give information to the visual effects department about how the camera moves and what it frames. Digital effects films compulsorily need this to plan the set, that is, in terms of techniques to use and therefore, in terms of method. This means organising a blocking plan which significantly limits actors’ freedom. The set is organised with actor and the camera movement decided through the use of pre-visualisation, even if techniques such as motion capture, which are increasingly used in contemporary productions, contribute towards liberating actors from these constrictions.
Films without digital effects do not deal with the combination of real set and CGI; for this reason, the director can often improvise on set with both cameras and actors. Conversely, in digital effects films the method is subject to careful planning: camera movements are organised in order to be matched to those of a virtual camera which simulates the real camera within a CGI environment. The interaction between real actors and virtual characters must be prepared in advance with markers and special props because the visual effects department needs references about where to place the virtual character in each shot. This is the reason why blocking in digital effects films is organised with previs. Furthermore, as this chapter will show, one of the most evident differences in the director’s method when digital effects are involved is the way in which an actor’s performance is guided. The actor, in digital effects films, interacts with CGI characters and objects; this can be extremely frustrating if she fails to imagine them in her head.
130
For this reason, directors need to work in tandem with the visual effects supervisor in illustrating what the final result will look like.
Cinematography for Digital Effects Films
Squires (in Okun and Zwerman 2010: 17) defines “production” as ‘the actual filming of the live action that occurs on a set or location’. Rea and Irving (2015: 239) state that ‘Production is also called principal photography’, an industry term which identifies ‘the period during which the first, or principal, unit completes photography’. Production is commonly known as the stage which follows pre-production and indeed Clevé (2006: 12) observes that ‘Once all the preproduction tasks are complete, the film enters the production phase, during which the film is actually shot.’ Cartwright (1996: 19) claims that principal photography ‘usually consists of focusing’ on ‘the equipment operation and working with crew and talent’. He (ibid.: 19) asserts that ‘Good pre-production planning will free’ the director ‘of the burdensome details of production’ and let her ‘concentrate on talent performance’. The work on the script finds its materialisation in this stage where the information gathered is transformed into camera and actor movements. The director’s method in principal photography interacts with two key elements which are in fact the performance and the camera; from the relationship between the two is possible to unfold a story and convey a message to the audience. This interaction establishes a relation which influences the narrative: for example, the wide shot of a solitary character, without camera movements, may communicate the idea of a lonely figure immersed in a bigger world while a hand-held camera following a running actor could instead communicate a sense of anxiety, depending on the context. More generally, the movement of a frame and what is in it establishes distance between the audience and the subject of the story, emphasising certain narrative aspects and enhancing the storytelling.
131
Figure 13: A wide shot from North by Northwest. Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is sent to an isolated bus stop in order to meet George Kaplan, the man he has been mistaken for. This shot conveys the idea of a character
who has to face a dangerous situation alone.
Proferes (2008: 36) states that ‘Film is a language used to tell stories, and the narrator of those stories is the camera.’ In this context, if the outcome of the script analysis represents the message, the camera can be considered the means of communication through which the director conveys the message. Proferes (2008: 36) continues identifying six variables that the director can control with the camera: angle, image size, motion, depth of field, focus and speed. In substance, these parameters enable the director to forge the constituent parts of a language which serve the storytelling. In the matter of camera serving as raconteur of the story, Richards (1992: 72) claims that ‘The camera is the tool by which the director’s vision is expressed’, underlining that camera work is a significant component of the director’s method. Indeed, the camera introduces the characters and reveals the significant elements of the film from different positions which can be objective or subjective (see Proferes 2008: 36) based on where the director wants to direct the perception of the audience. Earlier procedures, such as script analysis or visualisation, are interpreted as out-and-out preparation for the camera work which, in fact, frame and move according to the motivation explored by directors in investigating the screenplay. Frost (2009: 155) observes that ‘Camera movement should always be incorporated
132
into the visual interpretation of the script for the screen’, indirectly elevating the camera work to a more narrative rather than merely technical role. Hitchcock refers to camera work by stating:
One doesn’t set the camera at a certain angle just because the cameraman happens to be enthusiastic about that spot. The only thing that matters is whether the installation of the camera at a given angle is going to give the scene its maximum impact. The beauty of image and movement, the rhythm and the effects-everything must be subordinated to the purpose. (Hitchcock in Truffaut 1983: 103)
On the same subject, Badham (2013: 137) asserts that ‘Camera tricks are totally useless and intrusive if they don’t add to the story or the characters’ and ‘Many new, in fact many old, directors think they can put their stamp on a film using fancy camera work’ but ‘this is never effective if it’s not organic to the story or the characters’. He continues claiming that ‘Camera moves should support and elucidate what’s going on dramatically’ and ‘should be organic to the scene, and not arbitrary’ (ibid.: 211).
What the camera makes possible, in addition to its narrative aptitude, is the ability to create a mood, in other words a style which can be reasonably identified as one of the most symbolic characteristics of the film. Proferes (2008: 41) asserts that ‘Style is primarily dependent on the needs of the story being told (tone is a large component) wedded to the director’s vision of the world or his or her personal relationship to it.’ Hence the research of visual references is assumed as a substantial step in the director’s workflow because it establishes elements of the style. Frost (2009: 70) observes that ‘It is important for a director to have an idea of what kind of light or mood the script calls for and what kind of feeling she or he hopes to convey to the audience through the visuals.’ An example of a style communicated through the camera is colour palette choice, which represents ‘a subtle way to visually enhance the emotional aspects of a film and guide the viewer to respond to it viscerally’ (Frost 2009:
93). Another “style parameter” is lighting which in fact is generally associated with the genre of the film. Indeed, Frost (ibid.: 145) notices that ‘There are lighting styles that are generally associated with specific genres, such as the romantic comedy being “high key” or “up key” or the film noir or thriller being “low key”.’ The influence of the director on a film’s style is particularly perceptible in the choice of lens. Frost (ibid.: 39) confirms that ‘Selecting the lens is the area of cinematography where the director can be the most influential.’ The cause of this
133
influence can be explained by Proferes (2008: 43), who asserts that ‘The use of various lenses can modulate the narrator’s voice and help tell the story more powerfully’. Due to this control over the narrator, the lens represents a significant tool in the director’s method.
The position of the camera implies specific framing of the scene and subsequently a precise message for the audience. The choice of the composition and the camera height corresponds with the identification of a point of view and therefore the attempt to immerse the observer in a situation seen from a defined perspective. This choice is accomplished by the director who, metaphorically, is seen as a painter. Proferes (2008: 44) states that ‘Choosing the frame comes under the director’s job description, and it goes to the heart of what a film director is’. In establishing the frame, the director should decide which format will represent the film, just as the painter selects a frame size (see Richards 1992: 72). In the matter of choosing the look of the film, especially in organising the placement of the camera, Katz observes:
Part of learning your craft as a visualizer is having a good sense of what will work before the camera rolls. All directors leave a margin for error and cover themselves, but knowing what works in advance translates into a high average of suitable shots. The payoff is not the money saved by shooting fewer setups, but the extra time that can be used to take greater artistic chances with more ambitious staging, shots and performances. (Katz 1991: 153)
This observation is of substantial importance in relation to effect-driven films where the director has to foresee what the shot will look like. It is common for digital effects films to add a shot in post-production if it is the case that there is no possibility of returning to principal photography and shooting what was missed. This means recreating a shot completely in CGI with a virtual camera. In a production diary that chronicles the making of The Hobbit (Jackson P., 2012-2014), Rivers (in Jackson, 2012), who worked as a previs supervisor for the film, refers to this occurrence, stating that editors and directors often request the creation of full CGI shots to be inserted in the editing for narrative purposes. CGI shots are designed as individual pieces of film, from pre-visualisation to their completion. The purpose of their insertion is to achieve a smoother narration of the story.
134
Figure 14: A full CGI shot of The Hobbit: Gandalf, Bilbo, and the Dwarves make their way to Rivendell.
The impact of digital effects on filmmaking is particularly evident in cinematography.
Indeed, in CGI environments, the actual camera is replaced by a virtual one which emulates the real camera in every aspect (lenses, focal length, aperture etc.) but moves in a virtual space which will be later matched to the live-action footage. In terms of set organisation, principal photography represents the phase which is more influenced by the use of digital effects: blue and green screens, monster sticks and special props, motion capture suits and tracking markers all change a set’s aspect. Additionally, the actor works in an unusual environment where she has to trust the director – along with the visual effects supervisor – whose task it is to guide the performance. The visual effects supervisor is on set in order ‘to make sure visual effects shots are correct creatively and technically’ (Squires in Okun and Zwerman 2010: 79), following the plan prepared in pre-production. For this reason, there is constant dialogue between directors and supervisors who will have to coordinate with the other departments in order to shoot smoothly. Principal photography with digital effects is characterised by the collection of data on set, which is required by the visual effects department in order to integrate the effects creation process. This data is of particular importance to the camera because, in order to match live-action footage and CGI, the visual effects department has to create a virtual camera to emulate the real one; it is possible in this way to combine the two sets, real and digital, and then work on bringing them seamlessly together as one. When digital effects are not involved, directors have
135
more room for experimenting on set, for example, deciding where to put the camera and how to move actors; actors also have more freedom to move and improvise on set without having to pay attention to hitting markers.
In principal photography, the director mainly works on shooting the film. Digital effects for this operation generate substantial differences in comparison to when these are not used; this can be identified specifically in the cinematography and camera use. The work with the camera relies mostly on the use of previs with camera movements tested before shooting and then converted into data which can be transferred to the real-time motion control camera operating on the green screen sets. There are also cases where a previs sequence, shot with a virtual camera, is placed side by side with a sequence shot by an operator with a real camera; the two are then assembled in a way so that it appears as one continuous shot. In this case, previs contributes only partially to the final shot, while the rest of the sequence is left to the work on set. To seamlessly match real and unreal environments, digital effects use a technique known as match-moving by which information on the real set is gathered in order to create a virtual camera which is then used in the CGI environments. Digital effects films impose the use of virtual cameras on cinematography because substantial parts of contemporary effects-driven films are made in CGI. Match-moving is the process by which CGI elements are matched with live-action footage, an operation which is crucial for digital effects shots (see Dobbert 2013: 1).
Hornung (2013: xiii-xvi) defines the match-mover as the figure who ‘takes information from a real-life set, where the actors, director, and all the other crew members who make movies shoot a film, and recreates that camera, including the focal length of the lens, the height, the tilt, and the position and motion relative to the subject’. In this transition from live-action footage to CGI, the observance of continuity in terms of lighting, mood and perspective is considered key for the director of photography, a role that works in close contact with the visual effects department. Furthermore, as any shoot can be completely altered when digital effects are involved, this means that the method used to depict and design a shot must be reconsidered for effects-driven films. In fact, converse to other filmmaking processes, the director of photography has to work closely with the visual effects supervisor and the film director in order
136
to shape a visual language that can be transferred from real set to CGI environment, maintaining consistency between the two. Steven Poster, the director of photography in Someone to Watch Over Me (Scott R., 1987) and Rocky V (Avildsen J. G., 1990), states:
We are all learning to deal with a new vocabulary to prepare film on set for use in special effects [referring to digital effects] that will be accomplished later in digital.
Even after the film has been shot, I am sometimes called in to consult on how to light computer-generated images that will be used in context with film that I’ve already shot—as a result, there is more work in the postproduction area and more work for cinematographers. (in Ohanian and Phillips 2013: 207)
The need for a visual language explicates why previs is considered standard practice in digital effects films. Previs can precisely simulate camera movement and give the visual effects department information on how the camera will depict a scene. With this tool, the director shapes her visual language, testing where to position the camera, what lens to use and where to focus. Nixon claims:
Whether the camera is real and it is on set, or virtual and it is in a 3D space, you [the director] have to have a knowledge of the visual language even before you work with it.
The frame that is captured through a camera, whether virtual or real, is the window into the world that you’re creating, where the story that you are telling exists. So obviously you have another key creative relationship with the director of photography with whom you, as the director, can talk, dream, interrogate ideas and formulate opinions on the best way of shooting using the best medium. (Nixon, 2014)
Finance and Zwerman (2010: 175) state that, for instance, ‘Data from a well-designed previs’
can ‘be transferred directly to a real-time motion control dolly on a live-action set or a motion control camera on a greenscreen or bluescreen stage’. In this way, there is absolute control over the shoot; the costs are lower because the crew knows exactly what the shot is about and what it has to look like. Badham (2013: 148) asserts that ‘The only value to a very elaborate storyboard is for presentation to producers, financiers, or actors when showing them what the film will look like’ however ‘If the final product is to be some form of animation or CGI then of course it will be best to be as specific as possible as the drawings themselves may become part of the final product.’
In terms of method, the establishment of a visual language is considered vital because it guarantees coherence between what real and what virtual cameras shoot. For instance, a virtual camera should use the same lenses as used for live-action footage because the visual languages,
137
whatever the tool, must be the same. In pre-production, the visual language begins to be shaped using script analysis, pre-visualisation and shot design through concept art. During principal photography, this language can be further developed through staging and the choice of where to put the camera. Traina (2015), a director who has worked with digital effects, observes that he always starts from the camera position because ‘every aspect in the framing composition has to be conceived in relation to the camera’.58 Marner (1972: 115) affirms that ‘The viewpoint selected by the director is an important dramatic tool’: ‘The angle at which we look at the characters in a motion picture is itself a significant part of the narrative since it is capable of describing the importance of a character; his relationship with others in the same scene; his state of mind; or his immediate intention.’ Therefore ‘knowledge of the significance of camera angles is an essential part of the director’s vocabulary even though he will have an operator to place the camera’ (ibid.: 115).
To confirm the influence of digital filmmaking on principal photography, there is a
To confirm the influence of digital filmmaking on principal photography, there is a