Would have loved for you to talk about Terrence Malick and his style. You briefly mentioned Chivo with Children of Men but Chivo and Malick together 🤯🤯. They even established a dogma when it came to shooting which overlaps with your tips as well
Lately, as an artist, the two sides of me have been battling between formality and spontaneity. I think there's a harmony between both that can prove impactful and emersive.
I saw Glen Howerton from Always sunny talk about filmming Blackberry that they used Long Lenses on gimbals on tripods and shot a lot of stuff telephoto to give it a more voyeuristic feeling.
Ooof. I feel that. I was a Field Producer/DP on a docu-series which was AMAZING. It didn't pay well, but it was decent for my first "big" profile shoot. I had to take a job as a B-Roll Cam Op on a home reno show i'm it's 6th season. They are paying me $190/day. Other Cam Ops are getting a regular reality rate, bur they don't consider me a real CamOp.
Hi Luc! Just out of curiosity, how good is the 'lag 'for the transmitter? This video has definitely made me consider getting one but I'm looking to work with a close friend on focus pulling, and the lag would obviously be an issue, even if it's slight. in AUS it's about 400-500 dollars. In this context, would you recommend i buy this transmitter or something more applicable. Cheers!
Hmm. You're talking about handheld techniques not necessarily verite. It's not strictly a 'documentary' technique...16mm independent films have been doing this for decades. What you are talking about is only appropriate depending on the type of story one is being told. Worked for the aesthetic of Bourne but it was ill advised for Batman Begins.
I agree! Go even further back to the John Ford and John Huston documentaries on the Korean war and Battle of Midway, you'll start to see a very grounded and yet "off the cuff" style of capturing these events. There are even instances of bombs dropping so close to the camera that you see the film itself start to burn at the corners before a cut!
The first film i remember using this documentary style approach was the "Right Stuff" (1983) by P. Kaufman. I first saw it as a kid back in the late '80s, and it was exactly because they used actual footage from the official NASA space program archives, that it was so deeply ingrained in my memory, as a deep and serious film, as opposed to Top Gun for example.
I kind of dislike the documentary style in narrative works, the supposed realism clashes with the inherently abstract nature of storytelling and pulls me out of the story. If the movie pretends everything in it is real it ends up highlighting all the artificiality and contrivances that are necessary for any narrative to function, but without the aesthetic layer that gives you enough distance to let the story affect you. I also don't think imitating reality is a useful aesthetic goal to begin with, you can express ideas much more precisely through abstraction and simplification, because you have to actively make choices on how to represent something for it to work. I would go as far as saying that conveing the idea of realism isn't even possible. That children of men scene isn't immersive for me, I can literally see the cameraman through the camera movements, nomad land seems to be very carefully composed, its incredibly artificial, which kind of highlights that the supposed pursuit of "realism" is basically futile. Don't get me wrong, this technique can be used in interesting ways, it can have a kind of thrilling energy, it has a certain gritty texture, it's very distinct and immediate, even somewhat jarring. But a lot of the time it isn't, most of the time I see it it's a non decision, it's just a lot easier to gather content if you shoot everything wide and handheld. Most of the time it lacks intent and is therefore empty. You could say it's realistic, which as I said isn't a real or possible idea in my opinion, but even if it were possible to convey reality, reality is incoherent, flat and boring. I think there are far better ways to convey ideas and narratives, Everytime this technique works it is either used sparingly or stylists to a degree that calling it authentic or realistic would just be false.
A lot of DPs are idiots. Protectionists; afraid they'll loose their jobs to younger, and "more talented", people. I always teach everything I know, I don't care. There's room for everyone. Cheers!
In the UK this move from doc to features was already happening in the 60,70,s , maybe more so than in the US. Roger Deakins , Chris Menges , Barry Ackroyd all came from doc,s and I think their feature film work is clearly influenced by that background . I assisted Barry Ackroyd for 6 years in the UK in the 80,s , he always used zooms and those small motivated zooms are pretty much his trade mark move. When I was his focus puller he actually didn't want the focus pulls to be nailed , he said go past and come back and find it. Easily done in the days before monitors :) .. best DP to be a focus puller for !.
I totally agree with you. The #PeakDesign carbon fiber tripod is on my wishlist. As you mentioned, the aluminum version has an issue, but Peak Design offers a lifetime warranty, right? Since it's not physical damage, we should be able to get it replaced, correct?
Personally i tend to lose interest in a movie when it's shot in "documentary style" that you speak of. It kind of gives it that douchy aura, like, we're lazy but we're gonna mask it by applying a simpler aesthetic and pretend we don't care either way. Also, I'd like to butt in and state that what you define as the "traditional Hollywood aesthetic" is actually video-game aesthetic. The truly traditional aesthetic goes way back and is timeless. Don't confuse rollercoaster rides with Vilmos Zsigmond.
You are totally right the doc style already took over Advertising Promotional videos around the world to make it feel more authentic and relatable. Often shot on film developed in newly opened film labs
This is really old news, if anything, Cinematography is starting to move away from the documentary/naturalistic style. Striking colorful compositions with artistic camera movements are back and I couldn't be more excited. Documentary style cinematography is so goddamn boring and overused.
I agree. "Docu-style" is just a way to drive costs down and speed up production. It's usually a symptom of productions who struggled with time / budget / planning. We're getting more and more people focused on creating a proper language and a unique style of cinematography these past few years. Hopefully the "Taken" era of poorly operated handheld films is gone.
I think you’ve confused “aesthetic” with “ethic.” “Documentary style” is much more, in this case, about being less deliberate and prepared and instead documenting stuff happening-instead of bending everything backwards for the camera’s sake
@@The_CGA exactly. Which is why it looks bland and boring 90% of the time. It’s a movie, everything should bend backwards for the cameras sake. Your not making a documentary, your not documenting real life. You’re creating art, and one of the most important parts of art is intention. Blocking, composition, and lighting are the most important things. Following actors handheld with a high iso mirrorless camera (so you don’t have to use lights) is not Cinema, and it’s hardly art imo. It’s more of a technical skill then anything else. Let’s just call it what it is, videography.
You've been inspiring a lot so I will start with some mini docs to start my RU-vid channel and get some practice, so this video is obviously a little step into the right direction. Thanks and keep it up! Greets from Mexico.
Handheld is almost never done well today. The exceptions are exceedingly rare. It's almost always intrusive and degrades the viewing experience. In real life, my eyes are not making the world jump all over the place, even when I'm in a fender bender. An intrusively shaky camera insults the actors ("you can't convey emotion - here, let me help"). Over-shaky clips are tiring to watch and feel contrived. They tempt the camera person to think his/her role includes helping to write the script, which it doesn't.
Thanks Luc great insights. One question i ask myself as a documentary filmmaker often. Shooting wide brings you in the scene and makes it more immersive as you said, but you with the obvious camera become much more disturbing/seen to the people you´re shooting. Often i find it better, when they forget that there is a camera shooting them. What is your approach to that? I´m thankful for a good advice or some experience.
Great tips! I also love to shoot really close with wider lenses, but usually I use zoom lenses when I do documentaries, because I don't have the time to switch between lenses and love to get different perspectives. For my part I use a FX6; may I ask you why did you choose the FX9 instead? I rented the FX9 and I loved it btw, I just wish you could get slow mo in full frame mode, otherwise I would have chosen this camera.
For me as a photographer I always thought shooting underexposed is better as its easier to get back the details in post however recently discovered that when it comes to videography, shooting slightly overexposed is better to grade... Started filming and grading just few months back
Love shooting in the Verite style you laid it out perfectly thank you! With the No Man's Land examples for the lighting wouldn't you say that the DP was using some bounce to light up the face just a bit. This is one thing that I have struggled with when shooting into the giant scary ball in the sky. Thoughts anyone?
Felt the same way when I first watched Dune at home but when I saw it on a proper IMAX screen for Part 2 I confirmed my suspicion that the streaming version crop was stifling and made the lenses seem much longer than they actually were. When viewing it in the native aspect ratio the film felt completely different and was much more immersive. Hopefully they'll release an original aspect ratio version for streaming or BluRay.
