Filmmaking...With Film

“Nick’s Van” is so much more of a wide open movie than anything I’ve actually made. By the way, I don't say "directed" I say "made." People who call themselves directors early in their start are delusional. They don't direct, they put out fires (which some may think is directing). If I ever use the term "directing" it's because of a title that needs to be in place. To which, it's a placeholder not a earned position. The people who call themselves "directors" who don't do it professionally...it seems phony to me. Like even when I was paid as a cinematographer, I still couldn't bring myself to call myself a "director of photography." Not out of some insecurity, because it would dilute the cameraman I respected, who did SO much more than I have. To crown myself that would be insulting the ones who've made a real mark in the movie business. I think this is an old school way of thinking.

Anyway, this movie's environments are so much more “outside” than concentrated on a few tight spaces. I think that’s what other filmmakers have told me, that movies need to be…exterior. It lets viewers breathe. I think that’s why James Bond movies are so popular. Because they are in environments, instead of soundstages. I have a friend who uses outside spaces too. It makes it feel “cinematic.” Movies are suppose to make you feel like there is no camera. That we’re watching real things occur. I think a lot of studio directors don’t shoot on backlots for that reason. It’s too controlled. The minute you take a movie out of the walls of the studio and random things occur, that’s the reality that sells the reality. Movies need depth. A perfectly lit shot doesn’t seem real. Little kicks of light here and there make it much more three dimensional (why a lot of processed green screen stuff looks weird, it may look convincing but we still feel something is off).

It seems pretty obvious, but because of my budget, control and schedules, I just did with what I had. And I’m really happy for what I was able to get, under the circumstances. By all logic (and mostly ignorance) this movie should’ve never been shot. I had short ends and recans of film. A few factory new film from Kodak and a camera with one lens. Yes, ONE lens. I didn’t have insurance to rent, so I retrofitted the one lens I did own to fit the new mount on this camera. I did a test shoot and decided it was good. However, a single test didn’t exactly prove the edges were fine. This was something only a field test could prove. And this was it. Surprisingly, the camera and lens performed above what I expected. I really was stressed as to if any of this would survive the days we shot. I mean, nothing was locked down and so much could go wrong. This is not any different than million dollar shoots. But still…

I still didn’t have the capacity to pull focus. And since I’m looking at the mirrored shutter, I saw what the lens saw. Anytime I went below a T-stop (aperture) of 5.6 I was looking into darkness. Case in point, shooting outdoors with 500ASA film yielded about a T45. NOT T4.5 I mean T45. It’s basically a pinhole at a shutter angle of 180. Which is when I opened up the aperture to set focus and then close down to compensate for the light. I toggled between a T16 and a T22. Since backlit people are shadowed a bit on their faces. No time for fill. That made me about 2 stops over and one stop under (for the face). Key was hopefully in the middle somewhere. The results weren’t bad, but that little control is frustrating when you’re working in time sensitive locations. And it’s not optimal in terms of depth of field. I would’ve been much happier around a T11. Which would’ve required I stopped down about two stops. An 85 correction filter would’ve helped. I would then rate the film at 320ASA (2/3rds a stop) then a neutral density .3 would kick it down another stop, which then I’d rate film at 160ASA. To which I would’ve been down to my desired stop. This would also mean I had a thick piece of glass in front of my lens. To which I was already focusing relatively blind (this is when the tape measure comes out).I had a combination 85ND3 filter. But the matte box (holds filters) didn’t fit this camera. I would’ve had to juri rig something to the front of the lens. To which I was locked into the focus. No good on that. So I had to shoot the film at 500ASA unfiltered (blue tint) and hope for the best. Did I also happen to mention that none of my magazines for film was scratch tested or lubricated after having sat in some old guy’s garage in temperature fluctuating Colorado for years?

It’s funny how little people think about these things. Quite honestly why should they? It’s all part of the process of making movies. The curious understand and want to know why. Others grow impatient with this process. I’m not sure who they dial it in in the digital world. It seems so automatic. The result is somewhat of a very distinct looking movie. Not as beaten up and crunchy as I like to see film look like. I was going for a very dated period look. Washed out image with grain popping. It’s really smooth for what I got. It’s a testament to how much faith I have in mechanical film gear and the confidence that goes with the gentle hum of film rolling through. When you hear it, you know. The camera will let you know otherwise. Digital cameras are a mystery that moves into a unseen hard drive. Unable to know if it’s even on, except for a little light that indicates something is being recorded.

Film is THAT resilient.