. . .the choice is to keep the actor who speaks in focus. Do the math.
March 28, 2019 1:57 PM Subscribe
Equitable Cinematography: Director Lexi Alexander on the Politics of Focus Interview by Mary Jo Watts
Really fantastic read.
...the big rule was low angle up, never on the women. It’s okay on the guys, but not on the women. It doesn’t look good. Once again, why are you saying this? A low angle shot can be unflattering on many people, yeah. It depends on how their chin is formed. But you know what, they can be just as unflattering on men as they can be on women. What Hurlbut was saying is that we are not accepting unflattering ever from women.
There’s also a status inferred by that sort of decision. The men are always looked up to, as they were superiors. The women are looked down upon, as inferiors. I’ve noticed this conceit for ages in movies and tv. Drives me up the wall.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:46 PM on March 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
...the big rule was low angle up, never on the women. It’s okay on the guys, but not on the women. It doesn’t look good. Once again, why are you saying this? A low angle shot can be unflattering on many people, yeah. It depends on how their chin is formed. But you know what, they can be just as unflattering on men as they can be on women. What Hurlbut was saying is that we are not accepting unflattering ever from women.
There’s also a status inferred by that sort of decision. The men are always looked up to, as they were superiors. The women are looked down upon, as inferiors. I’ve noticed this conceit for ages in movies and tv. Drives me up the wall.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:46 PM on March 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
This was a fascinating interview to read. Prize quote from Alexander:
If you are letting men have flaws but not women, this is incredibly dangerous for the rest of the world outside of a TV set.
posted by eirias at 2:55 PM on March 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
If you are letting men have flaws but not women, this is incredibly dangerous for the rest of the world outside of a TV set.
posted by eirias at 2:55 PM on March 28, 2019 [6 favorites]
Loved this. It made me remember (of all things) a moment in the first Guardians of the Galaxy film: a bunch of characters including Quill and Gamora are talking on the bridge of the little spaceship. Then Gamora exits by climbing a ladder, and the camera focuses on her ass while she climbs the ladder.
Quill exits a moment later by climbing the same ladder, shot from the same angle. Does the camera focus on his ass? OF COURSE NOT.
It annoyed me because this was a film written by a woman, who wrote interesting female characters with their own stories; then it was taken out of her hands by a director who did his best to turn it into validation for the dudebro manchild. The different use of focus in those two shots showed us exactly who the film was for.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:05 PM on March 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
Quill exits a moment later by climbing the same ladder, shot from the same angle. Does the camera focus on his ass? OF COURSE NOT.
It annoyed me because this was a film written by a woman, who wrote interesting female characters with their own stories; then it was taken out of her hands by a director who did his best to turn it into validation for the dudebro manchild. The different use of focus in those two shots showed us exactly who the film was for.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:05 PM on March 28, 2019 [16 favorites]
Reminds me a bit of this post, about the way the 3D in Avatar made this problem even worse.
posted by asterix at 3:22 PM on March 28, 2019
posted by asterix at 3:22 PM on March 28, 2019
1. Shane Hurlbut is an ass. Remember the leaked audio of Christian Bale yelling on set. It wasn't toward some poor PA, it was at Hurlbut.
2. Working on episodic TV, the only director I've had approach me, the sound mixer, about thoughts on recording a scene, was a woman. It was the most encouraging moment I've had in scripted television in years and it sticks with me and my whole crew. She cared about the craft and it was beautiful.
3. Systemically, it's easy for a DP to lose their job for not 'beauty lighting' women. It's ridiculous, but true, no matter what the scene actually calls for.
4. Really thoughtful piece, thanks for sharing.
posted by rock swoon has no past at 3:27 PM on March 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
2. Working on episodic TV, the only director I've had approach me, the sound mixer, about thoughts on recording a scene, was a woman. It was the most encouraging moment I've had in scripted television in years and it sticks with me and my whole crew. She cared about the craft and it was beautiful.
3. Systemically, it's easy for a DP to lose their job for not 'beauty lighting' women. It's ridiculous, but true, no matter what the scene actually calls for.
4. Really thoughtful piece, thanks for sharing.
posted by rock swoon has no past at 3:27 PM on March 28, 2019 [15 favorites]
Punisher War Zone is awesome and Lexi Alexander is awesome for having directed it. It's a goddamn crime that movie didn't make her an action directing superstar.
posted by Shepherd at 3:30 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Shepherd at 3:30 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Not to worry, AI processing in camera will soon allow everyone to look like a kardashperson.
posted by sammyo at 3:33 PM on March 28, 2019
posted by sammyo at 3:33 PM on March 28, 2019
Fascinating interview, thanks so much for posting it. These are issues that I've tried to keep in mind while I watch movies but I never thought about something like depth of field as a tool for exclusion and now I'm not going to be able to not see it.
posted by octothorpe at 3:54 PM on March 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:54 PM on March 28, 2019 [3 favorites]
great article, and yes - fascinating and infuriating at the same time. thank for sharing this!
posted by lapolla at 4:53 PM on March 28, 2019
posted by lapolla at 4:53 PM on March 28, 2019
An article on the use of deep focus by one of its pioneers, Gregg Toland, cinematographer for Citizen Kane and Grapes of Wrath:
posted by Sheydem-tants at 5:33 PM on March 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Sheydem-tants at 5:33 PM on March 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
WAR ZONE is really, really good. It made my week when Alexander followed me on Twitter! I'm superstar adjacent!
posted by brundlefly at 6:14 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by brundlefly at 6:14 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
A great and infuriating read!
If all of our stories are just told from toxic people’s point of view, what’s going to happen with the world?
posted by Coaticass at 7:13 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
If all of our stories are just told from toxic people’s point of view, what’s going to happen with the world?
posted by Coaticass at 7:13 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Systemically, it's easy for a DP to lose their job for not 'beauty lighting' women. It's ridiculous, but true, no matter what the scene actually calls for.
Yeah, I don't know why she is demonizing the DPs. I totally agree with her about American actresses, the glamour shots look is ridiculous and terrible. I also agree with her about the laziness of professionals not learning to light and photograph people with different skin well. But the DP on a TV show is literally charged with keeping to an overall look that the showrunner wants across different directors. On any media project the colors / make up/ lighting/ shooting style are part of a cohesive whole for the "look". So yes, people are going to push back if you try to change it for a TV show ! They could get fired. I can absolutely see why any director who does that not get along with cinematographers on TV where they are basically telling them "I can't be bothered to understand how you do your job or what it is."
I say she can't be bothered to understand because the director interviewed here is either way dumbing her knowledge down for this article or knows shockingly little about photography. that someone could direct an Oscar winning film without knowing the difference between a diopter and a large aperture/ hyper focus or how lens length affects facial features is blowing my mind. I wonder if she was mis-quoted or something.
I'll also say that as a part-time photographer the current trend for heavy make up, false eyelashes, lip fillers etc is a fucking nightmare with high-res digital cameras. You have to be SO careful with lighting or people look horrendous. it's very limiting. You can see this in sci-fi movies pretty easily too but at least there they have the budget to CGI the actors skin later on. CSI: Omaha isn't going to bother with that, so beauty lighting it is.
posted by fshgrl at 8:42 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't know why she is demonizing the DPs. I totally agree with her about American actresses, the glamour shots look is ridiculous and terrible. I also agree with her about the laziness of professionals not learning to light and photograph people with different skin well. But the DP on a TV show is literally charged with keeping to an overall look that the showrunner wants across different directors. On any media project the colors / make up/ lighting/ shooting style are part of a cohesive whole for the "look". So yes, people are going to push back if you try to change it for a TV show ! They could get fired. I can absolutely see why any director who does that not get along with cinematographers on TV where they are basically telling them "I can't be bothered to understand how you do your job or what it is."
I say she can't be bothered to understand because the director interviewed here is either way dumbing her knowledge down for this article or knows shockingly little about photography. that someone could direct an Oscar winning film without knowing the difference between a diopter and a large aperture/ hyper focus or how lens length affects facial features is blowing my mind. I wonder if she was mis-quoted or something.
I'll also say that as a part-time photographer the current trend for heavy make up, false eyelashes, lip fillers etc is a fucking nightmare with high-res digital cameras. You have to be SO careful with lighting or people look horrendous. it's very limiting. You can see this in sci-fi movies pretty easily too but at least there they have the budget to CGI the actors skin later on. CSI: Omaha isn't going to bother with that, so beauty lighting it is.
posted by fshgrl at 8:42 PM on March 28, 2019 [1 favorite]
fshgrl, I think she knows a lot about lenses. About the diopter... she cites an example and quotes a famous cinematographer, it seems too specific to be made-up. And she clearly understands how lens length affects facial features... that discussion is an entire section of the interview. She's saying that she disagrees with "conventional" wisdom on these things. Which is good to disagree with. Fuck shallow depth of field. And hell yeah wide angle lenses. (also "hyper focus" is with small apertures, not large)
She sounds great and I'm going to watch some of her stuff now.
posted by weed donkey at 11:20 PM on March 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
She sounds great and I'm going to watch some of her stuff now.
posted by weed donkey at 11:20 PM on March 28, 2019 [2 favorites]
You can calculate and use the hyperfocal distance for any aperture and a diopter is used with a shallow depth of field, the various types allow you to have more control over your focal area(s) is all. But anyway, the technical stuff in this is a mess to the point I wonder if there was a language barrier or something. I mean a director has to know that you can have more than one person in focus at a time.
My point is that an Oscar winning director blaming the DP of a CW show for not wanting to radically change how they've been told to make the show and the actresses look for a one off director is punching down. Especially if said director is not technically proficient. Her issue about always wanting actresses to look unreasonably pretty, one I agree with, is with the showrunners and the network.
posted by fshgrl at 3:48 AM on March 29, 2019
My point is that an Oscar winning director blaming the DP of a CW show for not wanting to radically change how they've been told to make the show and the actresses look for a one off director is punching down. Especially if said director is not technically proficient. Her issue about always wanting actresses to look unreasonably pretty, one I agree with, is with the showrunners and the network.
posted by fshgrl at 3:48 AM on March 29, 2019
My point is that an Oscar winning director
Oscar-nominated for a short, FWIW. She mentions towards the end of the interview that the commercial failure of Punisher:War Zone put her in "director's jail" and she was unable to land other feature projects. I think you're maybe over-estimating how much power she wields in these interactions.
This "does she even know what a dioptre is" stuff feels a bit like the "well you called it a magazine so you're clearly not qualified to speak" nonsense flung at gun-control advocates. She's not claiming huge technical competence ("you have to remember I didn’t study cinematography at film school"); she's claiming that in her experience the industry is sexist in the way it shoots, and treats, women.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:24 AM on March 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
Oscar-nominated for a short, FWIW. She mentions towards the end of the interview that the commercial failure of Punisher:War Zone put her in "director's jail" and she was unable to land other feature projects. I think you're maybe over-estimating how much power she wields in these interactions.
This "does she even know what a dioptre is" stuff feels a bit like the "well you called it a magazine so you're clearly not qualified to speak" nonsense flung at gun-control advocates. She's not claiming huge technical competence ("you have to remember I didn’t study cinematography at film school"); she's claiming that in her experience the industry is sexist in the way it shoots, and treats, women.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:24 AM on March 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
I think you're maybe over-estimating how much power she wields in these interactions.
No I know how little power she has as a occasional director for hire for low budget TV. None. But she does apparently have power in the media completely out of proportion to her small body of work. She's directed so few things that these interviews are basically direct attacks on easily identifiable people who are just toiling away at their unglamorous jobs. That's gonna cause her issues in terms of getting hired right there.
posted by fshgrl at 1:04 PM on March 29, 2019
No I know how little power she has as a occasional director for hire for low budget TV. None. But she does apparently have power in the media completely out of proportion to her small body of work. She's directed so few things that these interviews are basically direct attacks on easily identifiable people who are just toiling away at their unglamorous jobs. That's gonna cause her issues in terms of getting hired right there.
posted by fshgrl at 1:04 PM on March 29, 2019
Her complaints about DPs were less about the technical choices, which she treats as a systemic issue, and more about their personal interactions with the actresses they were shooting. E.g.,
People keep saying things like this in front of the actresses. What does that do to the psychology of these actresses when you can’t even switch their position because they need this light — otherwise, “Oh my God, how is she going to look?” That’s a major thing that bothers me.posted by mbrubeck at 12:51 PM on March 30, 2019 [1 favorite]
« Older Madness, Inc. | Chances are, your cat hates your music Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jacquilynne at 2:41 PM on March 28, 2019 [3 favorites]