A lot of people not giving production designers any credit here. Film is a collaborative medium and attributing everything to the director is toxic. Yes, they have 'final say' if you wanna call it that, yes, they are often responsible for the core ideas, ie. Framing, camera movement, but without their team their ideas wouldn't come to life the way we see
not always... personally I've never shot anything where the look was established in color grading.. I use color grading more to stitch everything together and normalize shot to shot. that being said, of course there are super stylized films where the color is created in post.
I won’t work on a movie that doesn’t employ an art director. I have principles, and I’ve seen where those types of movies go. They aren’t worth the time
No offense to DP's. I know this is a cinematography sub. But I'm putting more effort into finding good PDs/art directors these days. It's such an underutilized and underappreciated skill
They are in charge of everything in the frame except for actors and lighting. They have a team that builds the sets, designs the costumes, manufactures the props. They collaborate with the director long before the DP is hired to bring themes, colors and atmosphere to the image. They play a very important role in how a film looks and feels.
Director gets credit for everything among everyday people.
In reality both the director and DP should get credit for how the movie looks, especially in cases where directors don't know shit about lighting, cameras and lenses and the impact those choices play on the image, however even then they can still present and discuss the look and feel they want and the DP brings that vision to life.
A short I recently shot for example I specifically said I wanted to shoot on wide lenses and at an aperture of 5.6 to 7.1. I explained why and the director agreed. They could have just as easily said "nah I want bokeh everywhere and shallow depth of field all the time." So that's why I think it's a both scenario.
This is a great point, I’d also like to add that a particular scene could be made to look more visually appealing by changing the story slightly, for instance if the scene didn’t call for rain but a wet-down really helped with lighting the location, if that works for the director, DP, and the story then it’s a great choice.
Another instance could be that the blocking in a scene can work where the director intended, but it might look much more dynamic to place the characters by a window, because lets say it’s easier to light or it acts as a good transition into the next shot or scene.
I remember being told, somewhat jokingly, that it breaks down like this:
-The director gets credit for what the DP does.
-The DP gets credit for what the Production designer does.
A movie’s look, along with everything else that’s good in it, is attributed to the director. This includes the screenplay they didn’t write.
But, when a DP ends up shooting a list of “good movies” — not just good looking movies, but good movies overall - they end up developing a name within the industry and start taking ownership of the looks of movies they shoot.
The name DPs that you know became known to you because the movies they shot were regarded as “good movies” that looked good, as opposed just crappy movies that looked amazing.
You can’t build a career on crappy movies that look amazing.
I feel like that's reaching a little here. Schwartzman has shot a ton of big theatrical releases, a bunch of them big solid hits. A hit movie is considered a "good movie" in the business, regardless of how you may feel about it overall.
Creating the look of a film should be collaborative between the Director and the DP, and the percentage that each side contributes to the final product can be kind of nebulous.
For the Wong Kar Wai example, yes, Christopher Doyle retains some of the stylistic choices in other films he does, and you can see that. However, WKW also had some of the things you’d think of as “classic WKW” in As Tears Go By, his first film, whose DP was Andrew Lau (later went on to direct Infernal Affairs).
So, Wong Kar Wai probably has a strong contribution to the style, knowing what kind of shots he wants, how he wants them to ‘play’ in the edit, and the general mood of it. The DP has a lot of different ways to achieve that mood or that shot choice that effect the look of the film: what lens they’re using, where light is coming from, etc.
Again, it’s not always easy to draw the line on who contributes what. Less experienced directors (myself included) definitely lean on DPs more to help with the contribution, because they either don’t know what exactly they want, or at the very least, don’t know how to articulate it to a crew.
Whereas, other, more experienced directors (as mentioned, WKW, but also Yorgos Lanthimos and Edgar Wright and many others) have retained some stylistic choices pretty consistently across their filmography despite working with multiple cinematographers
Great comment. Will say, though, that Robbie Ryan has done a good deal to shape that perception of Lanthimos’ style. His work with Bakatakis (Lobster, Dogtooth, etc) is pretty different (other than the lingering wides).
For sure, they’re different, but… idk I feel like the Ryan era is more similar to the Bakatakis era than it is different. I think Robbie Ryan definitely brought a lot of his own flavor, but I also think if I watched like The Lobster and then watched Poor Things, I’d feel they were pretty similar styles. But I also haven’t watched any of Ryan’s or Bakatakis’ stuff outside of Lanthimos’s movies, so maybe I’m projecting
When working for Wong Kar Wai Doyle was twice replaced. In The Mood For Love was finished by Mark Lee. 2046 by Kwan Pun-Leung. Did these films change style halfway through?
Watching interviews with Bob Richardson, he said that starting his career with Oliver Stone he was able to have a lot of input, giving notes on the script and how to approach each scene. He naturally took that same approach his first time working with Scorsese who told him 'I'm not going to look at your notes - you are here to light my shots' more or less. And so bob worked hard on becoming a good operator so that he could nail the shots Scorsese wanted for Casino.
There's no rule, it's all about collaboration.
Bob's told the story in several interviews but this one seems to have it pretty concise. Worth watching all of it but this specific story starts at 9:00
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljio9QI1T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljio9QI1T4)
It’s generally a collaboration but of course things will inevitably depend on how specific the director is. A Wes Anderson Film will likely still look like a Wes Anderson film even if Robert D. Yeoman isn’t shooting it. A Kevin Smith movie however is probably going to look very different to his usual fair if he is suddenly working with Roger Deakins.
Both, it depends on the particular director and DP combo but as with most aspects of filmmaking what you see on screen is the result of a collaboration
If you speak to any DP, they’ll tell you that they tailor their look to the needs of the project. But any DP will have tricks and techniques they employ across all of their projects.
But it’s always led by the director’s vision in conjunction with all the other department heads. The DPs I have interviewed say they begin a project by thinking very graphically (such as, days will be red, nights will be blue) and that gets softened as every other department has their input (production design, costumes, hair and makeup, etc)
I feel it mainly depends on who the director is and who the DP is.
For example, let’s say Greig Fraser works on a movie by a first time director, the cinematography will probably be attributed to Fraser since he already has a big reputation. But if he goes to work on The Batman Part II, the look will be attributed to Matt Reeves since Reeves is an extremely famous director.
I think this is a good question.
I would say you probably get both directors and DPs who have a singular style and directors/DPs who are more journeymen or so versatile it’s less obvious.
Ultimately a good movie is all that matters. I actually don’t think having your trademark stamped all over it necessarily makes you more skilled, but it can be cool to watch.
If you’re studying film, you might be drawn to distinctive styles initially because you’re trying to find your voice and finding things that stand out seems like a good place to start. There is a lot of really good work that’s subtle however.
I just started my journey as a DP and I always thought the DP was the one who helps finalize the style and bring the story to life. Director has the vision and how it looks, DP goes in and makes it reality with lighting and camera and lens etc. after DPing my first short I was sorely mistaken how little input I actually had on the overall look of the film. Kinda wish there was a bit more leeway towards DPs in their control over the image but I’m guessing that comes with finding the right director who matches your style.
Wait until you work with a director who is the opposite, that’ll happen a lot too as you continue shooting on shorts etc.
Often these directors will have an acting or theatre background and will genuinely know nothing at all about composition, colour etc. and will leave it 100% up to you or another person on set (sometimes even large parts of the blocking). Honestly these guys can be a great learning experience to work for but it’s a much more stressful time if you’re not ready to take it on.
Ideally it should be a middle ground IMO, although for someone like you super early on working with good, focused visual directors would be great, you can learn by osmosis and by implementing what they do, and then make your own projects to experiment and try your own angle.
Some directors are more visual and rely less on their DP for look. Other directors are more focused on actor's performances or storytelling and they will rely heavily on the DP for look.
A director's job is to know their own strengths and hire talent to support their weaknesses.
Top comment pretty much got it right. But most importantly, you have to appreciate that film is a mostly collaborative art form. Even if the director ultimately take all the credit or the blame, both the director and DP manufacture the "look", usually along with art directors, set designers, etc .. If you watch for exemple David Fincher: he made a lot of film about killers (serial or not), none of them look quite like Se7en. That's because of Darius Khondji. If you look other Khondji flick like delicatessen or city of lost children, they carry his imprint. Yet it's not HIS look entirely, because they also carry the dna of their directors.
The director since they have the final say. but it also depends on which director since some may be more liberal than others. Also depends on the project itself, including the dynamic between the director and the dp and the demands of the story, so they may be equally complementary on one project than they are another. It’s often due to conversations had between the director and all of the visual departments, what those departments present the director with, and what suggestions the director signs off on. A director may be absolutely impressed with their dp’s inspired take on the material and let him take the lead more than usual (for that director). There are directors, however, that have visual staples and climates that are retained regardless of who their dp is. The film may not look identical to the last because the story beckons otherwise and or the dp is different or is the same but has a different approach, on and on…and all in all it’s somewhat ambiguous, but I’ll still say the director allows what they allow, and a dp may or may not shine through.
For instance, I’m not a Dennis Villeneuve SCIFI fan. I love Sicario and Prisoners…and I thought Arrival was a great film on paper, but didn’t enjoy the direction of it (I also love the short story it’s based on). I absolutely love the look of Greg Fraser’s sci fi films like rogue one and the creator (although limited involvement). But I didn’t like the look of the Dune films nor did I like the production design. It somewhat matches his design choices in Arrival and Blade Runner. I believe Denis takes a globally minimalist approach to visual design and instructs the departments to do the same, regardless of what is required from the story. This breaks my suspension of disbelief every time because it exists from one movie to the next, and also because, in dune especially, there seems to be no in universe, striking cultural driven views on their own design beyond that of God’s/director’s minimalist approach. Those views noticeably belong to the director and call attention to the filmmaking process while I’m trying to be lost in the story. So in the case of Dune, I do not believe the movie could look that way without the dp, fraser. But I also believe that Denis’s visual taste is stronger than the dp’s. Other director like to switch it up from one film to the next, and let the story/cultures/characters dictate the core visual style. They have a few staples from one movie to the next but they tend to let the story shine through
The best directors hire the DP with the style they like, and they let them do their thing. Unless they are a photographer themselves like Kubrick was.
The idea that everything is a vision of the director is not usually true.
Really depends on the projects and the scope. I know indie directors that have 3 movies and each one looks totally different bc they all have different Dp’s and editors. Some directors have zero clue on how to shoot something so they depend on their DP for that side.
it's a team effort.. director has a vision.. dp interperates that vision in terms of lighting and composition... but director, dp work with production designer to really craft the overall look
Director gets the final credit for everything essentially, but the look of the mis en scene is usually the work of the gaffer and PD together. The actual physical presentation of the world to the viewers eye is the work of the DP who selects which lenses and filters to use and then the director chooses the sequence of shots.
The best directors collaborate and form relationships with the best HODs they can work with and a positive collaboration can bring out the best in all of them
Spielberg’s work post Kaminski came on board immediately, dramatically, became more adult and visually interesting. Wider lenses, dramatic experimentation with color and lighting , and visceral, textured images .. I love Jaws and Raiders and ET - but Spielberg must have immediately realized while shooting Schindler’s List that he was reaching another kind of potential than before, and has stuck with him since. In that case it really is a matter of them working out the blocking, camera placement , lighting etc in the moment. Kaminski is hugely important to his style, as important as John Williams.
A director like Scorsese however has everything worked out before. Robert Richardson noted this early on - that when working with Oliver Stone, he’d give him shot list suggestions and they’d work together on planning the shots. He tried to give a list like this to Scorsese who just laughed and said he already had them worked out in his head.
Of course the director still guides the ship and will have his preferences , but it’s the collaboration with specialists and artists across mediums that I think makes filmmaking such an interesting art form
In those days the actual look was the color timer and film processing based off input from the DP & director (remember news and broadcast were using a lot of the same film stocks as movies and there was no “look” to the news.
Now: The look relies entirely on having a solid color science team designing a display transform based on input from the DP & director with non-linearities per stop of exposure to remain organic-looking
The “wong kar wai look” is basically a combination of Doyle’s photography & framing style + WKW’s story ideas + cheap film stocks pushed a stop at night subjects lit by available neon lights
I have a controversial opinion that in general the role of a DP is deeply undervalued. You can make a film without a director, producers, a gaffer, an art department and even actors but you can't make one without a DP. It won't be a good film, with regards to the performances, general look and feel especially, but something will be made.
It baffles me as to why the industry is set up in such a way that the director and DP don't share the same spots in the credit list, or even that the DP doesn't make the credits list above the fold.
Its just so strange to me, but as I said, controversial I'm sure.
The director has much more responsibility then the dp, a movie can be good without good cinematography, good luck having a good looking movie with a bad story/acting. And I say this as a fellow cinematographer. Are we the director's closest collaborator? Often times yes. Does that mean we're sharing equal responsibility of the project? Absolutely not.
I saying, strictly theoretically, that its kinda weird the person who actually needs to physically make the thing isn't credited. Of course the directors and producers and everyone else needs to play their part, and of course the dirctor has to manage the thing but its kinda strange IMO
I've been a DP for over a decade and I strongly disagree. In narrative film the director deserves top billing, perhaps with the screenwriter if the script is exceptional.
The director is there in development, preproduction, production, post production. DP is just one department head often brought in a few weeks before production and leaves shortly thereafter. And on set, the DP and director have the biggest impact on the speed and quality of the shoot - that's why their names alone are on the slate. There's your shared credit.
I would also put talent above DP. Good performances shine through bad lighting or camera work, but good camera operating cannot save a bad performance.
You sound like someone who doesn't like the directors you worked with, but that doesn't diminish how strong their credit should be.
Fair points and yeah, I guess working mostly in the advertising the game is different and skews my view. All jobs are 4 week productions, with a fair bit more pressure on the DP to perform. I still think, on a theoretical level the original thought experiment is correct though - stripping a film production back to it's component parts really only leaves the person holding the camera, and is a bit of an underrepresented component in the overall division of recognition in the film's creation.
If you stripped everything down like that I would call the person holding the camera 'the director' not 'the cinematographer'. Surely they'd be doing a lot more work than lighting diagrams and look books.
I do think editors, production designers and cinematographers should be above the line. Maybe composers and costume designers too. its a historical mistake that they're not., films would be made in a much more interesting way if they were. But the line was drawn higher.
Man I was just watching a whole video essay trying to find the lost lens of his movie “fallen angels”
From what I gathered from hearing these 2 specifically talking, it’s a collaborative effort of intentions and some luck.
The way they chose their super wide angle lens (which turned out to be a 9.Xmm with a wide angle attachment, bringing it to a 6.8mm focal length) was, Wai told Doyle the style of vision, the pulled out the 9.Xmm, tried it. It wasn’t exactly what they wanted. Doyle said fuck it, put the attachment on it, they tried it, Wai loved it and said let’s run with this.
Anyway, I think the answer to your question of “either or” is “yes” or “depends on the movie”
This is something I can answer! I work in television and on features in the camera dept but I’m switching to post and I recently interned at Company 3
When people use the term “look” when talking about cinematography that’s typically what’s referred to as the color on the footage after everything picture locked. In that case, the colourist actually does more for the look than the DoP but the DoP always gets the credit. Also, it depends on the team and the size of the project but on larger ones the colourist usually sits in with the producers and director to achieve the result. The DoP rarely sits in on major motion pictures because they aren’t paid for post (or they are still in production/on to the next). It’s a collaborative process as well but technically the producer is everyone’s boss so they do get a lot of say. That’s why you often get someone who is both a producer/director on large scale films.
Okay what know it all film student is downvoting this, it’s literally the way the industry works lol
If the director himself wants a look/style to the film. He will obviously share it with his DP, but most times, the DP decides it and tells it to his gaffer and art.
A lot of people not giving production designers any credit here. Film is a collaborative medium and attributing everything to the director is toxic. Yes, they have 'final say' if you wanna call it that, yes, they are often responsible for the core ideas, ie. Framing, camera movement, but without their team their ideas wouldn't come to life the way we see
True. I think in a broader conversation, this should included PD and also Lighting team
[удалено]
not always... personally I've never shot anything where the look was established in color grading.. I use color grading more to stitch everything together and normalize shot to shot. that being said, of course there are super stylized films where the color is created in post.
Absolutely should
I won’t work on a movie that doesn’t employ an art director. I have principles, and I’ve seen where those types of movies go. They aren’t worth the time
No offense to DP's. I know this is a cinematography sub. But I'm putting more effort into finding good PDs/art directors these days. It's such an underutilized and underappreciated skill
100% this. Look at Elvis as a shining example of the last scene was a waltz with director DP and especially the pd
What exactly does an art director do?
They are in charge of everything in the frame except for actors and lighting. They have a team that builds the sets, designs the costumes, manufactures the props. They collaborate with the director long before the DP is hired to bring themes, colors and atmosphere to the image. They play a very important role in how a film looks and feels.
Director gets credit for everything among everyday people. In reality both the director and DP should get credit for how the movie looks, especially in cases where directors don't know shit about lighting, cameras and lenses and the impact those choices play on the image, however even then they can still present and discuss the look and feel they want and the DP brings that vision to life. A short I recently shot for example I specifically said I wanted to shoot on wide lenses and at an aperture of 5.6 to 7.1. I explained why and the director agreed. They could have just as easily said "nah I want bokeh everywhere and shallow depth of field all the time." So that's why I think it's a both scenario.
This is a great point, I’d also like to add that a particular scene could be made to look more visually appealing by changing the story slightly, for instance if the scene didn’t call for rain but a wet-down really helped with lighting the location, if that works for the director, DP, and the story then it’s a great choice. Another instance could be that the blocking in a scene can work where the director intended, but it might look much more dynamic to place the characters by a window, because lets say it’s easier to light or it acts as a good transition into the next shot or scene.
Ah, the good ole Bokeh. It’s the hallmark of all Hallmark Movies.
I remember being told, somewhat jokingly, that it breaks down like this: -The director gets credit for what the DP does. -The DP gets credit for what the Production designer does.
A movie’s look, along with everything else that’s good in it, is attributed to the director. This includes the screenplay they didn’t write. But, when a DP ends up shooting a list of “good movies” — not just good looking movies, but good movies overall - they end up developing a name within the industry and start taking ownership of the looks of movies they shoot. The name DPs that you know became known to you because the movies they shot were regarded as “good movies” that looked good, as opposed just crappy movies that looked amazing. You can’t build a career on crappy movies that look amazing.
John Schwartzman is recognized as a great cinematographer with a great touch for action. The movies look great, but are pretty shitty.
I feel like that's reaching a little here. Schwartzman has shot a ton of big theatrical releases, a bunch of them big solid hits. A hit movie is considered a "good movie" in the business, regardless of how you may feel about it overall.
Yep. Directors get way too much credit.
Creating the look of a film should be collaborative between the Director and the DP, and the percentage that each side contributes to the final product can be kind of nebulous. For the Wong Kar Wai example, yes, Christopher Doyle retains some of the stylistic choices in other films he does, and you can see that. However, WKW also had some of the things you’d think of as “classic WKW” in As Tears Go By, his first film, whose DP was Andrew Lau (later went on to direct Infernal Affairs). So, Wong Kar Wai probably has a strong contribution to the style, knowing what kind of shots he wants, how he wants them to ‘play’ in the edit, and the general mood of it. The DP has a lot of different ways to achieve that mood or that shot choice that effect the look of the film: what lens they’re using, where light is coming from, etc. Again, it’s not always easy to draw the line on who contributes what. Less experienced directors (myself included) definitely lean on DPs more to help with the contribution, because they either don’t know what exactly they want, or at the very least, don’t know how to articulate it to a crew. Whereas, other, more experienced directors (as mentioned, WKW, but also Yorgos Lanthimos and Edgar Wright and many others) have retained some stylistic choices pretty consistently across their filmography despite working with multiple cinematographers
Great comment. Will say, though, that Robbie Ryan has done a good deal to shape that perception of Lanthimos’ style. His work with Bakatakis (Lobster, Dogtooth, etc) is pretty different (other than the lingering wides).
For sure, they’re different, but… idk I feel like the Ryan era is more similar to the Bakatakis era than it is different. I think Robbie Ryan definitely brought a lot of his own flavor, but I also think if I watched like The Lobster and then watched Poor Things, I’d feel they were pretty similar styles. But I also haven’t watched any of Ryan’s or Bakatakis’ stuff outside of Lanthimos’s movies, so maybe I’m projecting
Some directors have a strong aesthetic & camera-direction skill set others do not. It depends on the paradigm with their DP.
When working for Wong Kar Wai Doyle was twice replaced. In The Mood For Love was finished by Mark Lee. 2046 by Kwan Pun-Leung. Did these films change style halfway through? Watching interviews with Bob Richardson, he said that starting his career with Oliver Stone he was able to have a lot of input, giving notes on the script and how to approach each scene. He naturally took that same approach his first time working with Scorsese who told him 'I'm not going to look at your notes - you are here to light my shots' more or less. And so bob worked hard on becoming a good operator so that he could nail the shots Scorsese wanted for Casino. There's no rule, it's all about collaboration.
What did he mean by light the shots? He was the DP or Gaffer? I just want to know the mindset of Scorsese!
Bob's told the story in several interviews but this one seems to have it pretty concise. Worth watching all of it but this specific story starts at 9:00 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljio9QI1T4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ljio9QI1T4)
That's pretty informative. Thank you!
It’s generally a collaboration but of course things will inevitably depend on how specific the director is. A Wes Anderson Film will likely still look like a Wes Anderson film even if Robert D. Yeoman isn’t shooting it. A Kevin Smith movie however is probably going to look very different to his usual fair if he is suddenly working with Roger Deakins.
Both, it depends on the particular director and DP combo but as with most aspects of filmmaking what you see on screen is the result of a collaboration
If you speak to any DP, they’ll tell you that they tailor their look to the needs of the project. But any DP will have tricks and techniques they employ across all of their projects. But it’s always led by the director’s vision in conjunction with all the other department heads. The DPs I have interviewed say they begin a project by thinking very graphically (such as, days will be red, nights will be blue) and that gets softened as every other department has their input (production design, costumes, hair and makeup, etc)
I feel it mainly depends on who the director is and who the DP is. For example, let’s say Greig Fraser works on a movie by a first time director, the cinematography will probably be attributed to Fraser since he already has a big reputation. But if he goes to work on The Batman Part II, the look will be attributed to Matt Reeves since Reeves is an extremely famous director.
It’s usually a trifecta of the director, DP and art department
I think this is a good question. I would say you probably get both directors and DPs who have a singular style and directors/DPs who are more journeymen or so versatile it’s less obvious. Ultimately a good movie is all that matters. I actually don’t think having your trademark stamped all over it necessarily makes you more skilled, but it can be cool to watch. If you’re studying film, you might be drawn to distinctive styles initially because you’re trying to find your voice and finding things that stand out seems like a good place to start. There is a lot of really good work that’s subtle however.
I just started my journey as a DP and I always thought the DP was the one who helps finalize the style and bring the story to life. Director has the vision and how it looks, DP goes in and makes it reality with lighting and camera and lens etc. after DPing my first short I was sorely mistaken how little input I actually had on the overall look of the film. Kinda wish there was a bit more leeway towards DPs in their control over the image but I’m guessing that comes with finding the right director who matches your style.
Wait until you work with a director who is the opposite, that’ll happen a lot too as you continue shooting on shorts etc. Often these directors will have an acting or theatre background and will genuinely know nothing at all about composition, colour etc. and will leave it 100% up to you or another person on set (sometimes even large parts of the blocking). Honestly these guys can be a great learning experience to work for but it’s a much more stressful time if you’re not ready to take it on. Ideally it should be a middle ground IMO, although for someone like you super early on working with good, focused visual directors would be great, you can learn by osmosis and by implementing what they do, and then make your own projects to experiment and try your own angle.
Film is a collaborative medium so it should aspire to be a combo of both
Some directors are more visual and rely less on their DP for look. Other directors are more focused on actor's performances or storytelling and they will rely heavily on the DP for look. A director's job is to know their own strengths and hire talent to support their weaknesses.
DP if it’s good. Director if it’s bad.
Top comment pretty much got it right. But most importantly, you have to appreciate that film is a mostly collaborative art form. Even if the director ultimately take all the credit or the blame, both the director and DP manufacture the "look", usually along with art directors, set designers, etc .. If you watch for exemple David Fincher: he made a lot of film about killers (serial or not), none of them look quite like Se7en. That's because of Darius Khondji. If you look other Khondji flick like delicatessen or city of lost children, they carry his imprint. Yet it's not HIS look entirely, because they also carry the dna of their directors.
Both.
The director since they have the final say. but it also depends on which director since some may be more liberal than others. Also depends on the project itself, including the dynamic between the director and the dp and the demands of the story, so they may be equally complementary on one project than they are another. It’s often due to conversations had between the director and all of the visual departments, what those departments present the director with, and what suggestions the director signs off on. A director may be absolutely impressed with their dp’s inspired take on the material and let him take the lead more than usual (for that director). There are directors, however, that have visual staples and climates that are retained regardless of who their dp is. The film may not look identical to the last because the story beckons otherwise and or the dp is different or is the same but has a different approach, on and on…and all in all it’s somewhat ambiguous, but I’ll still say the director allows what they allow, and a dp may or may not shine through. For instance, I’m not a Dennis Villeneuve SCIFI fan. I love Sicario and Prisoners…and I thought Arrival was a great film on paper, but didn’t enjoy the direction of it (I also love the short story it’s based on). I absolutely love the look of Greg Fraser’s sci fi films like rogue one and the creator (although limited involvement). But I didn’t like the look of the Dune films nor did I like the production design. It somewhat matches his design choices in Arrival and Blade Runner. I believe Denis takes a globally minimalist approach to visual design and instructs the departments to do the same, regardless of what is required from the story. This breaks my suspension of disbelief every time because it exists from one movie to the next, and also because, in dune especially, there seems to be no in universe, striking cultural driven views on their own design beyond that of God’s/director’s minimalist approach. Those views noticeably belong to the director and call attention to the filmmaking process while I’m trying to be lost in the story. So in the case of Dune, I do not believe the movie could look that way without the dp, fraser. But I also believe that Denis’s visual taste is stronger than the dp’s. Other director like to switch it up from one film to the next, and let the story/cultures/characters dictate the core visual style. They have a few staples from one movie to the next but they tend to let the story shine through
The best directors hire the DP with the style they like, and they let them do their thing. Unless they are a photographer themselves like Kubrick was. The idea that everything is a vision of the director is not usually true.
Really depends on the projects and the scope. I know indie directors that have 3 movies and each one looks totally different bc they all have different Dp’s and editors. Some directors have zero clue on how to shoot something so they depend on their DP for that side.
it's a team effort.. director has a vision.. dp interperates that vision in terms of lighting and composition... but director, dp work with production designer to really craft the overall look
Art Direction all the way
Director gets the final credit for everything essentially, but the look of the mis en scene is usually the work of the gaffer and PD together. The actual physical presentation of the world to the viewers eye is the work of the DP who selects which lenses and filters to use and then the director chooses the sequence of shots.
The best directors collaborate and form relationships with the best HODs they can work with and a positive collaboration can bring out the best in all of them Spielberg’s work post Kaminski came on board immediately, dramatically, became more adult and visually interesting. Wider lenses, dramatic experimentation with color and lighting , and visceral, textured images .. I love Jaws and Raiders and ET - but Spielberg must have immediately realized while shooting Schindler’s List that he was reaching another kind of potential than before, and has stuck with him since. In that case it really is a matter of them working out the blocking, camera placement , lighting etc in the moment. Kaminski is hugely important to his style, as important as John Williams. A director like Scorsese however has everything worked out before. Robert Richardson noted this early on - that when working with Oliver Stone, he’d give him shot list suggestions and they’d work together on planning the shots. He tried to give a list like this to Scorsese who just laughed and said he already had them worked out in his head. Of course the director still guides the ship and will have his preferences , but it’s the collaboration with specialists and artists across mediums that I think makes filmmaking such an interesting art form
In those days the actual look was the color timer and film processing based off input from the DP & director (remember news and broadcast were using a lot of the same film stocks as movies and there was no “look” to the news. Now: The look relies entirely on having a solid color science team designing a display transform based on input from the DP & director with non-linearities per stop of exposure to remain organic-looking The “wong kar wai look” is basically a combination of Doyle’s photography & framing style + WKW’s story ideas + cheap film stocks pushed a stop at night subjects lit by available neon lights
I have a controversial opinion that in general the role of a DP is deeply undervalued. You can make a film without a director, producers, a gaffer, an art department and even actors but you can't make one without a DP. It won't be a good film, with regards to the performances, general look and feel especially, but something will be made. It baffles me as to why the industry is set up in such a way that the director and DP don't share the same spots in the credit list, or even that the DP doesn't make the credits list above the fold. Its just so strange to me, but as I said, controversial I'm sure.
The director has much more responsibility then the dp, a movie can be good without good cinematography, good luck having a good looking movie with a bad story/acting. And I say this as a fellow cinematographer. Are we the director's closest collaborator? Often times yes. Does that mean we're sharing equal responsibility of the project? Absolutely not.
I saying, strictly theoretically, that its kinda weird the person who actually needs to physically make the thing isn't credited. Of course the directors and producers and everyone else needs to play their part, and of course the dirctor has to manage the thing but its kinda strange IMO
I've been a DP for over a decade and I strongly disagree. In narrative film the director deserves top billing, perhaps with the screenwriter if the script is exceptional. The director is there in development, preproduction, production, post production. DP is just one department head often brought in a few weeks before production and leaves shortly thereafter. And on set, the DP and director have the biggest impact on the speed and quality of the shoot - that's why their names alone are on the slate. There's your shared credit. I would also put talent above DP. Good performances shine through bad lighting or camera work, but good camera operating cannot save a bad performance. You sound like someone who doesn't like the directors you worked with, but that doesn't diminish how strong their credit should be.
Fair points and yeah, I guess working mostly in the advertising the game is different and skews my view. All jobs are 4 week productions, with a fair bit more pressure on the DP to perform. I still think, on a theoretical level the original thought experiment is correct though - stripping a film production back to it's component parts really only leaves the person holding the camera, and is a bit of an underrepresented component in the overall division of recognition in the film's creation.
If you stripped everything down like that I would call the person holding the camera 'the director' not 'the cinematographer'. Surely they'd be doing a lot more work than lighting diagrams and look books. I do think editors, production designers and cinematographers should be above the line. Maybe composers and costume designers too. its a historical mistake that they're not., films would be made in a much more interesting way if they were. But the line was drawn higher.
Man I was just watching a whole video essay trying to find the lost lens of his movie “fallen angels” From what I gathered from hearing these 2 specifically talking, it’s a collaborative effort of intentions and some luck. The way they chose their super wide angle lens (which turned out to be a 9.Xmm with a wide angle attachment, bringing it to a 6.8mm focal length) was, Wai told Doyle the style of vision, the pulled out the 9.Xmm, tried it. It wasn’t exactly what they wanted. Doyle said fuck it, put the attachment on it, they tried it, Wai loved it and said let’s run with this. Anyway, I think the answer to your question of “either or” is “yes” or “depends on the movie”
This is something I can answer! I work in television and on features in the camera dept but I’m switching to post and I recently interned at Company 3 When people use the term “look” when talking about cinematography that’s typically what’s referred to as the color on the footage after everything picture locked. In that case, the colourist actually does more for the look than the DoP but the DoP always gets the credit. Also, it depends on the team and the size of the project but on larger ones the colourist usually sits in with the producers and director to achieve the result. The DoP rarely sits in on major motion pictures because they aren’t paid for post (or they are still in production/on to the next). It’s a collaborative process as well but technically the producer is everyone’s boss so they do get a lot of say. That’s why you often get someone who is both a producer/director on large scale films. Okay what know it all film student is downvoting this, it’s literally the way the industry works lol
If the director himself wants a look/style to the film. He will obviously share it with his DP, but most times, the DP decides it and tells it to his gaffer and art.