Reference: StudentFilmmakers Magazine, October 2007. A Conversation with Award-Winning Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto, ASC, AMC: “Lust, Caution” Wins Best Film and Best Cinematography at the 64th Venice Film Festival by Jacqueline B. Frost. Pages 14 – 16, 18 – 20, 22.
Rodrigo Prieto, ASC, AMC wins Best Cinematography at the 64th Venice Film Festival for “Lust, Caution” – which also wins Best Film.
Rodrigo is one of the hottest cinematographers working in the industry today. Nominated for an Academy Award for the beautiful cinematography in Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” (2005), he is also the cinematographer of Ang Lee’s most recent film, “Lust, Caution,” (2007). He has collaborated with Alejandro Inarritu on “Babel” (2006), “21 Grams” (2003), and “Amores Perros” (2000). He was the Director of Photography on Oliver Stones epic, “Alexander” (2004) and “25th Hour” (2002) for Spike Lee. He shot “Frida” (2002) for Julie Taymor and “8 Mile” (2002) for Curtis Hanson. Although “Original Sin,” (with Director Michael Cristofer, 2001) was Rodrigo’s first big, American film, his list of credits in Mexico is extensive. I met with Rodrigo in Brentwood to talk about his work as a cinematographer with some of Hollywood’s biggest names in directing.
Could you talk about the collaborative relationship between the director and cinematographer? What is the ideal situation for you? How do you like to work with a director?
Rodrigo Prieto, ASC, AMC: One of the things I like about what I do is precisely the collaboration with the director, and the opportunity to work with people who I find their point of view [how they see things] interesting, and to work with someone who would approach things completely differently than I would. I find that it helps me grow when I get involved with someone else’s point of view. And I have to learn to listen and see why a director would go in a path that would not have been my first instinct. But, then discovering what it is about that path that I can work on, it helps me to grow, and sometimes it’s painful. It can be difficult to find your way in a certain new perspective. Ideally, I try to get myself in tune with the director’s point of view. And what I enjoy is then coming back with a set of ideas that conform to that basic structure or groundwork and bring something additional to the plate.
What is your process for preparing for a film?
RP: My process is, I of course, first read the script, and from there, ideas are generated, but I try not to fall in love with my ideas – just get some basic concepts. I try to listen first to what the director has to say, maybe talk about some of the concepts I had on my first read. Then once I understand the approach to what the director is trying to do, then I go to my photography books or visual references and try to come up with visual ideas that I can present to the director. Maybe a certain scene could have a certain type of framing or grain structure or color. And I present these ideas to the director so we can ping pong ideas back and forth, discard some, keep some – and that will evolve during preproduction. For me, that’s very enjoyable, and that’s exactly the process I’m in right now with the current movie. I’m doing investigation, and then, of course, the production designer and research will come into play as well. So it’s a three-part collaboration. I try to be involved in all of it with the Director and Production Designer.
Of course, the ideas are all based on the director’s original intention, but we all try to come up with ideas that will work together. It’s a whole process that’s really enjoyable and for me. Prep is like going to film school all over again. I try to keep an open mind and test, test, test everything that I am imagining. I always try to test things I haven’t done before, not for the sake of doing something different but to explore different avenues and to see what we can get. Then, I present these ideas and tests to the director, and from there, we narrow it down to what will be the movie.
One thing I enjoy very much is working with a director on the shotlisting, which doesn’t always happen, but it’s something I like to do a lot. Some directors don’t shotlist. Others like to do it on their own in private, and will even do a storyboard without the DP involved, and that’s fine. I’ve worked like that as well.
What if a director comes to you with the storyboards all prepared and says, ‘I want it like that’?
RP: That happened to me only once on a movie in Mexico, and I actually tried to quit. Even while scouting locations, any proposal I had about camera placement or framing would immediately be shot down because everything had to be exactly how the director planned it on the storyboard, so there was no room for anything. So I said, ‘what do you want me for, find someone else.’ But then he said, but you can do whatever you like with lighting, but this is what I want with camera angles and framing. So I decided to go for it and told myself I would learn to work like this, and it was a good experience for me in the end. I try not to set myself into a definite way of working because every director is different, so I try to be flexible and work in different ways.
That movie many years ago helped me to work with Ang (Lee). He doesn’t do shot lists or pre-storyboarding. It comes up in the set after rehearsal, and he’ll stand there and contemplate. He’ll ask for the directors finder with a specific lens, and he’ll set the angle and framing, and that for me is different than what I had done with other directors. It wasn’t easy for me when we started “Brokeback Mountain,” but I got used to it. Ang has very good taste in terms of framing and choice of lenses, and it always makes sense to me. Because the choices he makes are correct.
It doesn’t hurt me because it’s not a thing about ‘ego, he picked it, so then I’m upset’. No – he’s right, it’s a good angle and a good lens, and I have no problem with that. You only have a problem when it doesn’t feel right. When you know that choices could work better another way. But most of the time, the differences between what he’ll pick and what I would have done have to do with camera height. Ang always wants the camera to be the eye level of the actor, no matter what. I find that’s not always the best angle. It’s almost like a mantra, it’s the way it is. Sometimes I would have to really talk him into the slightest adjustment. I certainly do find Ang’s approach very much organic with the material. The choices have to do with the characters and the story, and they are very subjective and I like it. I enjoy working with him, although it is not the kind of collaboration I have with Alejandro, or Oliver Stone or Curtis Hanson.
With Alejandro (Inarritu), we shotlist together, sometimes storyboard. I can draw a little bit, so sometimes I’ll do some storyboarding. At times we’ve hired storyboard artists, but we do sit down in preproduction. And I really like the process, even if we don’t use it during production because it gets us talking very specifically about the scene and what type of lenses, why would we start with a detail or a long shot, why? Why are we doing things, of course, we use our intuition when we are shotlisting, but it really gives a sense to the way each scene is covered and helps very much in editing. Alejandro has a really good sense of editing and sound, so in storyboarding we also talk about how it’s going to cut together. We shotlist as if we are editing, we even makes sounds, or do music. So it’s a very enjoyable process. And on the set, we have a blue print, whether we chose to use it or lose it.
So Julie Taymor is the only woman you’ve worked with so far?
RP: My second film was also with a female director. Here name is Eva Lopez-Sanchez, and the film was called, “Dama De Noche.” With Julie, it was very exciting to do “Frida” because it was very collaborative. We shot listed the whole movie together. We would also have meetings with the production designer and several people involved, and talk about all the things that were not scripted, transitions, paintings turning into reality. Many of those transitions we worked on together. She is incredibly creative, and she’ll come up with these amazing ideas. But she is open to listening to all of our ideas too. It was really exhilarating.
What would the first meeting for a potential project be like with a director?
RP: One of my first meetings like that was for Michael Cristofer for “Original Sin.” I really wanted to do a period movie, something totally different then “Amores Perros.” No one knew me at that time, so I was nervous. I try not to worry if I’m going to get the job or not, so I just go in and say what I think about the script, about the project. Even if there are things that are not working with the script, I’ll say it, even at the risk of not getting the job. I figure if there is something that I really feel strongly about, then why do it? Usually a director will say, yeah, we’re working on that, or yeah, or whatever. It’s a way of showing I’m honest about my feelings about a project, and I won’t shy away from my opinion. But I am not a person who will be stubborn. I just point out what I think.
My second big interview was with Oliver Stone for “Beyond Borders.” Which, in the end, he did not direct, but we did some prep work, some documentary footage in Africa. I expected an intimidating interview. I found out the day I went in, so I didn’t have a chance to get nervous. The chemistry was great. I felt very comfortable with him. I thought he was going to tear me apart, but he didn’t. We watched some clips from “Amores Perros,” and he told me about his project. And I think I was fortunate to have good interviews like that early in my career.
Curtis Hanson was interesting because he interviewed me like four times before he gave me the job. He was very deliberate about the process, and he wanted to make sure I was the right person for the project. He had seen a lot of my early Mexican movies, so he was familiar with my work before “Amores Perros.” I was working on a whole different style then, reacting to the aesthetics of the movies of the 70’s. What I was doing was more stylized with deliberate lighting, more beauty lighting. Curtis did not want that for “8 Mile”, and kept asking if I would fall back into that. I assured him that I didn’t do that in “Amores Perros,” and that I would light for the style of the film, and eventually he agreed to hire me. He just wanted to be sure the look for “8 Mile” would be very naturalistic and gritty.
What attracts you to a project creatively?
RP: One thing is the challenge; I look for a new challenge. I tend to choose projects that are different than the one I did before. Although it’s not so much on purpose, I have to find something in the script that is close to me in some way, or close to my heart or something that I’m interested in exploring. Almost as if it would be something I would direct as well. So far, I have never chosen a project as a job. It’s always been something I want to participate in for many reasons. The experience of “8 Mile”, with Rap music Detroit, was interesting to me, learning about it. Same with “Alexander” or Ang Lee in China. When I decided to do “Lust, Caution,” there were other interesting projects to choose from, but choosing that movie was, of course, the collaboration with Ang Lee. And also being in China, and learning about the Japanese occupation after the war, something I was not aware of. It’s really very interesting. You have to dive into these worlds. So all of those are elements of choice. It’s also balancing my work with my family life, to be near by family. Now I’m doing a movie that more than half will be shot in LA, so that’s another factor. But mostly it’s about my heart telling me this is something I want to do right now.
What if you don’t like the script?
RP: I read a lot of scripts, and I won’t even finish it if it is not talking to my heart. Genre is important also, I try to dip my feet into all sorts of different genres. I did turn down a movie recently because it was a classic Western, and I don’t like Westerns. The script was really good, it had cowboys, shoot outs, everything, a classic Western genre film. I don’t go and see Westerns, so if I’m going to do a movie, it is one I would go see in the cinema. Who knows, maybe later in life I will change my mind and do a Western? [laughs]
What attributes do you like in a director?
RP: For me the most important thing is passion. And a director who is not passionate about his project turns me off. That means sometimes I work with directors who will really challenge me and the crew, and we will work long hours, and it’s tough. But I much prefer that, to someone who just wants to get it done in a reasonable amount of time and go home, just get it in the can. So passion is the most important thing.
What kind of visual references have you used in communication with a director, or a director has used to communicate with you?
RP: Curtis said he wanted “8 Mile” to look like’ weeds growing out of a sidewalk.’ I think a big part of the color palette came from that, lots of cyans. With “Alexander” for example, I presented Oliver with a set of scanned photographs and paintings with references of color, composition, grain, and lighting, including photos of Sebasteao Salgado, and paintings from Rembrandt and Caravaggio.
For “Amores Perros,” when Alejandro presented the script to me, we had worked together on many commercials before, in this sleek style, precise lighting. He knew my past work, and he was afraid I wouldn’t want to do gritty dirty movies. So I read the script and came in to our first meeting to talk about the visuals with a book from Nan Goldin that I had recently discovered. Alejandro had the same book with him as a reference, and he said you may not like this, but here are some references for the movie. And I pulled out the same book, so our starting point was the same. For “21 Grams,” we used some Nan Goldin and Laura Letinsky on “Babel.”
Do you expect or like a director to know specific focal lengths and understand depth of field?
RP: It helps that they do understand technical aspects, but it is not essential. I see advantages of both cases. When I worked with Julie Taymor, she had already done “Titus,” and she had a certain language of film, but she wasn’t extremely technically savvy. But I think it helped because she would come up with ideas that weren’t constrained to the traditional limitations that you think of the way you shoot something, or visual effects or whatever. So then, I had to figure out technically how to achieve her idea. So I tried very hard not to limit her by saying that would be really difficult because of this and that – okay, this is what she wants, and how do we do it? So, it was exciting, and I think in that case, it was to our advantage that she didn’t know the limitations that technique will put in her brain. There is always a way to achieve something.
But Ang Lee, for example, he is very technically savvy. Most of the directors do understand focal length, they are very experienced, but for Ang the subtlety between a 32mm and a 28mm is a big deal for him, one filter versus another, so he’s very aware of the subtle differences. If I show him the difference between one film stock and another, he will see the differences; other directors may not, so sometimes you have to present them the differences that are bigger. Such is the case with Oliver Stone, he is not about subtlety, when you propose something it has to be bold and he has to see it, it’s interesting, both ways I enjoy, it’s just a matter of jiving with a director.
Have you worked with directors who use focal length and depth of field aesthetically to amplify the thematic elements of the script or scene?
RP: Usually in the movies I’ve done it has been something I brought to it. Ang Lee has his choices of lenses. Usually he will do a master shot with a 27mm; a 25 is too wide angle, medium shots will be 50mm, close ups 75mm. I tried to propose in certain parts of the story going more with a long lens and hidden. He liked the idea, but when we were shooting, it would always be the same lenses, and that’s just his way of working. He would be the director who was most specific about lenses, but it was because he was comfortable with those lenses. In “Amores Perros,” for certain stories, we used different focal lengths to tell the stories. The story of the homeless guy with all the dogs, we used longer lenses because we wanted to convey more of a sense of spying, because he was going around looking at people. Another story was more kinetic. It was all handheld but with different lenses. It was something I brought to Alejandro and he liked it. On “Babel,” we used shallow depth of field to represent the perception of the deaf, mute character in Japan.
Do you prefer primes or zooms?
RP: I like primes, but I guess one of the main reasons is that once we find the frame that we like, then that’s what we’re doing. With zooms typically then the director will want to zoom in, and I prefer to move the camera closer. Sure, it will be faster [to zoom], but then all the coverage will be with a long lens, which could be fine, if that’s what you are going for. But I generally prefer to be close with the camera. The feeling of intimacy is very different with a 100mm or a 50 or 40 right close to the actors. It really feels like you are with them, invading their space with the camera a little bit, so for the audience it’s the difference between being voyeuristic and safe. Looking at something from a distance, or being right there with the actor. It’s a different vibration, and being there living with them. That’s why primes work better. It forces us to move in for coverage. But I like to work in different styles. But, if the director has that way of working, I’ll go with it.
Do you ever feel a connection to the actors when you are operating the camera?
RP: Absolutely. I think the main reason I operate when I can, although I don’t always. But it’s to see the performance. I do get involved with them when I am looking through the camera, and the actors are feeling these emotions. I will get emotional too. Several times I have cried on camera. It really is amazing. You get the front seat of the best performances of the best actors in the world, and you are right there, best seat in the house. So it’s really amazing.
Regarding video village, do the directors you work with watch the live performances or the monitors?
RP: A little of both, although the monitors are pretty magnetic. Most of the time, directors will be by the monitors. But they are moving them closer to where the performers are rather than being in a video village far away from the camera. Alejandro will be right behind the camera with a clamshell, and Ang Lee will be right near the camera with a small monitor. On “Alexander,” there was a video village, but that was because we had several cameras, and it was necessary for Oliver to see all of the cameras, so it depends. But I have found that directors like to see what is actually going to be captured on the film. But still being closer to the performers is what the directors I’ve been working with do.
What time of day cannot be re-created on set, or is difficult to recreate?
RP: The most difficult is sunlight on a big area of a set. To have a bright hard light source with a precise shadow, I don’t think there is one unit that can create that in a big area right now. There are the soft suns that are very bright and cover a big area, but the shadow will be slightly soft. I think that’s probably the biggest challenge. In “Alexander,” I lit a scene with a 100k soft sun and tried not to see the floor. It works fine in the close up, but in the wide shot you can tell more that it is lit. I think large areas of sunlight are very difficult to recreate on a sound stage.
What about magic hour?
RP: Magic hour is about softness, lack of shadow, it’s not that hard to do. It depends on what units you use. Recently, I had a very big challenge in “Lust, Caution” in the final sequence. It’s supposed to happen at sunset. Ang wanted a purplish light combined with the golden light of sunset. I was terrified of it. How do you create the afternoon sunlight on a sound stage on a huge street? I had sunset light coming in through the alley, and it was difficult; it had to be one stop over. I had maybe eight dinos, concord lights, jumbo lights, lit up like a stadium. And then it started to get to magic hour. Right now, I’m color grading it. That scene is the main scene we are doing a DI [digital intermediate] for this movie. On “Brokeback Mountain,” we did not do a DI, because Ang was skeptical of DI’s. But the only way I could really see doing this ending scene in “Lust, Caution” was with a DI, to get what he wanted. So in this case we could isolate the sunlight and keep it going while still getting the purple glow he wanted. The first DI I did was on “Frida.” It can be like a double-edged sword.
Has the Digital Intermediate changed the way you shoot a film?
RP: A little bit, for example, on “Lust, Caution,” I wasn’t sure in the end if it would be a DI or not. So all the time I kept talking about that purple scene because Ang kept asking me how I was going to light it. And I would say, I can’t, there is no DP in the world that will light this huge street with purple light, it’s impossible. We have to use this ambient light and make it purple in color grading. Two, three days later, he would ask me again. I wasn’t sure if we were going to have a DI, but that is the one scene I was counting on for the DI in color grading.
One thing with a DI that complicates matters is that a director is expecting that you can do anything with the DI, and it’s not really like telecine. In telecine, you can do more than a DI because you have the print on film. Sometimes I lit in a certain way where I lose detail in certain shadows and I want that, but on telecine, there is detail there, because the negative has it [the details], but the final print won’t have the same details. So the director sees their dailies on video, and they see all these things that you won’t have on the final print, but they want it. So I’ve been suffering with DI’s a bit because they sometimes want to brighten the shadows more than was my intention. How do you get dailies to look the way your print will look? The difference between how the negative responds and the print is just not the same.
I am now using EFilm where you scan the negative in from the beginning so you see dailies that are color corrected to match with the look of a print. So hopefully our dailies will look more like the end result. For visual effects, you can color correct as you go, and it stays with it. That will make the DI in the end more effective and will take less time. Then everyone agrees where you are going, so there’s less tweaking in the end.
Regarding formats, what makes you decide between a super 35mm, or regular 35mm format, or even super 16mm over HD? Do you suggest format to a director based on the project?
RP: Whatever I think works for the subject matter, I have no preference at all. I like to vary it. On “Babel,” we ended up going 1:85. I think almost a natural choice would have been widescreen. But when we were scouting locations in Morocco, we checked with my viewfinder, and saw the locations with the 2:35 and the 1:85, and Alejandro felt the 2:35 was too beautiful. Because the mountain ranges looked fantastic, but he wanted to feel the ground where the people lived. He wanted to see the floor, so we actually ended up favoring compositions that sort of saw the floor, felt the ground. So that was the main reason we wanted to go 1:85 on the movie. Even though in Japanese sequence I used anamorphic lenses, we cut off the sides and used only the 1:85 portion of it. I wanted the anamorphic look for the depth of field but the aspect ratio was 1:85. So it varies. I think on this movie I’m going to do now I’ll probably go anamorphic because we do want the 2:35 aspect ratio. But for the depth of field, I could go super 35. The choice it just depends on what you feel for the subject matter. And so it’s something I always discuss with the director from the beginning. But I don’t have a preference. Some DP’s swear by anamorphic exclusively, and that’s fine. That’s why right now I don’t own equipment. I did for some time own some ultra prime lenses. I like them very much, but for example, in “Brokeback Mountain,” I used Cookes. On this movie, I may use Panavision. I prefer not to be married to anything. It may be good business to own your own gear. I prefer to be free artistically to choose whatever I think works great for a scene or a movie.
What do you think of digital technology such as the HD cameras available today?
RP: I did shoot “Ten Tiny Love Stories” in HD. We used the Sony F-900, but it was simple monologs to camera, so I didn’t put it through the works. Then I tested a Viper camera for “Babel” for the Japanese story. For this new movie I may use HD for a portion of the movie. If you’re going for a certain look, it becomes a creative decision. I do find the technologies are getting better.
Do you think it’s harder to light digital?
RP: Yes, it has been case, but some of the newer technologies are trying to address that. I found that when I did the “Ten Tiny Love Stories,” we had windows in the backgrounds, and I had to worry about the highlights. I didn’t like how they were clipping, so all this hype about it being easier and cheaper, and you don’t need lighting, it’s ridiculous. So I experienced it first hand in that case. It can be more complicated to light, but in low light, it does have its applications.
Do you think it’s better to stay away from contrast in those situations, to stay softer with digital?
RP: Just in terms of highlights, that’s where it gets complicated. That’s what you have to watch out for. It’s maybe a little like when you are shooting reversal or cross processing or bleach by pass. That’s where you have to be conscious of highlights, like when I was shooting “Amores Perros” or “21 Grams.” But it has its applications. Maybe you are going for clipped highlights in some scenes, so why not?
Like your blown out windows, it became kind of a stylistic thing?
RP: [Laughs] Yeah, you know there is a difference. It’s the way highlights blow out on film. It’s the curve, it’s that shoulder, overexposure on film becomes soft, and I like that. I sometimes use that, the softness of overexposure. But on digital, it’s a hard edge, and I don’t like that, usually, unless you go for that for an aesthetic decision.
Are you worried about film?
RP: No, not worried, not now. I used to be earlier. I heard all this hype and tested these first cameras. I did the movie with the F-900. And they were hailing it like, this is it. I could see it was certainly not at all the quality of film, let alone the look. It didn’t have the resolution or color depth, no matter what they say. It just didn’t have the same range of film in terms of latitude or color, so what’ so great about this? And all these cables and electronic inductions, a lot of problems. I just couldn’t figure out what people loved about it. Maybe the fact that you can keep rolling, and advantages like that, which have its applications. But aesthetically, I didn’t see it. But now, I’m looking at the new cameras that do nearly 4k resolution like the Dalsa, or the Red, although I’m not totally convinced about the Red in terms of latitude. I could still see the highlights clipping, but I was very impressed by the tests I saw of the Dalsa, which really had a high contrast situation, and it held up beautifully. It still had two or three issues, but it seems like we are finally approaching a situation where digital cameras will have a quality that is close to film.
On my new film, “State of Play,” I’m thinking of using digital on some scenes because of the lack of grain. Digital becomes a different palette which enhances the possibilities of different textures on a movie. I will use film for some scenes for its characteristics and its grain, and I will use digital for its look and its lack of grain. It’s adding to our possibilities. And I’m also learning a lot. It’s like being in film school again still trying to understand all this technology. This new language I didn’t have to deal with before. It’s interesting, exciting.
Jacqueline B. Frost is a Los Angeles-based cinematographer and author. She teaches cinematography and advanced film production at California State University, Fullerton, as well as a course through the UCLA Extension entitled, “Cinematography for Directors.” Jacqueline has shot numerous short films, independent feature films and documentaries that have screened in film festivals around the world. She has also taken on the role of producer, director, and editor on many projects.
