Camera Operator’s SOS
This letter is to ask the Guild membership and any other interested parties to expose and explain what is happening to the role of camera operators in the film and T.V. drama business.
Whether you are an operator, a D.O.P, 1st AC, 2nd AC, Grip, Gaffer, Script Supervisor, Producer, Director, or Actor; if you are effected in any way by the loss, or the presence, of an operator on a film or T.V. unit please write in confidence with your views and comments*. All relevant points of view are of value; not least those of D.O.Ps who have worked without an operator. The broader the input, the more representative it will be. Your identity will be kept scrupulously anonymous, and it is important that no one is named or identified in your piece.
The resulting collective statement, representing the views gathered from everyone’s feedback, will be forwarded to the GBCT, Techs Magazine, BSC , BECTU, BCSC etc with the specific intention that it will be published throughout the industry.
If you have a view PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO AIR IT. It is vitally important. The Camera Department can only benefit from your efforts.
This is an S.O.S. Please write as soon as possible .
*Write to:
cameraoperators.sos@googlemail.com or add a comment to this GBCT blog
N.B. Of course, if anyone wishes to attach his or her name to a statement with the expressed purpose of having their name published next to their statement (at the editor’s discretion), PLEASE STATE THIS CLEARLY when you respond to cameraoperators.sos@googlemail.com or to admin@gbct.org
April 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
THE DEMISE OF THE CAMERA OPERATOR
Most people, including Producers, would agree that having a DOP and a Camera Operator on a film is an advantage saving valuable production time and helping to make shooting go smoothly.
However, some DOP’S prefer to operate themselves on feature films, but not because the production demands it. This can be for several reasons. Some consider that no-one can get set ups and operate them as well as they can, although in nearly all instances, they have never been Operators in their own right i.e. working in the grade.
Then there is the jealousy angle – some can’t bear the fact that there is someone else who may have the ear of the Director. This insecurity goes against the essence of successful film making – team work. An Operator can talk to a Director between set-ups about the way the sequence is progressing, how many more shots are needed etc without affecting the authority of the DOP who will be busy with his Gaffer – in other words get the Director off the DOP’s back!
In fact nearly all successful Operators who go on to tbe DOP’s insist on working with an Operator themselves as they appreciate the nuances of the job and the valuable input they can bring to a production.
Occasionally a Director will insist that a DOP operates as he “only wants to talk to one person” which is of course manna from heaven to some DOP’s. And it seems that many commercial companies expect DOP’s to operate but this is no doubt for financial reasons.
On the plus side there are so many remote camera systems these days that need the skills of the Operator to get the best out of them – and not many DOP’s operate their own steadicam shots! However people can train to use steadicam without any previous experience of the camera department so lack the knowledge of framing for different formats, cutting points etc etc when being employed as a Camera Operator.
Traditionally the role of a Camera Operator has been a key part of the film making process and it is lamentable that it has become so diminished. One could argue that the authority of Operators has been diluted by the advent of “video assist” where in extreme cases the Director can hide away in a corner – or another room or vehicle – and communicate with the cast and crew through a PA system – “pan left a bit, tilt up a bit!”. Gone are the days of “how was that” and the Operator making a firm instant decision of OK or NG for whatever reason as he was the only one who had seen the action through the camera or side-finder.
But cameras still have to be pointed by someone in these enlightened days and who better than a trained, experienced Camera Operator.
ANON
April 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I have just read the blog above and agree whole heartily with its sentiments. I would like to add a further observation I have witnessed as a Script Supervisor over recent years; on more than one occasion a DOP/OPERATOR has lined up a shot for a scene that suits his lighting or makes for a better lit shot rather than suiting the sequence. When I have questioned its suitability for the scene - for example the framing crosses the line - I have been told that it doesn’t matter!
I have missed the presence of an Operator on set for some years now and agree with the blogger that his absence on a production is a loss to the finished product.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Letter to GBCT concerning the present status of Operators.
The role of the Camera operator in the Film and TV industry is still very much a hot issue, probably more so now than ever before as camera department budgets apparently get smaller and shooting schedules get tighter. The chance of saving a bob or two by asking the DOP to operate is still prevalent now as is the situation that sees productions falling behind schedule because the DOP has too much on his/her plate. Producers must understand that, by asking the DOP to operate, they are not ‘doing away’ with one crew member but simply piling the workload onto another. Certainly, with ‘Up and Coming’ DOP’s there is the feeling that if they don’t operate, they risk losing the job. These are the very DOP’s who need a second pair of eyes when working with tighter schedules and more limited resources. Experienced DOP’s and Producers know what a good Operator can bring to a shoot, especially when there is a lot of camera movement, multi camera set-ups or when specialist operating skills are needed i.e. remote and stabilised heads, steadicam etc…
There seems to me, at the heart of the problem, not just a drive for financial savings but a lack of understanding, by certain production managers and producers, about what a good, experienced camera operator actually does. (We simply point the camera when told and collect our pay cheque at the end of the week. Pan/Tilt/Invoice in a nutshell!). They don’t see that their investment is suffering when:
The focus puller/1st AC is struggling to hold the image sharp because the DOP is not ‘keeping an eye’ out for him as his mind is on other things.
The grips are in the dark about the set-up because the DOP is dealing with the electrical department after rehearsal. With five minutes to shooting the track still isn’t laid.
The boom operator is trying to get an edge of frame but there’s no-one on the camera setting the shot. He takes a guess and dips into shot on the first take.
Props are waiting to see if the large bunch of flowers they have set will be growing out the actors’ ears.
The editor wants to re-shoot some close-ups because the eyelines are wrong. (Eyelines are instinctive for a good operator and checked regularly with the script and continuity supervisor.)
This list goes on and on. The point being that when you have a good camera operator on set, not only are they operating the shot with skill and hopefully feeling, they act as a link, an open channel to all the other departments with an interest in the shot set-up. I’ve never met a Grip, Script Supervisor, Boom Op, Standby Art or Prop person yet who wouldn’t prefer a Camera Operator on set (or at least, that’s what they told me. Just to prove that the Operator is very much the person to humour on-set). The satisfaction of these relationships should also be taken into account when deciding on whether to use an operator or not.
Producers should also not underestimate how physical the role of Camera Operator is especially when the workload involves hand-held and steadicam. Operators frequently find themselves in positions on rigs and dollies that make Yoga look a doddle. When you ask your DOP to operate they will have to be physically fit and flexible as well as being a skilled Operator and Cinematographer. A tall order on a gruelling schedule.
To add to the complexity of the issue, it is true that there are DOP’s and Directors who specifically wish to work without an Operator. There are a few DOP’s who are very good operators and can handle the creative and physical demands of each role well. There are directors who prefer not to deal with two relationships by the camera. This is fair enough. It is a creative choice and one that needs to be respected. My argument is not with this set up. However, when the DOP asks for an Operator this should be respected regardless of budget. Producers need to see that their investment is best served by employing a Camera Operator.
For anyone who would like to see a comprehensive description of a Camera Operators duties, I would refer them to Dave Worley and Harvey Harrison’s “Responsibilities of The Camera Operator” produced for and available from the BSC.
An anecdote may help to illustrate some of the points above.
I recently worked on a low budget (reportedly £15m but don’t quote me) feature film shooting seven weeks in Belgium and one week in London. American backers with two A-list actors and a few B-Z list. The Director’s background is in theatre but this was his first full-length feature film which he had also scripted. The cameraman had a few low-budget features under his belt and had been asked to operate himself. The schedule was an extremely ambitious 8 weeks, given that we were shooting in a small foreign location (a town where access for vehicles was restricted) with a large daily script page count to get through and some tricky stunts to shoot.
In addition, the film was an ‘edgy thriller’ which had to ‘look good’ with such classics as ‘Don’t Look Now’ and ‘Touch of Evil’ as our reference points. A tall order indeed and one which the producers initially attempted without a camera operator on the mistaken belief that the cameraman and director would work quicker without the input of a third person around camera.
My initial involvement was as a steadicam/camera operator engaged for a two week period to shoot only a few scenes. When I arrived, the crew had been shooting 1 week and the American backers weren’t happy at all. They weren’t happy with the amount of material they were getting or the quality. The camera was too static, when it did move it was hand-held which, again, the producers didn’t like and there weren’t enough close-ups of the main actors. Whilst a certain amount of the problem was a stylistic one and a result of the Director & Cameraman not being in tune with the producers, there were fundamental problems with the amount of time to shoot the schedule and the working dynamics on set. The Cameraman, under pressure from the workload looked for the quickest option to get a shot. Without an Operator to supervise the set up and execution of shots, he was reduced to shooting much of a scene on a static camera. When the camera did need movement, it was expedient to put the camera on his shoulder and shoot ‘doco’ style. The Director meantime, with his background in theatre and inexperience in shooting feature film, was quite happy to let the cameraman take the lead. He spent a lot of time shooting wider angles and left little time for the performances in close-up with the result that scenes were not properly structured for the editor. In addition to this, the DOP didn’t have the knowledge or skills to operate some of the equipment needed to achieve the shots the producers were demanding. (remote and stabilised heads, steadicam)
After two weeks shooting with an operator it became obvious to the producers that the material had improved. The DOP was relieved to get help with the set-up of shots and the Director was happy to get variety, pace and movement into his scenes. As a result, I was hired for the rest of the shoot.
As a post-script I would like to draw the membership’s attention to what seems like a current working practise of under-scheduling shoots to squeeze more out of the workforce. It’s maybe an issue we could look at in the Guild. In the instance above, one has to ask the question. Is it possible to shoot a feature film in 8 weeks? Well, yes if you ask for two hours overtime every night at £25 per hour. That’s 10hrs extra per week (1 day) and over 8 weeks that’s 8 days extra on a vastly reduced rate for a lot of the crew. Which is exactly what happened.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
<strong>With the UFC going mainstream,…</strong>
With the UFC going mainstream, should the commentators follow suit?BuddyTV -13 hours agoThe UFC is even being featured on the cover…