American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1952)

their daily business of sending above¬ ground thousands of tons of coal each eight-hour shift. And, unlike the bright lights of a city, almost the only illumi¬ nation in this underground world is supplied by the battery cap-lamps of the miners. Here then was the first challenge: de¬ pict the drama and color and rhythm of the cycle of underground coal mining — timbering, cutting, drilling, blasting, loading, and conveying — plus the everconstant safety measures enforced con¬ tinuously throughout the mining opera¬ tions. The problem: how to light it? Geisel had never been underground, but to Vandivert a coal mine was almost a second home. After long conferences in the MOT’s New York offices, relative to the merits and capabilities of this and that type of lighting, it was decided to do the job with four 2,000-watt “deuces” and eight 1,000-watt “inkies.” Not only would sufficient light be as¬ sured through this arrangement but mo¬ bility — a major factor — was guaranteed. A question concerning the type of photographic equipment to be used was quickly resolved. The camera selected was a 16mm Maurer, equipped with matched Bausch & Lomb Baltar lenses in varying focal lengths. The film se¬ lected for the entire job was Commer¬ cial Kodachrome (Tungsten). Akeley Gyro-tripods, dollies, triangles, etc., were matters of course. In addition to Geisel and Vandivert, the crew con¬ sisted of Bill Shaw, electrician; Regi¬ nald Wells, assistant director; James Maloney, grip; Ed Fenton, sound; Francis Rutledge, assistant electrician; Johnny Garrambone, property; and A1 Kern, assistant cameraman. From the first day’s shooting until the last foot of film wound through the camera, technical difficulties arose with monotonous regularity. They had to be and were solved on the spot! Two con¬ siderations always had to be kept in mind. They were: absolute technical ac¬ curacy in depicting complex and varied mechanical operations below and above ground, and dramatic action and color geared to hold the undivided attention of audiences ranging in ages from 10 to 90. Perhaps on the theory that it was best to get the toughest part of the job out of the way first, the photography began underground. “On location” was Fairmont, West Virginia, and the mine selected was some 25 miles from that city. Miners go to work early, and a 6 a.m. call was standard procedure for the crew. Here, lighting was not the only major problem encountered. The human ele¬ ment also entered the picture. There are no paid actors in this film. All were real miners, real steelworkers, real rail¬ road men. In the few days in the Fairmont re¬ gion, the entire underground mining cycle sequence was completed with minor exceptions, plus considerable footage taken outdoors and in above¬ ground mining installations. Perhaps Director Bill Vandivert summed up the mining phase of the production best when he said : “In producing ‘Powering America’s Progress’ the problems were more nu¬ merous than one could find in almost any other commercial documentary done in the past few years. No high quality color picture has ever been done on coal because of the difficulties in¬ volved. And no one had ever made really good color film on the under¬ ground coal mining machines actually at work. There were the factors of re¬ strictions of space, safety, dirt and coal dust impairing equipment, maintaining a proper color balance in the film be¬ cause of great color contrasts and fluc¬ tuating voltage, creating a minimum of interference with normal operations in the mines, and last but not least the necessity to please an association of mine operators, plus the U. S. Govern¬ ment’s Bureau of Mines, with whose collaboration the film was produced.” Still operating on the principle of toughest things first, the crew moved on to the Pittsburgh area for some vivid and unusual sequences on the steel in¬ dustry. Steel making is dependent upon coal, ton for ton, and steel as an in¬ dustry has been capably photographed many times, but rarely with the dra¬ matic and colorful emphasis supplied by the camera of Johnny Geisel. From the stoking of the great by-product coke ovens with the basic ingredient — bituminous coal — to the gleaming sheets of steel rolling off the finishing mill, the camera recorded every dramatic epi¬ sode in the cycle. One of the most chal¬ lenging photographic problems was pre¬ sented when it came time to shoot the tapping of the giant open hearth fur¬ nace with its blinding-white stream of molten metal pouring into a waiting ladle. Here was a neat problem in color balance. The radiance and reflectivity of the molten, white-hot metal would be great, but still not sufficient to supply the necessary detail in the over-all fur¬ nace, a huge structure. With the camera and crew 80 feet away on a metal platform at a slight right angle to the furnace door, and at about the same height, three deuces were lighted and placed camera left, and directly opposite the furnace, to throw some light into the shadow area. Ordinarily, an open-hearth furnace (Continued on Page 45) SHOOTING color film became a problem when the sun failed to come out strong for exteriors such as this. LIGHT PROBLEMS continued when shooting interiors. Here cameraman Geisel's photographic skill was put to test in shooting the blast furnace sequence. January, 1952 American Cinematographer 17