American cinematographer (Jan 1933)

6 American Cinematographer • January 1933 C O-OPERATION between the Art Director and the Cinematographer is an important factor in the suc- cess of any picture—but it is absolutely vital in the instance of an Independent production. There, every penny must count—and do double duty if possible. To be successful, especially when released as part of a major distributor’s program, the independently made feature must have fully as much production value as any major- studio product—yet it must be made for a relatively mod- est cost. Very little can be saved on either the cast or the production staff, so the major economies must be effected through reduction of the items charged to studio over- head and set-construction. The amount saved through the Independent producer’s elimination of the huge over- head charges that face the studio producer is, of course, almost arbitrarily fixed; but the amounts that can be saved in set-construction are capable of almost infinite variation. The burden of effecting the maximum economy in this direction rests with the Art Director and the Cinematog- rapher. It is not, and cannot be, a one-man job, for either one can nullify the other’s efforts in this direction. But if they work together, they can accomplish truly amazing results. The Independent producer’s Art Director is from the start faced with a basically different problem from that of the major-studio’s Art Department. The latter almost always has his choice of either revamping a standing set, or constructing a completely new one. As a rule, he will do the latter eight times out of ten. The Art Director for the Independent producer, on the other hand, having a relatively small budget for the sets on any given pro- duction, must almost invariably remodel existing sets to suit his needs. He must do this in such a way that the sets are not recognizable as re-vamps; they must look new, and fit the needs of the story. Moreover, he may not spend too much money on their remaking. The Cinematographer can make or mar the Art Direc- tor’s work in this, for he can enhance the appearance of the sets with his lighting and with his selection of camera set-ups—or he can arrange his lightings in a routined, slipshod manner, and cheapen even the best sets. He can even force additional construction if he is not sure of the set-ups that will be needed. I have always been fortunate in having cameramen who were willing to cooperate with me assigned to photograph the pictures in which my sets have been used. Most recently, in the four pictures lately completed by the Charles R. Rogers Company, for Paramount release— “70,00 Witnesses”, “Madison Square Garden”, “The Devil Is Driving”, and “Billion Dollar Scandal”'—I have been fortunate in being associated with two of the most outstanding co-operative cinematographers in the industry: Henry Sharp, A.S.C., and Charles Stumar, A.S.C. Both of these men have the unusual faculty of being equally proficient with big, expensive productions or with “quickies”. They are eager to co-operate with the Art Director from start to finish: they realize the importance of co-operation, and do everything in their power to assure that the sets reach the screen as perfectly as possible. Their co-operation and ability have saved thousands of dollars on every production we have made. To be specific: on the most recent of these films, we managed to provide the necessary settings for a figure $17,000 below what new construction would have cost. This was done partly in the Art Department, by carefully revamping a number of existing sets, and partly on the set through the careful and expert lighting of the Cine- matographer. The illustrations show one of the ways in which the co-operation of the Cinematographer can make or break the Art Director’s work. Both show the same set; one Co-Operation has been carelessly lit, the other, carefully lit, by Charles Stumar, A.S.C. In the first example, Mr. Stumar has tried to do everything wrong: he has lit the set in too high a key, made no attempt to separate the different planes through lighting, no attempt to model the physical characteristics of the set, and, in fact, robbed it of all of the richness that such a set should have. In the second example, he has lit the sets as he did when actually photo- graphing the picture: he has used a decidedly lower key of lighting, which, in itself adds to the richness of the set. Moreover, he has used a more diffused lighting throughout, keeping the direct beams from the walls al- most entirely. He has lit the set so that the different planes are visually separated—through contrast of dark planes against lighter ones—and in general treated the set so that it has a definite atmosphere of quality. The first instance shows the set lit in the routine manner that many capable cameramen would employ: such light- ing is not bad in itself—but it is bad in that it does not show the set off to its best advantage, or coincide with the dramatic mood of the story. In the same picture, we were able to use the same set again, slightly remodelled, as a Congressional inquiry- chamber. My part of it was relatively simple—removing a wall here, changing an angle there, substituting panelled flats for the bookcases, adding columns, etc.: but the really important work was that of the cinematographer. If he had seen fit to light the set the second time exactly as he had before, all of the work done in revamping and redressing the set would have been in vain. As it was, Mr. Stumar’s skill saved the day. He lit the set in a different key and a different mood. He used different camera-set-ups and angles, showing the set from different viewpoints, bringing out entirely different aspects of the set. I do not believe that one person in ten could spot the set as one that had been doubled—even if he knew This is the same set as shown on the opposite page with a few changes. It saved the producer many thousands of dollars in production.