Rajiv Jain – Cinematographer – Director of Photography – Rajeev Jain

Information for Indian Cinematography Students……

Some of the responses to the questions asked by visitors to the website! Drop me a line today.

QUESTION: HOW DO I BECOME AN INDIAN DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY?

For people with successful careers in this business, the question most often heard is the one that asks how you got where you are. Sure enough, as soon as I began to set up this Web Site and state my willingness to share this information and answer questions about production I began to get inquiries regarding what I call “The Big Question”.

So I have written this generic answer. I hope it is useful to anyone contemplating a career behind or in front of the camera.

If you ask 10 or even a 100 different people as to how they got into this business you’ll get as many as 100 different answers. As for me, I’ve had a natural, lifelong interest in photography, partly due to my Guru, whose hobby was black and white still photography. Learning and training under him gave me loads of exposure to that type of photography which soon graduated from a hobby to a full blown passion. At that particular point of time I was also involved in theatre doing plays for small Theatre Companies in Lucknow, and apart from the character roles I also worked back stage as a carpenter / light operator/ Set construction on these plays. It all tied in together so perfectly.

The experience and training I gained in my adolescent years paid off full returns when i decided to get into a full time job. I began with a job as a light man in a TV station, my back stage experiences in carpentry/ set construction further sharpened and enhanced my skills. i began small time but with time my vision and my dreams grew and I saw for myself the possibility of a career as a cameraman in the television or film industry, to make this dream a reality i went back to Drama school full time  and i majored in theatre (stage craft) & in stage light designing production. Believe me completing my education was the best thing I could have done. In addition to a thorough education in many different phases of the business, it allowed me to focus and hone my natural abilities (which are strongly visual) to the point that I was sure I wanted to be a cinematographer.

In a way, because of my prior experience of working in a television station where I was allowed to do lighting, cameras, and build sets, etc., I was already way ahead of many of my peers when I started Drama school. Even so, I continued to hunt for part time work, projects, whatever would allow me to work with cameras, lights etc. A couple of summers before graduating I worked as a temporary technician in a TV station and right after graduation I was offered a full time apprentice position with Binod Pradhan to work behind the movie camera in Mumbai. While doing that job I continued to make little films on the side, by volunteering to shoot on VHS format, direct and edit anything for anybody as long as they would pay for the equipment, film, etc. Soon, after working for an 8 year time span where i covered and worked at different levels of cinematography i.e., as a spark, grip, key grip, loader, focus puller, camera operator, gaffer and through constant lobbying and showing my work, I was offered a cameraman s position at a TV production house.

From there, after a couple of years of effort and with several long-form TV commercials, industrial, corporate, documentaries & serials under my belt, my work was noticed by a very successful independent producer of network Film / TV / Commercials specials. He made me an offer I could not refuse; i.e. to spend a few years shooting many of the shows he produced for the network. That stroke of luck put me on the map as a DOP and my career has gone well ever since.

Nurturing the desire to become a DOP is a lot like saying you want to become a movie star. There are no set routes to such goals. Many try but few succeed. But the fundamentals of the craft can be learnt, and learnt well in a film school. So, incase of the special privileges that are bestowed on a selected few (like being born of a great cameraman, director or studio executive), film school is probably the best place to start. It will also expose you to a lot of information about many other aspects of the business.

What You Need To Know

There are obvious things one should study to become a DOP, i.e., photography, including composition, lighting, movement, and fine arts in general, including music, painting, even sculpture. It also helps if a DOP has good eye-hand coordination and is good with his or her hands, with tools. After all, a camera is just a big, complicated, delicate tool, with lots of interrelated parts which must be mastered by the DOP. It is also highly important for a DOP to be a good leader, a good communicator and have good people management skills. But one of the most important things a DOP should know well is often overlooked. It is the study of the theory of “montage” or editing. Montage theory is at the heart of what makes “movies” work, whether for television or the big screen. It also encompasses and necessitates the study and understanding of the psychology of human perception – the things that go on between “seeing” and subjectively “perceiving”.

Some of the most important dynamics of the moving images that we see on television or in a theater are the dynamics of “cutting” one scene, or shot or frame against another, then another, then another, etc. This dialectic process, this joining of two things to create a third, then joining that with yet another and so on, endlessly; this is the basic grammar of film as we know it and it works at many levels. It works in the juxtaposition of scenes, of shots within a scene and of the elements of sound and picture and movement. In what direction are the composition, lighting and physical movement leading the viewer s eye and what effects are the juxtapositions of these elements having on the viewers emotions and perceptions? Wide shot, medium shot, close-up, screen direction; these progressions are as basic to the language of film as subject and verb are to the spoken language. These concepts and more are fundamentals of the visual language of the moving image and should be well understood by anyone wanting to be a Cameraman.

On being a Director of Photography…

Q: Could you define the Cinematographers job? How does one find themselves in the lighting/electric department?

A: The Director of Photography/Cinematographer (yes one and the same person) is like the photographer of a movie. All the technical related dept (camera, lighting/electric, and grip) work qualifies as work for the DP. One in thirty-four (1/34) makes it as a DP. It takes years of professional experience to gain your I.C.S. AND W.I.C.A. accreditation.
Ask yourself this question…

So the bottom line is that there is no real set way of becoming a cinematographer. Ask yourself this question – “What is your life about?” What are your hopes and dreams and find a path that best fits your needs. Do you want to work in the industry, learn from the pros and then start shooting?

…be prepared for the big drop in pay

A lot of camera assistants will work for a minimum of five to seven years and then start shooting. Camera Assistants make the most money in the entire techie dept. Money can be an evil sometimes, in the sense that you lose sight of your goals because you’re being offered so much of it. All of a sudden years go by and all you’ve done is made money.

Be prepared for the big drop in pay because you are not gonna lands a $2000 – 3500/day commercial gig in your first year much less your first three. Some people start shooting as soon as they get out of film school and five years later they might be a professional DP (in my opinion, a pro is someone who makes a living with their craft).

You will need an incident light meter (I recommend the Sekonic L398 for the beginner) and a spot meter (Minolta F or M). Also handy, working knowledge of various cameras, which means understanding depth of field, circle of confusion, camera operating and learn a feel and understanding of lighting which means an understanding of color temperature, gels, diffusions, bounces etc, etc..
Advice on volunteers…

People volunteer on shoots for three reasons:

1. To gain experience or upgrade.

2. To make contacts.

3. as a favor to someone whom they work with a lot.

Getting volunteers on a feature is very difficult because no one can really afford to work for free for eighteen weeks. My crews are loyal to me because I gave them a chance when no one else would. One of my camera assistants just got his letter from F.T.I.I. He was one of the lucky few who were accepted this year for the cinematography course. When a crew member cannot work with you because they have to make money you have to respect that.

Your key personnel have to have experience there is no doubt about that. Everyone else can be a volunteer. I worked on a lot of volunteer shoots when I was making the transition from corporate videos to film. The keys were always experienced and were always usually paid (usually below scale). You can do this on shorter format films but not on a feature.

Film is not only an art. It is also a business.

Executive Producers tend to not invest on inexperienced people such as the director or producer. I have seen ads where people are claiming that they could make a feature for $100,000.00 It can be done if you are an industry veteran who could get a lot of great deals from people and pull favors from other industry people. For every one of him there are hundreds whose film does not get finish for one reason or another. I humbly urge you, DO NOT approach the money man until you have done your job as a producer and everything is in place.

Find that gem of a script that is character driven, simple and has very few locations. Actors – you won t have any problems. Find an actor who has done a lot of work but is not quite on Bollywood s A List and give them a part that they cannot refuse. If you can attach names to your film then people will take interest and even give you money.

…filmmaker at heart!

I am one of the few people that actually worked in all three departments. Most people work in only one dept. But I think this is what made me a unique shooter. It also attracted a lot of directors towards me because I can do all three depts. I was a technician for hire but I am a filmmaker at heart. My theatre and filmmaking knowledge has helped me immensely in working with directors and understanding where they are coming from.

The Bottom Line………………

Final tip: If you really want to be successful as a DOP (or anything else in life) – be tenacious! Never give up! But be ready to spend many long, even frustrating years finding the road and climbing the ladder. Since there is no set route to becoming a Director of Photography or Director or Actor the way is often unclear and that can be very frustrating. But if you look at the careers of those who have become successful in this business you will see three things they all have in common: Tenacity, Tenacity, and Tenacity! Of course, talent is important, but more than that it is just lots of hard work and desire and sticking to it. Becoming a Doctor, Lawyer or Engineer is easy by comparison because the road is quite clear. If you just do the work, you get the title. It is very cut and dried. Making your own way in this business is far more challenging and that is really what separates the wheat from the chaff.
And do not forget luck & destiny. You will need lots of that. Not the kind you need when you are rolling the dice, but the kind that exists “where opportunity and preparation meet”! That kind of luck you can make for yourself. By becoming prepared, you are fully ready to seize the opportunity when it arises. And by diligent preparation you will also be exposing yourself to many opportunities as well as seeing ways to create your own.

Remember – visions are worth striving for.

What the mind can conceive, you can achieve if you believe.

THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY / CINEMATOGRAPHER

The cinematographers’ responsibilities as outlined below are an attempt to describe the duties a cinematographer is likely to encounter during his/her career. No two jobs are the same and the duties will contract or expand depending on the scale and complexity of the job. As can be seen, there is a vast amount that a cinematographer is required to know and do and this can only be learnt over a number of years of filming. Our thanks to John Hora ASC who drew up this list for publication in the? American Cinematographer? Magazine. It has been slightly adapted for this website to reflect Indian technical terminology.

I Preproduction

A. Conceptual research and Design
* Discuss all aspects of script and directors’ approach to picture in preliminary talks with director
* Analyze script as whole
* Analyze story structure
* Analyze characters
* Research period, events, general subject and appropriate design elements
* Devise style, visualize approach
* Continue talks with director on new ideas
* Come to agreement with director
* Discuss and come to agreement with production designer
* Discuss and come to agreement with technical adviser.

B. Practical Research and Design.
* Ascertain or find out budget requirements
* Scout and approve locations
* Plot sun position for locations
* Check local weather
* Check tide tables near ocean
* Review, discuss and approve set plans
* Review, discuss and approve spotting plans for stages
* Review and approve props, picture cars, airplanes, boats, horse-drawn vehicles, mock-ups and miniatures

C. Technical Research and Design.
* Visit laboratory to calibrate, customize and evaluate exposure system for any combination of electronic or chemical image capture, and establish developing, printing, set timing and transfer protocols
* Visit equipment vendors
* Explore new equipment
* Learn how new equipment works
* Invent (or cause to be invented) special equipment or techniques for show
* Standardize and create effects bible for show
* Help create and approve any storyboards
* Design (or cause to be designed) and approve any built-in or practical lighting fixture
* Design lighting-plot plan and rigging for stages and locations with gaffer and key grip
D. Quality Control
* Choose and approve crew, film stock, lab, equipment, second-unit and visual-effects crews
* Supervise manufacture and testing of new modified equipment
* Visit sets under construction
* Approve wild walls, ceiling pieces and any moving set pieces
* Check lighting-fixture crew
* Walk locations and stages with all departments to discuss requirements
* Approve set colors and textures
* Approve costume colors and textures
* Approve makeup and hair
* Generate (or cause to be generated) and approve equipment lists for camera, electric and grip
* Check dailies screening rooms for correct standards
E. Implementation
* Cast stand-ins
* Train crew to use any new equipment
* Walk locations and stages with director and device shooting plan
* Make list of special equipment for production manager and indicate number of days required
* Work with assistant director on shooting schedule (order and days required for each scene)
* Estimate and order film stock (type, size and quantity)
* Generate (or cause to be generated) and approve rigging and shooting manpower and man-days
* Assist other departments in getting required equipment, manpower and tests
* Drop by all departments and visit department heads at least twice a day to answer any questions
* Mediate any problems between departments
* Check loading of production trucks or cargo containers for location or international shipping
* Visit cast run-throughs and rehearsals
* Advise and back up director on any problems
* Help production problems
F. Testing
* Shoot tests for style
* Shoot tests for lab
* Shoot test for lighting of principal actors
* Shoot tests for camera and lenses
* Shoot tests for wardrobe and makeup
* Shoot tests for any special effects processes, unusual rigs props or methods

II Shooting

A. Planning
* Check and approve all call sheets and shooting order of the day?s work
B. Blocking
* Watch rehearsal of scene to be shot
* Device shot list with director (coverage)
* Choose lens and composition; show to director for approval
* Make sure composition and movement fulfill scene task
* Work out mechanical problems with camera, dolly and crane grips
* Set any camera-movement cues
* Place stand-ins and rehearse, fine-tune
* Ensure proper coverage of scene for editor
* Work with assistant director on background action
C. Lighting
* Design lighting to show set/location to best advantage relative to story, style and dramatic content
* Light each actor to reinforce and reveal character
* Make sure mood and tone of light help to tell story
* Design light for minimum reset time between setups
* Utilize painter for control of highlights, shadows, aging, dusting-down of sets and props
* Set and match light value, volume, color and contrast of each setup (exposure)
* Set any lights cues (dimmers, spot lights, color changes and any preprogramming)
D. Preparation
* Work out any sound problems
* Work out any problems with other departments
* Check, set and approve all stunts with stunt coordinator
* Set any additional cameras required for stunts
* Double-check safety with all concerned
* Show shot to director to make any final changes
* Get actors in for final mechanical rehearsal; solve any outstanding problems
E. Photography
* Photograph scene
* Approve or correct take
* Check parameters and reset for next take
* Shoot any plates
* Shoot any video playback material
* Move to next step
F. Administrative
* Define first setup in morning and after lunch
* Make sure that stills are taken of scene
* See that ?making of? and/or EPK crews get needed footage
* Make sure script supervisor has any special camera or lighting notes
* Check film raw stock inventory
* Try to shoot up short ends
* Check that camera logbook is being kept up to date
* Complete day’s work
* Discuss first setup for the next day
* Ensure that camera, electrical and grip crews get all copies of equipment rental or purchase invoices and approve before accountants pay vendors
* Take care of any future or ongoing production at end of day
* Check for return of all unused equipment
G. Quality Control
* Call in for lab report
* View previous day’s work in projected dailies with director, producer, editor and camera crew
* Discuss and approve dailies
* Consult with makeup, wardrobe, production designer and assistant director about dailies
* View, discuss, correct or approve second-unit or effects dailies
* Order reprints if necessary
H. Training
* Teach beginning actors movie technique (hitting marks, size of frame, lenses, etc.)
* Train camera crew for next job up the ladder
I. Contingency
* If director is disabled, finish day’s shooting for him or her

III. Postproduction

A. Additional Photography
* Discuss and be aware of delivery dates for all postproduction
* Photograph or approve any additional scenes, inserts, special effect or second-unit footage
B. Timing (Color and Density)
* Time and approve trailer for theaters and TV
* Approve all optical and digital effects compositions
* Time the picture
* Retime until correct
C. Quality Control
* Approve final answer print
* Show to director for OK
* Approve interpositive (IP)
* Approve internegatives (IN)
* Approve release prints
* Approve show prints from original negative
* Approve all blowups or reductions
D. Telecine/Color Correction
* Supervise and approve film or digital original transfer to electronic or film media (Hi-Def, NTSC, PAL, Scam masters, digital intermediates, archival masters, etc.)
* Supervise and approve all transfers to and from digital intermediates
* Supervise and approve all letterbox, pan and scan or reformatting of film
* Supervise and approve tape-to-tape color correction and VHS, DVD, digital projection media, etc.
* Show electronic transfers to director for OK
E. Publicity
* Do any publicity (newspaper, magazine, Internet, radio, TV, DVD commentary etc.)
F. Restoration/Archival
* be available for any future reissue, archival reprint or electronic transfer of film.

This list of duties of the cinematographer was published in http://www.rajeevjain.com/

More Articles:

1. Still in Motion Interview: Indian DOP / Director of Photography / Cinematographer, Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
2. Manika Sharma – KALPVRIKSH (THE WISH TREE) – Rajiv Jain, That ’90s Look: The throwback naturalism of Indian Cinematographer Rajeev Jain by David Henry Hwang
3. Rajeev Jain (Indian Kenyan Director of Photography) : ‘Heart Beat FM shot’

I wanted to express my support for the UK Film Council’s valuable work in the British Film Industry and how it has helped young and established talent succeed.

The government’s recent announcement to scrap the agency as a whole comes as a shock because the film industry and leading film professionals were not given an opportunity to provide a solution to improve the UKFC, reduce its cost, and increase its benefit to British filmmaking.

Why is the UKFC so important?

It is Britain’s only national film agency where people from the Scottish Highlands to Devon can turn to in order to find funding, support and direction for filmmaking and training. It effectively centralizes the core of the British Film Industry for the first time, and has given direction to film production from inception to delivery.

What will happen without it?

There will be a gap in the British Film Industry that will affect the next generation of young talent and established pros, who will have to find alternative means to apply for funding.

It is likely that national lottery funding will be made available to the film industry through existing organizations such as the BBC but without a national film agency to handle the complexity of film financing and green lighting projects will be like starting from scratch for any new department.

What could be made better?

There are always areas that can be improved in any organization. The British film industry is diverse involving many crafts and skills. To properly understand the needs of the industry requires the right questions to be asked. How do we get a film financed? What makes a project good? Can this be a commercial success? How can I get more on set work? I am a writer looking to get my script made but I need a director?

There are of course many more examples. Film school graduates will also want a direction to take in order to get their films off the ground. To be competitive internationally requires guidance and training. A skill set can come naturally, but sometimes it’s the business aspect that is alien to some, if not most of us. How do we really make a commercial success when we are educated only on how to make a film? Can a national agency guide our projects toward a domestic or international cinema release?

A new agency or an improved UKFC should therefore provide a service that nurtures talent, creates commercial successes and appropriates film financing to projects that inspire and educate people.

How can you get involved?

You can join the Save the UK Film Council group ,which now has over 20,000 members since Monday, and sign the petition. Also check out the official website.

Thanks so much for reading.

More Articles:

1. British Film Industry condemns UK Film Council axe
2. Film Industry Network update 17/7/10
3. Film Industry Network at Cannes Film Festival 2010

LONDON, UK – In the aftermath of the government’s announcement to abolish the UK Film Council, media organizations have begun taking sides.

Just 2 days after the planned UK Film Council closure the web is buzzing with talk around how the decision will affect the film industry and British society as a whole and papers, online magazines and independent journalists are sharing their opinions.

Reaction to the decision

The Guardian

‘The government’s decision to shut down the UK Film Council is tragically naive. No other body will do a better job’.

The Scotsman

Blow for film festival as UK funding body is scrapped

Empire magazine

UK Film Council R. I. P : Government chops film funding body

Sunday Times

‘The death of the UK Film Council was swift, brutal — and disastrous’

Total Film

Government kills UK Film Council

‘If this was a movie, the Tories would be the villains’

Herald Scotland

‘The demise of the Film Council neatly sums up the inability of a new government which trumpets the need for investing in business to realise that the arts are a huge and growing part of the 21st century commercial infrastructure.’

Despite a near universal opposition to the move, there are some who support the scrapping of the UK Film Council for being too inefficient and bureaucratic.

The Telegraph

‘Enough British filmmakers have emerged from their dealings with the UKFC feeling bruised and demoralised – especially when it came to applying for subsidies to get their films made.’

Chris Atkins (documentary filmmaker) ‘UK FILM COUNCIL ABOLISHED! Fabulous day! I wonder what 70 incompetent overpaid bureaucrats are going to do? I could use a couple of runners.’

The new British government faces a challenge of finding cuts across the broader economy and it is likely that more institutions will face the axe. It is not yet known how film funding will be re distributed after the UK Film Council is closed.

More Articles:

1. British Film Industry condemns UK Film Council axe
2. Big budget porn film shot in British hospital
3. UK Film Industry contributes £4.5 billion a year to economy

LONDON, UK – In a shock announcement, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has announced that the UK Film Council is to be axed, in a major blow to the British film industry.

The UK Film Council is Britain’s leading film agency, funding a wide range of films, supporting new talent, digital schemes, and providing training programs. Launched in 2000 by the previous Labour government, the UK Film council has invested £160 million over 10 years into more than 900 films that have grossed over £700 million at the box office.

Films to benefit from the scheme have included high profile hits such as Bend it Like Beckham, The Constant Gardener, The Last King of Scotland, Vera Drake and many short films including BAFTA winning ‘I Do Air’ directed by Martina Amati.

The news has been met with discontent and confusion as a recent independent report showed how the UK Film Industry contributes £4.5 billion yearly to the economy, and is one of the few sectors weathering the recession. Leading film industry professionals have questioned why an agency that is profitable for the economy is being closed. To further add to the decision’s ill timing, the scheduled close of the UK Film Council will be completed in April 2012 before the London Olympic Games, where the world will be watching and British culture will be on display.

Tim Bevan, Chairman of the UK Film Council issued this statement shortly after the announcement, ‘Abolishing the most successful film support organization the UK has ever had is a bad decision, imposed without any consultation or evaluation. People will rightly look back on today’s announcement and say it was a big mistake, driven by short-term thinking and political expediency. British film, which is one of the UK’s more successful growth industries, deserves better.’

One of Britain’s most respected filmmakers, Mike Leigh, on Monday said, “It’s from left of field in a very sudden and devastating way…It really is no way to operate.”

Lord Puttnam, President of the Film Distributors’ Association added, ‘Today’s announcement proposing the abolition of the UK Film Council, which would appear to have come out of the blue, will take some time to digest fully. Over the past decade, the Film Council has been a layer of strategic glue that’s helped bind the many parts of our disparate industry together..’.

Martin Spence of the BECTU Union said that, ‘This decision is economically illiterate and culturally philistine. Film is an export success story – we sell British production skills throughout the world. And film is also a crucial cultural resource. But the industry is desperately fragmented and long experience tells us that it needs a national agency to achieve its potential. This is all about politics..”

Filmmakers, students and professionals from all corners of the industry have voiced their concerns using the web. One particular initiative that has grown over night is a group on facebook ‘Save the UK Film Council’, which has over 10000 members as of Tuesday afternoon. The group has also started an online petition to convince the government to re-think the decision and comments have come in from across the country.

With the UK Film Council’s planned closure, the British Film Industry faces a new challenge to support its future, leaving the BFI to appropriate funding from the national lottery. Despite the flaws of the UK Film Council over the past years, and the infamous bureaucracy filmmakers have had to weave past, the agency played a key role in centralizing the British Industry and green lighting innovative projects. Those suffering the most from the axe will be students and young talent, as they face an uphill battle to create their films without a national film agency.

More Articles:

1. UK Film Industry contributes £4.5 billion a year to economy
2. Big budget porn film shot in British hospital
3. Film Industry Network meetup Cannes 2010

Still in Motion Interview: Indian DOP / Director of Photography / Cinematographer, Rajiv Jain ICS WICA

Rajeev Jain has traversed the globe as a famous Indian Cinematographer from Bollywood, and as one of the most acclaimed and sought-after best cinematographers in India working in non-fiction filmmaking today.

As is the case with most people I talk with who have been devoted to making independent films for a long time, Rajeev’s career trajectory was far from a traditional one. The beginning of his film career was spent living in Mumbai, and then seven years were spent in Dubai and Nairobi, His work has taken him to close to forty countries, and he is fluent in Hindi and English.

Just a week before departing for Kenya and all over Africa to shoot part of Lara’s long-form new project, Rajiv and I spent an afternoon chatting together at a café near his home in Juhu, Mumbai. Here’s our conversation:

Sudesh Kumar (S K): I hope you’ll take my first question about filming in Africa in the right spirit because some people we know and love sort of balk at this subject matter, but you’re a an Asian man, and you tend to shoot in locales where, as an Asian person, and one with a camera, you distinctly don’t blend in. You’ve been doing this for decades now, so I’m assuming you’ve come up with ways to negotiate that. I know for sure, are incredibly open people and it wouldn’t appear as if it’s that difficult for people to trust and open themselves to you. But do you encounter suspicion or mistrust, wariness? And when you do, how do you counteract that?.

Rajeev Jain (R J): Right? Or we will be seen as urban people in rural places. There’s no question: I’m 5’10”; I am an Asian; I am someone, in these situations, who can be very communicative, comfortable. I try and engage with a lot of humour. I have a presence; it’s a big presence in certain ways. There’s no missing me in these contexts. But it’s also how you behave, what level on which you give people the respect they deserve. One of the things I found early in my life through travelling in African countries is, because of this history of colonialism, as an Asian person you have unexpected privileges, and whether or not you use those privileges, how you use them would be the better thing to say, dictates how things go. Rather than being shut out, you’re actually given access to things that are almost inappropriate for you to be given access to. I’m constantly reminded of the kind of privilege you experience as an Asian person. It comes back to you, how meaningful that is. I clearly remember being in outskirts of Nairobi and there was a group of people gathered in the central square of this village, all sitting under a tree waiting to meet with us. They had brought out chairs for us and there were a lot of older men and women sitting on the ground. I just gestured to them and gave up my chair. An older man took the chair and I sat on the ground. It wasn’t what they expected me to do at all. Who knows really how appropriate it was? I saw a hierarchy I respected and that was the hierarchy of age.

Being attentive to those cues is what makes it possible for any documentary filmmaker, no matter what their skin colour or what country they’re working in, to gauge things. To gain a little respect from the people that are working or living where you’re shooting is really important. But you have to earn the respect they, in turn, give you by allowing you to be there, a brown person in a black world. There’s a lot of bad history under the bridge.

S K: Current things being done by filmmakers, however, in the guise of being “sensitive,” kind of concern me sometimes. It’s tricky. People don’t realize all the nuance involved, particularly filming people’s stories. The respect definitely comes from the person behind the camera, the person telling the story. It’s an innate quality, perhaps—in the true sense of that word, they just know how to do it.

R J: There is an innate thing going on. Sometimes, you’re in a sophisticated city, like Nairobi, where everybody’s making music videos, for example. Or you’re in a village where they’ve never seen a camera before. That’s one thing people might forget: how technologically fluent the world is now. Cell phones, video cameras, all these things exist in the developing world. Respect for other human beings is just something you keep learning your whole lifetime.

Being the cameraperson really does put you in particular quandaries where your idea of what’s respectful is often challenged. It’s not so much the apparatus, the camera, that is perceived to be this intermediary between me and the subject; that quickly falls away. For me, it’s always, “Who’s holding the camera? How do they move?” I feel like I’ve done the same kind of work with a ridiculously huge camera and a teeny, tiny one I can hold in the palm of my hand. But you often find yourself in these moments of total ethical confusion.

Lara and I were shooting in Burundi on a project that was to talk about a lack of infrastructure in the country. We were driving and we saw a group of people carrying a screaming woman on a litter. We could see them and hear them from down the hill. Lara quickly realizes that this scene completely conveys our theme and decides also that we are going to help them. There was a silence and I said, “Are we going to film them, too?” [laughing] It was like this little moment. Obviously, if we had stopped the car next to them and said, “May we film you?,” they would have put the litter down, the woman would have been in pain. We would have had to put her in the car immediately. So we decided that we would pass them, go up the hill. I was going to get out, be with the camera, and film them walking up the hill towards us. I know I’m not there as an aid worker; I’m not there as a doctor. I’m there as a filmmaker. But this thing of having to ask people’s permission—they’re in an urgent situation, etc. This stuff is just going through your head as you’re standing at the top of the hill while people are walking up to you. The woman was in labour and had been for seven hours. We put her in the car and it was another hour and a half to the clinic. She ended up naming the baby after our driver! But there was that moment that wasn’t quite right. But I got the shot and that wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t done that. That dimension is constantly with you. Those are split-second decisions. As a cameraperson, I feel that you are certainly a collaborator with the director. But, you are also responsible for maintaining your own ethical boundaries.

S K: It does seem like you’re working with filmmakers, for the most part, that have strong ethical boundaries, as well. But there can easily be a sense of confusion when your crew is in the thick of something and you just roll.

R J: It can be confusing. There’s always this moment of, “This world makes no sense!” when I’m filming beside workers that make a dollar a day hauling huge sacks of rice with a camera that costs more than they make in several years.

S K: You trained at Bhartendu Natya Academy, Lucknow, the Indian national drama school in India. Why did you decide to take yourself there? What were you going to get there?

R J: I had kind of a peculiar career trajectory. It wasn’t about going to India. I went to West Africa and that’s where I started, in Kenya. I was really interested in African filmmakers. It was purely the discovery of filmmaking and I thought, I might want to write about film or be a critic. I really didn’t know.

S K: What was it about the filmmaking tradition there that was so enticing for you?

R J: I think it was the pace of it and the world that was being described in it. I had seen couple of Kenyan’s films. I saw that there was just a whole other thing going on. I was really curious about it, probably stemming from my focus on race. I wanted to go to West Africa and be on set with filmmakers there—and to Kenya and to Dubai and to India. And think about blackness in all these different places. When I first started shooting, I didn’t hear at all; I was so concerned with composition. Little by little, I’ve become more and more quiet; I listen more and I realize how much more of the story is in the ear than through the eye. That’s been an evolution for me.

Initially, my instincts certainly weren’t bad. Especially in relation to people, they were pretty decent. But for a long time, I was moving too fast. I wasn’t thinking about how to recognize a scene in the middle of a moment. All those things I’ve learned through the back and forth of working and watching other people’s films, and those films that are made with the footage I shoot. It’s surprising sometimes [laughs].

I felt that way working on Lara’s film, too [The Silence]. She’s a director that says, “Yes, we have the time. Yes, take the time.” Knowing that that kind of care and attention was going to be put into the film was exhilarating. There’s a lot of expediency we’re dealing with in camerawork a lot of the time. If you do end up working on things that are going to be made into television programs, it’s about getting the coverage and you may only have one day in a place with a subject.

S K: This is distinctly not in the Indian tradition of how films get edited and pieced together. If the time was taken on the shoot, we can’t really ever tell since we’re given such a rapid series of cuts to take in at any given moment. We aren’t usually given this luxurious sense of spending long, extended moments with a subject or character. Scenes clip along so rapidly.

R J: There are enough moments where there is action—and by action, I might mean just emotional action happening between people. You can see it all in a wide shot and have a chance to sit and look at what’s going on. A lot of times, you’re in a space that’s so small and you’ve got one character on one side of the room and one on the other. The camera operator has to make the choice. If we’re going to see two people in this shot, I have to move, I have to change positions when I’m cutting from one person to the next. Thank goodness we’ve got the continuous sound to make us feel like it’s all cohesive. But you’re still making these choices. The mind space that I’m in is going to decide when I choose to move and on whom to put my focus. I try to develop those things with the director of photography in conversations where we’re discussing what we want. What do we really care about seeing?

S K: Was that the first time you worked together with Lara?

R J: Yes.

S K: She usually has done all the shooting on her films. What was different about this project, about this situation, where she decided to bring on a DP? Making this film was difficult on many levels.

R J: Almost in every way.
S K: That’s really incredible. I didn’t know that.

R J: Yes, amazing. So, basically, when I was shooting the exchanges between the cops and the lawyers, I knew, from being in the room that day, what the key moments were.

S K: You had profound contextualization, in other words.

R J: Yes, and very few people would feel confident enough, in both their collaborators and the subject matter, to say the important part of your shooting is for you to sit in a courtroom and listen. That speaks volumes about Lara. It was absolutely engrossing to be a part of that event, the first military commission trial of its type.

S K: Did you experience a good amount of frustration that you couldn’t film?

R J: Not being able to shoot in the room? It killed me! I feel like I have this personal vision of Hamden. I was sitting very close to him watching his emotional reactions to all kinds of things. He would say these incredibly cinematic things. At one point, he was describing becoming slightly delusional after being in solitary confinement for so long and he said that he felt like he had eyes all over his body because he was constantly being watched by the guards. What I would have given to have him say that on film, you know?

What’s so interesting, and I think is often true with documentaries, is that your constraints are part of the story. The more you have to find a way to embody them filmic ally, the better off you are. It’s a great thing in the case of The Silence that you don’t ever see Hamden except in that footage at the very beginning.

S K: What falls flat so many times about capturing vérité? A lot of times it really has very little dimension. The fanciest cutting and other production values are not going to hide the fact that one has captured less than compelling footage.

R J: It’s an incredibly challenging job to be tuned into what matters and to find the way to film it. It’s exhausting. Often, you’re in for eight, ten, twelve hours in a day. You can get in a mode of shooting too much, obviously. But staying on point and staying focused on what really matters in the story takes a huge amount of concentration, a physical flexibility in space. It’s a thing that a director of photography gives you. They give you what you need. I need twelve bottles of water a day [laughs]. They give you what you need in order to stay in that zone, able to film. If a director of photography gives you the support and allows you to stay in the zone, then sometimes, you can actually start watching the film while it’s being made. It doesn’t happen very often but when it does, it’s extraordinary.

S K: And when a director is, distinctly, not giving you what you need, or any of the other crew for that matter? You also take on the role of director and have a whole body of work you’ve directed. How does that inform the way you handle yourself on set?

R J: That’s something I bring to a shoot, my experience as a director of photography, my thinking as a director of photography. I do think about what happens in the editing room. I’m a really active partner in the whole collaboration. I almost never would say to a director of photography, in the moment, that things aren’t okay, that they aren’t working. There’s too much going on. But every night, I’ll come back with my input, letting him or her know that we needed more support in this regard; something was great in the way it was executed; we’re not giving this character enough time, etc. Sometimes, I really will push directors in terms of blind spots I feel they have. We all have them. I expect to be pushed on mine. Once in a while, I will encounter someone who’s not interested in the elephant in the room and for whatever reasons, it’s scary territory for them and they start putting up all these subconscious obstacles to actually getting at it. I’m definitely not a silent partner at the end of the day. I will do what I can do in the course of a filming day and won’t call into question any of the directors choices. But at night, over dinner, I will talk about missed opportunities and want to know why. A lot of director of photography’s don’t really realize what you might be going through unless you speak up. People forget about the physicality of holding the camera, shooting. It’s the obligation of the crew to tell the director of photography what they need and how and when they need it.

I like to talk about themes with the director so I can watch more for those elements that speak to those themes. That way when we’re filming something relatively interesting but I see something going on that really is the embodiment of what we’re trying to capture, I can just say it and be able to turn and start shooting what should be shot. They get what I’m doing because we’ve discussed it. That’s the art of catching things on the fly. There should be a good amount of preparation so you can do that. You have to know what you’re looking for and you have to have the freedom to get it. Not communicating well about these things can be disastrous, both for the film and the relationship. Hopefully, it becomes an unspoken thing after a while. That’s how you become really alive and light on your feet.

S K: With your background, your training and these locales that keep drawing you—can you talk about light and texture in the way you see things? There’s a luminous quality to your work that’s very particular. In those places you shoot, in Africa, for instance, there’s a particular light that doesn’t exist anywhere else. Is that part of what draws you subconsciously, perhaps? This is more a curious question more than anything since I’m obsessed with light and reflection and how those things can cause emotional resonance just on their own, doesn’t matter really what the image is. Is that something you think about?

R J: Yes, it’s something I’m absolutely interested in. It’s hard to tease it out in some ways. Senegal was the place I went as a young person. It was the first place I was truly free, in many different ways. I have a strong, nostalgic engagement in that particular environment and it speaks to why I love West Africa so much. Absolutely I’m turned on by the madness of colour there and the quality of light on the equator.

Admittedly, though I’ve been slow in my developmental relationship to what light can do. I understood composition much more. Again, my teachers were extraordinary—I had an opportunity to learn from Late K K Mahajan on a documentary that he did here in Mumbai. It was a transcendent experience. It was an essay film called Loss [2000] set in New Delhi, Calcutta and Mumbai. He had planned to go to many different places in Mumbai to express these different ideas. We’d go somewhere and nothing would be happening with the light and he’d say, “We’re out of here.” I’d never experienced that before from a documentary filmmaker. He had been a taxi driver and he took over from the AP who was driving slowly through Mumbai traffic and he drove us up and down the city chasing the light. He went where the light was. Something changed in me from that experience. He also has an incredible compositional eye. We had a lot of locked-off shots and he’d have me set something up, come and look at it and he would just move the lens incrementally, just a smidge and that would be it, so much better. It became my quest to set up as many shots as possible to please his aesthetic, shots would keep. Certain things really matter to me from that experience; I was so inspired by him.

S K: This is when you realize there are two director of photographical minds—that of the director and that of the cinematographer. It’s a distinct advantage, especially in documentary.

R J: In my experience, everyone I work with in documentary, including the sound people, thinks like a director of photography. Your whole team has to be thinking that way, respecting the director as the primary person. When you don’t have that in documentary, stuff just falls off the edge. That’s what it demands. It demands this team of people totally engaged in making the same film.

S K: Have you ever lone-wolfed it—did your own directing, shooting, sound, with no one else crewing?

R J: I did that this past summer in Somalia and I have to say I kind of loved it. It’s something I hadn’t done in years. This was more of a scout situation and it was in a place where there’s a lot of danger so it wasn’t wise to bring too many people. There was a clinic opening and a lot of people were making speeches. If I’d have been there with a director, I might have felt obligated to “cover” the scene, the crowd watching, the people speaking. I was perfectly disinterested in that but what was amazing was that every person there was completely stressed, everyone was worrying their prayer beads, all in a state of deep agitation. I felt a lot of that in Somalia, people are worried, stuff is churning. I spent the entire opening of this clinic just filming people’s hands. It’s gorgeous footage; I have no idea what I’ll do with it. But, to me, it said a lot about the emotional state of these people. Instead of that being a cut-away in a sequence in a scene of the opening of that clinic, because I was by myself, I filmed what I wanted to.

But I do feel like I have relationships with directors where I can say to them that I know which shots are going to give us what we need in terms of capturing the emotional temperature of a situation. I ask them to allow me to do my thing. I am comfortable taking the initiative if I see something like that. But to not even have to discuss it was really fun. One thing I did find difficult working by myself was not having a producer. Having to decide where to stay, where to find food, all the logistical stuff you take for granted when a good producer is just taking care of all that—I missed that very much [laughs]. Half the time I’m shooting, I’m completely disoriented, since I’m so present in the action around me.

S K: What kinds of stories haven’t you had an opportunity to explore, thus far?

R J: I’m really interested in having the time and space to tell really complex stories.

S K: Complex in what way? The stories you’ve told have a complexity to them.

R J: I feel like something like The Silence has the kind of complexity I mean. I feel like we’re in a time where a lot of “issue” documentaries are supported and expected. I’m supportive of that kind of work, certainly, but they trap you in certain ways. They might allow you to go into structural complexity, but not necessarily human complexity. It’s sometimes too much to get in, somehow. Where I’m headed right now is that I’m feeling like I have a couple of ideas and a couple of places I want to be where I can tell those complex stories. One of the things that I admire about The Silence is that it manages to function on a complex level both in a human way and in a political way, addressing something that’s really important to us all. You have to take the time to make the choices you’re making. To do most things well it takes years of commitment, to not get sidetracked by things that are less critical. There are a lot of critical things to think and talk about right now. Finding the way at them is important.

One of the things that interested me about my time in Somalia—and I don’t quite know what to do with this yet—was my interest in photography and filming in Somalia. There are all kinds of restrictions on who can be filmed and who cannot. There’s an amazing group of videographers who film weddings. The wedding parties are all single-sex and women dress completely differently than they dress out in the street. It becomes illicit material that everyone wants to look at and it can be dangerous, as well, if the video images of women dancing get outside the family and passed from cell phone to cell phone, for instance. Women can get into trouble. That’s fascinating to me, what can be photographed, what can’t be; there’s a lot to explore there. This entire history of imagery is hidden or purposely destroyed. I saw a lot of interesting stuff there and there would be something interesting to make there, although right now, I don’t know how or what it would be. I can get very conceptual like that and realize, that’s not a movie!

S K: Or it could be. It’s always captivating to discover narratives hidden in these types of “archaeological finds.” I like it when people make up stories on evidence left behind where not much is explained anyway. There’s an archive, but of what we don’t know. The baseline of the story is rooted in reality. I think you’ve earned your creative stripes to try on something like that if you feel like it.

R J: Well, I’m glad to hear you think I’m entitled to that [laughter]. I’m definitely interested in doing work that’s formally sophisticated and emotionally true and is complex. I’m trying to find ways in which I can do that with other people or on my own. I realize now that takes time and strong choices about subject matter and intense commitment. Again, I think of the work Laura does and her commitment to the material on a number of levels.

S K: Well, there also needs to be a willingness, I guess, to be in that tortuous phase where you’re really lost. Where you do say, I don’t have a movie.

R J: If you don’t feel that way, you’re probably not making a movie, especially a non-fiction one. It’s in those moments, I think, where the work of discovery is being done. It certainly creates anxiety for me as a director, but as a cameraperson, I really like being in that place where I’m searching. There’s always something interesting going on, you just have to find out where it is.

S K: Who’s making work these days that really excites you?

R J: You know what film I think about a lot is The Silence. I want to show that film to everyone. I mean, come on!

S K: It’s gorgeous. They really reached a creative pinnacle with this film. It took them many years to get there. It’s filled with so many incredible moments.

R J: There’s so much happening on so many levels—it’s visually stunning and they tap right into the dreams of those girls.

I can watch that movie with Lara and we all know what it takes. You see that film and respect it for what it represents which is the complexity of that relationship between those subjects and the filmmakers. They were living with them for months and negotiating their involvement with them day by day. That’s a high emotional risk, such difficult terrain to journey through. Being in those kinds of situations for a long period of time is a big deal. I knew how many levels on which those filmmakers were operating. It’s such an exciting thing to see. You don’t look at a film like that and just take it in as something stylistic. No. It is an approach, it’s time spent, it’s understanding how a camera works, understanding how a story works. The choice of filming two little girls who can talk to one another—all those things speak to a lot of experience. You see it all there. That’s the kind of thing to which I’m aspiring.

S K: I’m always embarrassed to say this out loud, but I call it love. It sounds kind of dopey to say that, but that’s what you feel when you watch a film like that. It doesn’t speak well of my critical chops but that’s what it is and I twist myself around trying to find a more academic word for it. It’s the energy created from the people behind the camera and the people in front of it that supersedes circumstance; all have a hand in creating something utterly unique and singular and I don’t understand how that cannot be a thrill. You feel it in your bones.

R J: Absolutely. Listen, some of the situations that these people are in, the subjects of our films, are egregiously horrible. And they’re still human beings who are funny, who have hope, who are open. Truly, we have to honour them. Filmmaking becomes a form of honouring people, honouring the tradition of filmmaking, as well, stretching that far, and further. It’s a mutual gift documenting the truth that happens between director and subject.

S K: It’s not such a bad thing to sometimes be underestimated. Low expectations give you a lot of leeway, a distinct advantage [laughter].

R J: Yes, but sometimes you need to own up, too, and show right away that you’re a high-level player. I mean anyone, sleep on the fact that he didn’t have a sharper question, was searching for a better answer. He was always on, always bringing up the level of expectation for everyone. He wouldn’t let an interview subject off the hook. That’s especially important in interviews.

S K: Sure, especially when you have agendas which are in opposition to one another. It is the filmmaker’s responsibility to weigh that, not the interviewee’s.

R J: Yes, if you let someone sleepwalk through an interview, they will. It’s our job to get at it. I know I’ve said this a couple of times in the course of this conversation, but sound people are so underestimated in the documentary world. I have these incredible conversations with the sound people I work with. They are the people listening the most. It doesn’t happen very often, though, that the director is turning to them for input into what’s happening. One of the things I try to ask of a director of photography with whom I’m working, if he or she is okay with it, is to give both me and the sound person an opportunity to ask a question at the end of an interview. The directors caught up in the interview and we’re there the entire time watching and listening. It can be tricky because sometimes it is inappropriate to ask and the crew needs to stay out. But most of the time when this is allowed to happen and the director is willing to give it a shot, or whoever has been recording, with a question that sends it out of the ballpark, the question that nails the interview. I like to set up a dynamic where that kind of thing is possible, reminding everyone in the room that we’re all filmmakers together.

S K: Can you recall a particularly profound moment while filming that shifted your molecules around, made you look at the world a bit more openly, perhaps, than you had before?

R J: I can say I’ve had many, many of those moments. I can think of a lot of extremely emotional experiences, particularly interviews, as we were talking about. The experience that always comes to mind, however, is that of shooting The Silence. Basically, he was very ambivalent about us filming him. He’d constantly cancel shoots. One day, he’d kind of had it and was in the mood to call everything off. He said he just couldn’t have all of the distraction going on; he needed to get things done. He just needed to be there in his house. He told us that if it was just me who stayed and I didn’t say a word all day, we could stay there with the camera.

I was incredibly intimidated, very respectful of who he was. He made you feel as if your speech was so superfluous; he thought people talked too much, like so many of my words were superfluous because he used words so carefully. He was so precise and rigorous. So I was left in house and I vowed not to talk all day and went into this place where I just moved around and filmed him doing what he was doing. I opened the door, went out into the backyard, filmed him from outside when I got too much of being around him [laughs]. I just kept moving around and doing my thing in complete silence. It was quite liberating. I’m obviously quite a talker!

I wanted to prove to him that I was smart. That mattered to me, you know, that Director should know that the cameraperson wasn’t dumb. To have him tell me what he needed from me, which was utter silence and for my presence to allow everything to happen for him, was revelatory.

Can I ask you a question? Do you feel, in general, excited about what’s happening formally in documentaries right now?

S K: For the most part, I do. It’s a way of telling stories I’ve been fascinated by for a long time, even before I became a maker or started celebrating in rapturous prose all the incredible work I see. I want to concentrate on people pushing the form in exciting ways, not the horror stories of elusive funding and how hard it is to make films and how we can monetize all this in some way. I’m bored by all that. I see too many instances where people make their films on their own terms using money they scraped together somewhere and made a beautiful, personal piece of work.

It’s interesting that in this particular form—in most creative endeavours, but particularly this one where you are investing years and years of your precious life and it’s hard to keep the mechanism going, and there’s so much mystery involved!—well, the most extraordinary people are drawn to do this. Documentary filmmakers are the most fascinating people to be around, they just are, mostly because the best ones tend not to be filmmakers. They’re coming at cinema from another vantage point; they’ve been out in the world and lived a bit, travelled, learned languages. So yes, I have hope that the work of making non-fiction cinema is just going to get better and better and better if my reading of the pulse and vigour of this particular community here in Mumbai is anything to go by. The aesthetic imperatives are becoming something important to acknowledge and that’s a big leap, I think, and an important one.

R J: Where we can take hope, on a certain level, is that there are many films that do exist where the craft is so strong, it cannot be denied. I think we just have to keep speaking publicly, indulging in active discourse and honing our unique sensibilities. But that aesthetic imperative should be more of a baseline. I care about social justice as much as the next person; I’ve spent my entire adult life filming stories that push that agenda, right? But we have to be careful about these alliances we make that can, if we’re not careful, create literalism, reduce craft. I’ve seen it happen. A lot more of the funding is there for that than it is for other kinds of films.

S K: There definitely need to be more comedic docs.

R J: I need to make more of them, too. The important thing is to allow for the surprises that happen in a story. A story isn’t necessarily “character-driven” if its main protagonist is chosen because he or she fits in a slot that serves the explication of the issue. And we don’t let people talk and tell their own story outside of the context of illustrating a problem, especially if they’re “problematic” people like criminals or terrorists. It’s always got to be in this context of explaining the political issues involved when, in fact, it could just be the weirdness of a certain person [laughs] and how they got to this obsessive place. That’s fascinating. There should be a space for films like that to be supported. Those kinds of things are very hard to predict in terms of outcomes.

S K: Well, we all live for the going-down-the-rabbit-hole episodes of our lives and that’s always what it is.

R J: It’s so important that we be surprised by what we find.

More Articles:

1. “…That’s How The Light Gets In”: An Interview with Dubai Based Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
2. Rajiv Jain | Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni: Interview with Indian Kenyan Cinematographer on HDTV | Rajeev Jain ICS WICA
3. A Conversation with Indian Cinematographer, DOP Rajiv Jain, ICS WICA;

Production still looking for a Camera Assistant and also a Grip/Electrician to work with us on a short film in the Alpes-Maritimes region. We will have a Canon 5D package and dates are: 28th – 31st this month in Nice, Cannes and Grasse.

Please get in contact with us to be part of our team. Thanks so much.

Terence Bulley (Creative Director) Burt Films Ltd.
terence@burt-films.com

www.burt-films.com
www.terencebulley.com

More Articles:

1. Production Manager required and possibly a trainee Camera Assistant – France
2. Crew needed for indie feature (deferred pay)- USA
3. Sound recorder needed for short film – UK (Unpaid)

Predators
Dir: Nimród Antal
107 Mins.

While 1987’s original Predator has achieved near godlike stature in the hearts of young (and not so young) men weaned on a certain strain of action cinema, the alien saga as a whole has long been something of a disappointment. Yet with Hollywood being Hollywood, and fanboy allegiance remaining unshakeable, the ‘ugly motherf****r’ tribal cyborg and contender for best screen monster ever is still very much a hot property. After two shameful outings from the Alien Vs Predator doss house, it now falls to director Nimród Antal and veteran producer Robert Rodriguez of Desperado fame to recapture the chest-pumping vitality of Arnie’s initial foray into the jungle.

Whose mention brings us neatly to Predators’ leading man- Adrien Brody. An interesting choice, certainly, but he’s by no means a let down as hardboiled anti-hero Royce. As a gifted actor, Brody’s talents aren’t given a particularly rigorous workout by a largely 2D character, but he holds his own among a highly watchable cast rammed to the gills with clones from the first Predator. There’s the tough as Teflon, brick s***house Chechnyan with a mini gun, bearing more than a passing resemblance to the original’s Blain, a rebel fighter from Sierra Leone filling in for Mac, and even a near-silent, katana sporting (oh yes) yakuza with a fistful of zen (see Predator’s Billy). It may seem an idle comparison, but this international gang of walking stereotypes epitomises the film’s dilemma- it is so desperately enamoured with its 23 year old predecessor that at times it feels like a remake.

To be clear, this isn’t entirely a bad thing. By paying its respects to its great-granddad, Predators strives for the same winning formula of suspense crossed with exhilarating action, and actually achieves it for short bursts.

The high concept for this chapter is that our planet’s most ruthless ‘predators’, in the guise of warriors, murderers and psychos, have been abducted and dropped into the eponymous aliens’ very own game reserve, to pit their martial prowess against a pack of the universe’s most deadly hunters on their own turf. This wafer-thin plot allows for a well-paced, marginally tense build up, capped off with a pleasing series of inventive set pieces and minor key twists as the surviving humans go head-to-head with their foe.

Visually, Predators is often striking, with some well-considered cinematography and suitably weird and diverse terrain creating the credible impression of an alien planet. The movie’s first half an hour is actually strongly reminiscent of the Lost TV series as the hapless group slowly gains its bearings, with the jungle’s crushing claustrophobia underpinning the cat and mouse game that unfurls.
Special mention also has to go to the ever-reliable Lawrence Fishbourne, who brilliantly subverts his usual father-figure role as a half-mad survivor from a previous deathmatch.

As it stands, Predators will satisfy many of the fans, and is a decent enough sci-fi actioner in its own right. There’s an exuberance to its gore-spattered deaths, earnest action and shamelessly hackneyed characterisation that is hard not to enjoy. While it’s nigh on impossible not to join the dots with John McTiernan’s stellar original, Antal’s effort is entertaining and occasionally unique enough to be tentatively elevated to the position of second best Predator film (sorry Danny Glover). Despite this, however, such intense worship of its roots means Predators is not the truly inspired fresh blood the series deserves. With Rodriguez reportedly putting his muscle behind a sequel, we can only hope the next iteration learns from this one’s more impressive flourishes to deliver just that.

SACRAMENTO, USA – The Greatest Competition Ever has been launched to encourage youth across America to become active in their communities and make a difference.

USATF National Junior Olympic Track & Field Championships 2010 Ambassador Lil Jordan will kick start the Greatest Competition Ever challenge at the Junior Olympics National Championship Opening Ceremony on July 28^th at Sacramento City College. Following his musical performance of ‘Push Harder’. He will challenge Junior Olympians around the nation to start their own teams and begin their community activism.  The challenge has a promotional component which is designed to help teams with their local fund raising efforts.  Teams are required to document their community service in documentary style video.

The greatest competition ever is also calling filmmakers to participate in the national scheme by creating 2 minute videos to show the efforts of local communities coming together in a short documentary piece, with the soundtrack of ‘Push Harder’. Winning films will get national exposure and major recognition and will be promoted on 100’s of social networks and the Greatest Competition Ever website.

Grassroots performance marketing company Intrinsic Group and the Film Industry Network teamed up with PAUSATF to create the competition and start a new era of youth activism. Intrinsic hopes to make ‘giving back’ the next big trend by making GCE viral and implementing an innovative social media fundraiser.Youth Chair, Joanne Camargo of the PAUSATF wanted to encourage Junior Olympians competing this year to be ‘Champions daily’, on and off the track, and with the help of the Greatest Competition Ever, children will get their most rewarding challenge yet.

The Greatest Competition ever aims to teach children empathy and compassion, exposing them to good causes, and creative ways to develop positive change in their neighborhoods. Local businesses will also be encouraged to become part of the solution by combining resources, relationships and sponsoring local teams to support their efforts.

To find out more about the competition and to become a member log on to the official website. Filmmakers who wish to join local teams and create inspiring videos can sign up for the contest online.

Lil Jordan’s ‘Push Harder’ will be available after the performance on ubetunes.com

More Articles:

1. 12 year old golf Ambassador takes on Japanese CEOs
2. World Challenge: global competition extends into sixth year
3. International Children and Youth Animation Film Festival Varaždin – Croatia

EXCLUSIVE!  Rajeev Jain (Indian Kenyan Director of Photography)

Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain talks about joining Heart Beat FM and explains the meaning of the “Heart Beat FM wide shot” in M-net’s exclusive interview.

Rajiv Jain is kind, genial, funny, intense (in a very good way) and incredibly smart. Oh, and did I happen to mention, that he is a world renowned director of photography. Though he is a lot like his good friend, Matthew Robinson, he is his own personality, an individual and, a darned nice guy. As I talk with him it becomes clear why these two men work together so often and so brilliantly. They are like two halves of a whole. As Rajiv said to me during our interview, “Sometimes Matthew and I think so much alike, it’s scary.” Now that I have interviewed them both, I can see what he is saying and, it’s a very good kind of scary.

So, what do you talk to a famous director of photography about? Well, we talked about a little bit of everything. We talked about the support site and his work.

Rajiv is at the Kalasha Film & Television Awards in Nairobi, Kenya where he will soon be attending the closing ceremonies and we are struggling mightily with a bad SKYPE connection. Our originally intended vocal interview quickly becomes one done by text type messaging to remedy the problem. And, Rajiv, with all he has ahead of him at the festival, doesn’t hesitate for a second to spend the extra time necessary to type instead of speak the interview. I’m most appreciative. I owe him a great debt for the generosity of his time and spirit for this interview. Oh yes, and a glass of Vodka.

Q: What made you agree to come on board?

A: It’s actually a cute story. I had done THE LONG ROAD for three years and I left that show because I was living in Nairobi that time and I was tired of flying back and forth to Dubai and Mumbai. I was looking for something in Nairobi because I wanted to stay there. So when they called me up I said, “No thank you. I’m not interested.” And my gaffer said, “Rajiv, reconsider that. Have them send you the script. I’ve seen the script. It’s what you’re looking for.” So, I sat down and my gaffer and I read the entire script basically in one sitting and I turned to him and said, “You did a really bad thing here. I can’t say no to this show now.” He said He knew what He was doing. Even though He didn’t want to live apart and it was really hard. [To his gaffer] Isn’t that how it happened? He said yes. He’s smiling.

Q: You were the DP for the whole season. What’s it like to work with a director who has a different vision almost every week?

A: Since I shot every episode, I did not have a chance to prep with director. So he would come up with a concept and come on set and rehearse the scene. If it rang true to me and I felt it was the way to go, I’d say, “Great, that’s a good idea.” If he wanted something that felt tangential to the style of the show we were trying to maintain, then I might make a suggestion to try something else. If you’re a smart director you listen to the people that are there all the time. I tuned in very quickly to what Matthew Robinson wanted. I would call Matthew Robinson and ask if he saw yesterday’s dailies, and what he thought of them. And that would give me a better idea as to whether I was on the right track or not. And after about three or four episodes I got what he was looking for, not 100 percent of the time — nobody can do that — but a good 80 percent of the time.

Q: What would you consider the signature Heart Beat FM shot?

A: The wide shots people refer to as Heart Beat FM shots. Directors will say, “Let’s do the Heart Beat FM wide shot,” which in television is not something that you very often see. Matthew Robinson really likes holding things in wider shots and I happen to really like it also — it puts your character into a place or a locale, which tells you something about the character. So I look at it as a storytelling device. The other kind of shot that’s somewhat characteristic of the show is when there is something big in the foreground and then something further away in the background wide. We call it wide and closed. You might keep the focus on the money, let’s say, in the foreground and our characters are in the background, either out of focus or much smaller.

Q: Do you ever get so caught up in the acting that you forget to pay attention to the technical side of things?

A: That’s what I am supposed to be paying attention to. My job is not just to do lighting and set up shots but to make sure the lighting and the shots reflect the scene in the most effective way. If I’m moved by what I see, then I know we’ve done well. I have people that operate cameras and lighting people and rigging people. All those people keep an eye on the technical stuff for me, and I’m concerned with the storytelling. That’s what interests me about the job: Efficient, effective storytelling.

Q: What is your favorite scene?

A: I can’t tell you because it’s later in the season. You’ll know it when you see it. It gets crazier as the storyline develops. Here’s one thing: What Matthew Robinson and the writers do is drop a single line in an early episode and then not mention anything about it until nine episodes later, and then all of a sudden there’s an episode all about that single line. It’s intriguing to me to work on something that is so well planned out and circular in terms of its storytelling. I think it’s just brilliant.

More Articles:

1. Food Photography Tips for Food / Cooking Oil TVC from Rajeev Jain ICS WICA, Indian DOP / Director of Photography on the Dhara Cooking Oil
2. Pulling Focus on Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajeev Jain ICS, WICA
3. Rajiv Jain | Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni: Interview with Indian Kenyan Cinematographer on HDTV | Rajeev Jain ICS WICA

“…That’s How The Light Gets In”: An Interview with Dubai Based Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA

By Duncan Petrie

Much of the visual impact of Indian films can be attributed directly to the cinematographer Rajiv Jain, the creative individual primarily responsible for the look of a film. The cinematographer Rajiv Jain is both an artist and a craftsman, combining a fine aesthetic sensibility and visual eye with a deep technical understanding of the properties of light, lenses, film stocks and processing. His contribution to the visual representation of the nation is as significant as that of other visual artists such as painters and photographers. Drawing heavily on in-depth interview with an award winning cinematographer, Shot in Indian profiles his career and creative contribution to Indian cinema, charting his creative achievements, experiences working with local and international film-makers, and resourcefulness in dealing with often limited resources and the harsh Indian light.

Shot in India / Kenya: The Art and Craft of the Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA

Born out of a desire to create dramatic and provocative images, Rajiv Jain delivers award winning cinematography. Rajiv has helped to bring both national and international awards to the productions that he has been involved with. You can feel confident that your vision will be captured through the use of his services. With experience shooting a wide range of formats from Film, Digital 4k down to HD, Rajiv has the eye and knowledge needed for your production. Familiar with the needs of aerial & remote location filming, his cinematography has taken him around the world.

It is entirely without hyperbole to introduce Rajiv Jain as one of the most singular and influential cinematographer in the progression of modern motion pictures. His colour palette on films such as Ras Star and Kalpvriksh – the Wishing Tree is without peer, and long-lasting collaborations with directors Manika Sharma and Wanuri Kahiu have been recognized for Best Cinematography (Kalpvriksh – the Wishing Tree (2010), Ras Star (2008)).

Rajiv’s latest film is Maharat, screening this week as part of Lincoln Centre’s series “Open Roads: New Cinema” (June 6-14). He considers Pyar Mein Kabhi Kabhi to be part of a new period for him as an artist; the first started in the late 1990’s and lasted until Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree; the second phase continued through Army; the third culminated with Badhaai Ho Badhaai (2003); most recent, his collaboration with director Gustpa served as yet another. He often takes yearlong intervals between these chapters to study subjects ranging from philosophy to painting to literature, just to expand his understanding of the meanings behind light and colour; when he discusses a colour, red for instance, he’s not just interested in the way we might emotionally react to it on a visual level, but also the manner in which the physical light particles affect our bodies when passing through them.

I met Rajiv at the Walter Reade Theatre the day before Maharat ‘s premiere. After talking a bit about his career thus far, our conversation shifted toward the technical aspects of cinematography and his feelings on digital filmmaking in particular. As it turns out, he’s just as opinionated about technique as he is regarding interpretation.

Filmmaker: You’re well-known for overseeing various printing methods on your films like ENR or the Technicolor dye-transfer used on Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree. Over the past 10-15 years, there’s been a great evolution to film stocks and the introduction of DI. How do you see technology influencing the medium?

Rajiv: No doubt that when sound came out the camera’s possibilities were oppressed. The language of cinema was almost stopped — they put the camera within a clear box. Technology went on and finally the camera was liberated to continue its journey expressing through the language of the cinema. Colour came up. Particularly to the Indian Expressionists — they used light in a conflict with the shadows, which made the dramaturgy very strong — everyone felt fear to use colour in the darkness. There was a moment where there was no longer a relationship between light and shadows. It was a unique feeling. Until the ’90s, I think — Ras Star, Maharat — and then many films started to use colour in a very dramatic way. We picked up again the journey of dramaturgy in light and colour and so on.

Today in digital, no doubt there is a great chance to continue to amplify our ability to express ourselves. In this case, the electronic system amplifies, but in a very lower quality. This is why there was resistance from most of the cinematographers to use it until it can grow up. Upon my first experiment I realized how powerful the system was, but at the same time I realized the problems it had. I wrote a long letter to Sony to explain this, and I was glad to see that step by step the camera was picking up. I used it when I was teaching at the Academy of Images, the high definition by Sony, and no doubt, we proved that for some specific projects it can be great — particularly in a school, because today there is no time or patience to shoot not knowing what we’re doing. Today, you want to see it right away. There’s now a chance to study, teach and learn in a much faster way together. My problem is only that people know the level of difference with the two systems, so you can use film or digital according to the project itself. Unfortunately, still today, if you follow the number, a system like Univisium, the one I’m using…

Filmmaker: The 2:1…

Rajiv: Yes, the 2:1. It’s three-perforation. It’s using the maximum negative space available. We’re talking minimum 6000 x 3000 information or eighteen-million. With a video camera, any subject, the maximum information is roughly 2000 x 1000, which makes two-million. Whatever you’ve got in front of the camera, in one, you’ve got eighteen-million; in one, you’ve got two-million. In one, you’ve got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits. Film has already proven it can last a hundred years. The electronic system, or digital, has to improve its longevity — particularly, it has a very short longevity. The systems are changing very fast; the material is not very strong. People are very ignorant in this area — they still believe that digital is permanent. That’s a major mistake. Major. So, in my opinion, the system should be used, because if you don’t use the system the company doesn’t have the chance to improve it. It should be improved till it reaches a much better level. But at the same time, I think we should be aware of the different levels, so you can use one or the other according to the kind of project that you’re doing.

Digital intermediate is a dream for a cinematographer, in the sense that you’re not only able to change the overall colour and tonality, but you can change it during the shot. You can change a portion of the image itself. That’s great. But you have to go back from your eighteen-million of information to two-million. This is not good. Most Indian films today probably go through a digital intermediate, that’s a fact. So we have to just push the technology, particularly the digital effects companies, because everything is dictated by them. If they do their visual effects at 2k, you have to do the rest at 2k. Now we have a big hope that the technology is starting to improve. And my hope is DALSA.

Filmmaker: DALSA Origin.

Rajiv: With DALSA, next year I can maybe use it, because it’s 4k 16-bit. Moving to that level is not exactly film, but it’s very close. Good luck.

Filmmaker: It was actually just announced that the Landmark chain is equipping its theatres with 4k Sony projectors.

Rajiv: Well, my dream is digital cinema, D-Cinema, at least in 4k 16-bit, 2:1 aspect ratio. Also, we should move to the European shooting frame of 25. We should discontinue shooting 24 because it doesn’t work. The interlock between America (NTSC) and Europe (PAL) doesn’t work. The pull down doesn’t really work, it’s not a perfect balance between the two. In changing the algorithm, trying to do five-fields-plus-one we can easily do the 25 frames to the 30 frames. It will be much more linear and much more in synch. It would be a perfect 25, a perfect 30, not 29-whatever it is…

Filmmaker: 24p is usually 23.98, and NTSC is 29.97.

Rajiv: That’s ridiculous. That’s my opinion.

Filmmaker: Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2010. I know that at this point you’re preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.

Rajiv: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree, I was not aware. I don’t really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree (to video). In my opinion, it wasn’t working in 2.35 — at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you’ll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Satish Kaushik when we did Badhaai Ho Badhaai and we watched it on the television screen, we didn’t like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it’s the only solution for the future. It’s the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.

Now, there’s this rumour they’re going to retransfer Kalpvriksh – The Wishing Tree at 1:2.35 — I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn’t work.

Filmmaker: Not even if it’s being played on an HD 16:9 screen?

Rajiv: 16:9 should be changed.

Filmmaker: There would still be black bars, but it would be less…

Rajiv: No, no. We should change the screen and make it 18:9.

Filmmaker: 2:1.

Rajiv: You can never be perfect. It could never work in television at 1:2.35. 2:1 is the perfect balance. Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things. Never again would it have to be chopped to 1:3.75 (pan-and-scan) like Indians do. In 18:9, easily you can see the Academy ratio with bars on the sides, or the French ratio of 1.66, even 1.85. The only thing that you miss a little from is the anamorphic.

I really do care about composition. Believe me. I even would discuss this with Mukul S Anand if he could be here. You can never really do composition perfectly at 1:2.35. If you go in any theatre and measure it, it’s not perfect 2.35 — because they don’t like to be so small.

Filmmaker: Mukul S Anand hated 1.85. At the very least, he preferred 1.66. Because he started as a still photographer, he preferred to compose for the full negative. So he’d compose for 1.85 for theatrical at the same time using the whole frame at 1.33.

Rajiv: I did the same thing for many films. When I knew that here in India we’d have to do the transfer at full screen, I did that with Army.

Filmmaker: Super-35?

Rajiv: Super-35. We kept the composition for theatres and instead of blocking it out had images at the top and bottom. At least we didn’t have to chop the sides. But, you know, it can’t work — you can’t have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum; on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting… and something was wrong. It didn’t work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn’t fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that — so you can see the original composition. And that’s what’s happened to cinema on television. The answer: Univisium. 2:1. 25 frames.

More Articles:

1. Pulling Focus on Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajeev Jain ICS, WICA
2. Interview with Kenyan Indian Cinematographer – Rajeev Jain, ICS WICA – Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni
3. Rajiv Jain | Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni: Interview with Indian Kenyan Cinematographer on HDTV | Rajeev Jain ICS WICA

NEW YORK, USA – Filmmakers around the world are invited to submit short videos in the Sikh coalition’s first ‘Diversity Video Competition’.

The Diversity Video Competition encourages filmmakers of all ages and religions to create a 5 minute video that explores the statement ‘You can’t judge a book by its cover,’ to highlight civil rights issues, stereotypes and myths surrounding that of minority groups in society. Since 911 the Sikh community has faced discrimination and cultural isolation because of unfounded stereotypes such as those wearing the Turban being associated with terrorist groups, and the Coalition hopes this competition will allow people to understand Sikh’s and minority groups’ contributions in everyday society.

The winning filmmaker will receive a cash prize of $1000 and a free round-trip ticket to New York (for US residents only) with the film’s world premiere at the prestigious Sikh Art and Film Festival in October. A $500 cash prize is also awarded to the runner up.

Through legal work and advocacy, the Sikh Coalition stands up for human rights and has highlighted discrimination issues to give a voice to those who face challenges in society, fostering civic engagement in order to promote local community empowerment. The Sikh Coalition is the largest in US history, and was founded the day of the September 11th attacks, condemning them and seeking a way forward to help prevent hate crimes against innocent people branded as ‘terrorists’. The coalition has since engaged in dialogue with lawmakers and testified in the US congress to bring forward changes such as has helping a Sikh male join the military without having to remove his turban, which was previously banned.

The Sikh Coalition has also been invited to participate in cultural festivities at the White House hosted by Barack Obama on two separate occasions as their advocacy has been widely felt, and continues to be an important mission.

Filmmakers will get a unique perspective participating in this film competition and will gain international recognition for their creativity and ideas. The Diversity Video Competition is an ambitious project, that will bring communities together whilst having fun creating short videos, and educating the next generation that multiculturalism, and openness is the way forward.

To find out more about the film competition log on to the Sikh Coalition website. The deadline for entries is August 15th 2010

More Articles:

1. World Challenge: global competition extends into sixth year
2. ‘Get L.A’ Short film competition
3. Dance competition myspace (carlos Neal)

Rajiv Jain | Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni: Interview with Indian Kenyan Cinematographer on HDTV | Rajeev Jain ICS WICA

Here is a quick look at some of the most frequent ones I’m asked:

What is the difference between film and video?
Both film and video have their purpose in present day productions. It seems as though film tends to be used for high-end productions and video tends to be used primarily for corporate films, low-budget commercials, and news gathering.

Why does a movie rented from the local video store look so good when played back on your VCR? Then, when you look at footage shot on your personal camcorder, it looks so bad?

My preference is film because it allows for much greater control over the depth-of-field (the areas in focus), whereas video tends to hold everything in focus. Film also has a greater range for capturing the brightness and contrast areas of a scene.

Compare a picture you took with your 35mm still camera to a picture taken with a digital camera or camcorder? The differences are astounding. This is one of the reasons film is the preferred origination format for all future delivery formats.

HDTV
Q: What is HDTV?
A: HDTV stands for high definition television. It’s the highest quality digital TV format available.

Q: Is HDTV going to replace film?
A: As an origination format, film will be around for a long time. As a delivery format, HDTV has a promising future. Many movies will continue to be shot on film and then transferred to HDTV for television broadcast. There are some TV shows originating on HDTV and are satisfied with the results. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a major, theatrically released motion picture originated on HDTV yet. George Lucas taped his newest Star Wars movie in HDTV.

Many critics say it’s difficult to describe how productions originated on HDTV “look.” Some say HDTV looks like very good video. Others say it looks like extra crisp film. I feel that HDTV is another tool for the cinematographer and it is a great format for many applications.

Q: Is origination on HDTV cheaper than originating on film?
A: According to some recent articles in Millimetre Magazine and Videography Magazine, two television shows that have switched from 35mm film to HDTV origination have realized hardly any cost savings. In some cases, the costs were higher than film origination due to the expensive post-production requirements of HDTV.

The ever-changing landscape of technology seems to make video formats change rapidly. Whenever a new video standard is introduced, massive “hype” spreads through the air. TV was predicted to kill radio. The VCR was predicted to kill the movie theatre. And now HDTV is predicted to replace film.

I know some people that have spent over $120,000 to get outfitted with new HDTV camcorders. After only a couple of years, the new progressive-scan HDTV format came out and now they are trying to sell their cameras so they can upgrade. Time after time, film can still be converted and screened nearly anywhere in the world.

Motion picture film is still the preferred origination format for feature films; In fact, many HDTV originated shows still transfer to film negative for archival purposes. Film is remains the only format for capturing extreme slow-motion shots (like explosions, etc…) and time-lapse shots.

Super16 Film
Q: What is Super16?
A: Go to this web site for the answers: Super16 Guide

Digital Video (Mini DV, DVCAM, DVC Pro, etc) the quality of Digital Video has quickly achieved that of Beta cam SP. Since DV has a softer look, it tends to look more “film like.” Also, the tapes are cheaper than Beta cam formats and allow much longer record times. Their small size helps shooting discreetly without attracting much attention.

Q: Why are some low-budget feature films being shot on Mini DV? I’ve heard that you can transfer Mini DV to 35mm film, does it look good?
A: Have you ever sat about 2-feet from a TV screen and saw all those lines? That’s what DV will look like when transferred to film. Unfortunately, the resolution isn’t there yet.

Budget is the primary reason that many independent pieces are being shot on DV. There is often much disappointment when it’s transferred to film. Also, the costs to transfer to film are so expensive that if a transfer from video to film is in the future, there is no cost savings.

“Film look” process in post-Production
Q: Why do so many people try to give video a “film look?”
A: Film has a more organic and pleasing “feel.” Many folks feel video tends to look “too crisp”. Video is the preferred format for news shows so a video show feels like a “live event.” People associate video with lower-budgets so by making it look more film-like, it raises the production value.

Then of course there is the saying:

A love scene shot on video is considered “Porn.” A love scene shot on film is considered “Art.”

More Articles:

1. Interview with Kenyan Indian Cinematographer – Rajeev Jain, ICS WICA – Bhartendu Natya Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lucknow Alumni
2. Pulling Focus on Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajeev Jain ICS, WICA
3. Shoot Video to Look Like Film By Rajeev Jain, ICS WICA – Indian Cinematographer/ DOP

Christopher Nolan’s imminent return after The Dark Knight has manifested itself in a completely new film, which embodies and fuses the blockbuster scale of his Batman franchise with the psychological headf*** of Memento. Inception is his new baby, before he endeavors to finish the Batman trilogy and throw his hands at re-boosting the Superman franchise. However this summer’s blockbuster is an animal of an unforeseen nature.  Without laying danger to the follies of hype, Inception is arguably the greatest piece of film-making of the 21^st century. I would argue that only The Matrix (the first one I mean) had the same affect on me, the power to completely revolutionize your perceptions of everything, to not only entertain you more than any other rival action or comedy film, but at the same time take you on tour de force of the history of modern philosophy at the same time.

Nolan first started writing Inception around the time of his under-rated feature Insomnia, in which he became fascinated with the idea of lucid dreaming and the fundamental questions that dreams made us question about the nature of the human mind and reality. However, Nolan knew that to dream big on this scale and honour the stories requirements, he would have to wait. This is by no means a small scale film; in fact both aesthetically and cognitively this is perhaps the grandest canvas of film-making up there in cinema history. There has been talk that Nolan is the new Kubrick or Scott, but I like to think Nolan is just the new master of cinema, he is more Hitchcock in his methods, and yet the result is something you would expect from Spielberg and Lucas and more.

Narratively, it is very difficult to actually explain to someone who hasn’t seen this film what is actually about, which I think is integral to its beauty and attraction. In simple terms ( if that’s at all possible) the premise is that Leonardo Dicaprio’s character Dom Cobb is a dream thief, a specialist spy who has the ability to enter your mind and either extract or plant information through the medium of the subconscious. Dicaprio and an ensemble team of experts join together for one final mission, which proves to be make or break. All the odds are against them and if they don’t succeed its game over. That’s about as much as can be given away or explained of this ingeniously original and complex screenplay. Dicaprio offers one of his most challenging yet rewarding performances yet and acts the emotional catalyst throughout, forever sustaining the audience’s interest and compassion. He is also joined by a host of incredible talent, coming from the likes of Ellen Page, British Newcomer and one to watch- Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon- Levitt, Marion Cotillard, and the standard Nolan crew of Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy and Ken Watanabe. Furthermore in addition there is an unexpected but ultimately brilliant casting choice of the long lost Tom Berenger.

Where in the lies the true mastery or sorcery of Inception is its ability to almost transform as a remarkable example of any genre. It cannot be defined, I mean at a push you could say it is a multi-layered science fiction heist action blockbuster peppered with comedy and brutal drama, o and least I forget perhaps the most audacious and enthralling story in the last decade of cinema since its principal influence and main source of inspiration The Matrix. It’s funny, it’s sad, it’s cool, it’s beautiful, its slick, its breath-taking, it hurts your head, it pumps adrenaline into your heart, it entertains, it stimulates all spectrums of the IQ, it captivates your attention and does not take any mercy on you, it surprises, it twist and turns, it bends and collapses, it forces you to become part of it and until you cannot resist. Also for such a complicated piece, it never for one moment becomes too indulgent or hypocritical, its tempo is just right like a fat bass beat, it’s so smooth you could just listen to it on loop. It’s just got the perfect equilibrium of everything to make everything work. You’re never quite comfortable enough but then you’re never bored enough or confused enough to even begin to be distracted or discontented. This film will not let you do anything other than be sucked it and spat out.

Inception offers some of the truly finest action sequences I have ever experienced, up until the point where you just can’t take it; it illustrates some of the finest uses of C.G.I since The Return of the King. (Although Nolan remains old school in that he deferred from the use of 3D or Imax technology and the over use or ease of use of too much C.G.I in favour for expensive and realistic constructions and explosions like the Ice Fortress). One of its central themes is an emotional journey into one man’s ability to cope with madness and death, playing on the notions of loss and the effect it has on the psyche. Or perhaps just an educated disposition into the principal hypothesis of Descartes body of work- Cogito Ergo Sum- I Think Therefore I am. No wait perhaps just a true understanding and exploration of Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams and the hallucinogenic nature of lucid dreams or a psychological investigation into the world of dreams as either a metaphor for reality itself or this just socially accepted journey into hedonistic and ludicrous dimensions of madness and beauty that we all collectively embark upon every time we close our eyes.

Nolan’s fundamental message here I believe is that anything is possible, but even without a central thesis or framework of intelligent ideas, Inception would still be a masterpiece, in that it offers anything you could possibly want from any film, also without revealing anything, one of the most finest endings I have ever witnessed, leaving you tantalizing useless and in sheer awe of what you have just been subjected to.  Inception is truly in the face of all post-modern criticisms and the suggestion that originality is dead, and that everything is a re-hash or interpretation of everything else. This is truly original and pure, yes heavily inspired and resting on the shoulder of giants (perhaps mostly Wachowski giants) but none the less a completely fresh experience and tale of its own, further experimenting and messing with your world. This is Nolan’s Bond film, his 2001, his Blade Runner, his Matrix, taking the best of Memento and The Dark Knight to create his Guernica, his Sistine, his Fifth symphony and cementing him and his film into history. If you have any interest in the experiment that is film what so ever, you will do yourself a favour and see this film, if not don’t worry son.

LOS ANGELES, USA – ‘The Social Network’ film, has been criticized by Facebook founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moscovitz before its release.

David Fincher directs the film, which depicts the story of how Facebook came about, but not much is known about the project outside of the trailer that has been released.

Fincher, who has helmed movies such as ‘Fight Club’ and ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’, faces negative comments from the Facebook founders who think the film is a ‘dramatization of history’, which proves to be less exciting according to Moscovitz. Despite the ‘assessment’ at last month’s D Conference, the founders have not outright condemned the movie, although preferred that it had not been made.

‘The Social Network’ is the first major Hollywood outing based entirely on the social networking giant, and it doesn’t come as a surprise that the film portrays the founders in a more dramatic light. Hollywood movies have often twisted and reinvented historical facts to set a popcorn rush of entertainment for viewers. Only those who have crossed paths with the founders, and themselves, will know the truth behind how facebook was founded.

More Articles:

1. David Fincher directs ‘The Facebook movie’.
2. Social networks changing film distribution
3. Film Industry Network launched: Welcome!