FELDMAN INTERVIEW
	Part 3

Arne Zaslove interviews filmmaker John Feldman

Interactive Interview Part 3: digital filmmaking the new paradigm, technical specs and sound

ARNE: How did you get into digital filmmaking after having made many films in... celluloid?

I saw digital video as an opportunity to re-teach myself filmmaking from the ground up. I didn't and still don't see it as a way for me to make Hollywood type films on a low budget -- although that's certainly possible. About four years ago I began talking to other filmmakers about the possibilities of the new technologies and it became clear to all of us that the creative potential was tremendous. We were all experienced filmmakers and were, in many different ways, frustrated with the current filmmaking practices. And I think each of us saw different ways to creatively exploit digital filmmaking.

For me, I saw a new paradigm of filmmaking that took advantage of small cameras with low-light capabilities.

Historically, there are three elements that have -- more or less -- defined the filmmaking practices and aesthetics of today's commercial films: large cameras, large lights, and large stars. The film language that we think of as natural was developed by the early film artists: Griffith, Chaplin, and others because they had these large camera and large lights. Each shot had to be lit with large units... as close as possible to get the luminance and then when you wanted to move the camera you had to have elaborate machinery, cranes and dollies and so forth. This machinery and these lights required a lot of people to move and adjust them. These large film crews were -- and are -- managed in a hierarchical -- military -- manner. And out of these technical constraints a film language developed which was shot oriented. It's well known that, for example, a dialogue scene is typically shot with three camera positions, a two shot that includes both people and then a single of each of the people. The singles may be shot days apart and, in many cases, the off camera person isn't even there! These practices are all necessary because of the large cameras and large lights. This makes life very difficult for the actors.

But suppose one isn't constrained by large cameras and large lights? We can make it more of an actor's medium... it always wanted to be an actor's medium, but somehow the actor got lost in the shuffle.

So this was my challenge. How can I re-design the way films are shot -- or at least the way this film is shot -- to take advantage of small cameras, small crews, etc -- to make it more of an actor's medium, and to make the process more fluid, more intuitive for me and the actors.

So first of all I decided not to light for the shot, but to light the entire scene. I used natural light and practical lights (light fixtures that are a part of the set) as much as possible. Some people mistakenly believe that because we can shoot digital video without much light, that lighting is not important. While it's true that you can shoot almost anywhere, lighting is as important as it ever was. Light is used to draw the picture. What's wonderful is that low wattage lighting units are all one may need. If you want to work with the ambient lighting in a scene then you just need a few low wattage lights to, for example, define something in the background or put a rim around the actors head, etc.

So light the scene, not the shot. And shoot with one or more cameras. The cameramen have specific instructions as to what to cover.

All of this gives the actors tremendous freedom. For Bobby Roos we needed that freedom because everything was improvised.

ARNE: For those who are interested can you give us some of the technical specs?

We used Sony VX1000 cameras, several of them, and had various wireless microphones clipped to the actors. Whenever possible we also used a boom microphone. Actually -- as in all films -- we tended to use different microphones depending on the scene. Everything was hand-held except for one camera during the club performances.

I edited entirely myself on a Macintosh computer-- 9600 and then G3-- using a software that was first called Radius EditDV, then Digital Origin EditDV, then was bought by Media 100 and renamed CineStream. It was the only decent software when I started the process, but now there are several competing softwares.

I first edited each scene as a separate project. Then I printed the completed scene to tape and cleaned the rushes off my harddrive -- otherwise I never would have had enough harddrive space. Then when I was ready, I put the completed scenes back onto the harddrive -- from the tape -- and assembled the final movie.

The sound was edited by a wonderful and very talented man, Ben Bates. He's very experienced and brought a great deal of warmth to the project. He used ProTools software on a G4. I made AIFF files from each of my tracks, put them onto a CD ROM along with a QuickTime movie. Everything stayed in sync because we never left the digital domain. He then added sound effects and ambiences and mixed the tracks-- it was all one process, which is great. Usually the mix is a separate stage from the sound editing, but in this new world he mixed as he went along -- more or less. I sat with him to review the final mixes and make any adjustments I thought necessary. Then when he was done, he made an AIFF file of the final track and I synced it up with my final picture track. We cut the film in five reels of less than 20 minutes each -- conforming to the needs of a 35mm print.

NEXT PART OF INTERVIEW - CLICK HERE