Home / Blog

Quentin Tarantino: Shooting Digital Means Never Having to Hire a Cinematographer

By Bryant Frazer   /   Jan 28, 2008
480_sin-city.jpg I was struck by this exchange between interviewer/critic Nick James and writer/director Quentin Tarantino in the current issue of Sight & Sound, during a discussion of Death Proof.
Can you imagine yourself making a film like Sin City? I would have thought not. I’m not a fan of digital. And I sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to Robert [Rodriguez]. When Robert does it, it’s great. That’s where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you’re doing a digital movie it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that… you could be your own cinematographer. No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird. But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.
If you ask me, you don’t have to look any farther than Dion Beebe’s work on Miami Vice to see that cinematographers can make compelling, transformative images with digital cameras. That’s a much different film from Sin City and 300 of course. But is QT onto something? Does the advent of digital cinematography (and widespread respect for Robert Rodriguez and his DIY aesthetic) and the on-set high-def monitor bring with it a threat to the traditional role of the cinematographer? Or is Tarantino underselling the role of the director of photography? Maybe he just has a narrower view of what a “digital movie” is.

11 Comments

Categories: Blog
Tags: ,

  • Jeffery Haas

    Still picking my tongue and jaw off the floor.
    This kind of thinking fuels the rise of all those godawful “reality shows”.
    This kind of thinking fuels the continuing impasse between the WGA and AMPTP. “Why use screenwriters when we can just use a software plug in to do the writing for us!”
    This kind of thinking helps to promote a continuing future where the gifts, skills and artistry of those who practice the film craft are undervalued, misunderstood and ultimately ignored.
    In a world where power, ego and money excercise total control there will still be those who will allow themselves to be vacuumed up and used by a system that values one or the other but there isn’t a system on earth that can value both at the same time, so one system has to go, and my vote is that the Quentin Tarantino system get whooshed off planet ASAP.
    And it pisses me off…I LOVED “Pulp Fiction” and always considered Tarantino as something of a role model.
    But the above commentary by Tarantino is perhaps the ultimate bowdlerization of all time in cinematic history, surpassing the famous Capra “auteur” snit.

  • indyguy

    various rants in no particular order.

    if someone can shoot and direct and imagineer a superior product, then so be it.

    tools change. some people have a knack for doing more than one “profession” designated role.

    a musician/composer is not belittled, doing both creative and performance.
    he/she can also roll a multitrack, and engineer and output.
    wow. guess we’re used to that. look at the death spiral of pro studio recording grosses.

    sure, it’s nice to have a large staff, seperate from the bloating of of the payroll. sort of fun to have the big “film” crew on the set, the “gotta have lotsa peeps so it’s a BIG production” mentality.

    i dislike the compartmentalization of skillsets in this modern, multifunctional age.

    good stuff still floats. bad stuff sinks. regardless of the tools and board-decided skillset divisions.

    don’t like country music? don’t listen or buy.
    don’t like reality tv? ignore it.

    sadly, we film craft is needed less and less, both still photog and moving pix. being good at that craft will be worth less and less. a small segment of experts will be doing film for a long time, either because of quality issues or a reluctance to change.
    (stenos didn’t leave typewriters for computers that willingly either. )

    new opportunities are rising. less whining and more learning how to use the new media effectively… would be good.

    live musicians moaned about dj’s at receptions.. dj’s now moan about ipods at receptions.

    oh, the loss of life. hasn’t remarkable change been happening in every modern tech field?

    trust me, i am paying the price$ for the tech changes in modern production. thru the nose and painfully. even as new opportunies are created, my most valuable asset is that i am able to do any and all directing/shooting/writing/composing/editing that i need to, without externally decided “roles” forced on me. and, market forces say i am better skilled than my competitors at the combination. thus, survivable.

    anyone buying kodak stock?

    indyguy

  • Bruce

    What a drag. Now Tarantino can go into my “What a CLOWN” file. So the Cinematographer’s only role is to be the middle man? Like a clerk, simply transporting YOUR vision to film? Jesus dude. Never thought I’d have to say this about Tarantino…”What a CLOWN!”.

  • Fred

    I sensed that tarrantino was one big fraud that couldn’t (and didn’t) have a repeat of pulp fiction. i was right. he didn’t really follow it up with anything THAT great. i don’t see the big deal with this guy. and when this drivel comes out of his mouth…it further convinces me. what a putz.

  • Tom Young

    Tarantino’s comments only make sense if a director spends all his time saying “gaffer do this…” and no time working with the actors on their performances. Lighting is an artform and knowing how to create depth, visual subleties and mood is why DPs earn their salaries. QT really should be saying that he will skimp on his crew budget by demanding that the gaffer do the DP’s role on digital acquired projects.

    I have never been a fan of any filmmaker who relies on violence as the sole dramatic element. Tarantino is just one of many who finds death and dismemberment their only way of advancing a plot line. Of course, so much of filmmaking is geared towards 14 year olds.

  • http://www.stellarpictures.com Richard Chamberlin

    I’m surprised that QT has a view like this. The entire world has gone digital and thank the Gods of film making for that. It doesn’t take the money that film innately has for the process of film making.
    Now with 4K coming on stronger and the use of 35MM cine adapters we can finally shoot digital with Prime Lenses and “the look” is achieved.
    The film making process is a collaboration of talents that can come from anywhere. Even my script sup has given great ideas for shots and scenes.
    That is what the DP is for. To realize a directors image and amplify or beautify it with collaboration.
    Seems like QT has forgotten where he came from.

  • Lance Bachelder

    I love digital too – shooting a new opening scene to a completed feature next weekend with a Sony V1U, SAG actors, an A-list Hollywood stunt team, etc. and yep – No DP.

    That said – DP’s are almost always needed regardless of the shooting format, because they are usually more visual acute than director’s, who, in turn, are typically swamped by story and performance.

    Sorry Quentin, 300 was shot on 35mm – with a very capable DP – not digital.

  • Matt Simpson

    QT’s comments are pretty stupid and quite insulting.
    I’m a director who only works digitally (promos and show inserts in the UK – DigiBeta mainly) and I’d hate it if I didn’t have skilled people to collaborate with. I think my best work is achieved when I bounce ideas around and steer the overall image to my desired look, using the skills of others to achieve the end result.
    The problem with a comment like that from QT is the myth that “anyone these days can be a film maker simply because you have access to the right tools” will have extra weight behind it – even though it’s rubbish.
    I’ve worked with many people who can point a camera at an object or who know what buttons to push on an edit suite – but that doesn’t make them skilled to make the end result anything more than amateurish. (i’ve always said that just because I can cook doesn’t make me a chef so why should someone with a DV camera and iMovies suddenly become a filmmaker)
    The TV and Film industry (at least over here in the UK) is filling with underskilled ‘kids’ with egos that won’t allow them to progress – they get so far and stick with what they know as the employers simply need that level of output from them and no more (reality tv, shopping channels etc). Luckily there is a bit of a backlash starting, but QTs comments won’t help this at all.

  • http://www.contibrosfilms.com Myles Conti

    I think QT really misses the point of digital. I’ve watched the DVD special features of Sin City and some of the comments that he made about the format there were questionable, and now this proves he doesn’t understand the medium.
    On Sin City he guest directed 1 scene, and yes sat behind 1 of the cameras while RR sat behind the other. They hit the record button at the start of the scene and just kept it rolling between takes. What must be remembered about Sin City, is it had been shooting for quite some time before QT arrived on set, and given this had been pre-lit before he even turned up. The entire scene was 2 actors sitting in a car, requiring no movement of cameras, as given the nature of green screen shoots it’s always easiest to shoot locked off shots and then add movement in post, and added to this lets not forget that RR is an accomplished DP as well – having DP’d all his films in the past whether shot on film or HD.
    QT seems to miss the point that HD is just another acquisition format – and depending on the application may or may not be the best tool for the job.
    I’m a massive fan of RR and the way he works. I do believe people are capable of doing more than 1 job and doing it successfully. For me, I edit what I direct. But I always use a DOP. Now others out there do have the skill set to both direct and DOP their projects, but it is extremely dangerous to assume that a new format will allow people to take the helm of key department roles, just ’cause. Now if QT decides to immerse himself in the art of cinematography, learning about light, colour, lenses, f-stops etc – not to mention the ever expanding arena of codecs that digital acquisition requires a knowledge of, then he should go for his life, and never hire a DP again.

  • cdoyle

    quentin is correct,people that dislike his comments cannot afford and do not deserve to shoot film.
    stick to your digital cams,tell yourselves all you want that it is better than film that it is the film look.
    great for your little projects.
    michael mann one of the digital pioneers video films suck and even thouse have loads of sequences shot on film.
    colateral night club scene all 35mm.
    his last film jobs were the insider and heat and they looked slick.
    so guys stick to your adapters and combo cams and your desperate quest for the film look.

  • jsank

    Tarantino and Rodriguez are the kind of filmmakers who really do it all. There are VERY FEW of these kind of guys out there. Of course Tarantino doesn’t want a DP…he wants to be the boss and do it all himself…and Rodriguez just does it on his own. Tarantino does not speak for all filmmakers. And about which format is BETTER. Well, who cares. The story is what really matters and whatever format Digital, 35, 16, whatever that portrays that story in the most compelling way…well thats what matters. I’ve seen some terrible movies that were shot on film…and some awful movies that were shot on digital. The format had nothing to do with why I hated the movie. While the look of the film is important, it is not the only way to judge a movie. The same principals are the same and this heated debate over which is better is just flat out immature.