Interview: Scandal Camera Operator Steve Fracol Talks Working with Kerry Washington, Filming Sons of Anarchy, More
Kiel: Having to always be creative and unique, where do you draw inspiration to shoot footage from a different view than an “ordinary” shot?
Fracol: I love this question. First of all, what is an “ordinary” shot? Can you define that? I can’t. If ordinary means everything shot flat and at eye level, then okay. But I don’t think that is what it means. Does ordinary mean non-creative? I think you get my point. Everything we do is about storytelling. I can think of a few times that the storytelling process needed a scene to be “ordinary” but even then, we did not shoot it in an “ordinary” way. I always approach things, trying to think outside the box. I always try to shoot something that is going to move people or motivate people in some way. I did not get to where I am today by being conservative with my approach to cinematography and camera operating. I am always trying to push the limit no matter what. If it’s the lighting or how we execute a shot, I try to push the limits to what the people I am working for on that particular project will allow. The other interesting part of this is to know the people you’re working with well enough to know when to stop pushing your agenda or views on them. Oftentimes, you get pulled back down off your high horse and simply have to execute exactly what the director asks for. And that’s okay. It’s all a part of the game. Other times, they let you go do your thing. It’s an insane business with regard to this topic. Everybody is different on how much they will allow the operators in terms of freedom.
As far as being inspired, I draw inspiration from life. I learn from pretty much everything I see, do, read or watch. I’m sort of an information sponge. I watch, I learn, and then I discard what I don’t need and try to keep what I learned to help me tell a story down the road. I then try to park it in my pea brain for later use. Even watching a silly TV show, like Tiny Houses, has given me inspiration to do something out of the ordinary. Not so much the tiny houses on the show, but learning from the people that will stop at nothing to finish what they started, meet a deadline or stay on budget no matter what happens. They are interesting people. It is the people on those type of reality shows that are so interesting. Characters that have a lot of charisma. I learn from them.
Kiel: Before the set is built, do you already have visions of how you want to shoot certain scenes from the script?
Fracol: I generally get a vision upon the first reading of any script I read. Sometimes, they are right on and other times way off. I sort of have A.D.D., so it takes me a few times to read a script to truly absorb it in my brain. Each reading gives me more clarity, but I get the most clarity from listening to a director’s vision of a script. It is through conversations with them that it all comes together in my mind. My job is to help tell their story, visually. They are my direct boss, so I try to take their vision and improve on it, visually, to help tell their story.
Kiel: How has cinematography changed over the years and what new techniques are being used to bring a sense of realness to a scene? For instance, we’re seeing more documentary-style “shaky” type scenes that somehow make the scene more believable or “real.”
Fracol: This is another great question. It’s funny you mention that we are seeing more hand-held or shaky work. Many TV shows that I have day-played on – that took up the hand-held look – seem to do it because it moves production along faster. We can get more pages shot in a day, but does that make it better? Does that help tell a story? It depends. A show like Shameless, however, fits really well with the hand-held device. The general idea of being hand-held is one thing, but it is another thing to do it well enough to help tell the story visually. I would argue that on Shameless it worked well, on Sons of Anarchy it worked well, but many other shows, not so much. It often hinders or takes a viewer out of the story if it is not done well. As for a sense of realness, it is really in the quality of the lighting and the movement of the camera. Many new techniques for moving the camera have been invented – pursuit arms on cars, stabilized heads on cranes and helicopters, post VFX tracking marks on green screen to carry a moving scene, hand-held or Steadicam, etc. All of that is great stuff. It totally helps tell the story and all of those are huge advances forward.
[media-credit name=”ABC / Nicole Wilder” align=”alignnone” width=”770″]
[/media-credit]
The biggest change has been going from shooting on film to shooting data on cards, digitally. It’s really just in the last 5-7 years or so that we finally gained about 14 stops of latitude, digitally, that film could produce for nearly 100 years. As film was pioneered just the same way as digital, it also got better over the years with more sensitive iso (ASA-exposure index) ratings and larger stops of latitude. It could be argued that film shot in the 1970s is every bit as good as capturing on digital still yet today, depending on the film stock chosen. They both have great attributes and both film and digital are still used today. Several of the films you see today in the theater are still shot on film, and then transferred to digital for post production. More are shot digitally, however. Digital cameras have definitely arrived and do have their place. What many people like about digital is that you can see – literally while on set – about 90% of what the quality will be of your image depending on what tools your budget will allow you to use while on set. That makes most DP’s very comfortable and most (not all) directors love it. Some old school DP’s still love what film offers them, and they know it so well that shooting on film is second nature to them. I think that is cool! I know many of the film students I meet today have never touched a film camera unless they went to USC, AFI, Chapman, NY or one of the other big film schools. The smaller schools don’t even bother anymore. It is interesting because the true old school art of the film making process – I mean the professional part of the craft – is starting to get lost. It makes me sad. I was lucky because I came up in the mid to late 1980s and when I began, I was shooting on Video. 1” video tape, 3/4” and eventually Betacam. I had a short run as a camera assistant, and I learned the art of shooting on film from one of my early mentors, Joe Mandacina. Eventually, I became a cinematographer that shot on both video (back before HD) and film. When the advent of HD became a reality, I knew how to shoot both pretty well. I was lucky. There is a real sense of professionalism on most of the sets that I have been working on that still shoot film. Those sets tend to be more “old school” with how they go through the process of shooting a scene. They cut between takes. Raw film stock is no doubt more expensive than shooting on digital cards, so directors shooting film cut between takes. What that does is allow every department to better their work between takes. The camera operator can discuss the shot with the focus puller and the dolly grip to make the next take better. The hair and makeup artists can go in and fix issues they might be having during the last take. This also allows those people on set that might be holding heavy things during a take – like the sound department boom operator or a hand-held camera operator – to relax and catch their breath, shake out their arms, etc. Oftentimes, a grip might be holding a flag or special FX, waving smoke around. You get my point. I know I have personally been in the Steadicam on many occasions when a director who is shooting digital will shoot an entire 21-minute card out while resetting and still rolling between each take. That is hard for the entire crew. Think about what it must be like for post production to not have any take numbers or slates to know which take was the best. It is not easy on a script supervisor and the post production people. This type of work opens the door for crew members holding heavy items to possibly get injured. That is something that has really gotten out of hand with the arrival of digital. Directors yell out “KEEP ROLLING”, AD’s yell out, “RESET BACKGROUND, BACK TO ONE.” This makes the entire process of filmmaking not so much fun. I get it if we are trying to chase the setting sun or only have three takes while a ship literally sails away, but those are understandable circumstances. The crew would actually get behind a director on that front because we love the challenge to get it right under pressure. To keep rolling between takes consistently throughout a 9-page day on a TV show is just rude to your crew. I don’t think anyone that works above the line understands that. Not very many of those people working above the line came up from sound, camera, grip or electric. I don’t think they would understand unless they were trying to actually do our jobs while this happened. I know none of this is going to change, so I accepted this new process long ago. I just wish the new kids coming up in the business could be lucky enough to work on one movie with someone like Clint Eastwood that does things very old school.
Kiel: As a cinematographer, I’d have to imagine that it’s quite a task to absorb television and films without viewing it from a professional and technical standpoint. Do you find yourself unconsciously in the position of being behind the camera or are you able to separate the two?
Fracol: I love nothing more than to be so moved by a story that I forget all about the craft. When that happens, it is pure magic. Other times, I get taken right out of a movie if the Steadicam shot is not level or does not stop on a dime like we are trained to do. Oftentimes, I will go back later when a movie comes out on DVD and watch it with the sound turned off to really learn about the technical side of it. If you watch a movie with the sound off and you can still know what is happening, then the cinematographer and editor got it right. You can also notice all the imperfections of operating (moving a camera) if you watch it on a large TV with the sound off.
Kiel: I believe the most important attribute of a photographer or cinematographer is having the “eye.” Do you feel as if this is gift you’re born with or can it be acquired over time?
Fracol: I believe there is a huge part of this that is God-given talent. That said with most of us, it is an artistic side that was nurtured early on and then fueled even more as we got a little older by the pure joys of the creative process. Just like a musician getting good at playing an instrument, it takes a lot of practice. The basis might be there early on, but it takes real desire and heart to grow the vision of the creative process into becoming a professional cinematographer. Most of the cinematographers I know love art and studied art at one point or another in school or even later in life. It can defiantly be acquired over time if that person can understand the basic rules and then know when to break them to make an even better shot.
