“The greatest compliment I can get from
any non-film person is ‘I didn’t notice the cinematography in that film’...Because
the ultimate goal is if my work is not seen but felt, then I have succeeded.” If I had to put the cinematography of Greig
Fraser into words, I’d describe it as invisible, flexible and restrained, yet always functional
to the telling of the story. I’ve mentioned the idea on this channel
before that some DPs like to produce images by throwing bold, colourful splashes unashamedly
across a canvas, while others focus on sketching nuanced details that tell a larger story. Fraser falls into the latter category of artists. In this episode of Cinematography Style I’ll
break down the work of Greig Fraser by looking at his philosophy on filmmaking, then analyse
how his use of technical gear backs up his style photographically. If you’d like to get these and other videos
early and also support the channel at the same time I’ve started a Patreon page which
I’ll link in the description. Australian born Fraser was introduced to making
images while he attended a photography school in Melbourne. After working solo as a professional photographer
of still images he transitioned into working with moving images after being introduced
by friends who worked for a production company. He preferred the team dynamic of the film
industry over working as a more solitary photographer. Over his career he’s shot a variety of films
for many successful directors such as: Jane Campion, Matt Reeves, Kathryn Bigelow, Bennett
Miller, Garth Davis and Adam McKay. Often DPs are pigeonholed based on the work
they initially produce, as producers or directors who do the hiring like to see a visual track
record of the kind of work they want to replicate. If it’s a period drama, they want the DOP
to have already worked on one, the same applies to a VFX blockbuster or a horror film. Throughout his career though Fraser has managed
to not be pinned down to one specific style or genre. “I do deliberately take films that are very
different from each other...I hope that strong drama runs through as a kind of thread in
the projects I choose. I like to think that I’m supportive of great
actors doing their thing, regardless of the project.” It’s an interesting philosophical idea that
runs through his work. The notion that photography takes on a supportive
role in the telling of the story by not trying to stand out too much, yet at the same time
subtly enforcing a perspective on the story. This can be found in his treatment of camera
movement. He bases how the camera moves off of the pacing
in the story. For example, If a character takes a moment
to slow down emotionally and be more thoughtful then the camera movement mimics this by becoming
more stable and grounded. In scenes which are more stressful, hurried
or with increased physical action, the camera movement follows suit and becomes rougher
with more dynamism. This idea is also backed up by the gear he
chooses. He doesn’t subscribe to using the same gear
or to having an overarching visual style, even on the same film. He changes lighting, camera movement, mediums
or even switches between anamorphic and spherical lenses depending on the emotional content
of each scene. He believes that the story should inform the
style of the cinematography rather than the other way around. This is why in preparing for a film he avoids
using other visual references for inspiration, instead turning to text. “In the case of Lion, there was a documentary
about this guy’s story, and I very deliberately avoided watching that documentary because
I feel like as visualists, consciously or subconsciously, we are sponges for every image
that we see around us.” “By reading, whether you’re reading the
source material or information about it, you make it visual — it creates an image in
your mind. And it’s those images from my imagination
that I’ll try and translate when I’m standing on the set, and making a decision about a
lens, a location, or a blocking.” Although his gear choices vary from film to
film, let’s try to find some trends in the technical gear that Fraser works with. True to his restrained, invisible style his
lighting is minimal, based off of natural light, and doesn’t try to do too much. He’s known for minimising his lighting package,
which decreases the rental budget and speeds up set up times. One way he achieves this is by using negative
fill to shape the light naturally. “When you are a young filmmaker in Australia,
you get the tiniest amount of lighting equipment, but you get lots of solids so you can often
shape the light through negative fill.” Using black textiles is a cheap, efficient
way of subtracting light from a scene while retaining the integrity of natural light. “The second you put up an electronic light,
you’re fighting it. The colour is wrong, the intensity is wrong,
the softness is wrong. It takes more effort to make light look natural
than it does to make natural light look shaped. To me that’s the preferred methodology of
lighting.” When he does use electric lighting fixtures
he likes to go with LEDs whenever possible. Not only do LEDs produce a much lower carbon
footprint on set, but they also have many practical advantages such as being easier
to transport, operate and quicker to set up. Because LEDs require far less power to run
than say tungsten lights, Fraser often gets away with only needing small, portable generators. He did this on Mary Magdalene, which allowed
him the ability to easily set up lights in remote locations without needing access to
large lighting trucks or generators. His lighting package on the film consisted
of just 20 Digital Sputnik DS6s. With these lights he got his colourist to
dial in the specific colour temperature settings in pre-production so that the colour levels
would remain consistent between scenes. LEDs also tend to be less directional and
softer than HMIs which means it’s more difficult to tell where the light source is coming from. This makes artificial light appear more natural. He’s also used other LEDs such as Creamsource
Doppio Bicolours and LiteGear LiteMat panels which are easy to rig and can be used to provide
a soft, diffused sunlight look. The camera movement in his films are varied. For work which requires to be more ‘traditionally
cinematic’ he shoots with stable, subtle dolly movement. For scenes which are more personal, with an
elevated emotional component, he’ll often turn to shooting handheld or using a Steadicam. On Lion, where he required rapid movement
during action scenes in tight spaces, which were still stabilized, he used a gimbal. He described this as a remote head but with
legs. His gimbal operator would run and chase after
the action, keeping the camera pointed in the right direction. He would then wirelessly control the tilt
and pan of the camera on the gimbal by using wheels. This allowed him to precisely control the
framing of each shot. He’s used many different cameras, lenses
and mediums on his films, from 8mm film to large format digital. His choice of mediums alters depending on
the story. For example he opted to shoot Vice on film
to place the viewer in the correct historical period. “The good thing about film is it instantly
registers with a viewer and can take you to a certain time, visually. I wouldn’t say it’s nostalgia because
it’s not the right word, but it takes you to a place of memory.” Recently he’s taken to shooting large format
digital on the Alexa 65. He acknowledges that it’s very effective
at rendering detail of deteriorated, natural textures and locations. This digital sharpness however works against
the DOP when shooting artificial textures such as plastic or chrome, where it can pick
up imperfections and make them feel overly artificial. He has an Arri bias, and some of his camera
selections include: the Alexa Mini, the Alexa 65, the Arricam LT for 35mm and the Arriflex
416 for 16mm work. Like his choice of mediums, his choice of
lenses have also varied from project to project. Some lenses he’s used include Cooke Anamorphics,
which are sharp in the centre and less sharp around the edges of frame with a beautiful,
smooth falloff and bokeh. Other lenses include Angenieux zooms, Panavision
anamorphics, a Canon 75-1500mm zoom, and the Arri DNAs, which he worked closely with Arri
to develop. He uses a mix of focal lengths across his
work but will often shoot with a long zoom, off a stable base such as a dolly or tripod. When shooting on film he had a particular
love for Kodak 5230, which he loved shooting for its rich, low contrast, desaturated look,
before it was discontinued. His digital LUTs and colour tends to replicate
this lower contrast but rich film look. Studying the work of Fraser shows that sometimes
the best cinematic approach is one that is visually restrained and adaptive. In cinematography we have many tools in our
toolbox that we can choose from: tungsten or LED lights, digital or film, anamorphic
or spherical, dolly or handheld. The list goes on. Fraser is always mindful of all the tools
he has to work with and is discerning about choosing the right tool for the right job. He strives to tell stories in a way that makes
the emotion that we feel inside when we watch a scene strong and present, but invisible
to the untrained eye. As usual I’d just like to sincerely thank
those viewers who have signed up to Patreon already. Liking, subscribing and commenting is also
another great way of helping out the channel. Until next time, thanks for watching, and
goodbye.
