Transcript
of Live Chat with Tom
Ackerman, ASC
Aug.
23, 2003
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:53:30 PM)
Good morning. It's good to be here and I'm glad to join the chat. I'm looking
forward to a productive exchange with everyone signed on.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:54:01 PM)
As it so
happens, I'm speaking from Post Logic in Hollywood where we are making
final color corrections to the D5 master for The Battle of Shaker
Heights.
Op_Ed (Aug
23, 2003 12:54:36 PM)
On Project Greenlight, there really wasn’t any mention of union guidelines
for how a production should be conducted and it seemed to me that the terms
of production for The Battle of Shaker Heights were unrealistic. Was
that done for dramatic effect?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:55:00 PM)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by terms of production. But the Camera
Guild signed a low-budget contract with the producers of the film, and all
the work was conducted under those guidelines.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:55:53 PM)
As far as dramatic effect is concerned, any drama you may have observed in
the series originated from causes and effects not having to do with the union
contract.
Richard (Aug
23, 2003 12:56:27 PM)
What were the most memorable documentaries that you worked on with Charles
Guggenheim, and were they all interviews or did he also use historic footage?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:56:56 PM)
I think one of the most memorable films I worked on with Charles was May
Peace Begin With Me, which was produced for the government of Israel in
1973. It was done at a time when Israel was facing many of the difficulties
that it currently faces but was trying to reach an accommodation with its Arab
population to work things out.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:58:04 PM)
As far as the use of interviews in Charles's work, most of his films were not
interview based. In fact, Charles was a great lover of strong photography;
he was committed to imagery. And wherever possible, he tried to construct his
documentaries so those images could tell the story on their own.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 12:59:15 PM)
Of course, he was a consummate interviewer. He was an extremely intuitive guy
who could draw out from his interview subjects those elements that could support
the story. And of course, in the end, he was a marvelous editor. When the footage
when to the cutting room, that was when the story was finally written. It was
written with pictures.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:00:26 PM)
I did quite a bit of editing for Charles as well as shooting, and I can assure
you that his standards for that process were extremely high. He tended not
to suffer fools or bad cuts; it was a great learning process for me.
Gino (Aug
23, 2003 1:00:57 PM)
Do you think it is possible for someone coming out of film school today to
follow the same kind of career path that you did such as setting up a company
and shooting commercials, or are you better off trying to shoot low budget
films?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:01:32 PM)
I think what you have to do is anything and everything that will allow you
to put film through the camera, no matter where that opportunity may originate.
The atmosphere in Hollywood when I arrived, the opportunities that were available,
were very different than they are now.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:02:35 PM)
Mike Robe and I started a little production company, which if we had thought
it through carefully we could easily have concluded that it had no chance whatsoever
of success. But it was pretty clear there were no jobs at the studios. The
unions were closed tight.
Which meant
that we had to fashion our own opportunity. And so we started out little
company. Ultimately, that created momentum that gave us the way that
we would proceed in the future.
Richard (Aug
23, 2003 1:03:45 PM)
What were some of the political commercials you shot for Guggenheim, and do
you have any anecdotes about your impressions of some of the politicians?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:04:11 PM)
I worked on spots for Teddy Kennedy, for Walter Mondale, for Gary Hart. Ultimately,
the biggest campaign we did was when George McGovern ran for President in 1972.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:05:32 PM)
I suppose the political anecdotes could fill several pages, though as far as
I'm concerned, they happened in a timeframe during which my primary goal was
to just get through a 12-hour day with an Eclair NPR glued to my shoulder.
The subtleties of the political exchange and political process sometimes went
unobserved because I was just trying to get the pictures on film.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:06:31 PM)
The McGovern campaign was the most memorable, not only because of the size
and scope but because it was such a lost cause. It was a time when the election
belonged to Richard Nixon and nothing that we could do with this decent and
highly effective candidate could make any difference. It was Nixon's time.
Cal (Aug
23, 2003 1:07:14 PM)
I read about your experience as a military cameraman. What would you do if
you were called back into duty and sent over to Iraq w/ a dv cam on your shoulder?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:07:32 PM)
As a matter of fact, I considered volunteering to do something like that. I,
at one time, talked to the ASC to investigate the possibilities that we might
put together some kind of an archival photo group wherein we could do some
cinematography.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:08:41 PM)
My original proposal had to do with trying to fashion a non-political photo
group that would cover Presidential activities. But ultimately, it seemed a
little too political for my colleagues at the ASC.
Brooksie (Aug
23, 2003 1:09:02 PM)
Did you have any music background before you shot music videos? Is that something
that's even necessary?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:09:59 PM)
Well, I played viola in the high school orchestra. I wasn't much of a musician.
However, I think I do have some musical sense. And, more importantly, I was
completely stoked on the idea of mixing pictures with music. My first professional
experience in Hollywood when I got out of the Air Force was shooting a promo
clip, as they were called then, for Motown Records for the Jackson Five.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:11:41 PM)
It was notable not only in that it was my first music clip, but also the fact
that I also had the opportunity to use a Tyler mount for the first time. We
were shooting aerials around Catalina Island when, after an hour of serious
maneuvering and banking the aircraft and many rolls of film having been shot,
we landed only to discover that although my safety belt had been secured around
my waist, it was not secured to the Tyler mount.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:12:59 PM)
What was my first big break in Hollywood could have proved to be my last!
SBDP (Aug
23, 2003 1:13:06 PM)
On the music videos you shot...were you shooting 16 mm negative, Ektachrome,
video or all of them? What were some of the most interesting people and situations?
You said it was experimental filmmaking. Are there examples?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:13:25 PM)
We shot initially 16mm color negative. By the time I started shooting the videos
no one was using a reversal film anymore. The use of video was also not very
widespread for the clips.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:14:15 PM)
I would say that some of my most interesting experiences in music videos were
when we were shooting for Marty Callner. He was an absolutely definitive rock
'n' roll director.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:15:01 PM)
I guess I liked Marty immediately when he said, in our first meeting, "Lighting
is next to God." Nothing was too extreme on a Marty Callner shoot. We
did Heart. We did Stevie Nix. And there was not much of a commitment to story
per se. Marty really didn't care about continuity. What he did want to do was
to press the envelope. He would come up with four or five looks that he wanted
to pursue in a given clip – none of which bore any relationship to the others.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:16:36 PM)
It was like "okay, here we have the fire." Or, "this is going
to be blue light and rain." We really just had the gauntlet thrown down
to make the pictures as strong as they could possibly be. And ultimately the
only bottom line obligation was that the artists look great.
Lone Ranger (Aug
23, 2003 1:16:52 PM)
What has happened to your original videos.. do you own any of the film or is
it lost?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:18:22 PM)
I have most of the videos in one form or another. Most of them at this point
are on 3/4" cassette. I do have a few laser disks. For example, we did
a concert film, Stevie Nicks: Live at Red Rocks. I also have a long-form
video that we did for the Manhattan Transfer on laser disk. As well as one
for Pat Benatar. But most at this point are on 3/4" cassette.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:19:47 PM)
I have promised myself to sort through the masters someday soon; I'm sure it
would prove to be an interesting trip down memory lane. But the work would
seem very dated, I think. I still love to watch MTV and see the clips that
are being done; I think it represents some of the most exciting photography
that we can access. It's the cutting edge and there's a trickle down influence
on every other kind of production.
danny
tz (Aug 23, 2003 1:20:42 PM)
What year was the Jackson Five video shoot?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:20:56 PM)
The Jackson Five video shoot was 1973.
Brooksie (Aug
23, 2003 1:21:02 PM)
How did you get involved with the Project Greenlight film, and what
did you think of the HBO documentary? Was it a fair and accurate depiction?
It made the directors look pretty arrogant and also indecisive. Were they really
like that?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:21:56 PM)
No, they were not like that. As far as the HBO documentary is concerned, in
my opinion, it was a travesty. To say that it was unfair and inaccurate would
be a massive understatement.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:23:02 PM)
The fact is that Kyle Rankin and Efram Potelle did remarkably well under the
pressure of shooting their first low-budget movie and the intense scrutiny
of the PGL reality show. But please don't misunderstand, and don't be
misled, the directors that you saw on Project Greenlight were reinvented
under the extremely biased spin imparted by the producers of the series.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:24:16 PM)
At the same time, and I've seen this point made in a couple of chat rooms,
you have to say that there were mistakes made. There were missteps. There was
a learning curve. Who could possibly expect otherwise?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:24:51 PM)
Two guys from Maine win a contest based upon some pretty good work and with
a great deal of competition. They are given the opportunity to make their first
Hollywood film, supposedly being nurtured and supported in that process. The
charge of the television show, as it was explained to me prior to my agreeing
to shoot The Battle of Shaker Heights, was to be "a documentary
about film production."
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:26:18 PM)
The reality show spin, the bogus infusion of fake drama that so pervaded the
first season, was ostensibly going to give way to a more fair and balanced
portrayal. Obviously that was not the case. And it's unfortunate, but I suppose
understandable, given the fact that nobody wants to watch a show without conflict.
eff-stopper (Aug
23, 2003 1:26:41 PM)
After reading the script for The Battle of Shaker Heights, would you
have selected Kyle and Efram to direct or would you have gone with on of the
other directorial finalists?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:27:22 PM)
This is an intriguing question. In order to answer it, I sort of have to go
into a time warp. But I'm willing to do that.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:28:17 PM)
I would have to say that a more logical decision would have been to award the
assignment to the woman who was so enamored of the script in the first place,
and was so ardent in her desire to direct Erica's screenplay.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:29:21 PM)
It is true that Kyle and Efram's body of work before Battle of Shaker Heights was
not related to this genre. And so if someone is getting a film to direct as
an assignment, I guess one has to think about whether it's a good match. I
hope that's helpful in answering your question.
E_the_AC (Aug
23, 2003 1:29:25 PM)
HBO does a great job of demonstrating how directors/writers interact w/ all
the key people on the set and in the offices, but there wasn’t much evidence
of the interplay between the departments. Was that dynamic ignored by the PGL cameras?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:31:03 PM)
I don't think it was consciously ignored. But if you consider the mountain
of material that the PGL editors had to contend with I think they had
to eliminate a great deal of the on-set process, the interplay between departments
and so forth, in order to focus on the main story structure, i.e., the struggle
and the dynamic and the character arc of the directors and the writer and the
producers.
SBDP (Aug
23, 2003 1:31:12 PM)
Have you worked on other films where a production was being documented for
posterity? If so, how did those experiences compare with Project Greenlight?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:32:19 PM)
Almost all films that I have worked on have had video crews on set in order
to either make promotional materials for the studio, i.e., the "electronic
press kit," or we have had crews visiting from any one of a number of
networks, Entertainment Tonight, the foreign press, etc.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:32:59 PM)
The difference between these experiences and Project Greenlight is pretty
significant. As far as the EPK, electronic press kit, is concerned, that is
first and foremost a marketing tool for the film. It is non-controversial and
essentially advertising oriented.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:33:54 PM)
Even the independent coverage of a production of a film (Entertainment Tonight and
so forth) rarely, if ever, touches any controversy. But the fact is the journalists
have access to the film set only through the good graces of the studios and
the unit publicity. The quid pro quo is that for them to have access to the
stars, the director, and the on-set activities, they have to be, shall we say,
relatively discreet in how they do their work. That means no hard questions
and trying not to rock the boat.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:34:57 PM)
I don't think anyone looks for hard hitting coverage in the entertainment press.
It's usually fluff and appeals to the broadest and maybe the lowest common
denominator in the television viewing audience.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:35:51 PM)
Project Greenlight, on the other hand, was an extremely willful
depiction of the production of a film. It was carefully crafted,
and in order for it to weave its story, it was necessary to take
the key players and reinvent them in a way that served their purpose.
Langley (Aug
23, 2003 1:35:55 PM)
Did PGL spark a desire for you to get back into shooting documentaries
again?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:36:23 PM)
It sparked a desire for me to run away from any lens pointing in my direction.
(LOL, only kidding.)
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:37:23 PM)
Seriously, I have always loved the documentary expression. I just did a film
last year called Los Zafiros: Music From the Edge of Time, which we
shot in Cuba on 720P. It's a wonderful music film that is just now making the
festival circuit. I think there is much to be learned by going out with a box
with three lights and knowing that you don't have a truckfull of equipment
to rely on. It sort of gets you back to basics.
Ralph (Aug
23, 2003 1:37:57 PM)
Why do you think so many great narrative cameramen come from the world of documentaries?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:38:24 PM)
Maybe it's because you literally learn to see the world as it is. If you think
about some of the great still photographers, working without any powers of
manipulation except in the darkroom, it sort of erases any of that conceit
that in order to make art, you have to equate that with having huge amounts
of equipment and having scores of people at your disposal.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:39:17 PM)
A lot of times when I was shooting documentaries I couldn't light anything,
I just had to put the lens in the right place. It's humbling, but it also leads
you sometimes to exactly the right photography choice.
CamLens (Aug
23, 2003 1:39:42 PM)
You have a pretty unique perch from which to observe the evolution of CGI.
In hindsight, were films like Beetlejuice or Jumanji all you
wanted them to be? How much different would they be today working with the
tools that are now available?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:40:08 PM)
That's a great question.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:40:36 PM)
Beetlejuice, of course, was at a watershed. Although it isn't
really in what we would call the "distant past," it was
nevertheless a time when blue screen was a large and challenging
enterprise. It was a time when many effects could still be done in
camera. Tim was intrigued with that possibility and we used it several
times in Beetlejuice.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:41:37 PM)
In Jumanji, there was a tremendous sense of liberation. We could now
make moving camera shots that would be composited with other layers in a CGI
shot. And all of a sudden it was, "oh, don't worry about motion control,
just give us some witness marks and we'll make it work."
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:42:43 PM)
I think what I found most daunting and I started noticing it in the production
of Jumanji was that we, as cinematographers, had to begin timing our
film months ahead of the end of post-production. I would be getting film clips
brought to me on set, and wedges, that had to be evaluated. Decisions had to
be made so the people at ILM could carry out their work in the hundreds of
composited digital shots that would ultimately be used. But I had to in effect
time the film piecemeal way before I would ordinarily do so.
Isaac (Aug
23, 2003 1:43:38 PM)
You worked with Tim Burton on Beetlejuice. What do you think makes him
such a brilliant director, especially visually. Can you give an example or
two.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:44:24 PM)
Actually, I had two experiences shooting with Tim, the first being a half-hour
B&W short called Frank 'n' Weenie for Disney in 1983. Tim is a brilliant
visual director because he is an artist. He is truly an artist. He brings that
vision to everything that he does. It was what was so striking about his process
from the moment I met him.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:45:49 PM)
Now, as to his methods, I guess everyone might have the common wisdom that
when you work with a strong visual director that everything is spelled out
clearly, there's some sort of a dictatorial super explicit process where all
you do is follow the numbers and the photography pops out.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:47:01 PM)
Tim's way of working is, first of all, to create an environment in which his
vision of the film infuses the whole process. He has deep and very strong convictions
to how he wants things to look. But sometimes his way of steering you to the
realization is sort of oblique. It's not direct. It's not explicit. I remember
when we were choosing colors for Beetlejuice, gel colors, and lighting
styles, he would say things like, "Well, Tom, just make this look weird." And
sometimes he would cite a music video that I had shown him, something we had
screened together. If someone had been standing there listening, they would
have said well that's not very clear.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:48:11 PM)
But sometimes those kinds of comments were part of a code, one piece of information,
integrated with lots of other guidance on all kinds of levels. So that ultimately
it became everything that Tim wanted it to be.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:49:02 PM)
And of course, anyone who's seen any Tim Burton films knows that the production
design is fundamental. It is something that is so linked with the film and
is so much an expression of Tim's view of the world, that for a photographer
it becomes a very clear roadmap for everything that follows.
CamLens (Aug
23, 2003 1:49:07 PM)
How did you come to shoot Frankenweenie, and why did you pick that as
your first film?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:50:20 PM)
Actually, Frankenweenie was not my first film as a DP. Although it was
the first film which I shot in the Union. I wanted to work on the film because
I was intrigued with this guy Tim Burton, who at that time hadn't done much
except an extremely low-budget project for the Disney Channel. But he was a
fascinating guy. He seemed to be a filmmaker that was going to take Frankenweenie to
a pretty interesting place.
Wide Angle (Aug
23, 2003 1:50:43 PM)
You mentioned that John McPherson was very influential on you. How?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:51:08 PM)
For one thing, he was one of the first DPs that I had a chance to operate for
once I got my union card. I was very green; I was very new to the studio system.
And John always made me feel welcome on the set. I felt as if my little contribution
panning and tilting, maybe on a B or C camera while we were doing a stunt or
a car chase, I felt that that contribution was welcome. And it was gratifying.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:52:20 PM)
I also have to say that – and remember that we are now talking about the late
'70s, TV series photography – I have to say that John McPherson's lighting
style and whole photographic approach was pretty much on the cutting edge.
He felt confident to under-light at a time when most of his colleagues were
lining up Maxi-brutes and just incinerating everything on camera. Literally
burning it up.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:53:09 PM)
In contrast, I remember working once on a Kojak episode with John. He
had chosen to light a practical location with only the fixture in the ceiling.
And I walked by the trucks and I heard the grips and electricians grumbling
about how he wasn't using any equipment. Probably that was a fairly unique
experience, because it was the only time I ever heard anybody on a crew complaining
about not having enough work to do.
Brooksie (Aug
23, 2003 1:53:54 PM)
What did you learn from working as an operator with some of the old-timers,
Joe Biroc and Benny Coleman, for example?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:54:32 PM)
I guess one of the big lessons was crew leadership. These guys were tough.
They'd seen it all. They knew that at the end of the day, they would be accountable
for the photography.
They saw directors on the TV series shuffling in and out. And by that time
in their careers they had shot God knows how many hundreds and thousands of
days in the industry. But they were unflappable.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:55:54 PM)
We can look back and we can perhaps see their work and we can split hairs as
to the nuances of their writing style, but they certainly shows the importance
of confidence and leadership in getting the day's work done.
eff-stopper (Aug
23, 2003 1:56:02 PM)
You were very eloquent in discussing why Dickie Roberts was filmed in
anamorphic format. There is a perception at least at one studio that it cost
more money to shoot in anamorphic. Was that an issue and how would you handle
it if it came up?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:56:57 PM)
I think at many studios there is a concern that anamorphic production is more
costly. And like any other process, there are assets and liabilities.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 1:58:37 PM)
But I think it's important to de-bunk the old wives' tale and discuss anamorphic
in a more empirical, factual way. For anyone who wants to have a wonderful
condensation, a side-by-side comparison of anamorphic and spherical photography,
I would suggest that they read a paper written by Rod Hummell. He did a great
job in his comparison. But one of the things he de-bunked was that old paranoia
about depth of focus. The fact is, and I've tested this side by side, that
if you have the same size shot, if the angle of view is the same, and if you
have the same stop on the lens, then spherical and anamorphic look pretty much
the same.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:00:18 PM)
Now, on the negative side, there is a very good reason to be worried about
lens flare with anamorphic. You have to be far more cautious. There's a lot
more work for the grips and the camera department to do in terms of stopping
any stray light because you will have problems if you are not careful.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:00:58 PM)
As far as the aesthetics of anamophic, I think you either like to compose in
that format or you don't. And here, for directors and cinematographers both,
that's sort of a very subjective consideration and you can't answer the question
in any kind of scientific way.
paulie
walnuts (Aug 23, 2003 2:01:14 PM)
I read that you decided to take a step back and work as a camera operator for
a number of years. It retrospect , did you learn enough to make up for the
time you lost as a cinematographer, and would you make the same decision today,
or recommend it to someone today?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:02:16 PM)
Here again, I think everybody writes their own script. If you walked away from
a series of wonderful projects as a cinematographer to pan and tilt for someone
else – and of course here I'm over-simplifying – then I think you might give
it a second thought.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:03:03 PM)
However, that said, for me there was no better way to learn the real heartbeat
of a set, the way things worked at the studios. For me it was a chance to go
from the small independent world to the world of major scale production. And
I was of course inspired by many of the DPs for whom I had the pleasure of
operating. Their lighting styles, their philosophies, really empowered me and
confirmed some tendencies that I had had, and gave rise to all kinds of new
possibilities.
steadicamoperator.com (Aug
23, 2003 2:03:38 PM)
Hi Tom, I read that you are from Iowa. I'm originally from Des Moines, Iowa
but I now live and work in L.A. as a Steadicam Operator. Where in Iowa are
you from and where did you go to school for film. How was the program there?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:04:43 PM)
I went to University of Iowa in Iowa City. At the time that I got my BA, we
didn't have a film school per se, although there were several film production
classes and we had decent equipment. The program for me gave me complete access
and really planted some seeds that were important. The department at Iowa has
grown considerably since then and I think bears investigation by anyone who
is looking for a school.
Cal (Aug
23, 2003 2:05:06 PM)
Did you have a problem getting the studio to agree to film dailies on Dickie
Roberts? There is so much hype about video dailies being better and cheaper?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:06:11 PM)
I don't recall that we ever had that discussion. I don't think there was ever
a question that we would not have film dailies. It might have been touched
on very briefly, but there was never a serious request from the studio to have
video dailies rather than film.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:06:21 PM)
Yes, there is a great deal of hype on video dailies, and they are certainly
cheaper. But there is no comparison to seeing the picture on the big screen.
Just in terms of inspecting your focus, for example. You can talk to any number
of producers, cameramen and directors alike who have had focus problems that
have gone undetected by video dailies until they began to finish their films
in the lab many months after production was wrapped.
k2obren (Aug
23, 2003 2:07:49 PM)
What do you do differently when working with new directors?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:09:12 PM)
First of all, you have to listen carefully. You have to be open not only to
what they say but to all the pieces of the puzzle. What films do they love?
What books are they reading? They bring so much to their process that isn't
easily summarized on a neat little list. Basically, every director/cameraman
relationship is different.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:09:43 PM)
You don't relate to directors in some kind of a rote way. You try to find out
who they are and that's what guides you ultimately.
Op_Ed (Aug
23, 2003 2:10:10 PM)
Were you satisfied with the way The Battle of Shaker Heights came out
in the end? Is it the film that you envisioned in the beginning?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:10:46 PM)
I'm really happy with the look of the film. I think the crew can be proud of
their contributions. It doesn't look like a 22-day super low-budget project.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:11:43 PM)
As far as the story and the film as a film, I'm afraid I'm no longer objective.
There's been so much press attention, there's been so much negative and in
fact hateful commentary, and any number of really cheap shots taken in the
press and on the web, that it has sort of contaminated my whole view of the
thing.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:12:53 PM)
I will say that at the premiere there were some pretty favorable and in fact
heartwarming reactions to The Battle of Shaker Heights. And I think
that Kyle and Efram can feel good about their accomplishment. But I heard from
many sources at the premiere last week, including many industry people who
have no reason to say anything good, that they really liked the picture.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:14:55 PM)
By the way, anyone who has read Kenneth Turran's current review in yesterday's L.A.
Times would have to say that he has, as far as I'm concerned, forfeited
any right to present himself as a reviewer of film. Maybe I'm being simplistic,
but I thought that a review was to address the success or failure of the work.
He reviewed not only the movie but what his perceptions of the directors were
in PGL. It seemed an unforgivably low blow. And in so reviewing the
film, he lowered himself to the lowest common denominator of the audience out
there who just want to sit on their sofas and watch somebody get voted off
the island. I really had expected something better than that from Mr. Turran.
NanOp (Aug
23, 2003 2:14:58 PM)
Do you have any advice for young filmmakers considering entering the PGL competition
next year?
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:15:49 PM)
Here I'm struggling to be positive. Because I think that the notion of Project
Greenlight is extremely worthy of support. That's why I and my crew agreed
to shoot the movie for PGL2.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:17:44 PM)
I mean, it's really a great idea. You support new filmmakers in their first
feature movie. However, I think any filmmaker thinking of entering the competition
would have to contemplate the down-side. They would have to seriously wonder
how fair a shake they were going to get. Because ultimately PGL is not
a documentary. It is a reality show. And has, with its virtually unlimited
coverage, its thousands of hours of material, it has the capability of skewing
the story arc any way its producers desire.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:18:40 PM)
There's an old saying, “Who sups with the devil must have a long spoon.” If
you really want to make a film, if you want to have someone hand you on a platter
the cameras, the lights, the raw stock, the crew, the studio release, then
go for it. Just know that at the end of the day, the story of your making of
the film may not be told as you would wish it to be told.
Tom Ackerman (Aug
23, 2003 2:19:46 PM)
Thanks for the opportunity to chat with you all. I've enjoyed this forum many
times in the past as my colleagues have taken part. And I welcome the chance
to join all of you today. The questions were excellent, and I wish all of you
well.
|
