A Conversation with Russ Alsobrook, ASC
By Bob Fisher

Russ Alsobrook, ASC was born in Hollywood and mainly raised in San Diego. He became a classic and new wave movie buff in high school and also began shooting 8 mm films. Alsobrook majored in English literature and minored in philosophy at Cal Western University in San Diego, San Diego State and the University of California, Santa Barbara. A chance encounter with a Wonderful World of Disney crew on a California beach led to an opportunity to enter the industry as a “ gofer.” He began his career as a P.A. in 1969, and spent the next three years working on nature films. From 1972 to ’79, Alsobrook was a staff cinematographer for a company that produced industrial films and commercials for Chrysler. He likens that experience to boot camp for a cinematographer. In 1979, Alsobrook segued into shooting documentaries for PBS, ABC Television and private foundations. That work took him to some 40 countries, including China, Russia and ancient ruins in Jordan. Alsobrook transitioned into narrative storytelling in 1989, when he lensed a low budget feature called The Dark Side of The Moon. His subsequent narrative film credits include such telefilm remakes of The Shaggy Dog, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, Escape to Witch Mountain, Encino Woman and The Love Bug. His episodic TV credits include The Ben Stiller Show, Freaks and Geeks, Grosse Point and The Mind of the Married Man. Alsobrook recently shot a telefilm, Romy and Michele: Behind the Velvet Rope, which will air in 2003.  Following are excerpts of a conversation:

ICG: Let’s start with an easy question. Where you were born and raised?

ALSOBROOK: I was born in Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital. My family moved to San Diego when I was six months old. That’s where I grew up. My father was an aerospace engineer and executive. My mother had been a big band singer, but she gave it up to be a housewife and mom. I had no connections whatsoever, to the motion picture business.

ICG: Were you a movie buff growing up?

ALSOBROOK: I became a movie buff during the early 1960s, while I was going to school in San Diego. Some of my bohemian friends and I happened to find a folk music club and underground cinema called The Sign of the Sun. They showed classic and new wave films. They were usually 16 mm images projected on a wall. That’s where I discovered the cinema. I remember seeing Metropolis and Citizen Kane, and films by Bergman, Fellini, Truffant, Welles, Cocteau and Stan Brahkage. That was during my late high school and early college years. I began reading about movies and directors and got an 8 mm camera and started shooting.

ICG: What did you shoot?

ALSOBROOK: Little semi-documentaries that I edited and put to music using a record player synched to the 8 mm projector. I bought a 16 mm Bolex when I was in college.

ICG: Where did you go to school?

ALSOBROOK: I went to Cal Western University in San Diego, San Diego State and also the University of California, Santa Barbara. I majored in English literature and minored in philosophy, intending to become an English professor.

ICG: How did you get on this career path?

ALSOBROOK: We didn’t have a film department at UC Santa Barbara, but there were a lot of kids interested in making films. I was their cinematographer. I enjoyed it so much that I became less and less interested in pursuing English literature, and more interested in working in the movie industry. I just didn’t know how to get started.

ICG: Why did you choose cinematography rather than directing or writing?

ALSOBROOK: I’ve always been an outsider, an observer, so it was natural for me to gravitate to that side of the camera. Being an introvert is probably a quality shared by many cinematographers.

ICG: Did you change your field of study at some point?

ALSOBROOK: No. I was totally self-educated about film. I happened upon a couple of boxes of old American Cinematographer magazines at a garage sale. They were from the 1950s and ‘60s. I studied those magazines and memorized every word. That was my film school. I went to the beach one morning to check the surf. I was a surfer at the time. I saw a small crew shooting on the beach. It turned out they were a Disney crew shooting tests for an upcoming episode of Wonderful World of Disney. I introduced myself to the director, Frank Zuniga, and started talking about my interest in movies and asking questions about what they were doing. A few weeks later, I wrote him a letter saying I would do anything to work on his show. To my surprise, he hired me. I moved to Hollywood in September1969 and began working as a gofer on Three Without Fear, a Wonderful World of Disney show. I was basically a P.A. In those days they called us gofers.

ICG: What did you learn from that experience?

ALSOBROOK: I worked on that show for about six months. I learned how to drive a truck and deliver film to the lab and pick up equipment. I also got to shoot some B camera, and learned how to load magazines, change lenses, record a little sound, hold a boom mike and a reflector, set up a light, and do just about every job that needed to be done on the set. In those days, I was going to some 250 movies a year, sometimes three, four or five a day.

ICG: Were you aware of any cinematographers?

ALSOBROOK: I was really impressed with Conrad Hall …I’m still impressed... Lucien Ballard and Haskell Wexler. I enjoyed the work of the new wave guys who were working in Hollywood, and certainly Laszlo Kovacs. I thought Easy Rider was one of the greatest films ever made. I could see what Laszlo was doing, because I understood shooting into the sun and getting lens flare. I understood using the zoom. I understood handheld cameras, because those were all the kinds of things we were doing. The polished studio films of those days were so technically advanced that I didn’t know how to achieve the effects that they were getting, so they weren’t as interesting to me, esthetically. When I look at those same studio films today, I find them fascinating, because they are so unbelievably polished. They were shot by guys who started in the business in the ‘teens’ handcranking Pathe and Bell and Howell 2709 cameras. Guys like Charley Lang, William Daniels, Burnett Guffey and Lee Garmes were pioneers who were still shooting major features in the sixtys and seventies.

ICG: You obviously weren’t a gofer for life. What did you do next?

ALSOBROOK: I worked on a couple of industrial films, assisting and shoo some second unit. Milas Hinshaw, the cameraman on the first Disney show I worked on had the opportunity to direct one of the shows the next year, and he gave me a chance to be the cameraman. He was out of the Bill Burrud documentary world. I went to San Francisco with him to shoot a film called Salty the Hijacked Harbor Seal. That was my first show as a cinematographer. It was 16 mm Ektachrome commercial film, an ASA 25 reversal stock with about as much latitude as today’s 24 P cameras….I think it was about four stops. The following year, I worked on another film with Frank Zuniga. It was a two-part Disney show in New Mexico called Mustang. I did some second unit work and pick-up shots, recorded the location sound and did B camera. Mike Lonzo was the DP.

ICG: Do you recall your aspirations at that time during the 1970s?

ALSOBROOK: I wanted to be a cinematographer for guys like Coppola, working with a handheld Éclair camera on location, shooting groovy, ‘60s style movies. Medium Cool was a big influence. It was an awesome groundbreaking film. We’re still trying to catch up with what Haskell (Wexler) and some of those other guys did 30 years ago.

ICG: I take it that you weren’t in the Guild at that time?

ALSOBROOK: No, it was a long time before I got in the Guild, but it wasn’t an issue for me. I always expected to rise up through the ranks from the outside like Laszlo and Vilmos did. I wasn’t in any real rush. I didn’t realize how little I knew about the craft, and how much you can learn in the Guild mentoring system that has worked so well for more than 70 years. I was young, naïve and gung-ho. I just wanted a camera on my shoulder. I was happy doing industrial, documentary, commercials and educational films.

ICG: Give us some examples of what types of films you were shooting.

ALSOBROOK: I did a lot of automotive films for Gene McCabe Productions. We shot literally hundreds of films for the Chrysler Corporation. We would do training films and new car films. Once a year we’d shoot a wide-screen 35 mm film of all their new products for a convention, and we also shot commercials every once in a while. I learned how to shoot fast, and with no resources. Usually, I had a 16 mm ARRIFLEX camera and a Lowell lighting kit. There was often no assistant. You would go out and do it yourself. We shot training films for the salesmen, including running footage of new cars. We would go to the factories where the cars were being manufactured. They were real nuts and bolts industrial films. It was 16mm color reversal until probably the mid-70s when we started using negative.

ICG: Did you ever have a chance to shoot black and white film?

ALSOBROOK: Not very often. We would only shoot black and white if it was for a specific effect, like trying to show a historical aspect of a car.

ICG: What was your next step?

ALSOBROOK: The next step really didn’t come until the late ‘80s. By then, I was shooting documentaries for PBS, ABC, and a lot for the Ambassador Foundation, which was the philanthropic arm of the Worldwide Church of God. I would travel all around the world with them shooting documentaries of their leader Herbert Armstrong interacting with heads of state. It was a fabulous experience. I traveled to 35 or 40 countries and learned how to shoot fast with no crew and very little equipment. We tried to capture the moment and make it look fantastic.

ICG: What kind of documentaries were you shooting for PBS and ABC?

ALSOBROOK: For PBS, I did a mini-series called The Women of Russia. We went to Moscow in 1979 and interviewed several prominent women from all walks of life. We filmed their lifestyles while they revealed their thoughts and histories. I also did a documentary starring Katharine Hepburn, which was basically her biography based on interviews with people who had worked with her. So I had the opportunity to film George Cukor, John Houseman, Pandro S. Berman, Henry Fonda, Jane Fonda and others.

ICG: Was it the Frederick Wiseman style of fly-on-the- wall style of documentary shooting, or more like the interpretive approach taken by Ken Burns?

ALSOBROOK: It was more like Ken Burns. We would find an appropriate location in their house and then light it to bring out the best qualities of the individuals we were interviewing. One of my greatest compliments came from Henry Fonda, who we interviewed for that show. As he left, he said, thank you very much, you made it easy for me. I think is very important to make people feel comfortable and at ease, and you can do that with non-obtrusive but flattering lighting.

ICG: That raises an interesting question. There has been so much hype about using digital cameras to get rid of lighting, because it gets in the way of the relationship between the actors and directors. That mainly comes from a few directors like Mike Figgis, and several others, who operate their own cameras. Do you have a comment?

ALSOBROOK: That’s like asking a painter to give up lighting, or asking a novelist to give up describing a scene where light filters through the windows, or the way the light on an autumn day can paint the scene for his characters. How can an artist give up lighting? I still remember Mr. Fonda on his veranda. We positioned him so he was backlit, and used a 4x4 piece of white foam core to direct a little soft bounce light.

ICG: Where does that come from? Is it instinct or experience or both?

ALSOBROOK: It’s instinct, but it is also something that you learn from experience. I didn’t go to film school and I wasn’t on the sets of other cinematographers working with crews very much, so it was definitely a trial and error education as I went along. I picked up little hints from other guys who had worked on sets, but being in this small non-union world, where we didn’t have a lot of contact with what was going on in the major motion picture sets in town, we weren’t privy to all the tricks. I learned slowly through my own mistakes more than anything else.

ICG: Can we talk some more about your experiences in Russia?

ALSOBROOK: It was a fantastic experience. We got to interview some of the most prominent women in Moscow, including a doctor, a judge, a poet, a construction worker and a ballet dancer. They opened their homes and their hearts to us. Even though we had interpreters, and usually a representative of the KGB, these people were so happy to express themselves that it was really an emotional experience. I recall shooting in a park with this poet, and after the interview she recited one of her poems. As she was reciting it, and I was rolling, she started crying, because she was so touched. By the end, everybody was crying. I’ll remember that beautiful moment forever.

ICG: What else do you recall?

ALSOBROOK: I learned that the more you travel, the more you realize that people around the world are all exactly the same. They just want to be free to live their lives the best way they can, whether it’s in Russia, China, Jordan, Israel or the Philippines. They just want to raise their families, do their work, and be left alone. I recall hiking up the Great Wall of China in the dark at 4 a.m. to get a sunrise shot. We couldn’t see anything because it was pitch dark, and there was only one bare bulb at the entrance to light our way up the steps. I still recall watching the sunrise over the Great Wall and revealing it piece by piece. It was an amazing sight. I also recall riding horseback through the sandstone canyons of Jordan to get to the ancient city of Petra.  It was thousands of years old. It was like stepping back in time.

ICG: How much film do you think you shot during that period?

ALSOBROOK: We probably shot millions of feet of film. We slowly transitioned into videotape toward the late ‘80s. We would take both 16mm and video packages for a while. We would use the 16 mm camera in the field and use the video for interviews. It was one-inch tape at first, and then it was three-fourth inch machines, and toward the late 1980s we used Betacams. It was never quite the same. It just wasn’t quite as magical for me after the film was gone.

ICG: Why do you suppose that is?

ALSOBROOK: I’ve been thinking about that question for 20 years. I think that film has a certain magic that will never be replaced or duplicated with videotape, whether you call it digital or something else, and that saddens me greatly. Even if 10 or 20 years from now there is some incredible image capture machine that can download directly into a computer or download directly into your mind, I think we will have lost an art form.

ICG: That takes you up until the late 1980s.

ALSOBROOK: That’s when I realized it was time to make that leap from the industrial-documentary-miscellaneous world into shooting narrative films. Through a mutual friend, I met Kees Van Oostrum. He was one of the up and coming cinematographers at the time. Kees was shooting a lot of television movies. He gave me some invaluable advice. He had been shooting some music videos for a director who was going to do a little feature film, basically with no money. Kees wasn’t available to do this movie, and so he introduced me to the director, D. J. Webster, who hired me. It was about an hour-long film, but I considered it a feature because it was my first foray into narrative film, and we shot in 35 mm. We had a very small crew, which rotated day to day, because everybody was working for free, so they could only give a day or two here and there.

ICG:    What was it about?

ALSOBROOK: It was a beautiful story called Skeeter’s Wings. D J. wrote the script. It was about the rights of passage of a young man who was in a wheelchair. It was shot in eight very short days, because we observed the child labor laws. I was very proud of that film. I was able to prove to myself that I could do it. That was the turning point. I enjoyed the experience so much, and I felt like the 20 years of shooting before that were all leading up to being able to do narrative films.

ICG: What did you do next?

ALSOBROOK: I made a reel from Skeeter’s Wings and took it around. It really didn’t get me anywhere. Fortunately, D. J., the director, was doing music videos and I shot several with him. He did a feature the following year. It was a little science fiction/ horror movie called The Dark Side of the Moon. We shot it on a stage. I tried to make the inside of a spaceship interesting with very minimal resources. I think the whole movie was budgeted for about a $1.2 million. There were some of visual effects, including some of the exteriors of the spaceships and docking and landing on the moon, but everything else was in-camera. It was supposed to be a very funky, down-and-dirty spaceship, and that made it much more interesting. It had a very short release and right to video.

ICG: This was 1889? What happened next?

ALSOBROOK: I was still filming documentaries, industrial films and commercials, because opportunities to shoot narrative films were few and far between. In 1990, I worked with Kees as an operator on Never Forget, a TV movie. He used a jib arm a lot. That was his trademark at the time. It was the first time I actually watched a real cinematographer working on the set with a full crew. I stole every idea I could from him. I took copious notes and drew diagrams of all his lighting.

ICG: Were you in the Guild by then?

ALSOBROOK: I got into the Guild in 1989. If you could prove you had 100 days of experience with call sheets and time cards, and if you had letters of recommendation, you could get in. I always thought that everybody should be in the union because no one should be denied the right to work in their chosen field. The timing was right, because by the time I actually did get in the union, I had some inkling of what I was doing. I’ll never forget that day. It was a proud moment because all of a sudden it felt like I had finally arrived in Hollywood. It only took twenty years.

ICG: Did you ever operate for anybody else again?

ALSOBROOK: Never. I shot The Ben Stiller Show for Fox. We did 13 episodes in 1992. It was 16mm, 8mm, and various video formats, because it was a sketch comedy show that did parodies of movies, TV commercials and shows and music videos. The pieces we were parodying determined the format. It was a fantastic experience that allowed me to experiment with different lighting styles and formats. The show only lasted for one season, but it’s become a cult favorite and bootleg tapes still circulate all over the place. In fact, it’s coming out on DVD.

ICG: What happened next?

ALSOBROOK: In 1993, I did a couple of pilots, and a low-budget movie called Mona Must Die, which was a mystery thriller. I shot it in 15 days. 1994 was a very slow year for me. I had doubts whether I would be able to continue. I made a promise to myself that if I didn’t get a substantial job by my birth date, which would also mark the 25^th year of being in this business in one form or another, I would find something else to do.

ICG: Was that a serious consideration?

ALSOBROOK: Yes, I was serious about it. As luck would have it, my agent set up a meeting at Disney. They were doing a series of four television movies. All of them were remakes of classic movies. They wanted to do it like an anthology series, keeping the same crew with different directors and cast. I interviewed for the job and the producers were impressed with my work on The Ben Stiller Show, because of the variety of looks, techniques and styles.

ICG: What were the movies?

ALSOBROOK: The Shaggy Dog, Freaky Friday, The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes and Escape to Witch Mountain.

ICG: Was that your first real experience working with a Guild crew?

ALSOBROOK: Yes. At times, it was frustrating not being my own operator after all of those years, but it was also liberating, because I had time to concentrate on lighting, and I could work with the director and set up shots with the operator. I had another set of eyes to help me out. I worked with some very experienced operators, including Dan Gold, Case Hotchkiss and Tommy Yatsko, who is now doing a lot of shooting himself, including second unit on Alias. It was a great experience. I had a wonderful crew and we brought all of our shows in under budget and on time. Disney called us back the next year to do The Love Bug, Encino Woman, and The Barefoot Executive. After 25 years, I finally felt like I was making movies Hollywood style, on the back lot of a studio, and on locations.

ICG: What did you learn during that period?

ALSOBROOK: I learned that there’s a lot more to this job than photography. I learned about managing a crew, dealing with directors and producers, and the art of diplomacy. I learned that you have to be a mind-reader, because directors often don’t express what they really want you to do. You have to look past what they’re talking about and discover what they really want in terms of setting up a shot or designing a lighting scheme, or getting the coverage that’s necessary to make a scene work. That’s an art within itself.

ICG: How do you do that?

ALSOBROOK: You have to get to know the director very quickly, and discover what they really feel is important about a scene; and then you try to design the photography and capture that feeling. It’s different every time. They (the director) can tell you one thing on the scout and do something totally different when you are shooting. How many times have I heard a director say when we are scouting a location, we will never look in this direction; and when you have it lit, the first thing they want is to shoot in the opposite direction. I was doing some pick-up shots on a Western movie. The shot one day was following a horse across the desert. It was just a little transition piece that the editors needed. I asked the director, okay, so we start tight on the horse’s head and pull back to reveal where he is and follow him across the desert? He said, ‘No, no, no, no. Listen, we’re going to start tight on the horse’s head; we’re going to pull back to reveal where he is, and follow him across the desert. That’s the shot. Okay?’ That’s where your diplomacy kicks in. Another time, I was shooting a TV movie, which shall remain unnamed. The assistant and I were setting up the shot for what we thought was the perfect master shot. We marked it on the floor and had it all set up. The director comes in and looks through the lens. He says, ‘No, no, no, no, babe, that’s not the shot. Let’s put the camera over here. No, let’s put it over here. No, let’s bring it – no, let’s try this. No, bring it over here. Now, that’s the shot, babe.’ We looked down and the camera’s right over the X. That happens all the time, but you just move on. You can’t get upset. That’s the art of diplomacy.

ICG: How did you get into episodic TV?

ALSOBROOK: In 1996, Disney decided to take almost all their TV movies to Canada. I sat out most of the year, because I had put all my eggs in the Disney basket for the previous two years, and you get out of the loop very quickly. I just did a couple of pilots, including one for an MTV series called Austin Stories, which I wound up shooting in Austin, Texas, the following year,. There were 12 episodes. It was a half-hour, semi-sit-com that had the feeling of reality. It was about three kids in Austin, Texas, and their adventures. We shot it 16mm, all handheld with Aaton cameras. It was fun because it sort of got me back to the roots of what can you do with minimum lighting.

ICG: Why was it handheld?

ALSOBROOK: It didn’t have the look of a traditional handheld show. It just created a different kind of energy with a slight movement of the camera on the shoulder hinting at reality. It also precluded doing a lot of elaborate camera moves. We would do long master takes with no cuts, because it was all about the characters and the dialogues and the relationships.

ICG: Do you believe the audience knows how to read those nuances?

ALSOBROOK: I think they do whether they realize it or not. Every different cinematic technique creates an emotional response, whether it’s a handheld 16 mm camera or an anamorphic mise-en-scene shot, and everything in-between. It all has psychological and emotional affects that influence how the audience responds to the story and characters. The same is true of lighting, choice of camera angles and lenses. All those things can have a profound affect on the audience, even if they don’t consciously realize it.

ICG: What were those two words you said after anomorphic?

ALSOBROOK: Mise-en-scene is a style where the actors move within a tableau and there is very little cutting. A great example would be Vincent Minelli’s Some Came Running. There are some amazing shots like that in that movie, where he uses the wide screen to its maximum advantage and lets the action play out within the frame.

ICG: Are you still a film fan?

ALSOBROOK: Absolutely.

ICG: What do you go to see?

ALSOBROOK: I like to go see classic films that are re-released. I honestly think I was born 30 or 40 years too late. Recently, they showed Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm at the Cinerama Dome. It was like entering the gates of heaven. It was an incredibly profound experience. It was almost as good as the first time I saw it when it was first released.

ICG: How do you keep from getting down on yourself when things are slow?

ALSOBROOK: It’s very difficult, because you always think it’s got to be your fault. It’s very easy to spiral down and down and get depressed. When a project is over, you think to yourself, well, that’s probably the last one. The phone is never going to ring again and sometimes it feels like that. I was at a Guild a lighting workshop, and started talking to other people and I realized I wasn’t the only one who felt that way. It’s human nature. We talked and it became obvious that the current sense of doom and gloom was created by the Canadian situation. All of a sudden so many movies and TV movies were going to Canada that had been bread and butter for a lot of people. George (Dibie) wrote an editorial about that, which was an eye-opener for me, because I hadn’t realized exactly what was happening. I knew that Disney was doing it, but I didn’t know that so many other studios were following the same pattern. I decided that I was going to make a concerted effort to go to every screening, demonstration and seminar, where I could mix with my peers and other people in the industry. I also put together a new resume, reel and got a new agent.

ICG: Was that how you got the next job?

ALSOBROOK: What happened was that I went to a special screening of The Ben Stiller Show at the DGA and ran into one of the producers I had worked with before. He was shooting a pilot for NBC. He said, why don’t you visit the set, because if this goes to series, it looks like Russ ALSOBROOK territory to me. So, I watched them shoot and a couple of months later, he called and said, we have an order for Freaks and Geeks. The series was critically acclaimed, but it had low ratings. We shot 18 episodes before NBC pulled the plug. But, Freaks and Geeks helped to establish me in episodic television. It had a very high profile in the industry, and the critics loved it. From that point on it’s been fairly non-stop in terms of doing episodic television.

ICG: Why was Grosse Pointe shot in Super 16 format format?

ALSOBROOK I think it was economics, although when you really run the numbers, there’s not that much difference between shooting three-perf 35 mm and Super 16. I think whether you shoot Super 16 or 35 mm, or film or 24P has a lot to do with the perceptions of producers who are budget minded. Fortunately, there are esthetically minded producers who feel that the look of their product and the filmic quality of their shows are important. Freaks and Geeks was 35 mm three perf. Grosse Pointe, was Super 16, and the next show after that, Undeclared, was Super 16, which was probably a good move because the producers wanted to shoot an awful lot of footage. We would shoot 15,000 to 20,000 feet a day. I shot 10 episodes of Lizzie McGuire in 16, and then went back to Undeclared. This season, I shot HBO’s The Mind of the Married Man in 35 mm format, three perf. Going back to 35 after a couple of years of 16 was a revelation. You get used to 16 looking pretty damn good, especially if you use medium-speed stocks and have a great telecine operator. But, then when you shoot 35 again and you realize the richness that can be achieved with that negative, and the latitude is just amazing. It constantly surprises me every day how much film can see. Sometimes it sees more than my eyes saw on the set. There are details in the shadows that I didn’t expect, or it will hold highlights beyond what I thought was possible. It is a combination of the beautiful stocks and the amazing digital telecine technology we have today.

ICG: Have you ever shot or tested 24P?

ALSOBROOK: I shot video for 20-some odd years on various types projects in every format from 2-inch to High 8. I shot a 24P HD project for the Academy Awards last year. It was a bit with Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson. To me, it seemed like just another video camera, with all the limitations that are built into any electronic system.

ICG: I take it that you don’t put 24P at the top of your list of technological breakthroughs that have affected what you can do as a cinematographer? What do you consider the most important advances during say these last 10 years?

ALSOBROOK: Aside from an improvement in film stocks, which is a constant evolutionary process, I think the most important technological advancement has been in digital post production, especially for those of us who are working in television. With the combination of a well-photographed negative and a great telecine machine/operator, you can do wonders. There are little enhancements that we can do to help scenes today that were impossible just a few years ago.

ICG: Can you give us an example?

ALSOBROOK: I was shooting an interior scene with a translight of a seascape outside the window. Obviously, the translight didn’t move, so we had to be very careful about blocking, so we don’t give away the fact that the background wasn’t real. We added a little bit of water sparkle to the translight in post production, and it created the illusion of just enough movement to sell the idea that the seascape was real… and that was just a tiny fix. Another example is poor man’s process , which involves shooting people in cars on a stage. You don’t have to go out on the streets with a car on a tow trailer and go through the hassle of shooting two actors talking in the front seat. You just do some lighting gags and shoot close enough so that you don’t see too much background. So ninety-nine percent of the time it really sells. On one show, we added reflections on the windshield of a car in post. It was just a very simple overlay with lights and colors changing to help to sell the idea that you are watching real characters in a real car driving down a real street.  

ICG: In your experience, have you been able to maintain some control over what happens in the telecine suite?

ALSOBROOK: The only time we lose control is when we’re shooting so much footage every day that the telecine is working three shifts with different colorists, so it’s almost impossible to maintain a look. But when you’re shooting a reasonable amount of film, and you have one telecine guy dedicated to your show, you can develop a good working relationship. It starts with testing at the beginning of the show when you set up a look, and after that you work with the colorist so they understand your intentions.

ICG: How do you communicate with your colorists?

ALSOBROOK: I use notes on the camera reports and put messages in their voice mail, because usually they start about one or two in the morning. I speak with them when I get up in the morning, usually at 4:30 a.m. I’ll ask, how did we do yesterday? Did you get that note about the warm light streaming through the window in this scene? In a sense, your telecine operator becomes an invisible member of your camera crew, but it can be a double-edged sword The bells and whistles in the post production world are so amazing today that they can change your look pretty easily if someone else is playing at being the cinematographer. You have to make sure the colorist is on the same page with you esthetically. If the telecine operator thinks he’s transferring a different movie than what you had in mind, then obviously you have a big problem.

ICG: Do you have any influence on selecting the telecine facility?

ALSOBROOK: Unfortunately, most of those decisions are made before I come onboard. I’ve been very fortunate that my last two shows were posted at Riot, in Santa Monica, because both HBO and Disney have relationships with them, and they’ve done a superb job. I’ve had some of the best post production work that I’ve ever seen. I’ve been very pleased with The Mind of the Married Man this year. I don’t believe that comedy should look bright and flat. In fact, I don’t know of anybody who believes that anymore. I think that whole paradigm came out of early television. Where you had to make it bright and flat just to satisfy the tubes of the video cameras and that just carried on for generations. I like to work way down in the bottom of the scale and make things as dark and rich as I can, which sometimes can come back and bite you if the network thinks it should be otherwise. You can do a comedy and make it dark and moody, and then when they broadcast it, they say, wait a minute, this is supposed to be a comedy, let’s brighten it up. You always have to realize what your final venue is going to be, and understand that you can’t use dark shadows in a comedy and expect it to look that way when it is broadcast by certain networks.

ICG: Didn’t you also recently shoot a TV movie?

ALSOBROOK: I shot a Disney film called Romy and Michele: Behind the Velvet Rope. It’s an original story and a prequel to the feature, Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion. It was written by Robin Schiff, who also wrote the feature She also produced and directed this TV movie. That was a great experience, because it was her script, and she was directing and producing her vision. The story takes place in Hollywood, and we shot it there mainly at practical locations with five days on a sound stage for some interiors. I’d characterize it as a screwball comedy that is kind of a throwback to the 1930s style of making that type of film. We all watched The Wizard of Oz before production started Because Romy and Michele lost in Hollywood echoes Dorothy’s trip through Oz. One thing I noticed was that the blocking was very simple, probably because of the Technicolor three-strip camera, which was the size of a meat locker. We decided on very simple blocking and a high key, richly saturated look in discussions between Robin, the production designer and myself. Robin is a collaborative director who is open to accepting ideas.

ICG: Who was the production designer?

ALSOBROOK: Tom Walsh is an Emmy-winning production designer who came in with some fantastic ideas for sets and locations, which fit the movie perfectly.

ICG: How much time did you have for preproduction and shooting?

ALSOBROOK: I had two weeks. The production designer had an incredible cache of tearsheets from magazines and photography books. We looked at those and then he put together several montages for each set and location, which gave us a template for how to approach those scenes. It was going to be shot in 35 mm and then about a week and a half before production started they cut the budget by a substantial amount, so we went from 35 to Super 16. Our original shooting schedule was 23 days. It got cut to 21 days, and we finished a day early.

ICG: How did you approach shooting in Super 16 format?

ALSOBROOK: I tested just about all the 16mm stocks, including some of the new, low-contrast, high-speed films. The (Kodak Vision) 7274 (200-speed film) just popped off the screen. It was brilliant in terms of its richness and saturation and grain-free look. After seeing a transfer on a Spirit telecine machine at Riot, I chose that stock for everything, including interiors, exteriors, day and night. I like using one film stock, because it’s more efficient, and it saves money because you don’t have a lot of short ends. The loader doesn’t have to anticipate you when you’re switching stocks and be caught short with the wrong negative in the magazine.

ICG: Did shooting in Super 16 format affect your to lighting?

ALSOBROOK: We had some very big night exteriors, including one where we lit three blocks on Hollywood Boulevard. I don’t know whether or not we would have used smaller units if we’d shot in 35 mm format. That’s questionable. It seems like the higher the speed of the film, the bigger the lights and the bigger the sets. A few years ago, who would have thought of using 20Ks? We use them all the time now. In fact, sometimes 20Ks aren’t big enough, so we use Dino and Musco lights. With a 200-speed film, especially in Super 16, there is much less margin for error. The exposure’s got to be right on, so you need the firepower available to give you the stop you need. I don’t really like to work wide open at T-1.3. You can, but it makes the assistant’s job a hellish experience. You need to give them a decent stop to work with.

ICG: How about the size of your crew?

ALSOBROOK: The crew is the same whether it’s 65 mm, 35 mm or 16 mm film, or 24P video, because you still have all the same jobs. In fact, you have more jobs if it’s 24P HD. It takes a lot more work to make it look like film, because it has such a limited range of latitude. You need more lighting, and a lot more grip work. For example, if we were shooting in this room and you had this window to deal with, you could only allow the exterior to go 1-1/2 or maybe two stops over before it blows out to nothingness with no details, just a pure, raw, video white. You would either have to use heavy ND gels or nets on the windows to bring the exterior down or boost the interior so much that it would look unnatural. With 35 mm film, I probably wouldn’t put any gels on that window, depending on how hot I wanted it to be. In fact, I’m continually surprised at how much detail you can hold through a window to the exterior. I haven’t used hard gels on a window in years, because it’s just not necessary anymore.

ICG: Was this a multi-camera or a single-camera shoot?

ALSOBROOK: We used a B camera when we needed it, which was probably 30 percent of the time. We shot the master with a single camera, and when we went into coverage, we would do an over and a close-up at the same time with an A and B camera. I used ARRIFLEX SR3s, because I think are a little more rugged, more forgiving on location.

ICG: Was Robin Schiff directing from a video tap or by the camera with the actors?

ALSOBROOK: Robin did both. She liked to be on the floor with the actors and the camera crew. She would see the shot on the little on-board monitors that we put on the cameras. It’s very efficient, because Robin was right there and could see the shots, and she could also talk to the actors without yelling at them from video village. I think one of the least interesting technological developments in the last few years is the reliance on the video image by directors instead of being on the set with the actors. I think part of the problem is that a lot of new directors don’t understand what different lenses can do. The old-timers could watch the scene right next to the camera and mentally know what the shot was going to be if it was a 50 mm lens.

ICG: What was your lens selection?

ALSOBROOK: We had two 11.5 to 138 mm zooms, and a set of primes from 9.5 to 180 mm. We had the zooms on the A and B cameras virtually all the time, because it’s very efficient. For a lot of the night scenes, especially the exteriors, I used primes because I wanted to work on a T-2 stop instead of 2.5, the limit on the zooms. The primes are also sharper and crisper, which was especially important for the night scenes. I wanted the film to look as sharp and clean as possible, so there was no filtration. I did test some filters during make-up and hair tests, just to see what they would do for the women, but they really didn’t need them. They’re all young and gorgeous.

ICG: What was your approach to camera movement?

ALSOBROOK: We did a lot of Steadicam work, especially on exteriors, but when it comes right down to it, the film plays in two-shots, because it’s about two girls and their relationship. They’re almost Siamese twins in how close they are and how they react to things. I also think comedy plays best in two-shots, because you see the interactions of the two people. You see the body language in context. If everything is shot in close-up, then you don’t know who’s talking to who about what, where, or why. I think there are too many close-ups on television.

ICG: Did you frame for 16x9 or 4x3?

ALSOBROOK: We protected for 16x9, but composed for 4x3 with great difficulty and frustration. Even though 16x9 is not the most ideal frame, it’s better than 4x3 for most shots. Even close-ups generally play better in 16x9 because you can see more of the environment. I personally don’t like super extreme close-ups unless they’re really called for, because if you use them too much, then they have no power. You have given away an exclamation point you might need later on. I like a loose head and shoulders shot as your normal close-up, because you can still see some body language and save the choker shot for when it really means something.

ICG: Is that a generalization?

ALSOBROOK: You have to let the story determine all your choices, because in the end that’s what a cinematographer does. We tell stories with all the resources that we have available, including lighting, camera movement, film stock, post production, lenses, angles and a lot more. I read the script 10 or 20 or 30 times before we start, so it is second nature, and I know the director’s vision well enough so my instincts automatically take over. I make copious notes about lighting and camera angles and movement, but once we started shooting, I hardly refer to them. After a while, it just comes naturally, and it’s the story that is telling you what to do. I think that’s where cinematographers really shine… by finding the appropriate way to use their tools to tell the story.

ICG: Is this movie based in reality or fantasy?

ALSOBROOK: Robin wanted it grounded enough in reality for us to believe it, with a hint of it being a fairy tale. That feeling comes from the dialogue and the performances, but also the look. We tried to make it as beautiful as possible in just about every situation, because it was the dream of these two girls who came from Tucson to Hollywood to find the city that was portrayed in Pretty Woman. They expect to meet Richard Gear on Hollywood Boulevard, so we had to make it look exotic, enticing and glamorous.

ICG: Does the audience see this as a voyeur, an observer, or a participant?

ALSOBROOK: As a participant. A lot of it is seen through the eyes of the girls.

ICG: We never asked how you lit Hollywood Boulevard at night?

ALSOBROOK: We had a Bebe light, a couple of Dinos, 18Ks, 6K PARS, and a balloon-light over the corner where most of the action took place. It was well lit, in terms of footcandles. If we were shooting a gritty police drama, we could probably have gotten away with a Chimera over the camera for a little fill, and available light from street lamps and other available light.

ICG: What were some of the other locations?

ALSOBROOK: The location for the finale was in the lobby of a classic movie palace. There is a party scene with a band, a singer and dancing, so we used theatrical lighting. The choreography, blocking and lighting was no different than 35mm. We had two balloon lights on the ceiling because there’s no way to hang lights anywhere. We had PAR cans with different colored gels for backlight that you can actually see in the shot. We also had a couple of follow spots behind the camera on a platform to highlight the singer and the band, and we hid lights behind plants, fountains, columns and around corners which illuminated some of the architectural elements of the lobby. The camera moved freely through the lobby. We had it on a Lenny arm on a crane.

ICG: You mentioned earlier that you shot in a club, too. What was that set-up?

ALSOBROOK: We shot at Club Soho, which is a big downtown disco. We hung KinoFlo lamps on the grid over the dance floor to create an ambiance, and we used existing computerized light as much as we could to create a disco feeling. We also had colored KinoFlo tubes around the edges of the floor to define the space. For dialogue scenes, in the club we used our normal lighting package.

ICG: How has the experience you got shooting documentaries and industrial films helped you doing narrative work like this film?

ALSOBROOK: Everything I’ve done helps me every day. Every job I’ve ever been on helps me with the next job. Your experience and your body of knowledge are invaluable, and the longer you work at it, the more you realize that you need to know more. If anybody asks me what my favorite show is, I just have to say it’s going to be the next one, because that’s the one where I’ll really get it right. Every day, I say to myself, here’s an opportunity to finally get it right.

ICG: How do you envision the role of the cinematographer evolving?

ALSOBROOK: I have concerns that the role of the cinematographer is being diminished in the minds of some studio executives or producers. There are a lot of people making decisions in the industry who come from accounting or legal departments. They have been led to believe that new technology will save time and money. They see the gaffer lighting, and they see the operator handling the camera, and they wonder what the hell the cinematographer is doing. There have been some horribly biased, slanted articles in the press during the last year or so. After a while, if you hear a lie long enough, you’ll believe it to be the truth. Many times the cinematographer is the guardian at the gate protecting the vision for the story. Hopefully the modern-day barbarians will not be able to bring down this art form that’s taken a 110 years to come to fruition.

ICG: Last year, a magazine published for location managers ask me to write an article about what cinematographers are going to do now that fast films and digital cameras have made lighting unnecessary? Why are there so many misconceptions about why you light?

ALSOBROOK: It’s part of the digital camera propaganda that says you don’t need to light anymore, but we’ve gone through these things before. John Cassavettes’ movie Faces was shot in 1968 with handheld Éclair NPR 16 mm cameras and little or no lighting. Everybody said, now we can make movies with no lighting. It’ll be faster and cheaper, and it will be all about the actors. Yet, Faces didn’t change the way the vast majority of movies were shot during that period. That technique was right for that particular film. But, I can’t think of any examples of important movies where lighting wasn’t a key element in the story.

ICG: What’s your advice for today’s film school students?

ALSOBROOK: Every great movie has to start with a great script. If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage. All the technical bells and whistles available to us aren’t going to do anything to make a bad script into a good movie. Once you have a good script, you find the best actors available to portray the characters, and then you let the story determine how you’re going to film the script. It can be 8mm or 65 mm film or digital video, whatever’s appropriate for the story. If there’s a contemporary movie that speaks for the supremacy of film over video today, I think its Steven Soderbergh’s Full Frontal, because the digital video portions of the story look abysmal. You can’t see the actors’ eyes or expressions in the digital shots. It’s like there is some kind of a barrier that keeps the audience from experiencing the story. When he cuts to 35 mm, all of a sudden you’re in the movie. Maybe it’s a technique that helps to tell that story, but I found that it got in the way.

ICG: Anything else?

ALSOBROOK: I’d encourage schools to teach students who are future cinematographers that post production is an important part of their future. For those of us who have worked in TV, the revolution in digital post production has become second nature. For feature films, it’s a whole new world, because of the incredible control you have in digital timing. It’s very important for the cinematographer to be part of that process as the authors of the image. This isn’t an original concept. It’s just like a still photographer exposing a negative and then bringing it to life in the darkroom through dodging and burning the images. I happened to see an exhibit of Ansel Adams in Chicago this summer, and they showed several prints that he re-did over a period of years. It was amazing how different the images were based on how he manipulated the negative in the darkroom.  

ICG: Do you think filmmaking is an art form, entertainment or both?

ALSOBROOK: It’s a very entertaining art form. As Bud Shulberg wrote in What Makes Sammy Run?, the greatest way ever invented to tell a story is with a motion picture camera.

ICG: Do you think the role of the Guild and ASC should be changing?

ALSOBROOK: I think the ASC and the Guild have to be more proactive in fighting for the rights of cinematographers, and, in essence, the rights of all filmmakers, because without the taste, sensibilities and artistry of cinematographers, I think this industry’s in big trouble.

ICG: I have another very tough question. You spoke about how you were affected by runaway production. Is there an answer or a partial answer?

ALSOBROOK: It all begins with respecting movies as a distinctive American art form as the Canadian government did for their industry. The whole system by which the Canadians offer subsidies was designed to protect their own industry and culture. We have not protected our industry. We just assume that it’s just going to be here forever, and yet with globalization, like any industry, it could be transferred to anywhere in the world. It would be a horrible loss for our country. I think we need to remind the public and our politicians that film is part of our culture.

ICG: At the beginning of our conversation, I asked who were the cinematographers whose work influenced you when you were beginning your career? How about today?

ALSOBROOK: There are so many. I still admire Connie Hall and, and, of course, Vittorio Storaro (ASC) is like a god to all of us. I think Roger Deakins (BSC, ASC) is just amazing, because he creates images that are so exactly appropriate for each story. His work becomes so integrated in the film that you hardly even notice it until you go back and look at it in more detail and realize what magic he is creating. To me, that’s the sign of the ultimate cinematographer. We always joke around the set, saying we’re technicians, not magicians, but you know what, he is a magician. He’s an alchemist who creates magic out of nothing. It is amazing what he can do with one light and a little piece of foam core. At seminars, I’ve seen him sculpt faces with nothing but one light. I think the level of cinematography is just about the highest that it has ever been. A generation of cinematographers who were part of the new wave has matured and achieved a new level of artistry. Their art shows a level of maturity, but they’re not afraid to experiment. How about John Toll’s work in Almost Famous? Some of the scenes in the kids’ bedroom are amazing. A lot of it has to do with the way he plays the light. It’s not flashy or showy. It doesn’t scream at you, saying look at what a genius I am. He brought the whole scene to a whole different level without you being aware of it.

ICG: I’m going to change the topic for one last question. I’ve enjoyed your historical articles in ICG magazine. When did you start researching and writing about film history?          

ALSOBROOK: I’ve always been interested in the history of motion pictures. The heritage is fascinating to me, but I actually started writing about it two or three years ago at the suggestion of the editor. My research begins in my own library where I’ve collected books on cinema for years. I also use traditional libraries and the Internet searching for timelines and historical information.