Russell Carpenter, ASC was born and raised in Southern California. He is a graduate of San Diego State University, where he majored in English literature. Carpenter began shooting 16 mm footage for a public broadcasting station in San Diego while he was still a student. He subsequently filmed documentaries for KOCE, a public television station in Costa Mesa, California. Carpenter broke into narrative filmmaking by shooting ultra-low budget films. His early credits include Critters 2: The Main Course, The Lawnmower Man and Pet Sematary II. Carpenter broke into the mainstream with True Lies in 1994. He earned an Oscar in 1997 for his masterful work on Titanic. Subsequent credits include Money Talks and The Negotiator. His current film is Charlie’s Angels.

ICG: Are you one of those rare native Southern Californians?

CARPENTER: I was born in Van Nuys. After my parents were divorced, my mother moved to Costa Mesa in Orange County. My sister recommended an audio-visual class she had taken in television when I was in high school. I decided I wanted to be a television director and heard there was a good course at San Diego State University.

ICG: Were you interested in television or film before that?

CARPENTER: I wasn’t a photographer but there was a summer class I took in high school which dealt with how we are influenced by images. Before that, my idea of a good movie was one of the old science fiction films from Japan with characters like Godzilla and Mothra. That summer because of this teacher, I saw Wild Strawberries, Persona and other films by Ingmar Bergman. I didn't understand them but I flipped over the potency of the images. I saw that simple, intimate images could be more compelling than the spectacle films. That became sort of a guiding light for me. I also remember seeing The Baby Maker with Barbara Hershey when I was in my early 20s. The projector was so badly out of alignment that I could actually see lights in some shots. It was fascinating. In my mind, I tried to peel back the edges of the frame so I could figure out how they were creating this illusion. I think those experiences triggered an unconscious desire to express myself and to move people the way I was moved by the Bergman films.

ICG: What did you learn as a television major?

CARPENTER: Actually, I very quickly discovered that television didn’t do it for me. I became an English major and graduated with an emphasis in literary criticism. But in order to survive, I worked for the public broadcasting station in San Diego. My first job was in the studio on a pedestal video camera. An opportunity came up for a few students to work in the 16 mm film department. We were each given a 100-foot roll of black and white film and told to tell a story without editing. I got this ambitious idea for telling a story that involved a roller coaster ride. What that meant was that if I was going to tell the story in narrative form, every cut I wanted to make required a separate ride on the roller coaster. My friend, who appears in the film, rode it some 30 times and I rode it at least 20 times. We got pretty sick that day. I turned my 100-feet of unedited film in and got the job. I worked my way through school by shooting film. After graduation, I stayed on at the station shooting film for cultural, scientific and political shows. It was a golden opportunity because the station was so small anything I did wound up on the air—including mistakes. Many times I was the cinematographer, director, writer and editor. It was a terrific way to learn what cuts together and what doesn't.   

ICG: Had you ever shot any film before that experience?

CARPENTER: No but I was lucky to be counseled by some patient people who allowed me to keep shooting even after I failed to lock down a camera on a tripod. It fell off and rolled across the floor. I was enthusiastic but I needed a lot of help.

ICG: Did you have a goal, or were you just taking it a day at a time?

CARPENTER: I didn’t totally realize it at that time but I was making decisions about how I was going to spend my life. About a year after I graduated, I left the station and went to Hawaii. I wanted to get away into a completely different environment. I was sleeping on a beach, body surfing and hiking 11 miles a day along the coast. About the fifth day, I woke up to the sound of helicopters landing. It was the most surreal thing I had ever experienced. They were landing on each side of me and these guys in shorts, carrying Panavision cases, jumped out of the helicopters. They were shooting King Kong with Jessica Lange (photographed by Richard Kline, ASC). It was like destiny calling me.

ICG: How did you respond to that call?

CARPENTER: I decided to head back to San Diego, where I starved for a while until I found work with KOCE, a public broadcasting station in Orange County. I spent a year-and-a-half to two years working on a series of programs about child development. They were done in the dramatic form to make the educational pill go down a little easier. That’s when I began realizing you could create beautiful images and also tell a story. During that period, I met a director who convinced a furniture czar in Orange County to fork over $250,000 to finance a zombie film called Sole Survivor. His (the furniture czar’s) wife played one of the prominent zombies. We literally made the film in our backyards and miraculously, a small independent company, Grand National released it. It played for about two weeks. That gave me false hopes, so I moved to Los Angeles. At that time, it was impossible for someone like me to get into the Camera Guild. You had to pass these incredible tests in order to become an assistant cameraman. I tried but didn't make the final cut. I think the real test was whether you had an uncle or father in the Guild. In those days, the Guild was unenlightened about bringing in young people and educating members. But there were some thriving, non-union companies making low budget films.

ICG: Facing these obstacles, what kept you going?            

CARPENTER: I decided that I wasn’t made for a 9-5 job. Working in motion pictures was like joining the circus. You worked irregular hours with a lot of interesting people who gave a 300 percent effort every day. I found that very exciting. I was barely making ends meet. Part of the problem was that I was I didn't know anybody in the industry and I was terrified of picking up the phone and calling people cold. I didn't even have a reel with dramatic footage to show to anyone.

ICG: What was the low point?

CARPENTER: I went to Europe to shoot a documentary. When I finished, I had some things lined up back home but decided to spend a few weeks traveling around Europe. By the time I got home, every job I had lined up had fallen through. I was so desperate that I went to one of those temporary employment agencies and they sent me out on a few jobs. I lasted half the day on one job. I was supposed to give people samples of cigarettes. It was an intense moral conflict because my mother died from smoking. The next day they send me to this small company in Glendale that made plant food. The food was in little bottles that were about three inches high. There were 15 people in a room putting labels on the bottles by hand. Some guy was walking around telling you what you were doing wrong. It was like a scene from hell. He’d say that label is running downhill a little to the left. It's got to be a little higher. I thought I was going out of my mind. I asked the guy next to me how long he had been doing this? He said about five years. It was a moment of total enlightenment. I decided that most of the world was like this room. A lot of people have jobs they hate. My next job was delivering USA Today to newsstands. I was on a truck with about six guys. We’d drive around and put newspapers in vending machines and on newsstands. I saw a lot of ugly things, like people sleeping in cardboard boxes and I wasn’t too far away from that myself. I don't want to over-dramatize the situation but there was very little money coming in.

ICG: How did that affect you?

CARPENTER: I decided I really had to make an effort. I was very shy but I literally forced myself to make six calls a day looking for work. If there is a lesson for young filmmakers it’s that the world doesn't discover you. You have to do it yourself. I don't think those calls ever got me a substantial job but I learned to be persistent enough for people to talk to me for a few minutes. I got some words of encouragement and that was important. I also got suggestions for calling other people. It was a good lesson. I learned opportunities come few and far between, so I had better make the most of them.

ICG: How did you finally break through?

CARPENTER: Some of the people who I worked with in Orange County were moving to Los Angeles. I began getting interviews with some of them, beginning with zero budgets to low budgets and after a fairly long period, I was shooting some of the bigger non-union films in Los Angeles. They had titles like Critters2: The Main Course and Death Warrant. That was during the very late 1980s. I shot Pet Sematary II (1992), Hard Target (1993) and Solar Crisis for Richard Edlund (ASC, also in 1993). I don't know whether this is discouraging or encouraging for younger people. You hear a lot of stories about super talented young people who burst out of film school and immediately make their mark. For me, it was a long, gradual process but I did learn to be tenacious—maybe because I couldn't do anything else. Sometimes it seemed like I was just hanging on by my fingernails. Eventually things began happening.

ICG: Did you set a goal for yourself?

CARPENTER: I put together a map of my career goals. It was kind of like a treasure map. I even wrote a mission statement for myself. I gave myself an incredibly long time to make it but at the time, it seemed really ambitious. I decided that if I didn’t have something going by the year 2000, I’d quit. I gave myself 10 years. My mission was to make pictures where I could produce the most potent images that I knew how to create. I scrawled all of this on a piece of paper. It was sort of a written copy of my dreams.

ICG: Were there filmmakers who inspired you at that point in your life?

CARPENTER: For me, Vittorio Storaro (ASC, AIC) was the embodiment of the cinematography god. I imagined he was standing behind me, encouraging me. It goes back to a time when I was working on documentaries and a director suggested that I see Last Tango in Paris. I remember thinking here is somebody who is lighting in a totally different way. Most cinematographers up to that time believed in the holy trinity of key light, fill light and backlight. With Storaro, light is a divine thing and within it there is a continuum of emotion. He was talking about the conflict between light and darkness and about how colors and light vibrate in ways that affect our perceptions of reality. I wasn’t working most of the time, so I would study videocassettes by playing them backwards and forwards. I studied Storaro, Jordan Cronenweth (ASC), Gordon Willis (ASC) and Haskell Wexler (ASC). I’m sure I’m forgetting people. Connie Hall (ASC) is also wonderful. He is constantly reinventing himself and is forever young. Caleb Deschanel (ASC)… how can you hope to top what he achieved on The Black Stallion or The Natural? I learned that these guys were breaking rules all the time. A character would walk out of a room and then come back in and the lighting was quite different. It felt the same but it was different. I’d ask myself why. This was my film school. The other thing that I learned when I watched Storaro's work is that film light doesn’t have to mimic reality. It just has to make sense in terms of the emotional content. I saw that he was totally creating his own reality and making his own rules in film like 1900 and Reds. That was a big lesson. I think that he single-handedly liberated so many cinematographers from what had become a somewhat staid way of looking at lighting.

ICG: Do you recall when you first got a chance to light that way?

CARPENTER: I think it was Lady in White (1988). It was a ghost story that is still very near and dear to my heart. It was the first time I shot a film where the director and the production company were both committed to how it looked. When it came out, I was feeling pretty good. Then, I did a really low budget film called Cameron's Closet (1989) that we shot in about 18 days. I really got my clock cleaned on that film because I didn't know how to do good work and also work fast. If I could, I would buy all the prints and negative and burn them. That’s when I realized I had some other things to learn.

ICG: How do you do that without compromising?

CARPENTER: One of the things you learn is how to surround yourself with good people. A crew who knows how to get the job done. You also learn how go make choices. Maybe you could make an elegant shot if you took the time to light a scene with diffused light from a single source but it is going to steal time from other things and it's not that important to the story. You have to learn when and where to fight your battles.            

ICG: Did you have any mentors during this period?

CARPENTER: No, not in terms of an “on-the-job” mentoring, but everyone you deal with teaches you something, voluntarily or not.  I always functioned at the level of director of photography, so I never worked as a second or first assistant or camera operator. Unfortunately, that also meant not having a more classic union training.

ICG: How did you finally break through on mainstream films?

CARPENTER: I did a lot of second and third unit work on New Line pictures. I remember working on Critters. It was all about these fur ball monsters. I started talking about the oscillation of light and dark and the power of light. Everybody looked at me like I had three heads so I didn’t do that much anymore. I also shot four episodes of The Wonder Years before I got fired. Then I shot a film called Lawnmower Man (1992) which gained some notice. I also shot a film called Solar Crisis. The film didn’t make it to the screen but I got a sample reel with some pretty good images. That became my calling card. I guess that’s a message. Even if you happen to work on a disastrous film, the images can still serve you well in the future. After that, I did a film with John Woo. It was called Hard Target. He would have three dolly tracks going at the same time and cameras surrounding the action from every conceivable angle, which sometimes made it impossible to light. I learned a lot from that experience.

ICG: When did you hook up with Jim Cameron?

CARPENTER: I met Jim a couple of times and got a call about working with him on a low budget picture called The Crowded Room about a person with multiple personalities. We had lunch and he told me he wanted to do a small film without miles of trucks filled with equipment. That film never happened but while I was in New Orleans shooting John Woo's film, I got a call saying Jim wanted to speak to me when I got back to Los Angeles. I read in the trades that Jim was going to do a picture with Arnold Schwarzenegger called True Lies. After I got back to L.A., we went to lunch. He was talking about this project and I was nodding my head. Halfway through lunch, I realized he was talking to me about True Lies and it felt like he had decided to hire me. He said, "When we get to Washington, there will be all sorts of problems to solve and then there's this Harrier scene at the end that's going to take all kinds of digital compositing." I suddenly realized he was saying "we." I called my agent and said, "I think I was just hired."

ICG: What was it like working with Jim Cameron at that point?

CARPENTER: True Lies was my trial by fire. Jim and I had a great relationship during pre-production. In fact, as late as the third week of the production, people were telling me I was the “golden boy” because it was going so smoothly. Then one day we were looking at dailies and I was thinking it was a little dark. I’m going to print that up three points and look at it again. I noticed Jim was slouched down in his seat, shaking his head and uttering expletives. I asked what was wrong and he, "I've got the highest paid actor in this universe or any other parallel universe and I can’t see his eyes." I said, "Don’t worry. We’ll just print it up a couple of lights." He exploded and told me that would ruin the picture. I wanted to turn into some sort of water-soluble thing and oozed out under the door. After dailies, I was thinking, "I'm off the picture," but everyone was laughing and saying that’s the same language he uses with everyone. He used the same exact words with Mikael Salomon (ASC) on The Abyss. I actually called Mikael and he laughed.

ICG: Was Titanic your next film with Cameron?

CARPENTER: After True Lies I worked with him on a 3-D film ride film based on Terminator 2. We worked with John Bruno, who was the visual effects supervisor on True Lies and Jim. We were working with these enormous cameras, the size of a small refrigerator, lighting incredible areas at night. It was a great experience.

ICG: What was it like after all of those years of striving to finally get an opportunity to shoot a film nominated by your peers and then win an Oscar?

CARPENTER: It’s indescribable. Titanic was love on an epic scale with spectacular visual effects. The computer is an amazing tool. But the well-lit close-up is just as powerful. I’m proudest of the smaller, more intimate scenes, which are an opportunity to enter the soul of another human being. I lit to capture the twinkle in Kate Winslet’s eyes and the radiance of her skin. Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a free spirit who seems tremendously vulnerable on film. I can’t find the right words to express my feelings about my great crew.

ICG: How did winning the Oscar on Titanic affect your career?  

CARPENTER: Titanic must have made me smarter—at least that’s how I’m perceived. I make the same comments on a set that people used to ignore before I got the Oscar but now, they are listening. I’m also shooting more commercials, though that actually started happening after True Lies.

ICG: When did you become a member of ICG?

CARPENTER: I think it was after True Lies. I was a total outsider. My perception of the Guild changed after I became a member. Suddenly, I was working with great crews who put themselves on the line every step of the way. That’s a real benefit to a cinematographer gets in the Guild. Then there are the lighting seminars and all of the educational programs, and the leadership is willing to go to war for us.

ICG: How did you happen to shoot Charlie’s Angels?          

CARPENTER: I got the script through my agent, David Gersh. I didn’t know I was going to be interested. I was hoping for a script that was the next Searching for Bobby Fischer. But I liked the story right away. It’s kind of goofy in a way. I thought it could real fun if it's done right. Like Titanic, the faces are so important in this film. Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu are terrific actresses with wonderful faces. I decided I wanted to shoot this during my first meeting with the director, a wonderful maniac named McG. That’s his whole name.

ICG: I take it you had never worked with him before?

CARPENTER: No. He has mainly done music videos. I really liked his vision and his enthusiasm for the film. He was able to express a feeling of effervescence and a somewhat over-the-top quality that I can't quite put it into words. He envisioned a slightly different, offbeat angle that you wouldn’t normally expect from films with this degree of visibility.

ICG: Where did you actually shoot Charlie’s Angels?

CARPENTER: In Los Angeles on sets and locations. We were supposed to have five weeks of preparation but we kept getting pushed back because of the rewrites. That gave us time to scout many locations. The problem was that we’d find a great place to shoot a scene and a week later it was out of the script.

ICG: How did McG communicate with you about his vision?      

CARPENTER: He often made references to films. We looked at a lot of visual material together. This may come as a shock but he liked some classic 1960s films like West Side Story because of the sparseness of the look and, its bold use of colors and graphic designs. We also looked at Hudsucker Proxy to study how Roger Deakins (ASC, BSC) and the Coen brothers minimized elements within the frame. We looked at Viva Las Vegas (photographed by Joe Biroc, ASC and directed by George Sydney in 1964) because of the colors and the sense of fun. I think that's one of the things that McG brought to this film. It was fun and he kept us focused on that.

ICG: Does this film take its cue from the TV show?

CARPENTER: There are three angels, Bosley (Bill Murphy), Charlie, and a variety of villains. Leonard Goldberg (producer) was the motivating force for the Charlie's Angels TV show and this movie, along with Drew Barrymore and Nancy Juvonen.

ICG: Is there a main thread that runs through the story? 

CARPENTER: It sounds funny but a main thread is that Charlie's Angels can do anything. In one sequence, this bad villain comes along and the audience thinks that he doesn’t know he’s going to get his butt kicked. Then in the next scene, the angels are as smart as rocket scientists. In the very next scene they are worried about their identities as women. Lucy Liu's character wants to be like Martha Stewart but everybody is just dreading that she'll offer to cook for them. So they all have distinctive characters.

ICG: Are the angels parodies or empathetic?

CARPENTER: The film constantly pokes fun at itself but you still have to believe and empathize with the characters, otherwise there are no emotions. I think the audience will feel they are insiders and they are very much let in on the jokes.

ICG: Why did you shoot Charlie’s Angels in wide-screen format?

CARPENTER: Partially because there are a lot of action sequences. I also love the aspect ratio (2.35:1) and I think it serves the story. Think about how someone’s eye tracks from extreme left to extreme right side of the screen when they are sitting in a theater. It gives them more of a sense of being part of the experience. It's not like you're watching a film as a spectator. You're more immersed in the process.

ICG: Why did you choose Super35 rather than anamorphic?

CARPENTER: It was mainly a practical decision based on the availability of lenses, the number of cameras we used in action sequences, and the way we planned movement. The packages are a little smaller, so you can move a little faster, and there was depth of field issues. I love the anamorphic format and the way the lenses perform but we felt there was an advantage in shooting this film in Super 35.

ICG: Did you shoot makeup and costume tests?

CARPENTER: We combined them. I knew that lighting three different actresses with different facial structures in the same shots was going to be interesting. We had to discover what worked best for each actress and find common denominators.

ICG: How did you accomplish that?

CARPENTER: Believe it or not, I looked at The Red Shoes because of the use of color. It was definitely an influence just in terms of some of the color palettes we used. I decided to pull the flesh tones up as much as possible, which is especially difficult in daylight exteriors. Very often, I was overexposing faces by two stops. I hoped that we’d be able to use a digital intermediate process like Roger Deakins did on Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? but there wasn’t enough time in postproduction.

ICG: At the beginning of this film, how did you establish rapport with the actresses and find out what they liked and what they didn't like?

CARPENTER: I think it's important to talk about things that have nothing to do with the movie. You have to appreciate that person as a human being and recognize that you are just two mortals trying to work together. Once you have that rapport, they know when you're asking them for something there is a reason behind it that is going to serve them well. I think it's easy to alienate an actor or actress if you treat them like furniture that just has to be moved around. They have to believe you are genuinely concerned with how they look, so when you ask an actress to lower her chin, look into the key light and turn her head, she knows you have her best interests in mind.

ICG: Did you look at the original TV version of Charlie's Angels and are any of those themes carried through into this film?

CARPENTER: I saw a few episodes of that series and I was amazed at how often they got the ladies into bikinis. We didn’t do that. Our actresses are very sexy and there are times when they flirt with the camera but they aren’t running around half nude.

ICG: Are they on camera together a lot of the time?

CARPENTER: Yes. I found out during testing that I could light Lucy from any direction and she looked great. Cameron’s character is more in the realm of glamour queen. We lit her from camera right because of her facial structure. A lot of the lighting was dictated by the directing, how scenes were staged and what was happening. It sounds like witchcraft but what worked for Drew on Tuesday might not work on Thursday. That’s why there’s no recipe book for lighting different stars. There are a lot of variables. We'd block the scenes, starting with a formula that had been determined in our initial tests. But that’s just where you start.

ICG: Can you give us an example?

CARPENTER: Drew has an amazing face. We tended to place the key higher for her to help with the shaping and to get a little more gradation. The trade-off is that her eyes look better if the key is down a little lower. So we’d have people running around with cards and little handheld lights putting a little fill into her eyes.

ICG: What was your general approach to lighting?

CARPENTER: I used KinoFlos as much as possible on interiors because they are cooler, so we could get close to the actresses and because they have a nice wrap-around quality. We also used a lot of big units, 12-by-12s with 20Ks and HMIs for exteriors.

ICG: Is the film reality-based or pure fantasy?

CARPENTER: It's neither. It seems like it's the real world…but stuff happens that you are never going to see in reality. At the same time, it’s also not total fantasy. The best description is that they live in Charlie's Angels world, where they do whatever works by stretching reality. A lot of that this feeling comes from the cast.

ICG: You mentioned colors. Are they symbolic?

CARPENTER: The colors are not symbolic in terms of creating an emotional overtone. Lucy looks best in red, Cameron in light blue and Drew likes black. That provided a foundation for our use of colors.

ICG: What about your relationships with the art director, production designer, costume designer, makeup artists and so on?

CARPENTER: Those are all important relationships, especially the production designer, who was in this case J. Michael Riva (The Color Purple). In terms of how the movie looks, I think there is a trinity of people that has to click. It’s the production designer, the director and the director of photography. So many different elements go into influencing the personality of the film but it comes down to the passion of the director and his vision. Our job is to translate that into something tangible on film.

ICG: Were you seeing film dailies and who typically came to see them?

CARPENTER: Yes I was seeing dailies. The answer to the second question depended on what week it was. In the beginning and this is true of a lot of films, the actresses came or they sent representatives. The producers come to dailies and sometimes the production manager would come. Later on, McG got too busy so he would look at the tape and he relied on us to look at the film. My assistants and others on the crew would go.      

ICG: Were there any particularly interesting sets?

CARPENTER: One of the more interesting sets is a house that was built in the round. Originally, the director found a house that was used in Body Double, which Steve Burum (ASC) shot. It's perched on a hill and it's basically shaped like a flying saucer. He loved that house and wanted to shoot there. But there were problems obtaining the location and some issues regarding the practicality of shooting there. The production designer built a version of that house which was infinitely more shootable on a stage. We had an enormous cyclorama that surrounded the house. We were able to create a quite convincing San Fernando Valley at night. We also had an interesting alley set that the production designer designed to accommodate lighting stunts and a fight scene. The director often wanted to shoot action sequences at 120 frames per second, which required a tremendous amount of light. It was a lot easier lighting the set and keeping it hot because we shot over a several week period. Sometimes, the second unit came in to finish coverage of the fights. So it was much more practical to be on a set.

ICG: How did he decide on 120 frames a second?

CARPENTER: McG comes from a music video background, where it is normal for them to shoot at different frame rates to stretch or compress time at appropriate dramatic moments. Filmmaking is a very complex grammar. He had very specific feelings in mind when he selected different frame rates. Sometimes we shot 60 frames a second. All of that affects the way you light. Maybe you have to use 20Ks instead of 10Ks, which would cost less. If you are shooting at a higher speed with wider-angle lenses, it also affects how you light. These are all important issues for cinematographers because there are directors coming out of music videos and commercials attuned to this way of thinking. I enjoyed working with a director who had the potential for breaking the rules at any time. But you also need to be able to tell them if you think something isn’t normal cinema language and it could confuse the audience.

ICG: How did you handle that?

CARPENTER: We had an on-going dialogue. I would tell him if I thought there was going to be a problem with screen direction or something else. I also accepted the fact he might decide to try something different. That way, our talks didn’t become tedious for him. You have to trust the director and realize that we have a new breed of audience today and that conventional motion picture syntax may not be the most important thing to them. They can remain involved in the picture even if the screen direction is wrong or the angle for point of view shots is wrong.

ICG: Where and how did you have these conversations?

CARPENTER: It was usually on the set because that’s when things would happen. I think McG got frustrated in the beginning, when the script supervisor would say, "Consider what you're doing here,” but he quickly found his footing.

ICG: Earlier you mentioned lighting for multiple cameras.

CARPENTER: A lot of the action sequences were filmed with multiple cameras but most of our normal coverage was just one and sometimes two cameras. We used two cameras when it was the best way to cover performances, such as when something was happening between the actors that would be difficult to repeat. You had to make sure that the lighting was right for two cameras, so every decision had some give and take.

ICG: Were there storyboards?

CARPENTER: A lot of it was storyboarded and I think it was a really good tool. It showed us where McG was going with his film. It was also useful for budgeting because it showed us what lighting and other gear we needed on the sets.

ICG: How true did McG stay to the storyboards?

CARPENTER: Quite often he was true to the storyboards because he had a great idea of what he wanted to do. We also had a great storyboard artist who sometimes added flourishes that were too good to pass up. A storyboard can be a great thinking tool.

ICG: How did he handle being a first-time director?

CARPENTER: There was a lot of pressure on McG as a first time director but it never flowed onto the set. It's his nature to be friendly and encouraging.

ICG: Was there a strategy for camera movement?

CARPENTER: McG said he wanted the look cutting edge retro. There is sort of a retro sensibility in terms of visual references. McG has classic sensibilities when it comes to camera movement. I call only recall one scene where the Steadicam was the star. It’s a long, continuous shot with the camera flowing through the whole scene. McG loved the Technocrane because it allowed him to move the camera in sort of a smooth, classic style. We broke free and went places a dolly could never get to. He really knows how to use that technique from directing music videos.

ICG: How did he use close-ups?

CARPENTER: Usually shooting in wide-screen format, I have the character off to a side of the frame, with a background on the other side of the frame that informs the audience, so there is some balance in the shot.

ICG: Who provided your camera package?

CARPENTER: I grew up on Arriflex cameras. In fact, I purchased an ARRI 435 (camera) but I've been using Primo lenses on my last several films and I like the service Panavision offers, so we went with Panaflex cameras.

ICG: Were you using zooms or prime lenses?

CARPENTER: We tested several zooms and found a couple of 11:1s that were so sharp that I shot most of the picture with them. I'm not quite sure why but I stayed away from the 4:1, which is another workhorse lens. I only used primes when I got outside the realm of what the 11:1 zoom lenses would give me. There are scenes where we have kind of a push and pull effect created by going from an intimate 10 mm shot to a long 300 mm lens that distanced the audience from the characters.

ICG: How about the negative choices?

CARPENTER: I used three stocks. I used Kodak’ 5245 (50-speed) for daylight exteriors. I used (Vision) 5279 (500-speed tungsten) which I happen to like. I also used the (Vision) 5274 which is 320-speed tungsten. It’s a beautiful film; it's very sharp and very grain free. Some films have tighter grain but their resolution isn't quite as good. It’s a matter of understanding what different films can do in the situations where you’ll be shooting. Deluxe did the lab work and Ron Koch was the timer. We have a great relationship that goes back to when I was shooting no budget films. Ron doesn't play it safe. If he has a suggestion, he is totally candid. We have that relationship.

ICG: You mentioned an interest in digital intermediate technology.    

CARPENTER: It didn’t work out on this project because there wasn’t time in postproduction. But I do believe it is vital for cinematographers to be computer literate. I suggest experimenting with PhotoShop at home. Sooner or later, our images will go through a digital intermediate process as a matter of course. There is a huge, unanswered question about who will control the quality of those images.

ICG: How have the commercials you’ve shot affected your career?          

CARPENTER: Usually, it's fun because it’s all about the images and you can experiment and try different things. It also gives you the freedom to be more selective in the films you shoot. I got into this because I love telling stories but if you are on the wrong film and you get about six weeks deep into working 14 hour days, it's not so much fun any more. My basic motivation hasn’t changed. I’m always looking for the right script that allows me to tell stories with images. But I am also aware that there are a lot of talented cinematographers out there and they are all looking for the next American Beauty and those scripts are few and far between.

ICG: There is a general perception in the industry that cinematography is mainly a craft, or a technical job. How do you personally deal with that?   

CARPENTER: Cinematography is definitely a hybrid role. You are trying to be artful but you also have to master the scientific realm. You are also the general of army, which is your crew. You have to keep things organized. Sometimes you are a counselor for the director and you have to collaborate with a lot of other people, the production designer, hair, costume and makeup people. You are also conscious of giving the editor what they need. A lot of people just don’t understand those parts of our job.

ICG: Do you have any advice to offer the generation of cinematographers coming up behind you? Is there a secret to success?

CARPENTER: There is no sure path to success for anyone, whether it's working on a crew or shooting documentaries and low budget films like I did. If you think you have the talent, the next question is, are you willing to put in the hours learning the craft and doing the work? You also have to put in the time forming relationships with the people who you are working with on the set and also with the vendors. There is a sub-culture that extends beyond the sets, consisting of people who can provide useful information. You have to know who will go the extra mile for you in a pinch. I also think it's important to learn about computers because sooner or later they will change the way we work. It’s already happened in commercials. They can change anything you shoot in the digital suite. It will soon be happening with movies. We need to be a part of that process because it’s not going to go away. I hope I’m not discouraging anyone because if you love doing this work like I do, there is no substitute.