Dean Cundey, ASC was born and raised in Alhambra, on the outskirts of Los Angeles. He studied filmmaking at UCLA, where a serendipitous encounter with James Wong Howe, ASC, shifted his interest to cinematography. His first job after graduation in 1970 was handling makeup for two Roger Corman films. During the 1970s, Cundey shot many documentaries, insert shots, and low budget features that he describes as “projection fodder” for drive-ins.

His breakthrough film was Halloween, which he shot for John Carpenter in 1978. Cundey lensed many horror flicks during subsequent years, including The Fog, The Thing and Escape From New York. His first mainstream film was Romancing the Stone in 1984. He followed that with such landmark titles as the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which earned an Oscar nomination for Cundey. During the 1990s Cundey’s credits included an eclectic blend of sci-fi, action-adventure and comedy films, including, Hook, Jurassic Park, The Flintstones, Apollo 13, Casper, Flubber, Krippendorf’s Tribe, and The Parent Trap.

Cundey also directs and shoots commercials, and occasionally directs narrative movies for television and home video. Following are excerpts of a conversation about the past, present and future:

ICG: How did you get interested in the film industry? 

CUNDEY: I was born and raised in Alhambra, near Los Angeles. I was always a movie fan. My father had an 8 mm camera. I’d make up little scenarios and shoot home movies. When I was in the ninth grade, our teacher assigned us to write essays describing our future careers. I wrote an essay about working as a production designer on Hollywood films.            

ICG: What made you think about being a production designer?            

CUNDEY: I remember being fascinated by the different world movies could create. The world of illusion was somehow magical. I guess the things that you’re most aware of as a kid are the environments in which these movies take place. I was intrigued by production design. My father would drive us around Los Angeles on weekends looking at the sights. He loved the city. Sometimes we’d go by back lots. I remember once we drove by 20^th Century Fox, and there was this giant lot full of all kinds of amazing French villages and castles on hills. Of course, I didn’t know that there was a production designer, but I realized somebody did it and I found that idea fascinating.           

ICG.: What about that essay you wrote about being a production designer?           

CUNDEY: I decided to look into the realities of a career as a production designer. I read whatever I could find on the subject. I also went to the Set Designers’ local office and asked someone, ‘If I wanted to become an art director, as it was called at that time, what do I study?’ And he said, ‘Of course, it’s almost impossible to do that, but if you did want to become an art director, you need a degree in architecture.’            

I thought that seemed pretty straightforward. So, I started planning my college education with the idea of getting a degree in architecture. I started reading about what it takes to become an architect. You had to learn calculus, and about beam stress and engineering. The more I thought about that, the less I could see how it would help me make movies, so I decided that I would go to film school and take architectural design classes. I thought that would give me the best of both worlds. In retrospect, that’s what the guy at the Local should have told me but he was probaly more interested in getting rid of me.           

ICG: Where did you go to school?           

CUNDEY: I enrolled at the film school at UCLA, and signed up for some architectural design classes. A highlight was a course in cinematography taught by James Wong Howe (ASC), who was only teaching for one semester. Steve Burum (ASC) was also in that class. It changed my focus to cinematography because I realized that he was actually creating the images that affect people when they see movies. He made all of us appreciate how he used light to create moods and environments.              

ICG: How did he do that?            

CUNDEY: He showed us films and spoke about them. I remember him talking about The Heart is a Lonely Hunter. One day, he set up a little three-wall set. Just very plain walls. One wall had a window. One wall had a door. One wall had nothing. He also had a table and a couple of chairs. We were the crew, and he taught us a lot of practical things about lights and flags. That was part of the class. But, the main part was the theory he taught. He would say, ‘Okay, this set now is a seedy hotel room. Let’s see how we would make it look and feel that way just by using the light.’ He would then take us through the creative and thought process step-by-step. He talked about how he decided where to put lights and how much to use and then demonstrated it for us. He created little visual things like a blinking neon sign outside the window that made it seem real. It also created a mood.

We would spend half of the next day discussing that process. Then, he’d say, ‘Okay, we’re moving onto the next scene. Now it’s an elegant lady’s boudoir during the 1800s.’ He’d ask us, ‘Now, what’s the process for that?’ After a big silence, he would lead us through that process. We would take the same lights, the same walls, and create a whole different look. Then we would stage a little scene, and he would talk about how you use the tools to create the right mood by using different lenses and with lighting and movement. As he led us through this process, it really became evident that your ability to control the image or look of it had a lot to do with the emotions that the audience perceives on the screen. It was like magic.

I learned that the cinematographer has this big influence on the film and no one even knows he is there. That was the most striking thing that I remember from taking away this class. After class, he would meet some of us in a little coffee shop, discuss his work and answer our questions. He was in his 70s, and I still remember him saying, the more he shot, the more he learned to simplify. He was preparing to shoot The Molly Maguires, and he spoke a lot about that film. He made a big impression on me.           

ICG: Was that the only impression?           

CUNDEY: It was a great time for cinematography. I remember seeing The Professionals shot by Conrad Hall (ASC), and being awed by his work. But, if not for James Wong Howe, I probably would not have realized the artistry that Conrad applied to the process of making that film.           

ICG: Can you amplify that point about discovering that lighting isn’t just about exposing images on film. It’s about creating moods and environments, and a sense of place and time.           

CUNDEY: Cinematography is an incredibly technical art, because there is so much you have to learn about lenses, focal lengths, depth of field, T- stops, how to read a meter, and how the inverse square law applies to lighting and diffusion. All of this stuff is pretty technical, and it can be mind boggling, especially for a student who is told to create a film using all of this alien technology. One of the things I learned that I always try to impart when I talk with students, is that you have to master the mechanics and technology, and apply it to the creative process. That is a challenge that can be pretty imposing. Once you learn all of these rules, then you have to learn when and how to bend and break them. There is usually a period in the beginning of your career when you are bogged down by all of that technology before you get into the world of creating aesthetics.

ICG: What did you do when you got out of school?

CUNDEY: In retrospect, I realize I was at the right place at the right time. You can say a certain amount of it is luck, but I also think that you make your own luck. I worked on films for a lot of friends at school. I always tried to volunteer as much as I could for different jobs. I enjoyed the learning process and picked up something new on each film. I also learned about the dynamics of the creative process by collaborating with different people. After graduation, two guys I met in film school convinced Roger Corman to allow them to make a low-budget action film for him. I had done makeup on one of their student films, so when it came time to fill that position, they asked if I was interested. It was a great adventure. It was a motorcycle film called Naked Angels. When it was over, Roger Corman said he liked the makeup and asked if I’d like to work on one of his films. I remember thinking, ‘This is really great. They just call you up and you just keep working. Why are people always saying it’s so hard to get into this business?’ That film was called Gas-s-s-s (1970). I also made it known that I was available to operate the third camera for the action scenes and that was another experience.

ICG: So, your career was launched that easily?

CUNDEY: Not exactly. At the end of that film, I sat by the phone, and I said, ‘Okay, any second now it’s going to ring.’ But it didn’t. I realized I was going to have to start looking for work. I began realizing that networking and recommendations from the people I had worked with, were very important. I began working on almost any job I could get. I did some editing. I shot documentaries and inserts. I worked on a couple of short films and a couple of low-budget features. I worked with a friend on the mechanical effects for Son of Blob and shot the second unit on that film. I basically discovered this sub-culture of low-budget films. There were still drive-in theatres and they needed product. Those were the famous B films. I noticed it was a struggle to get the right equipment, so I decided to put together a location truck just like the Cinemobile that was being used for various features on location. I bought a Dodge van and along with a couple of friends, we cut extra doors, put shelving and a generator in it. I leased three cameras, a few tape recorders, about 30 lights, and grip equipment. Many features were filmed with that van.

ICG: How did that help you begin your career as a cinematographer?

CUNDEY: I packaged myself and a select group of crew people with the van. It became sort of the wedge for me to then begin shooting low-budget features. Some producers and directors loved the idea of being able to make one phone call to get the cinematographer and crew along with the complete equipment package they needed to shoot. That was my entry into working on low-budget features. I photographed some 20 to 25 films for people who rented my van. I got a lot of experience.

ICG: How did you connect with John Carpenter?

CUNDEY: Deborah Hill was the script supervisor on several of the low budget films I shot. One day, she said, ‘You know, I did this film with a director named John Carpenter, Assault on Precinct 13. He wants me to produce a low-budget film and I think you’d be a great member of the team with your experience and the van. I think the two of you would make a great team.’  That’s how I met John Carpenter. That was in 1978 and our first film together was Halloween.

ICG: I’ve always wondered how you justified shooting a small, low budget films like that in anamorphic format? It had to be counter-culture.

CUNDEY: John is a very astute visual director. It was a real delight to finally connect with a guy who loved film for film’s sake, and not for the money they thought they were going to make. He said he couldn’t see making this film without that kind of scope and production values. I was so happy to hear those words. I had shot a couple of films with anomorphic lenses, and I loved the composition you could create. It was a very quick decision with no discussion. It was like a Christmas present.

ICG: It wasn’t that commonplace to shoot a low budget film in anamorphic in 1977-78.

CUNDEY: The anomorphic format was kind of unusual for this type of film. The truth is that if we were making it today, with the home video after-market being so important, it probably would be impossible. It would harder than ever to convince the studio. In those days, anamorphic movies were mainly films of epic proportions, big westerns and war movies with big exteriors. You asked why we wanted to make this little film about a babysitter killer in anomorphic format? We had sort of autonomy, because we didn’t have to answer to a studio or distributor. That allowed us to make the right creative decisions. The wide screen was right because Halloween was about things lurking in dark corners. The wide format gave us the space we needed to create that mood.

ICG.: Were there other films that gave you a visual reference for Halloween?

CUNDEY: Halloween was kind of—I guess I wouldn’t say new, but it certainly revived a genre and it started the teen-scream films. There were very few models. John just loved visual storytelling and so did I, so we didn’t really look at other horror films or thrillers as a model. We mainly just spoke about how we were going to use the space to tell the story.

ICG: Wasn’t that pretty difficult with the slow films and anamorphic lenses in those days?

CUNDEY: In retrospect, you could say it was harder than it would be today, but we didn’t know the difference. When you don’t know the difference, you just go out and do it. I think that was part of the reason why we enjoyed doing this picture so much. We were teaching ourselves and exploring the possibilities. Had someone told me that we were going to have problems with depth of field and how close we could focus, or with the amount of light we needed, I might have blinked. I might have had a second thought about shooting in anamorphic, but we weren’t deterred in any way.

ICG: What made Halloween so frightening? It is still scary today.

CUNDEY: People who have analyzed Halloween and why it succeeded in being so scary, have come to some interesting conclusions. John (Carpenter) had terrific instincts. He figured out how to involve the young audience by making it about something they could relate to. He made it about high school kids. They’ve either been babysitters or had girlfriends or friends who were babysitters. They’ve all heard the warnings that mothers of babysitters always tell them. Don’t answer the door for strangers. When you are ready to come home, call and Dad will come and pick you. That made it easy for us to make the young audience empathize with the victims. John made the killer pure evil. His face was a bland, expressionless mask. There was no attempt to give him much character or a back-story. He was just evil. I think that was part of it. His motives didn’t matter. He was a killer. You knew whoever came in contact with him wasn’t going to talk him out of it.

ICG: Were you surprised at how successful it was?

CUNDEY: I think everybody was surprised. It was interesting because none of us expected that we were signing onto a picture that was going to be a big boxoffice success. We just wanted to make a film that would be released in real cinemas, and maybe people would go see it. We were hoping it would enhance our credibility and allow us to keep working. It did okay the first week. The second week it did better, and the boxoffice just kept getting better and better by word of mouth. During the second week, John, Deborah, Tommy Lee Wallace, the editor, and myself, ran the film for a class at USC. Afterwards, the students asked questions. About half way through, one of them stood up and asked, ‘Why in the world would you want to make a movie like this? It is a terrible trashy movie.’

We tried to explain that we attempted to make a film that would be entertaining and that would have some lasting value. The guy laughed, and said, ‘You people think this piece of trash is going to be a classic film? How pretentious of you. I can’t believe it.’ He was very hostile.

ICG.: Did Halloween open doors for you?

CUNDEY: Yes. It gave all of us a certain amount of credibility. I immediately got calls from everybody who wanted to take a cheap movie and turn it into a huge boxoffice success because they figured we must have the answer or the secret. I had to explain that it begins with a good script and the thing you’ve sent me is terrible. I remember being offered just all kinds of films immediately. So I did a couple of films, but then I started being a little more selective, and I was looking for more variety. I did a number of films with John (Carpenter), including Escape From New York (in 1981), which was very successful, and then I shot Romancing the Stone with Bob Zemeckis (in 1984) and Back to the Future the following year. We actually shot a trilogy. Then, I did Who Framed Roger Rabbit with him (1988). That was my first big visual effects film..

ICG.: When did you join the International Cinematographers Guild?

CUNDEY: I guess it is not an uncommon story for the times. I remember coming out of film school, and visiting the Guild office about a year later. I was mainly shooting inserts around that time, and I had heard that if you joined the camera local you were entitled to get jobs in the major studios and work on more conventional Hollywood films. It seemed like joining the union was the logical thing to do. I went down to the union office, and there was kind of a glass wall with a little hole in it. I could see some people behind desks. I stood there at the hole for a long time and I was ignored. Then, finally I tapped on the glass and a woman came over and asked, “What?’ through a little speaker. I said, ‘Hi, I’m really interested in joining the camera Guild.’ She tapped her finger on a piece of paper that was taped to the glass. It said ‘We are not a hiring hall, and we are not taking applications.’ The sign didn’t actually say, go away, but that was the implication. She walked away and I stood there alone. I asked around, and it was pretty clear that the Guild at that point was a pretty closed shop. But, in retrospect, that made me go and work on low-budget films, where I was able to hone my craft. No matter how bad the scripts were, someone was paying for 100,000 feet of film for me to experiment with and expose. I would create all kinds of challenges for myself that I probably would never have been able to do had I gotten into the Hollywood mainstream. I would say, okay I’m going to light that set with three lights and two practical lamps because that was all we had time and money to do.  

ICG: What was your first Guild Film?

CUNDEY: Escape From New York. We started prepping it and about halfway through, John (Carpenter) and Deborah (Hill) said it was going to be an Avco Embassy Film release, and they were a signatory  so we were all going to have to join our respective Guilds. That was no problem for me because I felt I was ready to move into mainstream Hollywood films.

ICG.: So you didn’t start out like an assistant to an operator?

CUNDEY: No, I started at the top, and it forced me into learning and making the decisions about cinematography. I made all of the mistakes that can happen. Of course, when I began shooting, I also loaded and usually operated the camera, though I usually had an assistant. But, I never had the experience of working as an operator or assistant with other cinematographers.

 ICG: How did you get involved with all those visual effects movies?

CUNDEY: I worked on films early in my career that that had some matte shots, and things like that but I guess it started with the Back to the Future films with Bob Zemeckis. It felt very natural for me, and I guess part of it is the fact that one of the things which intrigued me about film in the first place, was the creation of illusions and being able to take the audience somewhere they can’t go in real life. Visual effects just seemed to be a natural extension of that kind of filmmaking. I just began learning all about the visual effects. I’ve always been technically oriented in the sense that I’ve wanted to know how things work. I’ve always enjoyed science and engineering and found it a very natural part of filmmaking. I got interested in computers early on when they first started making home models like the Tandy Model 3 and so on. I was never intimidated by them. My son was very interested in computers, and even when he was very young, he was teaching me things about them.

ICG: You also did some of the first films that had synthetic characters.

CUNDEY: Maybe in contemporary times, but they did King Kong a long time ago. Adding animated characters to films is one of the magical things we can do easier today. I’ve always been interested in animation. In fact, I collect animation art and have been intrigued by the process. When I heard that Bob Zemeckis was going to make Who Framed Roger Rabbit, I hoped he would ask me to shoot it. It was actually a lot of fun and the experience I gained was a valuable commodity. After Roger Rabbit, I was invited to shoot many other visual effects films. I was also invited to shoot a lot of commercials with animated characters and live-action film.

ICG: Were you ever concerned about being typecast?

CUNDEY: It’s easy to be typed in this business, whether you’re an actor, director, cinematographer or production designer. It is a compliment in some ways. It recognizes the fact that you did a good job on something people appreciated. I guess I got typed as someone who works on big effects films. But, earlier in my career. I was typed as someone who did low-budget films. I also did a couple that were musicals, and I started getting calls about that. I did some action films, and after I did Halloween, I got calls to do a lot of horror films.

ICG: I know you have done some directing of TV movies (Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves) and commercials. Are you trying to have a dual career?

CUNDEY: Directing commercials and occasional movies gives me an insight into another way of thinking. You come to appreciate the challenges a director faces in dealing with all of those people. But, I think of myself primarily as a cinematographer. One of the nice things about being a cinematographer is that you work on a lot more films than most directors do. If you are a director, you can spend two years on a film, and a cinematographer can work on three, four or five films in that period. We tend to get exposed to more types of films. I think that’s important, because it gives you more experience and more opportunities to experiment with different looks and techniques. I even shot a 3-D film (Honey, I shrunk the Audience) for a Disney theme park. That was very interesting.           

ICG: You participated in the CamerImage Festival in Torun, Poland, this summer. That is one of the festivals dedicated to advancing the art of cinematography. What were your impressions?

CUNDEY: I really enjoyed the CamerImage festival because it gave me a chance to meet and talk with filmmakers from different parts of the world. It was fascinating hearing the different points of views on various issues. We also saw, I think, 22 student films from all over the world. You can see differences in perceptions and sensibilities of student filmmakers from different countries.

ICG: How were they different?

CUNDEY: A successful filmmaker draws on his or her own experience, so when you come from a different country, your cultural background and sensibilities are different. That affects how you see the world and how you create images. There were some real interesting differences.

ICG: Could you give us an example?

CUNDEY: Two of the films that we (the judges) chose as finalists were from students from the Polish film school at Lodt. One of the concerns we had was that people would think they were selected because the competition is in Poland, but the reality was their visual style was very sophisticated. They have smaller budgets to work with, so maybe they learn how to concentrate on telling stories with images. The films from students at this school were amazingly interesting and they all dealt with darker and more somber subjects than even the most serious films from England and the U.S.

ICG: What kind of questions did the students ask you?

CUNDEY: That was interesting, because film is such a universal language that we all learn the grammar and it tends to transcend national and political boundaries. Verbally, we speak and write in different languages or dialects, but visually the principals are the same. We had students from many different countries all asking the same questions. They wanted to know if I have a style, and where it comes from? The questions were very practical, and a lot of it was about the collaborative process. They’d ask how I collaborate with directors? Who’s in charge of what? They’re fascinated with that topic. They all wanted to know is what it is like to work with a Steven Spielberg or a Bob Zemeckis.

ICG.: Are they optimistic or pessimistic about their future?

CUNDEY:  One of the questions, and certainly one of the most frequent questions recently, is about the future of cinematography. What role will we play? Will there be cinematographers in the future or will everything be done with computers?

ICG: How do you answer those questions? They are reading and hearing that you don’t have to light with digital cameras, and that everything can be fixed or changed in digital post. How does that bode for the future of cinematography?

CUNDEY: My answer is that everything changes all the time. In the old days they had cameras with hand cranks that ran black-and-white film at 16 frames per second. Look at all of the progress we’ve made with films, lenses and cameras. All of these things would seem to point to the fact that maybe you don’t need artificial light for exposure anymore. It’s not just digital cameras. You can just go out with a really fast lens and film and shoot just about anyplace at anytime. But I don’t think anyone who knows anything about filmmaking denies the fact that the films that are the most compelling and moving for an audience are the ones that are constructed by creative people. Great films are rarely about recording reality unless they are documentaries. They are about heightening and interpreting reality. Cinematographers aren’t just people who know the secret of how to expose film.

The reality is we play a creative role. It requires understanding how to use light, shadows, colors and the properties of lenses and camera movement, all working together to tell stories that have emotional content. The audience expects that language we speak to be a part of the film. They may not know we are doing it but they react to the way we use light to tell stories. Maybe someday there will be another image capturing medium that is better than, or equal to film but I believe there will always be a need for somebody to be the visualist, or what I think of as a cinematographer.

ICG: Do you think cinematographers will play a role in digital post?

CUNDEY: I believe that digital post is another tool that allows us to extend the image creation that we do. It behooves us to learn about computers and how the digital process can be used to alter images to tell stories. When I was shooting Jurassic Park I worked with (visual effects director) Dennis Muren (ASC) to figure out eyelines and where shadows should falls for digital characters who were added to the scene later. Those of us who have worked in commercials understand how our film is converted to digital format and how you can alter the images. If it makes the storytelling better, we should embrace and understand digital post technology. I look forward to participating in digital post as part of what we do when we are creating images.

ICG: Do you think it has to be a hard sell convincing producers and directors that cinematographers have a role to play in the digital suite?

CUNDEY: I think that the wise producers and directors realize there are people who are very tuned to the visual image, and they will want someone like us to be involved in overseeing the creation of images from the beginning to the end. Of course, it’s possible to cut the cinematographer out of postproduction, but that seems very shortsighted. Some directors have a very strong sense of visuals right from the beginning, and they make a strong imprint on the look of the film. But, the best of those directors, like Steven Spielberg and Bob Zemeckis, still want the cinematographer involved. There are also a lot of directors who are storytellers who concentrate on the actors and their performances, and they tend to rely on the cinematographer to interpret the mood and look of the film. One of the lessons I’ve learned over the years is that filmmaking is a collaborative art, and it really does require a lot of people to tell great stories. Digital technology is just another tool.

ICG: I know that you have shot some tests at Cinesite with digital intermediate technology. What’s that about, and what role do you see it playing in the future?

CUNDEY: I think this is a very promising next step for cinematographers. I shot some big exteriors scenes and we converted the film to digital format using a Phillips Spirit Datacine with new specialized software. You can pre-time the film during this process. Once you have digitized and loaded the images in the computer, you can apply the same picture manipulation principals that are now available in telecine. You can alter contrast, increase the blacks, lower or increase the saturation of colors and make the sky darker or brighter. We experimented with creating different looks, and with changing the time of day. You can do all of those things that we have done with labs in color-timing, only it is much more subtle and selective in the digital suite. You can change just one color in a scene and nothing else. They use a laser recorder to transfer the digital images to color intermediate film, so it is very true to the quality of the original negative. Once you become familiar with these processes, you can apply them to create looks. Say, you are going to make a period film that has desaturated colors or a fantasy that has all of the greens enhanced. You can make a scary thriller where all of the blacks are blacker and the mood is darker. There are a lot of wonderful things that can be done to enhance visual storytelling. It’s another creative tool you can learn to use.

ICG: In fact, I recall doing an interview with you while you were shooting Road House (in 1989). It happened to be a bright sunny day, and you were shooting a big exterior scene. You told me that someday we are going to be able to put all of this film in a computer and change the time of day. So, this isn’t exactly a new concept for you?

CUNDEY: In the old days, the great directors could say, ‘We are going to wait until the sun and the clouds are exactly where we want them to be in the sky before we shoot.’ Today, we have all kinds of tools for making those predictions, including GPS technology. We can predict where the sun will be in the sky at different locations at certain times of day. But, isn’t it wonderful for a cinematographer to know that they have a standard tool enables them to magically alter the sky, darken it, make it bluer, or replace it with a blue sky and white clouds? There are always things that we wished we could do on the day we are shooting that we can now do in post and it will be look and feel real.

ICG: So, it could have economic implications as well as creative?

CUNDEY: I think the economics at first will be a little intimidating for some producers, because it will seem like we are adding another step. Their first reaction is likely to be, ‘This is another one of those things the artistic people want to do to destroy my budget.’ But, I think once we learn how to integrate this (digital intermediate) technology into the process, it won’t be thought of as an additional step above and beyond what we do now, but as part of the chain. It will become part of the process to convert film to digital format and pre-time. The editor will use it for off-line editing. Eventually, digital dailies will come up to par, so we can really see details. We’ll be able to use the computer to create looks and do all of the things we have already discussed, and then output to film. In the end, when it becomes part of the process, the economic impact will probably be relatively small.

ICG: How close do you think this is becoming a reality?

CUNDEY: I think we’ll start to see more people begin experimenting during the next several years. It will probably take a while for digital intermediate technology to become fully integrated and the conventional thing to do. It’s really hard to put timelines on when, and if, something like this becomes a commonplace part of moviemaking, but it wouldn’t surprise me if we see this technology become commonplace during the next three to five years. That’s just my guess, and it doesn’t mean that every picture will be made that way. What it does mean is that if you are a cinematographer, you should understand how to make use of this technology, because it could become a part of your future. It shouldn’t be intimidating, because this is still about using your aesthetic sensibilities, and learning how to use the tools which enable you to communicate with the audience.

ICG:  Do you have a genre that you prefer or does it matter to you?

CUNDEY: I enjoy all kinds of films, although I seem to gravitate towards action, fantasy, adventures or comedies. I don’t think I’ve done a courtroom drama. What I look for today is a good story with good actors and a talented director.

ICG:  Aren’t you preparing for a movie now?

CUNDEY: Yes, I’m preparing for a romantic comedy, starring Mel Gibson, called What Women Want. The director is Nancy Meyers. I worked with her (in 1998) on the new version of The Parent Trap, and I really enjoyed it. She’s a very collaborative director, so when she called and asked if I wanted to work with her and Mel Gibson, it wasn’t a hard decision. The story is set in Chicago. It would have been easy for the studio to decide that Toronto looks like Chicago, but they are going to shoot the exteriors in Chicago, and then the rest of the film will be shot on sound stages in Los Angeles. Needless to say, I am very happy about that decision.

ICG: If you were talking to a UCLA film class now, what advice would you give to young people at the beginnings of their careers? Is there going to be a long-term role for cinematographers and will it be as satisfying aesthetically as it is today?

CUNDEY: I actually talk with students at UCLA a lot. I suppose that is my payback for the cinematographers like James Wong Howe who came in and spoke with us when I was a student. I tell them if you are interested in cinematography or what I call image-capture/image-creation, take as many different kinds of jobs as you can. Work on student films in all capacities, because you can learn something about everybody’s problems and the techniques they use. You also learn to appreciate the roles different people play in the creative process. It shouldn’t matter how small the budget is or how demeaning the work seems. There’s always something new to learn, and part of it is the networking. I don’t know how many times I’ve worked with a production assistant whose main job was getting coffee and called me five or 10 years later, and he’s producing of a film. I know of three well-known producers who have gone through that route. One of the things that you learn is that the networking possibilities are amazing. Be nice to everyone, because you never know where it’s going to lead you or what doors will open and make new opportunities possible. This business is about helping each other get through the day and through your careers while somehow remaining true to the reasons why you got into it business in the first place. If you are interested in the art of filmmaking, there are many times when you will be disappointed, but you will never be bored.

ICG: There are other questions I wanted to ask, including how you have managed to run parallel careers…shooting narrative films and commercials, and how that has influenced you career. I think we have run out of time, so let’s save that for the live chat.

CUNDEY: That gives me time to think of an answer.