Post-Chat Q & A with John Toll

The following questions were submitted during our chat with John Toll, but went unanswered during the session due to time constraints.

Hassygirl:
Mr. Toll, would you tell us how you started in the film business and the steps that you took in learning to photograph motion pictures?

John Toll:
Please see the interview I did with Bob Fisher that is available on this web site.

Lucio O:
John, Who is your biggest inspiration? Were you ever influenced by any Italian Directors of Photography or any DP?

John Toll:
I think most cinematographers have many sources of inspiration. I have always greatly admired the work of Gregg Toland, John Alton, James Wong Howe, Arthur Miller, and Freddie Young in terms of historical cinematographers. There are many contemporary cinematographers whose work I greatly respect, among them are Conrad Hall, Jordan Crononweth, Vittorio Storaro, Gordon Willis, Owen Roizman, Allen Daviau, Caleb Deschanel, and Chris Menges.

Shaun4:
Mr. Toll I am a very big fan your work on Braveheart and The Thin Red Line has inspired me to pursue Cinematography. I have been trying to volunteer with local film companies (Florida) but they seem to be reluctant to give someone with no experience a chance to assist on jobs. So I have been trying to teach myself cinematography. As you know film equipment is expensive. What alternatives could someone like me use to teach myself the art of cinematography?

John Toll:
Ideally you should not try to teach yourself. If you can afford to get some type of formal training, no matter how little, through a university or vocational film school it would be a good idea. If you need to work and can't afford school you need to get some type of job in the film business, any job, even if it isn't working with cameras, and then try to connect with people in the camera departments. Simultaneously, I would learn the fundamentals of photography any way that you can, starting with research and then buying cameras you can afford, both film still cameras and any type of motion picture camera you can manage to get hold of, including inexpensive video cameras. The more you are involved with creating any type of images with a camera, the more prepared you will be for opportunities that might present themselves.

Lighter:
Mr. Toll, what factors do you consider before you accept to shoot a film?

John Toll:
I think the script and the Director are the two most important factors in choosing a project. Ideally, I would like only to work on films that tell stories I am interested in telling and to work with Directors who have that same interest. The budget, the cast, the setting, and all of the other various elements are also very important of course, but I feel they come after the script and Director in terms of priorities.

Jon:
Mr. Toll, do you feel that all light in a picture must be motivated? Why or why not?

John Toll:
No, I think lighting just needs to look interesting. Of course, more often than not motivated light does look interesting and helps enormously in creating a feeling of reality and naturalism, which in my mind is always a good idea. But I don't believe in a hard and fast rule that lighting needs to be motivated. I think the only necessary justification for lighting, or for any other cinematic technique, is that it enhances the look of the film.

Stan:
Mr. Toll, what do you do to help keep lighting continuity?

John Toll:
I think lighting continuity best comes out of having a concept about what the source of the light might be. In trying to maintain lighting continuity it helps to imagine what type of source might have created the mood or effect you are trying to create, and refer to that idea in making decisions about continuity. But, as in the idea of motivated light, I don't think it's necessary to justify your source, as much as use the idea of it as a concept and a reference for continuity.

JaCro:
Mr. Toll, compromises are bound to happen all the time, but, in your opinion, does there come a point when you feel it's more important to maintain the quality of the photography at the risk of slowing down the production? For example; if an actor is only available for a certain time; will you cut corners in your work to maintain the schedule?

John Toll:
I think most cinematographers feel there is never enough time to do what they would really like to do. Ultimately we must be responsible to both the imagery as well as schedule and budgets. Personally, I like to move along at a good pace while trying to make every scene as visually interesting as possible. I try to do this within a reasonable amount of time that is consistent with the overall schedule, providing the schedule is realistic. If I encounter a situation that needs more time, I usually take the extra time. If you are going to lose an actor, etc., then you sometimes
cut corners. I think I can honestly say that I have been consistently on schedule on all of my pictures. However, I did have one experience where a shot was added to a sequence just as the actor was on the way out the door to catch a plane. To complete the shot in the time we had to do it would have compromised the shot beyond the point that I felt was acceptable. I just started to light the shot the way it needed to be lit. The AD kept saying the actor needed to leave so I told him that was OK and maybe it was best that he leave because we weren't ready to shoot and he was probably going to miss his plane. This went on for a few minutes while we continued to prepare the shot and eventually things got very uncomfortable for everyone, but I took the time I needed to make it an acceptable shot. I never did find out if he made the plane. I guess the point is that you always try to do your best in trying to be responsible to the quality of the images as well as the budget and schedule. But it's a good idea to set a standard for yourself where you draw the line. I think everyone needs to figure out for themselves what level of compromise is appropriate for them.

B-Roller:
Mr. Toll, what advantages and disadvantages have you encountered on a picture with a director who wants to improvise scenes?

John Toll:
Improvisation seems to either work brilliantly or is a complete disaster. If you have a great deal of time and don't necessarily need the scene to be in the film then it can be great fun to improvise. If it works, great, if it doesn't, no loss. It's really hardest on the actors I think. It's usually most successful as a technique when the actors can make it feel natural and real. Photographically, it can be fun and if it's set up correctly allows everyone the opportunity to think on their feet and discover a scene as it's happening.

OP-Paul:
Mr. Toll, as a DoP and with your background as a camera operator, how do you view your relationship with the operator? Is it stressful or awkward not operating and having to waiting until the dailies run the next day to know what you have?

John Toll:
I worked as a camera operator with many different Directors of Photography and I had a great time doing it. As a result, I understand the value of having a good operator and I know how to work with them to everyone's advantage. Rather than finding it stressful or awkward, I find it very beneficial, providing you have the right operator. My operator's name is Mike Thomas and I trust him completely. He worked as my 1st Assistant Cameraman for a long time before becoming an operator and we benefited from that continuity. I am very specific about composition and movement and I trust him as much as if I was doing it myself. If I don't like what he's doing he hears about it, but that doesn't happen very often. And since we are usually using video assist it really isn't necessary to wait for dailies to have a sense of what is happening through the lens.

A-V:
With so much profit for a film relying on video sales, we often have to frame for both theaters, as well as TV; do you feel this weakens your compositions?

John Toll:
I very seldom change composition to anticipate problems in the video transfer. Even on films shot in the 2.35:1 format. I've never really had any significant problems using that method. I don't think you can compose for more than one format at a time and I feel it is pointless to try and compose for both a theater screen and a video screen simultaneously. If we are going to shoot films that will be seen in theaters then this is what we should be composing for. The video colorists I have been working with in feature film video transfers are getting very sophisticated in their ability to pan and scan and I have been amazed at their ability to hide compositional changes within existing camera moves. I feel it is far better to deal with those types of problems in video transfer rather than compromise the compositional integrity of the picture in theatrical release.

2nd Asst:
There has been so much hype about technology changing everything. What do you think are the most important advances in technology? And will it change everything?

John Toll:
It's true that digital technology is changing the way we make films, but it's also true that there has been an enormous amount of hype about how this is taking place and what it means in terms of the quality of the image. I think what is most important in this whole issue is that we stay in touch with the idea that new technology is valuable to us only when it's used as a way to move forward and to improve the quality of our work, not when it is used in ways that might take away from that quality. Digital manipulation of images can be a great tool to improve the quality of films, but I think we need to be very careful. Just because an idea is new doesn't necessarily mean it's an improvement. This applies to the whole range of our work, origination, reproduction, and projection.

I've seen several tests done with the 24P HD cameras. So far I haven't seen done that demonstrated a higher quality image than could be achieved with 35mm film cameras. But, I'm sure the next generation of these cameras will be even more interesting than what we are currently seeing.

The digital intermediate process is also very interesting. This process can be used to help us create wonderful imagery, but only if there is enough time to use it properly. Cinematographers see it's potential as a great creative tool. It allows us to enhance our work in theatrical features in ways we haven't been able to do until now. This color correction process is similar to the color correction process cinematographers have used for years while color correcting their films for video release. However, we have learned that in order to do this work properly, it requires a proper amount of time. This is something that any good, professional video colorist will tell you.

Unfortunately, I've already heard this process described by people working in digital intermediate facilities as a faster, easier way to color time a feature. It might be true that it could be faster and easier, but only if you aren't particularly concerned with how the film looks. If you are, then it takes more time. So, if this process begins to be used as a cheaper, easier, faster way to cut the amount of post-production time for feature films, then we will be moving backwards and doing irreparable harm to the quality of films and definitely not improving them.

Digital projection is another example. I've seen several digital projection system demonstrations and none of them were an improvement on film projection in terms of the quality of the image [i.e. resolution, contrast, and color].

Why are people so eager to replace film projection systems with digital systems before we are sure we are improving the quality of our images and not making them worse? I think it's important that cinematographers, and all filmmakers, continue to be advocates for maintaining the quality of motion picture images. Ultimately, the choice of which type of technology is used to create images should be secondary to the quality of the image itself. I think we will all recognize and embrace a new technology or type of equipment when it is clearly demonstrated that it gives us a superior way to create and display our images. Technological change is inevitable, but it isn't inevitable that it will be positive change unless we are discriminating and
attentive. I keep hearing about all the wonderful things that are coming our way, but I would prefer to see them before I actually change the way that I work.

Rabbit:
Why do you think more films haven't been released with the Technicolor dye transfer process?

John Toll:
Unfortunately, the dye transfer process is more time consuming than the normal color positive printing process. Because of the nature of post-production schedules there is seldom enough time to go through the dye transfer process, which takes an additional 3-4 weeks after the picture has been color timed in the answer print process. It's too bad really because for a theatrical release it is a film process which gives us the absolute highest quality available from any existing technology. When post-production schedules allow for it, there is no better way for a film to
be presented on a large screen. This is the reason Apocalypse Now Redux was released with dye transfer prints.

Jon:
Mr. Toll, no doubt you are familiar with the work of Akira Kurosawa, and his use of deep focus, when he would literally light his day scenes like night scenes. Despite the obvious cost restrictions, why do you think today's filmmakers don't take advantage of deep focus and prefer to cut to images in a scene instead of placing them in the same frame?

John Toll:
Current editing styles have increased the number of cuts in a film and have decreased the amount of time they stay on the screen. I believe that when Akira Kurosawa, or even Orson Welles, used the types of shots you are referring to, those with extreme depth of field, the shot seemed to stay on the screen for quite a while. It was usually a static camera and actors would either move through the frame and everything in frame would be sharp or else they would remain static separated by some distance, but all would remain in focus. It seems the effectiveness of these shots would partially come from their duration on the screen. The shot needed to remain on screen long enough for the audience to be influenced by the power of the technique. I don't think modern filmmakers seem as interested in shooting these types of scenes because using them requires a slower editing rhythm which might seem to effect the overall pace of the film. It also might mean giving up some other angles, like close ups. And many contemporary filmmakers seem to like using quite a few closeups.

Simon Docherty:
Could you offer any details as to the different cuts of The Thin Red Line that were prepared? Were there ever any radically different versions of the film seriously considered or assembled (e.g., the rumored 6-hour version)? Was the final release version always what Mr. Malick intended?

John Toll:
The picture as it was released is really the only version that exists. All other 'versions' were just work in progress and a normal part of the editing process.

verbose pictures:
I loved Louis DeBerniere's novel and was curious about how closely the script for Corelli follows the book. I'd guess you had some really beautiful environments to shoot in. BTW, how's Roger Mitchell doing?

John Toll:
There is a pretty extensive article in the April 2001 issue of American Cinematographer Magazine about the cinematography of Corelli. I hear Roger Michel is doing really well and he did a film in New York in the fall of 2000.

Thaddeus:
You have had the chance to travel to some very exotic places, and film landscapes and genres in many different countries and many different continents. Is there one location, and one film genre that you would like to have filmed but have not gotten the opportunity? If so what are they?

John Toll:
A 1930s picture set in Chicago or a contemporary story set in modern Tokyo.

Jim A:
What was the main decision to shoot Jack and Rainmaker? Was it the script or the chance to work with Copolla? Was it both?

John Toll:
I think every cinematographer I know would jump at the chance to work with Francis Copolla.

Jon:
Mr. Toll, would you shoot a black and white picture if the right script came across your desk? Why or why not?

John Toll:
Yes, I would love to.

FilmOhio:
If you were a 19-year old kid from Cleveland today, how do you think your career path would unfold?

John Toll:
Good Question. I would get some formal training in still photography, both film and digital, as well as cinematography. But not at the expense of a general education. I think it's a mistake and very limiting for young filmmakers to ignore the more traditional aspects of education like literature, art, philosophy, etc. I think it's not particularly popular presently, but it's very important to have a broad based education. And, at some point you would probably need to live in Los Angeles or New York to take advantage of the opportunities you would find in those
places. Whether it makes sense for you to become a cinematographer immediately or to work through the crew system is something you will discover in the process.