| |
Superhuman
Cinematography
Bionic Woman's Style Shake-up Has
D.P. Robert McLachlan Running and Gunning
By Bryant Frazer
Robert McLachlan knows a thing or two about TV.
As a cinematographer with dual U.S. and Canadian
citizenship and both ASC and CSC credentials
he's been a key player on shows including
ABC's MacGyver and Fox's recent Pasadena. His
work on Fox's Millennium earned him three CSC
Awards for outstanding cinematography and three
ASC nominations in the same category. He divides
his time among episodic television, TV commercials
and movies-of-the-week, and feature film work,
generally with a genre edge (Black Christmas,
Final Destination and Final Destination 3). He
recently served time as second-unit director and
cinematographer on the massive New Line production
of The Golden Compass as well as photographing
miniatures for Journey 3D, an upcoming 24p HD
release.
But right now he's hard at work on NBC's Bionic
Woman, a re-imagining of a TV classic that's throwing
its crew some curveballs the creative team
and the visual style were dramatically revamped
in the weeks leading up to its premiere this week.
McLachlan didn't shoot the show's original pilot,
which aired last night, but he did handle the
extensive reshoots that were done to retool the
story and characters and is shooting subsequent
episodes.
Film & Video caught up with McLachlan on
the set last weekend, as he was shooting tests
to gauge the effect of swapping out the show's
35mm cameras for a more lightweight 16mm arsenal,
a potential strategy to match the show's new handheld
look. He talked cameras and lenses, described
a signature lighting effect he developed on Millennium
(and later used for Jet Li movie The One) that
uses strobes to add a unique texture to action
scenes, and talked candidly about his new mandate
to forget about making the show look pretty.
As F&V went to press, McLachlan emailed to
say, "I have seen the cut of our first episode
and, apart from some lighting issues on the leads,
I'm quite happy with it. It seems to be working
and everyone is now quite happy." Good news.
 

Clairmont strobe lights
flashing at 1/50,000th of a second were used to
get shots that included super-sharp edges in the
same frame with motion blur.
F&V: What cameras are you using on Bionic
Woman, and how was that decision made?
ROBERT MCLACHLAN: I'm using Moviecams from Clairmont
Camera, with 3-perf movements taken from Arricams.
We would prefer Arricams, but the budget won't
allow it. We are framing for 16:9 and transferring
in HD I have been a proponent of that since
the first HD telecines were introduced. I have
always been an early adopter of any technological
advancement that can speed up the process, improve
quality, and save money. Shooting 35mm and transferring
in HD is very forgiving. It means you can push
the stock a stop and still have great, clean-looking
images. Having said that, much of that quality
is due to how good the new Kodak stocks are. Ive
used Moviecams a lot, ever since Millennium in
the mid-1990s, and Ive been in love with
5229 since it was introduced because it is low
contrast but has amazing overexposure latitude.
Just amazing. I've shot it and pushed it a stop
for theatrical features, and a lot of people said
the pushed scenes looked better than those shot
at normal process. If you push it and do an HD
transfer to tape, it's like shooting clean 1000
ISO. Incredible. In the final telecine I can dial
in whatever extra contrast I want that wouldn't
be there in the original neg printed normally.
I shoot the whole show exterior and night
and interior on it because whenever you
mix stocks it shows. The texture and contrast
are different, it means you have to carry more
mags, it's more work for the crew and there is
more waste.
How about lenses?
I'm shooting with Cooke S4i prime lenses. I've
always adored Cooke glass and am a huge fan of
the new ones. In fact I'm carrying an old set
of Cooke Series III Century Macro primes for close
up work, along with a complete set of new S4is.
I shoot a lot of big FX movies and the VFX guys
tell me that the Cookes are so amazingly sharp
it's easy to pull very clean mattes off green
screens, and yet they have a "roundness"
to them that is just gorgeous and very flattering
to actors. They also offer an amazing range of
focal lengths. I own a basic set of seven, and
the rest come from Clairmont. The thing about
Cookes is they are not too contrasty. In telecine,
it's easy to add contrast but hard to reduce it.
They are the perfect lenses. Brilliant! If they
werent, I wouldn't have $150,000 of my own
money invested in them.
Whats your approach to lighting?
I carry a pretty basic movie lighting package.
I love the new LitePad light panels from Rosco
and use the new Arri T12 spotlights a lot. The
really unique thing were doing is using
the Clairmont strobe system lights that
fire at 1/50,000th of a second to get our
action looks. Its a technique I first used
for the main characters visions on Millennium
10 years ago. We would shoot with strobe lights
at 12 fps and then print it back to 24. Anything
lit with the strobes would be very sharp, but
anything lit with conventional light would have
a great deal of motion blur. It was especially
good for violent action, so you got a lot of blur
and a lot of sharpness all in the same frame.
Were using that now at 24 fps for some of
our fight scenes, and its a really amazing
look. If you use it as a backlight, whats
lit with it will look extremely sharp. And what
you have lit conventionally has a lot of motion
blur. What you end up with entirely in
camera is absolutely crystal-clear sharpness,
like youd get with a 45-degree shutter or
if you were shooting at a very high frame rate.
But at the same time you also get the motion blur
that gives you a sense of speed and power. Thats
the unique trick were using on the show.
I used it on a feature we did with Jet Li called
The One. When youve got a tight visual effects
budget and you want something that looks cool
and unique, its something you can do in
camera. It comes out of the lab looking heavily
manipulated, but its done in camera. Personally,
I love the look of it. The lights were originally
designed for beer pours anything with liquid,
or doing ice-cream commercials where the product
would melt under normal lights.
Initially we started off shooting 35mm, as you
would any big Hollywood flagship network show,
but theres been sort of a change of regime.
The guys theyve brought in are used to shooting
in 16 and HD, and they want to throw out all the
conventional rules of filming keeping on
axis, nicely lit close-ups, smooth camera moves.
They want to shoot it where youre off axis,
giving it a feeling like youve just barely
caught the action. I think that comes out of the
new showrunners experience on Friday Night
Lights. But the reason they shoot that show
or David Eicks Battlestar Galactica
that way is because they initially had extremely
tight schedules and it was the only way they had
any hope of getting the show in the can. On this
show, the schedule isnt that tight and we
could shoot it in a more glossy, big-feature way,
but theyve decided they want to eschew that.
 
Robert McLachlan: "In
a scene where a wounded Jaime and cohort hide
out in a Paraguayan warehouse, I just augmented
some green neons in the storefront and gave them
found flashlights to light the rest of the scene."
What have your discussions about the look
been like?
My initial discussions about the look of the show
were with Glen Morgan, the show-runner, whom I
have worked with before. He wanted it to be the
same sort of very well-crafted, artful show that
Millennium was, for instance. Absolutely cinematic
and high class. We set out to make Jaime's apartment
warm and stable, and the farther we strayed from
it the more murky and unstable the images would
become with more and more handholding,
etc., as dramatically required. Handholding can
add a real edge to action or tense scenes, and
that was our M.O. for the first four episodes.
Unfortunately, Glen left due to creative differences
with the other producer, David Eick, who wanted
it to be all handheld and rather ropey and documentary-ish.
This is quite hard to accomplish in 35mm. Eick
brought in another producer from Friday Night
Lights, Jason Katims, who re-wrote the first 3
episodes and has had us shooting three cameras
non-stop all handheld, all scenes, at all
times. Like Friday Night Lights, they don't care
about axis or eyeline or lighting, especially.
It's impossible to make an actor or set look good
from three opposing angles at once unless it's
lit like a Wal-Mart, so I sort of had to throw
out the artful, cinematic style and
revert to old documentary shooting and lighting,
where you use whatever light is there and augment
it a bit. They threw out the first episode after
the pilot and combined it with stuff from the
second to create a new first episode after a lot
of re-shooting.
I think the style is going to be pretty visually
eclectic. For me, great cinematography is unnoticable.
It helps tell the story by drawing the eye using
composition and light. That's not what we're doing
any more. They are talking about going to 16mm,
because we're shooting more than 20,000 feet of
film in 3-perf format per day and that's a lot
of money.
Did you ever consider shooting HD instead
of film?
For a show like this its in the studio
a little bit, but its all action. Its
going to be shooting in Vancouver in the wintertime.
We want a very fluid camera and the ability to
move quickly. You just cant do that with
a Sony F950 and they cant afford
the F23 or the Genesis. If you want to move really
quickly, 16mm is still by far the best way to
go. Super 16 with an HD transfer looks pretty
good, and you can work really quickly with it.
You can work in all kinds of circumstances and
stick them in all kinds of places, because HD
cameras are quite big by comparison. Today Im
shooting tests in 16mm to do side-by-side with
our 35mm. Up to this point it looks really great.
I dont have a problem going to 16 because
I started in 16, shooting documentaries way back
when. Thats the big change that you might
see by episode six.
Would that dramatically change your approach
to lighting, or the way you would use the strobes?
It wouldnt change what you do with the Clairmont
strobes, because they tie in with the camera and
fire once per frame no matter what frame rate
youre shooting at. Id probably find
myself wanting to use a bit more fill light here
and there to avoid letting things be too contrasty.
Thats what 16 needs; its just not
as forgiving as 35mm stock not even the
7229, which is the 16 version of the 5229 Im
using for the show.
Would a more self-consciously run-and-gun
shooting style make your job more difficult, or
a little easier in some ways?
Once we get it set up, I'll have to let go of
it as far as lighting is concerned. The director
from Friday Night Lights [Jonas Pate] wants what
he calls universal or global
lighting, where you throw light all over
the set, let the actors move around in it, and
shoot it from every conceivable angle, repeatedly,
over and over, so they have dozens of shots. Normally
youd do five nicely crafted shots to cover
a scene. Theyre doing it with as many as
a dozen or 20 setups that they can cut together
however they feel the scene works best.
Does it end up being a faster way of working,
with less careful setups?
It can be a faster way of working, but because
youre doing so many more setups, the time
you might have spent lighting it and building
a nice composition you spend instead shuffling
all the cameras around so you can do more angles.
Do you operate camera yourself?
Sometimes, but mostly Ive got guys who are
very good operators. Were still shooting
35, so the cameras are really heavy. Its
pretty physically taxing. At the end of the day
my operators are absolutely wasted. Initially
the visual template for the show was Children
of Men, which was heavily handheld but with non-sync
sound, using very lightweight 35mm cameras, and
then post-dubbed. We cant post-dub, so the
guys are using Moviecam Compacts, which are pretty
light, but its still a lot to have on your
shoulder 12 or 15 hours a day. The camera operators
are amazing, but, man, theyre getting beat
up.
Just pulling focus under those conditions has
to be hard.
Its a nightmare for the focus-pullers because
you dont get rehearsals and the operators
and actors are never necessarily standing in the
same place. Its a real pain for them. But
they were given quite explicit instructions by
the director [Pate], who said he doesnt
care if its in focus. Theyll use the
out-of-focus stuff, too which is a good
thing because when youre working under those
circumstances, a lot of it isnt.
Anything else we havent covered?
Its one of the nicest casts Ive ever
worked with. Michelle Ryan is a dream. Shes
incredibly professional, and I think whether the
shows a hit or not shell end up being
a star. Shes first rate. And the supporting
cast is outstanding, too. Thats a plus.
Its a bit of an adjustment for the rest
of the crew. Everyone has traditionally been trained
to get the nicest, cleanest images they can get,
and now were told No, we dont
care if its in focus. Its sort
of a non-directing approach, too. They dont
really block [the scenes], so its a bit
confusing for the actors. What were hearing
from the editing room is that its working
so I guess thats what well
keep doing.
It sounds like your own jury is out on how
this is going to work in the long run.
Its not really the show that I signed on
for. If they do go to 16 its kind of a step
backwards for me. Im not that sure Id
stick with it if they do. Ive just come
from directing and shooting second unit on a $200
million movie [The Golden Compass] and I did all
the miniature work for a big 3D movie [Journey
3D]. I came in here mainly because it was going
to let me sleep in my own bed. I have a house
in Vancouver and one in L.A., and my work has
been everywhere but there for the last couple
of years. Whats happening is interesting
but its a big show, and if the elements
come together its going to be pretty cool.
September 27, 2007 Source: Film
& Video
Photos courtesy Robert McLachlan
|
|