SOC Interview with Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC

From the Spring 1995 issue of the Operating Cameraman

Click thumbnails for larger view

The great body of work by one of the premier cinematographers of the world, Vilmos Zsigmond, two-time Academy Award winner, moves across the cinema screen in a slow and majestic waltz of gorgeous lighting and rich tones. DELIVERANCE, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, HEAVEN'S GATE, THE LONG GOODBYE, McCABE AND MRS MILLER, THE DEER HUNTER, THE TWO JAKES and most recently MAVERICK, are a few of the films where his camera has moved the cinematic experience, always to new heights. Last spring, Director of Photography Vilmos Zsigmond graciously accepted our offer to speak to the SOC at our quarterly luncheon. The ambiance was warm as Zsigmond took the podium at the Sportsman's Lodge in Studio City. Vilmos spoke right to the point on hard issues facing cinematographers working in a tumultuous motion picture industry today. He invoked warm laughter from the appreciative group. The questions put forward were from the floor of the general membership of the Society of CameraOperators.

Vilmos: I would just like to start by talking about my past and my present. I studied cinematography in Hungary. Over there the system we used was one where we operated our own cameras.

When I came to the United States in 1959, for ten years I didn't do any filming. I didn't have any money and I had to learn English. I had to get into the union, things like that. I worked in a still photo lab. I was doing a lot of printing. I don't know if Phil Stern remembers, he is with us today, I was enlarging his pictures.

For many years actually. I remember he photographed Marilyn Monroe, just before she died. I remember printing Phil's pictures all night, because there was a deadline. These pictures of Marilyn Monroe made history.

Later on I became a cameraman, and I always wanted to operate my own camera. During those days, I got away with it because I did only low budget pictures and they couldn't afford an operator anyway.

Eventually I got into the union and the union started to fight us, that we could not operate a camera. There were a lot of articles written in the trade papers about this problem. One of the most famous was about Laszlo Kovacs.

LAZLO'S VIOLIN

Laszlo Kovacs, a friend of mine, a Hungarian also, had escaped with me from Hungary. He always operated his camera on his low budget movies and now the union would not allow it. This article said that Laszlo felt as if they had taken away his violin. He meant that the camera is the cinematographer's violin, and now he couldn't play his violin.

I love this story very much. They were shooting in San Francisco. The next day his assistant put up a big sign on the Panavision camera that said, "Laszlo's Violin." Some tourists were walking by and said, "Look, they're shooting a movie! What's the title of the movie?" "Can't you see? It's called Laszlo's Violin."

I started to shoot more and more features. I had an assistant cameraman named Nick McLean. He wanted to move up; he wanted to operate. He said, "I will only be your operator if you let me operate all the shots."

Before that I used to hire operators and I'd tell them many times, "Listen, I want to operate this shot." They didn't mind because it was an understanding from the beginning that I did like to do that. Nick said, "I'm not going to do what other operators are doing. If I'm your operator I will operate all the shots."

That's when basically I started to change my whole opinion. You can be a better cinematographer if you can have an operator beside you who not only can do your shots as well as you do, but will also give you more time to do other things. Working with Nick, I had more time to think about the lighting. More time to think about the next set up and to prepare the next shot. He became my closest collaborator on the set.

I had more time for the politics as well. You know, many times we have to stand behind the director in discussions. With production people if you operate your camera, you lose time to get involved. In our profession it is very important to have a good relationship with the director. A good operator can help tremendously to develop that relationship.

Ray de la Motte is here. He has been operating for me for a long time. We've done around 8 or 10 pictures together. I must say Ray's a terrific operator; that's besides the point. He also helps my relationship with everybody on the set. That means we have a better set.

You can see how the operator can be a liaison between the director and the cameraman. That's very important. It happened on a feature once when I got angry and wanted to quit. Sometimes when you are angry you don't know what you do.

Ray came to me and said, "Vilmos, you want us all to go home? We will suffer financially, but it will be worse for your career. Think about it. I know you can solve this problem between the director and you. Besides he needs you. We're not going to do this picture without you."

Sometimes your operator is also your closest friend. One final thought to the operators present. I think a lot of you. I give you back the violin. This way I can be a better conductor of the orchestra, and with your help we will play better music.

ASPECT RATIOS

There is a lot of discussion nowadays about what is the film format of the future. I know everyone has an opinion on this. I'm going to give you mine. I think the future format should be a 2:1 ratio. The future High Def TV format should be 2:1. Inside the 2:1 format screen you can present all kinds of formats.

The old movies, 1.33:1 would fit into the middle. The 1.85:1 would fit almost into the whole area. The only problem we have is the anamorphic format. What are we going to do with all the anamorphic films shot until now? There's not much we can do about it. We can reduce them with letter-boxing, or lose a little from the sides. Pan and scan, when it is necessary.

If the 2:1 format will be adopted, I would like to propose that we shoot our anamorphic pictures in the new 2:1 ratio. All we have to do is to change the anamorphizer in our camera lenses and in the projection equipment. We should also project the 2:1 ratio movies in the theaters as well as on HDTV, or any other TV in the future.

SOC: What has been shot in the 2:1 ratio?

Vilmos: Most of the 65mm movies (which become 70mm prints) are shown in the theaters basically with a 2:1 ratio. Anamorphic pictures blown up to 70mm, also are shown close to the 2:1 ratio. All the big pictures that have been shot before, or would be shot in the future on 65mm, could handle that ratio very easily.

SOC: Would that be incompatible with the HDTV they are suggesting now?

Vilmos: Definitely. Sony is proposing a 1.78:1 ratio format, which will be butchering all the movies shot in either 1.85, 65mm or in 2.35:1 anamorphic format. All past, present and future wide screen movies have to be letter-boxed.

I think there is a great resistance from people with television sets at home who hate those black bars on the top and bottom on their screens. They can't get used to it. They feel they are being cheated because the picture is vertically too small. I can understand them; I feel somewhat the same way. I have a 27-inch TV at home. When I see a letter-boxed program, I have to move my chair closer to see the image.

If I had a 2:1 wide screen TV at home I wouldn't feel cheated if I was looking at a little bit of black spaces on the sides. And it only would happen with the old 1.33:1, 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 ratio programs. The 2:1 ratio would definitely give advantage for the most important old wide screen and for the future 2:1 wide screen movies.

SOC: What hope do you have getting acceptance of the 2:1 format when most of the engineering for the past 5 years has been working to get the 1.78 ratio accepted?

Vilmos: I have no idea about that. I really don't know how we got into this mess. It puzzles me. I don't know where cinematographers were at all when all this was decided. Nobody asked about our opinions. I know we never had a meeting about it, We never knew what was happening. Suddenly they have decided for us and tell us what the ratio will be. I don't have an answer for that. It seems like we slept through five years without realizing what was happening to us.

SOC: Do you think the boat has left the harbor, so to speak?

Vilmos: I hope not. We all have to get together on this issue. I don't think we have the same opinion. I think all cinematographers in the world should get together, including operators and assistants as well. I would like to see you composing in the 2:1 format rather than in the 1.78:1 format. The images are more interesting on wide screen, and if there ever will be electronic projections in cinemas, the 1.78:1 ratio would really become a step backward in the art of cinema.

SOC: The way I understand the way they came up with the 1.78 format was that one gentleman sat down with all the formats available and put them together. It was more of a compromise between the 1.66 and the 1.85, and that the 1.78 used more of all the frames.

Vilmos: That's exactly what happened. Instead of looking back at the most important pictures of the past, which were mostly shot in anamorphic or in 65mm. There were hundreds of pictures shot in wide screen format. We should not compromise the showing of these pictures.

SOC: What are your feelings on the 3-perf pull-down in 35mm? Do you see a resurgence in that?

Vilmos: I think the 3-perf could be a great format because we can make that work for the 2:1 anamorphic format. Without anamorphic lenses there is enough information in 3-perf to make the quality. Better than today's super 35 shot for anamorphic, using basically 2-perf size negative area.

SOC: The SOC was able to attend the Artists Rights Seminar in Los Angeles. The role of the cinematographer as a co-author of a picture was addressed. What are your views on that aspect?

Vilmos: I always felt that in the United States, the cinematographers are not always considered as artists. We are believed to be technicians. They put us "Below-the-Line," paid by the hour or days. There is a trend that producers and directors want to push us aside. It's a movement we should fight against.

Years ago, through my agent, we fought to have the cameraman's name on the poster, like it was in Europe, where the cinematographer's recognition comes first after the director. Producers don't realize how many people want to know who the cinematographer was.

Movie audiences are more educated today than before, and thousands of film school graduates and cinema magazine readers want to know who shot the movie. This maybe sounds like a joke, but technically, you could make a movie without a director; but try and make a movie without a cinematographer.

You need an image; someone who knows how to expose, light and compose, a picture. You need a person who is a technician and an artist; you need the cinematographer. You look at a movie poster today and you see the name of the composer, the production designer, the producer one, producer two, friends of the producers, etc. Compared to those people, the cinematographer is doing a million times more work than all those people, whose names are printed on the posters.

SOC: On that line, how do you feel about having your work panned and scanned for TV?

Vilmos: I hate it. I get angry when I see my old films on television. All my old movies, even my low budget movies, were shot in the anamorphic format. In the old days, they weren't even panning and scanning. They were just cutting the hell out of them. There were some two-shots, when there wasn't anybody in the picture. Even with today's pan and scan sometimes they make cuts back and forth between two actors. They alter these movies so much that I can't look at them. About five years ago, I started to shoot more 1.85 movies. But now I am convinced we should not give up the idea of wide screen.

SOC: How do you approach composition?

Vilmos: Wow! Maybe we could take 5 hours to discuss that.

SOC: Especially in widescreen, where in a closeup you still have two-thirds of the screen to fill.

Vilmos: That's interesting. Some people, who never have shot widescreen, they are afraid of doing it because it's new for them. I found out after a couple low budget pictures, how much easier it is to compose in anamorphic.

It's easier to tell a story on a wide screen because you can have a closeup and a long shot at the same time. With one person on the left side in a closeup, on the right side you can have some more important information, scenic or moving, without cutting to it.

It is a great format, you don't have to start with a long shot and cut to a closeup, then go to a medium shot. In one shot, you can tell the story. If you have good directors, who can stage well, the widescreen format doesn't force them into unnecessary cuts. They will use cuts to speed up pacing of scenes, basically for dramatic and artistic reasons. Sometimes you help the production designer and the director. You have to fill the frame with composed elements. If that doesn't happen you have a lousy composition.

SOC: You've worked with many directorial types. How do you feel about directors who want to position the cameras?

Vilmos: You could start with the English system. I hate it. In the English system, the director usually talks to the operator only. As a cinematographer I would like to control everything that has to do with the image. That means composition, camera movement, lighting. Everything that belongs to a frame. I could not do that in the English system.

The director totally ignores your lighting problems. Some directors have all the ideas. I can accept that, I always said: it doesn't really matter in a film who does what. There are many different kinds of directors. Some directors know it all. You take Kubrick, for example. He knows everything. He'll light the set. He'll operate the camera himself. He'll do everything. I don't know what cinematographers can do when they are working with Kubrick.

I would feel left out of the creative process. There are certain directors who don't need any help because they are geniuses. They know all the answers and they can do everything! Steven Spielberg is probably one of them, who by now knows everything. He even wants to operate the camera most of the time.

I know how much fun it is to be able to see the movie through the camera. That's why I was operating for so long and I didn't want to give it up. Steven is in a position he can demand that joy for himself.

As a cinematographer you should use everybody around you to make a better picture. That's why you have gaffers, key grips, camera operators and assistant cameramen. They all should contribute to the movie making. It is a collaborative art form. If directors don't want my help, there is nothing I can do about it. I would just step back and help them as much as I can without them knowing it. True, I don't feel as creative because they are doing part of my job. But if that's what they want, they have the right to do so.

SOC: What pictures have been your most gratifying experiences?

Vilmos: I think the films I did with Robert Altman, because he gave me enough space to use my creative abilities, and to help him. We played together like a couple of jazz musicians; also with directors Mark Rydell, John Borman, Michael Cimino. I've been lucky because most of the directors I worked with wanted my help, and I felt creative. The best directors know how to make you feel important. They know how to make everyone around them creative.

SOC: You just come off of shooting MAVERICK. Could you tell us something about that picture?

Vilmos: I think about MAVERICK as a good movie. It was pleasant to shoot it. Dick Donner is fun to work with; we had comedy on the set. We had a great time. We had good actors; good crew members. We also had fantastic locations; among the best was Yosemite National Park. We got there just after the tourist season, just as the leaves started to turn, and we captured them in a few days of shooting. It was gorgeous. This kind of movie is pleasant to watch, because the scenery is beautiful. Wonderful acting, good story, fine directing. People want to be entertained. What more can you expect? The director let me do my job, and I let my crew do their job. That's the secret for success. I hope MAVERICK is going to be successful.