Close Encounters with Vilmos Zsigmond (2016) - full transcript

Vilmos, before we sit down,

I'd like to show you
the frame and the light.

I put a 35 mm
as a focal length.

Like this.

All right. All right, all right.

We use a Softbox

with a broadcast on it.

The place is inconvenient.

I've been thinking about that kind of contrast.
Is it open?

With something like this,
by placing the subject to one side.

Do you prefer
that we take the projector out of the frame?



No,
you can leave it in the plan.

Would you like to see
how does that look on the screen?

That's a good idea.

Lower the camera, it will be better.

What do you think of the backlighting?

Sometimes the sun shines
the back of a face.

I like the backlighting
but you mustn't overdo it.

Let's turn it off for a second.

It's off.

Yes, but it's much worse.

You have to be able to draw the silhouette.

- Turn Nathan back on.
- Except with a subject in the dark.

I should be a little higher.

Will two inches be enough?



I think it'll be good.

- But it's not very comfortable.
- Is that enough?

It's all right. It's okay. It's okay.

That's good. That's good.

You can step back,
it'll be safer.

It'll be safer for you.

Now move over like this.

I don't have to say my name?

No.

Vilmos is from another generation.

He's a master of light

that showcases the actors.

It masters the use of
from direct sources,

like the classic spotlights
in traditional cinema.

Its light draws its strength

for its remarkable simplicity,

powerful
in the composition.

The quality of his photography

is always closely related
to the story being told.

The Italian writer,

Umberto Eco,
has written something very beautiful.

Art does not exist

if the means of communication
between the artist and the public

are not renewed.

A step forward must be
crossed in the elements of communication

of the thought that the artist
wants to pass on

to the public seeing his artwork.

A step forward must be taken.

negotiable

for all mankind
not only for the artist

Because we're not coming back
backwards,

once you've taken the plunge.

Go back in time
is imitation.

It's not art anymore.

And Vilmos has had a great impact

in that way

aesthetic or philosophical.

Because he allowed the cinema
to take a step forward,

from which there is no turning back
backwards.

Vilmos, what did you dream about as a child?

We didn't have much choice then.

Communism

was in power
in my younger years.

I was 14 years old,
at the end of the war.

The Russians have arrived
and two years later,

the country became communist.

We didn't have a lot of dreams.

Life was so limited.

When I turned 17,
an uncle offered me

a book of photographs.

The photographer
was called Eugene Dülovitz.

Beautiful pictures
in the backlight.

The most important thing,
it was the light.

I fell in love
of photography.

Vilmos imported with him
the photographic vision

from Eastern Europe,
which was very refined.

The whole story's in his house
of Hungarian photography

but also Hungarian painting,

that was traditional

and very classy.

How do you feel
in Hungary?

I'm feeling very good about it,
in reality. I like to spend

a week,
a month.

A little longer,
if I'm making a movie.

I often think in Hungarian.
I've even started to rediscover the language.

At one point,

I spoke both languages
with an accent.

I've been back there a lot.

Then I'm probably talking about
better Hungarian.

But I feel American, actually.
America loves immigrants.

By the time we arrived,
it was another country.

Yesterday, you were American
and not Hungarian.

- What does that mean?
- Well, what was the subject?

- It depends on the question.
- The question was simple, Vilmos.

- Are you Hungarian or American?
- I felt American.

And now,
you feel Hungarian?

I feel Hungarian
in front of this beautiful panorama

on Budapest.

We've learned a lot
Italian movies.

Neo-Realist films
of Vittorio De Sica.

They showed poor people,

real people.
The party tolerated these films.

So, we were imitating them

in Hungary, even at school.

Upstairs,
there's a projection room

where we were watching
Western movies.

We have seen
The Dictator of Chaplin,

up there in that movie theater.

Actors and students
had heard about it.

They all wanted to see that movie,

because he wasn't projected
nowhere else.

I remember,

there was
seating for up to 100 people

and about 250 spectators

were crammed
one on top of the other

to see this movie.

It was amazing.
It was a revolution.

Chaplin makes a long speech
at the end of The Dictator.

It's a very capitalist discourse

and we all thought that the police

was coming to take us in.

I was very familiar with this style.
It looked a lot like

to what we were doing
in Prague at that time.

Oddly enough, we were inspired

by Hungarian films
from the fifties.

The Czech New Wave,
dates back to the '60s.

Hungarian films of the 1950s

were interrupted
by the Russian invasion.

And the Czech New Wave
suffered the same fate as the Russians,

of the Soviets.

Vilmos left Hungary in 1956.

While he was studying film.

With László Kovács, they took a camera...

and when the Russian tanks
have entered Budapest.

they went out into the streets
to film this footage

of the Russian invasion.

Students throwing
Molotov cocktails.

They kept the film
and fled the country

under Russian fire.

They went through
the Austrian border

and the film
could have gotten to us.

And I thought, "Well,

a man capable of doing that,

so brave,

so inventive,
he's the man I need.

for Deliverance."

Cinema was born for the image.

There was no sound or color.

A camera
only allowed you to record

one action, one movement.

I have a special affection
for black-and-white films.

I consider these films

as more graphic,

compared to color cinema.

The colors don't come
disrupt history.

We remove the light source
to create shadows

and the shadows tell the story...
more than light.

László and I decided...

as we were asked
to define our style,

we decided to call it
"poetic realism".

Poetry,

in a nutshell,

is in the light
and in the compositions.

We wanted to

careful composition
like paintings.

I was mostly inspired

of the works of Rembrandt,

Georges de La Tour,
especially for the light,

Caravaggio.

And mainly
of the Dutch painters.

My photographic style
is not so different

in the style of others
cinematographers

whose work I love, like...

You mentioned László Kovács,

Haskell Wexler,

Owen Roizman...

And on the European side,
Vittorio Storaro.

With Darius Khondji,
it's that same style.

A lot of movies

are more beautiful
than they should be.

That's really something.

I recognize
a good cinematographer,

when the subject of the film is in agreement
with the cosmetic treatment.

You can't just settle for
to make the pictures too beautiful.

It can ruin a movie.

People aren't going to feel

what history expresses.

It happens a lot,

because it's easy
to make pretty pictures.

Yes, it's true.

But it can ruin a movie.

With digital tools,

we can accentuate the colors,
tampering, adjusting the image.

One can easily realize
overly stylized movies.

Today,
everyone's filming digitally.

Many
new chief operators

don't know how to translate atmosphere.

They don't know.

Producers do not
make them ask

to go fast, faster and faster.

It's easy to film quickly
with a digital camera.

because all you have to do is turn on the unit...
to get a picture.

Exactly. Exactly.

Maybe even a quality image.

You said
something interesting,

about the time
where we were lighting the movies

shot on film.

We were using natural light
and artificial.

And this lighting work

represented the soul of the cinematographer,

or the director
through the cinematographer.

His will, his approach

and his point of view.

Light up the scenes,
the characters, the landscapes,

this lighting work,
we're being robbed of more and more of it,

because he's no longer
really necessary.

It's a big change.

It's interesting to point that out.

My arrival in New York
made a big impression on me,

because I was in shock

in front of this great city
full of people.

I didn't speak English.

I've been trying to find a job.

I wanted to meet people
of the Hungarian community,

who had emigrated
during World War II.

And it hasn't been
a great success, to tell you the truth.

I've met
a cinematographer

well known in advertising,
who said to me:

"The best advice
that I can give you,

is to forget your dream.

Become a director of photography
in America.

Because you'll never make it.
It's too hard."

And the interesting thing is,

is that I blamed him,
at first.

But then I realized

than by telling me
that I'd never make it,

he had pushed me
to outdo myself to prove to him

that everyone
could succeed in America.

I was given tasks
more and more important.

At first,
in low-budget movies.

And I was wondering

where I was going to end up
working on these films

that no one from the movie business
would never see,

only the drive-in crowd.

After five years in Los Angeles,

I was able to make
an application for naturalization.

Immigration offices
have let me know

that my name was too difficult
to write, to pronounce.

They advised me
to at least change your first name.

So, I was recorded
like "William" Zsigmond.

In all my bad movies
I was credited "William."

The people who saw them,
when I became Vilmos again,

did not necessarily
the link with me!

- My name is Mickey Terry.
- And I'm Szimpa Linpad.

- Excuse me?
- Szimpa Linpad.

- I'm Hungarian.
- You are?

The term
"director of photography"

was born out of the conflict that existed

between cinematography
and directing.

The oldest association
is American.

American Society
of Cinematographers.

When the directors formed
the Director's Guild of America,

conflict has broken out
between those who made up the image.

Cinematographers
were arrogant,

they said:
"we are not secondary.

So are we,
we want to be directors."

Although they belonged
at the Society of Cinematographers.

By the way, cinematographer
is the perfect term.

Photography, photographer.

Cinematographer, cinematographer.

Photography, photographer.
Cinematography, cinematographer.

He's the one who expresses himself
through the moving light.

The CSA has always been an association

very elitist.

It was created by cameramen
under contract with the major studios.

They used to come here to relax,
they were well paid.

It was difficult to integrate
the association.

When I met you,

your wife was with you,
she spoke better English than you.

I'm still having trouble understanding
your accent, after all these years.

But I can't hear well.

It was at the festival
from San Francisco,

...I used to host this crazy movie called Futz.

I knew the movie was bad,
no one had loved him.

At the end of the screening,
Haskell came to see me.

He said to me:
"I know how you feel about the movie.

But I gotta tell you,

I'm very fond of photography.

And if you need any help
in Hollywood,

come and see me."

That's what he told me.
He was my first mentor,

in America.

This film is still available.
The photography is very successful.

It didn't look like
to what we were doing in America.

You were a good immigrant!

I have you to thank for that.

because it launched my career

in Hollywood.

Our first meeting
went well.

With Lázsló already on the set,
he recommended Vilmos to me:

"His name is Bill Zsigmond,
but call him Zigi."

"Is your name really Bill Zigi?

Bill or Zigi,
what's your real name?"

"Vilmos!
- Change the claps!

"Note this on the camera reports.

The director of photography is called
Vilmos... Zsigmond.

Zsigmond Vilmos?
- No, Zsigmond Vilmos."

That's how Bill-Zigi...
got his name back.

He must have learned everything.

What directors
learn at school,

he learned it on the set.

He was an actor

and never thought
become a director.

He was a quick learner.

Within a week, he knew everything
what a director needs to know.

I wanted to be enlightened
by candlelight

and oil lamps.

It had to be realistic.

The lighting couldn't have come from
of a projector that flattens everything.

That would have ruined the story.

To explain to Vilmos

problems
that I was going to meet,

I asked him to come with me
at the Fox studio.

We've been watching
a black and white copy

from the John Ford movie,
The Infernal Pursuit.

that my father had played in.

Zsigmond says to me:
"I want to see this movie."

I tell him I'm not going
explain to him what I want.

"Okay, you'll tell me in the end."

"No, you'll figure it out."

He seemed to be wondering
why I was doing this to him.

Then we went back to the movie.

"Peter, why do we have to see him again?
Why don't you tell me what you want?"

I said:
"This time you're going to see him, Vilmos."

"I don't know..."

And the movie started.

Fortunately, the problem appears
in the first reel.

From the first game.
We didn't have to see the whole thing again.

The long-awaited moment is coming
when my father walks into a hotel.

He's wearing filthy clothes,
like a cowboy on the loose

and there are
oil on the walls.

But what strikes me,

is that they're illuminated
in the spotlight

and their light on the walls

casts a shadow
that highlights the source of the light.

"Ah!... You can see the shadows of the lamps,
It's not okay."

You got it.
"That's what you have to remember:

Our lamps won't make
of cast shadow."

"That's great, Peter.
Thank you for showing me this film.

We'll avoid that."

And so we did.

There's a scene,

in which with the camera,
we go around the house.

You saw the movie,
you know the rest.

The sun's going to set soon.

We know we have to succeed
this plan on the first try.

This is the final scene.

I wanted to finish the reel.

I wanted to do one take
until the end.

Zsigmond thought it was a great idea.

We start on Verna Bloom,

looking to his left,

and then to his right,
the camera's still moving.

She has no text.

I wanted the look in his eyes.

The camera's watching him
and sees her transform.

Warren Oates is going back to the farm.

He's riding my horse.

I wanted a black and white horse

so that everyone understands
it was Harry's horse.

Arch, played by Warren Oates,
advance on horseback.

It's coming.

The frame tightens on him.

I said to Warren:
"Keep moving while you can feel the sun.

Stay in the shadows,
leave the horse in the sun.

We'll see you, don't worry."

He had to put the horses
in the barn,

before lighting a lantern
with the matches.

And at some point,
after an accurate count,

he was supposed to come by
in front of the barn window.

Then he had to
backtrack

with a lantern.

I wanted to make it clear

that even if the credits started,
the film was going on.

The camera's still rolling.

And the genius of Zsigmond has made it possible
to time the light.

He has succeeded in this challenge

without artificial light.

All the lighting is natural.

He's filming Warren's arrival

that forgets to turn on
that damn lantern.

But Zsigmond is holding on,
he's not moving the camera.

We keep it running.

The light goes down
slowly, very slowly.

And if you look closely,
you see the trees

moving slightly into the wind.

That should be enough to show
that the film was still rolling.

We didn't freeze the image.
We kept shooting.

And nature took care of the rest,

when the image went black,

it was natural.

We filmed
until the day's disappearance.

And we didn't need
of a fade to black.

The sun took care of it.

The director
and the cinematographer

have to go hand in hand.

Just like the director,
with his actors.

And when it does,

it's up to the cinematographer
to immortalize this complicity.

We were on a shoot
in San Francisco,

about to finish the movie
Taken at face value,

of Jerry Schatzberg.

And I wanted to show Susan

my favorite place in California,
Big Sur.

We came here.

We walked around.

We went to see
beautiful beaches.

And we liked it.

Later, we decided
to get married here.

We arrived by road
that we borrowed yesterday.

We hadn't seen the ocean yet,
or just this side.

We discovered this house,
on this little hill.

Our car was climbing,
climbed, climbed, climbed...

It was flat here then.
There were no trees.

It didn't look like that.

And we bought the house.

That was the beginning.

Seeing John McCabe,

This is the first time
I was discovering the work of Vilmos...

I thought to myself:
"It's not

an American movie."

I still remember the picture.
I forgot the story

but I remember the picture.

And that was clearly the expression

eye-to-eye
of a director of photography,

which was very consistent.

To understand this experience,

and what Vilmos has endured,
you have to know Bob.

Bob was very playful,
he liked to take risks.

He was always on the edge.

He was a good loser, too.

If it didn't work,
he was on his way back.

He was ready to start all over again,
with another movie.

Bob wasn't going to make this movie
without Vilmos.

He had to fight
before we get started,

for union matters

that he had to fix.

It was a big production.

Back in Hollywood,
the movies all ended "in the bath."

At night, the lab would parade them around,

all films
were developed together.

Bob has had the opportunity

to develop his film separately,
in a Canadian bath at night.

So, he and Vilmos
have decided together

to do something called
a "flashbulb",

which means exposing it to the light.

After this step,
there was no turning back.

That was final.

It was like opening
the body of your camera,

with film
and put it in the light a little bit.

It changed the quality of the print.

I get it.
that a page had been turned

in the aesthetics of cinema.

We were shooting in Vancouver,

Altman had contacted

the only local lab,
at the time.

He offered to pay
the whole development,

from beginning to end.

And it became a western,

or what used to be called
a "northwestern".

When producers
have seen the dailies,

they didn't panic?

- Yeah, they totally freaked out.
- I'll bet they did.

They didn't understand.
They wondered who had filmed it.

I wasn't famous then.
It was my first big movie,

with big stars.

And Altman said to them:

"the negative of this film is perfect."

That was not true,
we did that on the negative.

They were in shock.

They wanted to get rid of it.

They wouldn't even take it out.

The movie wasn't "watchable."

We were criminals,
so to speak.

A bunch of criminals.

Warren Beatty, you and Altman.

It's an interesting picture,
I'd never seen her before.

It's funny, I seem to have
20 years older than my age.

That's because the filming of the movie
was very hard.

Choice of operator
is also important

than the actors in a movie.

I'd seen his work
on John McCabe.

Which impressed me,

is that there was
a lot of catches

shot with long lenses.

The camera was following the movement

and the focus was superb.

It was tremendously fluid.

And I wanted to,

I needed this guy
of shots in Deliverance.

Because it was necessary
follow the actors on canoes,

along the river,

with long lenses,
while maintaining focus.

When you meet
the men of the woods,

the camera is static.

Actors shoot the
all around

they go in and out through
another side of the camera

it was very disturbing.

The camera was following the movement
in the previous scenes.

The fixed plane
was creating enormous tension.

Filming required
a lot of preparation.

First of all, the actors
have had to go through training

for canoeing, archery, archery

and get back in shape!

It was a very physical exercise.

Today, all the movies

are controlled

to assess the dangers

inherent in each of the scenes.

We wouldn't have been able to shoot
Issuance

under these conditions.

Or if we did it today,

these safety measures
would prevent us

to make the same movie.

I wanted to make sure
that the actors

would do nothing
that I hadn't tried before.

If they were worried
seeing the rapids,

I'd tell them, "I've already done it.

Vilmos and I went there.

It's doable."

Vilmos était habile comme un chamois.

Il pouvait adopter
toutes les positions avec sa caméra,

avec de l'eau jusqu'au cou

ou accroupi sous un rocher.
Il improvisait toujours.

C'était si difficile
d'installer le matériel.

Ce qui caractérisait Vilmos,
c'est qu'il était acharné.

"Pourquoi on ne filme pas ?"

Qu'est-ce qu'on attend ?
Allons-y ! Allons-y !"

Et des fois,
ça agaçait l'équipe du tournage

parce que tout le monde
faisait au mieux.

Et je lui disais :

"Vilmos, respire un bon coup.

Nous allons réussir cette prise,
ça prendra un peu de temps."

Quand je suis arrivé
sur le tournage de Délivrance,

j'étais plutôt sûr de moi.

J'avais fait mes preuves,

je pouvais dire au réalisateur
que je ferais les choses comme ceci

ou comme cela.
Et John Boorman

écoutait toujours mes suggestions.

Mais certains jours,

je devenais plus agressif
quand j'avais une idée.

J'ai dépassé les limites.

Il m'a arrêté une seconde.

Il est venu me dire :

"Vilmos, si tu continues
à te comporter comme ça,

je vais te retirer la caméra
des mains."

- je tenais ma caméra Arriflex.

Il l'a attrapée et m'a dit :

"Je vais te la jeter à la figure

et tu seras obligé d'arrêter."

J'ai compris
que j'avais fait une erreur.

Je lui ai présenté mes excuses.

Et après ça,
je me suis rappelé ses paroles.

Pas seulement sur ce tournage,
mais toute ma vie.

J'aime travailler
avec des réalisateurs qui improvisent

parce que des fois,
ils ne peuvent pas prévoir

ce qu'ils voudront filmer
le lendemain.

Et je dois les aider
à prendre ces décisions,

en quelques minutes seulement.

Si vous arrivez sur un lieu
et que la lumière est mauvaise,

il faut changer d'idée
pour que ça fonctionne.

La veille du premier jour
de tournage,

Vilmos et moi sommes retournés
sur les lieux,

pour réfléchir à quelques angles,
quelques plans.

C'était formidable.

Le ciel était gris foncé,

les champs étaient jaunes

comme si nous les avions peints.

Le vent soufflait,
les herbes de sauge virevoltaient.

Le lendemain, c'était pareil.

En Amérique,

l'horizon s'étend à perte de vue.

On peut voir une tempête par ici
et le soleil briller par là.

C'est formidable de traverser
ce pays en voiture.

J'avais comme idée
de suivre ces deux personnages

comme deux poissons hors de l'eau,
qui allaient parcourir le pays.

Et je pensais peut-être faire
des travellings,

pour rester en mouvement.

Les caméras pouvaient
suivre les déplacements.

Et j'avais préparé
une liste d'arguments

pour expliquer
ce que je pensais chercher.

Et Vilmos l'a écoutée.

Au bout d'un moment, il m'a dit :

"Je ne vois pas les choses
comme ça."

J'ai répondu : "Ah bon ?"
Nous étions tous les deux très polis.

"Explique-moi."

Il m'a répondu :
"Pour moi, ces personnages,

même s'ils ne s'entendent pas bien,

après une journée seulement,
ils décident de travailler ensemble.

C'est un conte de fées."

J'ai dit : "Oui." Et il a continué :

"Je crois qu'on pourrait faire
de belles images de l'Amérique

avec ces personnages."

Et j'ai commencé à y réfléchir.

Bien sûr, je savais
ce que je voulais faire.

Je n'étais sûrement pas
très enthousiaste.

Mais je repensais au conte de fées.

Et à 4h du matin,

j'avais réussi à me convaincre
qu'il fallait suivre cette idée.

Le lendemain,
j'ai attendu une heure respectable

pour l'appeler et lui dire :
"j'aime beaucoup ton idée.

Plus j'y réfléchis,
plus elle me plaît.

Je suis convaincu
qu'il faut la suivre.

Elle me plaît tellement
que je dirai qu'elle vient de moi."

Vilmos n'est pas que chef opérateur,
c'est aussi un penseur.

Comme il m'avait tout de suite
suggéré une idée,

je savais qu'il avait lu le scénario,
que l'histoire l'intéressait.

Il s'intéressait au scénario,
aux comédiens

et il s'inquiétait toujours
de la réaction du public.

Tout le monde n'est pas
aussi consciencieux.

On a moins besoin de coupes
au montage,

avec un film tourné en Scope.

Un plan en Scope permet de suivre
deux valeurs de plans

pendant très longtemps.

Les acteurs sont en gros plan

tout en montrant
le paysage derrière eux.

Un montage trop saccadé

détourne l'attention des spectateurs
du fil de l'histoire,

avec trop de coupes.

De nos jours,
c'est un style très répandu.

Beaucoup de gens aiment
les montages frénétiques.

Découper chaque seconde.

Et on ne peut pas
s'empêcher de réfléchir.

D'accord, on voit un film

mais sans être immergé
dans l'histoire.

Quand une scène
dure plus d'une minute,

on peut presque oublier
qu'on est dans une salle de cinéma.

On observe la vie

se dérouler en une seule séquence.

Beaucoup de réalisateurs
apprécient ce style.

It allows
to tell a story better.

Sugarland Express has been my
first movie with Steven.

Steven was so young!

We had a great time
on this set.

We were able to make
almost everything we wanted,

against the will of the studio.

They thought some of the plans
were infeasible.

We started
talking about movies

and style.

Steven had some good ideas
and he was also very open.

I've been looking for solutions.

I suggested a small model
of the Panavision camera.

We could place her

in the middle of the car
to film through the windows.

The old models were unsuitable,
especially for sound.

He didn't want to film in the studio.

He wanted
that the film is realistic.

He had thought of many angles.

He added a touch of comedy.

The public made Spielberg

a very sought-after director,
after this movie.

He went on and on
with the famous Jaws.

I wasn't involved.

I was busy on other shoots.

From you to me,

I didn't like the story.

It's funny to think
that I turned down this movie.

I didn't think it was
as good as Sugarland Express.

And not so good too.
than Dating the Third Kind.

He promised me
that we'd shoot it together,

when he's done
Jaws.

It was a small project,
on a very small budget.

It was a student film.

And he managed to implicate
other writers.

They developed the idea

to make

a 35 mm film.

The budget
several thousand dollars

started to swell, little by little.

About $8 million.
Richard Dreyfuss

joined the film crew

and the budget went up.
In the beginning, the film was supposed to cost...

about 15 or 16 million
of dollars.

At the time,

we talked a lot
of UFO sightings in America.

That's why
that people were interested in the film.

"Yeah, let's make a movie.

Let's do something good."

The film became
bigger and bigger.

Steven had some new ideas
every day, every night.

He was watching old movies.

"Well, I'd have to stop..."

The budget had increased a lot.

In the end, it cost
$20 million.

Maybe even 25 million.

And Columbia Pictures

was on the verge of bankruptcy,
at that time.

They didn't make good movies.

It had been a bad year.

They were afraid of losing everything

and close the door.

And I kept telling them:

"Don't worry,
...this movie is gonna save Columbia."

The last sequence of the film

was like a dream.

We have realized
that we're running out of light.

The last 40 minutes were
a light show.

It was all about the light.

The ship's door opens
and an incredible light

spreads out over the set.

We must have overexposed
the characters

to accentuate the bright light.

With two or three degrees
of overexposure.

But the public understood
that it wasn't a mistake.

It was on purpose.

When I got my Oscar,

I should have thought
to thank Steven Spielberg.

I forgot.

It's the worst thing I've ever done.
I owe him an apology.

because he's the one who deserved
the award I received.

It was his movie.

I made that mistake,

because the conditions of filming
were terrible.

Everybody wanted to fire me.

It haunted me for years.
It was a mistake.

But in my defense,
Close Encounters... has been nominated eleven times...

and I was the only one who won.

It was the first prize awarded
that night.

If I had known
that it was going to be the last one,

if I had been told
that it would be the only one,

I would have said:

"Sorry, this award
goes to Steven Spielberg."

Today, when I speak

to someone,

the question always comes up.

To know what the movie is
that I'd rather do?

Then I'll ask the question again.

"What's the movie
that you liked better,

of my entire career?"

95 percent of the time,

I get the answer:
Journey to the end of hell.

For my sake,

it's 100 percent cinema.

I don't find any fault with it.

Even the less successful parts.
Some scenes are underexposed

not by accident,
but out of necessity.

We didn't have a lot of equipment

in Thailand,
to film the night scene.

The generator blew up,
we had to dim the lights.

But the image was consistent.

The film was more realistic,
more touching,

thanks to this lack of lighting.

It couldn't have been better.

We were limited
under these conditions.

And we did our best.

But that's where the sound
plays an important role.

In a dark movie,
with an underexposed image.

Sometimes,
sound can save a movie.

People listen more carefully
and don't see everything.

I was discovering Pittsburgh
in an American movie.

But that wasn't the idea
that I had America.

I used to live in London.

The beginning of the film
has marked me more than anything else.

There was something
of profoundly honest

in this story of workers

who were sent to war
like cannon fodder.

It was very unusual.

If they wouldn't die at the factory...

Yeah, they had nothing to lose.

I remember the fire scenes
in the steel mills,

Early in the morning, when they go out
from work.

It didn't look like a war movie...
with John Wayne.

The aesthetics of the film
contributes a lot to that.

That's interesting,

we've been fortunate
to live in these times.

Everything that has been produced
in the '60s and '70s,

it's been a miracle
in the history of American cinema,

because everything's changed.

Everybody
wanted to reinvent cinema.

And it's true,
this influence came from Europe,

for most of us.

Even those who didn't come
of European countries,

so do the Americans.

Haskell, you made this movie...
what was it called?

America, America.

That's pretty representative.
It was a film shot abroad...

but made in America.

When you look at the pictures

great photographers
like Diane Arbus,

Cartier-Bresson,
or others like them,

they are impregnated
of their personalities

which allows the photographed subject
to feel free

and be himself.

To a certain extent,
the chief operator

brings the same thing.

One way or another,
when you get older,

you wish you could say:

"My existence on Earth
has served a purpose

and will not disappear
after my last breath."

We had built a tent

for the roller-skating scene.

The ceiling was made of canvas

painted in sepia tones.

We didn't need
of filtering on the cameras,

we could film faster.

The only problem,

is when the clouds
were moving outside.

Everything was getting dark

and then became clearer again.

We had posted
someone out there,

a camera assistant

with a walkie-talkie

that said:
"In five seconds,

a cloud will cover the sun."

At that moment,
my camera assistant

had his hand on the shutter

and waited for the light to change
on the ceiling,

to change the settings
one or two stops.

Christopher Walken.

Isabelle Huppert!

Michael Cimino made this movie

years ago

and no one understood
what he was talking about.

America was booming
economical at the time.

People understand this movie

much better today.

Michael Cimino had ordered

a delicious lunch.
As I recall,

it's still ingrained
as the happiest day

of the whole shoot.

To have this lunch with Cimino

and also Isabelle.

What's the hardest part,

once you live
with a cinematographer?

Well, well, well, well,

the hardest part,
it's probably

that the film
always comes first.

It doesn't matter.
if it's an important birthday,

the death of a relative,
a funeral.

The film always comes first.

And the easiest part?

We've traveled everywhere
in the world,

in fascinating places.

The film I found
the most extraordinary,

It was a TV movie.
whose name was Stalin.

A whole team has been on the move
in Moscow,

in 1991, right after the coup.

We were able to see Russia

in the middle of a turmoil.

Vilmos and Ivan Passer,
the director, for the shooting,

had access to the Kremlin,

to parts that had
never been open to the public,

but also to Stalin's dacha.

His old cleaning lady
was still there.

The American team
came in under the snow,

in this dacha.

We all went to see
where Stalin had lived.

A prima ballerina
from the Bolshoi Ballet

came into these rooms,
to dance Swan Lake.

When I was getting ready
filming Stalin in Russia,

I knew I needed
from Vilmos.

He said to me, "You know,

I only make movies."

And it was a TV movie for HBO.

I said, "Vilmos, listen.

Since you've managed
to ruin United Artists

with The Gateway to Paradise
from Cimino

everyone is afraid of
hire you because of it.

If you team up with me,

you'll always find a job
after Stalin."

I was just joking when I said that.

We liked to tease each other.

Imagine if we succeeded
making 34 shots,

on the last day.

34 camera positions.

For Heaven's Gate,
he only did one a day.

He had made

a lighting system.

He had covered with a sheet

a frame on wheels,

that we're moving everywhere.

It took us three minutes

to light up a socket.

That's why our film
was the only one to meet the deadline

in Russia.

In every movie I direct,

for my own pleasure,

I like to pay tribute
to another director.

For Stalin, in the Kremlin,

I wanted to pay tribute
to Sergei Eisenstein.

There are these big shadows

in his movie Ivan the Terrible,

...that are outlined on the walls.

I told Vilmos:

"We'll make a take

when Robert Duvall-Stalin,
go up the stairs.

We'll see his shadow
grow up, grow up, grow up."

Vilmos answered me:
"We lack lighting.

We don't have the time."

I said to him:
"You'll figure it out."

And of course he found her.

Even if you forgot this movie,
you remember that scene.

Did I look like this?

A mustache
and tousled hair?

And me, explaining to Vilmos
what take I wanted.

It's one of the first plans
that we shot.

Vilmos helped a lot
for this take.

When the nose of the plane
falls within the scope,

it was perfect.

With "The Rose" written on the plane.

I owe this plan to Vilmos.

I met him

thanks to Robert Altman.

One night, we were having dinner.
We were friends.

He said, "You should
...to play the role of Marty Augustine."

Bob had rented a house
in Malibu

to shoot The Private

and he lived in this house
during the filming.

Bob didn't do anything like everybody else.

Vilmos loved making this movie
on location outside the studios.

Even though he was very talented

in the studio.

I was amazed

by the fact that he was

plus a collaborator,
than a simple chief operator.

That movie, The Rose
shot with Vilmos,

it's the most important work
of my career.

Vilmos is a very sensitive man.

He's emotionally fragile

and very receptive
to the intimist atmosphere.

Bette had to do all the
live concert stages.

and we only had one shot,
every time.

So, I decided to call
all my friends chief operators

so they'll help me,

each one behind a camera.

"Choose an angle
and do whatever you want.

Improvise, follow your desires."

All I said to them was:

"You'll do close-ups.

You, you'll take care
wide shots.

You can change the focal length,
change the angle,

during the concert."

And that's why
that in the credits there's

the best chief operators
from Hollywood.

Lázsló Kovács, Haskell Wexler,

Owen Roizman,

Johnny Alonzo.

It was great.
The pictures are beautiful.

They had too many choices when they were editing.

Really,
it wasn't difficult.

With an artist like Bette,

and with the songs

she was singing,

and with the musicians
that were with him.

We didn't have

the feeling of doing
an ordinary musical.

It was more like
a raw show of improvisation.

It wasn't difficult.

All we had to do,
was to encourage

the team to improvise.

Live in the moment.

"If you see something good,
move over."

There were a lot of cameramen.

"Do not follow
what you were planning to do.

Be creative

and move around
whenever you feel like it.

Don't hesitate, Lázsló.
Go for it,

and goes as close as possible to his performance."

Blow out is my favorite movie,
as an actress.

For several reasons.

I loved the script.

Like I said,
I didn't think I'd do it.

I didn't like the character.

So I had to find a way
to fall in love with her.

I believe...

that working with John has helped me,

we were able to find
what was going to work

for us.

Next,

the experience of shooting was
the best I've ever had in my entire career.

It was all there,
the sound, the makeup,

the hairstyles, the costumes,

the beautiful images.

Most important
in a movie,

is when this whole
machine is well oiled.

I didn't know you hated
your character.

We loved him, anyway.

And that's why
that the end was tragic.

We didn't want to lose her.

And in another end, she survived.

The scream was recorded,

but they said
that you'd been hurt.

Unlike the other one.

We chose the version
Shakespearean.

- That was Brian.
- Yeah, it was Brian.

That was an interesting choice.

The first
would have been more commercial.

The other one wasn't.

I remember arriving
on this beautiful location.

It was like a painting,
there was a bridge and a river.

"What are they filming down there?
Owls and frogs?"

This sequence
made us laugh a lot.

Brian asked me for a plan
over the frog's shoulder.

But the frog

was tiny!

We've settled in.

The frog was there.

We placed the camera,
we put in a dioptric corrector.

It was hard to take stock

and even madness.

There was the dioptric corrector...
and the frog...

and the bridge in the background.

If you want
make a realistic movie,

you have to use this technique.

If there's not much light,

the dioptric corrector
allows you to extend the focus.

Brian was known
for his 360-degree shots.

I don't like to admit it,

but only time
where I left a set,

it was there.

- Really?
- Yes

Why?

I don't know if you knew that.

- In the editing room?
- Yes, in the editing room.

That was take 57,
I remember very well.

57.

And I told Brian...
He was exhausted and so was I.

We were all exhausted.

We were already at the end of the
third month of shooting.

I said to Brian:

"Tell me what more you want

that we haven't already filmed
on the 10th take and I'll do it.

But I don't have the energy
to start over."

He said, "Do it again."

I said to him:
"I can't. I can't anymore."

And I left.

I knew that out of those 57 takes,

there was one
that was gonna work.

I remember a scene

in the train station, in the restaurant.

Brian wanted to move on
and I said, "No, no, no.

We have to do another one."

This time, I'm the one
asked to do another take.

One or two takes later,

you did it.

I had seen in rehearsals

that you could play this scene

to perfection.
All the shots were good,

but less than in rehearsals.
And I was thinking:

"Nancy's got to make it."

It's a tricky thing to pull off,

it can be very repetitive.

We'll have to wait,
before you get back to the magic.

And I've always loved
working with John,

cause
if we had to make a scene again,

he added something
different.

You had to bounce back.

In this scene,

he did it to me twice.

And it was really...

- It looks more alive.
- It's fresh.

You have to trust the director.

We loved Brian, the look in his eyes.

But we must also be able to trust
to the director of photography,

or else an actor dies inside.

It all depends
the way we're being filmed.

If the angle's wrong,
the emotion isn't transmitted.

We're as good as dead.

You have to know how to communicate.

And it expresses itself in the frame,
the angle and the light.

Jodie Foster, guys!

And here I am, asking:
"Why are we shooting here, Vilmos?

We could have stayed there."

Every time we took a shot, we were moving around.
Everything had to be perfect.

Every decor.

If we had to make a counter-field
a mile away,

so we were going back
a mile away.

He was a perfectionist.
I'm sorry, he's a perfectionist.

For a scene, you needed someone
to play an old German artist.

Who better than Vilmos?

He played the role of the painter.

And there he is,
about to be filmed.

In costume

to adjust the camera
and make sure everything was perfect.

It's Vilmos.

I loved the way he worked.

I loved his style.

I had a lot of fun
working with him.

In The Witches of Eastwick.
Jack Nicholson plays the devil

that appeals to all three
Witches of Eastwick.

Sarandon, Cher and Pfeiffer.

I was an intern. I was doing everything
the camera crew was asking me:

carrying the crates, cleaning the optics,
even bring the coffee.

We were turning in an elevator
with Michelle Pfeiffer.

and during a take, an assistant
has cast a shadow over Michelle.

No one noticed her.
except for me.

We had to move on,
the team was in a hurry.

I ran to tell Vilmos:
"There's a problem.

I saw Kenny's shadow.
on Michelle in the elevator."

Vilmos, of a calm nature,
said, "What?"

I rehearsed:
"I saw a shadow on Michelle."

He looked at me and said:

"George, we have to do it again!"

The whole team's been bitching.

And someone threw me:
"Here's your plane ticket."

As if
I was on my way home.

Vilmos said, "Pull this plug,
I want to see her tomorrow."

The whole crew was watching the dailies,
in 35 mm at our hotel.

I started to get worried.
Did I see a shadow?

I was terrified
to go home.

We watched the dailies.

The first take was bad.

And indeed, there was
a shadow on Michelle.

We watched the other take
and it was good.

Vilmos had an interesting reaction.

He stood up, front row,
I was in the back of the room,

we were having a glass of wine.

He said, "Jimmy, thank you very much."

And I noticed that with Vilmos,

that was quite a way to be.

He was very imposing,
he had great power,

he had a point of view,

and he was also very humble
and generous,

and open to suggestions.

All the teams loved him.

He was firm and flexible
and he was implicating you.

We felt like we were doing
really part of the movie.

I knew Woody Allen,

just like everybody else.

A famous director.

An outstanding screenwriter.

Leading operators
had already worked with him

like Gordon Willis

They had turned
a dozen times together.

They worked well together,

like Ingmar Bergman
with Sven Nykvist.

And one day, he wanted to work
with someone else.

And that "someone else",
it was me.

When we were preparing
our second movie together.

Even if he didn't like the steadycam.

I thought we had to convince him
to try the steadycam.

Because it was faster

than setting up dolly shows.

I convinced him and he liked it.

And for our third movie together,

I was very surprised

because he wrote the script,
thinking about steadycam.

He could make a plan last
indefinitely.

On a page or two
of dialogue.

His staging was incredible.

He knows to show
the setting of its history

So, sometimes he starts
with a wide shot.

Then the camera tightens up
about two people

and maybe finishes
with a close-up.

He's letting the story unfold.
It's good for the actors.

They can play their part
like in the theater.

One day Woody says to me:
"You don't need a crane for this scene."

"But Woody, it won't take
than ten seconds

and you'll see what happens.
in the story."

"I don't know,

I don't like turning with a crane."

We're still shooting with it.

The next day,
we went to see the dailies.

He said to me:

"I'm not going to be able
use this plan."

I asked him, "Why?"

He said to me:
"This is too Hollywood."

We installed a backlight,
I'll turn it off.

It's all right. It's okay. It's okay.
It's not a fiction film.

- All right. All right, all right.
- It's all right. It's okay.

Do what you like.

Somebody's calling me.

I'm in front of the camera,
in the usual place.

Adaptation: Anna Le Clézio
Pierre Filmon and Marc Olry