Michael Chapman, A.S.C.: "I think we all agree that movies was the great art form of the 20th century. But the 20th century is over. And, movies as such, and we've been talking about that, are- don't have the same position of power they once had. "

Director of photography Michael Chapman, A.S.C.

Michael Chapman's carriere is lastiger te duiden dan die van veel van zijn collega's. Hij werkte als operator voor Gordon Willis (asc), ondermeer aan "The Godfather", "Klute" en "The Landlord". Was operator van de John Cassavetes klassieker "Husbands" en van Spielberg's "Jaws". Zijn eerste film als lighting cameraman draaide hij in 1973 voor Hal Ashby: "The Last Detail". Gevolgd door "Taxi Driver", "The Last Waltz" en "Raging Bull" voor Scorsese.

Michael Chapman: "First of all operating is- is, I don't think there's any question that operating is far and away the most wonderful job, acting aside, the most wonderful job in the movies because it's- it combines aesthetics and athletics and everything at the same time, you know. I mean you have to be very good and you have to make choices at 24 frames a second at the same time, and always put her head there, and his shoulder here, and make that, you know, make that composition work, and you have to be able to do it, like that, at the same time, and it's, if you're good at it, it's incredibly satisfying and exciting and sexy and- and you don't have to talk to the director and everything all the time, and you can flirt with the girls and it is just a wonderful, wonderful job. "

And I often- and I- and I will say, I really was very good at it. I'd always been athletic and I'd always been interested in art and- and thus composition and framing and those things, and the two just went together in- in my hands and my head, and I just, oh, I loved it. And I- and I- I think I said earlier, I- I worked for Gordon Willis for about, I can't remember now, six or seven years, whatever it was, all of his early movies, 'Godfather', 'Klute', all the rest, and so we really- and Gordie took this stuff extremely seriously and we talked endlessly and drew diagrams and argued and drank too much and drew more diagrams and talked more, for month after month, year after year, about exactly that, about framing and- and how, how it should go and how it should look, and we worked out a system together, or worked out a kind of aesthetic of it together, that we were very happy with. And so every day I would get up and- and frame pictures, I mean, what more could anyone ask, it was heavenly. And yes, it very much influenced my work as a DP, because I, well, on the simplest level I, whenever I could, I operated my own movies. We would pay somebody and he would, you know, maybe he could do the B camera, or he would just go away and- and let me do it. And that's in- in the most satisfying and, I think, the best way to go if you possibly can. Obviously you can't sometimes, when you've got a big explosion or something where there are 17 cameras and you've got a lot of special effects and you've got to watch, but if they're- if they're just in a normal course of things, you shoot the master and the over the shoulder and the two shot, and this and that, it's wonderful to be able to do it yourself, because you can see, once you're used to it, you can see that the- the little nuances of light, how it changes when he turns his head to her, or when she, you know, looks like that at him, and you can- you can see whether it really works, and also you can, when you operate for yourself, you can take chances that you couldn't take as an operator for someone else, no matter how much you and he loved and respected each other, as Gordie and I did. But, when I would operate for myself I could take real chances, because who was going to yell at me, you know, if I made a mistake, if I screwed up? I- I, only I could yell at myself and so I would do really outrageous things, and get away with them.

Such as?

I mean I would not worry about whether the frame was on the top of her head or whether it would cut off here or there, and I would really go for what felt, just intuitively felt wonderful. Plus I got to do lots of hand held stuff, which I love. Hand held is- is one of the most- it's, you know, it's the closest sort of to acting and dancing and being with them that there is, and like, for instance, 'Jaws', and once they got on the ocean, almost entirely hand held, and- and wonderful, because I had- it was such fun to do, such great fun to do. And in those days they didn't have any monitors or anything, and so I- I was the only person that could tell Steven what was going on, because I was the only person who could see it, so they had to do what I said, it was wonderful. I mean, they had to, you know what I mean, they didn't really do what I said, but they had to- they had to listen to me and- and be guided by what I could see, because we were out in the middle of the ocean, and bouncing up and down, and I was hammering the camera on my shoulder. That was, it, operating is a heavenly, heavenly job.

In the analogy between movies and- and- and say painting, operating is drawing, and lighting is painting, and there- there seems to me, in many ways, in vaguely representational painting that- that drawing can save painting, but painting can't save drawing, you have to be able to draw, there are very few exceptions, Cezanne couldn't draw for shit but- most of the great painters could draw, you know, and that drawing is the under, is- is what holds it up and keeps it there and makes it, holds it together and makes it work. And some of the drawings, with light, if there's a big slash of bright light across, that's a formal drawing too, but- but framing and- and arrangement is drawing and it is the basis of- of being able to use light as color and so, yes, my sense of composition and my sense of drawing, which I pompously think was really quite good, was an enormous help to me in- as I- well in- in 'Last Detail' it was everything, since I barely lit it. And in- in other movies, as I got more confidence and lit more and it had to be lit, I- I always could count on my sense of composition or drawing that I had gotten from operating, to- to help me a lot and it always has, I think. I mean, for my satisfaction, anyway.

Michael Chapman on the future of film

I think we all agree that movies was the great art form of the 20th century. But the 20th century is over. And, movies as such, and we've been talking about that, are- don't have the same position of power they once had. Movies made as big studio movies that go out to theatres where everybody comes and worships the church of the 20th century. That doesn't exist anymore. And with it, film as such is, I think, fading away. The still is used in most movies, but increasingly it's digital and in 20 years or so, who knows how long, I suspect it'll all be, if not digital, it'll be laser or something, who knows. In large part because the- the antiquated system of taking large rolls of 35mm film and shipping them in trucks to theatres in Jumpoff, Georgia, and who knows where, Maine, is- is utterly obsolete. It's going- it's increasingly obsolete, and putting and running them through the gates of projectors again, in theatres, is increasingly obsolete technologically. And, you can fight anything but can't fight technology. And sooner or later, that technology is going to be out the window. And as soon as that's out the window, the whole idea of shooting on film is going to become increasingly- I mean, film is a 19th century technology. Little claws pulling things down and holding it like that, you know, 24 frames a second. That's- that was invented in the 19th century, and this is the 21st century. And, it's like old clockwork- Nobody has, almost nobody, has clocks that go tick-tock, tick-tock anymore, and that's- movie cameras are the equivalent of that. And it's going to- it's going to change. The example that I've used before and will use again is, before the process of transferring photographs to newspapers was developed in the 19th century, images in newspapers were done by people called wood engravers.

You can fight anything but you can't fight technology because it's going to change, and when it changes it's going to change the form in which- I hate to use the word art again, but art, what the art has done. A very good example is what happened to newspapers in the middle of the 19th century. Before the technology existed to reproduce photographs on newspapers, on newsprint, images in newspapers were done by people called wood engravers. Artists, or whatever you want to call them, would go off to an event, like the American Civil War, and make drawings of things happening, of people surrendering, of people shooting people, whatever, of battles. And they would be sent- Winslow Homer did a lot of it. And they would be sent back to the newspapers in Boston or New York, or wherever, and they would be given to wood engravers who would, quite literally, engrave on blocks of wood, cop- not copies so much as more or less copy, what they had seen. And those blocks of wood would be printed on each sheet of newspaper. And, in the world of wood engravers there must have been good and bad wood engravers, and probably even star wood engravers who made the most money and worked for the biggest and best newspaper. And this was, if not an art form, at least a craft which was going fine until the invention of- I forget what it's called, photo offset printing, or whatever it is that allows photographs to be printed. And then, they were gone. Whether they were good or bad, whether they had years of experience and they were creative artists, they were gone. And, I suggest that my generation of cinematographers are, in a way, the last generation of wood engravers. And that the technology of imagery, of visual imagery and story telling is already in the process of changing so rapidly. Partly because of the technology of cameras and imaging, and partly because of the technology of distribution. That, within another 20 years, it's going to be radically, radically different. And that is not necessarily good or bad, it's just a fact of life. And I think that what is useful or important, is to seize on it and make it good, and make video cameras, or whatever kind of camera is going to come in the future, assume its own properties. They always talk now in- in- in shooting a video, it doesn't look enough like film, we can make it look like film. Well, it's nonsense. It shouldn't look like a film. It should look like a video. But, you have to find out what the really basic properties of video are. And, I'll admit it that the video keeps changing as the technology goes rapidly more and more and more and more, whatever. So who can keep up with it. I don't know anything about it. I've never shot anything- I mean, I've shot, you know, home videos, but I've never shot a feature or anything else on video, and only because no one has asked me. I'd love to do it, because I'd love to try and find out what it's really like. And some guys that I know have, and what they say is very- is fascinating when you hear them talk about it. And I've been on the set, an old guy who used to be my operator, now shoots a TV series, several TV series that he shot on video. And he became a kind of- the big guru of it, and I used to visit his set and it was fascinating to see. And it is- it is not the same as film, and it shouldn't be thought of as the same as film. It has different properties. Just as, you know, impressionism is different from the Italian renaissance, not better or worse, but simply different, and having its own properties. And those things are the things that people should be trying to figure out.

I think that the way that- If I were young and trying to start again, or start out to do it, what I would be interested in is in a kind of less realistic format, by which I mean- I'm going to go back to a kind of idiot's history of art for a second. Just to explain what I mean. In the Italian renaissance the laws of perspective were worked out so that art could, the art of painting could, accurately represent what the eye saw. You know, I'm closer to you I'm larger, as things go away, there were vanishing points, and all that stuff, which had not been used before. And because that had been worked out, there became, over the years, a kind of representational imperative in painting that you had, once you could do that, you had to do it, in Western art. And, that was in many ways a wonderful thing. And it allowed enormous advances in telling people what the world looked like, and showing what it looked like. Not only just repertorily, but emotionally too. But it wasn't the only way. And because of this representational imperative, it seemed to me that, in a curious way, art began to bog down in the 19th century, as witnessed, for instance, the French Academy and Bouguereau and people like that. They didn't- they were very slick and very beautiful and they showed life, but they- things began to- it began to be kind of a dead end. But fortunately, and this is how- an example of how technology changes art, fortunately the invention of photography came along and took over this representational imperative, and it was a job that you could do much better than painting could, because there was no intervening human hand. It was just light, lens, and the object. And there was no way that the painter could intervene. He was unnecessary. He was gone, like a- like a wood engraver. And that freed art to go whooshing down the Impressionists, Fauvist, abstract, whatever, road it wanted to. It does not mean that painting, that, you know, representational imagery, could not be in painting. It still can and still is, and will always be. It just didn't have to be. It gave painting more freedom. Well I suggest that, because we are so surrounded by imagery of all sorts with, you know, 500 channels on television and advertising, and everything all around us, that we are so saturated with representational imagery that we can now, the mass mind of the- at least the Western world, will begin to accept less rigidly representational imagery in visual story telling. And that you can- now you can- you should be able to begin with, and certainly with video you can, to make the visual imagery that we use in story telling, more- freer, more- more able to represent overt emotions, in- because of the colours, the framing, the how the image breaks up. You should- we should have far more freedom. Or we can begin to explore freedom in visual story telling. And, if I were young, and starting out, I would very much try to do that. I would- that's what I would passionately try to do. And, by God, I think that the- the- the human mind, in the sort of- the abstract of the, you know, middle class Western world, be it in America or Europe or whatever, would be begin to accept it. Because they're so saturated in imagery that they don't need this- this hammering of- of perspective and clarity. They don't anymore. And then I think they would begin to- and sometimes there is the beginnings of it, you see it every once in a while. There's a curious movie called, I think, 'Greenvale' or something, by a rock and roller, or an aging rock and roller- now my mind's just gone, wait a minute.

Neil Young.

Neil Young. Did you see it?

It's called 'Greenwood.'

'Greenwood', 'Greenvale.' 'Greenwood.' I thought it was 'Greenvale.' Well he shot it on Super 8 hand-held camera, and it looks like- it's kind of wonderful. And it doesn't, it's not, it's barely realistic. It's all Super 8 so when it's blown up it looks like Seurat. It looks like Pointillism, but it's moving Pointillism. And it's utterly convincing. Curious. I went to see it only because I wanted to see what Super 8 looked like. I didn't think I would last 10 minutes through it and, by God, I sat through it. And I was kind of fascinated. And it's all- what it really is, is an album of songs and the people in the movie lip-sync the songs. And it's quite curious, but it works. And it doesn't pretend to be realistic, at all. And it was a sort of step by this sort of goofy guy that I remember from 'The Last Waltz', with the big- Well, never mind. And, you know, it works. He- this guy did something that was really, really new and really exiting and not realistic. And that's where- that's one of the directions that lie in the future. You know that I'm sure that all sorts of things- I don't begin to think that I know the answer to any of this stuff, but, I think there are many more, especially so because there are so many outlets and the Internet and all that stuff, that we can begin to really just let loose, and don't be held back by- by this representational imperative that has hung over us for so long. Especially in things like the Internet where everything you look at is no more than, what is it, 5 by 6, or something in size. You can do anything you want, you know. First of all you're not going to have- I mean, it's going to dictate that you don't want to have big wide shots. A big wide shot on a- a your computer, you know, it's the Himalayas, you don't know what it is, it's just sort of there. Most of it's going to be tighter stuff. Those are dictated- those choices of imagery are dictated by technology, if you're going to the Internet. But, let it- this is a sort of plea to people. Let loose! Just do it! My God! You know, think of- think of Impressionism, think of Picasso, think of anything. Think of, you know, I don't know what, but think of the most abstract stuff you can possibly get away with, and try it and see what happens. Because I think, also, that with the Internet and stuff as a form of distribution, I don't think you need millions of dollars anymore, or billions of dollars, you really don't. I think there's all sorts of things that can be done that- home movies- the equivalent of home movies can be put out there for the world to see. And, I would very much try that, if I were- if I were not an old fart, I would.

Conversation with Michael Chapman (asc) published by kind permission of www.peoplesarchive.com

Naomi Tracz (peoples Archive): "Peoples Archive, part of Web of Stories Ltd., is dedicated to filming for posterity the life stories of the great thinkers, creators, and achievers of our time. The people whose stories you watch on this site are leaders of their field, whose work has influenced and changed our world as we know it.

We believe these stories will be an invaluable resource for the future. Imagine watching Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, or Charlie Chaplin, talking about their life and work. Imagine Pablo Picasso or Jane Austen, Winston Churchill, or Marie Curie. The list is endless. Those stories could have added much to our understanding of the way these people thought and worked, and to the world in which their work was created. But beyond their value to scholarship they would provide something else - the living, speaking, image of each person. We could see such people - no longer as mythical figures, but alive - as alive as their work.

While those named in the list above are no longer with us, there are many of equal stature, in all professions, living and working today. We want to listen to and safely archive their stories, voices and presence, in order that they will not be lost. The parameters of the project are theoretically limitless. It is our intention to create a comprehensive and continually growing archive that will document all the people whose work has contributed to our world and our understanding of it."