You can order Gil's book from Michael Wiese Productions here.
Dave Watson: First of all, congratulations on the book. At what point did you get interested in the visual side of directing?
Gil Bettman: I was always interested in the visual side of things. I went to film school at UCLA and then worked in episodic TV in the ‘80s: Knight Rider, The Fall Guy, BJ and the Bear, The Twilight Zone.
DW: You directed?
GB: Yes. I worked as a Production Assistant, then as a Post Production Supervisor and hooked up with an Executive Producer named Glen Larson. I was in his stable as an episodic TV director and the most important lesson I learned was how to shoot with a moving camera. That was my job. How to design the look of a Glen Larson action oriented TV show. This was a time where the camera movement was just beginning to take off. When Spielberg took off, the camera really took off.
DW: Would you credit him directly with that?
GB: Yes, the box office success of his films starting with “Jaws”, made his visual style the style of choice for producers and studios, because what they want to do is make money. So if you were a director and you wanted to work you started to make movies that looked like Spielberg’s. That started it back in the early 70’s. Now every mainstream director moves the camera as much as time and money will allow.
DW: Why a book only about the camera?
GB: Today mainstream directors in television and film survive on their ability to direct the camera. Unless you’re Tarantino or Cameron you direct the script the producer or the studio hands you. And most professional actors come to set fully prepared and expecting to direct themselves. With CGI and big actions sequences the look of the film sucks up most of the money and most of the director’s attention on the set.
DW: In your book you talk about the rise of the snoopy cam, which is the shaking camera.
GB: The snoopy cam is when the camera moves as if it had a mind of its own. It tries to get in your face and make you notice the camera swinging around. It’s a cheap and easy way to energize the frame, and it became popular from TV.
DW: Why?
GB: Let’s say you’re pitching a new TV cop show to the networks. It’s gotta be the 2,431st pitch for a cop show the networks have heard. You have to say, “Yeah, but this one’s different! Look at the way the camera is waving around!” It works on TV because the screen is smaller and because in television style is everything. That’s one reason to use the snoopy cam – to try to stand out from the pack on TV. You do not see it much in feature films, because on the big screen the camera swinging around that much is too distracting. Gary Ross used it in the first “Hunger Games” and I think it hurt the film.
DW: I just saw the second “Hunger Games” and thought there were many more still shots, or shots where the camera wasn’t moving.
GB: It was moving, but it wasn’t moving the way it did in the first Hunger Games – the snoopy cam way that tries to make you see the camera moving. The rule I advocate – the rule which has been followed by every major director from D.W. Griffith to James Cameron -- is to keep the audience immersed in the story. You want them to forget it’s a movie. The best way to immerse the audience in the story is to make the camera movement invisible. The way make it invisible is to follow the conventions for camera movement followed by every great director from Griffith up to the present day.
DW: What was the second purpose of the snoopy cam’s rise?
GB: It’s a very cheap, low tech way to generate a lot of camera movement. Did you ever see the Brazilian film, “City of God?”
DW: Yes, one of the best around when it came out.
GB: Fernando Meirelles must’ve had a ten-cent budget, for that film and he wanted to do what other greats were doing. The snoopy cam allowed him to do that. The snoopy cam also gives the film a faux documentary look and that was just right for “City of God.” If you noticed his next film, “The Constant Gardener,” a snoopy cam was hardly used.
DW: You also talk about a good moving master shot.
GB: The master shot is the shot that runs through an entire scene. It establishes a template for the visual design of the scene. It is the widest shot that establishes geography and the eyelines. All the other shots for the scene – the tighter shots -- two shots and over the shoulders have to fit into the master. After you have shot the master, the rest of the visual design for the scene is relatively easy. This is really filmmaking 101. If you break these rules, and your coverage shots don’t conform to the master, you will never, ever be hired again. You don’t confuse the 180-rule
DW: But there are directors that seem to push the rules. Tarantino seems to be one of them, back to your idea of forgetting it’s a movie. There are those fast zoom-shots—thinking of the time he introduces DiCaprio’s character in “Djhango Unchhained.”
GB: Well (laughs) he is out to achieve a certain effect. Great directors like him will bend the rules but not break them. The great directors such as Tarantino, Spielberg, and Bob Zemeckis, who is a friend of mine, are also writers. They’re interested in telling the story.
DW: So they can bend the rules, just not break them. Gil, thanks so much for taking the time to talk!
GB: You’re welcome!
Dave Watson is the Editor of the web site “Movies Matter,” http://www.davesaysmoviesmatter.com. He lives in Madison, WI.
Dave Watson: First of all, congratulations on the book. At what point did you get interested in the visual side of directing?
Gil Bettman: I was always interested in the visual side of things. I went to film school at UCLA and then worked in episodic TV in the ‘80s: Knight Rider, The Fall Guy, BJ and the Bear, The Twilight Zone.
DW: You directed?
GB: Yes. I worked as a Production Assistant, then as a Post Production Supervisor and hooked up with an Executive Producer named Glen Larson. I was in his stable as an episodic TV director and the most important lesson I learned was how to shoot with a moving camera. That was my job. How to design the look of a Glen Larson action oriented TV show. This was a time where the camera movement was just beginning to take off. When Spielberg took off, the camera really took off.
DW: Would you credit him directly with that?
GB: Yes, the box office success of his films starting with “Jaws”, made his visual style the style of choice for producers and studios, because what they want to do is make money. So if you were a director and you wanted to work you started to make movies that looked like Spielberg’s. That started it back in the early 70’s. Now every mainstream director moves the camera as much as time and money will allow.
DW: Why a book only about the camera?
GB: Today mainstream directors in television and film survive on their ability to direct the camera. Unless you’re Tarantino or Cameron you direct the script the producer or the studio hands you. And most professional actors come to set fully prepared and expecting to direct themselves. With CGI and big actions sequences the look of the film sucks up most of the money and most of the director’s attention on the set.
DW: In your book you talk about the rise of the snoopy cam, which is the shaking camera.
GB: The snoopy cam is when the camera moves as if it had a mind of its own. It tries to get in your face and make you notice the camera swinging around. It’s a cheap and easy way to energize the frame, and it became popular from TV.
DW: Why?
GB: Let’s say you’re pitching a new TV cop show to the networks. It’s gotta be the 2,431st pitch for a cop show the networks have heard. You have to say, “Yeah, but this one’s different! Look at the way the camera is waving around!” It works on TV because the screen is smaller and because in television style is everything. That’s one reason to use the snoopy cam – to try to stand out from the pack on TV. You do not see it much in feature films, because on the big screen the camera swinging around that much is too distracting. Gary Ross used it in the first “Hunger Games” and I think it hurt the film.
DW: I just saw the second “Hunger Games” and thought there were many more still shots, or shots where the camera wasn’t moving.
GB: It was moving, but it wasn’t moving the way it did in the first Hunger Games – the snoopy cam way that tries to make you see the camera moving. The rule I advocate – the rule which has been followed by every major director from D.W. Griffith to James Cameron -- is to keep the audience immersed in the story. You want them to forget it’s a movie. The best way to immerse the audience in the story is to make the camera movement invisible. The way make it invisible is to follow the conventions for camera movement followed by every great director from Griffith up to the present day.
DW: What was the second purpose of the snoopy cam’s rise?
GB: It’s a very cheap, low tech way to generate a lot of camera movement. Did you ever see the Brazilian film, “City of God?”
DW: Yes, one of the best around when it came out.
GB: Fernando Meirelles must’ve had a ten-cent budget, for that film and he wanted to do what other greats were doing. The snoopy cam allowed him to do that. The snoopy cam also gives the film a faux documentary look and that was just right for “City of God.” If you noticed his next film, “The Constant Gardener,” a snoopy cam was hardly used.
DW: You also talk about a good moving master shot.
GB: The master shot is the shot that runs through an entire scene. It establishes a template for the visual design of the scene. It is the widest shot that establishes geography and the eyelines. All the other shots for the scene – the tighter shots -- two shots and over the shoulders have to fit into the master. After you have shot the master, the rest of the visual design for the scene is relatively easy. This is really filmmaking 101. If you break these rules, and your coverage shots don’t conform to the master, you will never, ever be hired again. You don’t confuse the 180-rule
DW: But there are directors that seem to push the rules. Tarantino seems to be one of them, back to your idea of forgetting it’s a movie. There are those fast zoom-shots—thinking of the time he introduces DiCaprio’s character in “Djhango Unchhained.”
GB: Well (laughs) he is out to achieve a certain effect. Great directors like him will bend the rules but not break them. The great directors such as Tarantino, Spielberg, and Bob Zemeckis, who is a friend of mine, are also writers. They’re interested in telling the story.
DW: So they can bend the rules, just not break them. Gil, thanks so much for taking the time to talk!
GB: You’re welcome!
Dave Watson is the Editor of the web site “Movies Matter,” http://www.davesaysmoviesmatter.com. He lives in Madison, WI.
