Roger Deakins: A Sketch
I haven’t posted on this website since I uploaded my A Level coursework for a portfolio - which was the original purpose of this website. I’ll probably continue to use it as such, but I reckon writing my thoughts here too could be quite fun. So here’s a new page, with a blog!
This is (what I hope to be) the first in a series of - well, not quite essays, writings? Analyses? I’ll call them sketches. I aim for these to create not a portrait, but an outline of the person I am describing, through either brief encounter or conversation.
Now, I have a friend studying Filmmaking at the University of Plymouth, who messaged me recently with an interesting screenshot. It was of Roger Deakins, and his wife James Ellis Deakins, in a Zoom meeting. With my friend. After a few expletives from yours truly over my jealousy, he messaged me back - saying there was room in the meeting. Naturally, I joined, and I found his responses to certain questions painted a great picture of both what he is like as a person, and what he is like to work with.
It would be a cruel disservice to Mr Deakins to not mention the fact that he has been nominated for 16 Academy Awards for his cinematography, winning twice. In short - he’s incredibly good at what he does. What I found most interesting though was his attitude to his work. He seemed very conflicted and yet coherent in his method. I’ll elaborate.
On his attitude to collaboration, he expressed (admittedly as you would to a group of aspiring filmmakers) that film is a collaborative medium, and the preparation is always a long process, going over minute details in each scene while keeping the narrative clear and obvious throughout. That was key to his talk - the narrative of the movie. He believes that shots should remain consistent with the narrative at all times. He was so adamant about this, that in response to the question, “Do any particular shots stand out to you as your best work, or the work you like the most?” he replied, “I’ve said this a million times; if a shot stands out to you, you’ve done something wrong. That means the audience is thinking ‘that’s a nice shot’ and not focusing on the story”.
A particular example that came to mind was the opening of No Country for Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2007) which I have written about before. The sequence is a set of sweeping landscapes of the harsh desert environment that the film is set in. The shots are quite simply stunning, and would leave the audience in awe - yet they are balanced perfectly with a voice over. The spectator is lured into the story world naturally, and had I not analysed the sequence somewhere in the region of a billion times, I would say it did not pull me out from the narrative with stunning visuals. Deakins wants to remain consistent with his shots - not one greater than another.
With regards to his collaborative approach, he came across as, in fact, quite the auteur. He mentioned with emphasis that he is always “on the camera” when he is on set. In other words he exercises a great deal of control with his work. He also spoke about the directors he worked with allowing him this control - like Joel and Ethan Coen - expressing their aesthetic desires, while letting him get on with making it happen in his own way. This seems to be a hallmark of his work. Also adding to the idea of an ‘Auteur Cinematographer’, he tends to collaborate with the Coens on a frequent basis - something seen with other auteurs like Hitchcock and Nolan. While these are considered auteur directors with their collaborations forming the basis of arguments for their auteur tendencies, could the same not be said of a cinematographer? If there were ever an auteur cinematographer, it would be Roger Deakins.
Something else I took away from his talk was his quite different approach to lighting. He spoke about a time where he was asked by Pixar around the time they were filming WALL-E (Stanton, 2008) to do a demonstration on how he used lighting. He set up a traditional 3-point lighting setup, with a Key, Back and Fill light, with extra lights to create shadows on the backdrop. He then explained to those in the audience “This is how you’d expect a lighting setup to be done. That’s not how I do it.” He then panned his camera around to an electrician, leaning on a piece of equipment, who had some spill from the lighting setup on his face. After framing his shot, he explained that this was his method. Spontaneous.
Spontaneity seems another important aspect to Deakins’ method. He discussed how he would rarely previsualise sequences (except those like in 1917 (Mendes, 2019)) and would rather work the exact shot out on the day. He felt this created a more naturalistic feel, building on the story world and enforcing the narrative that he so craves following. He also explained that on set he would rarely need to look at a script having read it so many times before the shoot. His first readthrough is to gauge his reaction to the story, with the following reads to be his analysis and dissection into shots, and eventually to memorise the lot.
He seemed thorough in his methods, hardly unique in his way of breaking down a script but totally rogue when it comes to actually making the film. His techniques felt both controlled and chaotic in a sense, and when he spoke he spoke firmly and with confidence - as a master of their craft should.
I know this sprawling rant on a brief encounter with the, in my opinion, greatest cinematographer of all time ended up devolving into a debate on auteur theory, but that’s just my style of writing I suppose. I may add to this piece if I feel like it, but if I don’t - I hope this gave you an idea of what Roger Deakins is like as a person and a cinematographer. As I said, this is all based on a couple of hours that I spent on the muted end of a massive zoom call - so perhaps I haven’t captured him fully.
Nonetheless, he seemed like a man passionate about his craft.
“Have you anything to add before we end the call?”
“Nope” Deakins replied, blunt and confident as he presented throughout the Q+A. After some prompting from his wife about what it’s like to be a cinematographer, he ended with the following:
“You’ll work long days, very long days, ten or twelve hours. But it’s great work. It has its ups and downs, but it sure beats wages!”