Cinematographer Roger Deakins and his collaborator and wife James Deakins are coming back to Atlanta for another round of screenings and conversations in March.
In addition to their achievements in the world of cinema, Roger and James Deakins run a podcast called Team Deakins, where they interview various industry professionals about their specific journeys into the world of filmmaking. Roger’s new book – “Reflections on Cinematography” – feels like a response to the first question usually asked of a guest on any Team Deakins episode: How did you get to where you are today?
In “Reflections on Cinematography,” which published late last year, Roger reflects on his life and career, from his early years working on documentaries covering wars in then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Eritrea, to his work with filmmakers like the Coen Brothers and Denis Villeneuve.
Roger and James will be at A Cappella Book for a signing on March 17. They will also attend three screenings of movies for which Roger had served as cinematographer: “Skyfall” on March 17 at the Plaza, “Blade Runner 2049” on March 18 at the Plaza, and “Sicario” on March 19 at the Tara.
Ahead of these screenings, I got a chance to talk to Roger and James about writing the book, nostalgia for the old days of indie filmmaking, and some of their favorite recent movies. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
I read that a publisher approached y’all about writing the book, after the photography book. I love that it feels like the answer to that first Team Deakins question. How did you get where you are?
Roger Deakins: Yeah [laughs]. Yeah, that was very much our thought when the publisher approached us.
What was the writing process like for you? How long did this take to come together?
RD: It took a couple of years from starting out. We worked with a writer in Chicago, actually, for a little bit – Keith Phipps.
James Deakins: To organize things.
RD: He was great. It was just another voice to talk to. I mean, in the end, I ended up writing it myself. The voice didn’t sound right unless I did it myself, you know? But he was great. I would cut stuff out – because there was so much, we had so much to put in – and he would suggest taking stuff out, and I would take stuff out, and then we would talk about it, and he would insist on some of it going back in [laughs]. So, it was nice. It was a great kind of collaboration on that. But then I just got down, and we got down and finished it.
Going through chronologically, which I guess is the best way to look at anyone’s life.
RD: Well, that’s funny that, because originally we started out – and this was Keith’s idea – with [the film] “1984” and then flashback. So you start out as a cinematographer and then flashback. But the publisher said, “No, no, that didn’t work.” He wanted it chronological, which I think is probably the best thing – simpler.
JD: He also didn’t think that we necessarily needed the documentaries and the music videos.
RD: No … I think the publisher really wanted, like, seven movies that were very popular.
JD: And set stories. I think that’s what he wanted, but he didn’t get.
I’m so glad the documentaries are in there. At least for me, I know a good bit about your career, but that stuff is kind of totally foreign. So that was kind of the most fascinating, I thought. I’m glad it made it in.
RD: Yeah, me too. I mean, it was such an important part of my experience. I must say, the publishers were great, because originally it was going to be a smaller book, both physically and in terms of the numbers of words [laughs], and they allowed it to be the bigger and what you see. I think it’s a good balance, and they did that without asking the cost to go up. So it’s still, I think, still accessible.
JD: That was one of the things that we asked in the beginning, that it not be an expensive book.
This book is incredibly detailed, within all the stories but I’m thinking specifically of the lighting descriptions that you’ll go into – this is the exact wattage of this bulb, this is how many we had, how far apart they were, etc. Obviously, you were there, but it’s been a while for some of these films. What was the process like of trying to recollect everything and going back through those documents, getting all those photos together? Were you just going all from your own mind, were you asking different questions to other people? How did that all work out?
RD: No, it was just everything that I remembered and …
JD: Burned into your mind.
RD: Into my memory. But also, I mean, I have folders on each film I’ve ever worked on, and I have some of the diagrams that I wrote at the time, or scribbles I had, so I thought all that might be of interest. I wanted to vary it between – I mean, later on, we would work on a computer and do very detailed sort of lighting diagrams. But when I started, I would just do a sketch, you know? Do something I could talk to the gaffer with. So I wanted to show the whole range of what you do really.
It’s really nice to be able to see some of those physical sketches. I think the chaos of those early days in general is just a really entertaining read. You say in the book, I think when you get to “Barton Fink,” you did a ton of prep with the Coens weeks beforehand, and you didn’t really know that was something people could do. That’s obviously tremendously helpful , but it feels like there’s a bit of nostalgia for those early days.
RD: I’m kind of glad that comes through, really, because I’m a bit nostalgic for those kinds of independent movies, where a group of people get together because they love the project. I think those days are fading, really.
In some ways, I guess more control and having more time is good. But there’s something about that passion.
RD: Yeah, yeah. And I think there’s a danger of technology taking over today. Like, we had a conversation last night, and so many questions are about new technology, and I find that really not so interesting [laughs]. There’s a lot of it in the book – the bulbs and stuff – you have to know it, but that’s not what the most important thing is.
I mean, I learned so much about bulbs that I didn’t know before.
JD: Lucky you!
You talk a lot about using practical bulbs and things you can just go buy at the hardware store, making it as cheap and simple as possible. You just mentioned that technology today is a lot bigger and faster – is that something you’re still able to do, incorporate that kind of practicality on set?
RD: I was trying to press on people that yeah, that’s the way I operated. You don’t have to have film lights. It doesn’t have to be some great, expensive setup with lights specifically made for making movies. I think, even more today, you can go to Walmart or the hardware store and find lighting units that would be very useful for helping you shoot a film. But also, the whole lighting thing has changed completely on the low budget movie now.
JD: But you’re always looking for the most simple solution.
RD: Yeah. Simplest and cheapest, yeah.
Yeah, that stood out to me – it feels like you never lost that mentality of saving money.
RD: I think sometimes it feels a bit obscene, how much money is spent on a film. I mean, it’s like the gross national product of the Cameroons, or something. It’s ridiculous!
You talk a lot about collaborations in this book, and not just people like the Coens, or Sam Mendes, or whoever it might be. Someone who comes up a lot – and this happens with a lot of people – is Bill O’Leary, who is a gaffer now. You talk about meeting him and being like, I want to work with this guy whenever possible. What is the immediacy of that? What is a quality that someone has that makes you go, this is the type of person I want to keep working with?
RD: I don’t know, you know? I met Bill on “Sid and Nancy.” He was the practical electrician, working with the bare bulbs, and the kind of little gag the lights that I like to do, and we just got on really well. I think he was gaffer for me for the first time.
JD: I think, also, it’s the mindset, it’s a person that’s not going to make a big deal about it, who’s calm and quiet, and is just focused on – let’s just get this done. Those are the type of people that we tend to gravitate to.
RD: Some people you just get on with, and the way they approach their work. Like a camera assistant, Andy Harris, I worked with for like, 35 years. I just think when you find somebody you get on with very well, and [you] appreciate each other, really just try and stick with them, you know? But then, you’ve got to be working consistently enough that they’re working consistently enough. It’s kind of different, really, for a cinematographer because – I mean, the pay grade and everything and the time you’re on a movie is longer than somebody that’s an AC or a gaffer, even. So when you keep working, you can keep working with the same crew. But when you’re not working so much, it’s hard to keep a crew together.
That seems like that initial thing happened with you two as well. It was really nice to read the story about you meeting. I hadn’t realized that you got married so quickly.
RD: Yeah, yeah. James reminds me of that quite often.
That was really lovely.
RD: She also reminds me that I proposed to her in a paint shop.
JD: [Laughs] Right!
RD: Which I don’t remember. I must be honest, I don’t remember at all.
JD: Oh god! I definitely remember.
Like I mentioned earlier, I love the question your podcast starts out with , because so much comes out of it. And I think that for the listener, it becomes easier to connect the dots from someone’s life to the type of projects they choose or their work. I was listening to the Kelly Reichardt episode recently, and I’m a huge fan of hers. Learning that her dad was a crime scene photographer and learning about that professional background, I was like, oh – you can see that kind of influence in her work. And I was wondering if doing this exercise, looking back at your own life experience, did anything sort of new come to light about how you think you choose projects, or the type of work that you do as a whole?
RD: I don’t know. Did it change?
JD: No, I think you’ve always been very specific about what you take and what you don’t take. It just reiterated it.
RD: It made me remember some of the mistakes I made. There were a few in there that were bad choices, but I wouldn’t have made any different choices. The ones I didn’t succeed on – let’s put it that way – I still would have tried, I think, if I’d gone back. I think my reasons for choosing a project would stay the same.
Those, whether you call them mistakes or missteps, are important for people to read about too.
RD; Well, I thought that was important, to put it in. We didn’t want it to be a sort of tell all … but I think it’s important to be honest about things.
You mention a lot of movies in the early part of the book that you really loved when you were younger. One you mentioned, but didn’t dwell on it too much, was “In a Lonely Place,” which is one of my favorite movies. I was curious, what do you love about that film?
RD: It’s not the only one of those noir films I love … They really created a mood, and a kind of a melancholy quality to them. And I guess I’m kind of that kind of person [laughs]. I don’t know.
Is there anything you’ve seen lately, both of you, that you either really liked or really admired the cinematography in?
RD: You mentioned Kelly Reichardt. I mean, I thought “The Mastermind” was really, really great.
I love that one.
JD: We also liked “Don’t Let’s Go to the Dogs Tonight,” that no one else has heard of. But we really loved that.
I’ve seen that.
RD: Oh, great! Somebody has seen it!
I thought it was fascinating, from the point of view of the child.
RD: I was in Rhodesia just before that time, when it was Rhodesia. That just captured that sort of white colonial kind of mess really so well. But I guess audiences are just not interested in history [laughs]. Or the real world! I don’t know what it is.
JD: I think it also didn’t have a lot of publicity. We didn’t even know it existed, and we had read the original book. It was up on the Academy screening room, and we weren’t sure we wanted to watch it, because we liked the book so much. We watched it, and really liked it, and then immediately I tried to find Embeth Davidtz, who directed it. She came on the podcast, because we thought it was such a great movie that we wanted to boost it.
Yeah, it definitely deserves the boost. I just thought the decision to center a child sort of learning and unlearning at the same time, what they’ve been raised to believe, was so interesting.
RD: Yeah. It was beautiful. In many ways, it was kind of like one of my favorite films – Andrei Tartovsky’s first film, “Ivan’s Childhood,” which sees the war through this kid. In a way, I think Embeth did the same thing in a totally different setting. Having everything seen from that kid’s point of view is really great.
