Yeah, its one of those things.

I wonder for people coming into your profession now, if those problems just arent there.

I think theres a lot of truth to that.

It seems so carefully chosen, the amount of light that you put on a scene.

Ad content continues below

Yeah, I think thats important too.

I try as much as possible, still, to do things in front of the lens.

Lets replace that sky.

Or, lets add a window over there, or whatever.

And so theres the risk that the work that you do is going to be handled by other people.

Would you say thats been one of your fondest collaborations?

I had been working previously with directors who used the camera to record actors talking.

John was one of the first directors to say, No.

Well, yes and no.

Was that always the ethos you were striving for?

And as a result you were sort of drawn into moments in the story telling.

Its almost as if the cameras not grounded for much of that film at all.

What was your thinking there?

Because on the stage, it was possible to make the lighting very even and almost too perfect.

Particularly, is it a myth that you get more time on a bigger-budget film?

Well you do get more time, but usually its been allocated to bigger things.

And while you do get more time and more equipment, sometimes its not always a good thing.

There are two superlatives that have come up time and time again aimed in your direction.

One I thought was really interesting was The Master of Widescreen.

Digging into your work, you dont steadfastly stick with 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, you do vary between productions.

And sometimes thats quite true, sometimes its fear on the part of the studio, and shooting widescreen.

And of course its never really a waste of frame.

Because I think it gives you a lot of creative possibilities, you know.

It was kind of like that.

Theres an on-screen contrast between the two different versions of the 80s that were shown.

Again, were back to much of the distinction in front of the lens?

Because there didnt seem to be much turn-around time between them.

And I think that was one of the things that was most intriguing about both of them.

You must have made a hell of a job for yourself?

So, good luck.

Again, the effects always took the backseat to the storytelling.

I dread to think how long that took.

Every shot required a great deal of thought.

Is there something that unites the way that they work that particularly appeals to you?

It all goes back to a director who understands the importance of using the camera to tell the story.

That is what makes the great collaboration.

Thats what makes for a great collaboration.And are you keen to work with any of them again?

Oh yeah, I would work with any of them.

It was presenting different challenges.

Youre now faced with creating fun and comedy, and there was a little bit of different style.

Well, its sort of progress as far as just a technical development.

Right now, in some cases were taking a little step back when we go into digital.

And people have to stay aware of that.

It needs to be a continued part of the vocabulary.

Relaxings probably the wrong word, but I think you know what I mean?