A young and talented CG artist recently asked me, “How do you light a car?” We were on a busy set and we were about to roll. I had a few seconds to answer so I said, “It would take a lot of time to cover the subject, but here’s the basic principle. First, I light the world around the car, then I take care of the rest.”
But the CG artist’s question stayed with me. It was a question that invited more questions than answers. Why was he asking? Why do we need to CG cars? Most of the time, a CG car is a faithful reproduction of an existing model. Why would a commercial production prefer a CG car instead of filming the real one?
I posed all these questions to my friends in the industry and I received various answers: “Sometimes it’s cheaper.” “We have more control with CG.” “We get something different.” For DP’s like me, this is a troubling new reality.
We all know how expensive a car shoot can be. The lighting package usually includes a huge soft box that requires a stage with high ceilings or, if the shoot is outdoors, a massive Champion crane. The grip package lists large seamless white or black flats and fancy car mounts. A camera car with a crane and a remote head is a must if we shoot on the road. The most desirable locations are expensive, hard to secure and traffic logistics are sometimes a nightmare. The shoot days are long because we prefer to shoot at dawn and dusk. Do I need all that equipment? How about finding other ways to light a car? Forget the light box? Yes, light the car with instruments that fit the location. Forget the fancy crane moves? For a change, why not shoot handheld from another car…? That time has come. I will refresh my approach.
I’m not alone on this path. All the directors I know welcome a fresh look. We’re all tired of ‘cookie cutter’ car commercials. The predictable look of our work is part of the problem that we DPs face today. Using the same tools, shooting at the same locations, creates a sense of “déjà vu” when a car spot turns up on television. CG cars are a logical consequence of this rather unexciting state of the business. Most of the time, the CG cars look predictably good. They don’t look quite real, but filmed cars often suffer from the same problem.
Now I ask myself a key question: “Is my goal as a cameraman to make the car look perfect, or I should accept ‘imperfect but real’?”
I believe “perfect” is the wrong answer. Let the CG cars be perfect. I gladly give away that territory.
So, here I am advocating for imperfect cinematography. Why? Because perfection is rarely equivalent to beauty. Thank you talented CG artists for your impeccable CG cars. You helped clarify my perspective. I will not compete with you anymore. I don’t want to do what you do.
I want to move on and try something different. I’m excited again when the telephone rings and a car commercial comes my way.
I will have fun experimenting, figuring out that mysterious balance between precision and accident that makes a shot great.
Anghel Decca is an accomplished cinematographer (www.angheldecca.com) who is repped by Montana Artists Agency in Beverly Hills, Calif.
