Genesis of a Camera - Godard y Beauviala

8/2/2019 Genesis of a Camera - Godard y Beauviala

1/26

Genesis of a Camera: Jean-Pierre Beauviala and Jean-

Luc GodardCamera Obscura Vol. 5, No. 13/14 (Spring-Summer 1985): 163-193.

We are reprinting this discussion between Jean-Pierre Beauviala and

Jean-Luc Godard because it represents one of the most unusual exchanges on the relationshipbetween aesthetics and technology that we have seen. It is highly unlikely that an interview witht

his kind of emotional tenor would ever find its way into a journal like AMERICAN

CINEMATOGRAPHER, for example, even though it is concerned throughout with the development

of a new 35mm camera and its potential uses. Jeane-Pierre Beauviala is responsible for a series of

inventions that resulted in the Aaton 16mm camera, nicknamed the cat because of the way it is

designed to balance on the shoulder (hence the references to the camera as an animal); the

perfection of super-16 (made to be blown up to 35mm without image distortion); and the

PALUCHE, which is referred to frequently in the discussion below. The PALUCHE is a small video

camera that is held in the hand like a microphone or a flashlight. Because of its size and mobility,

the PALUCHE becomes an extension of the hand rather than the eye.

In Grenoble, where Aaton is located, Beauviala worked with Godard for

several years on the development of specialized video and film

equipment, while Godard was living just across the French border in

Rolle, Switzerland. They intended to create a new 35mm camera that would

have the technical simplicity and flexibility of super-8, so that a

non-specialist, a director like Godard, could use it for spontaneous,

brief shots that could be intercut with 35mm work done by professional

cinematographers. A camera called the Aaton 35-8 was subsequently

marketed, but not exactly in the form originally envisioned by either of

them. Just how the technology would develop-according to whose

needs-took on an increasingly personal dimension as time went on,

culminating in a major dispute between filmmaker and inventor. At the

meeting chronicled below, Godard and Beauviala voice their complaints in

language that mixes metaphors about art, love and technology. It quickly

becomes evident that their friendship is being contested as much as the

merits of one camera design over another.

As personalities characterized in large part by the ways they choose

to express themselves, both Godard and Beauviala are intriguing,

especially in the light of what they represent-each in his own way

unorthodox, yet operating within commercial constraints. Godards

arguments are marked by a familiar combination of self-awareness,

self-deception and tricky maneuvering that works by frequent and abruptchanges in subject. Perhaps this could be called a form of montage; it

animates his Histoire(s) du cinma as well as his public debate with

Pauline Kael (see CAMERA OBSCURA 8-9-10 for both), and also the dialogue

he likes to give his fictional characters. Godards technique is well

known: the oblique, associative argument, presented in a roundabout way,

interspersed with little stories that are digressive and still

ironically (or strangely) illustrative. One is often seduced into


2/26

following his train of thought, rather than an argument in a logical

sense. Aside from providing character studies, the interview is

interesting in that it shows how decisions are made, and rationalized,

decisions that attempt to satisfy technical, artistic and economic needs

at the same time.

Please note that the technical specifications of the Aaton cameras

that Godard and Beauviala talk about, particularly the 35-8, have

undergone further modifications since the date of this discussion. For

accurate and current information, contact: Zellan Enterprises, 250 West

57th Street, New York, NY 10019. Aaton advertisements used as

illustrations were taken from a publicity booklet printed in 1982,

unless otherwise indicated.

Alain Bergala, who wrote the introduction and several explanatory

notes, is one of the editors of CAHIERS DU CINEMA; he frequently writes

on photography. Jean-Pierre Beauviala occasionally writes about

technical questions for the CAHIERS; he is listed on the masthead asTechnical Advisor. And Jean-Luc Godard has had a long history of

involvement with the CAHIERS, first as critic and later as one of their

favorite filmmakers. CAHIERS DU CINEMA no. 300 was a special anniversary

issue edited and designed by Godard. This is the first episode of a

discussiuon originally published in two parts. We intend to print the

second half in the near future.

Janet Bergstrom

Introduction

The following conversation between a filmmaker, Jean-Luc Godard, and

a designer and maker of cameras, Jeane-Pierre Beauviala, carries with it

a whole history of dreams and disappointments, of hopes and

misunderstandings, a history that has been going on now for more than

four years: the genesis of a new 35mm camera.

It all began around 1976 when Godard decided he needed a little 35mm

camera small enough to put in the glove compartment of his car, one that

he could frame and focus himself. This way he could always be ready, on

the lookout for a flower in a field or an interesting configuration of

clouds in the sky (as in the first shot of Passion, which Godard himself

filmed with the Aaton 35)-in other words, everything filmmakers normally

cant get on film because the opportunity never comes up when theyre

ready. When they notice the flower in the field, theyre not in a

position to shoot it, because first they need a camera, and then a lot

of operators and assistants, and then, when theyre finally ready to

shoot, theyve lost the flower because the crew has trampled it to

death.


3/26

This is how Godard envisioned the camera: Youre in Holland, out in

the country, and you see a windmill that is completely motionlessYou

take the camera out of the glove compartment, you shoot, and you get a

35mm image with the highest resolution possible in cinema or television.

Suddenly you think of Foreign Correspondent (the sequence when the

windmill turns the wrong way). Or something else. Because you already

have an image, once you have an image, you do something else with it.

And if Ingrid Bergmans there, I shoot Ingrid Bergman. Thats the idea;

thats why this camera was made.

Its clear that the camera Godard wanted and which he christened the

35-8 (a 35mm camera that would have the small size and the automatic

features of super-8: see the letter addressed to Aaton of February 5,

1979, published in CAHIERS DU CINEMA, no. 300) was to be a DIRECTORS

camera; never mind that its noisy and can only shoot for two minutes,

with a 60-meter magazine, as long as the quality of the image is

competitive with the Arri BL. The technical characteristics were

determined by Godards desire to be somewhere OTHER than the placesnormally prescribed by the traditional cinema. This is because Godard

feels that MISE EN SCENE always ends up looking like its been

determined by the equipment available, as well as by certain working

habits that have to do with the nature of the standard crew (the number

of people employed, the division of labor, the professional norms). To

get out of this rut and find new places, new angles, different points of

view, in short, an entirely different way to film something, Godard

needed fresh equipment that didnt already necessitate the same, routine

gestures; in other words, he needed not only a new camera, but also

everything that should come with it: clamps that allow the camera to be

attached to places other than those normally used, e.g., a restrictedspace cluttered with a cumbersome tripod; a color PALUCHE with automatic

controls; an editing table with video playback; another kind of blimp;

etc.

So, Godard turned it over to Beauviala, even though making and

designing the 35-8 was intended to be shared by the two. At the

beginning, Godard saw himself as a partner and associate. He decided to

invest a small part of the budget of his next three films (Sauve qui peut (la vie); Passion; Prnom:

Carmen) as a cash advance on the

anticipated rental of the equipment.

Easter 1978: Aaton goes to work. June 1979: the prototype is born,

and William Lubtchansky makes the first tests, on a street in the 16th

Arrondissement in Paris. Thats when things start getting complicated

and bogged down in misunderstandings-which the following conversation,

requested by Godard, is supposed to redress, four years and three films

later.

What happened in the meantime? The camera evolved; its no longer the


4/26

original 35-8, but the Aaton 35. Even if its smaller and more

light-weight than regular 35mm cameras, and has a completely unique,

feline contour, its still a bit heavy compared to the first model,

because of technical adjustments that had to be made (a revolving mirror

instead of a beam-splitter, 120-meter magazines instead of 60-meter,

etc.). These adjustments were designed to make the camera more

competitive on the international market, on which Aatons success

necessarily depends. It was clear that the original 35-8, which answered

Godards needs, didnt stand the slightest chance of survival on the

international market, unless it was to be considered a back-up camera or

a second-unit camera, for shots that required primarily a camera that

was just SMALL and LIGHT-WEIGHT.

Now, four years later, Godard feels less like a partner in the

creation of this camera-its development by-passed him completely-and

more like a simple customer or an informed, critical user. According to

him, this camera was originally supposed to be tailored to a directors

needs, but ended up being made to solve the technical problems of acamera-operator. In other words, it was not designed to fit a really

SPECIAL request.I asked for Artemis to hunt my images, says Godard,

but I got Juno. Godard is objecting to the other voices that

interfered, including those of his own camera operators.

As for Beauviala, he willingly concedes that there were a number of

technical problems that come with making a prototype, that he tried to

resolve as quickly as possible. But he feels that the current Aaton 35,

which was used for several shots of Patrice Chereaus LHOMME BLESSE,

has maintained, despite all the misunderstandings with Godard, the

spirit of the original 35-8, even if it consists only in its differentanimality.

Such is the state of things at the moment this conversation between

Godard and Beauviala begins. The dialogue takes place on neutral ground,

in one of the CAHIERS offices. Also present is Jean-Bernard Menoud, who

was Godards camera assistant on his last films, and myself,

representing CAHIERS as the host of the conversation.

Alain Bergala

1. The Original Project, or: How Misunderstandings are Born

Jean-Luc Godard (JLG here-after): Lets just say that since I cant

focus (FAIRE LE POINT) with this camera, Id be satisfied just to make a

point of the fact that I cant make a point (FAIRE LE POINT) with this

camera. For me this particular camera is loaded with symbolism. I

expressed this to you with the question, Does the French cinema NEED a

camera? No! So I am taking advantage of Jean-Bernard Menouds presence

in Paris today to discuss this, since hes the one who ended up using it


5/26

the most. Im here as a film producer whos interested in a certain kind

of equipment. Ive always tried, in the name of MISE EN SCENE, to have a

dialogue (if possible) with those who build the objects we use. And then

theres a more philosophical-economic perspective: what does it mean to

build an object, especially a camera, what purpose does it serve, who

wants it

Alain Bergala (AB here-after): Still, its rare for a camera to be

commissioned by a filmmaker. Since Rossellini

JLG: Cameras have always been commissioned by filmmakers, including

Lumiere, who was a painter, as you can see from Langlois documentary.

And the still camera was commissioned by Charles Cros, who was a

poetand the Aaton 16 camera by Beauviala, who was an architect,

because the others didnt suit him. And then things evolved to the point

where today, as a producer, here I am again a customer whos abandoned

the role of official partner. On the other hand, I can see the

difficulty of fine-tuning an objectSo, if I add it up, weve probablyinvested about the same thing-I just dont add it up the same way. But

purely in terms of money, the prototype for a camera used to launch a

trial series-correct me if Im wrong-costs something between three and

five million francs.

Jean-Pierre Beauviala (JPB here-after): It took two years to make the

35-8 camera, which you used for SAUVE QUI PEUT. It cost 800,000 francs.

Its successor the Aaton 35, has already cost four million after only

three years, and its not even finished yet.

JLG: The testing ground for this camera has been the films Ive made:Ive made three films in three years with budgets averaging five million

francs, more or less, which makes 1-1/2 billion old francs. I dont

think its an exaggeration to say that between one-fifth and one-quarter

of this budget went to this camera. The difficulties of having a

dialogue with the camera-maker are the same as those Ive found in

trying to have a dialogue with technicians, who themselves have no

dialogue with the camera-maker. Which means that you can adapt a whole

shooting style to a certain camera, but it doesnt work out because you

find out that it goes against cultural habits. What Im hoping for is

the beginning of a discussion about something. The thing that really

makes me furious, not as much now, but still, is that I cant see a

flower, or a cloud, let alone a face (thats harder), which is the basis

of my work today, because I dont have this camera, and thats why I

commissioned it. When I gave the camera to Menoud and he told me, No,

Jean-Luc, dont carry on, dont despair, I told him, I hope youre

going to have more energy to find a model that works, because as a

filmmaker, youre going to need it. Ive heard six of my camera

operators say that they dont need it.


6/26

JPB: Lets go back and look at how youve gotten to the point of

disparaging the very thing you used to love. At the beginning, you told

me, I want a Bell &Howeel, only Id like you to add an electric motor

and a battery so that it shoots sync sound. So we bought a Eyemo 35.

JLG: I never saw it, I wasnt even told it had been bought.

JPB: Because you told me just after that, Look, in any case the

Eyemo doesnt have a good viewfinder, and I want a viewfinder. Your

great leitmotif was, I want to frame by myself.

JLG: What I said to you was that Id like to take advantage of all

the developments in electronics and modern mechanics, in optics,

starting out with a camera body like the old Kodak or Eyemo, but

including everything else: automatic focus, viewfinder, time-code if you

want it, such that youre a complete man with a camera perfected in 35,

much better than in 16.

JPB: You told me very precisely: What I want is to have a camera as

small as possible, so as to get these little stock shots (there was no

question at the time of making entire films with it); you wanted to get

these short docu-photos of people and things you encountered.

JLG: Yes, but wait a minute. What I meant was shots for film. I dont

say to a mechanic: I want a car that can go 100 meters

JPB: Youll only find cars that go 50 million.

JLG: The mechanic says to me, You hadnt told me you wanted to go100 meters several times over. I say, Thats my problem if I want to

go 100 meters several times in a car that can only go 100 meters!

JPB: No, because when he builds the car, he wont give you the same

gas tank if you tell him, I want to go 100 meters or if you tell him,

Iwant to make a round trip to Paris.

JLG: I want to get little shots like that. You say that if theyre

little shots, theyre not films. Therefore you have an idea of what

films are.

JPB: Dont put words in my mouth. I never said little shots arent

films. I said that I agreed, on the contrary, to design a camera that,

like the Eyemo, would start out with a small film capacity (the Eyemo

could hold a minute and a half). We made one that could shoot a little

over two minutes. Thats how we made a camera that was extremely small,

with a 60-meter magazine, much smaller than the one on the table there.

Because it had neither a big rotary mirror, nor a 120-meter magazine.

Smaller than the Aaton 16mm. What I want to know is why you didnt use


7/26

this camera, and why Aaton has now made another one. What happened?

JLG: It all came from your end!

JPB: Not from us, Jean-Luc; I took a crew from Aaton and I said to

the mechanical, electronic and optical experts, Were going to make

this little camera, very small, which shoots these little bits of film

like Godard asked for. You paid us 100,000 francs, and it cost us

700,000But I kept telling myself that others besides you would absorb

the cost of the test model. Its that camera that you see in some of the

production stills of Lubtchansky shooting in SAUVE QUI PEUT.

JLG: Only SOME shots of SAUVE QUI PEUT, because we couldnt use it

much longer-otherwise, wed have shot all of SAUVE QUI PEUT with it. And

all of PASSION.

JPB: Let me tell you something. You had other people around you, your

crew. From that point on, it was no longer really you. You completelylet go of the reigns of the project we had agreed on. Youre the one who

was supposed to use the camera, keep it handy on the back seat of your

bike, or in your grocery bag. Instead, you gave it to Lubtchansky, then

to Tom, Dick and Harry, and finally, Coutard. And thats where Im

unhappy with our relationship: instead of coming to discuss

JLG: How many letters did you get from me? How many did I get from

you? How many times did I come to Grenoble, how many times did you come

to Rolle and Geneva?

JPB: When I came to Rolle during PASSION, you were in a terriblemood, you were pissed off at everybody around you. There I was, in the

middle of it and couldnt say a word to you.

JLG: Im well aware of this. But Im trying to find out where the

trouble came from, and why it wasnt a joint research project. The

initiative didnt come from either side. Theres probably a lot there

that was unconscious. But Im still stuck with a camera that I hardly

use at all.

JPB: I tend to think that the way youve dealt with me could be filed

under your relations with your technicians.

JLG: We did the whole thing in a fairly amateurish way. You dont

know the people I hire. I complain about them to you fairly often,

because afterwards I detach myself from them. And I dont know your

people either, Ive never been introduced to them

JPB: But you have! You know Leroux, you know Lecoeur, you know

FrancoisIve alredy named three!


8/26

JLG: Look, we spend 20-30-50 million francs and then were told, OK,

were sending you THIS. Thats why I ask the question, does the French

cinema need a camera other than the Panavision or the Arri BL? My answer

is, right now, no!

JPB: Do you limit the field of experimentation entirely to the French

cinema?

JLG: Lets just say, does the French cinema want another camera?

JPB: But in the end, we dont give a damn about the French cinema in

relation to world cinema! Lets put the question the right way: does

cinema IN GENERAL need an object like this one?

JLG: Thats really too vast. I personally cant think in global

terms. Technicians can, the Japanese better than anybody else. Alexander

the Great thought of the welfare of the people in universal terms, too.But not me!

JPB: Jean-Luc, you dont mind if your films leave the country, do

you?

JLG: I dont mind, but I dont think about it.

JPB: But I have to think in global terms, since Aaton survives on

export.

JLG: Thats the first time in this for year relationship that Iveheard it stated. It took four years to come to an understanding, and

thats not bad; four years is nothing. A four-year old child! But there

you are: it takes four years and 800 million francs to finally

understand things. You have to search for the object, manufacture it,

watch it evolve. A screenplay evolves, a painting evolvesFor example,

the first time we used this camera for SAUVE QUI PEUT, even before SAUVE

QUI PEUT, there was a view-finder with a semi-transparent beam-splitter,

not a very good one because it cost less and there wasnt the money,

yours or mine, for something we didnt really understand. OK, so we

experimented, and we said, We cant shoot, because I remeber those

first letters (published in CAHIERS) in which I told you I would like at

the very least to have an image that experts couldnt tell from one made

with an Arri BL.

JPB: Now its just the opposite; we find the image is too good

compared with the Arri BL.

JLG: Absolutely. On the other hand, for the moment we cant take

advantage of this too good! Thats why we changed the beam-splitter,


9/26

because its the beam-splitter that made the image too diffuse.

JPB: I dont think it was the beam-splitter that

Jean-Bernard Menoud (JBM here-after): I remeber the first tests we

made for SAUVE QUI PEUT: we shot Dutronc in front of a window.

JLG: No, that was eight months later. The first tests were at Rolle

on the train station platform, with Lubtchansky. This was a camera that

Lecour had made mouldings for, like a cabinet-maker for Louis XVI. I

really liked them, and I dont understand why they disappeared later.

JPB: No, no, the mouldings are still there, but now theyre more in

the Directory style.

JLG: So, little by little Ive come to understand that the life of a

film production company isnt at all like the life of an industrial

enterprise, even one that makes cameras. Still, the company gave a lot,you gave a lot, and I hope it succeeds. But today, all I can say is,

Ill only buy the camera when its ready.

JPB: That first camera (the 35-8) no longer exists. The one I just

made doesnt have one identical feature-optical, mechanical or

electronic.

JLG: And thats what I regret somewhat, because it wouldve been

interesting for me to be in touch with the construction of an object.

But contacts are difficult between Paris and the provinces, and then

again between two provincials, since Im a provincial like you! Thatswhat brought us together in the first place; youre not the one who came

to Grenoble to set up shop. You went there before me; Im the one who

came for three or four years.

JPB: While were on the subject, lets talk about Grenoble and why it

didnt work out.

JLG: I couldnt even-because you couldnt care less about the sound-I

couldnt even attach the microphone to the PALUCHE the way I wanted. So

after me, exit the PALUCHE!

JPB: You cant say we dont care about the sound; Ill remind you

that Aatons whole history began with my wanting rich and complex sound,

not the sort of lip-sync where talking hides seeing, but simultaneous

noise and sound.

JLG: Even with three assistant cameramen and two cinematographers, I

couldnt succeed in rigging the mike to the camera. Because the main

idea I had, good or bad, I dont know, but that I insisted on and that


10/26

bore a strong relation to the MISE EN SCENE, was that this little

camera, like the PALUCHE earlier on, would be able to get close to the

source of the sound, and that the clamps holding the microphone (which

should have been modified accordingly) would be the same, or of the same

type, as those holding the camera. But I didnt succeed.

JPB: Still, in order to pacify you, we gave you this gadget with

electronic cable clamps, which you did use, by the way: Ive seen the

photos.

JLG: If you had been interested, youd have made it yourself, but it

doesnt interest you.

JPB: No, it doesnt interest me, as a matter of PRINCIPLE: you know

that for me the PALUCHE is an extension of the body towards people and

things, its the hands very gesture, its quivering, its emotion; its a

centering of a SUBJECT that has nothing to do with the frame of the

cinema, so some clamps

JLG: I put three years into this idea. I said to Musy, Listen, dont

tell me this magazine makes noise because you havent been able to get

your windbreaker wrapped around the camera to muffle it. We have to find

another kind of blimp

JPB: You put three years into it, but I remind you that the Aaton 16

has its own blimp, which has been keeping it warm for six or seven years

already.

JLG: But its really bad.

JPB: Maybe so, but dont say its design was based on a cardboard box.

With the 16mm, as well as with the 35, we used the principle of the

quilted body-stocking, very effective! Your technicians didnt want

it-maybe its not easy enough to take on and off.

JLG: Youre supposed to talk to the technicians! Youve never even

seen them. I couldnt get them to come to Grenoble.

JPB: I went at the beginning of the PRENOM: CARMEN shoot to see the

rushes one evening

JLG: One time! Because we are in a jam and we told you to come!

JPB: Thats just it. I came one time and I didnt come back. Why?

First of all, because when I came that time, there was Coutard and the

whole bunch who flat-out insulted me! Im sorry, but surround yourself

with people who understand you! Ive had the same technicians on this

project for four or five years.


11/26

JLG: But theres no dialogue, theres no joint concept of what this

camera should be. Which means its been changing form constantly for

four years. But why does it keep on changing?

JBM: Thats precisely whats interesting. Each time it took a film

project and two months advance notice to motivate Jeane-Pierre and his

crew to renew their interest in this camera.

JPB: Do you really think that a project like ours is just done two

months at a shot every other year?

JLG: Well, I find it absolutely incredible that it took three years

and three films, 1-1/2 million francs, for professional assistants of

good will (fascists or not), for professional inventors of good will

(leftists or not), and myself to realize that with a camera like this

one, if you focus with the viewfinder you dont get the same result as

when you focus with the tape measure. When you realize that you cantfocus is when youre on a feature production and you take twenty shots

every day. So then youve got to stop! On CARMEN it cost us between

three and four million francs, with Sarde. Because there was a film

style that everybody was using. OK, (Isabelle) Adjani didnt want it, so

she left-but it was a film style that was tied to a star. When the star

disappeared, a funny thing happened; the Aaton disappeared at the same

time. I accepted it for technical reasons, but then the whole style of

the film changed. When the camera is clamped to the edge of the table,

and theres no tripod in the middle, people like Coutard dont move

around it. The room isnt the same,the MISE EN SCENE isnt the same,

the films arent the same, society could be better-thats the way I seeit! And we saw the die was cast! So I continued in the old modebut I

couldnt go back to the Arri mode. And the film wasnt working any more.

SAUVE QUI PEUT could still be made with the Arri. PASSION could be made

with any old camera. PRENOM: CARMEN couldnt. The film changed! But

somehow I just cant put two talented people together, because the first

thing they do is insult each other!

2. How a Camera Changes Name When It Changes Hands

JPB: The camera you wanted at the beginning still exists as a

prototype, and Im keeping it for Langlois Cinematheque. Its very

close to the camera you wanted to attach to your eye, and which I

found adequate for my own reasons.

JLG: The image was out of focus because of the beam-splitter.

JPB: NOT because of the beam-splitter; the Imax high-definition

cameras also use the same principle for their reflex-mirror system, and

so do the Mitchell BNCs.


12/26

JLG: We never really talked together because youre more of a

technician than a creator, from that point of view also. Youre like a

restaurant owner: you say, What would you like, gentlemen? and I say,

What do you have, gentlemen? The dialogue could go on like that

forever. The technicians say to me, What do you want, Jean-Luc? Well

make it for you. Now Ive resigned myself to saying, I dont know,

well find a solution.

JPB: We had a talk after SAUVE QUI PEUT and thats not what happened!

JLG: Look, I dont know, without having used the camera, if the

beam-splitter will give us as sharp or pointed a resolution, you know

what I mean? For example, as long as you dont show me a Renoir or an

Ingres painting, I dont know what it means. So, we do it; then when I

see the result, I understand whats wrong, and at that point we realize

it has to change, that it needs a rotating-mirror, which means 700,000

francs worth of research, which I understand completely.

JPB: Who said after the tests that it needed a rotating-mirror more

than a beam-splitter? Not me, anyway, and certainly not because of the

sharpnessLets get to the bottom of this, what led to the conception

of this camera where the cost sheet was

JLG: There was never a cost sheet

JPB: Yes, there was; I drew up a paper for you with the anticipated

figures. In fact, I prepared this paper with you. I wasnt the

restaurant owner asking you, What would you like? We discussed it fora long time and we determined that for this type of cinema, wed need

this type of camera: light, small, low noise level

JLG: With an image quality that could match the Arri 35 BL.

JPB: I opted for technical solutions such that you could get the

largest image possible, ultra sharp and stable, so as to be able to play

inside the frame of the image, what I now call Bonnardising. With

Bonnard, reframing isnt just selecting new borders for the image

which are smaller than the large frame at the beginning; its modifying

MASSES according to their values and their COLORS, and even deforming

Renaissance perspective. This should let you RECENTER the meaning of

the picture without even changing the geometric center of the photo.

Thats why I agreed to start this project; it allowed me to make a

camera almost as small, in relation to the body and the hand, as the

PALUCHE, but capable of registering enormous images, a sort of vein you

could mine by means of digital video and computer technology. Bonnard

always used canvases much bigger than the painting he had in mind, and

at the end recentered the subject by playing with the area around the


13/26

actual painting. It was this, and not just a question of time or money,

which made me choose the semi-transparent reflex beam-splitter. It

allowed me to cover a larger image without the camera becoming a

monster.

(At this point in the text, a free-hand drawing of the beam-splitter

system is shown, with the following caption, written by Jean-Pierre

Beauviala: Mao would have appreciated the semi-transparent beam-splitter

system, in which one divides into two: 1/3 of the light coming into

the lens goes to the ground-glass of the viewfinder; the rest goes

uninterrupted to the film.)

(Another free-hand drawing depicts the rotating-mirror system, with

the following caption, written by Jeane-Pierre Beauviala: The

rotating-mirror system works on the principsl of democratic alternation.

100% of the light passes alternately to the film stock during exposure

of the image (1/50 of a second), then 100% to the ground-glass of the

viewfinder during the positioning of the following image. Similar to theway the heart beats, the image exposed on film is never quite the same

as the one the cameraman sees.)

JPB: The camera we gave you was the prototype; instead of playing

with it first, you put it right to work on SAUVE QUI PEUT, a film that

already had a technical crew and everything else. It wasnt even painted

black yet-we didnt have time to do it-and the image that came out of

this camera, in tests that were really tough for a prototype, didnt

have, not the sharpness, but the contrast that classic cameras have.

(One shouldnt confuse contrast with definition, even if they look the

same to the naked eye.) But I didnt think this was a reason to condemnthe whole system. The point at which each of us effectively lost control

of this little 35-8, was, in my opinion, when the cameramen and

technicians around us said, Theres no rotating-mirror reflex shutter,

it cant work. We dont want it! But they were speaking as

standard-sync-sound-filmmakers/cameramen; what we had in mind was, for

you, a directors camera, and for me, a device for registering

(reframed? [word partially obscured here-BF]), Bonnardized images.

Besides, every time things go wrong between us, and weve got yet

another example in PRENOM: CARMEN, its because all these people come

between us. And you, you hide yourself away; I dont know how or by what

mysterious means!

JLG: I hide myself when I shoot a film, or rather, I dont hide

myself, but the film hides me.

JPB: And people hide you from yourself completely. You forget your

original intention and your initial remarks, which were to have a camera

for a very precise application


14/26

JLG: to have a sharp image and to operate it myself; I realized

there were a certain number of things-like the viewfinder-to work on.

After the tests for SAUVE QUI PEUT, the only thing we decided together

was that you were going to try to find the money to work on getting rid

of the beam-splitter system, which wasnt competitive.

JPB: So now youve finally said it: NOT COMPETITIVE, but it was for

another market, for the camera operators or the cameramen/filmmakers!

JLG: I personally dont know how the image is registered:

rotating-mirror, beam-splitter-its Chinese to me! But Im told its

because of the beam-splitter that the image is diffuse

JPB: Theres no physical reason for the beam-splitter to make

lower-contrast images. There are fifteen elements in a lens, so its not

because theres a beam-splitter added.

JLG: Look, I dont know anything about it. You have to find a lessprecarious system.

JPB: If at the time we had both been more ambitious, in other words,

if we had REALLY wanted to make this camera, because you still felt the

need, we could have made the beam-splitter work. In an optical

instrument, this isnt a problem.

JLG: Its a mystery to me how things turned out that way.

JPB: Because of YOUR OWN crew.

JLG: Its not my crew.

JPB: It was so your crew.There were Chapius, Berta, Lubtchansky. It

was clear that you brought them to me as people you had confidence in,

and they pressured us incredibly. They said this beam-splitter was shit.

And from their point of view as filmmakers/cameramen, theyre right; the

beam-splitter isnt perfect: its fragile and it eats up light that

should go to the film stock. So I took account of their demands and of

Aatons finances: thats whats called integrating the

constraintsThere are sixty people at Aaton, and they have to live

off this competitive market. But to get back to your people, the people

you trust, to whom you entrust your images

JLG: Theyre employees!

JPB: Maybe so, but you picked them!

JLG: I took them on for a shoot, and when I saw afterwards that they

didnt follow, I no longer considered them my people.


15/26

JPB: The real tragedy is that they left behind a cloud of smoke

between us, which means that the camera has become another kind of tool

than the one you wanted at the outset.

JLG: But Im not the one who provoked the drama. Everybody just let

ithappen.

JPB: You let them trash this poor little camera. You know very well

that for me this project meant contributing to a certain type of film,

to a certain kind of image; it wasnt just a technical thing.

JLG: Look, if you think theyre bad, then I have to hold you

responsible for having believed my employees!

JPB: I didnt say they wre bad at what they do, but they werent good

for our project. They were your envoys, so I believed them.

JLG: Me, too, I believed them. Everybody bekieved them, and we were

wrong, and at that point we saw that dialogue is difficult, that

industries are very different even though they may be similar, which

means we were mistaken. What do you want me to say? Why did you believe

the cameramen?

JPB: They have another point of view: they represent another lobby.

JLG: I believed this lobby. But after three months, I got rid of

them; I realized it served no purpose. In fact, I asked the technicians

to use the camera, but when I saw they didnt want to, I stopped.

JPB: That means you werent sufficiently master of the project; you

delegated the word of the creator to others.

JLG: I was LESS than the master. At one point, I just wanted to say,

I give you this camera. I gave it to Berta and Goupil. When they

didnt want it, I took it back, and then I gave it to Menoud. Well see!

JPB: Its no longer the same. They didnt want the little camera, but

Menouds camera is the Aaton 35. How can you complain about lack of

communication, when you let others speak for you?

JLG: OK, at certain times there WAS a sort of intermediary body, the

actual camera operators, who screwed everything up. Thats how it is

with pretentious, over-paid people, and then the two inventors tell each

other off, when theres really no reason to. What Id like to have now

is a viewfinder that focuses and does everything else its supposed to

do, I forget what. Thats all I ask. Id ask the same of the Arriflex.


16/26

JPB: Also with time-code, a light meter, auto-focus

JLG: Also the fact that we can agree on something. And we havent

understood between us that we should really come to an agreement on all

these things. When we saw the first tests projected to normal size-and

these images were made under difficult conditions, like direct sunlight

and back-lighting, in order to get a classic flat image-they couldnt be

intercut with images made by the Arri BL, although the Aatons

registration is much better. Its only because of the claw mechanism

that I was able to catch my error in diagnosis! At that point, I didnt

notice any dialogue between MY technicians and yours, like, Theres no

need for a rotating-mirror, or a laser system. If you want to make such

a thing, you have to study it first. The image was dissatisfying

because it was slightly diffuse.

JPB: I remeber the image that was made with that first prototype, in

a street in the 16th ARRONDISSEMENT in Paris. There was a big One Way

sign, and really, its hard to tell the difference from an image madewith the BL.

JLG: Ive seen it again, I still have it. It was the very first

image, and with the first image, its like in the movies. Youre so

happy to be looking at it that you see a lot more than is actually

there.

JPB: It was quite beautiful!

JLG: Im starting to get used to these things, to this sort of

psychological feeling. As for me, I often find the dailies magnificent,and the next day they seem so much less beautiful. I think theres a lot

of psychology on our partits not really better than any other image.

JPB: Still, emotion countsWhat do they care about a slight halo on

the image?

JLG: When we told you, This beam-splitter system is no good, you

didnt tell us, Do another week of tests with more images, and convince

me its not as good. On top of which, there was this purely practical

thing; every time we changed the lens, it twisted the beam-splitter and

damaged it. As far as Imconcerned, I think it mustve aggravated

something that didnt belong to the beam-splitter, but to its mounting.

JPB: Thats true, the mounting was badly done, but theres something

else: it was no longer YOUR camera as soon as it was put into someone

elses hands.Dont you remember? You wanted this prototype to be YOURS.

You wanted to cuddle it and take it everywhere with you.

JLG: But films are made by more than one person!


17/26

JPB: Yes, I know: the producer, the sound engineer, the script girl,

the editor, etc. But it was YOU who were supposed to hold the camera. If

somebody who wasnt too careful changed the lens, and didnt pay

attention to the beam-splitter

JLG: even somebody careful, because you cant find anyone more

careful than me with objects like that.

JPB: Exactly: youre a careful man, but it just so happens that you

put this newborn baby in the hands of people who arent exactly

midwives.

JLG: Thats just talk. It was called the 35-8; and what is 8mm

anyway? Its a camera that Daddy gives to his little girl, the little

girl gives it to the CONCIERGE, who in turn gives it to the gardener,

who gives it back to Daddy. Cinema is made by several people, unlike

novels, or painting or sculpture. Cinema is made by many and youreforced to go through others. You dont make a film by yourself. It just

doesnt happen that way!

JPB: Your camera, I repeat, was a prototype, barely dry; suddenly it

was dropped into hands accustomed to different gestures.

JLG: Dropped too quickly: I shouldnt have used it in my films right

away. Its like a girl you put on the street too quickly.

JPB: People started messing in our business, which killed our little

35-8.

3. In Which the Silent Partner-Director is no Longer Able to Make His Point with the Industrial

Dreamer

In 1979, Aaton gets a 900,000 franc loan to start building a camera

with a rotating-mirror reflex shutter and a 120-meter magazine; this is

the camera being discussed here. (Alain Bergala)

JPB: The same thing keeps happening with the current Aaton 35. The

saga of the 153 degree reflex shutter is typical; one January evening

during PRENOM: CARMEN, your crew noticed a flicker, and started

criticizing this and that. I looked at the images, and I was so taken by

the oval of the face, I didnt see the little bumps on the forehead.

That evening, it was a question of fatally wounding this camera, which

has a different mind, form and animality. Everything was just right for

drowning the kitten; you seemed so distant, and I left feeling very

sad. Anyway, its not a kitten, its more like a leopard. And then

theres the focus matter, We cant focus with the viewfinder; that

completely amazed me, because getting a clear image through a viewfinder


18/26

is the childhood of the art!

JLG: Childhood! Then in that case, we havent yet arrived at

childhood, because, for the time being anyway, the camera cant do it.

JPB: IT DIDNT DO IT at the time; what gripes me is that in January

you didnt tell me, Jeane-Pierre, the style of the film as Ive

envisioned it is You didnt call me. No, I really pushed myself with

the 153 degree system (which didnt, in fact, flicker), and worked on

the sound level in a room with smooth walls (although the camera wasnt

designed for studio sync-sound), and then it stopped suddenly, without

warning, quite capriciously (an error in the micro-processor

programming).

JLG: No, thats not it.

JPB: Thats what I heard that evening, and anyway, eight days later,

Chevereau sent back the camera wed just delivered without even openingthe box. The rumor about CARMEN back in Paris was that the Aaton 35 was

useless with the HMIs.*

*In order to get higher intensity lighting, the cinema uses lights

known as HMIs. Attached to a power source these lights pulse 100 times

per second. Regardless of the phase of the opening of the shutter in

relation to the pulses, each frame must receive the same quantity of

light; otherwise a slight strobe effect appears in the brighter areas of

the image (what technicians call flicker). To get correct exposure,

the amount of time the shutter is open must allow two complete pulses to

reach the film (i.e., 1/50th of a second). At 25 frames per second, ittakes half a turn, to 180 degrees, in order to open the shutter this

1/50th of a second. At 24 frames per second, to get this 1/50th of a

second, it must be opened a little less: 173 degrees. (Jeane-Pierre

Beauviala)

JLG: Every time I want to use it, people tell me, Dont focus with

the viewfinder, use the tape-measure.

JBM: Your viewfinder has to correspond exactly to the markers on the

lens, and then you have to be able to check if the focus-puller is right

or not!

JPB: Im sorry, but I say no. This camera was made to be carried on

your shoulder, or at most on a little tripod, but it was not conceived

with a tape-measure in mind. When in a given shot you see a clear image

through a quality viewfinder, you dont have to check it with a

tape-measure, whether its a meter or 1-1/10 of a meter!

JLG: What about when the image is out of focus fifteen times in a row


19/26

during screening?

JPB: No. At that time the technicians told me that the focus didnt

correspond to the lens focusing ring, not that you were shooting out of

focus.

JLG: Because technicians dont talk the way I do. They dont say, The

potatoes are cold. They say, You have such and such a camera with a

laser parameter that you set at 2.8and thats why your cousin is

crazy. Thats how they talk.

JPB: You stood for that? Im amazed, because with 35mm, its easy to

retain control of the image on the ground glass, much easier than with

16mm.

JLG: IM not the master of the film; I just do what I can with

fifteen technicians. I have some power, some expertise, and I see that

they have some problems. I dont listen to their stories anymore, and Itell Raoul, Stop explaining to me what doesnt work. Make a note and

say, In my opinion, if such and such happens, then, like in those

scientific school manuals. Write me something and Ill translate what

youve written, or try to understand it well enough to explain it to

Beauviala so that he wont take it too badly. But they say, Its the

mirror, its the shutter, its because blah, blah, blah. They want the

world and the explanation of the world at the same time. Anyway, what

Ive noticed is that whenever I focus with the viewfinder and I do

fifteen shots, theyre out of focus. Since Im in the middle of a shoot

and I want to use it anyway for philosophical-artistic reasons, we go

ahead and do the shot-Im not talking about the lenses and everythingelse that makes this job impossible-but finally we end up putting this

camera to work, but basically in such a way that it cant WORK. What

interests me, if I work with Menoud or somebody else, is that with the

viewfinder, he uses his eyes, to understand the MISE EN SCENE, and that

when he sees something move, he knows from memory that at such and such

a place-from memory, he doesnt have to check-he makes a certain gesture

with his hand which corresponds to the MISE EN SCENE. At that point,

were in sync, we work together.

JBM: Thats what we tried to do, but it didnt work.

JPB: Its a technical problem, but so many things got in the way that

at times nobody could say, Oh, yeah, its because of this or that-and

when I think that it took three years and three films to figure that

out!

JLG: Every single time, we thought it was the flange depth of the

lens or something else, but we didnt know! Sometimes it takes you four

years to figure out that your wife is cheating on you. You ought to know


20/26

the first day.

JPB: If it takes you that long, its because you dont love her!

Three years and three films seems long to you, but when you do something

thats a hybrid of art and industry, two kinds of time are running

simultaneously. I find it perfectly natural that nothing works on the

first round. I think its good to let the development of a camera be

drawn out somewhat, because then you can modify and refine it. Its like

the houses you saw at Mens, which I started on fifteen years ago: every

three years I demolish a little, add a wing or move staircases around.

JLG: Yeah, but youre a builder!

JPB: You mean INDUSTRIAL: thats the other kind of time, the one that

makes me schizo. I live like that, always on two kinds of time. Ones

slow and sinuous: the clay model waiting calmly for the kiln; the

others rushed and efficient: make the invention profitable. As for the

houses, Id like to have my friends there today, and sleep there thisevening with the woman I love; as for the camera, everybody would like

to use it tomorrow morning, but I need to wait a while longer.

JLG: Im not criticizing, but why didnt you stop?

JPB: Why didnt we stop? Well, its precisely the INDUSTRY. From the

moment you put your fingers in that pie, when the 35mm put the

livelihood of fifteen Aatonians on the line, the die was cast, and it

was no longer possible to go back. The slow tempo misses everything, and

the rushed thinks about something else. Theres a point at which the

object eludes us a bit, like you when you began your film. In relationto your initial project, with CARMEN, the camera escaped you, because

theres a producer, and Coutard, and actors, and you couldnt say, This

shoot isnt what I wanted, youre driving me nuts. You go on. Well, me

too, I go on.

JLG: Whats really difficult-and what must have happened a little

between us-is that every project is something that escapes you. Because

a project is something you throw around in order to chase it-its like

life. Each person has to synchronize himself somewhat to be informed, to

know if the project is getting away from him, and if its mutual. Its

seeing HOW its escaping us, knowing if we like it because sometimes we

like it and were happy with it, or on the other hand, is there

something in this change that we dont like, and can we do anything

about it? We can at least study the problem, and eventually make an

article out of it.

Ive always been instinctively interested in technical things,

because you can have a dialogue with a solid object.Ive never talked

about technical things with Raoul; we only talk lighting. At a certain


21/26

point, when you know someone well, you talk about women or money, but

thats all. Everybody was shooting with a huge camera when we started

putting it on the shoulder, and not just for the fun of it: Raoul ended

up aging more quickly than the others because he carried the camera on

his shoulder. Now were putting the camera on a tripod. I cant look at

a hand-held shot anymore; I find it too shaky.

JPB: Shaky? But the first shot of PASSION, which you yourself made

with the Aaton, tracing the trail of an airplane across the evening sky,

thatsthe shot everybody loves! Evan at 120 meters, its still a

shoulder camera, not really much bigger than the 35-8. Moreover, I used

this magnetic coupling device so that it would work with a 180 degree

shutter, which means that both the tripod and the hand-held people

should have no problem accepting it. Right now I think its been

accomplished.

JLG: Im happy to know that it has some possible industrial future.

In that case, theyll buy it and afterwards youll refine it.

JPB: In any case, nobody wants 60-meter magazines; I only made them

because you asked for them. Thats a pretty good measure of the distance

between the original project and what the buyers actually want.

JLG: We didnt realize it. I for one believed you, and at certain

times, I took you for either much less or much more of a tightrope

walker than you really were.

JPB: It takes two to walk a tightrope: we talked images, not objects.

We were talking images and now you find yourself with an object whichcorresponds less to the image you had of it. Given that, lets not get

carried away; theres no major difference between the stillborn

prototype of SAUVE QUI PEUT and the CARMEN camera.

JLG: That ones still a bit huge. If there had been an exact balance

sheet, Id have told you that the size of the camera should be defined

by the size of, say, a Toyota glove compartment. Thats a good size. If

Id known what to say at the time, thats what Id have said.

JPB: At the time you were driving a Peugeot

Alain Bergala: As it is now, this camera has become more like the

standardized cameras you find on the market. Are you saying you regret

it?

JPB: No, its still quite different. Its kept the small animal

aspect of the 35-8 prototype. One might hope that filmmakers will act

differently when they have this camera in hand, close to their eyes, in

a more symbiotic relationship. They shouldnt follow the crowd anymore,


22/26

shooting in the obligatory places.

But its true, I wouldve liked for the original 35-8 to have been

completed, in order to inspire the kind of filmmaking that could be done

with that kind of a camera. With the 120-meter (magazine) model, its

less certain.

JLG: Each time one of us tried, the other would shoot him down. So at

certain times, we each ran awayWhich reminds me, did you notice how

(Isabelle) Adjani insulted us? She says in some article, You

understand, of course, that I had to leave when I saw that there were

three people and a little camera hed invented and put on a tripod. As

if suddenly, put on a tripod-while all the Panavisions she normally

shoots with are on tripods, I mean theyre not mounted on the wings of a

dove-but with us, it was a little camera on a tripod. Its not only

that its a little camera, but even worse, its on a tripod.

Beaviala: Adjani must have realized that this camera wasnt designedfor a tripod; her remark isnt really that dumb. It makes you feel

uncomfortable to see this feline creature on trusty Mr. Tripod.

JLG: All I know is that today, you might say this camera has become

radical-socialist. Thats already saying something in relation to the

others, but Ill only buy it when Ive checked ten shots for focus with

the viewfinder.

4. The Fatal Moment; or: How a Film Changes its Actress, its Camera and its Style

When he undertook the shooting of PRENOM: CARMEN, Godard intended tobreak with the traditional image crew formula. There was no Director

of Photography: Raoul Coutard was the Lighting Consultant, and Godard

intended to shoot the image track with his assistant, Jean-Bernard

Menoud. This allowed us to create the images at our own pace; Menoud

would stop to load the magazines himself, which gave me more time; and

there was less bustling around the camera, and importantly, a little

more silence. The first ten days of the shoot, when Isabelle Adjani

wasnt there yet, this pared-down crew worked with the Aaton as the only

camera for the film. But right away focus became a problem, or, as

Godard says, I couldnt adapt my MISE EN SCENE to this problem of

FOCUSING. They hire a regular focus-puller, Adjani arrives with her

makeup artists, suddenly its the fatal moment when the atmosphere and

the character of the shoot change: We returned to a normal MISE EN

SCENE where each person goes back to his regular functions and the

others start getting bored. When Isabelle Adjani left the film a few

days later, the crew gave up on the Aaton and shooting began again with

both a new actress and the Arriflex. (Alain Bergala)

JLG: Everybody started getting defensive during the first three days


23/26

of shooting of PRENOM: CARMEN. There was a point at which things became

very interesting from this point of view. Even though I was paid by the

Minister of Culture to film what might happen during the shoot, I wasnt

able to film it; nobody thought about doing it. Then one day Menoud-who

was in my Administrative Cabinet-felt it, that is, he felt the film was

changing, and he said, Well, what do you know, were in the middle of a

big production.

Thats the day Raoul asked me to hire an extra assistant. It was

somebody whod had an accident and who needed work to boost his morale.

His story is really nice, Ill tell it. He was in Berlin on a shoot. One

evening, he goes home, splashes some water on his face and collapses. He

crawls to bed and goes out like a light, into some sort of coma. His

buddy phones him and says, You want to have dinner tonight? Im not

doing anything The other guy answers with aga aga aga, so his

friend thinks hes plastered. This was Friday; Saturday the friend

phones again and says, OK, look, are we going out tonight? The other

guy replies, aga aga aga and he says, Thats OK, Ill see youMonday.

His wife, or rather, his girlfriend, calls Sunday from Paris. She

says, So, hows it going, Jeannot? The other guy keeps saying, aga

aga aga. She hangs up and takes a plane, comes to Berlin and puts him

in the hospital. Its a great story.

When Raoul told me about it, I said, OK, fine, Ill take him. But

he didnt know how to load a camera. Then everything changed. He wasnt

in sync with us. I have to say that on this film Raoul was Lighting

Consultant, which is actually difficult for a cameraman. On PASSION,hes the only one who agreed to the idea of having a lighting

consultant, even though there werent any spots. Raouls one of the few

who went for the idea. He really should have had some spots, but he

agreed to be a lighting consultant anyway. For me, being a lighting

consultant means checking the weather at 5:00, then at 2:00, since it

can really have an impact on what youre doing, or where youre going to

put the reflector, but its not actually a conscious process. Raoul has

this very peasant side. He began outside the normal system. Hes only

done good work for me; for others, he does shitty work, and even worse

for himself. Still, theres something very human in his photography. And

so he asked me to hire this friend who had worked on some of my films

before. This guys name was Jeanott. As soon as Jeannot came, everything

got screwed up, because our idea was for Menoud to be the assistant,

i.e., to do the focus, for better or worse. But then things changed.

>From the moment Jeannot got there, as soon as there were two people

doing the work of one person, that changed everything. Thats what Id

call the fatal moment; wed already fallen into a routine. Menoud, you

sort of vaguely told me that. Then I told you, Youre exaggerating.

You take on a grip, and after the grip you get a costume person, and the


24/26

film automatically becomes different. I wasnt really part of the

routine. Id talked to you about the camera, Jeane-Pierre. Id told you,

I dont care if the camera is noisy; well re-synchronize the sound

little by little later on.

JPB: And afterwards, when you gave up this beautiful idea of filming

over a pre-arranged musical score from a well-known story

JLG: I gave it up, yes.

JPB: THATS what I resented at the time, because it was a great idea;

but as soon as you strayed from the initial project and began filming in

sync-sound, you chose to use the more quiet of the two cameras, even

though the image quality wasnt as goodI often think of INDIA SONG.

Id like to see a film where the background noise and the gestures are

in sync, but the dialogue is an after-thought. Why didnt you stick to

such a great project?

JLG: The camera wasnt strong enough, nor was I for that

matternothing was strong enough.

JPB: What thrilled me about the CARMEN project was that the sound

pre-existed the film and so did the story, a story that doesnt even

need to be told; its like the Bible. Everybody knows the story of

Joseph and his brothers. I like that, and thats the reason I told you

that youd have two cameras.

JLG: We got them, and it wasnt bad!

JPB: But in terms of the original project, to repeat, it became clear

that little by little the Aaton was being asked to behave like a

Panavision. Now that the film is finished, you tell me, At one point,

we had a problem with the focus! I could have found the solution if you

had screamed a little louder before-its such a stupid problem!

JLG: Yeah, but those are the hardest to deal with! We realized this

when the MISE EN SCENE made focusing difficult, if not practically

impossible. Then we realized there was a technical problem, large or

small, in any case absolutely fundamental, which became larger in

practical terms. This led to abandoning the camera and adopting another

shooting style and MISE EN SCENE, because with CARMEN the MISE EN SCENE

was in the end built FOR the focus-puller. I built MISE EN SCENE so that

the focus-puller could focus, while keeping a minimum of the basic

themes Id have wanted to have: working with low light levels and

wide-open lenses. If I want to do a close-up at 50 meters, the cameraman

tells me, Jean-Luc, listen, she cant move her head. Im focusing on

this strand of hair, OK? If she moves her head, I dont know if its

going to stay in focus. So its better that she doesnt move.


25/26

Since I want her to move her head anyway, we shoot in 35, and in 35

it isnt the same shot anymore! Camera operators cant focus these days.

Conditions for focusing are different. It used to be that a cameraman

like Douarinou, working on an Ophuls film, knew how to focus in his own

way. Hed start off in long-shot and finish in extreme close-up. He did

it with a particular kind of film stock, a particular lighting style, a

particular kind of optics. Today we dont take advantage of sensitive

film stocks like we should. Theyve always interested me, but a guy like

Lubtchansky uses sensitive stock shooting at f.4, which is of no

interest. Id rather take a less sensitive stock and work on its most

sensitive partswhich the lab doesnt really know how to handle.

JPB: Did you use ASA 100 film?

JLG: The normal ASA 100 (which is in fact equal to ASA 200). We

realized that we wouldve liked to focus with the viewfinder so as to

follow the MISE EN SCENE through the viewfinder, because its not thesame as following it roughly with a tape measure. For example, say we do

a take of Nathalie Baya. She comes in over there, she takes her pack of

cigarettes there, she sits down there: 1.50 meters, 1.85 meters, 1.30

meters-thats OK, it works, but for me, the film happens in between. In

this case, the cameramen dont know how to focus, and, moreover, the

correct focus can change because theres some improvisation. Result: I

get static shots in order to focus under certain lighting conditions

that interest me more, at the time, than other things, but the cameramen

dont know how to do this kind of work anymore. They know how to focus

from twenty to thirteen meters, but they dont know how to focus from

twenty to thirteen centimeters, because they dont teach themselves todo it-because films arent made like that any more. Thats all there is

to it.

JPB: But you couldnt have done it with the 35BL either. Its not

because of the DISTANCE of the object, but because of the MOVEMENT of

the object.

JLG: With the 35BL, you work with three or four people, and when you

have that many people around the camera, you make certain kinds of

films, and not others. Thats just where we stopped, because we couldnt

focus with the viewfinder, and it was too difficult to do it with the

tape measure.

JPB: With this camera, we were counting on a stable relation between

the viewfinder and the shot filmed. What youre claiming is that the

image you see in the viewfinder wasnt reproduced on film with enough

sharpness.

Conclusion: what Im going to do is add to the Aaton 35 the kind of


26/26

device you find in still cameras, a split-image rangefinder which lets

you focus with the rangefinder, instead of the viewfinder. Thats my

conclusion.

Translated by Lynne Kirby with the help of Patrice Rollet, Fabrice Ziolkowski, Harry Mathias

Documents

Genesis of a Camera - Godard y Beauviala