I’m very excited about this interview, because Michael Lang is the Cinematographer who started me down this grip-centric approach to lighting.  I was a young fashion photographer when I became interested in the differences and similarities between photography and cinematography, and I took a workshop from Michael Lang on grip and lighting basics.  Just seeing some of the tools in use and learning more about his approach to lighting changed the whole way I thought about lighting, and eventually led to the creation of this blog!

Interview with Michael Lang:
Cinematographer, Rental House Owner, and Grip Educator

How did you get started in the film industry?

I went to a two year acting program in Los Angeles when I was 19. After I completed the program and began to look for work I started feeling like something was missing. I really enjoyed the experience of live theater but acting in film was a completely different process. At one point I ended up on the set of “American History X” and was really drawn to what was happening around the camera. The director, Tony Kaye, was very intense and he shot a lot of that movie himself and I was paying way more attention to what was happening there as opposed to what I was there to do. I would say that was the first time I became aware of the camera department on a film. It was probably five or six years later that I actually shot something myself but that was the first taste of what would become my career.

Can you please describe your businesses? Where do you live and work?

I own a boutique grip and lighting company called Death Grip Electric, Inc. and a production company called Spectral Chemist. A lifelong friend of mine named Corey Hart is my business partner for both companies. I currently live in Los Angeles, CA and work in California, Omaha, NE and travel quite frequently all over the United States.

What kinds of projects do you love to work on?

I enjoy working on music videos, commercials and shooting interviews but my passion definitely lies in shooting narrative fiction.

You work as a cinematographer, an educator, and you run a rental house.  What inspired you to do everything all at once?

Teaching from time to time feels like a good fit. I’m passionate about lighting and as a result I enjoy sharing that passion with other people. It’s also a way for me to stay sharp and current on all of the technological changes that are transforming my business. The rental house really started as a means to own the equipment that I need to do my job. It quickly became an opportunity to rent gear and make money so I could buy more gear, lol.

EDUCATOR

It was your Grip and Lighting workshop that started me on this new approach to lighting – so obviously I’m very appreciative of your workshops.  What drives you to teach these workshops?

People who really want to learn about the craft of lighting inspire me to do it. For many people it’s a whole new world to them. When I was in their shoes and someone was showing me what was possible it was one of the most exciting experiences I’ve ever had. For many beginners lighting feels like magic or voodoo (which it most certainly is) and when you begin to learn the tricks behind it you feel like someone has told you an amazing secret.

What’s the most important thing that you hope people gain from your workshops?

I don’t expect people to become working pros the minute they leave the workshop because that takes many years to achieve. When the weekend is over I hope to have ignited a strong curiosity for lighting and they go out and seek more opportunities to learn and work.

What kinds of people most often take your workshops?

I’ve had high school and college students, graphic designers, court clerks – all different kinds of people. They all share an interest in film and realize that lighting is the foundation of great cinematography/photography. Many of them are interested in at least making a short film or even working in the film business as a career.

I’ve noticed that the most of the photography world uses different tools than the film world — we use umbrellas, softboxes, and beauty dishes more, but rarely use C-stands, flags, or big frames of diffusion.  Why do you think there’s such a big divide between the different practices?

I think most of the time it boils down to tradition. Certain tools have been established in certain mediums. The other reason is a practical one. In photography you often need very powerful lights (strobes, flashes) because you are working at much higher shutter speeds. The same lights needed to generate that kind of power on the film side are physically very large and expensive to own or rent. This was especially true in the earlier days of film when the film was much slower. Today however it’s much more practical to use film related tools on a photography set. In fact I think the photographers who are doing this are making some of the most interesting work. Gregory Crewdson is a perfect example of this. He uses only film lights and gear and runs his sets exactly like it’s a movie. He shoots the most amazing tableaux’s.

Do you think there’s anything the film world could learn from the photography world?

I think there is a a huge opportunity for cinematographers to borrow from the photography world. I’ve been interested in this for a long time. The way photographers create contrast in the skin is incredible. They achieve this by using very powerful and specular sources and modifiers like huge silver octobanks. I’ve incorporated beauty dishes in my motion work for this very reason. I use HMI’s called Joker 800’s and they make an attachment for a beauty dish.  [HMI’s are daylight balanced light sources that are more efficient than incandescent bulbs and very powerful, but require a ballast]

What do you think the photography world can learn from the cinematography world?

Now more than ever it’s important for photographers to set themselves apart. Mobile phones, cheap digital cameras and editing apps like VSCO are everywhere. Good enough has become good enough, unfortunately. What hasn’t changed though is the need for talented pro’s with a point of view who are at the top of their game and pushing boundaries by using tools and techniques that aren’t being used by the masses. With cinema tools and modifiers you can set your work apart.

Do you see a big difference between smaller video production companies compared to cinematographers who went to film school, or who’ve worked on big productions?

There are some small companies who do great work. It all boils down to understanding how to tell a story visually. It’s not about having a great camera or a Movi. It is about “what does this shot say visually, how does it relate to the next shot and is it moving the story forward?” And lighting. It’s always about the lighting!

What advice do you have for people who are just getting started with lighting?

There are a ton of great resources on the web. I would also recommend the magazine American Cinematographer. Above all though you can only get really good if you actually light things. You don’t need a ton of stuff. Get yourself one light. Any light will do but I would recommend getting an open face 2k or 1k. Get some scrims, bounce material like foamcore, some diffusion material, a dimmer, and a c stand and go to town. Find a subject and start lighting a portrait. Move that light around to every possible position you can think of. How does just the position of the light change the mood of the portrait? Where you put the light is the most important skill you can have and this exercise will help you get good at that.

Do you have any books or resources that you recommend?

I just finished the book “Film Lighting” by Kris Malkiewicz and found it to be a wonderful book. It is a conversation with cinematographers and gaffers about the tools they use, how they use them and why they use them. A blog I’ve been checking out lately is wanderingdp.com. It is filled with podcasts and lighting diagrams for a variety of topics.

RENTAL HOUSE OWNER

As both a cinematographer and a rental house owner, you have some unique perspectives as to what people need.  What kinds of tools do you recommend people buy versus rent?

It really depends on what you shoot. If you travel a lot and need to have one light that will light interviews in a variety of situations, I would probably invest in an LED panel of some kind. If you are shooting narrative and need a little power you might want to look into a 2k open face fixture with some grip equipment. If you need a soft light but can’t really afford the grip equipment then maybe a 2×4 Kino would be the right choice.  [Kinoflos are fluorescent light banks]  Grip equipment really comes in handy though. It isn’t as sexy to own for a lot of people but it’s all about how you control and shape the light that makes the difference. A light is like a can of paint. You can throw it at the canvas and make something kind of abstract and bold or you can use brushes and a palette knife and make it beautiful and nuanced.

Do you have a core lighting kit or a list of basic lighting tools that you think most people should own?

I think people should rent from a rental house like mine! Kidding aside, I think owning a few c stands is never a bad idea. A set of small flags is great. Some stingers [extension cords] and dimmers. Maybe a china ball. Kino’s are very easy to work with. You can practically set them up and they look fantastic no matter what. And then there are grip clamps, etc…It’s never ending!

CINEMATOGRAPHER

How would you describe your approach to lighting?

I think that a cinematographers approach probably changes and matures over time. It also has to fall in line with the types of budgets you are working with. Sometimes you are given every possible tool and others you might have a china ball and that’s it. My approach currently is efficiency. If one light does the job then I use one light. I never try to complicate things or just use equipment to use it. I think the “less is more” approach is the way to go. Time and money is almost always a factor. Speed is a very coveted skill that producers want a DP to have.

When you’re location scouting, how do you analyse and prioritize your lighting needs?

I love location scouting and often am interested in going to a location as many times as possible. I like to spend time just observing the light and letting the process reveal itself to me. You can’t scout enough or be too prepared! The needs of the story and the location itself will tell you everything you need to know about how to approach the lighting plan. My first priority is to find out what the location is giving me and how can I utilize that rather than fight it. How much power do we need/ have? What direction does the location face? What direction do the windows face? Are we facing south and the light is going to change all day? Is there a bunch of beautiful light coming through a window right where we need it? Do I even need to set up light? Can I just diffuse that sun, use a bounce for fill and call it good? Hopefully the answer is “YES!”. If the answer is “NO” then I begin to problem solve how to deal with that. Really our job is just problem solving and when you are working with a talented and creative crew it can be very satisfying coming up with solutions.

One of the things that’s hardest for a photographer to understand about cinematography is how you create lighting that people can live in and move through.  How do you approach lighting to achieve this? Do you often change the lighting as you change shots?

This is really where the differences between photography and cinematography become apparent and perhaps the most exciting thing about lighting. Not only does the talent move but the camera can move as well as the light can move! I like to refer to the latter as “dynamic” light. Perhaps you have a scene in a dark living room during the daytime with two people talking on opposite sides of the room. There is soft light coming through a north window but the characters are in shadow. One of the characters is being subtly threatening. Then a car goes by outside and light bouncing off the car travels through the room momentarily illuminating the antagonist. That is one example in hundreds that sets cinematography apart. This type of dynamic light is very present in the movie “Drive”.

How do you approach lighting when you have multiple actors?  Do you focus on creating flattering light, or is it more about creating a natural environment that they can exist in?

I try to approach everything by serving the story and with the efficiency that I talked about earlier. Will one light take care of both actors and is it right for the scene? If the answer is yes then I’m done. If not then I will begin setting up additional fixtures. Sometimes you are trying to create “flattering light”but more so than not you are trying to light to reveal character. Sometimes the light should be “ugly” or flat.  In the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s, the Studios wanted cinematographers to light actors so they looked “beautiful”, i.e. with bold eye lights and lots of fill. Then in the 60’s and 70’s cinematographers started to introduce lighting that was more focused on revealing character and being true to the location and time of day. Gordon Willis, ASC (RIP) who’s nickname was “The Prince of Darkness” pioneered this approach when he shot “The Godfather”. The studio was mad because they paid all of this money for Marlon Brando and they couldn’t see his eyes. That was exactly the point for Willis who thought it would be more terrifying if you couldn’t see his eyes and thus not know what he was thinking. The rest is history.

How do different projects affect your lighting plans?

Every project has different needs and changes the approach. You have to come to every project with a fresh set of eyes. The script dictates everything.

How important is color to your approach to lighting?

The importance of color in cinematography can’t be overstated. We have a built in emotional response to different colors and this can be used to great effect in film. You can put two actors in a room bathed in cold, blue light and they don’t have to say a thing and we already understand where the story is headed. Now, change that light to warm and yellow and you have a totally different situation. All you did was change the color and you changed the story dramatically. Another example is the color red which was used very successfully by Stanley Kubrick. He often used it to signify danger or passion and it shows up in many of his films. I’m always thinking about what colors will benefit the storytelling as well as what colors to avoid.

Does coloration mostly come from the lighting itself, or from post-production?

Ideally the color will come from gelling the lights and tweaking the color temperature in camera while we are on set. Post production allows you to fine tune that by possibly tweaking the hue and saturation. Whenever you can get it as close as possible on set you should.

Do you try to make natural looking light, or do you prefer more stylized approaches?

I like the light that is right for the story but I’m often drawn to stylized lighting. “Drive”is a great example of that. So is the movie “Se7en”which is one of my favorite films. I think there is a terrible trend especially among young cinematographers who proclaim “I just want it to look real!” Don’t get me wrong, naturalism is a valid and powerful tool but it is often boring in the hands of less experienced DP’s. In fact I would go so far as to say it’s a cop out. When Roger Deakins does it it’s art. When Johnny “The DP” Hammerstix does it… it’s often because he isn’t comfortable using lights. If you want real go watch a documentary. Film, after all , is not real.

Do you prefer blending with available natural light, or overpowering it?

If I can shape real sunlight I’ll do it but sometimes it makes more sense to block the real light and create your own. Again it all goes back to the needs of the story and the location.

How do you approach creating depth in your compositions?

Depth is created by lighting the planes in the composition. Foreground, middle ground and background. It also helps to have actual space between your actors and the background.

REAL WORLD

Those frame grabs were from a short called “Twenty Years”