Frame & Reference Podcast - 125: "The Holdovers" DP Eigil Bryld

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

This week on Frame & Reference we're joined by returning friend of the pod Eigil Bryld to talk about his work on one of my favorite films of the year, The Holdovers! On his last episode, Ep.102, he was here to chat about his work on Extrapolations, but you may have seen his previous work like House of Cards, Oceans 8, No Hard Feelings, The Machine, The Report, and The Wizard of Lies. Enjoy! Visit ⁠⁠www.frameandrefpod.com⁠⁠ for everything F&R You can directly support Frame & Reference by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buying Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Frame & Reference is supported by Filmtools and ProVideo Coalition. Filmtools is the West Coast's leading supplier of film equipment. From cameras and lights to grip and expendables, Filmtools has you covered for all your film gear needs. Check out ⁠⁠Filmtools.com⁠⁠ for more. ProVideo Coalition is a top news and reviews site focusing on all things production and post. Check out ⁠⁠ProVideoCoalition.com⁠⁠ for the latest news coming out of the industry.

Hello, and welcome to this, another episode of Frame and Reference. I'm your host, Kenny McMillan, and you're listening to Episode 125 with Eigle Burled, DP of The Holdovers. Enjoy. One thing I do normally ask, I feel like I wanted to change this for this season, but I haven't. But I've been asking people, what have you been watching? I know we were saying it's only been six months since we last spoke, but I assume something has piqued your interest since then. I know. I mean, I went to Camer, Marsh, and I saw poor things.

I mean, what a trip. But I'm so glad I saw it on a big screen. I mean, it's just mind-blowing. And it's one of those. It feels so precious in a way that I didn't want to overthink it afterwards. So I want to go and see it again and then maybe sort of try and figure out. But I just thoroughly enjoyed it. And I was so happy that the people out there crazy enough to sort of venture into that sort of crazy landscape.

and obviously it's a there's a lot of layers to it and a lot of depth and textures and so I thought that was really really encouraging and then what else I mean I sometimes dropped it with what was this year and what's last year

and what have I seen God well I watched that thing but that was sort of a vacation thing and Netflix leaving everything behind thing, which was entertaining, interesting. I mean, I like that sort of apocalyptic sort of end of the world. It makes me feel strangely comforted. Me too.

I think it has, if I had to guess, at least it's the way I feel, it's like anytime you see a movie that's about now time, sort of, but is so far removed, the stresses of today go away, even if what you're watching is theoretically more stressful, you know? I guess it's sort of this simple life if the world ends and you just have to survive and whatever. It's a strange world when, when, when, when, when, when, when that seems like the easy way.

Right. Yeah. Did you pick up, uh, did you, were you able to see salt burn at all? I haven't seen salt burn yet, but that one's, that's a trip. That's a, people are, but, but it's one, uh, I actually had it on a streamer, but I want to see it on the big screen as well. I know a lot of the people who worked on it, and so that's one I want to see. And Linus's work just looks mental as well.

It looks like it sort of, yeah, nightmare of color and lighter. Yeah, it looks insane. No, it's a great. People are over-exaggerating the, like, sort of extremeness of it. There's only two parts that are even a little like, ah. But that's it. But it's a gorgeous looking belt. The weird part is it's continuing a trend that, I guess, technically you were a part of,

where everyone's doing these near square, you know, kind of four by three, one-six-one-33 frames. Yeah. And, you know, like the younger kids are doing it, I think, just to be different. But it is interesting that it's very quickly found its way into cinemas. Same thing, four things. Going back, I always like that sort of lots of headroom. And, because obviously the more square you are in a way, I mean, like the movie either that came out a few years ago by, as another film I'm really looking forward to, is the Jonathan Glacier movie. But with all that extreme headroom, and if you go really squared, and then you can really sort of play with headroom in a different way, which always found sort of dreamy and obviously gets more architectural and there's sort of a poetry to it.

but you have to be bold to pull it off in movies, but I guess that door has been kicked down now. And then, I don't know if it's a, it could be Instagram as well, because obviously we're getting used to sort of the very square. But overall, I'm just, I mean, that's one of the good things about streaming is that the whole sort of format thing has really been, that door has been kicked down. I'm old enough to remember shooting movies and you had to frame, you know, we had all these different frame lines.

and because it had to be cropped for every possible, even the sort of headroom, because they would extract from within if you shot two, three, five, say, or whatever. But all that is over. You can shoot two to one. You can shoot one to one. You can, I think that's really,

that's sort of, yeah, that's a, I think that's a good thing for sure, because even though to most people it seems like, yeah, you know, who cares? It really does sort of have a sort of subtle, I mean, like on the holdovers, a little bit of a story with that because obviously that movie was made to look like it was, you know, not like if we were pretending to be in the 70s, but we wanted to make it so it would actually look like it was, you know, a film that somebody found in a can

on somebody's shelf in the garage or whatever. So we went to great effort in so many different ways of sort of re-creating that. But one of the places, because all the films of that era in America, they would have been 1-8-5, which was the standard sort of academy, I guess, the format. But we like the idea of 1-66 just because it's a little sort of, it's a little more intimate portraits or whatever. And also it obviously has a little bit of sort of connection. with 16 mill

as that would have been and also European sort of art house so it's sort of and obviously it's a subtle little thing but I think it's going to yeah

I think I think it worked but just sort of composing and executing that movie but I also think to the more sort of connoisseur whatever the movie lovers even if they don't pick up

and it is still going to sort of give some uh some sort yeah little echo somewhere and uh yeah the back points was this is just i'm now i'm just asking because i don't know for european cinema did they not have like super 35 or like two perf or three perf gates is that way everything was so tall because i know we did it because it was cheaper but you still got that kind of widescreen cool look but it was it I know it was hard to find those mechanisms at one point. Yeah, because I think, I mean, obviously there was the whole, the whole Super 35.

I mean, I used to know all this stuff, but obviously it had to do with sort of film, not having to have sound on it so you could use the wider image. Right. Then the whole, then there was the sort of the nuisance of shooting anamorphic lenses because you had to have such a deep stop, so it was sort of associated with big productions and obviously, obviously, the limited range of those lenses. So then the whole super 35,

or the sort of the, it wasn't called super 35 when you sort of just let it boxed it. And then, but I think that was the idea that then people started thinking, why I'm wasting all this negative now? So maybe we should make just a two-perth camera and only just expose the part that we actually, rather than wasting the whole image up and down,

and obviously the role could run longer, whatever. But I think in Europe it was, I think there was more sort of 16-mill being shot for independent movies and obviously just for budgetary reasons, I assume. But also it's a good, I mean, I used to shoot a lot of 16-mill, and I love those cameras because you can really shoot completely guerrilla style Because I remember in the 80s or whatever, when everybody had the big camcorders, the big fancy VHS camera orders,

I was shooting this documentary in Russia and we were shooting on an art-on, a tiny little super 16 camera. And whenever I pulled it out, people would just be laughing and like, oh, you have a silly toy camera, you know, look at my big VHS camera. Right.

But perfect, because it was so, you could literally have it out of your coat, and you could just, you know, pull it out, and it was a beautiful camera. Yeah, I missed the old 16. But obviously 16 has a little bit of it. We tested it actually for the holdovers, because we really like the idea, because one of the problems nowadays is obviously grain,

very hard to get grain on modern film stocks, because modern film stocks were really... Basically, they make digital. No, exactly. I mean, that's why obviously what they're designed for. I mean, the whole contrast ratio is designed for telecinate, digital transfer, the lack of growth. So we thought, well, if we shoot 16, and we actually did test it out.

It didn't quite feel right. It felt a little too sort of... Ramped. Yeah, exactly. But we did like the grain. But Kodak, because we shot this at the end of the pandemic, when there was all the sort of supply chain issues, and they literally said to us,

we can't deliver on a movie on 16, so maybe they're trying to strong arm us into 35 or whatever. to 35 or whatever but but but it felt like I was like I couldn't believe it but I was looking around and I know other people had the same issue so so but I guess on the positive side is having a lot of a lot more people are shooting 16 because it is it is a beautiful or obviously with the the contrast and the colors and the and yeah I'd love to do something on 16 at some point It's funny because I heard you in a different interview mentioned.

And this is something I've brought up a lot to like newer filmmakers or like students is how for the longest, I mentioned it on this podcast too, where like for the longest time it was like we need sharper glass. We need like, you know, film looks like shit. If you don't put really good, you got to shoot at a T4. And now people are like, I want a K35 wide open because the digital sensor is just too good. Yeah. No, I mean, I mean, it's funny, because obviously in the 70s, they hated grain. I mean, everybody was like, you know, nobody wanted grain.

And now we all try and put grain back into the images, which is, I read this, this, one of my favorite sort of Masters of, the 70s book with all the 70s masters. There it is, exactly. I did see you mention it a different article, so I grabbed it. Just to be like, ah, there's a great article in there by Marty Chapman or an interview with him where he's talking about the last detail, the Halashby movie with John Nicholson, which is a brilliant movie. I remember seeing it as a kid as well. And it was his first movie as a DP. He's obviously been an operator for Gordon Willis or whatever, done taxi driver. And so he was very well-established. But he was really frustrated with the, they were shooting and they kept getting the rushes back from this shitty lab somewhere on the, on the East Coast. And it was really not, I don't know. I think maybe Kenneth went into the movie or whatever.

It was like, oh, in office, you know, we have to change lab and big sort of, obviously didn't have tons of money. So they were like, okay, we're going to have to send it. I think they send it to the West Coast then or whatever. And they started sending it back there. And it came back and it was like beautiful, pristine, you know, no. And then she actually thought, oh, damn, I made a mistake here. I actually liked the sort of the crummy looking. That actually suited the movie better.

It almost got too good. So that's something, because I obviously read that, sort of interview with him for this one as well. And just I like that sort of, I tried to take some of that into the holdovers as well, remembering this is not about sort of making it. sort of just pursuing this sort of endless sort of photographic perfection or whatever, which is obviously always a balance because we have our craft as well, and then we want to, you know, obviously mash through it, but part of that obviously is not always that is more complicated than just being,

you know, serving your own vanity or whatever. So this while we're doing this interview, the episode hasn't come out yet, but when people are listening to it, we'll have. I interviewed Hoytah, and he mentioned in that interview how, and it really stuck with me because it gave me confidence to stop worrying about being good enough in the sense that like a feeling like I'm constantly being judged. And that is, he was saying like one thing that frustrates him is watching a movie and feeling the sense. cinematographer's OCD, you know, like you just all just micromanaging every little piece of the thing and and trying to make it so that it's like aesthetically the most perfect, you know, by the letter golden ratio frame every. He's like, fuck it, center punch it. Use one light. You know, whatever. Who cares? It doesn't need to be. It needs to be something I've mentioned a million times. It needs to be emotionally correct. Technically correct is nice, but not a requirement necessarily. No, I agree, and I think he's really a master of that. I mean, he has so, there's so much confidence in his work in that sense, because he really has sort of, he has, on whatever he does,

there's a very sort of, there's a very clear handle on it, and that's the way he does it, and he just pursues it. And because obviously with every, sometimes you get into trouble, and then, like, maybe you can't see their eyes or whatever, all the sort of the little things that we know, that's really important, you know, you have to see their eyes, and it's the cast or whatever, but, but, but, but I think he really, sort of

is he's one of those ones who has that sort of yeah, that I have his confidence but I certainly applaud him but I'm happy there's people like him but I think also it's a part of

I mean obviously shooting on film as well sort of helps a little bit because part of the one of the problems I think with digital is that you sort of end up just to over-examining your images and one of the things that I was actually very conscious about it

on the holdovers was that because we try and make everything seamless as well. It's almost like, you know, like making the cuts seamless almost, that the whole thing, which is sort of taken one thing away that I really love in, in movies, which is the cut, where you sort of, we have a definite cut from one thing to the other, and I actually think cuts can be, should be jarring as well, certainly at times. Everything shouldn't just be sort of evened out and smoothed out or whatever. It's a, it's, um, so, so I try and sort of, because I have the same as you, I always sort of sort of look at myself from the outside.

I think it's just going to my fucking up or whatever. And, uh, but then, so I try and find all these convoluted ways of figuring out how not to sort of look at myself and, and, uh, like on the holdovers, I would operate all the time, which is one thing I do because then as I want to get away from, from the sort of the perfect monitor and the perfect viewing condition. or whatever, and force myself to think, well, this is really more about, this is about ideas and intentions and much more than about, I often think it's not really, you know, you can use your eye too much in a way. I mean, obviously, I mean, it's more sort of the,

it's the thinking, if you like just by your eye, then you're just going to end up sort of just making it all, yeah, smooth and hollow potentially. But if you use your mind and, really insist on it and then follow through on it, then yeah, I think that's a much more sort of, it tells much better stories that way, I think, and you feel it. I mean, I read this article in the New York Times today about AI and the sort of people are worried about AI making visual art and obviously movies as well and songs or whatever, but the whole point of that article was that that's not really the worry. The worry is that we're becoming too much like AI

because if we are threatened by the sort of that, sort of where AI reproduces stuff that's already done and just with that sort of perfection that AI can do, then that's not what we should be doing. We should be doing, you know, something that has, that's new and has sort of comes out of the cracks or whatever. Not sort of, so don't worry about AI. in taking us over worry about us becoming a ourselves yeah I love well and it kind of speaks to

what you're saying about like movies like four things coming out which I think is I haven't seen yet but I've seen a lot of positive reaction towards it saltburn certainly the holdovers which I haven't tooted your horn yet but fucking top five top three movies of the year for me by far but I think it's that reaction to that over manicured I I hesitate to say superhero films, but that tends to be the films that are over manicured. I think people want to see something that is more human, both in storytelling but also in experience, you know, and sometimes that isn't what you guys did, which it certainly is. Sometimes it is kind of weird, wide angle nonsense like in poor things.

I mean, certainly in poor things. I mean, obviously they put a lot of thought into it, and there's a lot of sort of brain power, whatever, but but they must have also just unleashed their stomachs that's a way it's just like there's no way that everything was planned out i mean there's certainly an element of sort of performance and and sort of just sort of a sort of feeling the moment and sort of being there and actually experience and sort of a which i think is the beauty of filmmaking is when you can actually when when when one thing obviously you have to prepare you the more you prepare yourself the more you are and when you're actually there. And obviously sometimes you sort of have to lock things, you lock things down just to sort of know which direction to look in or whatever, but, but it's really when you're there that you can sort of, sort of, yeah, make it,

make it sort of something that's not sort of, yeah, preconceived. Because the trouble is, at least for me, if it, if I just use my mind or whatever, and I can come up with ideas or whatever, but it's really unsaid where you see something, and you know, this is unique and something new, or it's completely its own thing. It's not like, oh, it's just like this or just like that or whatever.

It sort of has to become its own thing, which is, which is, yeah. Yeah. Well, and it kind of speaks to, I think you had mentioned it being in Masters of Light, but I know you had mentioned shooting the holdovers that you, were trying to think of like approaching it as if you shot it in the 70s and not using the tools of the 70s, but using the approach of it. And I was wondering if you could kind of elaborate on what you mean by that, because I think it is something that maybe a lot of us learned prior to the digital age, but then having all these tools that make the jobs easier, you kind of lose that experimentation and that sort of freedom when it comes to just. having what you have and having to work with it.

I mean, because my initial thought was when I read this script and we talked about, well, we want to make this movie, you know, that seemed like it was made back then. And I thought, well, we'll have to recreate all the sort of conditions that, so I'm thinking about all the conditions and, like, obviously, cameras and film stock and lighting. And I started researching, how could I find art lights anywhere? Gillsome people. So I found that there was a place, I think, somewhere in the Midwest or whatever, that did like big sort of promotional research slides that you, you know,

it's basically an art glide and, but I mean, obviously that would have been been crazy because, I mean, you know, they explode and you need specially generated. It would have been so expensive. And then, but the more I sort of got into it and I was like, oh, maybe I should call Kovadang and see if I can get them to make some of the old film stuff. and it got to be all this. But I also felt like I was being more, I was sort of making the room smaller and smaller around me in a way.

It just became this sort of frustrating thing. And then, but then, I can't remember, but then I started thinking, well, what is it that I like about the 70s movie? And because in the 70s, obviously in the late 60s, people kicked the door down and escaped from the studios. And then they started shooting movies. in the street and the shot stories about strange people. And it was just that sort of, it was sort of throwing all the rules away

and didn't, things didn't have to look a particular way or whatever. And then I thought, well, really the mindset is that, and they were shooting, you know, some people would shoot 16. And then I thought, well, that's really what's sort of made that all those amazing movies. And I thought, well, so really, if maybe I should bring that mindset to this day, rather than try and sort of sort of send myself back to the 70s, wasn't even born, by the way, then I'll bring that mindset here. And I was thinking, well, if it was 1970, and with this kind of movie that we had with this kind of budget,

I was like, well, I think I would shoot digital. I think I would use LED lights. I think I would sort of make it work, sort of bring that sort of making it not about the whole sort of machine or whatever, but really making it more about about what we're photographing and then sort of opening up my mind rather than sort of restricting it by all these sort of dogmas and which half of them were sort of impossible anyways and would have been sort of window dressing. And I think that there was really sort of, yeah, a big sort of eye opener for me to think about it. In that sense, it was very liberating. And I was thinking, well, this is really sort of, this is where my focus should be. And then, but then we did test all sorts of different things. But look with the approach of what's really going to sort of, what's going to sort of help us?

what's going to sort of make it, you know, also what's going to get us through the day? We had a very, you know, we didn't have a lot of money, and we had a fairly restricted amount of days, and we had tons of location, everything is shot on location. So, and Alexander is amazing as well, because I mean, he loves that kind of movie making where you really sort of, you get your hands sort of down and dirty, and you sort of get in, in with it and you have to make it work and it has to be pleasurable

and obviously you don't want to spend too much time for the traveling and just for one little insignificant. A lot of making a film is obviously trying to bet and things out

because you could, you know, I mean, I would dread having an unlimited budget because I think you I would end up wasting so much time on things that didn't really matter which obviously happens

in some movies but this is really sort of being super economical with the... And I think that translates into the whole movie in a way. That's sort of a sort of... Also the mentality of the 70s way you would reuse things like Honom and, you know, if he's, you know, if he had too many... too much belt, I'm sure he would cut some of it off

and use it as a, you know, as a book, separate or whatever. It's just sort of the, yeah, super economical mentality, which I like. Yeah, sort of guerrilla filmmaking. Yeah. I noticed in the film, which I saw it in theaters, but it was probably, it was whenever I texted you, it was like, so I pretty much left the theater. When your name came up, I didn't know you had shot it, your name came up on the thing, and I just went, that's my friend.

And then immediately DM'd you. So my memory isn't super sharp. on it, but the lighting setups felt so incredibly natural, like everything felt so just window lit, or like you were just using, you know, the lights inside the school or the bar or whatever. Did that kind of documentary guerrilla approach make its way into the lighting,

or were you actually finessing it in such a way where it just looked that good? I mean, it, it was definitely the approach because we also have to remember, Because obviously, we always think about, I mean, that's in Masters of Light. I think it's Roman Oiseman, who shot, or Roisman, who did the French connection. And it was so hailed for his style. And it was just, that was shot out of 16, I think.

And all everything, everybody was like, it was the most amazing available light. And it made him so upset. And he showed all these sort of hard because they lit like the fuck out of that all the time. But back in the day, obviously, because film was so contrasty or whatever. you really had to. I mean, you could obviously shoot available light, but then it would take a long time to find the right location that would give you the conditions. But I think one of the things about, I mean, what we tried to do on the holder was really just sort of the basic stuff, which is sometimes sort of not really honored the way it should be, but it's about

shooting things at the right time of the day, really spending time on locations and figuring out What is this location, really? It's really honoring, like, one of the scenes that really, that we struggle a lot with is when they're having sort of their dinners in the big mess hall and they're all on their own because it's like, you couldn't really put a light in there. Why would they all of a sudden be a light on the table? And it's something that we all do. We're like in a bar, a restaurant and then, oh, let's put a light on the table

because that's really, that obviously works for a lot of things. because it senses the attention and it creates this little bubble for people. So it's, but I was very sort of adamant that not to sort of sort of just serve myself. It really had, I was thinking, we're photographing the rooms and then basically we're doing portraits of people in environments,

but not sort of where they're part of the environment, rather than just sort of being almost sort of, was superimposed and treated sort of too special. They had to sort of, they had to sit, sort of be part of the environment. And so, so, and that obviously sort of required us to, you know, to, to, it takes a while to just, because obviously it doesn't mean you could just show up and then flick the lights on or whatever or just, you know, obviously for daytime as well, you have to be mindful of weather continuity to a certain degree.

I wasn't too worried about continuity on this, to be honest. I actually wanted to, we ended up take, you know, because obviously we had the luxury digital grading. So we did sort of even out more stuff than then I really wanted to. In the beginning, I was like, we're not, you know, we're just going to keep all the inconsistency, you know, if it's a little bad, if the window is really bright and then it's not so bright, I don't care. But, but.

But I can get distracting if you let it get too crazy. No, exactly. And also it doesn't really, it doesn't, even if you look at a window from different angles, it's going to look different to even to your eyes. Nobody is, I mean, you're not shooting for the police anyway. It's not like, you're not going to get arrested, whatever, as long as it's, as long as you, so we really tried to do it sort of as everything, as sort of, every take was an individual take to sort of serve the very specific purpose

and the lighting sort of and it was photograph from people in spaces and and and and and and and and and the whole prep was sort of figuring out you know how do we when do we do it the best time which order do we do things in you know

and the whole stuff and that's where it's really that's where I think this movie sort of someone called the lab might my my my my my my my

greater Joe Gowler, well, he's not mine, but he's, but he's amazing. I work with him a lot and he's amazing. Somebody called him and very famous D.P. And I was so, how'd you get the look of the holdovers? And he texted me and I texted my, my first A.C. Glenn Kaplan and Glenn Kaplan was just like, he was like, with love, what is, it? And so, and I think that's actually really true because it does make it a very sort of doing this making a movie in this sort of way

is a very collaborative. You need the first AD to understand what you're doing. You need obviously the director to be on board as well and saying okay you know well you know let's do it in that order and let's okay we can be

done at noon because at noon it's all going to you know hell's going to break loose so that's cool You have to, everybody has to sort of be, it becomes collaborative, which goes back to the whole sort of my idea of, of how movies were made in the, in the 70s as well. It was, and obviously the whole sort of philosophy of the era. So, yeah, and that also just made it sort of immensely sort of pleasurable to do the movie because it really became, we became like a little sort of circus ensemble, sort of. balancing around all over juices you know that reminds me of it not to just keep calling back to other interviews but I did them recently when I was talking to

Bob Yeoman he was talking about how Wes Anderson likes to just make it feel like a film like a like a student film set and I thought that was interesting because like with you operating it Alexander didn't write the script right no it's David Hemingson wrote it and I mean it was sort of it was Alexander's idea because he'd seen this French obscure French film that was set in a morning school, I think from the 30s

or whatever. I can't remember what it's called. And he really liked the idea of the sort of the setting and whatnot. And then David had sent him a script for a TV show, whatever. And Alexander was like, I'm not interested in that, but I like your writing. How about you write this?

And David picked up on it. And then he wrote it. And then, and then, I mean, I mean, David wrote the script, but, but, but, but, uh, Alexander would have been very involved. And I mean, he's really, he doesn't start shooting until he's, he doesn't do a lot of movies of it, because it takes time to really sort of be sort of, yeah, yeah, the, putting the script for the grinder, go on. Well, I was going to say, because I saw in a different interview, you're saying that, like, if, uh,

the scene called for it or if, you know, maybe the weather was, um, in your favor, or like, I remember in the, uh, I think you said in the bowling alley, you know, know he like rewrote some stuff for the scene to make it work and i was just thinking like with you operating in dp and with the director also sort of quasi rewriting the script as you go it does make me think that you can um move a lot quicker and also have a more unified artistic vision because there's only two people i mean obviously there's more than two people but uh you know there's a smaller group of people making any decisions a hundred percent i mean that's always been pretty much on any movie I do,

even if it's a big movie or whatever. But I think the most important, I like to operate because then you're sort of there and you know what's, you know, you're not just looking at a monitor where you see, but you can see if something weird happens, or it's just a flag, or whatever. But I think the most, I always build it up, you know,

you're operating the camera and then there's a focus puller. And then there's the dolly grip is like a really important person. Because it also, and then the director having the director really close and I mean Alexander Payne he he's like here or here he doesn't look at a monitor he doesn't even look you know we set up the shot together and he's very super involved in in that and but then as soon as it comes to you know when when it is rolling it would be his hair coming in in front of the lens and I'll have to pull him out because he's right there so I know his heart rate and his breathing patterns and and but but I always

And then obviously the boom operator is part of that because those are really the people that all have attention and are very super close to the cast as well. And I think it's very important to sort of create that bubble of sort of comfort and trust. And having that shorthanded thing where you can just, you know, you can just look at each other from across. room or you're right next to the person or you just you don't have to it's not like a you haven't really discussed that many things at that point things become sort of uh exactly like you described it it becomes sort of uh yeah sort of collective mind yeah well and and with one camera too you don't you're not even the actors don't even have to think about multiple angles it's just like everything gets more i don't know if insular is the right word but uh

contained and focused. 100% because I really, I mean, I did this show for Woody Allen number of years ago. And obviously he does a lot of ad-libbing. And I mean, he would say to the actors, you know, I don't care if you can remember your lines because I can't remember mine either. And he obviously, he lets things run or whatever. And I thought, oh, I just don't know what's it called the thing, the DC thing, what was it called the, with David Pitcher, House of Cards. Oh, DC.

I was, I thought you met like DC Comics. I was like, did you know, no, no, no, House of Cards, yeah. The real D.C. comedy. But, and we were obviously shooting two cameras all the time. And I thought that worked really well. And I was like, oh, this is brilliant, you know, I've got to pitch him, you know, we shoot two cameras, you know, even if there's an airplane or a bus drives pass, you're going to, the sound's going to be perfect, everything is to you can cut wherever. And he was like, okay, whatever. And then I didn't hear anything from them for a week or whatever.

They're already giving me the job. And then the producer called me, and she said, well, he's really embarrassed to tell you, but he just can't get his head around, the two cameras because which camera is he then going to act to? And it made me weird It's so old-fashioned But actually the way you should do it with the Allen movie is that it's always a two-shot No, he's told him to some

so it's at least a two-shot So you set the camera up and you always do it over him and then the reason why he's always shuffling around which sort of seems like it's part of his act but it's also his way of opening up

so he gets more or less into frame so he's really staging it around that whole camera and that's obviously a very sort of something he's sort of refined But that goes all the way down to the, you know, he was in front of the camera. That's why it worked.

I don't think it would work with a lot of modern actors as well because they would, because I think working with two cameras or more than two cameras, multiple cameras, and even how you do your setups during the day, the most important decision is where you put the camera the first time or the first camera you set up because really, so that even if it's subconsciously or whatever

I mean most actors would sort of start sort of favoring that or it would have you know it's going to start shaping things from the get-go

so I mean I've worked on more so sort of in the past but worked with directors so like oh let's just do you know let's do the boring easy shot over here first or whatever or let's just do like

you know all this and that he gets covered up some sort of coverage or some sort of animal like no, no, no, that's a terrible mistake. We have to, we should do the most important

really the, put the camera where it matters the most, where it's really like, you know, this is, there's no way, you know, this is where it's really told from. And then I think if you do that, then very often you realize, well, I didn't actually need that other shot, you know, but

as soon as you start watering it down and that goes to the whole it obviously gives a movie a different and sort of sensibility, if there is only one camera, even though for good, you know, luckily not all access, I would be Allen and they sort of play to the camera, but it still becomes, especially if you sort of, if you're in there amongst it, it just becomes sort of, you know, a person at the table as well. It does, you know, it is like the, like the crazy uncle or whatever that you don't really want to look in this direction when you're sort of saying,

You know, it becomes part of it. And so I do feel it, it's sort of, it makes a, yeah, it makes a huge difference not having, I mean, I know, I mean, obviously you could, yeah, certainly if you're making a movie that's what I said in this, I mean, because that's how, you know, the kind of movie that we made was, you know, those films that that is related to those films would have been made with one camera. I think that would have been silly, yeah, it would have been very different had we not done it. Yeah. Well, and also speaking of actors, that, uh,

what's the main actor's name, the kid? Dominique. Dude, that's. Holy shit. He's too good. I mean, I mean, it's his, it's his first movie. I mean, it's his first acting gig. Can't believe it.

But, but part of the whole sort of, sort of, that this sort of talk we're having is turning into I mean he was actually a student at Deerfield Academy where we shot 80% of the movie and all the stuff that said

because Alexander thought well why them would look around and I mean they were casting I think I think they looked at at least a thousand kids or whatever and but and then they sort of came across him and he just seemed

I mean he's so sort of he's obviously now in hindsight he's so talented I mean he's going to go to places but back then in the beginning when it was just a casting tape or whatever it's like you know this he has an amazing I mean he's obviously very good face

he's got such a good face I mean he has a face much like Adam Driver or whatever that you could just photograph in a different angle you can hit him with any sort of light and and it's just really sort of interesting he looks like he looks like something out of a 70s movies already but he also looks like something out of a painting from the 1500 or you know he's

something very timeless there's a timeless sort of beauty about him it's not he's not like just uh he's not a boy band uh sort of even though he would be great in a boy band as well i mean i can't say you know of good things about him but but but uh so actually was so when we were shooting he would sleep in his dorm room this the school was shut down how the whole thing sort of came from the outside, you know, why go look in Tokyo for this guy, you know, when he could very well be right there under your nose. And so, yeah, no, he was a, that was such a thrill. Also to see him and obviously, because he had a lot of scenes with, you know, so many scenes with Paul Giamardi and the way that, because Paul is a very, he's a very smart man. I mean, his, his dad was, I think

the head of Howard for years and years. So he comes out of Albi academic. He reads like he's read more books than anybody you can imagine and he's very good

with language and he has a very clear method and he's just a perfect perfect actor really and but the way he, those two would sort of bond and I think I mean

Dominic sort of not that he didn't already have it in him but but just to see that sort of relationship sort of unfold in the movie we're making but also sort of in the

all the behind the scenes was just extraordinary but but a really impressive thing is that the opening of the movie we're sort of you bounce around a bit and then you come up to all the kids in the dorm room when they're packing up that was shot on the first day of shooting so the first shot we did

with him packing and then I think the fourth shot or whatever is him poking his head down around which is really technical because you really have to hit your mark, you know, come out of the door and shout at somebody in a close-up like this. That was day one of his whole acting career,

which is just sort of mind-blowing. Because the camera is also like only like this far away and to have the confidence and just sort of the ability to be doing that and not sort of just shit in your pants or whatever. I mean, he's a, he's going to do. do uh yeah were you guys uh having to because i know this happens you know the classic example of et but were you guys uh in pre-production kind of in um planning on scheduling the schedule around

essentially him because he wasn't experienced like were you thinking like oh let's do these certain shots first because those will be because obviously you're not going to put the most emotional scene first, but I'm sure that wasn't the plan. But was that kind of a consideration or was it kind of strictly locations and weather? I mean, I mean, number one driving sort of was obviously the weather. So we knew we had to shoot it in a, obviously from January onwards, which is we had the biggest chance of snow. And then the second thing that drove it was that we had to shoot it during the school's break because no school would let us shoot. This was also sort of in pandemic times.

So nobody would ever allow us to be around with all the kids. So it had to be in the, I guess it's a spring break or whatever, that we had to shoot all the school stuff. And then so that drove it. And then obviously, like you say, I mean, we made a great effort to try and shoot someone, somewhat chronologically. and and but but that so with key scenes but there was never any sort of I mean I don't think there was any easy scenes either for I mean I don't know about Paul because Paul makes everything

seem easy it's like you know give him a free pay dialogue with the with like with very saturated language and it is it's not like he makes a lot of mistakes or he sort of stumbles his way through it. He makes everything look easy. But so did Dominique. I mean, it's just that it's just that beautiful. I remember when I did in Bruges

it was with the relationship between Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleason because obviously they're very different sort of personalities. And Colin is much looser guy. This has been a while ago, but

but obviously he was a lot, but Brenda Gleason really had that sort of presence with like, okay, we're acting, you know, it's like not that Colleen was unprofessional or nothing like that, but just that sort of a... A little freer. A little freer, exactly.

And just then, but then obviously, like, when you put two people together, then this sort of, yeah, synergy happened. So Paul really did carry, obviously a lot of that, just because it is, experience and he's and he's just sort of

yeah he's immense generosity yeah I did want to I was actually going to bring up in Bruges because I kind of wanted to touch on what the difference was shooting a movie on film that that movie didn't have a very large budget either right that was no yeah so what's kind of what has

changed between you know shooting a film on film on locations with known actors in 08 versus now? Like, has the approach changed at all? Have you learned it? Of course, you've learned something between then and now, but, you know, how is your approach to shooting changed and how has maybe things gotten easier or harder? Well, I think I'm more worried about not so much having, you know, I'm sure I've learned

things, but I'm also sometimes part of unlearned things because, but I actually think the biggest sort of technological sort of difference between then and now in terms of what we work with is the lighting equipment because and I think we tend to forget how how complicated it is to shoot even with a redhead because you don't dim it I mean you put a scrim in and you know

it's super hot and you have to get up there or you can dim it a little bit and make it warm or you put a gel on or you put it if you want one more diffusion I mean it was just a it was difficult you know jelling an HMI at night on a crane up high

when you don't really want to jelly because it's going to blow off and then all of a sudden your whole color pattern is out of window. Right. It's, I think all of that is really sort of the main, but then it depends on how you treat it

because on something like the holdovers, I did sort of had the mindset of it being, being like film. Like I said to Alexander, I said earlier on, because we were testing all these different things. And then we realized that we realized if we shot 35, we would then have to de-grain it in order to add our own grain.

And at that point, I was like, oh, because we're going to shoot and film and then make it look digital to make it look film again. And then I thought that this just seems like, like, you know, unnecessarily expensive and hard work. Expensive and hard work. And also because we were shooting in Boston and I don't think there's a lad. I mean, things had to be sent off and it. Right. And it would have been more expensive. anyways, but

I did it, so I said to him, so what we're going to do is we're going to treat it like it's film and we're just going to have our custom film stock and that's what we sort of made and we really pretty much have one lot that we shot everything with. Then maybe sometimes I would shoot it

daylight balance, sometimes I would shoot it tungsten balance, but but there wasn't a lot of sort of yeah. Then it's weaking at all So, but it has been a while since I shot, since I've done a movie on film. And I really want to do it again. And because of that thing where you sort of, I think it's a good way of making you,

much to what Hoyt was talking about is to make you commit to saying, well, this scene should be, you know, should be lit from the outside, you know, because obviously it's very different if you're, you know, where things I live from the outside, I suppose to from the inside. I remember when I did the king way, way back in Texas with James Marsh, I had this idea of, because it's sort of the Elgesia Benel is this ex-Marine who's sort of living pretty sort of rough life or whatever. And his dad, he's the illegitimate son of this Baptist minister who lives in Fort Worth

or in Corpus Christi and he obviously lives and I remember back then which was sort of, it's something I sort of always think about is that I wanted all the lights in his world should come from inside the frame really glow and have that contrast

and fall off and all the light was sort of the illuminate him would come from inside but whereas in the in and feel sort of hot and intense and sort of glaring even at times and then when we go to his father's place

everything was incident you don't really see the lights everything is a little more like a like a refrigerator it's just a was also sort of and I just thought it made sense in in in

in so many ways also because it shows you know one guy doesn't have AC and his other guy has it but but but also that in in a girl's world everything is sort of

when the light is so close it changes all the time, you know, you're suddenly your front lid, your side lid or whatever. As you move around, everything sort of changes in the refrigerator. Well, everything is under control. Everything is measured. Everything is, you know, predictable. Everything is, you know, is the comforting life.

And, and, and I mean, I think that's the way we should, you know, what we do is that how we should think about light, you know, is this, do I want to shoot this room so it looks like a cave and it's just a light flushing in? know, or is this, you know, is this room sort of live from the inside and it's sort of its own thing, is it, is it, and then commit to it. And so I really want to sort of, and I think shooting on film sort of put, it doesn't have to be like that, because obviously you, it doesn't make you, force you to think about light that way more than, than, than, then, then, then, then,

than digital, but certainly on film, you can't just sort of look at a monitor and say, this is, you know, what it's going to look like, you know, because you could sit down at a monitor and then just start moving lights around and then, oh, that looks pleasing, but that's not really, yeah, it depends on what you're doing, but it had to come from sort of, yeah,

a point of storytelling and sort of character and intention. And then to avoid this point, then the rest of the mistakes, I mean, it's like, then yeah you're doing you're doing it right and and and yeah yeah so was the kind of on the more technical side was was the approach to just kind of aug only augment what was so like um you know just kind of one i saw there's a photo of uh when they're sitting on the couch is watching tv that i saw like a publicity photo and you just kind of have like a maybe a sky panel or something and in an octobox behind a lamp.

Was it was the move kind of just to do like single source all over the place? You know like augment a window, augment a lamp, take it easy? Or were you like hiding tubes everywhere? I mean, yeah, I think that's how we hit shoes. But all, because obviously when they're watching TV, there's sort of something we come back to a few times. And it's really sort of reflecting the state of their relationship. And so we told a lot about it.

Alexander had this idea that the first time that Paul comes in and sees her on the couch, she should really sort of be on a little island sort of, you know, just with the TV and it should be her little world sort of on an island in complete darkness. So that was the sort of initial idea. And at that part, we only just had a room full of sort of, it was a story space or whatever, But that's how, and then we were like, do we put it down here, and we'll put it down here. Then it's like, okay, it made sense to put it there.

And then we were thinking, well, I mean, obviously there's that great thing. I think the TV is, because back in the day, obviously, we was great with TV because they actually emitted a lot of light as well. Right. People didn't have that much light in their room, so back in, I mean,

we've all seen it done really hoaxy and silly, but this was really sort of, of wine. So we did the old sort of two bulbs and a box or whatever. Actually, we put tubes on the glass because we know we had to replace it. And they were sort of, so we thought we'd had that sort of cold light. Because we all, I knew they were both going to be looking at it. In a way, it's like it was the house also, obviously, which the TV was back in the day, because it was also the only screen that you had in your house. It's not like you had the screen in your hand and the room or whatever. And then, and then it was thought very,

simply well, but then there should be this sort of table light between them in a way, sort of unifying them and sort of, and then in the beginning, she's sort of further away from him. So we sort of decided, because then the second time they were coming together, we thought of, well, then she's going to sit closer to him, and they're sort of going to be in the same light. So the first time, she's more in the sort of TV light, and he's close. They're a little bit in different worlds, you know, mind on, and then later on, they're unified, and then, and then Dominic appears in the background and so we gave him a little reading

light and so it was really sort of also working with the, obviously a lot with Ryan, the production designer and the set deck apartment and really sort of picking out saying, you know, we're going to need something to

sort of help us back here and and yeah that's that's where everybody sort of has sort of the same language. And that's something they're like saying

is very good at. And everybody that worked in this film sort of had that sort of, okay, we're making a movie together. It's not like we're serving you know, one person or another person or it's not there's no, you know, everybody can bring ideas. And so

we looked at obviously endless practicals for all sorts of scenes and then at times we got caught out and had to improvise or whatever. But, but, but, But that's a good example of, and then when we shot it, it's sort of, you know, obviously we had to help the light along a little bit just to sort of reach. And that's where LED was very helpful.

And obviously because it's small and sort of narrow at least, so you can really squeeze it in into places. We had to do it with tungsten light. It would have taken forever. I imagine the classroom or like the hallway into the or even the headmasters or stuff because they were daylight was that pretty much just like leave the room as is bring in a key we're good here yeah about we did push some light through through the windows as well and then just to balance it out because there was um there was so much um slow around and we were really lucky with snow but but also when we're inside i mean it really sort of

was exploding at times so so we did push light through the windows um and then we just had a little bit of light inside just to sort of bring the key around a little bit and uh and because obviously we're shooting you know it's a it is a drama but but but uh but you really you know you want to see their their faces as well and i mean i didn't want to make a sort of overly dramatic and or in that sense sort of it's not sort of a i think going full caravaggio would have been uh right yeah wouldn't have been right exactly too much so it had to sort of feel a little sort of open and and uh and so so i guess that goes with it with the whole sort of the sort of feeling of available light as well that it's usually you know you can shoot it's a very moody but uh but but but but but but

But we shot it for a little more sort of open and, yeah, more approachable like it. Well, and then I kind of left this towards the end because I figured it might be a slightly more in-depth thing. But obviously, your color is Joe Gowler made probably the most realistic film simulation I've ever seen. And part of that does have obviously has to do with the way you guys shot it, you know. Even just using the H series, the Panvision H series lenses give the image that kind of nice. Plus, because you're shooting square, you got like the nice center bit, so it's not too fucky, you know, and you just got the, but I was wondering what in your mind makes kind of the holdovers film emulation. First of all, like what went into it, like what were the kind of criteria for making that image?

But also, what makes that image look so different from, let's say, the film emulation in the flashbacks in the machine, which kind of feels more like a representation of film and not necessarily a true emulation. It was with love. No, yeah. But I think just the lenses first. I like the H-2 is because one of my worries

and I think for all of us was that because if we didn't achieve the idea of making people actually, you know, buy into the idea that it was made back then, then all of this stuff we would, you know, Then if we did it, it could very easily become sort of nostalgic or like we were shooting through, you know, baseline or pencil holes or whatever. And that's really something that I didn't, that I didn't want. So I didn't want a lens that was sort of, that felt too old, you know, like, oh, we do, you know, really pushing that. So I wanted something that definitely didn't sort of add to the sort of, oh, this is at an arm's length or whatever.

Or we've been sentimental or nostalgic. so those lenses were great but but then it was really i mean it took a lot a long long time to sort of to to experiment basically because uh because we we tried all sorts of different grain we we tried to sort of shoot our own grain we we tried to to sort of find grain online or lead as some grain we ended up going with the what i think is called live grain and you basically buy a license, you have to pay for it, but the good thing is that, is that it actually sort of, it's kind of intelligent because it's not sort of just over the full image. It actually shows up, you know, in the highlights and over the shadows, more, and it's not

like, because we tried all different levels of grain and then very easily just becomes like something you superimpose over the whole image. Right. And also the trouble is when you sort of sit with it for a little bit, then your brain starts sort of actually sort of cancelling it out. And then you're thinking, oh, where's all the grain? And then you put more grain in. You come in to the day and start and you're like, oh, you're back to the hole.

Right. So you really have to sort of look at it and go back and forth, back and forth. But then we also did, we did obviously calation to different degrees. we did gate weave we did I mean we did all those sort of classic things but we also added

obviously dirt both neck dirt and positive dirt as well we even thought about which we actually did at one point but we would do more we would say oh this is the end of the reel so we would have more dirt here

and even have the little mark for the projectionists we tried it and it just seemed like it was too much so so so we ended on but but but we did little chemical uh stains as well like a little not bleach mart or whatever but but just sort of left over chemical uh uh on certain frames and then uh yeah so it was really uh and and then we were doing this sort of as we were grading the movie but uh but we didn't end up i think i spent two weeks in it then we had a break i came back to it

and we did some more and then and then we came back to it. And I mean, the beautiful thing about, because I know Joe, I've worked with him for many years now. And he's just, I mean, he has also done, I think, 4,000 criterion, sort of a restoration. I was going to say, because I saw that and I was out later, I was going to say, you need to get me in touch with him because this entire shelf behind me is criterion. And I would love to talk to him about the restoration process, because that's fucking fascinating. I mean, I mean, you should because obviously for some of it, all the filmmakers are long gone and, you know, not here anymore.

But for a lot of him, he would have, you know, whatever, Robby Mueller in, or the directors, you know, I mean, he's been, that would be a great podcast. I'll text you his contact info because he's there. Because that would be a great, he's a fascinating guy and he's really a true artist himself. He's very smart and, I mean, he's just, yeah, I love him to bits, but he's always also doing things behind sort of our bags. So he sort of builds all this stuff in and then he doesn't tell us. And then we're like, oh, what happened here or whatever?

And then he shows and you're like, oh, that's really interesting and you play around with it. But it's definitely a process that you can't, you. You know, you have to spend some time with it. It's like a dish that you really have to keep sort of tasting and seasoning, exactly. And then hopefully you just sort of, and then you have to go away from it and come back to it. So I just don't, it's not a dish that could be roughed in any ways. And you don't want to commit to anything too soon. And to be honest, it was, I mean, in the beginning, I was just thinking,

this is going to be terrible. I thought I was so kicking myself, thinking, I should have shot it on film. But that would have been the same issue because we would have had to do all the same things that we did any. But at least with the digital, we got a lot of the color in place

because we had a lot, a lot of the tonality. We shot the whole thing on 1280, because in the beginning I also thought, I'll shoot everything on 100 ASA because it's going to force me to, you know, to only shoot in the conditions that, and then very quickly, I was like, you know, reality check, that's, you know, that's really going to, you know, you're just going to, you're pouring it lead all over everything now. Well, and you just like your highlights.

Well, but, but, but, but, because actually pushing digital obviously is the opposite of, of, of, of a film is that you protect your highlights. Right. That would actually help us in a way, because then. It's going to make the image a little more noisy and it's going to put it more into a film curve. It's going to take away from the bottom and add to the top. And also for, well, this is, you know, this is a freedom of technology. This is technology liberating me, not the suffocating me.

Well, and like we were saying earlier about, like, you know, taking a 1970s approach with modern tools, I think you guys did a great job of finding all the things about a film print that remind us of film and are sort of nostalgic about it but aren't beholden to it. You know, because if you were to start putting in all that extra shit that technically would be in film, it would start to become pastiche. You know, you're becoming a slave to the format instead of just letting the story speak through, you know, the, I hate to say filter, because that's not. not that that phrase has bad connotations now, but you know what I mean? Like the the image, I don't know, it's it, you really balance that that delicately in a way that that's very, but that's why I think it takes time. It does take time because I think one of the problems is that it is that obviously it's impossible to go, but I mean, it's a little

bit like a thing it was the 16th chapel and it's Peter's Church or whatever where the Michelangelo paintings and people thought they're beautiful or whatever. And then actually did a restoration of it and they took away, you know, hundred years of dirt and all of a sudden they were like really vivid colors or whatever and people would be horrified and they'll be like, oh, but that's

actually how, that was actually the masterpiece, everything, but people were thinking, you know, they'd been misguided and thought all the dirt and the fading was, so so the point is it isn't just

one, you can't just sort of say we're going to do exactly like it looked back then because it's either going to be filtered through our brains or our memories or through time as well because one thing that we did that that joe came up with was that he added like a print fade as well so so so because film prints do turn a little sort of more yellow in the highlights as they sit in a can for 50 years so um so i think And obviously, Alexander has an immense... I mean, he has a very deep knowledge of movies. But I would also go and...

I mean, when we were shooting, I was staying in New York some of the time I go into film forum, and I saw, what's it called? Carnage, male carnage or whatever, a 70s movie by the director who did... I'm fading now. with it

anyway it's a god I have to text it to you now oh god I googled male carnage and all I got was the comic book character that's not going to carnal knowledge it's what it's called oh sure sure sure exactly also with

with Jay Hennigelson and and this was a print restoration or whatever maybe as a what at the yeah but but but but in the beginning I was saying, oh, this almost doesn't, the same thing, doesn't quite look sort of period enough. So, so, so, but, but back to the point is that it is, it's really that. So you have to sort of keep tasting it and balancing it out and, and saying,

and saying much like the whole sort of technology riff is that, is that, is that, is that it can seem too distant. Obviously, we can just make it sort of seem old, but, but we actually didn't want it to, to necessarily seem old. We just wanted to sort of have the penstrokes of the brush that was used back then. And then obviously not have too much, you know, when we have daylight scenes, we would tone the grain right down because you wouldn't have grain. When we were in the cinema, we really amped the grain up because I was like, well, this is a scene. we would have under-exposed it two stops.

We would have, you know, three stops. We would have pushed it two stops or whatever. So this would be really noisy and really coming at it from, again, much the same idea. The idea you come from it, you do it with your brain to begin with it. And then you sort of use your eyes to sort of acknowledging that your eyes play tricks with you. But then is that balance, that sort of communication between your brain and your eye and the tricks, you both of them play with you. and then the most one thing is you always go back and think what was the intention here and then and then you stick with that well I will say one thing that you guys I don't know if you or Alexander first I assume Alexander probably did uh had a hand in but so I like I like watching trailers in the cinema I don't look them up online but I like watching them in the theater I get there you know with enough time but recently I've just been playing this game where it's like it's the same beats it's like it's like it's the same beats it's like

like it's like there's a that's what feels like AI to me is the editing of trailers where it's like the same they they find some song some older song and then they remix it you know usually it's like a haunting vocal and then it'll go boop boot boot and then it'll do like the um the inception bong at some point and then you know and so we me and my girlfriend were sitting in the holdovers and we I saw like six of them and every single time I go there's the remix there's the bong there's you know and then the holdover's trailer comes on and both of us just stopped because it that one I think whoever was the trailer editor amped up the uh quote unquote oldness because it feels like watching a trailer that was on a VHS tape down to I mean obviously the presentation of it but also like you know just the old school way of like having a narrator talk about it and stuff like that and the thing ends and this was months ago and I just look at her and go Whatever that is, I want to see it, you know? Yeah.

But that's the sort of the case, yeah, I mean, that that's really Alexander's sort of dedication and sort of perseverance and also knowledge and not just sort of letting anything sort of slip in that sense. And obviously because you get bored with that after wine and you just like, oh, let it's just put, but he really, he sticks with it. And yeah. And so, so that's the love again. it's just sort of that sort of

other commitment and not sort of you know falling in love with yourself but falling in love with what you're sort of creating you know through hell and high water

or whatever it takes yeah well I think that's a perfect place to end it I think we've gone a little over so that's plenty of long time I very much appreciate you coming back and chat with me because, you know, both of these conversations have been amazing. So the next thing you come on, I can come right back.

I'll rush out and do something in you, so we have an excuse to do it again. Thanks, mate. I'll good day. Take care, really. See later. Frame and Reference is an Owobod production. It's produced and edited by me, Kenny McMillan, and distributed by Pro Video Coalition. If you'd like to support the podcast personally, you can do so by going to frame and refpod.com

and buying me a coffee there with the link to buying me coffee. It's very much appreciated, but as always, thanks for listening.