A conversation with Yves Cape, AFC, about Dreams, directed by Michel Franco

Following his now well-established way of telling stories, and from the first image of a beautiful, exhausted young man walking alone in the scorching desert sun, writer director of "Dreams" Michel Franco provides the viewer with apparently naturalistic yet striking visions: Jessica Chastain in a tight-fitting white gown waiting in the shadows, an incredible spin performed by a joyful ballet dancer in a rehearsal studio, a couple making love in a stairway, endless white corridors in the dark and beds in closets… Filling in the ellipses is up to you, and you’ll have to pay attention to every detail to fathom the cruel tale that’s being told. A few months after shooting Memory, already with Jessica Chastain, Franco and cinematographer Yves Cape, AFC pair once again, using the method and deceptively austere cinematic language they’ve been developing for several films. Used for the first time, the ZEISS Supremes seemed to match their need of both realism and robustness in any light condition.

ZEISS: This is your 6th film together, and you've since shot a 7th. You shoot fast!

YVES CAPE, AFC: Michel got it into his head that he could make one film a year. Between "Memory" and "Dreams" there were 14 months. He has often told me that he's not looking for perfection. What he's looking for is to make films and progress from film to film

He thinks there's some kind of progression.

I think he hopes to learn from his mistakes, like some directors who shoot a lot. I think he secretly hopes one day to break out of one genre and go for something else. For example, he's trying to write a comedy that he's not happy with, but one day he'll probably make one.

And you, as a very close collaborator, do you feel that you're making progress?

It's hard to say. I don't really think we're fundamentally changing the way we shoot: we still have this idea that if we can only do one shot for a scene, why not try to do it? There's no point in multiplying shots. I've been told that Lol Crawley, the cinematographer of The Brutalist, says: "Every cut is a lie". I love that phrase! If you manage to find the right place for the camera, if the actors manage to get the right rhythm for the scene, if the scene is well written, if superfluous dialogue has been pared down over the takes, etc., there may be a way to do the scene in a single shot and thus, in my opinion, getting as close as possible to the truth. Just a moment between two actors playing something, all of it being fake of course. We know how to cover a scene: four people at a table, over-the-shoulders, wide shots, inserts... But there's the excitement of finding the one right position that allows us to see the four characters, spot the important ones, or have a real point of view. It takes thinking, and that's what interests us. For the actors, too, there's something at stake: the shot is lasting, there's no way of catching up. It's like live editing: at first the actors shrug and say, yes, yes, okay, but once they've understood that from scene to scene, they can develop their characters, because they've seen what we've done before and how we've edited it, and we're shooting the scene that immediately follows, they have a different perspective on their work. 

Among the methods you adopt in your work together, which are more or less constant from one film to the next, are shooting long, often single shots, the importance of the right distance, the very limited choice of focal lengths, because that's how you look at things, and shooting in the chronological order of the script.

Michel doesn't know how not to shoot in order. For Memory, which we shot in New York, for logistical reasons we tried with Liza Man, the assistant director, to schedule the shooting by location. Michel agreed, we shot for a week, and he said, "I can't do it!” He said, "This whole story I'm telling, if we don't shoot it in continuity, what are we going to do? We shoot scenes and then add them up: they don't respond to each other-they're meant to respond to each other, but they actually don't. If we're going to shoot a scene in an office, yes, before that, the script says what is supposed to have happened–but from the moment we know what really happened just before, we know what the scene in the office must become.” So, not only is there excitement, but there's the way he directs the actors, how he moves forward, and even for the camera. On the first film I made with Michel, Chronic, once we had the locations, we shotlisted the whole thing scene by scene; now we don't plan any shot at all. The problem with shot lists is that you don't leave any possibility for the actors to surprise you. We stopped after April's Daughters, because we realized that we were finding our shots on set pretty quickly. We preferred to think about it at that point, because then, we'd have everything.

Because you're reacting to what happened before.

And we've got it all: we've got the editing, but we've also got the set, the actors, the pre-light, and so on. You can feel things even more. I find it much more exciting.

And it's important to point out that the editing is proceeding in parallel.

Since "Chronic", my first collaboration with Michel, which we shot in Los Angeles, we've always edited on set with a DIT and an editor. It's a technically simple system that we've improved over the years. In Mexico, Diego Sanchez from Pixel helped us perfect the process, and now we export it everywhere we go! We can't do without it anymore; it's an integral part of our system.

Is there a continuity supervisor?

There's not. Michel often watches the second or third take, and either he's understood what he's looking for and we move on, or he finds that it's not working and we do something else. It's a constant... journey. His usual editor, Oscar Figueroa, is right there on set! Oscar has edited almost all his films since his first, "Daniel et Ana" (2009), and he's someone who's part of Michel's team and also works on the other films Michel produces, including his sister's film. 

So, shooting in chronological order too.

Almost! We shot for 17 days in San Francisco, interspersed with one night's shooting at the border, and ended up spending 8 days in Mexico City, in an art gallery converted into accommodation, to film the last part of the story, which takes place entirely indoors. With Michel, there's what's written and there's everything we can find and add. Personally, I always think that screenplays are enough, but Michel is very keen to create new scenes, which are not improvised but invented according to how the script changes along the shoot. So, for example, the scene where Isaac is doing the dishes and she's washing up in the backyard is one we came up with at the time. Michel always asks to include a day of reshoots in the shooting schedule, which are not scenes to be redone, but scenes that Michel adds, depending on the actors he has available, etc. And they often end up in the film. In the case of "Dreams", these were things that came about as a result of the two characters living together. Now, shooting in chronological order is a well-established system. I've adapted to this system, technically, to be able to be very... I'm not going to say light, but very fast, let's say.

As simple as possible to be quick.

Because when you're making up the shot as you go along, I can't take two hours to light it.

Do you pre-light first?

Yes, all sets are usually pre-lit. 

What season did you shoot this?

We shot in August, right in the middle of the SAG strike in the US. We got a "waiver" because we weren't a studio production.

Is shooting in Mexico in mid-August a challenge for you, or are you used to it by now?

I got used to it, but there are a few drawbacks, especially outdoors. I had two problematic scenes because we weren't there at the right time of day and the sun was too zenithal. When they go for a walk in the park, in a back tracking shot on a SteadiCam, it took us a while to find the shot, the actors needed time, and when we did the shot it was noon, the sun was showering down, and the shadows didn't look good on their faces. You've seen the shot: I can't do anything, you can see 1m50 to the left and to the right, I can't get any flag above the actors. Since I'm not one of those cinematographers who tell directors, “No, we can't do the shot”, I do it. There are small consequences, such as VFX done by Géry Bouchez at Nod, here in Paris. Among other things, Nod specializes in everything cosmetic, all the effects on faces, bodies and so on. I know he can fix little things like that, if they're serious. Richard Deusy, the colorist I still work with and who has been with me on Michel's films since Chronic, also fixes a lot of these things, but color-grading systems have their limits. 

"Dreams" was shot just after "Memory", and both feature Jessica Chastain as the lead actress. It's not the same character at all, but was she the inspiration for the second film?

The "Dreams" script existed before Jessica, in fact. The thing is, it becomes Jessica. They're two totally different films, so it's obviously interesting for Michel and Jessica to work together again. Even for me! On Memory, I didn't have to worry too much about the light on Jessica Chastain: she plays a destroyed woman, so I was interested in the imperfections of the light, and I played a lot with that to support the creation of her character. In "Dreams" she's supposed to be sublime all the time, especially the part in San Francisco. So, it was more complicated for me.

Did you adopt other strategies?

No, but I had to be more careful.

While doing everything the director asks of you, there's a location you rejected at first.

Yes, the location that would be Jessica's apartment in San Francisco. I turned it down, firstly because it was all white, but also because it was inaccessible due to the specificity of houses built on the slopes of San Francisco. We couldn't afford window lighting at all. In fact, it's always the same story: for me, having the location exactly matching the character matters more than practicality for lighting. I'd turned down this location from photos without even seeing it. We were scouting in San Francisco, and I didn't think anything looked right. I said to Michel, "Let's go see this location I turned down”. When I stumbled into it, and even though it was also open to light from both sides, I said to Michel, "That's exactly the character we're trying to create, Michel. We have to figure it out." Michel asked me a lot about my problems. I said, "Look, these are technical problems. Nothing that concerns you, really! 

Didn't that constrain him in terms of directions?

No, I don't limit him because that would mean limiting myself too. On the other hand, he's not impatient, he gives the team time to prepare. For example, there's a shot that looks like nothing: Isaac is on the phone on a balcony during the day, with a view of sunny San Francisco reflected in a large window. Then he hangs up and the camera pans and tracks to follow him as he goes inside. When I was looking for the shot, I didn't pay much attention to the technical data, but once I started preparing it, I realized we had T64 outside and T2 inside! Even modern sensors can't handle that, and unfortunately, lenses can only do so much, even though I'm a fan of changing t-stops during shots. 

In fact, that's not how it works at all: Michel and I usually read the scenes on set without anyone else. We insist on the set being empty, because we don't know where we're going. We talk for 10-15 minutes about what we're thinking, sometimes more. We try to imagine something. Sometimes we bring the actor in and explain what we've imagined. If we feel any hesitation, reluctance or questioning, we start rehearsing with him or her. Once we've got the hang of it, they leave, Michel goes to edit what we've done the day before, and I set it up: the crew comes in and I explain what we're doing. There's no stress. However, shooting in chronological order is a double-edge sword: the actors move forward with the scene, and interruptions and pace slowdowns are more annoying. When shooting important scenes, I want things to move fairly quickly from one scene to the next, so that the actors retain their freshness. And that's why I really took a step back technically, I'd say. Earlier, like all young cinematographers, the more movies I made, the more complicated I became. I had more and more projectors, two sets of lenses and four different film stocks to make a movie. You name it! And, at some point, I decided I wasn't interested in that. I refocused on what interests me: staging. But at the same time, I don't want any more problems with what I'm less interested in, which is technique, so I simplify my life as much as possible with tools and I surround myself well!

So, simplicity.

I really like the vintage lenses look. For example, I've shot many films with ZEIS Standard T2.1 sets, which I love. But the problem is that I can't get stuck with a technical constraint, for example opposite a flaring backlit window. I don't want to be in a situation where I have to say to a director, “No, we can't shoot with this focal length in front of a window, we have to use another one or change the shot.” Modern lenses have adapted to digital sensors and, even if there is an unfortunate standardization of the look, as demonstrated by the blind tests ran by the AFC a couple of years ago, a number of aberrations, even flaws that are annoying to me, have disappeared. All my research is therefore aimed at avoiding this type of constraint. I try to avoid unnecessary complications: I already have enough elements to manage on a set without adding technical concerns. My approach is becoming increasingly simplified, and this is also the case for lighting. LED light is clearly less beautiful than tungsten light, that's obvious. It just takes a test on a face to realize it. No LED spotlight is really flattering, it's in their nature. But they have a huge advantage: you can adjust their color infinitely and dim them at will. That interests me. I know I need to finetune them, but it's a tool I like because it's malleable and versatile. Basically, what matters to me is not so much the technique as what we create with Michel and the actors.

Yes, but you need to have a thorough knowledge of the equipment so that you don't have to ask yourself questions afterwards. It requires tools that are in line with your need for flexibility, speed and efficiency.

Absolutely. That's why the strict aesthetic comparison between lens sets is not enough.

Can you tell us how you used the ZEISS Supreme lenses?

Michel wanted the 1:2.40 aspect ratio, so the anamorphic/spherical question arose. We had already shot Memory on spherical 2.40. I really like the aberrations and bokeh of anamorphic, but spherical 2.40 has an advantage: it's much lighter. I like to have lenses that are not too bulky, and above all that will not cause me technical problems as mentioned above. On top of that, it would have been necessary to bring the anamorphic lenses from Los Angeles, which would have cost more, and I also had to be able to find the same equipment in Mexico City. All these parameters steered me towards shooting in 8K, which allows me, among other things, to shoot wide shots with medium focal lengths without distortion. With the 40mm I’m able to shoot wide without any short focal length distortion, which allows me to include the actors in their environment, and I love that.

I had the freedom to choose my rental company in San Francisco, and Videofax had the Supremes. I made a couple of phone calls to Paris to investigate, and then I decided to go with them. I tested them in all conditions: under the blazing Californian desert sun at the beginning, in the dark streets of Mexico City at the end, in violent backlighting as well as harsh frontal light. They retain a very natural softness and sharpness, with a natural bokeh too. To maintain consistency, I try to use almost always the same lens, around 40 mm. As the distance from the camera to the actor is key, I rarely deviate from this focal length: a few shots at 25 mm for very wide frames, and at 65 mm when you don't want to get tighter but not too physically close. In the same way, I keep the aperture constant throughout the film, at least in the same setting. Whatever the light, I stay between T2 and T2.8 indoors and T4 outdoors.

You stack up ND filters?

Yes, but I use more than just neutrals. In some situations, I end up with an ND21, an additional neutral and a polarizer to add density.

And do you play with the ISO settings on camera?

As we shoot in RAW, I play a lot with the ISO and the white balance to create the “look”. But I don't use a LUT, because the DIT provides us with already graded dailies, ensuring that the shots connect well in the editing. For a dawn sequence, for example, I will shoot at the end or beginning of the day to simulate very early morning light, while adjusting the ISO for density and color temperature to get a cool tone. I rely heavily on the small camera monitor to create the first look. 

Did the fact that you had already worked with Jessica Chastain save you time?

It did, especially in terms of human relations. Doing two films in a row with the same actress and makeup artist helps enormously. I get on very well with Linda Dowds, who works with Jessica Chastain. For Memory, I took the initiative by calling her to explain what we wanted Jessica to look like: tired, destroyed. For Dreams, on the other hand, it's the opposite: she has to be chic, elegant and impressive, except at the end...

She is a figure rather than a character in the first part; she embodies a certain aspect of the United States; she has a lot on her shoulders.

For Michel, "Dreams" is a film about racism.

Yes, of course. There is no ambiguity. This is perhaps the main difference I perceived with Memory, this almost parabolic aspect to the adventure of these two characters, how each embodies their countries, their histories and their destinies. And she is statuesque, including in costumes... That white gown!

The costumes are like the apartment and the car, they tell the story of the character, and here Jessica has pushed to the maximum what this kind of person wears, often a mixture of bad taste, flashiness and brand names. Michel and I had doubts about certain outfits, but we trusted Jessica.

Do the sex scenes require different work from the rest? Does someone come over to choreograph them?

Michel and I discuss these scenes a lot beforehand. In agreement with the actors, I’m there for the blocking. Isaac helped us a lot: his experience as a dancer enabled us to choreograph the movement of the bodies. Jessica, on the other hand, needs time and bearings to find the rhythm and link the positions together. We had planned a day of filming for the scene on the stairs, but in the end it went faster. Having the on set editing helped us analyze the feel of the scenes in detail.

The viewer is not led by the hand; every element on the screen is crucial to understanding where we are in the story. There is a tension between what is given to understand and what is not.

It seems to me that this feeling exists because the process of creation, sequence by sequence, chronologically and with editing all along, allows us to reflect on every detail. It's not progression according to a call sheet with a to do list of the day, but to the feeling we have of each scene and our sense of completion or not. You can make mistakes, start over, change your mind... It's extremely free, without going beyond very simple means. Sometimes we just redo a scene because we have a better idea. 

A word about the dance studio set and those dance scenes, which come almost as a gift? They are moments of great sensual joy in the film.

Isaac Hernández is considered the best classical dancer of his generation. At the time of filming, he was Principal Dancer of the San Francisco City Ballet, which his wife directs. They were the ones who gave us access to the rehearsal rooms and to all the dancers of the San Francisco City Ballet, which is why the film moved from Dallas to San Francisco. Even though my mother took me to see Maurice Béjart's shows with Jorge Donn, Baryshnikov and Margot Fontenay all my childhood, I know nothing about dance, but it has always moved me deeply. So, I watched hours of films on the subject. At the beginning, Michel wanted the camera to be mobile and close to them, as is often seen. I thought it was a bit hackneyed and that it would stand out too much from the rest of the film. So, we went back to our fixed and panning shots. The advantage of not being dance specialists is that we focus on things that are not necessarily important from the dancers' point of view: Isaac is the only one in the world who can do certain movements that appear in the film, but Michel and I were more interested in the emotion of the scene than the technical aspect. It amused Isaac a lot! In these rooms, I couldn't do much lighting wise for technical reasons related to the specific nature of the floor, the mirrors and the fact that we were on high floors, making it impossible to light through the windows. So, I decided to keep it backlit as often as possible and, if possible, to have only one direction of light. We also adapted the camera positions to the choreography we were filming, and Isaac helped us a lot to adapt the choreography to the positions we needed. 

How are things going with the sound team?

It's very complicated for them! I try to help them as best I can. I shoot with a 10 to 15% safe area, but when I know that I will be able to do without it in post or erase the microphone, I let the boom in. We do a lot of cropping in the DI, sometimes major cropping, and small special effects. Today, you can do much more than just color grade in a grading suite. Michel is the one who introduced me to this: he was born with digital. For example, we shoot the rehearsals unless there is a major technical necessity. They are not necessarily the chosen takes in the end, but it allows you to get started, to rough out the shot and to understand what is wrong... and sometimes miracles happen!

Are there ways of thinking or working that come from your shoots with Michel Franco that you use elsewhere? Are the shoots permeable?

That's a good question, I ask myself that a lot! This lightweight equipment and this way of lighting work because I do one single shot per scene. If suddenly the sun comes out during the shot, it comes out, and that's it. If night falls, I just have to readjust the light levels. But it's a single shot. With Michel, I don’t have to take care of making the lighting match between coverage shots–or very little, just from one room to the next, but that's it. With a director who covers a scene with ten shots, transferring this method is complicated. On the other hand, what is transferable to other films is the simplicity, my freedom and the freedom that must be given to the actors.

And thinking that there is only one place that works for each shot, or even each sequence?

No, that's a question of style, and it's Michel Franco's style! But there are styles and ways of doing things that I feel closer to. At the moment, I'm in the early stages of preparation with a director, and we sometimes talk about the shot list. When I think of a camera position, I think of a single position. She, on the other hand, mentions reverse angle shots. I had forgotten about reverse angle shots! If you do four shots in a sequence, you really have to be very bad at it not to be able to edit it. And when you do 25 shots in a sequence, what are you telling the actors? That you're redoing everything in the editing? The rhythm, the acting, etc.? So yes, there are styles that I prefer. At the same time, what's interesting in our job as cinematographer is to be part of projects that we believe in, so to do different things, in lots of different universes. I claim to have no style as a director of photography. It's not me who should have a style, it's the film that should have its own. My mother once said to me: “In everything you do, from your photos (I studied photography before studying film), the common thread is the way you film faces.” At the time, I didn't quite understand, but it's true that I pay a lot of attention to faces. There are inevitably things like that that I carry over from film to film, and of course I've learned a lot from the directors I've worked with.