Kovacs is Hungarian, and from 1952 to 1956 he attended the Budapest Film School. He left his country for the United States during the Hungarian incident in 1956. After a period of hard life, he was finally recognized as a cinematographer in Hollywood with an international reputation. He said he was shocked to see "Citizen Kane" in Budapest in 1948, and later the film was not allowed to be released in Hungary. He always managed to find the film, which he studied as a textbook.
Kovacs started out in the US as "films without cost". Here's what he said:
At that time (referring to the early 1960s) a lot of low-budget, independent, non-union films were made. I've been involved in some of them. We don't care about money, but we need experience. So that period is a day of learning. I've made some films, and the whole crew was just me and Wilmes (another Budapest film school student who came to America with him). We have always called this kind of film 'no-budget film', not low-budget film. It was a very exciting time because we learned from our own mistakes. We have learned how to overcome the limitations we face. We try to use our talents to overcome the lack of cost. It was a fun and colorful day compared to today, but that atmosphere is gone. It's also sad to say, because there are many students from film schools and people from other fields who want to participate in film production, but they just don't have the opportunity to practice and learn from their own mistakes.
What did Kovacs benefit from working on "no-budget films" and "low-budget films"?
That's how Alonzo, Sigismund, Roizman and Willis -- all well-known international cinematographers -- all got their start, he said. Those low-budget films were epic to us. Those producers needed something that could get the images to the screen and work on time every day. Instead, we strive to exceed these requirements in order to improve ourselves. We tried to hire good people, and we formed a really engaged group. We are excited, excited about the making of the film. So each of our films is better than the last. Our costs are from $30,000 to $80,000. We shoot a film in ten or twelve days, and we don't actually have any equipment at all. If we shoot an interior, we rent a set of tungsten lights and plug it into a power source. Of course, we don't have any fill lights and no reflectors for any exterior shots. When I was shooting a film once, I only had four reflectors, and one set of key lights. that is all. The producer had an Allai with a muffler and three lenses. But I am very satisfied with it. I remember one time we rented a zoom lens and it was a big festival. It's a never-ending battle. The same is true today, only on another level. Even if you're making an eight million and ten million dollar movie, you're going to have the same mess. It's just a different scale.
There is a transition period from "no-budget" to "low-budget" production. I met Richard Roche, and he needed to find someone he could afford, but at the same time produce quality stuff. This is my long-term relationship with a special director. Together we make better and bigger films. We broke a new frontier. Then suddenly a man appeared, and he was Peter Bogdanovich. He's also looking for someone he can afford. He also needed a cinematographer who could give something very special, very special. He didn't have much money, and the actor he hired Boris Karloff could only give him a limited number of days. We had an incredible experience with that film. We must use our talents to overcome the cost problem. Artist Polly Blatt can completely renovate a scene in a few hours. We work long hours, sometimes eighteen hours a day. So this film made me and Bogdanovich have a very long relationship.
This is very important. "No-cost films", "low-budget films" are the best training places. This is crucial. Other qualifications are for later. It takes time to gain experience, and no one can teach you experience. If you don't have the experience, knowledge and perfect art, no one will hire you. But if you have all this, for example, I don't need to apply to unionize myself, and those producers will try to get me into the union because they use my talents.
According to Kovacs, EASY RIDER (1969) fundamentally changed the way films were made. The movement has long started, but it is a milestone. In the beginning, we had to shoot on location because we couldn't afford to rent a studio. We had to go outside to find real things and bring them to the screen, and that injected freshness and a new reality into the show. That's the beauty of "no-budget movies" and "low-budget movies" that force you to do extraordinary things. Technology has changed a lot now, but technically, the gains from that period still affect my work today. That era influenced our thinking and philosophy.
When Kovacs talks about the relationship between technology and art, he says that optics, camera movement, composition and lighting are all very technical issues, but it points to a very important artistic issue: how do you use your tools. The question is how do you combine all these factors to bring what you want to say on the screen, and that's the difference. The choice of optical lens is extremely important. Because the choice of lens can change reality, it can change perspective, and even change the relationship of characters. The choice of optical lens must be closely related to the content of the play. It cannot be an arbitrary choice. Take "Paper Moon" as an example, it is both a black and white film and a film with a large depth of field. This means that everything in the composition, whether near or far, must be in focus. Kansas is not picturesque, it doesn't have beautiful mountains and valleys. It's as flat as a tabletop. It was a factor in the movie and I had to make it work. In terms of lens selection, it is impossible for me to shoot close-ups with a wide-angle lens, especially a close-up of a little girl. What's more, the director also arranged background actions behind her close-up, and he asked for the same realism as her face. The wide-angle lens would distort her face, but it had depth. So the choice of lens is very important.
"Just Got It" is the exact opposite. We experiment with telephoto and use that tricky focusing trick. The director asked for a very compressed space, shallow focus. He required only one actor to be in real focus, and not focus until the other actor spoke up. He doesn't have too many visual distractions at these moments. Some people criticize us for using that technique. But if film is an art form, then as filmmakers, we have an obligation to discover our tools and make the most of them. We are not just documenting a story. Cameras, optics, and composition are by their very nature the main ingredients of storytelling.
As far as the main criterion for judging composition is good or bad, it's to see if it emotionally supports the scene. Composition is for that. You can achieve this with a balanced, symmetrical, or unbalanced, asymmetrical composition. There is no such thing as beauty in composition. Otherwise you are making another film. You and the director did not make the same film. An actor has to work very hard to capture characters and scenes, and you are the visual support for him.
Regarding the issue of seats, that is not a hard and fast rule. That is a question of cooperation. The actor knows what the camera means, he works with the camera. So camera positions are automatically decided when you watch the actors perform in the scene.
When I shoot anything, black and white or color, I always use the black and white method of lighting for depth and separation. Color tablets are easier to do this. Because black-and-white films have only intermediate gray levels from black to white. Sometimes the subjects are inseparable. Our problem in cinematography is really the problem of controlling color.
I don't want to be a director. It's really good to be a director for self-satisfaction. But when you're making decisions like this in your life, you have to be very careful. First of all, I love the work I am doing so much. I made up my mind to be a cinematographer when I was eighteen; it seemed like a dream to me, and now it's come true. I enjoyed it so much, I didn't want to leave it out. Second, and more seriously, if you want to be a director, you have to be the best director. It's not enough to be a traffic director, everyone directs traffic. In our stall, the traffic command is a little bit more. If I'm going to be a director, I'm going to be the best director, but I don't think I can. Good directors have a lot of pain, like having a baby. So you can help him, give him some ideas, and if that idea works, you'll be very satisfied. I won't give up my current job, it's too valuable. Those moments were wonderful.
View more about Frances reviews
