Tim Orr

There are all kinds of reasons one decides to embark on a film career. For cinematographer Tim Orr, it was boredom: “I spent my early 20s working boring jobs, playing music, writing, painting, taking photographs, getting my heart broken, trying to figure out what I really wanted to do with my life. The more I opened myself up to the arts, the more films I saw, the more I had the feeling that filmmaking was what I wanted to do with my life.”

Though originally determined to become a writer/director, it was while he was a student at the North Carolina School of the Arts that Orr’s career path changed. “After I started working with the camera and learning about lighting, it wasn’t long before I knew that what I really wanted was to become a cinematographer.” It was also in film school that Orr forged a friendship with David Gordon Green, the writer/director who would ask Orr to shoot his first film, the critically acclaimed George Washington. With Green and Orr’s latest collaboration, All the Real Girls, in theaters now, and Peter Sollett’s Raising Victor Vargas on the verge of release, Tim Orr spoke with MM about the technical side of his craft and the tradeoffs of being “independent.”

Jennifer Wood (MM): Actors and directors often talk about the many freedoms that working in the "independent" arena offers. What do you see as the main benefits for a cinematographer?

Tim Orr (TO): I think it’s primarily about creative freedom, just as much for the cinematographer as the writer, the director and the actors. Independent films tend to have more artistic integrity. The stories are usually more interesting. There isn’t a studio breathing down your back dictating what film stock you shoot or threatening to fire you over what they deem to be too dark. You can take more chances. It also tends to bring filmmakers together that are truly in it for the love of cinema. At higher levels it can become more of a job.

MM: What are the drawbacks?

TO: Lack of time and money. It’s hard to get the equipment you need, and shooting ratios are slim. The hours are also usually longer and the accommodations less comfortable. I slept in a basement on a pullout sofa, dodging drips of water from rusty pipes during George Washington. It can be tough and exhausting, but if you’re doing what you love and working on something that inspires you, it’s worth the hard work and lack of sleep.

MM: If you had an unlimited budget, what are some of the luxuries you would want to indulge in?

TO: Tests! I’d just love the indulgence/opportunity to do a true battery of tests for a film. When I hear about the elite cinematographers who get three weeks just to shoot tests—trying out every film stock, lens, process, etc.—I get weak in the knees. I usually get only one or two days.

MM: How did you first meet David Gordon Green and how did you begin your collaboration ?

TO: David and I met in film school. We were friends, but for the most part ran in different circles. We had one collaboration in film school, a documentary concerning the artificial insemination of cows. It was fun, but quite disgusting. Nothing like a large farm animal with a man’s arm up it’s ass.

Following film school we found ourselves in Los Angeles. After a Thanksgiving Day camping trip to Joshua Tree, David pitched me the idea of a movie about a kid that runs around in his underwear, wanting to become a superhero. We started talking about it, kicking around ideas. A month later he showed up with the script and told me he’s gonna make the movie in June or join the Marines. He asked me to shoot it, and of course I said yes.

MM: Why do you think this collaboration has continued?

TO: We work well together. We tend to have the same tastes and share a similar vision. I know what he’s thinking visually, because that’s generally the way I see the world. There is an economy in our dialogue; a shorthand that allows him to concentrate on working with the actors while I’m setting up the shot. He gives me a lot of creative freedom and trusts me to come up with something in the composition and lighting that will underscore what he’s trying to get at emotionally in a scene.

MM: What is it that generally attracts you to a project?

TO: The first thing is a good story. If it’s not on the page, then odds are good that it’s not going to be on the screen. I look for a story [with which] I can find some sort of emotional connection. The next thing is the director, the actors and the company that is mounting the production. Working with good, talented people is paramount.

I also consider the cinematic elements of the story: the potential locations, the style and the opportunity to do something new. My tastes are toward realism, and I tend to gravitate toward films that deal with and analyze the human condition.

MM: Do you have a preferred camera?

TO: I don’t necessarily have a preferred camera, except when it comes to shooting anamorphic. I like to use a Moviecam when I’m working in anamorphic because I prefer their viewing system. Panavison and Arri cameras are both great, as well. Panavision’s Millenium XL and the new Arricams are really wonderful pieces of equipment.

The lenses are the most important thing to me. I usually prefer Cooke glass. Zeiss glass has some wonderful applications as well, but I like the way the Cookes take light. They seem to be a bit softer in contrast, but sharp at the same time.

MM: What about a favorite film stock?

TO: My favorite stock right now is Kodak’s 5246, the 250 Daylight stock. It’s a very rich, gorgeous stock with incredible detail. The level of color saturation and contrast responds well to the way I see the world.

I have also used a bit of Fuji on David Gordon Green’s first two films. The great thing about using the Fuji stocks on George Washington and All the Real Girls was that they tended to feel a bit less contemporary. I think they are a bit softer contrast and the color response lends itself to characteristics of older stocks from the ’70s—the golden age of cinema, in my opinion.

MM: What criteria do you use in determining which stock to use?

TO: I will choose stocks based upon the style of the storytelling and the needs of the location. In general I prefer fast film, because I like to work with really low light levels.

MM: Have you shot any digital features?

TO: No, I’ve yet to shoot a digital feature. I shot several documentaries in the digital format, and I think for documentaries, especially, digital is wonderful. I am more than happy shooting film, although I would certainly be interested in trying my hand at a digital feature.

I’ve only seen a few good examples of digital cinematography thus far, although of course I haven’t seen everything. The Celebration, Personal Velocity, Dancer in the Dark and 28 Days Later are the best examples of digital cinematography I’ve seen. I think that you have to use digital for the right reasons, and use it in a way where you are using DV’s strengths and inherent qualities to your advantage. Setting out to mimic film with digital video usually ends up with poor results.

MM: On any of the movies you shot on film, were you ever close to opting for DV instead?

TO: On the films that I’ve done, digital was never an option—even on the films that had DV budgets! George Washington was certainly a DV budget, but we weren’t interested in going in that direction. We found a way to shoot film. It made certain aspects of the production harder, but I think it paid off in the end.

For Raising Victor Vargas, we shot Super16 and there was a debate about shooting 35mm or 16mm. We opted for Super16 for several reasons, some budgetary, but mainly to have the luxury of a bigger shooting ratio and because most of the interior locations were very small and using 35mm equipment would have been too cumbersome and created an undue, intrusive burden on the performances.

MM: Were there any other challenges you faced on Raising Victor Vargas?

TO: The biggest challenge with Raising Victor Vargas, for me, was keeping the set as free and clear of moviemaking gear, lights, grip equipment, etc. as possible. The actors’ performances were the most important things to Pete, so my job was to allow the actors as much freedom of movement as possible. It made lighting more difficult, especially since we were shooting in Super16. To get a good blow up you actually need more light because you’re working with a smaller negative. That was a bit tough, but I embraced the challenge and I’m very happy with the results.

MM: What are you working on now?

TO: I am currently working on another film with David Gordon Green called The Undertow, starring Jamie Bell, Josh Lucas and Dermot Mulroney. It’s a tale about a couple of kids on the run from a villainous uncle who killed their father for a stash of cursed gold coins. It’s set in the outlying areas of Savannah, Georgia—swamps, railroads and mud pits. A lovely adventure in the tradition of Night of the Hunter, Huckleberry Finn and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.