Why ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Visuals Should Carry the TV Series to Emmy Victory

‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ which stars Elisabeth Moss as June/Offred, is a hard watch in terms of emotional drama. But the TV series, which is the first prestige drama to focus intimately on a woman’s perspective of a dystopian world, rivals ‘Game of Thrones’ in terms of visual splendor.

The Handmaid's Tale

Guest post written by Ani Bundel.


When the Emmy nominations for the 2016-2017 television season arrived, for the first time since 2011, there was a huge opening for new “prestige TV shows” to make their mark. For years, the “Drama” category, as well as the myriad of technical awards that are pushed out of the main televised portion of the event, has been dominated by one show: Game of Thrones. But this year, due to a twist in scheduling, HBO’s mainstay is not eligible. In its stead, the opportunity for Best Drama, as well as wins for cinematography, production design, and costumes, should go to The Handmaid’s Tale. In addition to these categories, the series also received Emmy nominations for acting (Elisabeth Moss, Samira Wiley, Ann Down, and Alexis Bledel), directing (Reed Morano and Kate Dennis), writing (Bruce Miller), casting, and visual effects.

The Handmaid’s Tale, which stars Elisabeth Moss as June/Offred, is a hard watch in terms of emotional drama. But the TV series, which is the first prestige drama to focus intimately on a woman’s perspective of a dystopian world, rivals Game of Thrones in terms of visual splendor. Some of the more chilling aspects of the show are drawn directly from Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel: the blood red of the Handmaids’ garb, the blue of the Wives. In addition to evoking a sanguine shade, Atwood chose red for the Handmaids to symbolize Mary Magdalene. She also chose the color because prisoners of war were forced to wear red in Canada during WWII “because it shows up so very well in the snow.” In the novel and the series, the Wives wear blue to symbolize the Virgin Mary and feminine religious piety. The particular shades of red and peacock blue used were inspire by nature: a red maple leaf against a teal sky, used to contrast the two groups of women but still be aesthetically appealing visually. The show’s choices with lighting enhance this already striking visual stratification of society. Regarding the costumes’ color symbolism, costume designer Ane Crabtree told Vanity Fair:

“We wanted the Handmaids, as they are the fertile women’s tribe of the story, to flow down the streets of Gilead, leaving a long line of red in the midst of the gray of Gilead. Beyond this, the red is the color of a womb, of a wanton woman, a scarlet kind of mark upon a pious world of dark tones in the visual landscape, and also in a tiny intimate space.”

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Crabtree said that it was “intense” finding the right shade of red that would look like “liquid blood” as well as look striking on camera on women of all races. Just as the wardrobes stratify the women, the lighting and production design work in tandem to convey the Handmaids’ oppression as well. Director of photography Colin Watkinson told Indiewire: “I want you to feel the light coming from the outside, so it’s based in a reality, but it’s a hyperreality.” Production designer Julie Berghoff told Curbed that visually, June/Offred “should feel like a mouse in a cage.”

Before the series even aired on Hulu, the red of the Handmaids’ costumes along with their bonnets (which work like human versions of horse blinders) had already made an impact. Cosplayers showed up to events (and to political rallies) dressed in costumes taken from the show’s promotional materials, unnerving those passing by and security guards alike. But on-screen, the stark red of their outfits becomes more pronounced with the warm, pink tinged lighting tones.

The Handmaid's Tale

In scenes like the birthing room, and other moments when all the Handmaids are gathered together with Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd), the show turns up the pink highlights. The TV series “uses vaguely Nazi brown for the Aunts.” The skin of the actresses become rosier, more flushed, as if to remind us these women who are forced to serve are alive, full of life, in fact the only ones so alive, they can breed new life.

Contrast that against the green filters used on the wives like Serena Joy (Yvonne Strahovski). Much like the pink tinged filters, the most obvious moment comes during the birthing scene, with the wives downstairs playacting at labor while upstairs the handmaid Ofwarren (Madeline Brewer) actually feels the pain.

But it is all the more jarring when these green women suddenly invade the birthing room at the end of the sequence, and their green is suddenly lit by the pink filters – a little borrowing of the Handmaid’s inner life while stealing their inner ability to make it. The opposite happens during the afterbirth, when Offred is forced to sit in the green tinged living rooms of the Wives cooing over the baby. The green filters drain Moss of the pink we’ve seen her look previously, as these vampires around her drain it for their own masquerades.

The Handmaids Tale

Interestingly, there are two other moments when Offred looks less lifelike. The first is with Commander Waterford (Joseph Fiennes). He too is lit with a green wash to match his wife. It’s a subtle signaling by the show that he is just as barren as the woman he married, and that in fact, there is no chance he can get Offred any more pregnant than he can Serena Joy. Both Waterfords are always lit in green tones — even during the “before” flashbacks of the Serena Joy episode. Not only are they sterile people — although we don’t actually know if Serena is infertile, as women are the ones blamed for infertility, despite at least the doctor Offred visits knowing it’s men who could be sterile — they are sickly ones who would oppress others and take their happiness.

The other times Offred looks more pallid are whenever she’s down in the kitchen with the Martha character Rita (Amanda Brugel). The Marthas, per the book, are dressed in drab greens, as if to help them fade into the walls. The lighting enhances this, and Wilkinson said for the lighting they “opted for grey diffusion and unbleached muslin bounce.” But the lighting on the Marthas is always unnaturally dim and shadowed, as if to hide them. No wonder they are the servants in Gilead with the most effective network.

There is one time in Gilead that these stratifications are thrown to the side – the trip to the world of the Jezebels where Offred sees Moira (Samira Wiley) for the first time since being assigned to the Waterfords. Those sequences have a golden tinge to them, a deliberate call back to all of the sequences “before” Gilead happened. This is also the time when we see people wearing the colors of pre-Gilead life. It’s noteworthy that these sequences eschew red, greenish blue, and grayish green for browns, oranges, yellows, and blues.

The Handmaids Tale

Book readers could have predicted this about the Jezebels sequence – after all, that, like the rest of the world building, is pulled straight from the novel. But what was striking is how much it recalled the flashbacks (which don’t exist quite in the same fashion on the page), as well as our Canadian episode with June’s husband Luke (O-T Fagbenle).

On first watch, this was my least favorite episode. In a show that had focused on the oppression of women and their stories, why were we forced to sit for an hour to watch a man who escaped this world? (Other than the obviousness that this was helping build out space for a second season?) But upon closer inspection, this episode turned out to be the cruelest cut of all, and it was all in the lighting of Luke’s memories.

All the memories of June with their daughter were gold hued and backlit, creating golden halos around June’s silhouette. Now, I understand that absence makes the heart grow fonder, and for Luke to hold on to the past to rescue his wife requires he remember his family as sweeter than perhaps they were in his pre-Gilead life. But this “Mother Mary” image of his wife (second wife, as we should recall) also recalls the scene in the early episodes when the rights of women were first taken away. Luke’s response to June, “Don’t worry, I’ll take care of you.”

The Handmaid's Tale

Though he might not be the one trying to take her rights away, it doesn’t bother him that much when those rights are taken. This sexist condescension, which both June and Moira challenge, makes it seem like June was never fully equal or human to him – even a good man, like Luke, has these patriarchal beliefs inside him. No wonder Gilead succeeded. Who is to say that Luke wouldn’t stop bothering to rescue his wife if he was offered a house like the Commander’s, and a Handmaid of his own? Although, Luke would never be offered these luxuries as the government considered him a criminal for marrying a second time.

All this worldbuilding, shown with just a few visual cues. So much said about where our society could head, if we don’t stay vigilant against those who would oppress us. Yet, our society (and others) already headed this way historically with slavery in the U.S. and the rape and forced breeding of Black women. Stealing children occurred in Argentina and to Indigenous people in Canada and Australia. Every oppressive tactic by Gilead in both the novel and the TV series has occurred in real life. Echoing this, director and executive producer Reed Morano told Indiewire:

“I didn’t want it feel like a period piece. That was my fear with the costumes and everything. I pushed very hard that all the uniforms in Gilead had modern elements to them. Period would defeat the purpose. There are women in the world who experience these things today, and this story is a warning it could happen here just like that. It needed to be and feel other.”

The TCAs have already heaped nominations upon The Handmaid’s Tale (along with This Is Us), the first bellwether of how this year’s awards will lean. Let’s hope that the Emmys follow suit and The Handmaid’s Tale wins the awards it rightfully deserves.


Ani Bundel is a TV writer with EliteDaily and Tellyvisions. You can find her on the internet at Anibundel.com, or on Twitter @anibundel. An anglophilic pop culture fashion junkie with a penchant for snark. All posts are approved by her cats.

Tribeca Reviews: Lost Children in ‘Meadowland’ and ‘The Armor of Light’

In a close-up Sarah takes a piece of a (year-old) cookie that is trapped deep in the car seat and puts it in her mouth, like a communion wafer: she closes her eyes and, for the first time since before her son went missing, we see her face smooth, for a moment, into bliss. The only other time we see her free from tension and sorrow, is when, in another stunning shot, this one on a rooftop, she states with great confidence, “My son is alive.”

 

MeadowlandCoverSmall

 


Written by Ren Jender.


Meadowland, part of this year’s Tribeca Film Festival (playing this Friday, April 24) has a great first scene–a husband and wife in the front seat of a car with their young son chattering and eating cookies in the back. What we know (from every synopsis of this film) is: the son will soon go missing. So the short car ride and trip to the gas station convenience store becomes a thriller in which we wonder: will it happen now? How about now? At the terrible moment when both parents realize their son is lost the camera lingers separately on their anguished faces, then we’re immediately transported to a year later: the mother, Sarah (Olivia Wilde) drunk at their friends’ apartment while the husband, Phil (Luke Wilson) sits on the couch wearing a tight smile. Wilson turns in another solid performance as a working class guy: after a similar role in The Skeleton Twins, whose cinematographer, Reed Morano, is Meadowland’s director (her first time directing).

The couple, we see in a cab ride home, are still stung with grief, especially since they’ve never found out what happened to their son. A detective visits with vague leads about what might have happened to the boy (the worst scenario possible, perhaps caught and eventually killed by a serial pedophile), but Sarah refuses to even glance at the photos of the suspect.

Morano acts as the film’s cinematographer as well as the director (a more unusual combo than one would expect) and, as in her work in Kill Your Darlings, The Skeleton Twins, and the first season of the recently cancelled Looking, she has a stunning visual sense: impressionistic shots of sky and clouds, and one scene with the camera looking an animal directly in the eye. She also shows a gift for working with actors. In a close-up Sarah takes a piece of a (year-old) cookie that is trapped deep in the car seat and puts it in her mouth, like a communion wafer: she closes her eyes and, for the first time since before her son went missing, we see her face smooth, for a moment, into bliss. The only other time we see her free from tension and sorrow is when, in another stunning shot, this one on a rooftop, she states with great confidence, “My son is alive.”

Olivia Wilde, as Sarah, Director Reed Morano shooting behind her
Olivia Wilde, as Sarah, director Reed Morano shooting behind her

 

Throughout much of the rest of the action, Wilde as Sarah, with dark circles under her large pale eyes and hollows under her cheeks, resembles the figure in the Munch painting The Scream, especially when she wears a yellow hoodie to wander the city by herself, sometimes imagining she catches a glimpse of her son on the crowded sidewalk, another time teetering too close to the edge of the subway platform.

Phil is a New York city cop, and the film’s script operates under what–considering recent headlines–seems like the naive assumption that he mainly acts as a kindly social worker, as when he comes in for a repeat noise complaint from a young couple who aren’t getting along. Also in the mix is Phil’s brother, Tim (Giovanni Ribisi) who comes to stay with the couple “temporarily.” It’s the sort of role in which the screenwriter (Chris Rossi) asked himself, “How can I convey this character is a self-medicating, self-loathing fuck-up,” so gives him a line early in the film in which the character says… he’s a self-medicating asshole. Ribisi’s performance is equally unsubtle.

Sarah works as a teacher and starts to identify with an autistic student who gets in trouble for stealing school library books about his favorite obsession, elephants. She finds out he is also a foster kid. Rossi can’t seem to stop himself from piling terrible circumstances onto this kid: when Sarah follows his surly, neglectful foster mother (Elisabeth Moss, at first shot from the back and at a distance so we don’t recognize her from Mad Men) after she drops his lunch off at school, Sarah sees her disappear into a gas station bathroom to turn a trick, and when Sarah later engages her in conversation, the woman denies she has any children. She wears sweatpants with “Juicy” across the ass and bright, heavy, blue eye shadow just in case we didn’t get the point that she’s supposed to be tacky as well as a “bad” Mom.

Rossi’s penchant for overkill ruins the film in the last third, in which Sarah becomes increasingly desperate and unhinged. Meadowland is one of those movies in which to show how full of self-loathing a previously level-headed character played by a beautiful actress is, she fucks a really gross (in every sense) guy after we in the audience have repeated to ourselves, ”Please don’t fuck the gross guy. Please don’t!” Sarah also cuts into her arm, has a breakdown in front of her students, tries a highly addictive drug, and takes actions creepily parallel to those the police suspect someone did to her own son.

Pauline Kael once wrote that critics often cry “art” when they should be saying “ouch” and though Kael has been dead for years, this film shows that trend, which she wrote about a half-century ago, is still going strong. Everything that is terrible in Sarah’s life (and Sarah, not Phil, is the film’s central character) just gets worse (with a tiny sliver of redemption at the end that is too little, too late): an adolescent’s idea of “realism.” Better films show us grief over the loss of a child in a more nuanced context. In The Accidental Tourist, William Hurt’s character, Macon, meets a slightly older boy who resembles his dead son (and is the age he would have been had he lived) and the encounter gives Macon some closure. In The Orphanage the mother’s last interaction with her son happens while he is having an incredibly violent tantrum. We sense that part of her effort to reunite with him is to make sure this memory isn’t the last one the two have of each other.

An additional note I mention often in my reviews: maybe I’m a dreamer, but I’m hoping Meadowland will be one of the last films set in New York in which every main character is white. John Leguizamo plays a member of Phil’s grief support group, and Sarah has Black colleagues and students, but otherwise the film might as well take place in Oslo. When I think of a teacher married to a cop in today’s New York City, I don’t picture two white people–or even two straight people. The current mayor of New York is a white guy married to a queer Black woman, but film directors and producers still can’t imagine anyone would be interested in seeing a movie about a similar family onscreen.

Lucy McBath (right) in 'The Armor of Light'
Lucy McBath (right) in The Armor of Light

 

Another film at Tribeca about a mother’s grief for her son is the excellent and multi-layered documentary The Armor of Light (playing this Saturday, April 25) the first film directed by Abigail Disney who has had a prolific career as the producer  of films including She’s Beautiful When She’s Angry, Pray The Devil Back to Hell, and Vessel. Much of the film’s promotional materials emphasize the trajectory of Rob Schenck, a white Evangelical minister and fixture of the far right, who comes to see his “pro-life” views must include a stand against the National Rifle Association (NRA). But the more interesting person in the film (who gets about equal screen time) is Lucy McBath, the mother of a Black teenager, Jordan Davis, shot inside a car at a gas station. Davis’s killer invoked Florida’s “stand your ground” laws in his defense, which state that anyone who “feels” as if his life is in danger is free to shoot and kill the person he thinks is a threat. McBath, whose dentist father was part of the NAACP in 1960s Illinois, immediately understands the racial aspect of this killing and others like it, but Schenck doesn’t bring up race until the film is more than half over. We in the audience see a marked difference in how a white congregation and a Black congregation react to his new rhetoric against guns and the NRA.

What goes unsaid in the conversations of right-wing, white men and the repeated montage of white guys at gun shows is the connection between gun violence and masculinity: the popular fantasy articulated by many of the men to be “a good guy with a gun” who stops “a bad guy with a gun” by shooting him, something which even many police officers rarely, if ever, do. While the men talk about “protecting their families” I thought about all the women who are threatened or killed by guns their own husbands, boyfriends, and acquaintances point at them, a concern to which these men seem oblivious. Instead, they talk about the government taking away their guns with the same vehemence they would about government taking away their balls.

Also fascinating is McBath’s meeting with Schenck in which both cite Bible passages to make their points, but which concludes with McBath in tears telling him, “It’s vitally important that you help. They will listen to you.” McBath states later, when she is alone on camera that although she doesn’t “condone” abortion, she would never interfere with another woman’s reproductive choice, but feels like she and Schenck have some common goals around guns, saying, “This is what this is all about: fighting for life.” We see her testifying in front of Congress, and she eventually quits her job to devote her time to being the spokesperson for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

I couldn’t help being a little cynical about Schenck’s intentions. He keeps citing the Bible and Jesus for his newfound, anti-gun mindset but with his long support of right-wing politicians (including members of the Tea Party) I wondered if he had read any of the many Bible passages in which Jesus ministers to the poor, the people those same politicians build their careers disparaging while defunding public programs meant to benefit them.

We see the slow, frustrating course McBath and Schenck have ahead when Schenck meets with three other anti-choice stalwarts (all white men, of course) across a table and tries to persuade them the NRA is antithetical to Christian values, asking, “Is that a pro-life ethic?” Two of the men yell at him in response, but he seems to sway the third, a triumph we can’t help hoping will repeat itself at other tables across the country.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSP0Soy8ACk” iv_load_policy=”3″]

 


Ren Jender is a queer writer-performer/producer putting a film together. Her writing. besides appearing every week on Bitch Flicks, has also been published in The Toast, RH Reality Check, xoJane and the Feminist Wire. You can follow her on Twitter @renjender

 

‘Below the Line’: Women Cinematographers’ Panel at Athena (Part 1)

Caryn James: There are some really appalling numbers about women cinematographers in the industry. In a study done last year by Celluloid Ceiling for the year 2013, of the 250 top-grossing films, only 3 percent had women cinematographers which was 1 percent more than the previous year and for some reason a decrease from 1998. And just to get a sense of the range here, 6 percent of those films were directed by women, 17 percent were edited by women, 25 percent had women producers. But only 3 percent of women cinematographers in that group. Why do you think that is? Are there historical reasons for that ? What is going on?

(L-R) Kirsten Johnson, Nadia Hallgren, Reed Morano
(L-R) Kirsten Johnson, Nadia Hallgren, Reed Morano

 

Written by Ren Jender


The following is a transcription (edited for concision and clarity) of the first part of the panel “Below the Line” held Saturday, Feb. 7, 2015 at the Athena Film Festival. The panel featured women cinematographers Kirsten Johnson (Derrida, Pray The Devil Back To Hell, Citizenfour), Reed Morano (The Skeleton Twins, Frozen River) and Nadia Hallgren (Citizen Koch, Searching for Sugar Man) speaking with Indiewire critic Caryn James


Caryn James: There are some really appalling numbers about women cinematographers in the industry. In a study done last year by Celluloid Ceiling for the year 2013, of the 250 top-grossing films, only 3 percent had women cinematographers which was 1 percent more than the previous year and for some reason a decrease from 1998. And just to get a sense of the range here, 6 percent of those films were directed by women, 17 percent were edited by women, 25 percent had women producers. But only 3 percent of women cinematographers in that group. Why do you think that is? Are there historical reasons for that ? What is going on?

Kirsten Johnson: I was really excited to see that study. But I thought, “That doesn’t really apply to me.” Because the 250 top-grossing movies obviously we know what those movies are and there aren’t that many women. But I just came back from Sundance where I was on the US Documentary jury and you know, there are two women programmers at the Sundance Festival and I was on this wonderful jury. I did statistics on the US Documentary this year at Sundance and there were listed 19 cinematographers who were men, one cinematographer who was a woman. I went back through the numbers and out of 16 films several of them were codirected. So there were 15 men and there were eight women directors. In two of those cases the women did not list themselves as cinematographers even though they shot their own films: which is this interesting thing of a devaluation of the role and also an expectation of women in the documentary field: “I don’t have any money. I have to shoot this film myself. But I’m not really good at this. Sometime when I get some money I’ll hire someone else.” I think that’s often the case with women documentary directors who shoot their own work and certainly don’t consider it a profession.

'Pray The Devil Back To Hell' (Kirsten Johnson, cinematographer)
Pray The Devil Back To Hell (Kirsten Johnson, cinematographer)

 

The number that really made me sad was the subject matter of the films. So of the 16 films there were only three that had major women characters. One of those was the mother, Lucia McBath, of Jordan Davis who was shot, so she was one of an ensemble of people featured in the film. The other was How to Dance in Ohio, an ensemble piece about teenagers with autism. A couple of those teenagers were girls. And the third one was Hot Girls Wanted which was a study of amateur porn so the women who had the presence on the screen were 18-year-olds being exploited by the amateur porn industry. The rest of those 16 films, including the ones made by women, were all about men.

Caryn James; How do you account for that? Even at Sundance where you’d expect things to be more equitable. Are there historical reasons why it’s tougher for women to break into that area?

Reed Morano: I don’t know. I feel like expectations have been set up by the industry. Also it could be subconscious thinking. I mean just speaking from having made my own feature with a woman lead: it took a long time to get financing but even a longer time to get a male lead that would play second to her. I think maybe there’s a fear: you want to get the movie made, and it’s harder to get it made with a female central character.

Kirsten Johnson: I think we could break this down into several different categories. The world Reed is from is a primarily fictional world and Nadia and I are in documentary.

Caryn James: Well how did you all become cinematographers in the first place? Nadia, what was your impulse for becoming a cinematographer? Was it something you always wanted to do? Or just floundered into, the way most of us do in our careers?

Nadia Hallgren: Well I started out in still photography, black and white photography, as a kid. Someone gave me a video camera and then I started to make my own films. People seemed to respond to them. I ended up making a short film that screened at a local film festival in the Bronx, where I grew up, and I met Michael Moore’s longtime producing partner. And she liked my film. We talked and I told her I wanted to shoot films and she ended up hiring me and promised me if there was ever a chance to shoot on the film she would give it to me. And she did. That’s also how I met Kirsten who was one of DPs (director of photography) on Fahrenheit 9/11. Before we wrapped shooting I told her I wanted to be a cinematographer. I wanted her to teach me stuff and she did. It was through encounters with women that gave me an opportunity. You realize you are going to be part of this boys’ club. There were plenty of times when I was in vans with ten guys who were talking about football and I couldn’t really relate. Finding your way to other women who are supportive is key: other cinematographers, directors, producers willing to bring you in.

Oscar Winner 'Searching For Sugar Man' (cinematographer: Nadia Hallgren)
Oscar Winner Searching For Sugar Man (cinematographer: Nadia Hallgren)

 

Caryn James: So how does that work if there aren’t all that many women in the field? Who are the people who helped you along? Who are the cinematographers who mentored you?

Kirsten Johnson: I went to film school in France. I was encouraged to go into the camera department since there was no way they were going to let an American into the directing department. I discovered cinematography. I discovered I love the camera. I moved to New York and I didn’t know anybody. I was working for the Shoah foundation interviewing Holocaust survivors. Those were all male cinematographers. One of the things in this field is: you have to fun to be with because you’re going on long trips and going to be spending long hours with people. It’s like the most important part of the job. If people want to hang out with you, they’ll hire you. And one of the other things that I learned, maybe before becoming a cinematographer, when I made this choice after college to move to Senegal because I was interested in African cinema. And I didn’t know anything, but I wanted to do it so badly. I bluffed things. I have tried to mentor folks because there was nobody to mentor me except for women directors.

When I moved to New York, there were five women who were cinematographers, like I could name all of them. They were all busy working . None of them had time to talk to me. I met with women directors like Barbara Kopple, who wanted to work with women and wanted to work with me. But I didn’t yet have that much experience. Going to Senegal and not knowing anything taught me to try. You can’t study cinematography. You learn it by doing it. And for some reason many more young men are so cocky about this, like, “I can do this. I can hold this camera.” So I started saying that too. You just say “yes” and then you learn it on the job.

Caryn James: That really is the kind of thing that speaks to the kind of confidence women should have in general. Is there something specific about working with the camera? One of the things that might have been historically factored in here was the idea that these poor, little women can’t lug around big, heavy equipment, so they shouldn’t be doing this, which is not so much the case anymore. The other thing is a lot of it is technical. You need to know science and things like lenses: not the “girly” thing to do. Is that a factor in keeping women out of that area more than other areas?

Kirsten Johnson: Well also, when you’re on a feature film you have to run a crew and most of that crew are men. So you’re the boss of men. Whereas working in documentary you’re doing it all yourself. You have to have some kind of mastery over the actual camera. But you can sort of practice that and get that under your belt. But I think in the case of features…

'The Skeleton Twins' (cinematographer: Reed Morano, ASC)
The Skeleton Twins (cinematographer: Reed Morano, ASC)

 

Reed Morano: You run a crew of men and also they’ll find out really fast if you don’t know what you’re doing. The only way to run a crew successfully is if you have their respect and they have confidence in you and you know what you’re talking about. You don’t have to overprove yourself, but the things you ask for have to make sense. You’re not running people around in circles. You know what you want. You’re not waffling. You make immediate decisions. I’m about to do a show right now for HBO, a pilot, with my key grip and gaffer who are probably a good 20 to 30 years older than me and they’ve been in the union forever and probably were making movies long before I was. And they’re awesome. They totally respect me and are psyched to do it.

Caryn James: How did you get there?

Reed Morano: Well personally all the films I had to do before I got into the union were with friends and peers, male or female. And you learn how to work with guys. I came up as a key grip as well which is typically, that’s a very male-dominated job. Because it’s basically heavy lifting. I remember the first time I was gripping and I had to receive a 4 x 8 feet sheet of plywood from a guy on top of a truck. I was like, “I don’t really know if I can do this. Okay, I’m doing it. And I’m not wearing (work) gloves because I’m a girl.” It was like a learning curve. And like you were saying, people have to like you.

Caryn James: What has been the turning point in your career? Has there been a moment when you really got some help or made some breakthrough that made you think “I can do this”?

Nadia Hallgren: I think the moment comes and comes. I think it’s an ongoing evolution. Being a cinematographer, every new experience kind of does that for me. I’m always surprised at what I learn and that that teaches me something about myself.

Caryn James: Did you go to film school?

Nadia Hallgren: No

Caryn James: So how did you know what to do?

Nadia Hallgren: I would stare at magazines. And I loved composition. I didn’t know why or what I was doing. It was just very attractive to me. Then I got into a photography program, a community program in the Bronx. I still didn’t understand what I was doing, but a lot of it was just watching movies, talking to people about movies, trying to understand what was happening in front of me and just doing.

Caryn James: Reed, did you go to film school?

Reed Morano: Yeah, I went to NYU and I went with the intention of writing and directing. And then when I got there, just from the very first shoot as a PA (production assistant) I just couldn’t stop watching what the DP was doing. I was like, “That must be the most amazing job,” because you make everyone see what you see. You control that. I asked everyone: to become a DP what do I have to do? And the only advice was: take every technical class. Everyone at NYU wants to be a director, so no one wants to take technical classes. Then I would tell everyone, “I want to shoot your movie.” They all didn’t care because they just wanted to be directing. So I shot a few. At the time I was in film school everything was pretty much shot on 16 mm or 35. It was a big, scary, cool moment, but everyone was in it together which was helpful and you came out of it with sort of a reel but not really. You get to make your mistakes with other students. The “doing” part of it for me was the most important part. I don’t think I really learned how to light until a few years after film school.

 


Ren Jender is a queer writer-performer/producer putting a film together. Her writing, besides appearing every week on Bitch Flicks, has also been published in The Toast, RH Reality Check, xoJane and the Feminist Wire. You can follow her on Twitter @renjender