Peter Menzies Jr. Makes it Scary and Glossy – on a Budget
When director Simon West approached his friend, cinematographer Peter
Menzies Jr., about shooting his new thriller, a remake of 1979’s
When a Stranger Calls, he had a simple proposition –
he needed Menzies to make a $15 million thriller look like a glossy,
$80 million Hollywood movie. He needed creative lighting in a glass
house, lots of Steadicam work, and, oh yes, he wanted it scary. “It
gets darker and darker as it goes,” Menzies tells us. “It’s definitely
got a lot of layers, a lot of inserts, and a lot of detail – which, on
a 35-day schedule, was tough to do.” We asked Menzies about getting the
look, making a telephone look menacing, and keeping the audience on its
toes.
Menzies Jr., about shooting his new thriller, a remake of 1979’s
When a Stranger Calls, he had a simple proposition –
he needed Menzies to make a $15 million thriller look like a glossy,
$80 million Hollywood movie. He needed creative lighting in a glass
house, lots of Steadicam work, and, oh yes, he wanted it scary. “It
gets darker and darker as it goes,” Menzies tells us. “It’s definitely
got a lot of layers, a lot of inserts, and a lot of detail – which, on
a 35-day schedule, was tough to do.” We asked Menzies about getting the
look, making a telephone look menacing, and keeping the audience on its
toes.
F&V: How did you get involved with When a Stranger Calls?
It’s the third film I’ve done with Simon West, along with a whole bunch
of commercials over the last couple of years. We’re pretty good
friends. He offered it to me because we had this long-term
relationship. It was a lowish-budget movie and a 35-day schedule. Tomb
Raider, the last film I made with Simon, was around 80 days. We wanted
it to look like an $80 million movie, not a traditional $15 million
thriller. We gave it a really glossy Hollywood look and as much texture
as we could. It gets darker and darker as it goes. It’s definitely got
a lot of layers, a lot of inserts, and a lot of detail ‘ which, on a
35-day schedule, was tough to do.
of commercials over the last couple of years. We’re pretty good
friends. He offered it to me because we had this long-term
relationship. It was a lowish-budget movie and a 35-day schedule. Tomb
Raider, the last film I made with Simon, was around 80 days. We wanted
it to look like an $80 million movie, not a traditional $15 million
thriller. We gave it a really glossy Hollywood look and as much texture
as we could. It gets darker and darker as it goes. It’s definitely got
a lot of layers, a lot of inserts, and a lot of detail ‘ which, on a
35-day schedule, was tough to do.
F&V: How did you conceive the film’s look?
Simon really wanted to shoot the film anamorphic, but when I started
walking around the set with him, we realized that Super 35 was a better
choice because of the wide-angle lens choices, and, as opposed to a lot
of thrillers that were shot 1.85:1, widescreen makes it more of an
event. The look was determined by the house ‘ glass walls, glass
atriums. It allows us to layer every shot using reflections in the
glass. What Simon and Gary Steele, our production designer, did in
their concept for the set really drove the look of the movie.
walking around the set with him, we realized that Super 35 was a better
choice because of the wide-angle lens choices, and, as opposed to a lot
of thrillers that were shot 1.85:1, widescreen makes it more of an
event. The look was determined by the house ‘ glass walls, glass
atriums. It allows us to layer every shot using reflections in the
glass. What Simon and Gary Steele, our production designer, did in
their concept for the set really drove the look of the movie.
F&V: What cameras did you choose?
We had two Panaflexes. One was an XL, which we used for Steadicam, and
the other was a Platinum, which we used for B camera. We carried a
B-camera crew for nearly the whole show. They would do a lot of inserts
for us. They would shoot endless shots of the phone, locks, things
dropping, just to give us the chance to layer the film up. It was
important to give Simon as many options as possible when it was cut.
the other was a Platinum, which we used for B camera. We carried a
B-camera crew for nearly the whole show. They would do a lot of inserts
for us. They would shoot endless shots of the phone, locks, things
dropping, just to give us the chance to layer the film up. It was
important to give Simon as many options as possible when it was cut.
F&V: Had you shot this kind of thriller before?
No I hadn’t. It was new for Simon, as well. It was a great change of
pace for us, just designing shots that were scary, and isolating this
poor girl in the house. I’m a huge fan of anamorphic ‘ I used to shoot
or try to shoot nearly all my films anamorphic, but the last couple
years I’ve worked mainly in Super 35 because of the ability to do DIs.
pace for us, just designing shots that were scary, and isolating this
poor girl in the house. I’m a huge fan of anamorphic ‘ I used to shoot
or try to shoot nearly all my films anamorphic, but the last couple
years I’ve worked mainly in Super 35 because of the ability to do DIs.
F&V: Did you shoot with the intention of really opening up
the look in the DI, or did you try to set it in camera?
the look in the DI, or did you try to set it in camera?
When we started shooting, we didn’t know if Screen Gems would give us a
DI. So we had to approach it like we were doing it in camera, but now
we’re really just tweaking shadows and pushing highlights more than the
Kodak stock [5218 for most of the film, with 5246 reserved for daylight
exteriors] will allow us to. But we definitely had to approach it as an
in-camera look. It wasn’t until the last weeks of shooting that they
gave us a DI.
DI. So we had to approach it like we were doing it in camera, but now
we’re really just tweaking shadows and pushing highlights more than the
Kodak stock [5218 for most of the film, with 5246 reserved for daylight
exteriors] will allow us to. But we definitely had to approach it as an
in-camera look. It wasn’t until the last weeks of shooting that they
gave us a DI.
F&V: Did you make any unusual decisions in lighting?
Even though the glass looked great, it was extremely difficult to shoot
with all the reflections. We got them to work, but it was a tough thing
to do. We approached Camilla as this little angel of a girl in the
beginning, and then we slowly gave her more and more contrast as the
movie went on. In the beginning, she was softly lit to make her look as
angelic as possible, and then we changed the contrast ratios as we went
through the movie – and pushed them more in the DI.
with all the reflections. We got them to work, but it was a tough thing
to do. We approached Camilla as this little angel of a girl in the
beginning, and then we slowly gave her more and more contrast as the
movie went on. In the beginning, she was softly lit to make her look as
angelic as possible, and then we changed the contrast ratios as we went
through the movie – and pushed them more in the DI.
F&V: How did you use lens choices and framing to try to make the film scary?
By combining extremely wide angles like 14mm to really isolate her in
the room, and at the same time running a 100-150mm on her to get that
out-of focus background. In two cuts you go from her being isolated in
darkness to having out-of-focus objects moving in the background. The
audience wouldn’t know if it was someone there or not, but just getting
the light moving was important. We would do anything we could
angle-wise. We’d go up, we’d go down, always tracking our dolly on a
Technocrane or Steadicam to keep it constantly moving. That’s the other
great thing about Super 35. It gives you room to make the audience look
around the frame. You’re trying to give them distractions in the frame.
the room, and at the same time running a 100-150mm on her to get that
out-of focus background. In two cuts you go from her being isolated in
darkness to having out-of-focus objects moving in the background. The
audience wouldn’t know if it was someone there or not, but just getting
the light moving was important. We would do anything we could
angle-wise. We’d go up, we’d go down, always tracking our dolly on a
Technocrane or Steadicam to keep it constantly moving. That’s the other
great thing about Super 35. It gives you room to make the audience look
around the frame. You’re trying to give them distractions in the frame.
F&V: What was the most difficult shot to get?
There are a couple of quite long Steadicam chases through the house,
with Camilla actually running as fast as she can. For me to light it
and for the Steadicam operator and focus pullers to run with her, it
was extremely painstaking. When you see them, they’re 10-second shots,
but to be able to run with her though that house was probably one of
our greatest achievements in lighting and camera movement. Upstairs,
downstairs, through doors, combing camera and lighting cues and using
the set as best we could and giving as much energy as possible to
Camilla running. We were using all these toys that are available now.
with Camilla actually running as fast as she can. For me to light it
and for the Steadicam operator and focus pullers to run with her, it
was extremely painstaking. When you see them, they’re 10-second shots,
but to be able to run with her though that house was probably one of
our greatest achievements in lighting and camera movement. Upstairs,
downstairs, through doors, combing camera and lighting cues and using
the set as best we could and giving as much energy as possible to
Camilla running. We were using all these toys that are available now.
F&V: Which toys made the biggest difference?
I’m a huge fan of the Libra [remote] head, just to be able to stabilize
[the camera]. At the beginning of the film, Camilla’s on an indoor
running track, and we had to track with her running in a close space.
We couldn’t use anything with gas, so we put a Libra head on a little
scooter and followed her around the track, and did a microwave radio
control link. We were standing on the ground. All the head and focus
controls were remote, and one of the grips drove around with her. These
little scooters are so fast – 25 to 30 mph. It’s fantastic.
[the camera]. At the beginning of the film, Camilla’s on an indoor
running track, and we had to track with her running in a close space.
We couldn’t use anything with gas, so we put a Libra head on a little
scooter and followed her around the track, and did a microwave radio
control link. We were standing on the ground. All the head and focus
controls were remote, and one of the grips drove around with her. These
little scooters are so fast – 25 to 30 mph. It’s fantastic.
F&V: I’ve read that you sometimes operate your own camera. Why?
I used to. When I first started working in America and didn’t know
everybody, trying to get the really good guys to work with you was a
bit of a challenge. You have to do a bit more until you get to know
everybody. It takes a while to get the trust of the crews, and the
budgets weren’t so big when I first started. I enjoyed doing it, but
once you find people who are better at a job then you are, you might as
well use the best you can. L.A. based crews are just fantastic.
everybody, trying to get the really good guys to work with you was a
bit of a challenge. You have to do a bit more until you get to know
everybody. It takes a while to get the trust of the crews, and the
budgets weren’t so big when I first started. I enjoyed doing it, but
once you find people who are better at a job then you are, you might as
well use the best you can. L.A. based crews are just fantastic.
F&V: What did you learn from working in commercials?
The greatest thing about commercials is the attention to detail you
need with every shot. You’ve only got 21 or 22 seconds of actual
footage. The rest of it is graphics, supers, whatever, and the detail
that goes into every single shot and the way it’s analyzed. You carry
that discipline into film. Commercials, they’re tough. Clients are
tough in their expectations. And then when you go to light inserts on
films, you can give them that commercial sort of quality – how the
glasses look or how the car looks. You always carry it over.
need with every shot. You’ve only got 21 or 22 seconds of actual
footage. The rest of it is graphics, supers, whatever, and the detail
that goes into every single shot and the way it’s analyzed. You carry
that discipline into film. Commercials, they’re tough. Clients are
tough in their expectations. And then when you go to light inserts on
films, you can give them that commercial sort of quality – how the
glasses look or how the car looks. You always carry it over.
F&V: There’s a shot in the film, tracking forward toward a ringing telephone, that’s incredibly moody.
We did so many shots of that damned phone. Some days we’d bring in an
angling prism. We tried so many lenses on that phone. I think it is a
commercial thing, and it’s where Simon and I came from – another great
layer, I suppose.
angling prism. We tried so many lenses on that phone. I think it is a
commercial thing, and it’s where Simon and I came from – another great
layer, I suppose.
F&V: What are your feelings on digital acquisition and projection?
I’m really keen for digital projection to come and take over. The way
we screen movies, this technology we’ve been using for over 100 years,
has got to change. The consistencies of projection, the limits on the
screen, the quality of projectors all around the world – if you can
standardize that in a digital way it would be fantastic. People all
around the world would see what we wanted them to see. I think we will
shoot negative for a while longer. I’ve played with HD, and I’m a few
years away from totally embracing it. The flexibility of shooting a
negative and going to a DI suite means there’s a few years left of
that. If they can get digital projection working and keep the
subtleties, it’s going to be fantastic.
we screen movies, this technology we’ve been using for over 100 years,
has got to change. The consistencies of projection, the limits on the
screen, the quality of projectors all around the world – if you can
standardize that in a digital way it would be fantastic. People all
around the world would see what we wanted them to see. I think we will
shoot negative for a while longer. I’ve played with HD, and I’m a few
years away from totally embracing it. The flexibility of shooting a
negative and going to a DI suite means there’s a few years left of
that. If they can get digital projection working and keep the
subtleties, it’s going to be fantastic.
Did you enjoy this article? Sign up to receive the StudioDaily Fix eletter containing the latest stories, including news, videos, interviews, reviews and more.
Leave a Reply