American Cinematographer - January 2007 - 77

in

first meeting that he
pursue a strong sense of
realism with the lighting, like we did
our

wanted

very

AC with

to

an

for In the Bedroom, but when I saw
Crewdson's photos, I realized Todd
after

something else as well.
Perhaps the day scenes would
belong to the realm of realistic light¬
ing, while the twilight and night
scenes would
open the door to
something stylistically different. It
was

took

while

me a

ence,

to

find that differ¬

and Crewdson's book helped
lot. The

images were very
sharp, very crisp, and there was
always a mix of color temperatures,
like yellow-orange artificial light
against the cold blue of the twilight
sky."
Apart from this reference,
Calvache mainly got the impression
from Field that "we were going to
me

a

continue the methods we'd used

on

In the Bedroom." That meant,
among

other

things, filming in Super

35mm. "In

preparation for In the
Bedroom, I took hundreds of photos
and found

would be

myself cropping in what
a

Field, who is

widescreen ratio," says
an

avid

photographer.

"But I knew that if we

going to
anamorphic, we'd need a
proper set of matched lenses and an
shoot

were

experience pulling focus on
anamorphic barrel, and this sim¬
ply wasn't possible with the modest
budget on that film. Additionally, I
tend to favor focal lengths that are
only possible with spherical lenses.

"During our first meeting in Los
Angeles, Todd insisted it was going
to be a tough shoot, that we weren't
going to have enough time," recalls
Calvache. "I thought it wouldn't be

On Little

Children, because Antonio

time

and I had

so

little prep, we went with

Super 35 sort of by default, because
we were

both comfortable with it."

When he first arrived from

Spain

in

1992

American

Film

Institute

Calvache

was

accustomed

to

attend the
(AFI),

Europe's

then-standard
aspect ratio, but he quickly

to

1.66:1

grew to
love the 1.85:1 U.S. standard. "The

first movie I did in widescreen
In the

was

Bedroom, and I fell totally in

love with it. Todd and I

waiting
for the right project to shoot
anamorphic. I tried to talk him into
doing Little Children in anamorphic,
but he expressed concern about the
unpredictable nature of shooting
with such young children."
Among other issues, Field was
concerned about balancing the
frame between actors of varying
heights. The amount of time the two
3-year-olds (Sadie Goldstein and Ty
Simpkins) had to be on camera pre¬
sented other challenges as well.
are

that bad because

a

we

had

we

Brad and Aaron
discuss how

they will spend
their day.

had twice the

In the Bedroom and

on

larger budget. But Todd knew bet¬

ter

-

it

was a

hard shoot. We had

twice the time, but every day we still
had to rush." The most basic prob¬
lem

that the

was

children, who

in almost half of the film's
scenes, could only work 61/2 hours
per day; this meant the three-month
shooting schedule was hardly luxu¬
rious. "Whenever possible, if a scene
appear

involved the children, we'd try very
hard

to plan ahead camera-wise and
lighting-wise, in so much that when
the children were brought to the set,

the

and

equipment were hid¬
Duvatyn tents so that
Kate and Patrick could play with
them seemingly unobserved," says
crew

den behind

Calvache. "Todd said, 'Whenever the
children are working, it will be like
shooting television; we're going to
use two to

three

lenses

more

a

lot

We had to be

time,

and

zoom

might like.'
ready to shoot at any¬

as soon as

from their

cameras

than we

the kids woke up

naps."
American

Cinematographer 75
American Cinematographer - January 2007

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - January 2007
