This movie was going to be photographed by Emmanuel Lubezki
Because of a personal issue he couldn´t travel (To Mexico)
So, i did the cinematography in collaboration with Galo Olivares
Who´s a young and talented  cinematographyer with a great eye.
 
 
 
Welcome to zoom f7, now we are going to talk about a very strange credit in one of the most acclaimed movies of the XXI century
And maybe the most commented in the recent history of mexican cinema
The award winning cinematography of Roma by Alfonso Cuaron, has been recognized because of its virtuosity
Let´s begin with our analysis.
The attention around the film has revolved around two axis
the first focuses on the protagonist of the story,
Cleo. Not only has she been taken up as a character that represents the director’s vision and the role of domestic workers in modern Mexican society
But also mentioning the name of Yalitza Aparicio and relating her to absolutely anything will generate instant controversy
But at a technical level, there is another issue that draws attention: the praise for the direction of photography
And in particular, a new credit inside the photography department...
The "cinematography collaborator"
Since preproduction the history of Cinematography in Roma has been complicated.
Practically since Alfonso Cuarón’s debut, the genius behind the camera has been Emmanuel "El   chivo" Lubezki
Who, with the exception of The Prisoner of Azkaban,
Has photographed basically all of Alfonso's films
The reasons why “El Chivo” left the project have been reported by the director on numerous occasions:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The main  reason for not hiring foreign   cinematographers was the language barrier
And so a search for new talent began
Since the El Chivo days the convention was established
 
Cuarón would opt to shoot with a digital camera without grain in black and white
With the images of Ansel Adams as one of the main references
During the pre-production process for Roma,Galo Olivares was selected to replace Cuaron’s preferred award-winning photographer.
During Roma’s first batch of press coverage , two things stood out
The absence of Emmanuel and his replacement by the young photographer who would take the reins of the project in conjunction with Cuarón.
Obviously all eyes were on Galo, who had   photographed just a few feature films along with several short films.
Michael Nordine dedicated a brief but substantial space in Indiewire to show some of the work of the young director of photography and declared,
Like many others that "Galo Olivares has huge shoes to fill."
This profile was republished by Jordan Raup in Filmstage
Where he noticed the co-direction of photography that attracted the curiosity of many due to be Cuaron’s first work without Lubezki.
In Mexico, Excelsior and La Tempestad in 2018 dedicated a few lines to the duo and the work of Olivares.
However, over time, after more than a hundred days of filming, 973 hours of color correction and millions of dollars of investment on advertising,
The press presence of Galo blurred and lose media relevance until reappearing in the film with the curious credit
That was also complemented by the credit: "Camera Operator".
The critics and praises of the film went mainly to the wonderful work of camera and illumination
That maintained some characteristics of  Cuaron’s previous work
 
Such as the magic hour, the use of wide angles, and the idea of giving the same priority to the character and the surrounding context
Some novel elements were also introduced to the visual narrative
Like more static camera movements, an illumination that is characterized by high contrast with details in blacks and highlights
 
In difference to the softness with which "El Chivo" illuminates
And finally a different composition that even attracted the attention of Lubezki who commented:
"The blocking of the scenes is very perpendicular to the lens
the actors are
moving in parallel to the camera.
Usually, if I were there, I would say: "Alfonso,that's very flat. What are we doing?
We should work with the Z axis, not on the X axis. "
There are many differences between Alfonso's previous films and Roma
Lubezki uses supports such as the hand-held camera to accelerate actions within the story
For example in the sequence shot of Children of Men
The camera moves diagonally, constantly approaching and moving away from the characters even if it is a traveling.
In Roma  the movement is simplified
The actors rarely move as in Cuaron’s previous films
and opt for lateral lines without playing with the three dimensions of the image
With Emmanuel there is a greater exploration of the foreground,the midground and the background
Think for example of two images that were designed in a similar way but that are photographed by different people.
In Y tu mamá también one of the climatic points corresponds to the dinner under the "palapa"
Where the love trio is heading towards the inevitable climax.
The initial shot allows us to look at the whole scenario but with a dynamic composition
That is, although the camera remains static for a while, it then moves by hand-held to follow the steps of Maribel Verdú
Making a slight diagonal movement to give us a little more of the context of the scene.
In Roma, there is also a shot under a "palapa", designed in a completely different way,
Although it maintains the features of the director, represents a break in the way to approach the narrative in comparison to his previous films
The scene also comes at a crucial moment:
The mother reveals to the children that their father left her for another woman,
The camera, unlike Lubezki, does not move. And more importantly,
Not only modifies the composition as the award-winning director of photography points out,
It also focuses attention on the Midground, an atypical fact in Cuarón's filmography
Who, due to the influence of El Chivo, tends to position the heart of the scene in the foreground
Fernando Sánchez in an article dedicated to photography in Roma wrote the following regarding this different way of filming:
"We are not seeing Lubezki's work but at all times we are seeing his essence.
It is true that there is a lack of the camera movement that has hypnotized us so many times.
The camera is no longer moving as in Malick's 'Tree of Life'.
It is alive on the tripod, on the traveling ... But we do not miss him (Lubezki).
Maybe the work of Galo Olivares, the second director of photography on board, also helped to fill the gap." Fernando Sánchez.
Sites such as Fayerwayer highlighted the change in perspective:
"It is undeniable that at times it seems that another person was behind the framing and photography.
It's almost as if Ridley Scott had become Woody Allen in the use of the camera and his narrative language.
In any scenario, or Alfonso Cuarón completely reinvented himself or he did not do everything he said he did. "
To complement the break from tradition with which Cuarón made Roma and the relevance of the young photographer's work,
it would beworthwhile to take up the documentary film  “Salir”, photographed by Galo,
Where some of the implemented conventions with a little post-production are reminiscent of  those viewed in Roma
Not only are the compositions similar and the lighting the same as the Netflix film,
There is also the high dynamic range that Cuarón talks about and the depth of field that has been praised so much in his film.
On the other hand, the behind-the-scenes, images stand   out,
Where Galo constantly looks at a viewfinder with the director,
A crucial tool to define camera placement and its respective focal distance
An atypical activity when talking about   the   camera   operator   since   that   work   is   intended   for   the   director   of photography.
The answer to the responsibilities of Olivares during the filming lies in explaining
What is a cinematography collaborator?
Or better yet, what are the differences with respect to a cinematographer/DOP?
Perhaps the best way to understand the functions of a cinematography collaborator would be to listen to the director himself:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The vagueness of the credit was reflected in the IMDB site, which, not knowing   what   a   cinematography collaborator did,   they placed him in the lighting department.
Whatever   the   level   of   responsibility   of   Olivares during the filming
He  has been practically forgotten in the numerous  awards and recognitions that have  been  granted to the  most celebrated department of the film.
On the eve of the Academy Awards other less relevant team members were invited to the gala
And not the cinematography collaborator who contributed his vision, knowledge and technical skills to one of the best photographed films in the history of Mexican cinema
It is worth asking: How is a cinematography collaborator rewarded?
And what is the distance between it and a co-director of photography?
Don´t forget to share, like and recommend our video
¡Until the next time!
And for more information of photography and cinema visit zoomf7.net
The question is:  it was comfortable to direct and photograph a movie at the same time?
I have already photographed and direct but never a feature film
I had an incredible team behind me:Javier Henríquez, the gaffer.
Or Galo Olivares that was the camera operator but he´s a DOP with an extraordinary eye
I was very lucky to have his educated eyes. All the time
And also as a cinematography collaborator.
I really had a good time, in fact i would like to do it again.
There is an 
schizophrenic part of me that thinks
Me as a director, i would question to myself to take this photographer (referring to himself)
 
Sometimes he is slow, and he wants to make things the way he want
Me as a photographer i would doubt to work with that director cause he´s a heavy one
