Last year, AFTRS welcomed back AFTRS alum and a multi-talented writer, director, and cinematographer Warwick Thornton, for a special screening of his latest movie, The New Boy (2023), followed by a live Q&A session at the main theatre. Warwick shared insights into his creative decisions, cinematographic approach, and the significance of having a closely-knit crew.
The screening was co-hosted by AFTRS and the ACS (Australian Cinematographers Society), with Peter James, ACS ASC, moderating the Q&A with Warwick.
A Kaytetye man from Alice Springs, Warwick graduated from AFTRS in 1997. His impressive cinematography credits include the documentary series First Australians (2008), Art and Soul (2010), and the feature film The Sapphires (2012). He has also directed The Dark Side (2013), Sweet Country (2017) and the second series of Mystery Road (2020).
Warwick’s films have become integral to Australia’s cultural identity on screen. His debut feature film, Samson and Delilah, won the Caméra d’Or at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival and the Best Film award at the Asia Pacific Screen Awards. The film portrays contemporary Indigenous life by following two teenagers who flee their remote and economically disadvantaged Aboriginal village to seek their fortunes in the nearby city of Alice Springs.
The New Boy has won numerous prestigious awards, including a Golden Frog from the 2023 Camerimage International Film Festival and the Best Cinematography in Film award from the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts. Set in 1940s Australia, the film tells the story of a nine-year-old Aboriginal orphan boy who arrives at a remote monastery run by a renegade nun, played by Cate Blanchett.
In a Screen Australia interview, Warwick describes the film as a tale of survival, “It’s a clash of thoughts and ideas, the Western idea of religion and the Indigenous idea of spirituality, that’s connected to culture.”
Warwick’s work addresses the tensions and contradictions of the Indigenous Australian experience, promoting proud and open representation in screen culture. This year’s NAIDOC theme, “Blak, Loud, and Proud”, celebrates Indigenous identity and emphasizes the enduring strength and vitality of First Nations culture – with fire a symbol of connection to Country, to each other, and to the rich tapestry of traditions that define Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Warwick reflects on his unique storytelling perspective, influenced by his experiences growing up in an Indigenous community.
“When I was exposed to new films in film school, I realized that storytelling doesn’t need to be a classical three-act structure revolving around the good guy. That’s when I realized that I have a unique voice and that I’d seen a lot of shit as a teenager and as a child growing up in an Indigenous community.” Warwick said in an interview with The Criterion Collection.
These are the key points from the discussion between Warwick and Peter at AFTRS.
CREW, CREW, CREW
Warwick and Peter started by discussing the importance of crewing for New Boy, and how essential it was for a smooth production with outstanding results.
“You know, you could never have five people. This doesn’t work that way,” said Warwick. He explained that working with camera movement and complex shots requires a skilled crew to perform tasks to achieve the desired outcome.
“And it’s sort of like, it’s a really weird kind of idea of safety in numbers and, you know, if you ask for a Boom and a Gaffer, you’re not really asking for a Boom and a Gaffer, you’re asking for another ten people. I mean, it should be expected.”
Film practitioners tend to find collaborators and bring them on board for different productions. The unit stability allows highly optimised performance through understanding each other and a shared sense of technical requirements, workflows, and aesthetics. This allows for creativity and experimentation in tight time frames, enabling efficiencies that deliver results.
“The really weird thing about that film is that we had the usual suspects, but what I wanted… And I’m not sure if this is me being the director or me being the cinematographer: I only wanted one camera.”
Warwick didn’t operate the camera, Jules Wurm who has worked with him before did the fantastic camera work.
“That whole idea of cinematography being a craft, there is no genius, it’s a craft. You actually have to learn this. Like a carpenter or a mechanic, it actually has a beautiful craft to it. And on that craft, there is so much creativity.”
“And for someone like Jules who has worked with me [Sweet Country, Mystery Road], I said, ”I will never hire another Jules, you will only work for me.”
“And that’s so important. Otherwise, it would be easy to get lost in this world. There is a craft, and these people need to be respected and need to rise. And you know, some people are beautiful instant cinematographers, but there’s still a craft that they learn.”
Peter pointed out that getting the first leg up as a camera operator used to be the first big step in the camera department. “If they don’t see you standing beside the camera, you’re not a camera person in some people’s eyes. It’s when you get behind the camera, then you’re the cinematographer in a way.”
“But you have three hats on, the writer’s hat, the director’s hat and the cinematographer’s hat, you know, I don’t know many people who do that. There are writer-directors, but not many take on cinematography as well.” Peter asked Warwick about his multi-faceted approach.
“For the writers/cinematographers out there, that’s totally rock and roll. It’s kind of like writing the lyrics that the band plays, but then you’re also just the roadie,” said Warwick.
“There is really so much ego involved in writing, directing and being the DOP [Director of Photography/Cinematographer]. But inside me, there is a writer and a director, and these two are suffering for the cinematographer.”
Warwick explained that he “writes thinking beautiful images and situations that cinematically, visually, are going to be empowering and informed. And then the director has to get what the cinematographer wants with what the writer has written.”
“But both of those, the director in me and the writer in me, are only there for the cinematographer. I live by that because then I have all the world in a way.”
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
Warwick shot the film using E Series and C Series anamorphic lenses paired with the Millennium DXL2 camera. Peter mentioned these were the same lenses he used on six of his films shot in Panavision anamorphic, usually the 40,50,75 and 100mm.
Warwick pointed out how expensive anamorphic lenses used to be in the 1990s compared to their cost nowadays, “so much that the director of Dances with Wolves [Kevin Costner] actually had mortgages to shoot anamorphic back then.”
The film was shot with four lenses: a 40mm, a 60mm, a 100mm, and a 200mm. The 200mm was a television anamorphic, “one of those kind of cryptic lenses that they probably made, you know, that only used to shoot back in 1976 or something.” Warwick continued, “I reckon, if I work on the right environment, on the right set, I could shoot a whole film on that.”
Peter added, “It’s a fabulous lens, I must say. And I think people have too many lenses sometimes, and they spend more time changing lenses than thinking about what they’re photographing.”
Warwick explained that time and cost were his main considerations, as a 12-kit lens costs more to production then an agile kit of essential lenses.
“I agree. Some people just over lens, but depending on what your subject matter is, and your subject matter here was controlled. Did you do many sky replacements on the whole film?” asked Peter.
“No, no, not at all. There were, probably about three, sky replacements, and these were because of continuity,” said Warwick. Continuity of the sky was fundamental to maintaining the emotional belief carried through the contrast between mid and wide shots.
“Did you stand around for hours and hours waiting for a patch of sun, or how did that work?” asked Peter about the sunny sky with clouds, noting it is not a common landscape to brave on films. He pointed out the technical needs in approaching such elements, “you can shoot at a high stop because you got the sun out, and then you can knock your clouds down and get some definition into the sky in post or with a filter. It looked very painterly, very beautiful images.”
Warwick prioritised the landscape when shooting, as the camera and lighting allowed for balancing skin tone. He explained,
“If we were really pressed with time, I wasn’t worried about getting sun on a face. Because I think the cameras can beautifully handle the skin tone.”
“I would go all the way to the way the sun angles to push some contrast around the faces. But what we experienced, if we had the light wander through the valley behind the actors, it’s a lot sexier. And I would rather shoot with that and have softer light. You know, working with Cate Blanchet, she is just stunning.”
He continued to explain how post-production was essential to achieving the film’s final look, even changing the canola fields to look like wheat.
“It’s actually canola,” Warwick said. Trish Cahill was the finishing colourist, and he asked her, “It’s canola. Can you make it look like wheat?” “All those yellow flowers, she just ripped the colour out. It was amazing.”
Reflecting on the importance of the landscape and the film’s ambience, Peter asked if the production included the construction of sets.
“The whole thing is built. The whole monastery was built.” Said Warwick.
“So, I started looking for a location purely based on the idea that we’re going to build. We’re going to build up to speed to get the actual location.”
He described the world he had envisioned when writing, “It’s high so that we can get a vista, build it high on a hill so that every window will actually have a whole lot of wheat. I found this place in South Australia.”, he continued, “The film didn’t actually cost much, but the design did.”
The location was the most important decision, and the decision to build allowed freedom on shots and camera angles that might have been more contrived if trying to reconstitute a location based on various real locations, which are also expensive to access and limited in terms of safety and footprint for their historical value.
SCREEN MAGIC
“The boy with the little light, with the magic. He could click and would come the magic. What did you use to make the light for that?” asked Peter.
“Oh, one of the most beautiful experiences in my life.” Warwick has worked with the same Gaffer over the years, “Andrew Robertson, grumpy old beautiful Gaffer, I actually went to film school with him in the early 90s. With this film, we wanted to do as much in camera [effects] as possible.”
He explained how they tinkered with the possibilities to create the effects. They were working with Panavision, “who have the most beautiful lens plates you will ever see in your entire life,” said Warwick.
Testing the lenses to find the correct exposure, setting, and lights to create the effects proved essential. “We tested LED lights. It was actually a waste of time because LED lights are one-directional. They’re not 360, in a way. They’re not an open bulb, you know. They’re just this little panel, and then they push it out directionally.”
“We went through all the bulbs possible because we had the sexiest lenses in the world. Panavision got me a full set of E series and a full set of C series,”
“So, Andy went to his truck and pulled an old peanut bulb, the one you used to use on your torch. A tiny bulb. So, he rigged the bulb, covered it in electrical tape, and plugged it into one of the batteries used to run the LED panels. We tested it with the 40mm, the 60mm, the 100mm and the 200mm. And the 100mm just exploded, it just went [gestures with hands].”
“So, they’re not added, those flares, those are in camera?” asked Peter.
“All in camera. From a 5-cent screw in peanut bulb,” said Warwick.
Having on-camera effects improved performance, bringing the magic to the moment, and allowing the camera and actor to sync their action and focus.
“Having that moment being interactive, and having the lens being able to interact with it, was so beautiful,” said Warwick.
The conversation opened to questions from the audience. The first question was about the sound design and how it opened and enclosed the space, guiding us into the characters’ mental space or the open space surrounding them.
“Before my work as a cinematographer, I used to work as a radio DJ. We’re talking about 1986/1987. I used to do radio documentaries, where you had to build everything visually through sound. So, I always had that with me. It was a really good foundation to become a cinematographer, you can actually tell a story through audio. But it is when you bring vision and audio together that the magic appears.”
“We need to understand the sound is as important as the image.”
“I work with the most amazing sound recorders, with the most amazing sound designers and music. Nick Cave is a close friend, and we had been trying to make a film together, and we finally did it.”
Warwick emphasised the importance of each role, from sound to production design: ” We need to look after each other in the storytelling.”
Peter added, “It’s like an orchestra. You can’t just play a couple of instruments. You need the whole group coming together to make it happen.”
Another question from the audience remarked how difficult it must be for a writer, director, and cinematographer to make decisions on the edit.
“It is [tough]; a lot of it comes from vanity and self-importance. That’s why I never cut my own films; I work with Nick Meyers and Roland Gallois. They are very strong, amazing human beings, and I listen to them.” He continued to explain how a wonderful sequence might not make sense in the story and the danger of falling in love with a scene that doesn’t benefit the film.
“And that’s why I work with them. It’s so important that they do the reality check. I would never, ever, ever, in my entire life, edit my own film.”
“My safety net is the editor. They roll their eyes at me and say, ‘This is actually more important than just you, Warwick.’ They show me a cut that actually sure lifts me up.”
The audience asked about the film’s final scenes and how they present such a contrast in mood and tempo. In one moment, there is representation of extinguishing of light on the screen, and the next moment is followed by a strong sense of play, quickly leaving behind the sadness from the previous scene.
“If you blink, you might miss the extinction; that’s the way it is; that’s what happens.”
“In another version, the scene [when the light goes out] would keep going. The death, the pain… and that’s part of cinema. But where I come from, we’re like, yeah, nah, that’s the way it is.”
“That’s what that is about,” not acknowledging the pain or loss. “The history of Australia is full of that.”
The conversation concluded with Warwick prompting the audience and students to embrace their unique voice, respect the craft, and recognise the vital contributions of every team member.
“It’s all rock and roll, and it’s all fun and games. Everything I said, take it with a grain of salt. You do what you need to do. You’re all artists, it’s a craft. If any of you make a really beautiful film, I hate you. Because you made such a beautiful film, I hate you. I hate them because they made the most beautiful film ever. Please do that so that I can hate you all.”
Thank you to Warwick Thornton for being so generous with your time and knowledge, to Peter James ACS ASC for hosting the event in such an insightful way.
When the AFTRS library screened Samson & Delilah, Warwick left this message for students and visitors.
