Wildlife cinematographer Stuart Dunn about How to Live on Earth, and the hope for a future for humans on this planet

ZEISS: How long did filming last?

Stuart Dunn: After our first meeting, it was almost like 15-18 months of photography. Each shoot would be 2 or 3 weeks at a time on average. I was still working on other things for the BBC in between, but this one took over my life for quite a long time.

Had you already worked for this production team?

This was the first time I personally had worked with Open Planet, however several of the people who work there are ex-BBC NHU and have a great deal of experience making wildlife documentaries. The director Fredi Devas worked on Planet Earth 2 and 3, and projects like Seven Worlds to name but a few. In my opinion, he’s one of the best directors working within wildlife and conservation films today. We’ve been keen to work with each other for many years now but never managed to make the dates work. When he took on this project, he called me and we arranged a meeting. From the minute I heard the premise of the film, I was like, "Yeah, it sounds fantastic, and who wouldn't want to be part of something that could help affect change in the future?” I've made a few conservation-based films with similar themes, and it's always a challenge because you want to tell the truth about what's happening to the planet and wildlife and how fast it's disappearing and how we're in the throes of a sixth extinction. But when you do that in a visual form like TV, which is ultimately a form of entertainment, people either switch off, myself included, or you postpone watching that film, because you think that it's going to be a tough watch. So, to try and create a film that's engaging, maybe has humor to it, but also a lot of hope, was important from the outset.

What did the director give you at the very start? Was the whole narrative there, or was it built along the way?

I think Xiye Bastida, the Mexican conservationist activist who's a really powerful woman, was the only character 100% on board. Then came Sam Kass, who was Obama's chef and very into sustainable food, and Dan O’Neill, who I think was the last character to come on board as one of the key storytellers. They were the best positioned to tell the stories that would tackle some big topics that needed addressing. We started discussing how those characters should be portrayed on camera and within the film slightly further down the line.

One of the great achievements in this type of film, and in this one particularly, is that you're portraying people and you're also portraying landscapes, while keeping a homogeneous look, and making them part of the same world. It’s probably something you've been working with for your whole career, right?

Yes, I suppose representation is important. Humans have had this tendency to think of themselves as outside of nature. We have to take care of nature, like we are not part of it, right? But even living in cities and doing what we do, we're still very much part of nature. And historically, how long have humans been living in cities? Maybe 4,000, 5,000 years. Prior to that, we were hunter-gatherers living within nature, so to place ourselves separate from it is a new thing, for Homo sapiens. So, for me it was to try and embed those characters within it.

Xiye, in Mexico, is probably the perfect example. Her story is about indigenous wisdom, wisdom that we've subsequently lost. Placing her in that landscape and photographing her in a beautiful way to make the audience care about the landscape is important. It was making them feel part of it and represented within the environments that they inhabit. And that would include Dan, who lives in London, probably one of the busiest cities in the world.

How is the process? Do you start with a lot of scouting, or do you have to be ready to shoot the next day or the very afternoon after you arrive, and you’re used to it?

I think that's part of it. I was probably given the job because I've spent a lot of time in jungles, deserts, Antarctica, where I've done a lot of those kinds of shoots, but I've also spent a lot of time in cities filming wildlife. There’s a scene in the film with the urban otters in Singapore: I'd already made a film called Mammals with David Attenborough out in Singapore where we shot a whole sequence just on those otters and followed them for weeks and weeks.

So you knew them already?

I did know the group, I knew those individuals. I know where to find them, how to film them and how to behave around them. There's a muscle memory when I go into the Amazon, I know what I'm looking for. If I'm going to film Xiye in a forest, I'm looking for certain trees, certain landscapes that I know I can make look beautiful. Typically, you turn up in a village, and you have to make sense of it to try and film the scenes that Fredi, the director, has laid out. It's a documentary and you never quite know what's going to happen, so we’ll have a loose structure to follow, but much of it is reacting to what's there and making it up as we go along.

With your “muscle memory” and the reflexes you probably have developed in the way you look at things, it's like you have found a special key to represent those locations. You have to be faithful, but you are also making them gorgeous. Even the factories and the industrial sites, the most egregious places look stunning.

Even the cities, which are the future for most of us. They aren’t the most terrible places, but we can make them more comfortable environments with trees and wildlife, rather than just these concrete jungles. But you still want those places to look spectacular.

Is it something that you talked about with the director? Unless there is no point saying it?

I wouldn't say we talk about the beauty of it that much. Fredi and I both have a certain visual aesthetic, so there's much we could do without having to even talk about it, to be honest. If you want people and governments to change their habits, you have to make them care about it, whether it's an animal or an environment. You have to show them the beauty of that environment, make them fall in love with the Amazon rainforest. Then when they see it being chopped down for mining corporations, they’re like, "Oh sh…t, that can't happen. What are we thinking?"

But even the gold mine is spectacular.

Because we had problems with access, those drone shots are actually a few of those shots from archive. As the DoP, I would have liked to shoot those bespoke, still making them beautiful, but somebody in the area had already shot footage of that specific mine, and we wanted to be truthful to the location, to show the scale of the mine, and not use stock footage.

There's a whole team on the film for photography. I'm assuming that you are not the only one filming everything all around the world.

I was signed up as the director of photography, so I would write the style guide to “How to shoot each scene”, whether it be in the Amazon or in Chad. I would choose lenses, focal lengths, camera technology, and I would write a method on how everything should be lit and shot, following certain themes and styles. I dedicated over a year to shooting as much as I possibly could of the film, but there was still the odd scene where the schedule would clash. For example, whilst I was in Mexico filming the Day of the Dead scenes, they needed to film a sequence in the prison in America, so I couldn't make that shoot, unfortunately. I couldn’t film the China pollination sequence either, which I would have love to shoot. But even with that, I still think it was around 80-85%, if not more, of the film that I managed to get on location and shoot.

The replacement DoP would have to follow the method and structure that was provided in the style guide. For example, for an interview: if you're interviewing a prisoner or Xiye, it needs to be 3 cameras, with the exact same settings. The optics need to be ZEISS Primes. A camera needs to be an 85mm, B camera 50mm, and C camera would be a zoom, but it needs to be a very specific angle. Then creatively with each character, there needs to be gimbal shots to introduce that character. Any scene introductions should in theory be on a slider or a gimbal. It could go very technical to the way it should be lit, like the degree the key light needs to be at in relation to the subject, for example. But also, down to what f-stop that lens should be on. It's a detailed breakdown, so as long as they follow those guidelines, everything should look seamless, and you shouldn't be able to tell who shot the scene. Obviously, everyone has a slightly different eye on how things should be filmed.

And they’re not the same places, with different natural lights at least. Yet the look is so homogeneous, they're all part of the same world. Talking about your kit list, you went for RED Raptors.

I did, for the RED Raptor VV, so it's slightly larger than full frame. I chose that specifically because I love the look of the camera, but also because the plan was to get a cinematic release with a 1:2.35 aspect ratio, so we wanted the highest resolution, the best quality. The RED Raptor is quite a versatile camera. You can break it down for gimbals, or you can shoot long lens for wildlife. On location I was using a mix of ZEISS CP.2 Super Speeds and CP.3, because the wider CP2s don't cover the full VistaVision, so I used CP.3s for some of the wider shots. I have a set of CP.2 T1.5: I've always loved their look, I love the way they render the skin tones, and they flare beautifully, they have a beautiful bokeh. For the London scenes which we shot in conclusion with Benedict Cumberbatch, we used the ZEISS Supremes.

How much time did you have with him?

Not long. It's filmed in the London Natural History Museum and they were keen to let us film there, but you must be finished before their doors open for the public at 9 AM because it's an open museum, which is free to the public, so about a million people stumble through that door at 9 AM. As a result, we shot Benedict’s scenes over the course of two mornings, and I think I arrived on location something like 3 AM, 3:30 AM. We’d have to rig everything from scratch. Luckily we had an excellent crew rigging lights, cameras, dollies, props, make up, etc. Everyone would have to pile in and we'd prepare the set for each scene and then, we'd shoot quick.

I assume with Benedict Cumberbatch it’s 3 takes at most.

He's unbelievable. I've worked with a lot of very talented people, but to watch him take a line of script and read that line in maybe ten different ways; and each different method he applies to that piece of dialogue has a different mood, feel, or sentiment to it. It was incredible to watch.

Did you go for the Supremes just to make sure they would match the other footage?

I wanted it to match, but also, I love the look of the Supremes. I think they're just such a beautiful lens. The way they render is just so gorgeous. But I did want to keep it in the same world at the same time. We shot Benedict's scenes with two Raptors as well: we just put the CP.2s and the CP.3s on the second camera whilst A camera was with Benedict. When occasionally you'll see that alternate angle where he's not looking down lens, that's probably on the second Raptor VV with CP2s or the CP3s.

How did you light the Museum interior?

We had a London-based gaffer called Krunal, and a great lighting package, with some of the biggest LED sources available on the market. I wanted it to feel like it was lit with available light, so all big soft sources. Any harsh lighting coming from the behind would then be reflected back into the subject to make it feel natural. Hopefully it's not over-lit, especially the scenes in the main hall. For many of the shots where you would see the flare coming from the back it was actually one of our lights mimicking the harsh sun light coming through the windows. For other scenes we could actually utilise the natural sunlight coming through the windows.

I've never been there, so I don't know what the Museum looks like for real, but it does look very natural. So, well done.

Oh, good. We did have time to do a recce, so I visited the museum twice beforehand and blocked out the scenes. All the time, even on the recce days, I would have a light meter with me so I could see where the sources were coming from at certain times of day. Then we would engineer our schedule where we could supplement the available light coming in. The key light is usually a huge, big soft source. Obviously in the basement where he's with all the curiosities and weird animals in jars, it’s more of a laboratory feel, so that was all our lights.

What’s your crew like on location?

Very small crews, you have to be fast and mobile. For example, for the night scene with the rangers who protect the elephants in Chad, which is quite fast cut and very military feeling, spliced with day shots with the elephants, I would say there was maybe four of us from the UK: myself, Fredi the director, the sound recordist, and Marie-Claire, the assistant producer, with the support of a fixer once on location. On that occasion the rangers were fixing for us.

Sometimes you have a local guide, and then once you arrive, say for the Amazon in Ecuador, we would have a whole range of people helping carry equipment through the forest.

Do you find camera assistants on location, or do you do everything by yourself?

I did pretty much everything myself. Whilst it might look like a big-budget thing, it wasn't really a big-budget production compared to other films I've worked on. The location part is very streamlined. I'm focus pulling all the time. Everybody pitches in and helps prep kit.

What kind of T-stop do you go to when you are focus pulling by yourself?

Oh, I like f/1.5. I really like that shallow depth of field, I like chasing it. f/2.8, f/3.5 as an absolute maximum, depending on the scene. I've worked on documentaries since forever, so I'm so used to it and have viewfinder setups, so I'm like completely on it.

That was my next question. How do you look at your image when you’re operating?

Always a viewfinder, unless I’m on a dolly or a slider or something, then the LCD maybe, but I have to use the viewfinder. I've got to be locked in, and even within that viewfinder, all information will be gone. It's just the image I'm looking at. I'll have peaking in the viewfinder, but the shallow depth of field actually helps: you're either in or you're out. You have to trust the director and the editor, and as long as I’ve got the bits of dialogue that a character will say, I know that's going in the film, and if for whatever reason the shot wasn't perfect or the focus was out, I'll speak up and say, “Can you just repeat what you just said there and we'll get it again?” But I also completely trust the editors to only use the best takes. They're very, very good at what they do. Matt Meech is our editor on this and he's exceptional.

What's your workflow when you're by yourself and there’s a lot of footage?

It would be 8K RAW. We're using a lot of data, because of the VistaVision sensor. Shooting 6K crops the sensor, and I want to use that full cinematic image, and capture as much information as possible. The workflow is tricky. LUTs-wise, it's generally a Rec. 709, though I have certain custom looks dialled in. I always find that's a good starting point. I try and push the color temperatures quite a lot in camera, even though I'm shooting RAW, as I want the editor to see my intentions. Whether it's with the color temperature within the lighting or the color temperature in camera, I'll push the look a certain way. For the Rangers in Chad, as they're jumping in the truck and it's all backlit, I went for a very warm look, and I pushed it quite far so they would see my intentions and take it to the next level in the final grade.

How do you deal with contrast, like in the rainforest?

Forests are difficult, aren't they? And it's not so much the light, it's more the overwhelming color green. Also, they're quite claustrophobic environments: you can't really see that far away, so everything's just dense and close, and creating separation is quite hard. If it's an on-the-fly scene where I'm following someone doing a specific thing, I'm always looking for little pockets of light or little pockets of depth, and I'm working the backlight. If the person is front-lit or dappled, that can be very problematic with contrast. When we're on the fly, there isn’t anyone wandering around with a bounce: I want people to feel my presence as little as possible and just carry on with what they're doing, so having reflectors can be a distraction. So, I'll be moving the camera a lot, looking for those beautiful pockets of light. When Mr. Park, the Korean forest healer, is walking through the forest, it’s a heavily backlit scene, but I'm using the lens flare. I'm in a very contrasty pocket: he'll walk into the shot and put his hand on the tree, his head there, but then when his head pops back, the light blooms in the camera and it bounces back at him. And it elevates the scene.

But you also have to know what you can get away with. How far can I push that exposure without it being completely ruined? Or what are you prepared to lose in the blacks or the whites as a cinematographer? And it depends on the feeling of the scene, doesn't it?

Was it always part of the plan to film the rangers at night?

Fredi's incredible. He will listen to ideas. If he thinks it's good enough, he'll adopt the idea. I have a vague recollection that initially was going to be shot during the day, and I possibly suggested at night. I thought we could make it look more immediate and more dangerous at night with silhouettes and backlight from the vehicles.

I'm sure it wasn't just my idea, we probably had a conversation about it and yes, let's do that. But that was shot basically on one evening. We had no time with the Rangers because they had a job to do. So, it was like, do this, do that, move this light here, get it on the floor, line the shot up. They're all professional Rangers, they're not actors, so trying to shoot that scene and get a sense of what they do on a day-to-day basis was quite tricky.

Did you have a few lights with you for that scene at night?

I had some LED light panels, and a battery-powered Aputure 300D as the main light to create some of the backlighting. I also used the car headlights wherever possible. For the opening drone shot, which I was flying, we used another vehicle behind to illuminate the car in front. Always having the lights moving as well was key. When they're in the back of the truck, you go from a dark face to it being illuminated, then the light's gone and back again, just to create that sense of mystery.

Watching it then I think I found the scene maybe a bit too polished, but it makes you realize it's the danger they experience every day, giving their lives to protect the elephants. It’s efficient.

It reminds me of Dan's character. When we first meet him in Mexico, he's with the animals and he's very passionate about what he does. And then he comes back to London, where talks about being depressed in London. We took him to a place near where he grew up, a kind of slightly deprived area, big high-rise blocks of flats, very little nature. I was doing a recce, and I took the camera with Dan. I just filmed him handheld, and we didn't have much time. I'm following around those little bits of London by hand and looking at him, looking up at the tall buildings and the concrete everywhere. Those shots were used in the final edit. We wanted to reshoot those on gimbal, but the handheld observational feel works. It didn't need to be polished; it worked perfectly the way it was.

There's so little handheld shaky footage anyway that when it happens at very specific moments, it's very efficient. Are you involved in color grading?

Even with the editorial: Fredi would send me cuts of certain stories asking for feedback. I'm sure he's getting advice from lots of people, but he would often send them to me because I was on location and heard what the person actually said. When it came to the color grade, I wasn’t available for the DI, but Fredi sent me the final cut of the film, and I made notes on each scene. On this sort of production, you can't go always go to the final grade, so you need to give them as much information as possible. I wanted the skin tones to feel warmer and the shadows to feel cooler on the Museum scenes, for example. Likewise with other scenes: the exposure of the drone shots of the Xiye scenes in Mexico was too close to the highlights for my liking, so that needed to be dealt with. It was about making everything feel seamless and shot by the same cameras. I just watched the trailer this morning, and it's going quite well. The contrast isn't quite there, but it could be. Luckily, there's probably only a few of us who are paying attention to it.

[Laughs] No, normal people only listen to Benedict Cumberbatch. That's the point. And the weirdos will say, oh, what's this highlight over there? Joking aside, it’s not so often that such a film is going to Youtube shortly after a screening run, for everyone to watch it without subscribing.

The whole point was to get it in front of as many people as humanly possible. I think YouTube has something like 74% in terms of how people digest media and TV. One of the most important things for me with that film, and the future films that I do, is that I really want them to reach people who aren’t already on board with the climate change and preservation debate. How do we get someone that doesn't believe in climate change to watch this film and engage with it? I don't know, it's a million-dollar question.

Photo credit for BTS taken in the Museum of Natural History: Conor McDonnell