<p>Roger Deakins received his first Oscar nomination for best cinematography 25 years ago for <span class="italic">The Shawshank Redemption</span>. He would earn 13 more before he finally won in 2018 for <span class="italic">Blade Runner 2049</span>. This year, he’s in the running again for his bravura work on the World War I drama <span class="italic">1917.</span></p>.<p>“The nominations never get old, but I get old,” joked the British-born Deakins, 70. “There’s some great work this year, so whoever wins, they deserve it.”</p>.<p>It would be hard to argue with Deakins taking home another award, considering the challenges that went into <span class="italic">1917</span>. It follows two British soldiers on a perilous mission to deliver an important order to the front lines and is filmed to look as if the action unfolds in a single shot (though there are edits). Deakins discussed making the movie, which was shot in England and Scotland, in a recent telephonic interview. These are edited excerpts from that conversation.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>You had worked with director Sam Mendes a few times before, including the 007 movie ‘Skyfall’. Was it a given you would do ‘1917’?</strong></p>.<p>It wasn’t a given he was going to ask me. No, he called out of the blue and said he was going to be doing something shortly, and could he send me a script? It turned up and on the front cover, it said, “This is envisioned as a real-time story, shot with a single take.” That was a bit of a shock, but I read the script, and it seemed like an interesting way to tell the story. It wasn’t a tacked-on gimmick.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What was the toughest challenge?</strong></p>.<p>Figuring out the right balance of the shot. Are you behind them (the soldiers) all the time? How often do you have to be on their faces? Is it too claustrophobic to pull them all the way down a trench? Once we settled on the feel of the camera, then it was just a technical challenge to figure out how to break our one shot down into sections so it was manageable.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>I know you don’t want to reveal any secrets, but how many shots make up the film?</strong></p>.<p>I really don’t want to say, but we were shooting for 65 days. I never really timed it, but I think the longest shot was about seven minutes. There were also takes that were very short because they were little stitching pieces.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Is it true you shot most of it in sequence?</strong></p>.<p>Yes, mostly, but some sections weren’t. Because of the location choices, we couldn’t go back and forth. The opening of the film was shot quite a few weeks into the schedule. But it was good to shoot so much in sequence. We knew almost exactly to the frame where we wanted to make the joins.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Why is it important for you to serve as one of your own camera operators?</strong></p>.<p>I just always have. I shot a lot of documentaries early in my career. I suppose that’s why. I love operating. I enjoy framing and the way the camera moves more than anything. It also gives me a close relationship with the actors.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>The film has a steady look (thanks to the use of a Steadicam and a Trinity camera stabilizer), rather than a herky-jerky, hand-held feel. Why did you and Mendes go that route?</strong></p>.<p>It just felt right. And it wasn’t something I could do hand-held because of the speed of movement. I tried to do some of it when we were rehearsing with my little point-and-shoot camera, but there was no way I could walk backwards down a trench at that speed. Also I think it would have been very distracting.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>How nerve-wracking was it for you dealing with the weather conditions, considering there are very few interior scenes and you didn’t want the film to look too sunny?</strong></p>.<p>It was my biggest anxiety. I spent a lot of time watching the sky and looking at my weather apps to figure out when we could shoot.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>How much did it help that you had worked with Mendes before?</strong></p>.<p>It helped a lot, because you build up a relationship of trust. We did so much prep that by the time it came to shoot, we didn’t talk much actually. It was quite smooth. We would talk about soccer more than we would about the film.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Do you know what you’re doing next?</strong></p>.<p>No. I haven’t really been offered anything. I would love to do something I could get my teeth into, but it’s got to be something that moves me. I can’t really work on a film that I don’t connect with emotionally.</p>
<p>Roger Deakins received his first Oscar nomination for best cinematography 25 years ago for <span class="italic">The Shawshank Redemption</span>. He would earn 13 more before he finally won in 2018 for <span class="italic">Blade Runner 2049</span>. This year, he’s in the running again for his bravura work on the World War I drama <span class="italic">1917.</span></p>.<p>“The nominations never get old, but I get old,” joked the British-born Deakins, 70. “There’s some great work this year, so whoever wins, they deserve it.”</p>.<p>It would be hard to argue with Deakins taking home another award, considering the challenges that went into <span class="italic">1917</span>. It follows two British soldiers on a perilous mission to deliver an important order to the front lines and is filmed to look as if the action unfolds in a single shot (though there are edits). Deakins discussed making the movie, which was shot in England and Scotland, in a recent telephonic interview. These are edited excerpts from that conversation.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>You had worked with director Sam Mendes a few times before, including the 007 movie ‘Skyfall’. Was it a given you would do ‘1917’?</strong></p>.<p>It wasn’t a given he was going to ask me. No, he called out of the blue and said he was going to be doing something shortly, and could he send me a script? It turned up and on the front cover, it said, “This is envisioned as a real-time story, shot with a single take.” That was a bit of a shock, but I read the script, and it seemed like an interesting way to tell the story. It wasn’t a tacked-on gimmick.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>What was the toughest challenge?</strong></p>.<p>Figuring out the right balance of the shot. Are you behind them (the soldiers) all the time? How often do you have to be on their faces? Is it too claustrophobic to pull them all the way down a trench? Once we settled on the feel of the camera, then it was just a technical challenge to figure out how to break our one shot down into sections so it was manageable.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>I know you don’t want to reveal any secrets, but how many shots make up the film?</strong></p>.<p>I really don’t want to say, but we were shooting for 65 days. I never really timed it, but I think the longest shot was about seven minutes. There were also takes that were very short because they were little stitching pieces.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Is it true you shot most of it in sequence?</strong></p>.<p>Yes, mostly, but some sections weren’t. Because of the location choices, we couldn’t go back and forth. The opening of the film was shot quite a few weeks into the schedule. But it was good to shoot so much in sequence. We knew almost exactly to the frame where we wanted to make the joins.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Why is it important for you to serve as one of your own camera operators?</strong></p>.<p>I just always have. I shot a lot of documentaries early in my career. I suppose that’s why. I love operating. I enjoy framing and the way the camera moves more than anything. It also gives me a close relationship with the actors.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>The film has a steady look (thanks to the use of a Steadicam and a Trinity camera stabilizer), rather than a herky-jerky, hand-held feel. Why did you and Mendes go that route?</strong></p>.<p>It just felt right. And it wasn’t something I could do hand-held because of the speed of movement. I tried to do some of it when we were rehearsing with my little point-and-shoot camera, but there was no way I could walk backwards down a trench at that speed. Also I think it would have been very distracting.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>How nerve-wracking was it for you dealing with the weather conditions, considering there are very few interior scenes and you didn’t want the film to look too sunny?</strong></p>.<p>It was my biggest anxiety. I spent a lot of time watching the sky and looking at my weather apps to figure out when we could shoot.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>How much did it help that you had worked with Mendes before?</strong></p>.<p>It helped a lot, because you build up a relationship of trust. We did so much prep that by the time it came to shoot, we didn’t talk much actually. It was quite smooth. We would talk about soccer more than we would about the film.</p>.<p class="Question"><strong>Do you know what you’re doing next?</strong></p>.<p>No. I haven’t really been offered anything. I would love to do something I could get my teeth into, but it’s got to be something that moves me. I can’t really work on a film that I don’t connect with emotionally.</p>