Interview by. Alessio Valori CCS
Luca, you’ve often expressed interest in the idea of making films using a cell phone. Can we explore this topic further?
I’d like to begin with a brief introduction, especially since this interview will be published on a site dedicated to cinematography. Discussing the use of cell phones to shoot films or documentaries is both a legitimate and necessary topic, but also a delicate one. On the one hand, it’s a real possibility; on the other, it raises important questions about how our profession is evolving—particularly at a time when cinema itself is facing a profound crisis. Shooting with a cell phone lightens the entire process and reduces the need for large crews. This makes me a bit uneasy, because I don’t want my words to be interpreted as dismissive of collective work or, even worse, as a criticism of the many professionals involved in a production. I simply believe that the cell phone is another tool—neither a mandatory solution nor a cheap shortcut.
This perspective reflects a broader vision of your profession, which you’ve already discussed on this site (see here). How might you briefly incorporate the cell phone discussion to your more general view of our work?
I’ve always been critical of the obsession with technical perfection. I’ve never really understood the reverence for lenses or cameras. In many cases, this fixation on flawless technique ends up hurting a film more than helping it. For me, the quality of a film depends on the writing, directing, and acting. Our role is important, but it should remain respectful and, when necessary, invisible. I disagree with the idea of the cinematographer as a “light artist” or “creator of light.” Our job is to be quick, discreet, and above all, respectful of the actors’ work. In that sense, a cell phone can be a valuable tool—especially in certain situations, like documentaries or fictional contexts that require a strong sense of realism.This becomes even clearer when you consider what color correction now allows us to do. In the past, when we shot on film, we could only lighten or dark en the image, make it warmer or cooler. Today, we have access to digital tools that are far more powerful—and we all benefit from them. So I’m simply suggesting that we consider what a different kind of technology can offer—not necessarily a superior one, but one that is lighter, more versatile, more discreet, and more affordable.
Have you had direct experience working with cell phones? In what contexts?
Yes, my first significant experience was with Mama Mercy, a film by Alessandra Cutolo, shot in Rome using two cell phones. The project involved a group of immigrants who had taken an acting course at the occupied Spin Time social center. Working with such lightweight equipment allowed us to be discreet and minimize our intrusion into a fragile, complex environment. We were also able to shoot anywhere—without permits or authorization. For example, we flmed a scene on a tram where one of the actors snatched a purse from the protagonist, and the passengers reacted as if it were really happening. That says a lot about how unobtrusive the crew was. Certain types of independent cinema—very low-budget, without production support or resources—can now be made with remarkable quality using just a cell phone. More recently, I worked in Scampia with Francesca Comencini on a documentary about families evicted from the Vele housing complex. These were people who weren’t used to being filmed and who felt more at ease with two cell phones than with a traditional crew using tripods, microphones, and lights. In my opinion, the result was more natural and realistic. Even during the filming of a concert with Stefano Bollani and a group of Italian jazz musicians, we used both professional cameras and cell phones. The phones allowed us to get shots that would have been impossible with bulkier equipment—like close-ups of piano keys or over-the-shoulder angles of the musicians. I’m confident those shots will integrate seamlessly with the rest of the footage.
All situations where filming was particularly delicate…
Exactly—but the central point is this: technology should never hinder creativity. The accessibility of cell phones can be a tremendous resource for young filmmakers eager to experiment—especially in an industry that too often excludes them. When my generation began working in the 1980s, we were forced to shoot in 16mm with very limited visual quality, due to economic and technical constraints. Today, that visual standard can easily be surpassed with a smartphone. Amid all the chaos and uncertainty of the modern world, young people today have access to opportunities we never had. That said, it’s important to acknowledge the limits of cell phones: focusing can be tricky, exposure is hard to manage, and the image quality is still lower than that of professional cameras. But often, the lightness, the discretion, the ability to make the operator “invisible” are more valuable to the film than formal image “quality.” And thanks to color correction, we can now transform much of the original footage. I’m not saying we should reject technology—only that we should use it mindfully. In the past, we would light everything, cluttering sets with stands, flags, and projectors. Now we have cameras with incredible sensitivity and lighting tools that are far lighter and more efficient. Choosing not to use artificial lighting is a creative decision in its own right: placing an actor in front of a window, rather than to the side or backlit, can dramatically change the visual impact of a scene. For me, the best approach today is to work closely with the director in deciding where to place actors and the camera, while minimizing the amount of equipment—most of which is no longer essential.
And what about your experience with documentaries—anything more to add?
In documentaries, too, it’s important to respect the natural light of real environments. In Scampia, for example, I was struck by how intense the lighting was in people’s homes. It might not be conventionally beautiful, but it’s a reality that needs to be understood and respected. We don’t need to create beautiful images—we need to create truthful ones, images that are sociologically respectful of reality.
And in fictional films, how is the use of cell phones handled technically? I mean—how is the set organized? Is there a video feed for the director, or does it all rely on trusting the operator?
It’s actually very simple. If the director requests it, we can send the video feed from one, two, three, or even four cell phones directly to an iPad. So yes, it’s possible to have real-time monitoring—just like on a traditional set—as long as there’s a Wi-Fi connection. The director can see everything live, exactly as they would with a regular camera setup.
There have been past attempts to make cameras lighter. I started working as a DOP in the early 2000s, when the first digital cinema cameras emerged—along with more experimental solutions like the PS Technik. The goal was to make everything more compact, more affordable, and more accessible to independent filmmakers. Then, in the 2010s, we saw the rise of still cameras like the 5D. Do you think the cell phone is a more significant development than those earlier attempts? Or will the mainstream still dominate, due to economic interests and other forces?
It’s hard for me to make predictions. Right now, there’s a lot of talk about artificial intelligence, especially in image generation. Honestly, I remain cautious—I observe, I watch, I wait… but with some skepticism. I believe that human creativity and originality are irreplaceable. I’m not saying AI won’t play a role—I’m saying: we’ll see. But I also think we need to be careful not to become too conservative, trapped in our own convictions and old habits.
What’s your take on the current trend of returning to film?
I think it’s anachronistic, expensive, elitist—and not very environmentally friendly. If film ends up being digitized, digitally corrected, and digitally projected anyway, what’s the point? Grain and texture—assuming they still have aesthetic value—can be added in post-production. For me, shooting on film no longer makes sense. What’s truly threatening our profession is not digital technology, nor cell phones, nor the disappearance of film. It’s the loss of collective viewing. If movie theaters aren’t saved, cinema as a shared experience will disappear. I always say: watching a film alone on a device is not the same. Cinema is a collective experience, and without that shared moment, it loses its meaning entirely. So when it comes to the possibility of using cell phones, I’m simply saying: it’s a concrete and sometimes necessary option. One that can be intelligently integrated into a broader conversation about visual language, production models, and the ever-changing reality we are called to understand—with flexibility and openness.
Thank you Luca.
