Interview by Stefano De Pieri CCS
I Am Not What I Am is an interesting adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello, updated to the present day in the context of Roman criminal underworld. It strongly references very current themes such as femicide. Had you ever worked with director Edoardo Leo before? How did you meet?
This was my first film with Edoardo. I was introduced to him by Sydney Sibilia, with whom I had worked on Carosello Carosone, along with Lucio Pellegrini. Edoardo told me about a particular project, and initially I thought it was going to be a noir, because in our first conversations this was one of the words that came up often. But since it dealt with femicide, I wasn’t quite sure where we were heading, whether we would completely transform the Shakespearean story, which is very “written”, into an action film. Then Edoardo said a word that became a very strong key concept: “remove”. Consider that eight days before we started filming, Edoardo cut 20 pages from the script. He also eliminated extras, cars, etc. In the end, only the actors remained at the centre of the film. The screenplay was beautiful, and all this removing initially worried me… You know how visually enriching it can be to have a chase scene, stage wings, car movement, people passing by… But we decided to internalise everything and it worked. Edoardo wanted to make a very theatrical film, to allow the actors to move as if they were on a stage, in every set, in every location.
Tell us about working on the look… How did you work on set? And what was your relationship with the colourist?
Photographically, I always tend to “challenge myself” – that is, in every project I try to find elements that are outside my comfort zone, then work with them to build the visual structure, enriching it with these new elements… It’s a great learning experience when you have enough experience to do it. I created a moodboard of visual suggestions to get feedback from Edoardo: cinematic references, environments, but above all darkness, an element that I strongly wanted to bring into this film. Regarding the process, let me preface this. I’m in a phase of changing my workflow. Previously, I would work with a LUT knowing I could give it more latitude later in post-production. Since I Am Not What I Am, I’ve tried to return to having a definitive look on set. Because I really love working with filters, trying to really push the lenses, but above all having a vision of what the film will be right from the start. I chose to shoot everything at 1600 ISO to have more latitude in the highlights, given the many daylight exteriors with large skies, and to have that grain and “dirtiness” that is the beauty of the ALEXA Mini. I used a LUT that Red had made for me for a previous film, but which we modified thinking of getting more density in the blacks. I did the colour grading in four days, with a brilliant and attentive colourist, Christian Gazzi, who had perfectly understood what I wanted. He didn’t start from scratch; we began directly with the CDLs prepared on set with my long-time DIT, Mauro Toscano, whom I can’t do without, and from there, we worked on enhancing them. This is often how we work now, but in 2022, when we did the colour grading, it wasn’t so common.
Which lenses did you choose for this film? Why did you decide to shoot it in anamorphic?
Initially, I wanted to give this film a “dirty” look. I really, really enjoy working with texture, as I did in the miniseries General Dalla Chiesa. I like searching for lenses that can give that special touch. In I Am Not What I Am, I wanted to achieve the same thing. The anamorphic format allowed me to get the aspect ratio I wanted. So I tried quite a few; we tested six anamorphic lenses and in the end, I chose the Cooke lenses. Firstly because they don’t distort too much, but mainly because they’re different from all other anamorphic lenses – instead of working to widen, they work to compress the image inwards. And this proved very functional for how we had planned to shoot: in many scenes we had just one shot, with a theatrical setup.
It’s a very dark film. How did you work with the lighting?
With Edoardo, the game was to create a cinematography that would allow actors to move within the scene based on the available light. I built 360-degree lighting, which was quite challenging. We started with key lights outside the windows and used very small LEDs strategically placed indoors when needed, such as to lift the light on a face. I had only set one rule: not to work with direct lighting, which Edoardo then ended up doing anyway. And I must admit that when it happened, it produced some of the most beautiful images, for example in the night-time house interior scene, when Desdemona (Ambrosia Caldarelli) looks out the window and talks to Emilia (Antonia Truppo), it created very dramatic shadows on the walls that effectively emphasised the violence of the moment and became part of the film’s look. In the port scene, during the first shooting, I used about twenty construction site lights as practicals, distributing them according to the logic of the location and set design, and they provided the light I needed. I simulated moonlight with a projector positioned on a very high cherry picker to create contrast with the warm light from the practicals. I also wet the pavement, something I often do and which has earned me the nickname “Rome’s advertising man.”
This 360-degree lighting is very interesting. Was there any location that you found particularly challenging to light?
Yes, the sea was the great anxiety! Because we had so many night scenes and you can’t light the sea. Throughout the film, I worked in negative, subtracting light. So I didn’t put light on the sea to try to make it more visible, even though working at 1600 ISO meant you could see something, but I decided to create a dichotomy by enriching the light on the beach. I had the set design department build 20 poles on which I mounted lights. Depending on the shot, I would place them in depth to create the safety lighting for the beaches, five or six poles on one side, five or six poles on the other, which gave me depth, illuminating the beach and identifying the sea through darkness.
So there was a very strong relationship between cinematography and set design?
Yes, it was just as beautiful a collaboration as the one with Edoardo – wonderful, really. Veronica Rosafio is truly very talented, she has great taste. All the objects she put on set had a certain substance to them. Moreover, in a film like this, where the cinematography was tightly integrated with the set design, she did extensive research on Practical Lights.
How did you work on the daytime scenes?
For daytime, I worked primarily with Sun Plans, trying to shoot at the right times when the sun was where I needed it and adjusting the rest with Butterflies and reflectors. In the scene at Iago’s house, I worked almost at zenith, deliberately, trying to set aside some of my fears, because I wanted the drama of that moment! I wanted the shadows from the window bars to fall on their faces. It was fun. I also worked with filters, the Attenuators, which are graduated NDs that grade across the entire filter. I always work like this for exteriors because it helps me with the highlights, but I’ve also used them at night to get more dynamic range in the light. I usually work with more filters, but for I Am Not What I Am I only worked with the Attenuators.
Besides being the director, Edoardo Leo is also the lead actor. How did your rapport develop? And how did you manage the moments when he was busy acting? Were you operating the camera? Did you use one or multiple cameras?
I Am Not What I Am was the first film where I wasn’t the camera operator. It was Edoardo who told me: “No, you’re not operating the camera in this film” – another challenge for me! It was difficult because I started as an operator, I was a Steadicam operator for more than ten years, it was my forte. Once I moved to cinematography, I thought this would remain a “product value” to add to my projects. But in this film, Edoardo was also acting, and it was clear to him that he needed me in front of the monitor to take care of the visual aspect. Moreover, we had two excellent operators: Alessandro Gentili, who was on the first camera and Steadicam (which we used very little), and **Marianna Fratantoni** on the second camera. Alessandro Gentili had worked with Edoardo many times. The director brought his operator, I brought Marianna, and they were important “filters”. I always try to bring Marianna with me because she knows how to have a deep understanding of the script, she has an old-school operator’s approach, and she pays great attention to the acting – things I couldn’t have fully followed at that moment. But I missed being on camera, so what did I do? I’m famous for my “little tricks”, I like to “cover” scenes: something extra can always be useful! When the others finished shooting, if I saw something worth filming, I would take the camera and do coverage shots: a seagull passing by, night scenes, lights, a blur, things like that. Edoardo was at the monitor and saw what I was shooting: he got angry! I took him aside and said: “Let’s play a game, if in the film editing you use any of the things I shot, you owe me a seafood dinner at a restaurant of my choice… You’ll see that Consuelo Catucci, knowing her, will use all of them”. And it happened, they used them all. With Edoardo, we developed a very good rapport, he’s called me back for all his other films. Even now we’re shooting together, and in fact next week he’s paying for dinner! I must say that after I Am Not What I Am, I’ve always tried to work with two operators because I experienced an incredible photographic enrichment. The camera is something I care about deeply, especially handheld camera work, for me it’s a sort of “protection”, something that should probably be analysed by a psychologist; however, the photographic enrichment you can produce by having the right operators is truly remarkable.
In the film, there are very dark close-ups with strong flares that give the image a powerful emotional charge…
Edoardo is one of those directors with a very clear and defined vision. We worked without worrying about making the actors’ faces clearly visible. This bold choice was part of the film, and we leaned into it. The moment when this is most evident is probably Desdemona’s murder. That’s where everything comes full circle, always taking risks, as the entire scene was backlit. Since the murder scene was very important, I still needed to show a bit more of the actress. So, even though I mostly worked in silhouette, I lit her with a small Flexi LED panel positioned above the bed, which I had to gel with ND because, even at 3%, it was still too strong. For Othello (Javad Moradi), the effect was much more intense; he moved in and out of darkness using the switching on and off of a beautiful 1970s lamp, fitted with tungsten bulbs controlled by a dimmer. The effect was designed to heighten the tension.
An interesting scene is when Iago, to finish manipulating Othello, secretly gives him drugs.
This is one of the scenes Edoardo considered cutting. I practically insisted he keep it. It’s also the only shot I operated personally. For the effect, I used Diopter filters, half lenses that are usually used to create dual depth. I shot everything handheld, holding the camera with one hand and the filter with the other, tilting it to distort the image and create a sense of alteration and intoxication.
Why did you choose to shoot with ARRI?
I’m an “ARRI addict” — ALEXA Mini, Large Format, or ALEXA 35 — they’re all amazing! When I shoot, the first thing I look for is reliability and safety; in this, ARRI is unmatched. Additionally, with its wide dynamic range, it allowed me to create the final look directly on set with ease.
