The Actor’s Secret Weapon is the Camera – Breaking the Barrier Between Actors and Cinematographers

How ToActing

by Tal LazarToday

Most actors might deny it, but deep down, the camera is their greatest fear. Early in my career as a cinematographer, I noticed how they’d keep a wary distance from cameras and lights, even while respecting technicians working on set. But when I met John Heard on one of my first films, I was surprised when he asked me something no actor had ever asked me before: 

“What lens is this?”

Heard (known for his roles in the Home Alone movies, The Sopranos, and more) wasn’t just curious— he knew more about lenses than I gave him credit for. It wasn’t until the director called “action!” that I realized how Heard incorporated my choice of lens into his performance.

Most actors have a basic knowledge of lenses (wide-angle lenses capture more of a scene, while long lenses narrow the view and draw distant subjects closer), but Heard’s performance suggested a more profound understanding. For him, lenses didn’t just define the boundaries of the frame, they were tools that could help evoke an emotional experience. When a wide-angle lens was used to reveal the environment, I watched as Heard engaged with his surroundings and hinted at his character’s relationships. When the camera was positioned close to Heard, I realized that he understood how wide-angle lenses create a sense of closeness for the audience—his subtle gestures made viewers feel as if they were let in on a secret. My method of choosing lenses soon changed—cinematographers consider many reasons when choosing a lens, and now I had another one. Rather than waiting to see how Heard adapted his performance to my choice of lens,  I began anticipating his actions. Thanks to Heard, my eyes were open to a new way of collaborating with actors: a synergy between performance and camera. How efficient it would be if actors and cinematographers speak the same language. I’ve been trying to make it a reality ever since.

Despite my excitement to collaborate with actors in a new way, I quickly hit some roadblocks. Many actors are distracted by the machinery surrounding them on set—which is understandable. It is difficult to stay in character while trying to avoid making any unnecessary noise (even putting a cup on a table mid-dialogue can render recorded audio unusable), or always walking between marked positions without looking at the floor (otherwise the camera crew may have difficulties focusing, or the lighting may be off). Actors may wish they could focus only on their performance, since considering the audio recording, focus or lighting have little to do with acting. But even though making movies involves many different fields, they are all interconnected, and everyone must account for constraints from other departments. Lighting technicians ensure boom microphones do not cast unwanted shadows, and script supervisors verify that shots can cut together. The toughest challenge, however, rests on the actors, who must fully immerse themselves in their characters—all while juggling a complex array of limitations and demands. 

Throughout my filmmaking career, starting as an assistant and eventually becoming a cinematographer, I’ve learned that it’s best practice to shield actors from the technical aspects of filmmaking. When technical factors conflict with the performance (such as when an actor steps too close for the camera to focus) it’s up to the director to decide whether to adjust the camera or the actor’s position. But directors are often busy, and shouldn’t be interrupted with needless questions. So, I had to resolve certain challenges on my own. For instance, when a scene called for an actor to lean against a wall (making it tricky to light the actor separately from the background) I would ask myself: does it make more sense story-wise to adjust the lighting or to change the actor’s position? Little did I know a third option—one that demanded better synchronization between the actors and camera—was the best solution.

As I watched Heard’s character lean against a wall, I realized that his character conveyed weakness not just through his body language, but also by blending into the background, making separate lighting unnecessary. It raised a pressing question: can cinematography become an accessible and practical tool for actors?

Most professional actors I’ve worked with graduated from schools offering “Acting for Camera” workshops where they learned basics such as filming dialogue scenes, hitting marks, and differences between a close-up and a wide shot. Advanced acting for camera workshops also cover script breakdown, where scene progression and beats are identified and mapped. These workshops are designed to prepare actors to work on set, and have little to do with collaborating with cinematographers. This is a missed opportunity, since an actor who is able to perfectly land on a mark without looking at the floor does not necessarily understand how their physical placement serves the story. If actors were included in shot design, it could elevate both their performance and the visual composition.

In 2018, Angelina Jolie presented the American Society of Cinematographers Lifetime Achievement Award to cinematographer Dean Semler, who worked on films such as Dances with Wolves and Maleficent. She described a suspenseful scene in The Bone Collector (one of Jolie’s early films) where her character walked in a dark underground tunnel, lit only by a flashlight. Rather than lighting the tunnel and the actor, Semler hid lighting reflectors around the set and taught Jolie how to aim the flashlight at a reflector when she wanted her face to be visible (otherwise she would be silhouetted). She recounted how empowering it felt to be in control of her character’s image, a memory still vivid even though 20 years have passed since filming. 

I was struck by the simplicity of Semler’s technique and the impact it had on Jolie’s performance. I also wondered how Jolie decided when to aim the flashlight at a reflector. As a cinematographer, I know that the audience shares a character’s fear when the actor’s face is visible in a scene like the one from The Bone Collector. In contrast, when the actor’s face is hidden, the audience detaches from the character’s feelings, and experiences their own curiosity and apprehension. Did Jolie use these principles when in charge of her own lighting? She gained control over her image, which is a big part of how the story is told visually. That’s a lot of power, best exercised by someone who knows what they’re doing. I did not know how Jolie approached lighting, but I was certain the impact of lighting on narrative perspective is not taught in most acting for camera workshops. When it comes to interacting with cameras and lighting, most acting for camera workshops fall into two common traps: overemphasizing traditional filming conventions and exaggerating the importance of the tools used in filmmaking.

Filming Conventions

Over 130 years of making movies, certain filming techniques were used so often that they became ingrained in the language of cinema and evolved into conventions. For instance, dialogue scenes are often filmed using a convention known as coverage (two matching close-ups or over-the-shoulder shots and a wide shot from the side). It is a tried and true method (seen regularly on TV and in movies) and it requires little thinking to execute. Coverage can serve as a useful starting point for beginner filmmakers, but master directors use it in ways that extend far beyond traditional film school instruction. Experienced filmmakers seek opportunities to deviate from conventions, creating a visual journey that follows the story. Since no two stories are alike, it is impossible to apply standardized filming conventions without compromising the integrity of the story, even in straightforward dialogue scenes. In Jordan Peele’s film Get Out, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) encounters housekeeper Georgina (Betty Gabriel) in what many would mistake as another simple dialogue scene undeserving of much attention. But a closer observation reveals that the camera is aimed at Georgina from below, using a wide-angle lens which causes visible distortion on her face, while Chris is filmed more traditionally. This contrast creates a sense of suspicion towards Georgina, making something about her feel off, which mirrors Chris’s thoughts in the scene.

Betty Gabriel, who portrays Georgina, expertly uses the close proximity of the wide-angle lens to her face. By subtly tilting her head forward, she exaggerates and distorts her facial features, enhancing the unsettling moment in the scene. Actors should be familiar with filmmaking conventions like coverage, but recognize that these conventions are just starting points for a collaborative process, where the actor can integrate more subtle camera techniques into their performance.

Filmmaking Tools

Anyone who’s been on a film set knows the importance of watching your step. It’s easy to trip over electric cables, and getting too close to a lamp or the camera might unleash the ire of a protective crew member. Filmmaking is often dominated by tools, even if no tool can guarantee making a good movie (the best camera can also produce a bad film). Film schools and YouTube videos often prioritize technical proficiency because it builds confidence and is easy to teach. Visual storytelling, however, is not a technical skill. There can be more than one way to tell a story visually—for example, in Get Out, a wide-angle lens was used to create a sense of unease around Georgina, but there are many other ways to create unease.

It’s far more useful for actors to focus on visual storytelling than to understand the technical details of cameras, lenses or lights. After all, Angelina Jolie did not need to know how a reflector works to aim a flashlight at it in The Bone Collector. Instead of worrying about the multitude of technical factors involved in cinematography, actors can focus on a single visual choice in a scene, setting the technicalities aside to explore its impact and the creative possibilities it opens up. If more actors embrace this mindset, then this kind of collaboration between actors and cinematographers—like the connection I experienced with John Heard—could become far more common.

A new path for actors

What if visual storytelling were simple, serving as just another tool for actors to elevate their performance? To answer this question, we need only turn to the masters for inspiration. In John Patrick Shanley’s film Doubt, Meryl Streep, playing a strict school principal, shares a meal with the faculty. A close-up reveals her dissatisfaction with another character while a wide shot establishes her authority over the group.

Actors who wish to better understand cinematography should observe these shots closely. How does Streep’s close-up convey dissatisfaction? How does the wide shot establish her character’s authority? In the close-up, it’s not only Streep’s performance that communicates dissatisfaction but also the choice of the close-up itself, which directs the viewer’s focus to the character’s emotions. In the wide shot, authority is conveyed not only through her posture but also by framing that shows a group dynamic, using camera angle and lighting to cue the viewer to her relationship with others—hardly any other faces are visible. It is hard to imagine that Meryl Streep was unaware of the shot size or the lighting during filming. While these visual choices fall outside of the direct scope of an actor’s performance, they are integral to the audience’s overall experience. By understanding how her performance was framed and presented to viewers, Streep amplified the visual effects even further: she contributed to the visual symmetry and balance of the wide shot (conveying a sense of control and power), and, in the close-up, kept her face forward, deliberately refusing to acknowledge the other character by turning toward her (a subtle choice that resonates in the tight framing of a close-up).Many of the nuanced choices made by master performers like Meryl Streep stem from script breakdown, a form of preparation actors use to bring their character to life. Cinematographers conduct their own version of this process as well. When reading a scene, cinematographers seek moments of transformation, and use visual language to indicate them to the audience. In Sam Mendes’s film Road to Perdition, Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) is humiliated by his father John (Paul Newman) in front of their associates. The change in Connor’s state of mind is visible when comparing the beginning of the scene to its end.

At the start of the scene, the camera is positioned farther from Connor, revealing more of his surroundings than it does by the end. However, a comparison of these two frames reveals a much bolder choice made by the filmmakers: the lighting changes during the scene—starting at an angle that fully illuminates Connor’s face and ending at an angle that casts ominous shadows over his eyes—without any realistic justification. Beginner filmmakers would never consider changing the lighting mid-scene, since they consider continuity as a firm rule. This subtle transformation in Road to Perdition, however, highlights the true purpose of cinematography, which prioritizes storytelling over continuity. This principle is easily accessible to actors, and it does not require them to get bogged down in technical details. In Road to Perdition, Daniel Craig did not need to know much about lighting to participate in visually transforming his character’s image. Lighting is not all about placement of lamps, since the angle of light is equally shaped by the positioning of the actor. To achieve the ominous shadows on Craig’s face, he had to keep his chin down—playing a small yet essential role in shaping the scene’s lighting.

Actors looking to broaden their skill set with a stronger understanding of cinematography have good news ahead. Visual storytelling is a universal language we can all understand, since we’ve been observing images from the moment we were born. For actors, incorporating cinematography into their performance can be a natural transition. The best starting point is to identify visual effects in scenes that that resonate with you:

1. Choose a scene that visually conveys an idea or emotion to the audience
2. Watch it once with sound, and then again without audio
3. Identify camera choices, such as positioning (high, low, close, or distant) and movement, as well as lighting choices (bright, dark, high contrast)
4. Consider what these visual choices add to the scene. How would it change without them?

Repeating this exercise will soon reveal patterns, since cinematography (like any other language) relies on repetition to convey meaning, and emphasis to guide the viewer’s attention. Doing it with a partner is even more effective, since comparing impressions reveals diverse perspectives and highlights more visual techniques. This process mirrors the collaboration between a director and cinematographer, who study films to identify visual choices for their own projects. Such collaboration is rarely visible to actors, since the worlds behind and in front of the camera rarely intersect. The final film, however, must be a cohesive work where performance and camera align seamlessly. Throughout my career as a cinematographer, I’ve sought to bridge the gap between camera and acting. When I work with an actor who is both interested in and capable of considering the visual aspects of their performance, the result often exceeds the sum of its parts.

Tal Lazar is a cinematographer and educator who has created filmmaking workshops for the American Film Institute Conservatory, Columbia University School of the Arts, Sundance Institute’s Collab, Berklee College of Music Online and other film programs. Some of his courses are available on our filmmaking education platform MZed. His forthcoming book, The Language of Cinematography, aims to make cinematography accessible to filmmakers of all levels.