 |
| Lance Henriksen - November 1997 |
Today I had an extemporaneous visit by my friend Christopher Dafoe. Most people now text you to inquire if you may be available a few days into the future for a visit. Chris called me when he was outside my door.
As we chatted over strong coffee that I prepared I reminisced in my mind the distinct pleasure had working with him when he was the Vancouver arts reporter for the Globe and Mail.
There was something about his low key voice, pleasant face with a smile that made famous people open up to him without him saying anything.
An added pleasure of working with Chris is that he allowed me to be present for the interviews. This meant I could observe the quirks and movements of my soon-to-be subjects. I would be ready to snap my photograph as I usually had my medium format Mamiya RB-67 on a tripod and whatever lights I would use were plugged in and waiting.
Most of our subjects were in hotel rooms but Lance Henriksen granted the interview in a movie trailer parked on a Vancouver street.
The colour picture here is an Ektachrome 100S which I re-scanned a few minutes before writing this. The b+w photograph is a scan of an 8x10 in my file.
I am enclosing a scan of the tear sheet (this is what they were called in the past century and we photographers would include them in our portfolios).
When I look at these portraits of the man I feel sad. I was a teacher in Mexico City before my Rosemary and two girls moved to Vancouver in 1975. My mother and grandmother were teachers as was Rosemary. Here in Vancouver I taught photography (The Contemporary Portrait Nude) at Focal Point that used to be on 10th Avenue and closes years ago. I feel that even though I am 81 I have lots of information that I could convey to students. I was good with film cameras and I am good with digital. I could teach about both photographic worlds. Alas nobody would hire me now because I am old and will die with lots of relevant stuff in my head.
In the case of the colour portrait I used a small softbox fired by a studio flash and I had an additional light (filtered with what we called a grid that narrowed the beam of light) as a hair light. Nobody would do this now.
Additionally few now understand the use of a camera at the same height as the person being photographed which results in good eye contact.
The lens was a 140mm macro lens which in 35mm format would be equivalent to an 85mm. This means I was not too close that would have resulted in his nose appearing much bigger. Many in that century considered the 85mm a portrait lens.
Few now know exactly what a macro lens is. If you photograph a one inch stamp and measure it in your shot film, the stamp will also be one inch. That it is a close focusing lens is ancillary. Most lenses are designed to be sharp at infinity and deteriorate at close. A macro lens is the opposite.
