For the 12th year in a row, Angénieux honored a prominent cinematographer at the Cannes Film Festival. Dion Beebe, ASC, ACS received the Pierre Angénieux Tribute on Friday, May 23, 2025 in the Buñuel Theatre of the Palais des Festivals. Dion has won many awards for his work, including a Best Cinematography Oscar and a BAFTA in 2006 for Memoirs of a Geisha. Additional credits include: Chicago (directed by Rob Marshall, 2002); Collateral (Michael Mann, 2004); Miami Vice (Michael Mann, 2006); Gemini Man (Ang Lee, 2019); The Little Mermaid (Rob Marshall, 2023); and many more. Dion is currently working on Michael, directed by Antoine Fuqua.

Jon: Congratulations on your Pierre Angénieux Tribute at Cannes. You endured earlier interviews with me — in 2005 for Cinematographer Style and last year for FDTimes. 

Dion: It’s been good practice. Looking back at them, a lot is still relevant. We spoke about film and style. 

Let’s begin with style. Ralph Gibson recently said that great photographers have a visual signature, a definable style that is instantly recognizable, that sets them apart from everyone else. “I can recognize a Lartigue or a Cartier-Bresson from a hundred feet away,” he said.

I think that is more true for the stills photographer with hands on the camera in a very direct way. For the cinematographer we require more participation from the people around us. Our style and approach will also change depending on the material, the story, the script. Your collaborations are so important with all the people you’re working with on a set—the director, production designer, costuming, lighting, etc. What becomes important in the journey of making a film is to define your style, to define the atmosphere and the look that you are after. You’re going to have to collaborate with a lot of people to get there. Of course, the lighting approach that you have, your use of color or camera movement will become distinguishable to someone who’s following the cinematographer’s work. But I do think there is a difference between the influence that the stills photographer has over style versus the process of collaborating on a film.

With a stills photographer, it’s often one person, perhaps with an assistant, and a small camera. I remember your saying that the camera is only as good as the crew behind it or around it.

Absolutely. I remember when I started on Memoirs of a Geisha, I wanted to shoot anamorphic film with the lens extremely wide open for shallow depth of field. I started testing that process; it is incredibly demanding on the focus puller. I can have all of all the best intentions in the world about the style, but if I’m going into dailies and things are soft or important scenes are not registering properly, you really have to adapt to that. 

I was very fortunate to have a brilliant team, but you are often only as good as your team. It’s not me picking up a camera and pointing it. Sometimes I do not even have my hands on the camera—the camera operators do. It’s a dance between all these people to capture images in this sometimes enormously frustrating process of what we do. If you have a team and a language between them, then you are already ahead before you start. 

However, because I started in stills photography, I often fantasize about being out on my own with a camera in my hand and not having to deal with 150 people. 

How did you get into film?

I was born in Brisbane, Australia, moved to South Africa. My parents were pretty adventurous. Australian dad, South African mom.  One of my brothers was born in the UK, two were born in South Africa and two of us were born in Australia, so they were dragging us around. We bounced around: Zimbabwe for a moment, and then Cape Town. I pretty much did all my schooling there and then left for film school at 18 in Australia. 

My dad was actually a dentist, but a frustrated photographer. My mom raised five boys. And then she had a very big career as a makeup artist doing photo fashion work and editorial after she got a couple of us out of the house. Dad set up his practice in Cape Town and he worked in the townships as well. It was assisting him in the townships where I discovered I definitely didn’t want to do dentistry.

What was your first camera?

My dad had a range of Pentax cameras and mostly zooms. There was a good bohemian photography arts scene in Cape Town at that time. He was into fashion photography and worked on the side doing headshots for models. I’m not sure if it was the photography or the women, which probably motivated me to do the same thing. You see a guy with the camera getting all the attention. That looked like a profession to try.

Are any of your brothers in the film business?

Yes, Damien Beebe is a director of photography and camera operator. He has operated for me on most of the movies I’ve done in the UK. Another brother, who we went to film school with me,  went into directing and now he teaches in Sydney. Another brother is a metal sculptor. So clearly we all were influenced by our dad’s frustration about wanting to be in the arts. So four of us ended up “without real jobs.”

Being honored at Cannes surely beats working for a living.

It’s been a long time since I’ve been there. I went with my first film. I had two shorts that screened at Cannes when I was still in film school and then my first feature film, Crush, directed by Alison McLean was accepted in competition. I don’t think it really registered how amazing that was and in the end it was my wife who insisted I go. It was pretty inspiring  to step into that world as a 24 year old filmmaker. 

Since you’re at Cannes receiving the Pierre Angénieux award, it would be nice to talk about their lenses. Ironically, some of your predecessors said they didn’t know Angénieux had a long history making primes nor did they use zooms. 

‘ve used zoom lenses since I started, always being an important part of my package due to their versatility. Starting out at AFTRS (Australian Film, Television and Radio School) in Sydney, and graduating to low budget Australian features, being able to move fast and efficiently was essential. Our crews were small and we were shooting movies in weeks not months. When we could afford it, the object of desire was always the Angénieux 10:1 35mm format zoom (25-250) which is an incredible lens. I could seldom afford to have it for the entire job so we would often rent it as needed by the day because as a line item, it was  too expensive for these one million dollar movies we were making.

It seems a large part of the business is heading back into that direction, especially streamers and series from all over the world, budgeted at a million dollars. 

It is interesting. Everything is on the table right now in terms of production and budgets. The contraction of streaming has meant that everyone’s had to really step up in terms of how they’re going to meet the demand. The days of making anything and everything with unlimited budgets are behind us. We’re at an interesting juncture because there’s still a huge demand for content and it has opened up to the world in terms of who is making that content and where it is being made. It’s an interesting time and having a son coming into the film industry at this point in time is exciting, challenging and definitely interesting. 

Are you still using zoom lenses on your current jobs? 

Yes. I’m currently working on Michael, which is the Michael Jackson movie. We’ve been doing a lot of arena concerts, set pieces, songs of Michael’s, and the Angénieux 12:1 (36-435 mm) is absolutely essential. When there are a thousand extras in the crowd and you’re trying to shoot as efficiently as possible with complex lighting cues and performance on stage,  the flexibility of something like the 12:1 zoom is something that I end up relying on quite a lot.

My current package includes two of the 12:1 Optimo Zooms. I also use the Angénieux EZ Zoom series. They are very lightweight and go on Steadicam and handheld setups. They’re very compact, lightweight, and have amazing close focus. They are incredibly versatile: you can adapt them to Super35 or Full Frame. We carry the EZ 1 (15-40) and EZ 2 (30-90). The movie covers 3 decades of Michael’s life.  

What cameras are you using?

We’re on the VENICE 2 for Michael. When I’m in handheld newsreel mode, I’ve been shooting a lot of 16mm on a little Canon Scoopic. 

Wow. I remember those 100’ daylight spools.

Yes, the little daylight loads. It’s funny, we’ve been trying to mess up some of the B-roll 16mm footage. We opened the camera door and tried to get light leaks onto the film. But it was difficult to get any random light onto the negative unless it was coming directly through the lens. It’s crazy. 

They did a good job making that camera. And the daylight spools. 

I assume you use a zoom lens when you have to work quickly or you have a lot of setups, as opposed to primes. However, some people say they still prefer prime lenses in those situations. However, do primes slow you down?

Absolutely. A zoom allows you to change and adapt to varying situations. A lot of movies that I do have a lot of action or are quite kinetic. I’m often into four or five camera setups and there’s an an energy and a chaos that comes with that. The big zooms are really handy for capturing that action. 

I know Roger Deakins’s feelings on zooms and that he is reluctant to change the focal length in order to get a tighter shot. He is very much about primes and moving the camera if you want to get closer. That’s absolutely a relevant way to work and there’s a discipline to that. Yes, you can stage action and do it in a very choreographed way.

But if I’m working with Doug Liman or Michael Bay, there’s a energy on the set that you have to capture and adapt to. Otherwise, it can become a bit of a freight train, this slow moving thing where every time you’ve got to change your setup or swing a lens everything grinds to a halt. Whereas some directors just want to roll. No waiting. As the cinematographer I want to be able to deliver and capture that energy. So you want that ability to be able to crash in on the zoom, follow the action and fuel a lot of that chaos and energy on a set.

It is not just about convenience. Yes, the zoom lens is a convenience, but it’s about momentum on a set. It’s about an actor in a very emotional scene and you want the closeup, but “Hang on, give me a moment. Let me change the lens, hold that emotion, hold that thought, give me five minutes.” And the director is on set having an emotional moment of their own.

These are concepts beyond not having discipline and changing your lens size because you can’t be bothered to move the camera. I’m sure that happens, but if you know you’re going into heavy action, which is tightly choreographed or not, or  loose and random, then yes, I absolutely will use zooms to make sure I don’t miss the moment.

I’ve been on set many times where a scene suddenly becomes very emotional, the actor starts to go into a performance that none of us were expecting, and I’ll get on the zoom control and  slowly tighten up the shot because now you’ve got something special happening. At that point, the actual focal length of the lens is unimportant. What matters most to me is getting the performance. It’s no longer, “Oh, I can’t do that because I would never be on that focal length.” It’s like “Get the performance.” As much as we cinematographers want to control those aspects and choices, there are moments that will and should overwhelm those choices, especially when comes to performance.

That’s a very articulate and interesting explanation of zooms. But they are not necessarily documentary style?

No, not at all. Everyone knows you put a zoom on a camera for a documentary because you often don’t control the situation. If you are in a very fluid and changing environment, stopping to change a lens is a problem. And we are now in this amazing place when we shoot digitally where we can roll for an hour without cutting. These tools help create very fluid environments on set for actors and directors. Sometimes those tools can be abused, like, the camera keeps rolling in the hopes of catching something. But it can also be magical because suddenly you keep rolling and you watch the actors finding a place and something does evolve because you’re allowing that process to develop. Bringing those flexible tools like a zoom lens and digital cameras have transformed documentary filmmaking. We can now roll for an hour and suddenly things will happen in the frame. You’re not in the changing bag desperately trying to load the film in the middle of some amazing moment. 

In one of our interviews you quoted Gabriel Bauer, inventor of the Moviecam, saying a camera is just a box with a lens on it. Cameras and lenses are tools. The question is: what are we looking at, what are we trying to achieve? What are we trying to capture? What is the essence of this moment? As the cinematographer, certainly my thought process is how can I help achieve that moment?

On Memoirs of a Geisha, which was filmed with anamorphic prime lenses, with super shallow depth of field, the approach was very disciplined and could not be random. Everything had to be art directed and every frame had to be carefully considered and lit. Compare that to something like Edge of Tomorrow or 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, directed by Michael Bay, where there’s a kinetic energy of those movies. If I had approached them in the same ways as Memoirs, it would have been a disaster. 

I see that as an important part of the collaboration with the director—guiding the story with the right tools. If it is right to be on primes, keep a distance and be more observational, then fine. It’s often much easier to be in these carefully considered frames then dealing with the chaos of 360 degree action with multiple cameras. 

If you’re on multiple cameras, are you operating one of them or how are you adjusting the zooms?

I came up operating my own camera in Australia. That’s how you did it. And it was important to me too, because coming out of stills, composition has always been very important. As I started working in the US and the films got bigger, that didn’t really make sense anymore. I still occasionally get on a camera and when I’m shooting smaller things, I will operate myself, but with the bigger features, it allows me to be with the director more and to stand back and look at what the cameras are getting. If one of the cameras is on a zoom I will sometimes run the zoom control  to my monitor and use that to enhance movement or imperceptibly zoom in on a performance. 

Or I will communicate with my operators via headset and make super subtle adjustments during a take, making sure not to draw attention to the zoom. Communication between all members of my camera team is key as we all need to be working in synchronicity, wether that’s complimenting movement or composition or timing a focus pull, we all need to be on the same page.

And the dialog about vintage lenses versus modern lenses? 

We’ve reached a point where the camera systems are capturing at such a high resolution and in a lot of different formats, whether we’re Super35 or Full Frame, that I do understand how looking at lenses as a way to manipulate the image now has become the cinematographer’s go-to way to influence the look, feel and tone. You’re capturing so much data. It’s brilliant and amazing. 

But then if you want soft highlights or you want to fall off here or there, or you may want to even feel a bit of the vignetting with the lens, or you’re reaching for an older style or feel—then, yes, vintage glass has become very popular as a way for the cinematographer to manipulate the image. It also goes to the fact that with digital processing and grading there is so much post-production influencing the image that cinematographers try to do what they can up front. Often, that means turning to vintage glass to do it. 

I will say that the Angénieux Optimo Primes are really interesting because those primes are adaptable. You are able to change elements inside the lens. Take a set of Angénieux Optimo Primes, which is some of the best glass you’re going to find, but maybe it’s a little too clean for the look you are after on a particular film. Maybe you’re looking at something that’s period and you want to lean into a different look. Being able to adapt those lenses, whether it’s about changing the vignette on the lens or altering the depth of focus, those sorts of things are becoming more and more appealing to cinematographers when we are putting our packages together.

Sort of the way Dan Sasaki is doing at Panavision? Only now, almost any rental house can adjust the look of the lens like a bespoke tailor to the DP. 

Exactly. You take the lens and you customize it. Angénieux are doing that by letting you drop filters in the back, or add a different optical element inside, or changing the iris. These are the tools that cinematographers are reaching for right now. 

Rental houses really need to make that a valued service right now. They’ve got to be like, “This is your system. Take this out, put that in, mess with them a little,” and that’s what cinematographers want. They don’t want to hear, “Oh, well, you can’t touch that, and that’s going to throw everything off.” They want to be able to mess with the lens because everyone wants their own look and feel. Not everyone really understands the potential of the Optimo Primes. 

Do you want this customization available on zooms as well?

The thing about those Angénieux zooms is that they’re so well engineered, they don’t breathe. When you do a subtle zoom into an actor during a scene and I’ve used a lot of focal lengths on a zoom to emphasize a closeup that maybe wasn’t planned. So having a lens that doesn’t breathe, that holds focus in those situations is absolutely critical. I don’t think anyone really wants a zoom lens with too much character because you’re not necessarily trying to draw attention to the fact that you’re on a zoom unless you can use it to emphasize action or use it in a kinetic way. But most of the time you are supplementing your primes with the zoom. 

Getting back to the original topic of individual style, when you’re up for a movie and you talk to a director, do you think they see a style that flows through all your work?

Probably every cinematographer has a style. We have techniques that we probably lean on in different situations and types of lighting. I struggle to identify it, but then maybe that is because I’m in it.

Style may be unconscious but apparent to others? 

If you put an object on a table and give 50 people a camera, everyone’s going to photograph it differently. But if you looked at one person shooting an object over a period of time, you would probably see them doing a similar thing. I might be going low on the table or Wes Anderson would keep going into a bird’s-eye view.

I would say that your style involves interesting camera moves, bold lighting— smooth operator.

Movement probably is a big part of the language that I enjoy. Sure, I’ve done my share of static framing. But I do see movement as being an important part of the language of the movies I do.