Michael Mann’s Ferrari features some of the best racing films ever set to screen with a truly kinetic energy as we follow the 1957 Mille Miglia race. The film takes place in the summer of 1957 following Enzo Ferrari, played by Academy Award nominee Adam Driver, through his personal and professional struggles. Academy Award winning cinematographer, Erik Messerschmidt, discussed his work on the film with our Awards Editor, Jillian Chilingerian.

This interview contains spoilers for the film, Ferrari.

Jillian Chilingerian:  I’m really excited to talk to you because you have done two of my favorite films of this year, my second and third, Ferrari and The Killer. And I also think, personally that they are the coolest-looking films of the year. So I’m very excited to just be able to talk to you about Ferrari. 
Erik Messerschmidt: Thank you!

Jillian Chilingerian: So first, I kind of want to get started in the research process behind Ferrari because I feel like the authenticity of the essence and the era you can just really feel it on all levels, specifically with how the cars move and the racing sequences and us traveling through different parts of the town. So I want to start there with, how was it to dive into all of that.
Erik Messerschmidt: Sure. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, it started with Michael [Mann]. Michael had done an enormous amount of research, he’s been working on the film for better, you know, more or less for 30 years. So, he had incredible libraries of footage, literature, firsthand accounts, interviews, and his own photography. And it’s just a like a treasure trove of information and you’re right, I mean, the historical accuracy is incredibly, incredibly important to him as a filmmaker, I think it always is to him, but particularly when it came to this film, you know, out of respect for the brand, but also the, you know, the respect to that. For motorsport in general and you know, you wanted people that understand automotive racing and cars to watch the film and feel like it was authentic. So, yeah, there was a lot of research tons of it tons.

Jillian Chilingerian: Yeah, I got to watch this with a full audience, which I feel like this film like people were not expecting just to hear audible gasps, multiple parts. So, that was really fun. And so, it’s one of my memorable experiences of this year specifically, the car crash sequence of this film, which I didn’t do too much research before going in because I just like to come in with a clean slate for every historical movie. The racing sequences are so incredible. It’s one of those movies where I just sat there and I was thinking how did they do this it just feels so different and unconventional to what we’re familiar with in a lot of car movies. I love a good racing sequence so I was curious about going into mapping out which specific shots that you’re getting because it just feels again, so unconventional, and as the audience, I felt that I was like in the car or it’s just like the intensity of racing, which usually I feel like we just see close-ups or like we’re never getting with the whole picture of what’s going on, but this one, we’re right in there.
Erik Messerschmidt: Yeah. Well, there’s a long history of car racing techniques. You know, there are all sorts of tools that have been developed to get the camera where we want it to shoot cars. And, you know, a lot of it is developed around the idea of making sure that the audience understands who’s in first and who’s a second or third, who’s going to overtake, and the kind of plot points of a race which are important in this film, but less so then. Then I think about the kind of dramatic intensity of what these guys are going through in their own in their own journey. You know, particularly Alfonso de Portago, you know, desperately wanting to succeed and so Michael didn’t want to use the kind of traditional techniques, he did exactly what you said, he wanted to put the audience in the car seat, you know, he wanted you to feel like you smelled gasoline while you were watching the movie. So yeah, I mean, we had held the camera in the passenger seat of the car. We didn’t go for these super stable glamour shots in the car, we weren’t fetishizing the cars, it’s not the film about selling the audience how sexy these cars are. You know, these cars are tools, these are instruments of the success of the characters and they’re ultimately to Ferrari, they’re somewhat disposable in the end, you know, he wants them to be beautiful, he wants them to be extraordinary machines, but they’re all serving the purpose of winning the race. And you know, I think those kinds of ideas are important and critical success of the film. You know, I said that the characters in the cars are the tools that the drivers use, and it’s the drivers that win the race and it’s, you know, it’s about it’s about guts, and it’s about kind of putting it all on the line when you come up to that corner you’re gonna break later and the other guy it hopefully that’s what you get out of it sounds like you did, so that’s good.

Jillian Chilingerian: Yeah, I probably will never do like race car driving because what you mentioned like the disposability of these people like when that original driver dies with his girlfriend there and they just move on to the next driver, and it just kind of hits you on that this isn’t just about who wins the race, just like the sacrifices you make to go into that. And I love that you mentioned the character of Enzo because I feel like this movie is so character-driven, and he really informs every single aspect as this is so much more than just a racing movie, but also this marriage that’s at the center that’s really holding it together. And I want to talk about using the character of Enzo as he’s this man that’s kind of imprisoned by his masculinity and his dreams as kind of like guiding how we follow him through the camera work and the lighting, I love that it feels like this painting and I think in each area of his life, we can kind of point out the differences of how that affects them.
Erik Messerschmidt: Yeah, you know, it’s I remember saying to Michael in the beginning, I feel like this movie is kind of about the tragedy of the pursuit for success, you know, the risk to your own humanity. When that is your priority. And that’s, to me, you know, I mean, obviously, masculinity is a huge part of it, the kind of blinded sessions that men have, you know, I mean, I guess everyone does, but, you know, in the case of this movie, I mean, I really I read it more as the hero of the film. But, yeah, he’s sort of is to some degree, I suppose. A prisoner of his own construction and, you know, any kind of pursuit of his own happiness he’s built bars around his life. And, you know, at least in my own contribution, the movie felt like we really needed to feel a distinct mood difference between the Ferrari house and Lina Lardi. Home out in the country, you know that this is the place where Enzo left his hair down, you know, this is the place where he goofs off. It’s a place where he makes jokes. And everywhere else in his life, he has to be this kind of, you know, serious version of them in order to succeed the way he wants to, and then you know, the kind of quality I think the movie does slightly call into question that that whole idea but yeah, I mean, you know, the farmhouse is bright, and it has sunlight and its contrast is lower and it’s sort of it feels more lived in it’s less structured, and you didn’t even go into his house for these as the scenes with Penelope [Cruz]. And it’s very stark and very aristocratic and very restrained and simple. And then kind of simple and elegant. And you know, and that was the that was the goal. And you know, the same thing goes for the factory, you know, it’s all business there and, you know, and ends that property in his office. I mean, is in the film as a reconstruction. There’s actually a reconstruction of the office of a product factory in Montana, and it’s exactly that blue color. And he didn’t have desk accessories, he had a telephone and a pencil stand, and he was a very neat and tidy person but not distracted by trinkets. You know, he was someone who was kind of all business certainly at work and, you know, Mike was interested in exploring that so that you know, so that said is laid in a very utilitarian way. You know, it’s almost it’s a very minimalist, you know, the overhead fluorescence are on and the windows are there and that and that’s really all you get, and most of that is driven by Michael by the way they come by his desire to keep things very in line with what’s happening with the characters and you know, that’s it’s I think it his films, it’s always what it is, you know, he doesn’t get distracted by you know, some filmmakers get distracted by the aesthetic first. You know, Michael’s character first and story first, and everything else has to step in line behind that.

Jillian Chilingerian: Yeah, no, I think it’s very evident in this film, which is another reason why I love it of just how much the character and forms these spaces he’s occupying and I love how they’re just the office is so barren and because I think it’s more realistic because I feel like sometimes for the audience like you just get distracted by things and you’re like, why is that there? Like when there’s so much detail around it, but I just love that he has nothing in his office. And something I love about your work that I’ve picked up through like Mank, The Killer, Devotion, and now this one is your use of light; I feel like it’s so unique and rare, and like in these scenes between Laura and Enzo when they are having these very intense arguments between what is happening just the fluidity of the light moving through them without it being overly distracting. So, I’m curious about your approach to lighting within the spaces of his office where it’s so barren and there’s nothing and then you have these very dark grim and his home in the city. 
Erik Messerschmidt: Thank you. I mean, that scene is my favorite scene in the film. I think that the argument scene between them and you know, I think lighting can be very seductive. You can just kind of get distracted by glamour, precision style, or whatever. And to me, it all has to start with what the environment is like it has to come from a place of reality for me. And then it’s about gesture, you know, I mean, I like to do sort of as little as I can, you know, but I like the stuff that I do to do kind of a big, big gesture, I’m not a pointillist and more expressionist were you know, I want it to be one big choice basically. So you know, in the case of the house, everything is lit from the top because it’s utilitarian and conformist and structured and organized, you know, and things aren’t done in the interest of comfort in that home. There’s always kind of a front you know, there’s always this kind of structured facade on everybody in those scenes. So yeah, I try not to over-intellectualize it either,, some of it is just like in service to how Mike wants to move the camera and you’re like looking at the way that the scene is falling into place. And you know, I try to when I’m working, it’s like chess for me, I’m trying to think of like five or six different moves, depending on where the actors end up, depending on how we decided to cover the scene and what, you know how the scene takes shape. And so there’s, you know, at least on this movie, there was an element of improvisation as well in the process of like setting all this stuff up because we’re, you know, trying to try to watch what’s happening on the set with Mike or and the actors in particular, especially on these really dramatic scenes that are a little bit more freeform, you know, the different than the some of the sequences which are far more kind of structured and nailed down. You know, the scene you mentioned is a little bit more loose and free.

Jillian Chilingerian: I’m just always sitting there like, what were the thoughts? I’m a fan of the way that like you do you shoot digitally with directors like Michael Mann and David Fincher, I feel it’s so textured and so lived in, Ferrari, specifically. We get a lot of references to Renaissance paintings. I feel like some of the films they’ve watched in the last few years that are digital are just so one dimensional that I wish this was shot on film, but this one, and even The Killer, they are just so beautiful on digital, so I don’t know like specifics to ask about digital but I’m just curious because I always notice like a big difference with certain filmmakers and their cinematographers when they go digital or when they go film and I just think it’s like a fascinating contrast.
Erik Messerschmidt: I mostly shoot digitally, I like shooting digitally. I like your computer to see it. And I’m not I’m not necessarily nostalgic for film, even though I came up in that era, you know, it’s not like a thing and I don’t even really equate film with a look the way everyone else does. I kind of feel like I can get there. Or I can generally get where I want to go. You know, it’s like I never approach my work. Like, how can I do this? So that a look like a film like, you know, I try it, you know, it’s like, if that’s what I want, I’ll just go shoot film, you know, it’s like, but what I try to do is like, think about how I’m going to do it in a way that supports the movie. And I actually personally believe that the film versus digital work is not necessarily an aesthetic one. It’s a process one, you know, it’s like sort of how you want the working practice of the set to influence your choices on the day and you know, those choices influence how you make the film, and you know, but yeah, I mean, I think that I’m not afraid of texture, I’m not afraid of underexposure. I’m not afraid of pushing things around, you know, I mean, these cameras are all designed around, replicating human vision. And they do that extraordinarily well. You know, and it’s very easy to get an image that is that is exemplary of human vision with a digital camera these days. I mean, your iPhone does it better than most of them actually. But to me, that’s not cinema. Cinema is about excluding things. It’s not really about including things it’s like excluding colors. Adding contrast, or subtracting contrast, or adding levels of relation or diffusion or defocus, it’s all about the kind of choices that you make, and those are the same choices you make with the film you know, so it starts with a conversation around production design and costumes and hair and makeup and ultimately lighting and how the footage is handled and it’s all kind of working in the same place from the same point of view, usually with a strong director, and you get somewhere, it’s like when you don’t when everyone’s sort of doing their own thing and the production designer has their own palette in mind and the costume designer has a different palette in mind that directors checked out and they’re not invested in that the cinematographer is trying to do their own thing, the movie gets very, very confused and kind of looking really weird. You know, Michael had a strong, stronghold over what he wanted the movie to be. And it’s very concerned about what the set looks like and the designers constantly listening to him and we’re all there together. all the time saying, ‘Okay, these are the colors this is the palette, this is the structure,’ and you know, ultimately we settled on it, but I mean, I’m glad you noticed that they work really hard for that. and, I try just try to think about what’s best for the movie that we’re doing.

Jillian Chilingerian: I love that you’re bringing up the color palette because I talked to the Production Designer, Maria, earlier this week and I was just talking about how he’s dressed in these monochromes and these environments and then just how it’s all captured, I feel like it’s not the first thing people would think, but I think the way it’s all so character-driven, when that crash comes, it just really takes you off guard because it’s almost this idyllic tale but then we get to these tragedies, but it kind of guides you in a place where it just it’s more impactful, I think.
Erik Messerschmidt:Yeah. No, it’s good. Thank you. No, we didn’t want the audience to see any red until they saw the cars and that’s really the only time you see right in the film, you know. When I’m in Italy, it just feels yellow to me.

Jillian Chilingerian: Yeah, I feel like for an American viewer, it’s a different look. We watch movies that are set in Italy or like France, or the UK. It’s as if we have a specific set of like, what we think that looks like, and then and with Ferrari, it’s like a different pocket of Italy that it’s not really overexposed and I think it plays back to the authenticity world that is built here with the production design and costume design, and watching it all come together with cinematography that really put us in there.
Erik Messerschmidt: Well, thank you!

Jillian Chilingerian: Well, that was my last question. But thank you so much. I was watching the movie, and I was like, I just have to talk to Erik because how did he do this? And I really loved the film. I’m just a fan of your cinematography from Mindhunter to now so I’m really excited to get the chance to speak to you all about Ferrari and Michael Mann. I just that he was able to finally get this film to come to the screen and it was so beautiful.
Erik Messerschmidt: Me too, you know? Ha, thank you so much! Of course, anytime!

Ferrari is exclusively in theaters now.