Go backBack to selection

“Having a Crew Was Not an Option: DP Gianluca Matarrese on GEN_

A bald man wears a doctors coat and classes.GEN_, courtesy of Sundance Institute.

Patients seeking gender-affirming care and in vitro treatments in Italy flock to Niguarda public hospital, where Dr. Maurizio Bini is considered one of the preeminent experts in the field. This is the subject of director and cinematographer Gianluca Matarrese’s film GEN_, premiering in the World Cinema: Documentary Competition at Sundance this year. Amid an increasingly hostile conservative climate, Dr. Bini and his patients navigate social stigma alongside much-needed medical intervention.

Below, Matarrese discusses the decision to film most scenes from behind a book shelf, being inspired by Frederick Wiseman and relying on natural lighting.

See all responses to our annual Sundance cinematographer interviews here.

Filmmaker: How and why did you wind up being the cinematographer of your film? What were the factors and attributes that led to your being hired for this job?

Matarrese: I am both the director and the cinematographer for this film. I usually stay behind the camera for very intimate projects, and for this one, it was essential. Having a crew was not an option, we needed to be as discreet as possible and respect the patients’ safe space. It was crucial not to interfere with the consultation between the doctor and the patient. While the patient was aware of our presence, they also needed to feel comfortable enough to share their experiences and vulnerabilities. For these reasons, I took on the cinematography and sound myself.

At one point, when I discovered the ideal way to film inside the room, I realized my place was behind a bookshelf. I later added a second camera to capture additional angles during these intimate exchanges. Outside the doctor’s office, however, I had more creative freedom and enlisted the help of two other cinematographers. This allowed us to visually enhance the verbal sequences, providing them with a graphic and cinematic dimension.

The narrative naturally centered on the human body, so I needed to find ways to film the organic, the very core of all these exchanges and the dreams of those involved. I also focused on capturing the hospital’s spaces, such as the operating rooms and laboratories, which evoked a microscopic universe leading into the vastness of the cosmos. Then there was the natural world, the contrast and dialogue between science and nature, a central theme in the film and in the patients’ experiences.

The doctor himself embodied this connection to nature, retreating to forests to pick mushrooms. We spent time in his mountain sanctuary, and in these moments, I collaborated with another cinematographer to celebrate and elevate the beauty of the landscapes. These visuals resonate deeply with the film’s exploration of human desires and our connection to the natural and scientific worlds.

Filmmaker: What were your artistic goals on this film, and how did you realize them? How did you want your cinematography to enhance the film’s storytelling and treatment of its characters?

Matarrese: My goal was to approach the characters and people in this film with care and respect. I didn’t want to merely observe or adopt a voyeuristic perspective. I wanted my camera, my eye, my gaze, to remain respectful and aligned with the level of the conversations and exchanges. The intention was to stay present and immersed within these moments without intruding or drawing attention to the camera’s presence. I avoided frontal framing to ensure the camera never felt imposing. Instead, I aimed for the camera to “caress” the characters, gently accompanying them.

The only instance where a person faces the camera directly is with the final patient, who welcomes the new doctor, the future. This frontal gaze acts as an invitation, a way of saying, “We welcome you in, and we, as patients, are here for you too.” The film is also an attempt to democratize the portrayal of patients, especially when addressing topics like trans identity. These narratives are often presented in ways that sensationalize pain or highlight suffering. I wanted to avoid that, instead treating these issues with the same weight, dignity, and humanity as any other, while also humanizing the doctor by placing them on the same human level as the patients.

To maintain this respectful distance, we primarily used long focal-length lenses for scenes inside the doctor’s office. For the more graphic or visually expressive elements, such as the painted walls, natural settings, and the forest, we employed a broader range of lenses, including shorter focal lengths, to bring out the visual and emotional depth of those spaces

Filmmaker: Were there any specific influences on your cinematography, whether they be other films, or visual art, of photography, or something else?

Matarrese: Yes, my cinematography was shaped by a variety of influences, especially in how I approached capturing human interactions and the spaces they inhabit. Frederick Wiseman’s work was a major inspiration, particularly films like Welfare and Hospital. His ability to depict institutions and public spaces with a balance of observational distance and deep humanity resonated with me. Wiseman’s gaze avoids judgment and instead focuses on the rhythms of life within these environments, something I tried to emulate when filming the exchanges between the doctor and the patients.

Raymond Depardon also deeply influenced my approach, especially in his ability to portray the intersection of personal stories and institutional frameworks. His films often reflect a quiet intimacy within highly structured spaces, which inspired how I framed the doctor’s office as both a clinical environment and a stage for profoundly human moments. Depardon’s focus on unvarnished realism encouraged me to let the environment speak for itself, giving equal weight to silence, pauses, and fleeting gestures.

Agnès Varda was another key influence, particularly her ability to blend curiosity, compassion, and playfulness in her visual storytelling. Varda’s deep respect for her subjects and her willingness to explore both the poetic and mundane aspects of their lives pushed me to find beauty in the everyday. Her use of framing to draw connections between people and their environments encouraged me to look beyond the clinical setting of the hospital and embrace the surrounding natural world, forests, painted walls, and quiet retreats, as integral parts of the narrative.

These influences collectively shaped the film’s visual language, helping me balance the observational with the emotional, and the institutional with the personal.

Filmmaker: What were the biggest challenges posed by production to those goals?

Matarrese: The biggest challenge was certainly the limited time we had in this space. We had to work around the schedules of the consultations, and, for obvious budget reasons, we couldn’t afford to spend years filming. We needed to quickly establish a connection and a narrative with patients who, after their brief time with the doctor, whether 10 minutes or 30, might never be seen again. This was also part of the film’s concept: we didn’t need to delve into private lives. However, with more production time and stronger financial support, possibly from potential Italian partners, we could have achieved even more in terms of visual imagery.

I couldn’t use all the equipment I would have liked, particularly with my regular cinematographer, who typically accompanies me on fiction productions or films with a different setup, where we don’t have to be as invisible and discreet. I would have liked to light the office using artificial light to complement the natural light coming from the windows.

Filmmaker: What camera did you shoot on? Why did you choose the camera that you did? What lenses did you use?

Matarrese: I shot on the Panasonic Professional Compact 5.7K Super 35mm Cinema Camera AU-EVA1 and the Sony PXW-FS7. I chose these cameras because the Panasonic EVA is the one my cinematographer owns, and I use it frequently on my own projects. It’s great for immersion, very light, and works well alongside the Sony, which produces better file quality, and I also own that camera.

As for lenses, I used Zeiss series lenses, but also incorporated a Canon 70-200mm photographic lens.

Filmmaker: Describe your approach to lighting.

Matarrese: Since I couldn’t use artificial lighting, I relied on natural light. The fortunate aspect was that the hospital service had plenty of windows, providing a good source of light. I would turn off all the artificial ceiling lights, and sometimes I used table lamps. It’s the best solution when cinema lights aren’t available, and it works particularly well on faces. This technique comes from my cinematographer, who shared it with me. It’s how they used to do it in cinéma vérité and the Nouvelle Vague.

As Nestor Almendros, the cinematographer, once said: ‘We used a technique that featured no artificial lighting at all. We just waited until it was right.’ Directors like Godard, Rohmer, and Truffaut placed great importance on photography, but they didn’t want it to overpower the film.

Filmmaker: What was the most difficult scene to realize and why? And how did you do it?

Matarrese: I think the most difficult scenes to shoot were those involving patients with very sensitive stories, where I couldn’t afford to miss a single word or facial expression. I was also deeply emotionally involved, yet at the same time, I had to stay attuned to the energy of the scene, moving between the doctor and the patient with just one camera. You have to think about editing while filming, knowing that once you make a choice, you commit to it, even though there’s always the risk of missing something on the other side. But it’s all about accepting the choices you’ve made.

Sometimes, you feel limited by those choices, but that’s when you find creative solutions. How can I portray this person without showing their face (for example, if they didn’t give permission)? Which details do I focus on? When is the right time to move the camera? It requires intense concentration on the narrative and deep listening, without being swayed by emotion in the moment. That’s why distance is so important: the emotion comes later, when you watch the footage at home or when you’re in the editing room, analyzing it.

Filmmaker: Finally, describe the finishing of the film. How much of your look was “baked in” versus realized in the DI?

Matarrese: I’m fortunate to have very loyal collaborators, such as cinematographers Beniamino Barrese, Mattia Colombo, and Jacopo Loiodice, and colorist Diego Diaz, with whom I’ve worked on seven films so far. They’re all familiar with the equipment I use, especially when it comes to sensitive and intimate storytelling. I’d say most of the look was “baked in” during filming, but since I use different cameras, Diego’s contribution is crucial. We also spend a lot of time on color correction to ensure visual consistency, and then we get very creative, drawing inspiration from cinema, photography, and art to find the right look and mood for the film.

TECH BOX

Film Title: GEN_

Camera: Panasonic Professional Compact 5.7K Super 35mm Cinema Camera AU-EVA1 and the Sony PXW-FS7

Lenses: Zeiss and Canon 70-200mm

Lighting: None

Processing: Digital

Color Grading: Diego Diaz on Da Vinci

© 2025 Filmmaker Magazine. All Rights Reserved. A Publication of The Gotham