After my last post where I said we did 30 takes of the final scene of the movie, these are some of the questions people posted:
"It seems intuitive that a pivotal scene would take all day to shoot. But if you thought Czuchry nailed it the first time or the the third or tenth time, why keep shooting it? I assume the director had a good idea of how you wanted to shoot the scene--were you just trying to fine-tune it as much as possible, or were there variables you couldn't predict until you started filming?"
"Why so much? Why not use multiple cameras and only do a few takes?"
I thought the same things and asked the same questions when I first started. So, I need to back-up and explain an aspect of film making that is fundamental to the process, but that almost no one outside of the business understands:
Coverage.
Take the "Who's coming with me" scene in Jerry Maguire, when he is leaving the office after getting fired. Watch it here, at least half of it or so:
When you watch it, it flows and weaves seemlessly. You could probably assume that they shot that in like four or five takes, with three or so cameras, and that's that. Wrong. My guess is that that scene took about anywhere from three to five days to shoot (or more), and that's WITH two or sometimes three different cameras running the whole time.
How could that be?
This is because each new angle requires a whole new set-up. That means all the massive lighting arrays have to rearranged, and then specifically set and adjusted to light the scene and the faces of the actors correctly, the camera has to be reset, the angles have to decided on, marks set, continuity checked, actors placed, a rehearsal take, and then you shoot, usually at least two or three takes, because you need options in the editing room.
Now go watch the scene again. EVERY time you see a different angle--a reaction from a secretary, a view of the boss on the catwalk, Jerry from a different angle--that is another set-up. Each set-up is AT LEAST an hour of work, and probably many many more (depending on various factors). When Jerry walks up and down the aisle talking, that isn't one shot. That is at least TWO different shots, one from the front, and one from the back. Actually, it's probably four--another one from each side as well. Each one is a new set-up, and those take a ton of time.
Why can't you just use multiple cameras? Well, for many reasons, the main one being that you'll see them in the shot. Think about it--even if you use two or three cameras, none of them can be in the view range of any of the others. That leaves 180 degrees of viewing ALWAYS uncovered, even if you use ten cameras, and in reality, you only have a very limited view range without getting something in the camera that shouldn't be there--lights, crew, etc.
Another reason you can't really use multiple cameras is lighting. You wouldn't believe the lighting arrays you have to set up to make something look natural on film. You can get an idea of what they're like here, here, and here. This means that, generally speaking, you can't do a huge range of motion without fucking up the lighting and thus the look.
But beyond that, another reason you need a ton of takes is so you have options in the editing room. What looks right on set can not be right for any number of reasons--something is wrong in the background, the continuity is off, the sound is off, the film gets messed up in processing, something happens narratively or any number of a thousand other things. The more angles and takes you have, the more options you have.
This is really only the tip of the iceberg. It is so much more complex, but this should give you an idea of why one ten minutes scene requires ten set-ups and an entire day to shoot. In reality, this should have taken us at least three days to shoot, but because Matt fucking nailed it on every take, and because we have a really hard-working and motivated crew, it saved us an IMMENSE amount of time. At least a day.
Comment and discuss
Digg it · del.icio.us · StumbleUpon · Fark It · Print Friendly
