Coverage

[Bob Hayes]

I think it?s a good idea to shoot a master for all the reasons mentioned. Also it forces the director to show you the whole scene. Quite often you?ll block and shoot one angle and move on only to find out you only saw part of the scene. Also I think it helps the editor to see the geography of the scene. Sometimes it gets pretty tricky as to where it is taking place. Wider shots also give you a sense of the atmosphere and mood.

 

The difference between insert and cutaway? I?d say an insert is a tight shot of something in the scene that is difficult to see in standard coverage and is important to the plot. E.g. a watch showing the character is running late. A cut away is a shot of action that is taking place in the scene but not seen the principle coverage of the scene. It is usually a shot that effects or is affected by the action in the scene. E.g. Cut to the people in a restaurant laughing when our character spills soup on his shirt.

[Tom Bays]

Revenge of the Sith used tons of wide establishing shots to bring you into its reality. I really loved that part of how it was done.

[Vincent T Sharma]

Revenge of the Sith used tons of wide establishing shots to bring you into its reality. I really loved that part of how it was done.

 

 

 

Great example by Kemper...........how about stranger than paradise, jim jarmusch's debut movie which has only master shots??

 

I agree with Mullen about the overuse of close ups in movies nowadays and misconception that wide shots are boring. I watched MI 3 the other day ...watching only their faces in the big screen was pretty irritating and I never felt the ambience around.

 

David, do you mean by saying master shots could be medium shots if used effectively to create the ambience or the atmosphere or even body language? Have you got any examples for effective use of closeups in movies? I was thinking about Alfred Hitchcock's movies ....

 

 

brad

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm just saying that a master -- by definition, a shot containing all the scene action and dialogue -- doesn't necessarily have to be a wide shot if a medium shot can accomplish that. No, it may not show off the setting as well, but perhaps this isn't the first time the setting has been shown.

 

Let's say the script has three scenes set in the same kitchen of a house, and the third scene is a man making a late-night sandwich alone when suddenly his wife comes into the room and talks to him. Well, maybe the master is just a countertop-up (waist-up) shot of the man making the sandwich and the wife appears in the b.g. and walks up to stand right behind him. That could be a master shot and it wouldn't be a wide shot. And considering it's the third time we've had a scene in this same kitchen location, showing it off is not a high priority anymore.

 

There are too many interesting close-ups in the history of cinema to list. A famous movie for its heavy use of close-ups is Dreyer's "Passion of Joan of Arc" as the faces of Joan's interrogators and judges seem to surround her from all sides.

 

I've always liked the ECU's in "2001" when HAL is reading the lips of Dave and Frank in the pod.

 

Hitchcock is good about the fact that once he goes in closer, he will stay there and move the camera with the actor rather than cut wider just for because it is easier, even if it means craning up as someone climbs a staircase (as in "Psycho".) He didn't believe in cutting for no other reason than it made it more convenient for the camera to change positions -- there had to be a narrative reason for the cut.

[Wendell_Greene]

Hitchcock is good about the fact that once he goes in closer, he will stay there and move the camera with the actor rather than cut wider just for because it is easier, even if it means craning up as someone climbs a staircase (as in "Psycho".) He didn't believe in cutting for no other reason than it made it more convenient for the camera to change positions -- there had to be a narrative reason for the cut.

 

 

Truffaut: In your technique everything is subordinated to the dramatic impact; the camera, in fact, accompanies the characters almost like an escort.

 

Hitchcock: While were on the subject of camera flow and of cutting from one shot to another, I'd like to mention what I regard as a fundamental rule: When a character who has been seated stands up to walk around the room, I will never change the angle or move the camera back. I alway start the movement on the close-up, the same size close-up I used while he was seated.

 

In most pictures, when two people are seen talking together, you have a close-up on the one of them, then a close-up on the other, then you move back and forth again, and suddenly the camera jumps back for a long shot, to show one of the characters rising to walk around. It's wrong to handle it that way.

 

Truffaut: Yes, because that technique PRECEDES the action instead of ACCOMPANYING it. It allows the public to guess that one ofthe characters is about to stand up or whatever. In other words, the camera should never anticipate what's about to follow.

 

Hitchcock: Exacty, because that dissipates the emotion and I'm convinced that's wrong. If a character moves around and you want to retain the emotion on his face, the only way to do that is to travel the close-up.

 

Excerpt from the book Hitchcock/Truffaut pp 265-6

[Vincent T Sharma]

Thats a great insight.......... Have you got any more insights from Master filmmakers about covering a scene and choosing the best take? Is there any generalised method for choosing the best take?

[David Mullen ASC]

You might want to read Walter Murch's books, particularly "Blink of an Eye", but books with interviews with editors in general too.

[Robert Goodrich]

I enjoyed that conversation with Hitchcock. It revealed a principle that I had known only from instinct: Do not anticipate the action.

 

When I'm cutting, I try to imagine that I'm an invisible observer, having my attention drawn to action the way I would if I was sitting in the middle of the scene. So I tend to cut picture with a slight delay after a character begins speaking if the character is interupting, or cut to them early if the character speaking to them invites me to see their reaction.

 

For instance if the line is, "You are a vile person. I never should have trusted you in the first place". I would cut to the subject of the insult right after "vile person", because if I was sitting there in that room I would naturally turn to see that character's reaction to being called vile. Even if they don't begin defending themselves until after "trusted you in the first place".

 

I have found that a lot of editing choices can be made by asking myself, "If I was there, what would I be looking at?"

 

And, or course, in life you never know what's coming next.

[Michael Nash]

I have found that a lot of editing choices can be made by asking myself, "If I was there, what would I be looking at?"

 

And, or course, in life you never know what's coming next.

 

That works well for a third-person point of view. But what If your story is told more first-person? Or objectively? You have to think about the point of view of the narrative, even if it "shifts" momentarily during the film.

 

Imagine your scenario from a first-person POV, from the person who's being told they are vile. You might simply hang on a CU of their face as they receive their admonishment, helping the viewer identify with what that character is going through emotionally. Kubrick is notorious for his objective POV's, where he'll let the action play out in a wider shot, deliberately putting the audience at a slight objective distance.

 

I think the narrative point of view is one of the most misunderstood and abused basics of film language. Yet it's largely responsible for the way that some of the most affecting films work. Think of it this way; "the camera represents the consciousness of the storyteller." Every shot, cut, and photographic emebellishment represents an awareness or emotion of the "entity" that's telling the story at that moment. When you look at it that way, you've automatically got a logic to guide you through your coverage. It tells you what you should do, what you can get away with, and what you can't do without breaking the flow of the narrative.

 

In movies the point of view often shifts from third person to first for key moments, and then back again. Or it may shift to something really objective to illustrate a point. It's okay for it to shift, it's part of the language. But you need to be aware of the POV at all times to guide your stylistic choices, because if you throw in a shot that simply looks "cool" but betrays the POV you're using to tell the story, then you lose your audience.

[Robert Goodrich]

That works well for a third-person point of view. But what If your story is told more first-person? Or objectively? You have to think about the point of view of the narrative, even if it "shifts" momentarily during the film.

 

Exactly. Again, since so much of my editing choices are instinctual, I'm not used to thinking about them in a formal or deliberate way. By now, some things are so ingrained I'm not sure why I do them. I've been editing my own movies for almost twenty years, but have never assisted a more experienced editor. That has its advantages and disadvantages I suppose. But the result is that most of the rules and techniques have been picked up from watching movies and internalized.

 

So it was nice to read the interview, as well as your comments, and realize that the language of film can sometimes be picked up by osmosis and experience. Like being dropped into the middle of a foreign country and having to to figure out to communicate.

[Michael Nash]

Exactly. Again, since so much of my editing choices are instinctual, I'm not used to thinking about them in a formal or deliberate way.

 

As a DP I tend to function more as a craftsman than as an artist. I'm usually trying to execute someone elses artistic vision, and rely on my own artistic sensibilities to "feel" or judge when it's being done right. The bulk of it though is kind of intellectual, where you have to come to your own understanding of what you're trying to say and how you're trying to say it.

 

It becomes even more intellectual when it's a brand new style you're unfamiliar with, or one that hasn't even been invented yet! That's the challenge, and the fun, for me. Kind of like exercising muscles you don't use often; it's tough at first but feels great once you get the hang of it. The goal of all that analysis is to become versed well enough in the language that you can rely more on instincts and trust that your choices will still fit the style.

 

I'm just as guilty as anyone of falling into favorite or "routine" choices and not thinking about them all the time. So sometimes you look for projects (or accept projects) that are not only just beyond your comfort zone, but maybe even in the complete opposite direction. I enjoy pulling apart something that's new to me and seeing what makes it work (or not work), and then put it back togther, hopefully in my own new way.

[Alex Ellerman]

For those interested, audio tape of Truffaut interviewing Hitch:

 

Part 1

[Vincent T Sharma]

Those tapes are great. Had been searching for them quite sometime but never came across......anyways thanks a lot.

 

What are the most common problems that newbies come across when blocking or covering a scene?

[David Mullen ASC]

What are the most common problems that newbies come across when blocking or covering a scene?

 

Lack of experience which makes the blocking unfriendly for camera / lighting or creates an excessive amount of coverage, with lots of screen direction flips, important beats happening in multiple spots in the set, etc. Conversely, an inexperienced person can also block people in unnatural poses for the camera.

 

Here's some things I've learned about blocking from a DP's perspective -- first, arrange the room's furniture to make life easier for you (put a key chair next to a lamp or window, etc.) Talk to the director and remind him or her what you two had pre-visualized for the scene.

 

But then once the actors start exploring the scene and finding their blocking, keep your mouth shut, don't interfere. You'll find that more often than not, an actor will naturally unblock themselves from something bad for camera without you having to say anything. I've seen early blockings where the actors were all over the place, standing up & down, crisscrossing, etc. and by the second or third pass, they self-edited their movements to something reasonable. And many actors are not adverse after the blocking to hear the DP's perspective as long as you aren't being pushy, like saying "when you step up to her on this line, can you stand over this shoulder instead of that one -- so as to not create a new screen direction on the reverse person's CU? Otherwise we'll have to cover the reverse reactions both left-to-right and right-to-left." Or "can you both take a step closer to that window?"

 

It also depends on how the director wants to cover the blocking -- he may have the actors move all around the set, but it may be OK if the close-ups only cover the point at which the actors land in one area.