Film Crew Size

[Bob Hayes]

When a DP is hired to do a one million dollar picture the first thing he hears from the director and producer is ?We want it to look like a five million dollar picture.? So we are really shooting a five million dollar film for one million dollars. That already puts a huge strain on all departments to live up to unrealistic expectations. Two police cars just aren?t enough for the shot. A five million dollar picture would have ten. As a DP your small crew is usually expected to try to achieve the work of a much larger unit.

 

Extra man days help keep the salaries hirer for your regular crew and reduce the presure on the hard days.

[Guest]

I remember this call sheet from "Lawrence of Arabia" that listed one morning as needing 1000 extras with 1000 horses, 1000 swords and rifles, etc.

 

Those where the days of great filmmaking!!

 

Today it would read, need 10 extras, with 10 horses, CG the rest.

 

R,

[Delorme Jean-Marie]

hi

to let you know, it may be the same in the U.S

in france, a day by day job on a set is rated 25% more, it means for the production, having you 3 extra days in the week or the 5 days of the week costes them the same.

beleave me they will make you come 2 more days just not to pay you having a sun bath at the beach ;)

[Stuart McCammon]

This discussion reminds me of a time, shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, when the DP decided he needed to fly a 40 x 40 silk about 20 feet off the ground to get the look just right - of course it rained and we ended up buying a brand new 40 x 40 silk.

 

That experience, and many others like it, are why I love small crews. You couldn't even attempt something like that with a small crew - you have to be creative and resourceful instead. Go for it with the small crews man, you will learn alot, be less bored and in better shape)

[David Mullen ASC]

It's funny because I sometimes have the opposite thought -- I saw a behind-the-scenes shot of DP Shawn Mauer having the grips walk a 20'x20' silk alongside a Steadicam during a moving shot on "Greatest Game Ever Played", and I've heard stories of Storaro doing similar things, and I wonder if I'm too easy on the grips because I wouldn't even dream of demanding such a thing... so will I ever be great if I don't start demanding the impossible?

[Evan Winter]

will I ever be great if I don't start demanding the impossible?

 

that is a particularly interesting question!

 

evan

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hehe. That reminds me of an art director's anecdote I came up with when trying to explain to someone what it is I do.

 

A concept artist had created two creature concepts. One that sort of looked like a dog, and one that sort of looked like a bug. He presented the two concepts to the art director who looked at them for a second and then asked "What if you combined the two? Take the tough stoutness of the dog and blend it with the speed of the bug?"

 

The concept artist slaved for 2 days trying to figure out what the art director meant exactly, and finally produced this brilliant concept. "Ah!" He exclaimed, "The art director is a genius!"

 

Now the alternative ending to this story is: the concept artist wastes 3 days and produces nothing, because the art director was vague and confusing. As a result he never trusts the art director again for always expecting the impossible.

 

The fun thing about asking other people to do the impossible is: even though they're the ones who have to figure out how to do it, if they succeed you'll get the credit. If they fail, you'll get blaimed. Either way they're safe, so don't worry too much about your grips if you ask them to try something like that: it'll all come back to you, for better or for worse. ;) Or at least that's my experience.

[Guest]

so will I ever be great if I don't start demanding the impossible?

 

Well David ALL of the top people in Hollywood got there by being tyrants. "Nice" is the enemy of good filmmaking.

 

R,

[timHealy]

It's funny because I sometimes have the opposite thought -- I saw a behind-the-scenes shot of DP Shawn Mauer having the grips walk a 20'x20' silk alongside a Steadicam during a moving shot on "Greatest Game Ever Played", and I've heard stories of Storaro doing similar things, and I wonder if I'm too easy on the grips because I wouldn't even dream of demanding such a thing... so will I ever be great if I don't start demanding the impossible?

 

Sounds like a shot on War of the Worlds where Janusz had a bunch of electricians pushing a dino light on a cinevator down a street to hit Dakota Fanning as she ran into her mothers arms in Brooklyn (it was doubling for Boston). A few electricans pushing and steering the stand, a few keeping the light aimed on her, and a few dragging 5 wire banded. All on a slippery wet street with falling leaves from trees as it was November.

 

best

 

Tim

 

PS the stand was not raised at all. Just worked fully down.

[gustavius smith]

Thank you all this was really informative.

[Guest]

Thank you all this was really informative.

 

Wait! Don't go, we haven't even started insulting each other yet. :D

 

R,

[gustavius smith]

Taken from a Todd Field ( In the Bedroom Little Children) Interview in Independent Filmamker.

 

Question regarding pre-production and shooting

Is that desire antithetical to the demands of prepping a movie of this scale? As the machine gets bigger, you have to tame it more and more. It can be harder to keep mobile and to allow for those sorts of quick decisions or last-minute changes of mind.

 

Todd Field

 

Yeah. Well, here we were commuting 45 minutes to an hour at least every day to these different locations to build a sort of dream of a community, a community that doesn?t really exist. It isn?t the suburbs. It isn?t anywhere. It?s kind of this other world, a playground from my imagination, from my childhood. And yes, when you?re dealing at a certain level with a certain budget, suddenly you have 10 more trucks to move around and 10 more union people in the crew you don?t need and you don?t want to pay. You don?t want to have to tell them to be quiet, you don?t want their stuff to be right outside your frame, and you don?t want to wait for them to move it. It?s hard to travel in groups. It?s much easier to go out to dinner with two people than to go out with 10. And just because you have more money, it doesn?t mean that the film is going to be any better or that it?s going to be any easier. I think probably the opposite. I think I knew that going in, but it was completely confirmed for me by the end of the shoot. Money is relative. The audience asks, ?Well, how much money did you have to make it?? Who cares? You break down a script, and it may seem very simple on the page, but you never know. It?s arbitrary until you really map every single thing out: your locations, gas, crew ? all of that. On In the Bedroom, people would say, ?How much do you want to make the movie?? and I?d always say, ?How much have you got?? I knew I could do it for very little, because I lived [where we shot]. I knew those locations that are built into the script. I knew how long it takes exactly at any time of day to get from one point to the other. And I knew that I wouldn?t be strapped with having the long arm of the unions and 25 drivers and all that other stuff because nobody was paying attention. It?s gotten much, much harder now. I think it?s harder for people to make signature films, films that are personal to them. I?ve been reading your magazine for I don?t know how many years, and independent film has now become this ?thing.? It?s been codified. If you?re going out and making your first film, the unions are tracking you like foxes in the woods, waiting to go after you.

 

It?s very difficult to make a non-union film right now.

 

Todd

 

It?s almost impossible. And that?s sad, because you think about guys like Victor Nunez, who?d go out and work with a six-man crew. Nobody was union, he had no drivers, and he could be really fleet of foot and work in a really personal, intuitive way. A couple of lights and an Aaton on his shoulder. That?s a very hard thing to do now. It makes you envy in a way people who are working in Iran or Turkey. If only I spoke a different language! Don?t you find that? I remember [acting in] Walking and Talking with Good Machine. Those guys were doing everything with frequent flyer miles, and they didn?t even pay us. We?d fly into town, stay in a hotel ourselves, there was no per diem. And they said, ?Well, that?s what it?s going to take, so let?s get it made!? All those great movies that came out of that period... It?s very hard to do it that way anymore.

 

It?s interesting to hear you say this, because one would think that you have, after In the Bedroom, ?graduated? to bigger budgets. It sounds, though, like you want to maintain a more compact way of working.

 

Todd

 

Oh yeah, I like working that way. It?s a wonderful feeling about not spending money unnecessarily. At least you can wake up every day and look at yourself in the mirror and say, ?Okay, I?m doing this for the right reasons, I?m making a film, I?m putting every single part of my effort and my sweat and every dollar into the film, not into stupid things.?

Edited October 30, 2006 by gustavius smith

[Michael Collier]

My last film was usually a 3 man crew. Me (director, director of photography) a co director, and a sound guy. Sure things went slower than I would have liked, but we planned for it, and since everything was planned well in advance, we didn't have too many surprises. I had to work incredibly hard to get things right, since there was no AC, gaffer or grip on this one. We managed just fine. I think if you have dedicated, talented hard working individuals, then any film is possible with any size crew.

[Tim Tyler]

...I wouldn't even dream of demanding such a thing... so will I ever be great if I don't start demanding the impossible?

 

You're already pretty great, David :rolleyes:

 

I think at the end of the day, or the end of a shoot, it's those demanding, over-the-top rigs and shots that the crew remembers the fondest. Nobody tells the story about the time Storaro keyed with a chimera, or when Janusz decided to put a double scrim in the back light. But if you lay 300 feet of dolly track, or prelight four blocks of downtown, those bits would likely become small parts of your celebrity.

 

However if you did that sort of thing everyday, and your crew wasn't, ummm, committed, then perhaps you'd fall from favor. I've heard that Bob Richardson will often have the grips put dance floor down to cover the whole floor in rooms so he can dolly anywhere.

[Jesus Sifuentes]

> Can it even be smaller?

 

Sure it can be smaller. For 16mm stuff, I like a crew of 8 or so.

 

1. DP/Operator/Gaffer/Electrician

2. AC/Gaffer/Electrician

 

3. Sound Mixer

4. Boom Operator/Cable Puller

 

5. Art Director/Costume/Prop Master

 

6. Director

7. Producer/Script Supervisor

 

I don't worry about Makeup unless it's effects makeup. If that's the case...

 

8. Effects Makeup

 

Keep in mind, these 8 people have to be willing to work really hard. And everybody who isn't busy becomes a PA for everybody who is.

 

 

A good grip and at least 2 good P.A.'s are a most for small productions.

[timHealy]

I think if you have dedicated, talented hard working individuals, then any film is possible with any size crew.

 

Sorry Michael it doesn't work that way. You have to be realistic. For example one can't do a huge night exterior without enough of a shooting crew and in the case of a night shoot you could need riggers too, just to lay cable and put lights on rooftop and lifts if neccessary. A couple of hardworking talented people will quit your job if you don't give them them the tools to do their jobs, if they don't burn out first. Films are made by hand.

 

If one wants to do a film with a small crew one had better be realistic on what the crew can do in the time allowed or you would be just sticking your head in the sand.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Chance Shirley]

Two things...

 

> It?s very difficult to make a non-union film right now.

 

Actually, in Birmingham, Alabama, it's very easy.

 

> Sorry Michael it doesn't work that way.

 

Michael said "any film is possible with any size crew." I think he's right. Now, is any SHOT possible? Obviously not. But there's more than one way to skin a given cat, and there's more than one way to shoot a given movie.

[Chad Stockfleth]

Those guys were doing everything with frequent flyer miles, and they didn’t even pay us. We’d fly into town, stay in a hotel ourselves, there was no per diem. And they said, “Well, that’s what it’s going to take, so let’s get it made!”

 

At least you can wake up every day and look at yourself in the mirror and say, “Okay, I’m doing this for the right reasons, I’m making a film, I’m putting every single part of my effort and my sweat and every dollar into the film, not into stupid things.”

 

Stupid things like paying your crew? I wish I could work for free all of the time and do things based solely on artistic merit, I really do, but the reality is that most people don't have that luxury and deserve a wage for their time.

 

Sure, you can get inexperienced people to come along for free to help realize your "vision" but is that necessarily the best way?

Edited November 1, 2006 by Chad Stockfleth

[Bob Hayes]

Todd

 

Oh yeah, I like working that way. It?s a wonderful feeling about not spending money unnecessarily. At least you can wake up every day and look at yourself in the mirror and say, ?Okay, I?m doing this for the right reasons, I?m making a film, I?m putting every single part of my effort and my sweat and every dollar into the film, not into stupid things.?

 

Let?s say it takes 18 days to do your movie and you have a 20 person crew and cast and the salaries across the board are $200. And your film costs $200,000 and makes $200,000 so it is a complete wash. No profit.

 

Now let?s say you get everyone to work for free on your film. That means the hard cost is $128,000 and if you sell it for $200,000 you just put $72,000 in your pocket. Sounds to me like you are a conman. But a lot of independent film makers don?t see it that way.

[Guest]

Let?s say it takes 18 days to do your movie and you have a 20 person crew and cast and the salaries across the board are $200. And your film costs $200,000 and makes $200,000 so it is a complete wash. No profit.

 

Now let?s say you get everyone to work for free on your film. That means the hard cost is $128,000 and if you sell it for $200,000 you just put $72,000 in your pocket. Sounds to me like you are a conman. But a lot of independent film makers don?t see it that way.

 

Bob,

 

I see your point, to a point :D

 

I don't think indie filmmakers force people to work on their movies, people often volunteer their time for a variety of reasons. On my feature I just wrapped, every one got paid their regular day rates.

 

BUT....

 

I had over 500 people apply to work on the project and many many of those where offering to work for free completely unsolicited from my end. They would see a posting on Mandy for a paid position and just e-mail me and ask if they could work for free, some from out of the country who wanted to fly themselves in at their own expense, and still work for free!!

 

The main thing these "freebie" people had in common was that they seemed desperate to break into the biz and get on a set no matter what it took.

 

Now, I declined all of these offers of free labour. However, I could of had lots of free workers if I wanted them. If I took some people up on their offers I don't know if I quite fit the bill of "conman."

 

It's a strange business, I had no idea I would get such a response, but that's what happened.

 

R,

[Stuart McCammon]

I think at least part of the problem is that in any other business, freebie workers are referred to as interns and everyone who looks at their resume knows that it is different level of experience than a full-time employee, but in film an intern can put "1st AC" on his resume if there was nobody in the camera department besides him and the DP, and people accept it as if he or she has some training and experience.

[JD Hartman]

Combining Gaffer/Grip/Electric into one role, makes for a very tired person at the end of the day. It is a little unrealistic to combine what, more often than not, are jobs that are very phyically demanding. Giving the Gaffer a PA who has no knowledge of the department, doesn't help either. You spend more time explaining what you need and how to use it, than you would if you just did the job yourself.

[Bob Hayes]

A lot of the success in working with a small crew is knowing your limitations. If you as a producer can find locations that are easy to light, load in, and work in. If you can schedule your days so they are achievable. If you as a director can design shots that are easy to achieve and once lit you take advantage of the lighting set ups to shoot more footage. If you as a dp can light simply and effectively taking advantage of available light or using fewer units. Then a small crew is a realistic option.

 

Unfortunately this isn?t at all what happens. Producers usually want their films to look ten times the budgets. They often schedule unrealistic days, go for cheap locations that hammer the crew, and expect long hours to compensate. Directors devise complicated set-ups that they see on films with huge budgets and expect small crews to effortlessly achieve them or they construct coverage that is painfully inefficient to shoot. DP?s do the same thing by choosing the most complex solutions for simple problems. No one seems to understand how hard it is for a crew to make films.

 

Most folks, even really experienced people, see film making as no more complex then taking a mini DV camera on a tripod and bouncing a light off the ceiling. Anything that is more complex and more time consuming then that is almost interpreted as incompetence. I blame myself for this type of unrealistic thinking. It seems like film making should be that easy and painless. It just isn?t. And you need man power to achieve it.