Panavision Genesis Screening

Tenolian Bell · February 8, 2005

So far in my humble experence, I find myself annoyed with directors who shoot constant multiple takes. I find myself thinking "couldn't they have worked this out before now?"

I haven't seen a mediocre actors' performance improve from take 3 to take 10.

I find myself wondering why did the director choose this actor if you have to work this hard to pull a performance out of them.

I find myself thinking maybe it should be more of a professional requirement for actors to do at least a little theatre where you have no choice but to get it right the first time.

The end result generally is one shot taking up way too much time. As the sun begins to set or time run out, we have to rush to finish the last few shots of the day. Which adds unnecessary stress.

Tim Tyler · February 8, 2005

I didn't say that shooting video would magically improve acting performances, so please don't pharaphrase my argument in that way!

I think what Max is saying is that the cost of the recording media generally has little influence on whether a director chooses 3 takes or 30 takes.

JONATHANEDWARDS · February 9, 2005

does anyone know if panavision plans to have some sample dvd or trade show for other cinematographers / producers.

seeing is believing :unsure:

Mike Brennan · February 9, 2005

does anyone know if panavision plans to have some sample dvd or trade show for other cinematographers / producers.

seeing is believing :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Genesis has been on the move for last few months. France a few weeks ago UK before Christmas.

Check with your local rep as they are not well advertised in advance.

Mike Brennan

Rik Andino · February 9, 2005

So far in my humble experence, I find myself annoyed with directors who shoot constant multiple takes. I find myself thinking "couldn't they have worked this out before now?"

I haven't seen a mediocre actors' performance improve from take 3 to take 10.

I find myself wondering why did the director choose this actor if you have to work this hard to pull a performance out of them.

I find myself thinking maybe it should be more of a professional requirement for actors to do at least a little theatre where you have no choice but to get it right the first time.

The end result generally is one shot taking up way too much time. As the sun begins to set or time run out, we have to rush to finish the last few shots of the day. Which adds unnecessary stress.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with this

It gets very annoying when a director has two good takes and goes for another.

It also annoys me when a director has half a good take (on long takes)

And because he doesn't know how it'll be edit

He continues to shoot the extremely painfully long take again and again

Rather than cutting it up into different shots...to make it work...

And the fact that HD or DV or digital make this easier to happen

Doesn't bode well for digital formats.

What I mentioned in an earlier thread is that mediocre directors can justify

(And many of them do) multiple takes as a way to get better performance

And a reason to use HD over Film.

Many people find the wrong reasons to shoot HD

And the fact that they make the performances better

Is one of those wrong reasons (or rather misconceptions) that's widely used.

However it is true that some actors feel more comfortable in certain HD shoots

Robert Altman's The Company is an example

However he used the camera more in a documentary mode

And it was rather unobstrusive

And only a Director as good as Altman could have achieved this.

A bad director will be bad in any medium and there's no justification for it.

Keith Mottram · February 9, 2005

It also annoys me when a director has half a good take (on long takes)
And because he doesn't know how it'll be edit

He continues to shoot the extremely painfully long take again and again

Rather than cutting it up into different shots...to make it work...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should the director cut it up to make it work? If a director is unsure he has to carry on shooting. From an editors point of view i hate pointless endless takes, but I hate not having the shot even more. From a directors point of view the worst mistake I made was on an add a year ago when after a DP started bitching about a take already being covered, I agreed against my better judgement to change setup. It screwed up the whole add. This was my fault and my fault only. Next time I shoot, I'll keep shooting till any important take is in the can. Its the directors rep on the line when alls said and done. So dont assume its because he doesn't know how he'll edit, it could equally be the opposite.

Keith

Michael Most · February 9, 2005

Why should the director cut it up to make it work? If a director is unsure he has to carry on shooting.

There are a number of reasons to shoot a scene full length rather than as pickups, but usually the most important one for an experienced director is to let the actors get into their rhythm and feel the moments in the scene properly. Actors are not machines, and they don't have on/off switches. For some, turning on an emotion is easy and instantaneous. For others, it requires more of a process, and particularly with certain scenes, an ability to ramp up a performance as the character moves through the emotional arc of the scene. A good director knows his cast well enough to judge when this is necessary, and when it's beneficial. It's not the director's responsibility to explain these decisions to the rest of the crew.

John Sprung · February 9, 2005

This really deserves a whole new thread. Some actors improve from take to take. Others put their energy into the first take, and fade out like a dead flashlight battery thereafter. Some can be very consistent and give you the same thing anytime you want. Others can give you half a dozen different ways to do the same scene.

While I'd agree that stage experience is a good thing for any actor, there are a lot of things you need for both stage and film that aren't applicable in the other.

-- J.S.

Max Jacoby · February 9, 2005

Your figures are meaningless in this discussion as you have not related them to degree of acceptable performance as defined by a director.

On some of the shoots that I have done the shooting ratio was NOT an issue. In these cases, by definition, we shot as many takes until the director was completely happy with the actor's performance. In some cases we even kept on shooting because the actor asked for an additional take. Interestingly enough we did not really do more takes on these films than we did on films where we had a limited shooting ratio. I have found that most directors, rather than compromising an actor's performance by not doing enough takes, keep on shooting until they get it right. If a director gives up beforehand s/he isn't going to last in this business anyway. They'd rather butt heads with production about getting more stock. Another thing they might do is reduce the amount of coverage and try to edit in camera more.

Tenolian Bell · February 11, 2005

While I'd agree that stage experience is a good thing for any actor, there are a lot of things you need for both stage and film that aren't applicable in the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh right I wasn't saying everything about stage work across the board will make anyone a better film actor.

Being a New Yorker I have to deal with stage actors all the time, and some just don't make the trasition gracefully. They fail to realize they are no longer in a large hall.

It seems difficult for them to comprehend their performance is limited to a 28 inch box.

But still, that's something the Director should've worked out long before we have a bored DP rolling endless takes.

Mark Allen · February 11, 2005

Okay - I'll chime in on the tangent.

In my experience directors who have had a theatrical background or some acting experience tend to do fewer takes and directors who have a more technical background tend to repeat scenes for tens of takes until it's just right or they see what they want. I would postulate that this is because if you are an actor or have done theater - you realize that there are many good performances and to try to extract the exact performance from an actor that is in your head is simply not necessary because just because it doesn't match what you had imagined exactly - you risk a very unemotional and sterile performance if they do it "just right."

I've seen this stretch beyond the realm of actor's performance and slip into costumes, art direction (and to bring it full circle to the focus of the forum) photography and lighting.

I find personally that when I go in knowing the core of what I want from everything, show examples or explain with a lot of adjectives where I'm headed generally actors, designers, and DPs will all perform much better and bring a lot more to the project than if I tell them exactly what to do in minuteau.

And I'm totally aware that I just said a bunch of broad generalizations and there's exceptions to all of it - but I'm just sharing some of what I've learned along the way and I'm still learning.

John Sprung · February 11, 2005

I have to deal with stage actors all the time, and some just don't make the trasition gracefully. They fail to realize they are no longer in a large hall.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's an interesting bit of luck that Stanislavsky came along with a much more intimate and natural approach to acting just at the time that film came along and made closeups possible. Stanislavsky has been God for all that time, and finally along came David Mamet with his book "True and False: Heresy and common sense for the actor." I recommend it highly if you're at all interested in what the actors are -- or should be -- thinking about. Today the main reason to read Stanislavsky is to know what Mamet's talking about.

It looks like there's a need there for a short class on what stage actors should know about camera and editing. Stuff like head turns. I remember noticing back when Reagan was president that when you saw him on TV news, he'd always turn his head, say a line, and turn his head. I figured it must be from his movie acting days, he knew that editors love to cut on head turns. The more head turns you give them, the more they use of your CU's. ;-)

-- J.S.

Phil Rhodes · February 12, 2005

Hi,

While I understand Stanislavsky, I was forever turned off the guy by an abysmally-taught A-level theatre studies course that managed to make what's actually quite an interesting subject about as engaging as sawdust.

Phil