OK... Film vs. RED

[Brook Willard]

Nah, pixies.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Ok first off, I totally agree that as a filmmaker you should have the tools to express the story as you wish, not be bound to one thing or another, and I absolutely agree that sometimes you DO want certain parts to be thrown out of focus. I find it extremely distracting, for instance, if I'm looking at a sports star on the court and for some reason everyone in the crowd behind him is in focus. That's just awkward in general, primarily because film is nothing like reality in the sense that in reality we'd see everything in focus BUT it would be 3D, and on screen it is 2D, so to compensate for that it makes sense to throw the background out of focus to give a sense of perspective. At least, I think so.

All I'm trying to say is in general I would be really annoyed at a movie that constantly, all of the time, shows the background out of focus, because there's a lot going on there that I'd like to see, and I'm not too stupid to figure out what is going on in the foreground that's important.

Your eyes actually are able to do quite a lot that a camera isn't able to do. For instance, your eyes are able to white balance a lot easier than a camera is, where all types of light do appear white to your eyes, whereas in filming it's important to remember what the light source is and that certain types of light have distinct colors. But I sure don't see yellow light inside or blue light outside or whatever, I see white light wherever.

The way your eyes focus is nothing like the way a camera blurs stuff in the background because you don't have the ability to focus your eyes on one thing and then look elsewhere, otherwise your eyes move and the focus changes with that. That's why I say nothing appears blurry, at least to me it doesn't. When I couldn't see very well, before I had LASIK surgery, heck anything behind the foreground seemed blurry But now I can see almost twice as well as a person with 20/20 vision, so no, nothing is blurry to me generally speaking. Yes, if I put a finger in front of my face and focus on just it, the background is indeed blurry, but if I'm looking at a person three feet in front of me, then no, the background is not blurry.

I'm much more interested in story than technology, actually, I know technology is only a tool to tell a story. But I must disagree that the inherent disadvantages of using 35mm film are actually storytelling tools. I think they CAN be, but a movie shouldn't be restricted to just using those same devices. Sometimes I may want the background to be perfectly in focus, too, without wanting to rack focus to something in the background (though that can be nice, too), other times I may want just one thing in focus and the rest out of focus. That's very possible. But I don't want to be limited by the tools so that I always have to do that. I worked with a cinematographer in my class who had a real obsession with trying to throw the background out of focus with EVERY shot, even when it was completely unnecessary, and it drove me crazy. It often resulted in some pretty bad shots because he was too focused on "that film-like look" instead of just getting a great quality picture. He even intentionally tried to create grain with an HDV camera, rather than just shooting the best quality picture and letting us take care of the look later.

I have found that the more experienced the cinematographer, and thus often the older the crew, the more nobody seems to leave anything to post, which is a mistake. It's just as bad of a mistake in my mind as to say, "Oh we'll fix it in post." You can't do either extreme. You can't fix a terrible story and bad acting in post, it just doesn't work that way. You may if you're lucky be able to smooth things over a bit, but you also MUST understand what you absolutely can deal with in post so that you can maximize your efficiency on set. I'm not trying to sound like I'm some expert at this, I have much to learn, but what I've observed I can tell you that a lot of people don't seem to understand the tools and that actually does hurt the production. If you just got an amazing performance out of an actor and you're really worried because the boom mic appeared in the shot for 10 frames, so you do it over 10 more times just to get that right again, I would say you need to see what is done in post more so you can realize that a boom mic can relatively easily (in 5 minutes or less) be eliminated from a shot if it barely appears there, and if that allows you to use the best take you had, performance-wise, go for it. It's worth it.

This shoot last week, they couldn't get the dolly to be perfectly stable when they were moving it forward, and it was only moving forward about 4 feet I think, they were shooting with a Sony F900 for a television PSA, and I kept thinking there's just no reason not to go ahead and try a few takes with the dolly, if it shakes a bit that is an EASY thing to fix in post, you can easily do that with After Effects or Motion or whatever, and not lose much quality. We were able to fix some really shaking footage and have it look perfectly still (because again our cinematographer thought he knew what he was doing and that we needed hand-held camera shots for a few inserts but it was really silly and we didn't; that was also my fault as the director not to know something like that, but that's how you learn) without losing much quality. You have to know things like that, in my opinion. The tools do enable you to tell a story better, if you know how to use them.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, in defense of people who do like to "get things right" on the set, one reason is that even though we know certain things can be fixed in post, people have gotten fired due to how things look in dailies. A boom operator can get fired if the mic appears in dailies constantly, even though it's fixable in post usually (of course, there's always the chance that maybe they should be fired if it keeps happening...). A dolly grip could get fired because of a bumpy dolly move. I've told camera assistants not to worry about some focus buzz because it won't be in the final edit, but they still freak-out about some producer seeing the focus mistake in dailies and firing them.

Second, sometimes things that should be fixed in post never are, much to the embarassment of the DP and other people who assumed it would get fixed.

I agree with you, though, that you shouldn't get too obsessed with the "film look" thing if all it does is make you create mediocre digital images in some misguided attempt to obliterate any digital feeling in the image. If a format has an inherent look, then the smart thing would be to find ways of taking creative advantage of it.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Yeah for sure, I think you absolutely should do the best job possible on set to get things right, but often times the bigger the production, the less communication it seems like there is between production and post-production. It's kind of ironic in the sense that on a tiny production, like the few shorts I've directed, my editor is on set helping out in some capacity whether that's slating or being a grip, etc., and we talk about the issues that need fixing potentially, plus I'm surprised to hear from many professionals that often the director is *not* there all of the time during editing, he more or less comes in, makes sure things are going ok, says what he wants, and leaves.

Maybe that's the way things get done in Hollywood, I don't know, but that's not the way I will ever do things. If I wrote and directed a script, there will be no editing whatsoever without me present. I'd rather edit it myself than let that happen. I'm not an extremely hands-on director in the editing room, I do let my editor do his job because I believe he's better at it than I am, so I try to make suggestions when I am asked and give guidance here or there, without being overbearing, but as someone who believes (like the formalists, and like Lucas) that a film is shaped in the editing room, not on the set, I can't imagine just letting it being taken care of by someone else without me there. I'm the connection between the set and the post-production process if I'm the director, so it seems very important I'd be there to iron everything out.

This is admittedly bold of me to say, but I don't like the way Hollywood runs its shoots or the waste I see in the industry. I'm much more interested in making independent films my way than trying to conform to outdated standards. I think even today that is often done on all but the biggest shoots, like it's not very common that your job is grip but that you're not asked to do anything else that isn't grip related. I know on this PSA I was doing, which was a very professional shoot with an A-list actress, I was asked to do grip work, gaffing work, PA work, and even set decorating work. It made sense. Why would you hire a ton of different people to do a ton of different jobs when you'd just have people standing around watching other people do a job they could easily do? It makes no sense to me.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

A highly-regimented system of labor doesn't make a lot of sense on a tiny shoot, but the truth is that I used to think more like you do, but over the years, I've also seen some of the reasons for the division of labor on a production. It partly comes down to responsibility -- everytime I reach out to move some furniture for a new set-up, the on-set dresser says to me "if you break something, I still get blamed." There is a lot of expensive equipment and personal belongings on a set or location, so there are people who are designated to be responsible for those items. If I drop and break something that wasn't my job to touch or move, I'm not the one who gets blamed or fired, the person whose job it was to take care of that thing is the one who takes the fall.

Personally, having moved up from no-budget indie work, I still prefer setting my own lights and doing my own grip work -- for one thing, it's fun, and for another, I feel I need to have my hands on something to control it. On the TV series I just shot, the Gaffer assigned an electrician to follow me around like a hawk because I kept running up ladders and dropping scrims, aiming lights, etc. It all becomes more personal for me if I can do some of that work myself.

But having just recovered from a double-hernia operation, I don't think I'll be picking up any heavy equipment on set for awhile...

There is no perfect system -- the advantage of a larger crew is that when it comes time to do a major set-up, like hang twenty lights, move entire walls or the contents of a living room, etc. then there are enough people that it can be done quickly. But that large crew doesn't just disappear when you get to those tiny set-ups that just need one or two people. So there is inherent waste.

On that theme, for example, I worked two summers at McDonald's and I was appalled by the waste of food that was made and then thrown away. But once the manager told me privately that few people who eat at McDonalds if it took a long time to get their food, so there is a balance between useful "waste" that allows a certain pace and efficiency to be maintained, versus either just being wasteful to the point that it was unprofitable, or so careful to never waste that it slowed you down and hurt your sales. So it's a system where a certain amount of waste is designed into it, for better or worse. Same goes for the mass-production junk that is bought and sold, and thrown away, daily.

There are certainly ways to be more efficient on a film shoot, of course. Kubrick, for example, had very long shoots scheduled but with very tiny crews and a lot of pre-rigging done in advance to allow this. I'd like to work on a production like that -- a longer schedule so that the same amount of work could be done with fewer people without a drop in quality.

 

[Morning Glory]

Brook

Brook

I was hoping you'd say that.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I did a feature once with a director who came out of documentaries and wanted to shoot the movie like his documentaries, with a very tiny crew. I was fine with that, but as we got nearer to the shoot, I noticed that he had no art director and no script supervisor -- "I don't use them on my documentaries so why do I need them on a feature?" Well, on the first day of the shoot in a hotel, the director disappeared for an hour to look for new chairs because he didn't like the actual ones in the room we were using. And of course, at some point the actors started wondering whether they had the drink in their left hand or their right hand, etc.

We split-up the shoot with a month gap in between two major locations (in different countries) and the director spent the downtime editing the footage and dealing with the continuity problems. When we started up again, I noticed that he hired an art director and a script supervisor...

The other problem we had was that we were not supposed to light scenes but try and shoot them in available light. However, Day One of the shoot in this hotel room had nothing but day scenes on the schedule. Call time was 8AM and we shot until 8PM. However, this was in Russia in the middle of winter and shootable daylight levels indoors starts around 10AM to dies around 3PM. So I found myself taping every bare Kino tube I had to the glass of the hotel windows (this was five floors up so putting anything outside the window was impossible) and then covering them with curtain sheers to create a workable daylight effect that lasted 12 hours. So I guess it was an available light shoot... in that I was using every available light I had.

So sometimes you start out with the intent to not employ traditional filmmaking techniques but have to fall back on them just to get the work done.

 

[Ken Willinger]

Always a good read David. Thanks. I'm like you, I enjoy lighting immensely and really like to be hands on. I feel like I can make things happen faster if I just do it myself. That being said, I was just on a job in your neck of the woods (LA) DPing a national PSA. I had a Gaffer and 3 grips. I never touched a stand or lighting instrument. I told them what I wanted and it would happen. "Is that a double in there? Can you make it a single". Voila...it's done. There is something to be said for this. As well as all the ideas being bandied about in conversation with the gaffer...and all the great tech talk. The thing is you can't be shy about what you want or be worried about making changes. They are there to work with you, not against you...and they are being paid. So I love it both ways, hands on and hands off (easy folks...we're talking lighting only here!).

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

In a feature that is of any serious magnitude I can't imagine getting by without a production designer of some sort and perhaps even at least 1-2 set decorators to help actually put stuff in place. But I can imagine not having a script supervisor. I think that is a luxury of a bigger production. We have three long 2.5 hours of class about what a script supervisor does (not like I didn't know this, but it was more detailed than I had gotten into learning) and I definitely don't think it's a necessary position on a smaller shoot. It's a wonderful luxury, and by no means an unneeded position, it's just that if it means having to pay someone another $100-200 per day that might not be reasonable. If it means just needing an extra person who wants to build experience and will work for free, that's awesome, would be a great person to have helping.

But I think it's a job that can be absorbed by the cinematographer and the director, and in many cases absolutely should be. If I can avoid having to think about the tiny details (left or right hand, placement of objects, etc.) that's nice, frees me up from having to focus on that, but if I have to do that too then it's alright. If it is discussed before-hand, let's say I have set decorators but no script supervisor, I can definitely have one of them watch during the shots and they will basically be a stand-in script supervisor as well as a set decorator. So it's something that needs to be addressed but does it always need to be a completely different person? No, I don't think so.

But if I were shooting a big budget film and paying a script supervisor was a tiny part of the overall budget, absolutely, no reason not to!

Thanks for sharing those experiences, David, that is really interesting stuff to read.

 

[donatello b]

when i was younger i use to help set lights ... but these days other then the obie light i leave it to the crew ... i find most experienced gaffers & key grips do NOT like the DP setting/touching any light/grip equipment ( they don't seem to mind DP adjusting obie light) .... and i find AC's don't really like the DP setting anything up on the camera ( other then eye adjustment) ....

about 10 years ago i had a 1st AC that i had to tell he would be fired the next time he helped out another dept ..he had fallen off ladder helping grips = off 2 days ... cut hand helping art dept = off 1 1/2 day ... slipped and hurt back helping catering = off 3 days ... we didn't have a 2nd AC - just a camera loader - one of the grips took over AC when 1st was off ... he was a excellent 1st AC - and he liked helping everyone BUT ...

" I think it's a job (script supervisor )that can be absorbed by the cinematographer and the director, and in many cases absolutely should be."

hummm ... i do see DP or Director having time doing script notes ..

 

[Vlado Struhar]

But I think it's a job that can be absorbed by the cinematographer and the director, and in many cases absolutely should be. If I can avoid having to think about the tiny details (left or right hand, placement of objects, etc.) that's nice, frees me up from having to focus on that, but if I have to do that too then it's alright. If it is discussed before-hand, let's say I have set decorators but no script supervisor, I can definitely have one of them watch during the shots and they will basically be a stand-in script supervisor as well as a set decorator. So it's something that needs to be addressed but does it always need to be a completely different person? No, I don't think so.

It's amazing how amateurs can always bring a smile to my face.

 

[Cail Young]

I'm surprised to hear from many professionals that often the director is *not* there all of the time during editing, he more or less comes in, makes sure things are going ok, says what he wants, and leaves.

This is largely to do with the massive tedium of feature editing; there is a hell of a lot of mechanical stuff to get done before one gets creative, so if the particular editor decides to chop things up and do a bit of the tedium at a time then there will absolutely be points where the director is completely unnecessary aside from perhaps conversation.

That said, I completely agree that the editor-director relationship needs to be very strong during creative time, however where I will differ is in your employing the editor on set during the shoot. When I cut things, I don't want to know a thing about the shoot - otherwise I may be irrationally invested in certains shots or takes because they were hard to get, or felt great on set, etc - it's paramount that the editor sees the footage with fresh eyes, because by that point the director certainly isn't.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

Yeah for sure, I think you absolutely should do the best job possible on set to get things right, but often times the bigger the production, the less communication it seems like there is between production and post-production. It's kind of ironic in the sense that on a tiny production, like the few shorts I've directed, my editor is on set helping out in some capacity whether that's slating or being a grip, etc., and we talk about the issues that need fixing potentially, plus I'm surprised to hear from many professionals that often the director is *not* there all of the time during editing, he more or less comes in, makes sure things are going ok, says what he wants, and leaves.

Maybe that's the way things get done in Hollywood, I don't know, but that's not the way I will ever do things. If I wrote and directed a script, there will be no editing whatsoever without me present. I'd rather edit it myself than let that happen. I'm not an extremely hands-on director in the editing room, I do let my editor do his job because I believe he's better at it than I am, so I try to make suggestions when I am asked and give guidance here or there, without being overbearing, but as someone who believes (like the formalists, and like Lucas) that a film is shaped in the editing room, not on the set, I can't imagine just letting it being taken care of by someone else without me there. I'm the connection between the set and the post-production process if I'm the director, so it seems very important I'd be there to iron everything out.

This is admittedly bold of me to say, but I don't like the way Hollywood runs its shoots or the waste I see in the industry. I'm much more interested in making independent films my way than trying to conform to outdated standards. I think even today that is often done on all but the biggest shoots, like it's not very common that your job is grip but that you're not asked to do anything else that isn't grip related. I know on this PSA I was doing, which was a very professional shoot with an A-list actress, I was asked to do grip work, gaffing work, PA work, and even set decorating work. It made sense. Why would you hire a ton of different people to do a ton of different jobs when you'd just have people standing around watching other people do a job they could easily do? It makes no sense to me.

If you were directing a film, and you know how to communicate with your editor, why do you need to be there all the time? Post production isn't just editing. You may need to do ADR, you may have vfx work to approve. How about discuss the score with the composer?

Not all films are complicated and the director could be in the editing room a lot of the time, but it's not always the case. I think most directors are way too busy and are juggling a lot of decisions, not just editing. Some are probably prepping another movie while finishing post.

If you say editing can't be done when you're not there, then maybe nothing will ever get done. Feature films aren't like shorts.

I like editing, but if I was using an editor, I'd let him work, see what he comes up with and check up on it. Even on indie films, not all directors get the final cut.

Indie filmmakers can waste as much as a Hollywood production. It may not be money, but it coud be time and resources. There are plenty of horror stories.

Just because you can have one crew member do many jobs, doesn't mean that crew member can keep it up for the entire production. It's all about balance. Not everyone is good at everything.

I rather have an experienced set decorator take care of things, instead of a PA. But if it's all I have, then so be it.

Sometimes you have to keep your crew small and just hustle through things, other times you want more experienced people doing what they do best.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

In a feature that is of any serious magnitude I can't imagine getting by without a production designer of some sort and perhaps even at least 1-2 set decorators to help actually put stuff in place. But I can imagine not having a script supervisor. I think that is a luxury of a bigger production. We have three long 2.5 hours of class about what a script supervisor does (not like I didn't know this, but it was more detailed than I had gotten into learning) and I definitely don't think it's a necessary position on a smaller shoot. It's a wonderful luxury, and by no means an unneeded position, it's just that if it means having to pay someone another $100-200 per day that might not be reasonable. If it means just needing an extra person who wants to build experience and will work for free, that's awesome, would be a great person to have helping.

But I think it's a job that can be absorbed by the cinematographer and the director, and in many cases absolutely should be. If I can avoid having to think about the tiny details (left or right hand, placement of objects, etc.) that's nice, frees me up from having to focus on that, but if I have to do that too then it's alright. If it is discussed before-hand, let's say I have set decorators but no script supervisor, I can definitely have one of them watch during the shots and they will basically be a stand-in script supervisor as well as a set decorator. So it's something that needs to be addressed but does it always need to be a completely different person? No, I don't think so.

But if I were shooting a big budget film and paying a script supervisor was a tiny part of the overall budget, absolutely, no reason not to!

Thanks for sharing those experiences, David, that is really interesting stuff to read.

So you're saying as a director you can concentrate on your actors performances and keep track of script continuity? How long can you keep that up? Hope you shoot a lot of inserts to cover up the continuity problems.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

It's amazing how amateurs can always bring a smile to my face.

...and seasoned industry vets who are unwilling to rethink age-old practices always bring a smile to mine!

There is no reason a set decorator, who is not going to be doing anything during the actual shooting in all likelihood, can't watch for continuity. That's their job, too.

I don't think it's asking too much that people actually work when they are on set, to be honest. There's no reason someone who is otherwise sitting around can't handle another task while they are watching, I think. And if they can't maybe they shouldn't be on my set at all.

I agree that not all editors would ever want to be on set, but it depends. I mean I've written several books and I've been able to focus on what sections needed to be cut when I had a final product, even when I spent many, many hours writing those sections. On a film I am the same way. I don't care if I spent a whole day getting a shot right, if the movie is finished and that shot just doesn't work, it has to go. I understand not everyone has that discipline, but some directors do. I've seen Lucas do the same thing to shots that ILM had already finished effects work for, and that looked quite good, but that basically didn't work with the story overall or added too much time to the final cut.

 

[Cail Young]

I've seen Lucas do the same thing to shots that ILM had already finished effects work for, and that looked quite good, but that basically didn't work with the story overall or added too much time to the final cut.

And yet Episode 4 still has the Solo/Jabba scene which is completely redundant...

 

[M Most]

There is no reason a set decorator, who is not going to be doing anything during the actual shooting in all likelihood, can't watch for continuity. That's their job, too.

Jonathan, you clearly don't understand what a script supervisor does, or you wouldn't be writing what you're continually writing here. Keeping track of continuity is one part of a much larger and more responsible job. The script supervisor keeps track of visual continuity, yes. She/he also keeps track of screen direction, dialogue (i.e., adherence to the script), which takes are to be printed, and numerous other things (lenses, focal distances when requested, visual effect needs at times, etc, etc.). She/he creates a lined script as the shooting day unfolds, so that the information she/he is gathering can be communicated to editorial (and others) in a standard way, so that they all understand what material is available, how it was shot, how it's identified, and where to find it. When the company wraps, she/he then continues to work for about another hour, preparing and copying the lined script pages, any other notes, and various production reports. She/he is also responsible for reading and timing the script (on a series, this includes scripts that have just been published and are not in production yet), updating those timings as production progresses, running lines with the actors between setups, and other things I won't even go into.

So I guess if you, as the director, are also going to play script supervisor, you'll be doing all those lined script pages and production reports, as well as making sure you note the lenses, focal lengths, and lighting notes, and also running lines with the cast, because after all, you won't have to be answering any other questions during a production day, will you? And you'll never mess up screen direction or miss a shot because, after all, you've got all that covered. And the editor won't have to figure out what you did, because, well, apparently you're the editor too.

You really need to stop and think about what you're saying here before you hit the send button. And you need to think a bit about what you don't know, and clearly have little experience with, before you make pronouncements on how wasteful it is and how unnecessary certain production personnel are.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Jonathan, you clearly don't understand what a script supervisor does, or you wouldn't be writing what you're continually writing here. Keeping track of continuity is one part of a much larger and more responsible job. The script supervisor keeps track of visual continuity, yes. She/he also keeps track of screen direction, dialogue (i.e., adherence to the script), which takes are to be printed, and numerous other things (lenses, focal distances when requested, visual effect needs at times, etc, etc.). She/he creates a lined script as the shooting day unfolds, so that the information she/he is gathering can be communicated to editorial (and others) in a standard way, so that they all understand what material is available, how it was shot, how it's identified, and where to find it. When the company wraps, she/he then continues to work for about another hour, preparing and copying the lined script pages, any other notes, and various production reports. She/he is also responsible for reading and timing the script (on a series, this includes scripts that have just been published and are not in production yet), updating those timings as production progresses, running lines with the actors between setups, and other things I won't even go into.

So I guess if you, as the director, are also going to play script supervisor, you'll be doing all those lined script pages and production reports, as well as making sure you note the lenses, focal lengths, and lighting notes, and also running lines with the cast, because after all, you won't have to be answering any other questions during a production day, will you? And you'll never mess up screen direction or miss a shot because, after all, you've got all that covered. And the editor won't have to figure out what you did, because, well, apparently you're the editor too.

You really need to stop and think about what you're saying here before you hit the send button. And you need to think a bit about what you don't know, and clearly have little experience with, before you make pronouncements on how wasteful it is and how unnecessary certain production personnel are.

I have to agree with mmost here...
Jonathan, as mmost here already said: script supervisor is also noting at every camera setup the focal length, how long the shot took, what went wrong, which lens was used,...
It's a fulltime job, as directing is. You really can't combine that, and that has NOTHING to do with not wanting to have a more open vision about the filmmaking proces. Can you make films with smaller crews?
Sure, but there are limits and if your sets gets a bit bigger, your crew has to get bigger too or your film won't look like anything.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Please don't take my Scripty...

Please don't take my Scripty...

When doing long form narrative pieces I believe that a good scripty is one of the best "bang for the buck" people you can hire, even with small crews. I have found they pay for themselves in higher efficency days. If you are determined to make them multi-task they can often handle small props, costumes and the like while the Art Director, AD, gaffer and others are pre-rigging the next location/set up.

Union shoots can offend those of us who hate waste but efficency is the holy grail here, not just having the smallest possible crew.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

Hi Jim,

I'm in Accra, Ghana (West Africa) and I've been following RED since quite some time. I am going to IBC 2007 just to see RED ONE.

All I can say is thanks!!! Thanks for dreaming and thanks for making it happen for all of us. Next year I'll own RED ONE.