Directors that shoot a high number of takes

Gohanto

Gohanto

Veteran
When I first read about directors like Fincher, Kubrick, or Scorsese that commonly asked for a high number of takes from actors I wasn't that surprised because I did it on my own films. As I've started working with better actors though and having meetings before shooting started, I've found I hardly ever shoot more than 3 or 4 takes of a scene because with all the work done before hand they simply "get it" when it's time to shoot.

Any idea what directors like I mentioned above start saying to actors as they get into higher numbers?
 
Well directors working with expensive actors may not have or want to spend the money on having the actors for rehearsals. This may be why they have to have several more takes. That, and it leaves room for different ways of acting a scene out so you have more diverse takes in the editing room.

Opinion only based on personal experience so i guess it doesn't answer the question exactly.
 
it also depends a lot on the actors' styles - some will give almost identical performances each take, which is great for consistency, and others will perform slightly differently each take, which is great for discovering unexpected gems of performance.

I don't think either is better or worse as such, but both actors and directors need to be in synch or it's going to be a very frustrating shoot.
 
I don't personally go over two unless there is something that can be changed in the scene. If it is printable - I print and move on.

I've found that keeping on one scene for 10 plus takes kills the energy of the scene and the crew and the talent.

I've been on shows where we have hit 15 takes. Needless to say everyone was getting tired and frustrated.
 
usually this has to do with elements of Mise-en-scène, according to the realistic theories of people like André Bazin and Jacques Lacan.

There are times when things happen in the frame beyond the orchestration of the filmmakers, the wind blows a leaf or moves the actors hair as they turn in a perfect frame, a certain reflection of light, or something moving in the background, that moves in rhythm with the planned elements, it might even be a twitch of the actor, or one actor moves in such a way and exposes another actor whos doing something interesting, by total coincidence. Bazin would call this Mise-en-scène, the unplanned beauty of the frame.

I'm sure you've experienced it when something magical happens in a frame, no? Things that couldn't be planned, or very difficult, recently I had it in a commercial where the actress looked up and coincidentally a light from above glimmered in her eye, a fraction of an inch in any direction would loose it and we didn't plan it, going back on several more takes (6 or 7) she never hit the mark in that perfect way she did on the first take, so finally we gave up and moved on.

Sometimes when you're working with things moving in the foreground and the background, actors say coming out of doors and walking down the hall. After the first take you realize theres a certain timing and rhythm to be found there, where the background actor moves just so behind the foreground actor, you'll block and block never getting that thing, that `Je ne sais quoi' something is missing but you don't know what. If the actors are good, and you can afford the time, you might say lets just keep shooting it, until you see that thing.

Kubrick called these things `unconscious designating effects', things that are beyond the real of the `set up' that relate the greater reality of the moment. In a famous anecdote Kubrick had Nicholson cross the street over 80 times! Nicholson asked what could he do, what was it that Kubrick was looking for, Kubricks notorious answer: I don't know, something brilliant. Another famous story is of Godard spending a whole day shooting trains pulling into a station, when asked if he perhaps wanted to try a new frame (angle) Godard said: No, I'm waiting for the frame to come to us.

The directors listed above are certainly looking for Mise-en-scène in the Bazin sense.
 
I've always wanted to do 20 takes, just to see what it's about, but usually end up have 5-7 be the magic number. Since dv tapes are so cheap I leave the camera rolling between takes and use that as an excuse to "Go GO! Still rolling!" and it keeps the energy up.

I think after a while, an actor will get comfortable with a scene that they will just "be" and stop ACTING.

Usually, when I'm not getting what I want, and struggling to explain how I do want it, the actors start to get frustrated, along with everyone else. I found a good technique in this situation is to give them a wild and crazy direction that is fun to do- something that they might have trouble doing with a straight face. Good for the blooper reel and to get some fresh energy pumping. Along the same lines is to tell one actor in secret to do or say something unexpected and surprise the other.
 
This technizue of shooting a gazillion takes might only really work with incredibly talented actors. Because the actor is working really hard and bringing all her technique to the different takes, so there is a real chance that by take 22, it truly is something remarkably different than take 1. I doubt that most actors could really bring the creative intelligence needed to really make 22 takes useful. I bet Al Pacino changes dramatically and has an arsenal of unlimited characters and emotions and reactions, while an "average" actor has an arsenal of about 3 emotions they can deliver effectively.

That said...I wonder if the editors actually agree that the 22 takes were worth it, of if they got what they needed in Take 2. These directors don't do their own editing, after all.
 
a long series of takes is indicative of a journey. in my experience, it hasn't been about creating a vast selection of options for the editor. it's about discovery. it's about getting the scene to a place that transcends the storyboards and transcends the screenplay.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a good point Zak. Again, I think it would still require a superior level of skill on the actors. Even in order to transcend the script. Doing 22 takes with an actor who isn't that experienced could backfire--just exhausting and frustrating an actor who doesn't have the necessary skills. You get really great performances though, Zak (thinking of "I F**king Hate You"). Do you use the 22 take technique? I'm curious.
 
sean90291 said:
Yeah, that's a good point Zak. Again, I think it would still require a superior level of skill on the actors. Even in order to transcend the script. Doing 22 takes with an actor who isn't that experienced could backfire--just exhausting and frustrating an actor who doesn't have the necessary skills. You get really great performances though, Zak (thinking of "I F**king Hate You"). Do you use the 22 take technique? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

it depends on the scene/shot, but generally I find myself in the realm of 6 or 7 takes. IFHY was a little different than Heart of Now because there was no script, just some notes about objectives stemming from character history. on IFHY we had two scenes, each blocked and choreographed as a single shot covered by two cameras. we did about 15-20 takes of each. and the film was cut from the last few.
 
I saw just saw an interview with Alan Cumming. on Kubricks massive number of takes, Cumming said that each additional take always had a valid reason and wasn't just some whim or "lets do another for safety" Each of the numerous takes were motivated and purposeful and discussed with the actor in an effort to get the most out of their character and performance.

BTW, Cumming's five minute scene in Eyes Wide Shut took over a week to film.

Also, after the clap board, Kubrick would have his sound man whisper the exact scene number and take away from everyone, in the corner of the room so as not to alert the actors as to what number they were up to....thought that was clever
 
I shoot as many takes as it takes to have a succesful take. That means that as long as it it acceptable I move on. Of course acceptable may mean excellent. Usually it takes about five takes.
 
sean90291 said:
This technizue of shooting a gazillion takes might only really work with incredibly talented actors. Because the actor is working really hard and bringing all her technique to the different takes, so there is a real chance that by take 22, it truly is something remarkably different than take 1. I doubt that most actors could really bring the creative intelligence needed to really make 22 takes useful. I bet Al Pacino changes dramatically and has an arsenal of unlimited characters and emotions and reactions, while an "average" actor has an arsenal of about 3 emotions they can deliver effectively.

That said...I wonder if the editors actually agree that the 22 takes were worth it, of if they got what they needed in Take 2. These directors don't do their own editing, after all.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... I wouldn't be so sure about that one. A great director, an A-lister, is going to get the take HE wants, not what the editor wants. The editor is a hired gun. The director will have notes for what take he thought was the strongest usually, and the editor doesn't just get to decide, "Eh, I'm lazy, the first take was fine in my opinion." That doesn't even happen on indie projects.
 
off topic now...

which is why I could never understand why an editor on a project gets sole credit for the editing of a film, when really in most cases, it's the director who's editing while the "editor" is manning the helm, pushing buttons and such. "Assistant Editor" at most should be the appropriate title.

I am excluding the many mega talented editors out there who actually contribute a specific vision to a project; Thelma Schoonmaker being at the top of this list.
 
I once had to take 11 takes so one of my "actors" could say the word "No." correctly. It was one word. that was it. and he couldn't do it.... ugh.
 
HerzogisGod said:
off topic now...

which is why I could never understand why an editor on a project gets sole credit for the editing of a film, when really in most cases, it's the director who's editing while the "editor" is manning the helm, pushing buttons and such. "Assistant Editor" at most should be the appropriate title.

I am excluding the many mega talented editors out there who actually contribute a specific vision to a project; Thelma Schoonmaker being at the top of this list.
Click to expand...

Different directors seem to have different preferences here, but nothing is going to be in my project without my say so as far as my editor-director relationship. The great part for me is that even though my editor and I have a love-hate relationship, i.e. we yell at each other sometimes, we have nothing in common, he's annoying most of the time, etc., somehow we still click professionally and he "gets" my tastes and knows what I want, without me having to say it now 95% of the time. I suppose any editor you work with enough is going to get a feeling for your style and preferences, but I know that next year I will probably have to find a new editor for my projects (my editor is mostly out of the industry now, he does work for me when I need him) and it's going to be so annoying to train someone new. Plus I have high standards -- no 9-to-5ers for me. I don't get up that early, and I don't consider 8 hours a day. I want an editor who will work with me, show up at noon, leave at 4 a.m. if that's what it takes to get the job done, but I will pay him for it, no worries there. Since I have my own editing system it's easy for me to collaborate with an editor here at home and it's a comfy working environment.

But I don't like to tell the editor every step to make, I mean my projects turn out best because of the creative people I hire to help me on them. I am not some great filmmaker yet, I just do my best and part of that is hiring people who are talented and letting them feel they are really part of the creative process. Ultimately, though, of course a project will be edited the way I want it to be because it's my work, my stamp as the director. And I find it shocking, to be honest, as a film critic and film historian not just a filmmaker, that directors would just shoot stuff and leave it entrusted to some editor to put together. I'm from the formalist school of filmmaking, like George Lucas, for instance, I believe a film is made in the editing room, not while it's being shot. What I shoot often has lots of good, lots of bad, and some ok, and could be edited into a bad project, an ok project, or a great project. I am not going to let the most important part of the entire filmmaking process, the finalization of many hours of hard work, be assigned to someone else without me even being present for it.
 
Some great observations -- enjoyed reading this thread. I liked what Sean said because that's the sort of thing that one doesn't hear too much nowadays.

A lot has changed with digital styles of directing ... I could write a book on this question alone :-) Anyway, a few points to add to this thread:

1) There are some actors that are good 1st take actors and then go downhill after 3 or 4 takes. Some of them are even big time actors. In these cases it's just that they have it together and their expertise is based on doing it right the first time and doing every take exactly the same.

2) Then you have the method actors who are trying this and that and asking the director, "can I do it one more time?" Well, as a director you have to know that you should rehearse these actors more and sometimes use a double for rehearsals until they're happy with the take and more importantly when you're happy as director, then you call in your one take actor and try a take.

Anecdote 1: Clint Eastwood working on a big picture (can't remember the name of the movie or the director) -- anyway, after he did a take a couple of times, the director came up to him and said, "Clint, could you do it with a different look?"

Clint Eastwood said to him, "Look, buddy, I have only two looks and in that take I gave you both of them." (The eye twitching and the mouth twisted in a scowl LOL).

3) With shooting 35mm film and when the budgets are high, a director has to know what he or she are looking for. So I like to see a director rehearse, shoot enough takes until he/ she gets exactly what they're looking for. Ideally speaking 95% of the movie should be circled and printed takes only, so the editor has only one take per scene to work with.

4) With digital shooting and ultra low budget (also no-budget :-) type of movie making, I'd say explore and shoot as many takes as you like, except of course one must consider time restraints and running overtime, getting exhausted -- I never liked shooting more than 12 hours; everybody is dead tired and the next day everybody is still tired. It's no good.

Anecdote 2: A famous Hollywood director used to shoot a lot of takes. So one day he shot 57 takes. The producer was livid. So the next day, the editor took take 57 and cut it after the slate for take 1 and put take 1 as last -- take 57.

Next morning at rushes, when the director saw the scene with the producer sitting next to him (the producer had been tipped off), the director burst out, "You see, what did I tell you: take 57 was the best!" Then the producer had the pleasure of telling the director that it was take 1 and not take 57 that he said was best. It's supposed to be a true story.

5) If you're shooting 35mm and you have time, an insurance take is good, especially if it's a complex scene. If you're under time crunch and you're sure you got it, move on; one take is enough.

With video and low budget filmmaking, it's always good to shoot an extra take just to be sure nothing went wrong.

6) It's not a good idea to shoot more than 10:1 ratio in most cases. And it's a terrible idea to print everything or digitize everything. IMHO it's amateur time :-)

Anecdote 3: Marlon Brando in Viva Zapata would do a whole take walking around doing his method thing and the 1000 ft mag would be running out of film and Marlon hadn't done his line. The producer was going nuts. He would beg the director, "Can't you tell him to do his line and then cut!" But the director didn't dare yell cut, so Marlon would chew one thousand ft roll after another -- ten twenty masters of the same thing, with a word muttered here and there. LOL That's one time when you don't want to be shooting film! Arrgghhh -- there, I said it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top