Directors that shoot a high number of takes

filmman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a huge amount of experience with this sort of thing, although most of it is in music recording sessions. I'd bet that if you did a statistical analysis of scenarios involving very large numbers of takes, you'd find that the two takes likeliest to be "best" (assuming it could be reliably quantified) would be the first and last. There'd be many, many exceptions of course, but your anecdote above does support this theory.

In any case, it's an amusing story...
 
It's great that you point out this phenomenon. I was the DP on a shoestring 35mm movie for a first time director and my camera operator was a very competent camera operator; she would do a take and the director would say, "ok, next setup." She would always say, "let's do another one -- insurance." So the director would turn to me and I'd ask her, "how was it?" and she'd say, "Eh -- it was a shot." She was from Brooklyn -- I can't do her accent. LOL. So I figured maybe there was a problem and she doesn't want to say it. I'd nod to the director, "let's do one more."

Since I was editing the movie, (with the young director at my elbow :-), he finally said to me, "how come we did all those damn takes, the first ones were ok!"

But there is something about the first take that can never be repeated. It's why Brando never read the screenplays in his last years as an actor. He insisted on show cards. The first reading is special.

But on a big budget movie, it's best to go for more takes ... until a director is satisfied that this is the best he can get. I don't know, it all depends, I guess. What do you think, Ted. Is there something we can learn ... what to do in situations when the first take is perfectly fine?

With digital shooting I usually say after the first take, "I liked that (I always say that regardless, as I was taught by the best actors' directors), let's do one a little different...." This way there's less likelihood that you have to bring the actors back another day to reshoot the scene.
 
I think it's usually good to get additional takes even if the first one is great. There's always a chance that you'll notice a technical or dramatic issue with it later that you missed on set. Also, if take 1 was magical, who knows? Take 2 might be even better. There is also much to be gained sometimes by simply trying an alternative version as you said, or offering to let the talent try out an idea their own. The latter can be very liberating and empowering to the actor, and I've seen this result in a 'knock it out of the park' performance on more than a few occasions.

In filmmaking in particular, the ratio of setup to filming time is so high that once you've got it rolling, it seems unwise to me not to take advantage of the opportunity to get some better-than-expected material on film while you do. It's my impression that best actor Oscars are often awarded based on one or very few absolutely stellar scenes in an otherwise competent but not consistently amazing performance. There's a lesson in that, even for micro-budget filmmakers. Perhaps even especially for them.

The major 'other side of the coin' might be media costs. 35mm film and printing is expensive enough to really alter this paradigm in many if not most cases. P2 cards and firewire hard drives aren't.
 
doing what i do (guided improv), i'm always looking to get back to the spontaneity of the first take, while refining the content of the scene/shot. sometimes to help the actors "reset', we do a silent take... which is to move through the emotional beats and actions of the scene sans dialogue. the take right after is usually very good and the improvised dialogue is minimized, more concise.
 
I usually stay at 3-4 takes... if I can't communicate my direction within' that time, it's going to have to work in the edit... if it's a single shot scene I'll take it more than that many times... since all the elements have to work perfect.
 
Interesting. I'm usually on 5 to 7 takes most often, although I can go for more. but these are takes of the one shot i.e. close or medium or wide. Generally it takes a while for me to get the actors where I want them and to get the rhythum just right. I've never had a perfect first performance, so it's interesting that so many other people have. hmmm
 
It's called "first take magic" and it's really not all that common, at least in my experience. One of the more famous examples in the music business was Stevie Nicks' (Fleetwood Mac) vocal performance on "Dreams" ('thunder only happens when it's raining'...etc.). The final take on the record was evidently about 95% from what she sang live in the studio as the band was being recorded, which is very rare. As I've heard the story, she tried repeatedly to do better after the fact, but could never beat that performance. IMO it might be her best vocal performance ever. I'd say that degree of "FTM", if you will, occurs about 1% of the time.

On the dramatic front, I thought an interesting case was in the movie "This So Called Disaster", which is a doc about the making of Sam Sheppard's play of that title. It has extensive coverage from the initial rehearsal stage up to the final theatrical performance, and in many ways, for me at least, it was an object lesson in misguided directing (by the otherwise very talented Sheppard). In almost every way, I liked the earliest rehearsal performances by almost all the actors better than what Sheppard ultimately directed them into.

The play was a very personal one for him, about his relationship with his deeply troubled father, so it seems to me that could have affected his objectivity with the actors. In any case, IMO it's a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at a director's process, and very well worth watching. It's available on DVD.
 
Last edited:
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.[/QUOTE]

thats only technically correct, one might just look at takes 15-16 or if `got it' occurs in 15 and only 15 then theres no sense going over the other 21 takes unless you got some kind of continuity problem.
 
the only time its worth it to do allot of takes is when it involves something physical. If its just 2 people talking and its not working then its a matter of rehearsal. even with tape. I don't want to have to wade through dozens of takes. if an actor is not going to be convincing after 2-3 takes, then they are not prepared and they need to come back when they are. or you have to keep moving the camera and shoot a ton of inserts and cutaways and wide-angle masters and re-record the dialogue later.

Shooting with someone like Pacino, like someone said before would be great if he were on a roll and prepared or `into it'.
 
haha! oh my god. OH MY GOD!!!! mind... collapsing... on.... self..... ***arrgghhhh***



translation: i disagree.
 
Plenty of takes here. Some by the script with zero changes, some with improvisation. I'm also guilty of letting the camera run when the actors are going through their lines in position, warming up.

When I get home I usually watch the tape back on TV and make notes of which takes I want to grab pieces of for the edit.

MAH
 
Clint Eastwood does as few takes as possible. That's why his films always come in on schedule and on budget.

The problem you get with going crazy with the number of takes is that you risk losing your cast. That happened with Stanley Kubrick on "Eyes Wide Shut". Harvey Keitel and Jennifer Jason Leigh both had other films to do and left so Kubrick had to recast both roles. Which meant even more takes as Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman had to then turn around and shoot the Keitel/Leigh scenes all over again with the actors who replaced them.

There is a point where you're not being a genius but rather simply a pain in the ass to everyone.
 
I know I'm going to get slammed, just throwing meat out there.

What's so great about Kubrick and especially Eyes Wide Shut (EWS?)
 
jls4 said:
I know I'm going to get slammed, just throwing meat out there.

What's so great about Kubrick and especially Eyes Wide Shut (EWS?)
Click to expand...

wow. Just do some research. People here are only going to tell their own opinion. This is a touchy subject.
 
murraymile said:
wow. Just do some research. People here are only going to tell their own opinion. This is a touchy subject.
Click to expand...

I'll look around, but I'd love to hear people's takes on it. I'm not a Kubrick basher or anything. I think the guy had lots of great artistic ideas.

I just want to hear someone give me a reason to be a Kubrick fan. I mean even a critic gets down to "opinion". :)
 
1) he didn't do sequels
2) he didn't do it for money
3) he worked like an artist and has a body of work
4) he shot some of the scenes himself with an MOS Arri 2 hand-held (like me LOL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top