Coverage, yes or no?

J

jghenderson

Well-known member
As a director, do you prescribe to the traditional view of getting coverage for scenes? For instance when you are shooting a dialogue scene do you shoot from different angles and figure you'll stitch it all together in post? This seems to be the generally accepted "way" to do it, but I know there are some directors that choose to not go to that route, such as the Coen brothers. From what i've read in interviews from Roger Deakins, the Coens tend to storyboard everything out very well and know ahead of time where all the cuts are going to be so they don't need to get extra angles "just in case".

Thoughts?
 
I don't storyboard too extensively, but I make shot lists. How much coverage I get depends on where we are on the schedule. I previsualize enough that, if necessary, I can stitch it together in my head and shoot just that (with a few lines of overlap). What I prefer to do is shoot what's necessary, then budget extra time for coverage. I always end up needing at least some of it- articulation might fail on a certain word, there might be a movement of the eye I don't like, audio pops, a slight jitter in the camera, or I just change my mind. All sorts of things happen.

The Coen brothers are not a good example for me because their budgets tend to be a few hundred times larger than mine and their deadlines a few years later. It takes less time to shoot some coverage than to reshoot a scene enough times to be sure that everything is perfect, and I can't be sure of getting pickup shots later. That and I'm just cautious with these kinds of things. But it's definitely not an either or situation; you can plan your shots out really well and still get coverage.
 
I've worked with a producer/director whose rule is "Master and a Two-Shot." No matter what else he gets from a scene, he wants to walk away with a master shot, and an angle on each of the two main actors in the scene.

Ed Burns mentioned something about his latest film, Newlyweds that I thought was interesting: a number of scenes take place with two characters walking down the street, and Burns deliberately got coverage from BEHIND the actors, so that if there was some new line or bit of information they needed to add later, they'd have a shot they could dub it into. Newlyweds being a psuedo-doc, he also shot the "talking head" interview with the camera scenes sometimes to make something clearer in the storyline without having to reshoot on-location.

Personally, while I assume I'll probably get a solid amount of "safety" coverage when I direct, I'm really not that big of a fan of shooting coverage. Sometimes shots do work best as just masters and two-shots, but I like the idea of being deliberate with each shot you make.

-JMT
 
Yeah I suppose my fear of the master and two-shot style of filmmaking is that it seems that it has a tendency to movie the movie away from being primarily visual. Instead of figuring out what would be the most interesting way to convey the story visually, the focus seems to be on creating the story and then getting enough angles on the story to keep things "interesting", but in the end creating a less visceral experience.
 
As long as you get your fancy visual shots first you're safe from that. No matter how interesting your framing is, the story is still the most important part of any production.
 
Cassius said:
As long as you get your fancy visual shots first you're safe from that. No matter how interesting your framing is, the story is still the most important part of any production.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but I believe there are two different ways of approaching telling a story in films.

The first way is to tell the story with the visuals, through camera movement, movement within the frame, editing, etc. This tends to create movies that are atmospheric.

The other way is to approach it as simply documenting events. In essence you create a world, and the camera is there not to create atmosphere but to just record the story. Approaching it this way you choose to get a lot of coverage to try to "reveal" as much about the story as possible.


Personally I find that I like movies made the first way. The whole master and two-shot way of filmmaking seems so derivative and formulaic to me.
 
the more you preproduce, the faster you shoot, the less footage you waste, and the less you'll spend.

measure twice, cut once, applies to everything in life
 
jghenderson said:
Perhaps, but I believe there are two different ways of approaching telling a story in films.

The first way is to tell the story with the visuals, through camera movement, movement within the frame, editing, etc. This tends to create movies that are atmospheric.

The other way is to approach it as simply documenting events. In essence you create a world, and the camera is there not to create atmosphere but to just record the story. Approaching it this way you choose to get a lot of coverage to try to "reveal" as much about the story as possible.


Personally I find that I like movies made the first way. The whole master and two-shot way of filmmaking seems so derivative and formulaic to me.
Click to expand...

The difference is creating a moment vs capturing one. In "Chinatown," you feel like every moment is masterfully created. In "Margin Call," they're (slightly less) masterfully captured. And this has nothing to do with the one being a noir and the other a filmed play. Look at "The West Wing": it's all talk, but every shot is specifically engineered to communicate the tone as much as the actors themselves do.

-JMT
 
Agreed. Coverage sounds like a disorganized director to me. A film I supported shot 110 hours of good takes. It took 13 months to edit it. Now that's coverage.
 
But there are other reasons for coverage. Let's say you are an ELB film and the only audio you are getting is a boom. Not optimum, but it's done all the time.

That extra coverage WILL save you on capturing dialog, where your boom can get in much closer to the talent. You can always toss the other footage out. A skilled audio post guy can rebuild a flubbed line from one take by using audio from another, or from a different angle. Decent/typical coverage can really save your bacon.

Just an audio guy's perspective. An old saying I like to follow: "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."
 
In general going for coverage implies lesser directing but before you all abandon the typical coverage it needs to be understood that most people are average directors at best thus going for coverage is actually the best scenario.

Even if you are skilled director you still need to ask yourself what the scene is ACTUALLY about - barely ever the scene is about the words coming out of actors mouth thus the typical coverage is usually not necessary - then again barely ever you deal with a director who searches for that "something" that keeps the scene together and in that case you go for the basics. On top of that - even great director have shot themselves a few times in the foot by not getting that cut-away.

In a way you are the only one who can answer your own question (to cover or not). Until you are confident you know i would still get some basic coverage.
 
The two approaches to story telling aren't mutually exclusive. You want basic coverage for all the reasons noted. It's CYA for the editing process. No matter what happens I can always cut this scene together in a way that works and makes sense out of the traditional coverage. I do generally have the edited film in my head from the storyboarding process, so I focus a lot of attention on getting those ​ shots, be they traditional or otherwise, but I still shoot additional coverage "just in case".
 
I'll take a slightly different tack here and say that coverage allows you to control the pace of the scene. What do I mean? I like to be in total control of how fast or slow dialogue is exchanged, for instance. Of course you could say "why not just tell them to say their lines faster/slower"? Yes, that works in broad strokes, but in the edit, after watching the footage a hundred times, you may say "damn, I wish John responded to Jane a little bit quicker right here." or "I wish he paused a little longer before responding." Stuff you don't necessarily catch on set. With multiple angles you can extend/compress time like that. Works for other things too, not just dialogue.
 
as a director who comes from an editing background, my answer is yes. coverage doesn't necessarily mean typical, standard, or avante garde(sp?) coverage. what ever fits for the story, scene and preset look. I never liked someone trying to pull it off in a oner, just because they want to achieve the single shot. no one, no matter what level of planning and whatever level of film making, predicts needs right 100% of the time. everyone reshoots or does additional photography because they need more angles or better angles. my motto, plan as best as possible, shoot in order to be able to cut anywhere within a scene and know that I will likely not have planned perfectly and will need to pick something up to enhance the story.

my last feature feedthefishmovie.com
shorts http://www.youtube.com/user/triplefinger/videos

[edit] the one scene in my movie I did shoot in a oner I wished I had covered while i was editing
 
Last edited:
And a page of good arguments for coverage! When you guys shoot coverage, do you shoot it before or after shooting it the way you visualized (assuming a master-and-two wasn't the way you hoped to get the shot)?

If you shoot low angles, would you also shoot normal-angled coverage just in case you don't like the low angles, or find out in the editing room that they don't work?

Good topic here, lots of useful info.

-JMT
 
For me, it is what the shot list dictates, and what takes the least to reset. If we are doing a cowboy for scene 17B, I would want the next shot to be something close to the same lighting, camera position, etc. What I despise is doing a close, then a long lens wide shot, then going back for the reverse when it should have been shot close, reverse, then the wide (or WA, CU, CU Rev). It's all about time economics for me.

But when people go off-the-cuff on a regular basis and basically toss the shot list out the door, I know it's probably going to be a LOOOOOOOONNG day, and usually the results leave a lot to be desired. IMO, if you want to accentuate your shot list with more avante-garde angles/non-standard angles, by all means. But have the fall-back standards in there, so if what you envisioned in your mind does not work out quite the way you wanted, you still have material that can be used. For me, I think the difficulty of trying to arrange a re-shoot has way too many hassles attached to it to outweigh the validity of getting good coverage on the day of.

But lets get them in the shot list in the right place so you aren't working harder, just smarter. Your crew will thank you.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
For me, it is what the shot list dictates, and what takes the least to reset. If we are doing a cowboy for scene 17B, I would want the next shot to be something close to the same lighting, camera position, etc. What I despise is doing a close, then a long lens wide shot, then going back for the reverse when it should have been shot close, reverse, then the wide (or WA, CU, CU Rev). It's all about time economics for me.
Click to expand...

Lumet's book was a revelation on this topic for me. "Time economics" is a great word for it, too -- I'll have to write that down somewhere. <grin>
 
There seems to be a fundamental miscommunication on the definition of coverage.

Coverage doesn't mean shoot the basics and figure it out in post. It means exactly what it sounds like - covering your ass in case something goes wrong. Formula shooting, which is what I'd describe how some people interpret this, is a totally different idea and is fit to be universally derided on a forum full of people who care about visual impact. It means shooting a little extra, not ignoring preproduction and visual storytelling. I'm not sure where this black and white interpretations comes from, but it misses some big points.

As for what order I shoot things, coverage shots for me need to be the easiest and quickest things I can get without resetting. It gets mixed in with everything else. I also make a habit of running at least one line before and after I plan to cut.
 
Cassius said:
There seems to be a fundamental miscommunication on the definition of coverage.

Coverage doesn't mean shoot the basics and figure it out in post. It means exactly what it sounds like - covering your ass in case something goes wrong. Formula shooting, which is what I'd describe how some people interpret this, is a totally different idea and is fit to be universally derided on a forum full of people who care about visual impact.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I know of directors who say they don't need coverage. Man, I wish I was that good...

There are just so many things that can go wrong on a set that I can't fathom how someone on a lower budget without time/money for re-shoots could feel safe shooting everything in camera. What if performance isn't where you want it, audio is screwy, or you want to have the freedom to cut certain lines out of the film?

Also, (if you're not editing yourself) you give room for the editor to create with more coverage. I know a lot of my directing peers disagree with me on that last note, and I don't blame them for that. Control is a huge part of directing, and many directors want to force the editor to cut the film a certain way. I know I certainly go into production with storyboards and strong pre-vis of how the scene should look. At the same time though, I feel like part of a director's job is to create a space where people can experiment with different ways of expressing a core idea. An editor may find ways to use different pieces of coverage to express the same idea you're trying to express, just in a different way.

I have an example where both of these things collided for me. I had a scene that was shot on steadicam, and 90% of what my DP shoots on steadicam looks pretty freaking good. It's made me become lazy as a director sometimes. If we are running short on time, I get completely comfortable shooting a moving master on the steadicam and most of the time it works very well. On the last short film I did, it worked twice and failed miserably on a third scene. We had the holy grail of bad performance, bad audio, and a need to want to shorten the scene. Thank God my DP pleaded with me that we cover our asses that day with a wide establishing shot. In post, my editor was able to cut out all the crap we didn't like by running he beginning dialogue over that wide shot, and cutting to the steadicam shot halfway through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top