Ed Lachman: You Can’t Shoot Everything and Create the Story Later

Wow. This topic is really pertinent for me right now. I'm in the midst of a long edit on a narrative short film and I'm really only finding the essential heart of the piece on my fourth or fifth pass. I take the full blame for this as my script wasn't as fully realized as I thought it was to start with. I also cast an actor whose physical performance far surpassed his dialogue delivery, which I again take full responsibility for as we didn't have time to rehearse enough anyway. I completely over-shot (digital) and have reams of material I'll never use and worked our tiny group of actors and crew so hard to get material we now don't need.... I could go on...

We're lucky in the sense that this is a personal project and we don't have deadlines or other pressures on us. I have the luxury of some time to devote to getting the film in the shape it deserves. And cast and crew are still talking to me too, which I can only be eternally grateful for.

I must report though that I'm learning a lot and the process of finding the film in the editing room, while massively frustrating and time-consuming, is fascinating at times too. All the work is resulting in a better edit and a better film, so there's something to be said for it. Had I been better prepared before shooting however, I wouldn't be in this situation. Lesson learned.

I've worked on some documentary projects in the past too and I think it may be more acceptable to rely more on shooting loads and then finding and shaping the film in the editing room later. That's often the nature of the beast for documentary in my limited experience.

Anyway, back to the trenches for now.... I will finish this film.... I will finish this film....
 
Raises hand: stupid guy here! I guess I'm just thick. I don't find what this guy is saying particularly noteworthy, but I do find it somewhat a confused statement. The confusing part - maybe it's out of context - he starts talking about most directors looking at a monitor (TV) while shooting, whether they're shooting digitally or film... OK, where is that going? So? He never seems to follow that thought; I was waiting, "and???", but he sort of transitions into some tangent that has nothing to do with "looking at a monitor while shooting". WTF does that have to do with the rest of what he's saying?

Moving on. I guess I just don't get his point. He acknowledges that shooting a ton and then finding the story is simply a style (mentions specifically 'verite') - but why is that bad? You can do that well, or badly. Some great films were made that way - and are still made - and a ton of crap was made that way too... so what else is new in town? You can shoot a highly disciplined film (no overshooting or coverage) badly or well too. Sooo? It's just a technique, like any other. Use it when the style calls for it. And it's nothing new specific to "digital". Coppola shot this exact way for Apocalypse Now, yes, very expensive - tons and tons of material and tangents that were never incorporated, and it was indeed only found in editing (not a fan of that movie, personally). There are many directors, very respectable directors who shoot this style (on film) - it's sometimes expensive, or not economical, but it provides some unique things, among them spontaneity and "planned accidents" that cannot be duplicated by "having a very specific point of view" and highly discipline shooting of only what you need. Hitchcock was at the other end of this - he shot only what he needed ("editing in camera") and pre-planned everything. That's valid too - but it's just a method like any other. Maybe he means that somehow digital shooting encourages aimless shooting, but that's kind of a weak point, since as I pointed out, this technique existed even apart from 'verite' style (Coppola, Altman etc.).

I guess I just don't understand what profound point he's making. I get the feeling that his points boil down to "digital makes people think they are free to shoot aimlessly", "you should not shoot badly/poorly"... duh? I mean, it's a legitimate technique - the fact that doofuses use it who don't know how to use it... well, what else is new? Doofuses will doofus, regardless of what it is... stupid people can overdose on plain water too, doesn't make drinking water bad. So is his point "foolish people are foolish"?

Meh. I'm glad someone finds this meaningful, but I got nothing out of it. But then again, I might just be thick.
 
OldCorpse said:
Raises hand: stupid guy here! I guess I'm just thick. I don't find what this guy is saying particularly noteworthy, but I do find it somewhat a confused statement. The confusing part - maybe it's out of context - he starts talking about most directors looking at a monitor (TV) while shooting, whether they're shooting digitally or film... OK, where is that going? So? He never seems to follow that thought; I was waiting, "and???", but he sort of transitions into some tangent that has nothing to do with "looking at a monitor while shooting". WTF does that have to do with the rest of what he's saying?

Moving on. I guess I just don't get his point. He acknowledges that shooting a ton and then finding the story is simply a style (mentions specifically 'verite') - but why is that bad? You can do that well, or badly. Some great films were made that way - and are still made - and a ton of crap was made that way too... so what else is new in town? You can shoot a highly disciplined film (no overshooting or coverage) badly or well too. Sooo? It's just a technique, like any other. Use it when the style calls for it. And it's nothing new specific to "digital". Coppola shot this exact way for Apocalypse Now, yes, very expensive - tons and tons of material and tangents that were never incorporated, and it was indeed only found in editing (not a fan of that movie, personally). There are many directors, very respectable directors who shoot this style (on film) - it's sometimes expensive, or not economical, but it provides some unique things, among them spontaneity and "planned accidents" that cannot be duplicated by "having a very specific point of view" and highly discipline shooting of only what you need. Hitchcock was at the other end of this - he shot only what he needed ("editing in camera") and pre-planned everything. That's valid too - but it's just a method like any other. Maybe he means that somehow digital shooting encourages aimless shooting, but that's kind of a weak point, since as I pointed out, this technique existed even apart from 'verite' style (Coppola, Altman etc.).

I guess I just don't understand what profound point he's making. I get the feeling that his points boil down to "digital makes people think they are free to shoot aimlessly", "you should not shoot badly/poorly"... duh? I mean, it's a legitimate technique - the fact that doofuses use it who don't know how to use it... well, what else is new? Doofuses will doofus, regardless of what it is... stupid people can overdose on plain water too, doesn't make drinking water bad. So is his point "foolish people are foolish"?

Meh. I'm glad someone finds this meaningful, but I got nothing out of it. But then again, I might just be thick.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase the Honeycomb Kid jingle: Auteur's Picture's big...yeah yeah yeah! It's not small...no no no!

Or, as I 'd say, "Be a storyteller first, and a technician ninth..."
 
lots of folks (supposedly) devote themselves to this art form and then work to learn the bare minimums of the art form and hunt for shortcuts and cheats for themselves. Its strange.

The idea that someone would not WANT to pre-edit/shot list their movie is lil odd to me. Don't you want to be an artist/creative person? Don't you want to express yourself/serve the story by (perhaps in collaboration with a DP) choosing the shots? If not, what the hell did you sign up for? You want to make cinema, or record theatre?

so yeah big directors have done it, good for them- it IS a way of working, but id hardly jump on it as the best go-to method for most-- I mean, movies are made of shots and youre a director whyd you want to be lazy about the shots ?
 
nycineaste said:
lots of folks (supposedly) devote themselves to this art form and then work to learn the bare minimums of the art form and hunt for shortcuts and cheats for themselves. Its strange.

The idea that someone would not WANT to pre-edit/shot list their movie is lil odd to me. Don't you want to be an artist/creative person? Don't you want to express yourself/serve the story by (perhaps in collaboration with a DP) choosing the shots? If not, what the hell did you sign up for? You want to make cinema, or record theatre?

so yeah big directors have done it, good for them- it IS a way of working, but id hardly jump on it as the best go-to method for most-- I mean, movies are made of shots and youre a director whyd you want to be lazy about the shots ?
Click to expand...

I think you completely misunderstand the method. It' not "laziness", or lack of artistry. I'll make a perfect analogy for you. It's the exact equivalent of improvisational play in jazz (or whatever music). There is the playing from notes, written music, standards and compositions etc.; that was the traditional approach. But musicians often also played together, jamming, and experimented - this latter approach evolved into its own artistic achievement... improvisation. Giants of jazz, such as Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis and countless others evolved something incredibly sophisticated and at the very high-end of artistic achievement. By the way, that was not merely during live performances, but would also be recorded for LPs. There is special magic in playing off of each other and being totally in the moment and departing from what is written and going totally by the feel of the present. Nobody in their right mind would call that "lazy" or "not artistic"... the very opposite - it is incredibly hard, and challenging, and bold and artistic. You, as an artist, are called to perform off your inspiration of the moment - no pre-rehearsed regurgitation of standard material everyone knows. That takes amazing talent - a special talent. It is performance at the highest level.

Many artists are great at putting forward a rehearsed performance. But not all of them are able to improvise - that takes a special talent. This incidentally is absolutely true in acting, for example. I live not far away from Groundlings - the improv company - the basis of their brilliant performances are totally spontaneous improvisations by actors... and many famous actors came from there. And note, that this is often incorporated - to a greater or lesser degree - in many films shot quite conventionally. Directors frequently leave room for the actor to improvise - dialogue, action, sometimes a whole scene or interactions. They do that, because of an extra dimension of realism and spontaneity that you just cannot achieve through strict following of the script. Now, not all actors are good at it. Some actors are brilliant at it, some are only great with written lines, and can't improvise their way out of a paper bag. Robert Altman's entire approach to actors was improv - he let them spontaneously create in front of the camera... and often got amazing performances.

The approach of taking a loose story - or merely a suggestion of a story - and then creating the film as you go along shooting a lot of material, and then finding the final film in the editing room, was something that exploded in the 60's with the New Wave in Europe, but it found many great practitioners the world over and is something that happens to this day. Of course, just as with performers, so with directors - not everyone has the ability to do that well. And sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't... just as with any film technique, including the most conventional and the most calculated (Hitchcock too made poor films). A lot depends on the chemistry of the actors, their ability to improvise, the mood, how the director subtly influences the action etc. It's totally legit, and a special approach that takes talent. There is nothing - NOTHING - "lazy" about it, or "not artistic".

Now, no question, if you are no good at it, you shouldn't do it - and it doesn't matter if you shoot digital or on film or freakin animate with puppets. Maybe there's a feeling that digital somehow encouraged the unsuitable folks to try this method, but as I explained in my previous post, that's not true, because it existed on film for decades now. Bottom line, to me Lachman said nothing of interest at all - yep, unsuitable folks will do unsuitable things, big whoop. Tell us something we didn't know. He basically strikes me as an old guy with his "digital" complaint - "kids these days", "get off my lawn" - an impression not helped by old person style scattered argument where he loses his train of thought ("they watch monitors!") or doesn't finish a thought and goes off on tangent... you know, like old people talk.

However, if it was helpful to someone, I'm very happy for them. You get your insight wherever you can - it just didn't work for me (maybe I'm stoopid) - so more power to those who were inspired.
 
yeah, I acknowledged in my post that it is an artistically viable and successful approach for some

in general though:

drama is a series of ---interrelated cause and effect---- actions

so dramatic stories, by nature, tend to need to be composed, since one event creates/relates to the next and others down the road

so great if you want to make an episodic or non-traditional narrative, not so good if youre trying to craft a tight story (admittedly not all movies are primarily about story)...
 
Last edited:
PaPa said:
the link isn't working.
Click to expand...

This is sort of the problem using 'ancient'... by Internet standards... references...

Here's what I think was the Lachman clip referenced above...


I heartily agree that one should have a 'clear' story, shoot the story, and then the editing is 1) finding the best shot for the take, 2) adjusting for 'better timing'. There may be a possibility in editing to change emphasis, delete extraneous material, etc. but for the nolo budget filmmaker, there is no budget for working on a 'major' scene, only to have it cut.

I don't think it is necessarily an 'auteur' attribute to shoot miles of film, then cut out a 'story'... Hitchcock I have read was pretty meager on his shooting, to the point were the editor basically only had to 'assemble the movie in the script scene order'...

I think nolo budget filmmakers should set that sort of shooting as their goal...
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
I mean, it's a legitimate technique - the fact that doofuses use it who don't know how to use it... well, what else is new? Doofuses will doofus, regardless of what it is...
Click to expand...

I got a smile outta that response. I'm adding "doofuses will doofus" to my little book of maxims on modern film-making, along with other gems such as my personal fave, "Nothing happens until it happens".
 
More than one way to skin a cat, more than one way to shoot a film, blah blah blah.

I personally love that there are so many different approaches to this process. It keeps it interesting, and prevents it from becoming formulaic.

That being said, I've noticed every project I do, I always in the end wish I had done more pre-planning and storyboarding. But just because that is quickly becoming my approach doesn't mean that others can't just go out there and work purely on instinct. I just happen to be more classical music than jazz.
 
jghenderson said:
More than one way to skin a cat, more than one way to shoot a film, blah blah blah.

I personally love that there are so many different approaches to this process. It keeps it interesting, and prevents it from becoming formulaic.

That being said, I've noticed every project I do, I always in the end wish I had done more pre-planning and storyboarding. But just because that is quickly becoming my approach doesn't mean that others can't just go out there and work purely on instinct. I just happen to be more classical music than jazz.
Click to expand...

And jghenderson expressed what I tried to, and did so in fewer words - bravo!

Yes, I too prefer to pre-plan everything. So far, I've only done shorts, and am in prep for my no-budget feature, but I don't feel at the moment that I'd do well with a free-flowing approach. Having said that, what I've done on the shorts - and plan to on the feature - is to shoot the scene as planned (unless it becomes obvious it needs re-thinking, which happens not rarely :)), but afterwards, I always try to allow a couple of takes where I just loosen things up, allow actors to improv and experiment... sometimes good stuff results, sometimes it's a waste of time. Of course, time is of the essence and you may not always have the luxury of such extra takes. Anyhow, no sense in being dogmatic - it's the result that counts. Use whatever method.
 
jghenderson said:
more pre-planning and storyboarding .
Click to expand...

I do shot lists but not storyboards- if you're decent at composition you can make a servicable picture no matter which direction or no matter what you point the camera at

so I seek out the exact composition off-the cuff, on set, but the shot list is pre-arranged to tell the story and give me what I need to create a lively, varied, not-stiff edit

"cinema is closer to language than it is to painting" -- eisenstein
 
Last edited:
lol, I guess not. I was trying not to overstate my skills; every shot I do is not a Rembrandt. It is true tho that if you know composition you can make a PICTURE out of anything anywhere. A picture being distinct from home video, and a picture being something where the forms/shapes are arranged in an interesting fashion and there's not a big blaring yellow box of cheerios in the background screaming for attention (in your movie that is not about cheerios).
 
Last edited:
I absolutely HATE the jazz improvisation analogy for shooting without ample prep. What most people don't realize is that a jazz musician has to know a song backwards and forwards before they can articulately improvise over it. When Charlie Parker played a solo over Donna Lee it was incredible in part because he could tell you what the functional harmony was for any individual beat of that tune, which tensions were available, how best to approach the next chord to imply specific functions, what rhythms are being played by the drummer and bassist (and how the bassists pattern influences the harmony of the song), which scales to use depending on context, how to alter the harmony in conjunction with the rhythm section or to imply particular feels, how to suspend resolutions to induce tension, etc.

Please let me emphasize: It takes significantly more preparation and practice on a song to be able to improvise over it than it does to be able to perform it note-for-note the way a classical musician would. This is a fantastic analogy for filmmaking. If you want to improvise and be moved to specific action by what you feel on set, then you need to be MORE prepared than if you were just checking off the lines on a shot list. The better your plan, the more effectively you can deviate from it while retaining control and consistency. Even if you are averse to planning everything in advance, by mapping everything out you can more easily improvise while ensuring that your bases are covered. If you walk into a shoot with lighting plots it's very easy to quickly alter them and adjust - even if the end result is completely different than the original plot. If you want to produce consistently GOOD content (from a technical as well as creative standpoint) then there is no reason to walk into a situation blind or under-prepared. Remember that you aren't bound by plans that you make. You can always deviate or go in a completely different direction in the spur of the moment, but those plans will still be beneficial to you in a myriad of ways.
 
Totally agree. A large part of jazz is showcasing individual players' skills. This would be a disaster in film. There is ONLY the group in film. And that group has to only be focused on telling the story the best way possible. Imagine if actors were allowed to express their acting and dp's were allowed to frame and light how they pleased just to fatten their reels. It would probably be highly damaging to the film. Worst of all, it would be highly inefficient. On a low budget, which films shooting on video usually are, you have to be MORE efficient, not less. Certainly, if you have the time and people have good ideas to contribute to telling the story, shoot it. But to a priori say we're going to shoot miles of footage and then find the film in the editing room is really lazy filmmaking.
 
Yes, that approach has always been around but I think Lachman's point is it's gotten much worse with the onset of digital filmmaking. If dv cost $150/10 minutes like 16mm does, then people would actually put more thought into what they shot instead of just shooting every random notion that comes into their heads. From a dp's perspective, it's probably not fun to work with a director who shoots like this.

OldCorpse said:
Raises hand: stupid guy here! I guess I'm just thick. I don't find what this guy is saying particularly noteworthy, but I do find it somewhat a confused statement. The confusing part - maybe it's out of context - he starts talking about most directors looking at a monitor (TV) while shooting, whether they're shooting digitally or film... OK, where is that going? So? He never seems to follow that thought; I was waiting, "and???", but he sort of transitions into some tangent that has nothing to do with "looking at a monitor while shooting". WTF does that have to do with the rest of what he's saying?

Moving on. I guess I just don't get his point. He acknowledges that shooting a ton and then finding the story is simply a style (mentions specifically 'verite') - but why is that bad? You can do that well, or badly. Some great films were made that way - and are still made - and a ton of crap was made that way too... so what else is new in town? You can shoot a highly disciplined film (no overshooting or coverage) badly or well too. Sooo? It's just a technique, like any other. Use it when the style calls for it. And it's nothing new specific to "digital". Coppola shot this exact way for Apocalypse Now, yes, very expensive - tons and tons of material and tangents that were never incorporated, and it was indeed only found in editing (not a fan of that movie, personally). There are many directors, very respectable directors who shoot this style (on film) - it's sometimes expensive, or not economical, but it provides some unique things, among them spontaneity and "planned accidents" that cannot be duplicated by "having a very specific point of view" and highly discipline shooting of only what you need. Hitchcock was at the other end of this - he shot only what he needed ("editing in camera") and pre-planned everything. That's valid too - but it's just a method like any other. Maybe he means that somehow digital shooting encourages aimless shooting, but that's kind of a weak point, since as I pointed out, this technique existed even apart from 'verite' style (Coppola, Altman etc.).

I guess I just don't understand what profound point he's making. I get the feeling that his points boil down to "digital makes people think they are free to shoot aimlessly", "you should not shoot badly/poorly"... duh? I mean, it's a legitimate technique - the fact that doofuses use it who don't know how to use it... well, what else is new? Doofuses will doofus, regardless of what it is... stupid people can overdose on plain water too, doesn't make drinking water bad. So is his point "foolish people are foolish"?

Meh. I'm glad someone finds this meaningful, but I got nothing out of it. But then again, I might just be thick.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top