Film crews are big!

C

combatentropy

Veteran
"On films with very small crews, the electric (lighting) department often consists of only a gaffer, a best boy, and a few electricians." --- Wikipedia. So, a "very small crew" has four or five people dedicated to lighting, beyond the director and director of photography. Nice!

"The grip department may include only a key grip, a best boy, and a few grips." --- Ibid. This "small crew" furthermore has several people whose main job is to set up stands, flags, diffusion, etc. (the aforementioned electrical department is only in charge of stringing up lights).

Furthermore the Director of Photography on a Hollywood set doesn't even pick out the lights. He leaves it to the gaffer. "I will discuss with the gaffer what I want, where I want the light coming from, what I want the light to hit, and usually let him decide on the the units he uses. Nine out of ten times he will make the decision on the unit. If I want something specific I will ask for a specific unit, but generally that is his department. I want the set looking in a certain way and I want so many footcandles and that is what he gives me." --- Michael D. Margulies, ASC.

That last quote is from a book called Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz. It's been sitting on my shelf since I bought it for a film class in the late 90s. For some reason at the time I couldn't make my way through it, thinking it was a bad book. But the first chapter has been fun, and it looks like it has a lot of solid information, with tons of quotes from industry pros, including many famous cinematographers.
 
I would think a "very small" film crew back when that book was written mostly likely means something very different from a "very small" film crew now, considering that even the "small independent films" of that era were still had some kind of distribution deal most of the time before even being made (even if straight to video), and so the sets would resemble scaled-down versions of big productions. So there was no three-man team making a horror movie and trying to figure out how to monetize it later, at least not nearly as often (yes I know about El Mariachi, although if that book came in 1990 I think El Mariachi was a few years later).
 
Last edited:
While this is generally accurate - things can vary WIDELY.

I've seen a 7-person crew absolutely THROW DOWN. But they were all exceptional at what they did.
Also this was not doing huge 100+ actors and extras on a complex outdoor-simulated set.

Look into how "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was made. Surprisingly small crew.
IF...IF it suits your subject material, and your people are good at what they do, there's no reason you cannot generally get by with 7 to 10 people total.
 
Film Lighting is one of the best books on practical set lighting I've read. I have the latest version with M. David Mullen and Matty Libatique among others.
 
I hate to be the "I would think" guy again but I have the original edition (I think) and I'm guessing some of the tools/techniques are a little outdated by now (using fresnels as keys and ziplights, etc. etc.). I mean right tool for the right job and all but do you really see that kind of stuff done much now?

As for small crews I think I remember reading that "The Squid and the Whale" (indie with Jeff Daniels and Jesse Eisenberg that got theatrical distribution) had a crew that was all interns/volunteers except for the main guys (DP, sound guy, etc.)!. Crazy.
 
I was in a scene that was shot for Waking Life (scene was cut) and it was Rick and Tommy(a producer) with video cameras operating, a sound mixer , another producer and a p.a. and a cast of three actors.
 
Film crews on indies of course vary widely. I've only been on two 'small-medium' budget film sets ($250- 1 million) sets in Sacramento, and the crews were from LA and totally amazing. I was second unit and there was a crew of about 15-20, with 8 actors. But these guys did in one day what a volunteer crew would take a week to do.

OTOH, I've seen a good crew of 7 film several complex scenes with 5 actors and 15 extras. Turned out very good. I'd say that is really about the smallest you can get that can function well.

On that same film, a different day, several crew left or called in sick, and we shot several highly emotional scenes with two actors, and three crew. One of the actors had to slate the film. Crazy.
 
I shoot BTS and EPK on TV shows and feature films where the crew generally varies from 100 to 250 crew members. I also shoot a lot of three man documentary style projects. As shows like No Reservations have proven by their Emmys for cinematography, you can make excellent television or an indie film with a small crew of 3-10 people. But you have to work within your limitations. A big crew generally allows you to do logistically huge set ups in a relatively short amount of time. I shot on a Network action show in Africa a few months ago and we were doing 3-4 HUGE set ups a day with entire streets and neighborhoods lit and on camera, hundreds of extras, stunts, explosions, car chases, etc. You just can't get that kind of scale with a 10-20 person crew without taking all day to do one setup and even then it's difficult. Personally, I like both, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

I am working on pitches for my own shows, they are mostly in the docu-reality mode and most would be budgeted to be shot with a 20 person crew, but don't forget that includes hair, makeup, wardrobe, PAs, security, transportation, not a whole lot of positions left for G&E, sound dept, camera dept, media management, etc.
 
How long is a piece of string? It all depends, doesn't it? I mean, if you have a complicated film with tons of actors and extras you end up with a different configuration of crew than a cinema verite scene where you focus on one actor moping about his room. As to what it better, opinions differ, not surprisingly. Herzog is of the school that less is more. He is of the opinion that a minimalist crew - sometimes it's just him and the camera guy! - is the best, most mobile, most responsive, most sensitive and most productive; he claims that when you have more crew members and job functions start getting rigidly divided things immediately become extremely inefficient with a lot of sitting around, because your job role hasn't been called for at that particular moment - so you always have a ton of people sitting at any given moment, whereas in a tiny crew where the roles are not as rigid everybody pitches in non-stop and nobody has the time to sit down. Which can be good - or bad, depending on the circumstances.

But as others have pointed out, the technical realities of production have changed, and therefore crew requirements have changed. Old books are sometimes not relevant in every respect. Plus, you have to ask "union" or "non-union", and that will dictate a lot.

I remember there were always quite a few threads on dvxuser where someone asks: now big is a crew? or "how few crew members can I get and still have a pro product at the end". Fun times :)
 
Threadstarter here. Yes, I know crews can vary widely, with widely varying results. In my teens I shot 40 little videos with a crew of 1½ (me, plus a friend-actor holding the mic, when they're not in the shot). Sometimes when I'm at a movie, and I see a particularly impressive scene, I ask myself, "Could I have directed it that well?" But by "directing," I'm imagining myself not only directing but making a lot of the other tedious decisions that I used to do as well, like about costume, set, and lighting. The thought overwhelms me, and I say, "I guess not. That's a good director!"

Then I step it down a notch and say, wait a minute, what if I was just the DP, could I have lit it that well? Again, I'm overwhelmed by the complexity of the scene, and I say to myself, I guess not.

Then I read a book like the one I talked about and say, oh, well, that makes it a little easier. ;)

In all reality I don't know if I could direct as well as so-and-so, but it does give me a little encouragement.

----

Yes, I know the director gets asked a million questions on set and still has his hand in almost everything. But still he doesn't have to do everyone's job for them, and that's what brings it down from "I don't know how he did that," to "I see how a mere mortal could do that, with the help of a hundred other skilled mortals."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top