Filmmaking - is a monitor essential?

I have made films with and without them and I like having them. Absolutely have to have? No, but they certainly save time, and the possibility of missing something that can cause trouble latter.
 
Well that depends on several things. What camera are you shooting on? How shallow is your depth of field? Who is your camera operator? How much of a crew do have? Who gets the monitor?

Let me elaborate...

What camera are you shooting on?
Is it an HVX200 with a built in screen that is moveable? Is it an HDSLR with a fixed screen?

How shallow is your depth of field?
The shallower the DOF, the easier it is to mess up on a shot.

Who is your camera operator?
Do you trust that they can shoot, move, block the shot the way you want them to.

How much of a crew do you have?
Do you have an AC to control the focus? Do you have an AD that can keep an eye on the focus while you focus on the acting?

Who gets the monitor?
Are you giving your camera operator the monitor or are you just wanting one for the director.

I wrote this from the perspective of the director. If you're the camera operator, just interpolate for your situation.
 
I think it's a good idea to give the camera crew their space. Sometimes, if the director and DP are crowding the camera nothing will ever get done. Tiny little bickerings and whatnot.

If you hired the DP you should be confident enough to sit at your monitor and not micromanage his/her handiwork. Represent your audience. See the forest for the trees since that's your job.

Plus you can set up the video village a little closer to the performers while also disguising the fact that everyone is looking at them. That's always nice as an actor. To not have a hundred people bunched up behind the camera right in front of you.
 
I don't think a director should watch the monitor during takes if there are actors performing. A director that sits 50yd away in video village will have a hard time staying engaged, and an even harder time making the actors feel that he/she is engaged. The courage that an always-present director gives to actors is often the most important ingredient in a quality performance.

With that said, it can be very helpful for the crew. Aside from obvious benefits to the DP and camera department, it can benefit sound by letting them see the frame line, as well as the art department by letting them see what's visible in the frame.
 
This is a good theoretical: should the director focus on the frame or the live performance during a take?

I would personally argue the frame.
 
Interesting you have the hemingway, what would he say? recently I shot without one and it was liberating and I thought it built up confidence in the others, the sound came out messed up but the footage was nice.
 
Knoxworth said:
This is a good theoretical: should the director focus on the frame or the live performance during a take?

I would personally argue the frame.
Click to expand...


I have to agree to the same... 16 years ago I met a very established director and TV screen play writer. I asked her for some advice on making a good production. She told me to always remember, and I quote:

"The Frame is the window to a world"

She went on to say that....

"the viewer doesn't have a clue what is going on outside the window, unless you tell them what's going on, inside the window".

Hmmm, sounds profound, but man I never forgot what she said, and make this my rule whenever I am shooting and directing.
 
Yes a monitor is essential to the film-making process, but not for every reason stated. I personally believe that too much time in monitors checking what another department is responsible for is not going to instill the trust that you must have from your actors. Once you have the frame, you have the frame... storyboard, plan, discuss, and let others know what should be in the frame, but what people do in the frame is directly under your control, and you may have to step out from behind the monitor to effectively handle that. I was on a set with a video village and the director spent all of his time there, so, even on the very few times he directly stood in front of them, the actors responded to him like he was a disengaged voice who was more interested in tech than performance. It was a weird, subconscious thing. He couldn't articulate what he wanted, and they couldn't understand what he meant. Suffice to say, the project looked amazing, but had the worst performances any of us had ever seen.
 
Viewing the frame for performance and blocking is very different from viewing the frame for technical nitpicking. I can't stand technical nitpicking, as you said the job is done in preproduction.

You hire people who you have confidence in, and who have confidence in themselves. They call the shots for that department and you don't second guess them (too often at least).

This allows a director to be "in his bubble", directing his principle cast & making them feel at ease. If the director starts and stops the production to nitpick, this gets me very tense as an actor. I start feeling anxiety and it can come across in the performance.

Likewise, if a technician (say the audio guy) is always freaking out and giving adjustments to the actors it does damage because it puts the actors in their heads. No, do not use video village as a way to disconnect yourself from your performers and nitpick your crew. That is a horrible method - I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top