overshooting

Charli

Charli

cool little "title"
I recently finished reading a book on film shorts and one trait that was stated
among new indie filmmakers was over shooting a scene. I wasn't sure what this
meant until yesterday when I sat in on a shoot. You know when you have a
scene with a letter, like scene 12a... well, I think on that particular scene the
director went through the entire alphabet.

The poor actors, I felt for them. They were totally exhausted by the end of the day.
Two scenes were filmed. Most of the problems arised from framing more than the
way the actors said their lines.

I dunno. Maybe as a screenwriter I've learned the lesson that less is more. More
than anything, the day was about, "let's make sure we have ALL the
shots and leave nothing to chance" that just dragged the day onto forever.
There's something to be said about having a sure shot and going with it.

Especially for the poor actors.

Charli
 
I feel your pain, and this comes from the firehosing philosophy centered around the notion that "tape is cheap". Well, yeah, tape *is* cheap -- but actors and locations and crew and food and equipment rentals and locations and everything else *aren't* cheap.

You can't squander an entire day just because you didn't pre-plan the shots through... Think through the shots, get the shots you need, and then get out and move on...
 
This applies to us documentary folks as well. While tape is cheap, logging and transcribing is expensive (if you have the budget to have someone else do it) or at least mind numbingly tedious if you're doing it yourself.

Shooting a community forum related to the topic of your doc? Be sure to tape the whole damn three hours on the off-chance that something brilliant and gripping will happen...ouch...

The best way to learn not to overshoot is to log and transcribe your own tapes. And the best way to stay in the practice of not overshooting is to think about and carefully plan your shoots beforehand and have a clear idea of what you need in order to tell your story.

By the time you've made a couple of documentaries (and, granted, I've only made short docs so far), you learn that documentaries don't just happen as life unfolds in its own rhythm, while you just happen to be there at the right place and the right time with your camera running constantly. Of course, you do want to be open and available for whatever happens - but you don't want to find that you're out of tape when something unexpected and crucial happens because you used up all of your tape shooting two hours of Robert's Rules of Order.

Documentaries are ultimately constructed, just like other forms of film storytelling, and knowing what you're shooting and why will go a long way towards maximizing the content of what you do shoot.

Alright, that's my lil' rant for the day. Is it obvious that I have some personal experience of shooting too much? Oh yeah - and it was actually a four hour community forum...
 
Last edited:
Get a 35mm camera package and a budget and your whole perspective on coverage as a director will change instantly :)

I think overshooting is common. But the wiser of learn from their past and tend to know what they want more and more, cutting down shots.

Then again Kubric would shoot the same shot over 80 times. So who knows!
 
I lean on the side of err in getting coverage. There is nothing worse than going to edit and realizing your missing a shot or element that will pull your scene and vision together.

Having a shot list, lighting diagrams, and previs/boards to know what coverage you need and want is imperative. If you can stay on schedule and have time afterwards then thats a total bene.

Actors being tired? Who cares. They have the easy job.
 
I used to just shoot by the seat of my pants, but honestly it was because I was too lazy to do the preproduction work neccessary. I was the typical arrogant young film student who said "I don't need to do preproduction! I'll figure it out when we get there!" the thing with doing that is once you get there you spend your time trying to figure it out when you could be spending you time working with the actors like you ought to! I'll never shoot another movie again that I have't planned extensively. directors are supposed to be problem solvers and when you don't plan you make problems for everyone, especially yourself!
 
John_Hudson said:
Actors being tired? Who cares. They have the easy job.
Click to expand...

I do hope that you're being at least a little bit tongue in cheek with that remark. A director that doesn't understand or respect the difficult work that actors do might as well just shoot his buddies setting up lights and moving scenery to show how hard they have to work.
 
The thing is, the director had a shot list. It was this long, long list of shots. Placing
the tripod on the bed was NOT a good idea, not with that tripod. Amusing to
watch however.

Yeah, actors play the waiting game and I'm fine with that. I'm however not fine
with wasted time. I suppose as you get older you do indeed realize time is precious.

Charli
 
Bus No. 8 said:
I do hope that you're being at least a little bit tongue in cheek with that remark. A director that doesn't understand or respect the difficult work that actors do might as well just shoot his buddies setting up lights and moving scenery to show how hard they have to work.
Click to expand...

Everything I say is usually a bit of tongue and cheek; but generally:

Who cares about the actors ? Every person on the set is busting their tail I would presume ?

I respect a talented actor's ability but am not going to cry for them. When I shot Pestilence it was so hot and the actresses kept crying about how hot they were and meanwhile, myself and the super small crew were just sweating to death (not complaining one time by the way). But I just remember how distracting it was for them to be bitching the whole time about it and they were just 'sitting in a car'.

Anyways; of course I respect and understand an actor's skill. But, really, who cares ? We're all out there working. Anyone who starts complaining isnt paying attention.

But I do agree with Hitch; actor's should be treated like cattle.
 
Well, you make good points, of course. And god knows I know that actors can be astonishingly self involved, infantile people - I used to be one, then used to direct them, which is why I now make documentaries...

But the difference between being a stalwart crew member just going about your business without complaint, and an actor who "doesn't have to do anything" while everyone else is busting their hump, is that once the camera is rolling the actor has to "sparkle" (to quote Patty Duke in Valley of the Dolls) in spite of the heat, or the cold, or the crappy food - and be in another place entirely from the one that the crew is inhabiting (this assumes that you've hired decent actors).

The crew can sweat and scratch and scowl with silent dignity all they want, but the actor suddenly has to be Maria Von Trapp skipping through nettles with a smile on her face and, you have to admit, it is a special person who can do this well.

Sure, everyone is working hard and no one has it any better or worse than the rest, but there is a certain chauvinism involved that goes all the way back to the high school wars between techies and actors.

But anyway, back to the topic. Overshooting...bad.
 
Last edited:
Your crew doesn't complain? I need to find a new crew... jeez. =)

Actors are pampered. They have a small squad of makeup artists all over them between most shots, girls with hairspray pumping away like there's a gaggle of tarantulas are on their head, the director talking with them, DP trying light their face better, a PA asking if they want another cup of coffee... (darn you PAs what about your director!?)

Truth is your burly gaffer with the curly haired mullet and a t-shirt one size too small isn't going to get a girl with a can of hairspray to make their mullet "sparkle" and if lighting is hitting their face chances are his gaffers clamp failed and he's trying to turn the light off before it catches the room on fire (happened to me with a Chinese lantern before =)

I'm not justifying how many actors act and whine although I know tons who won't lift a lip. (Get an Aussie they won't complain about the heat trust me =) Just have to know how to deal, sometimes it's warranted and I hope the crew themselves complains, or not "complain" but voice their frustration because I know sometimes much time is wasted in terrible environments you just want to get out of as soon as possible.
 
Wow, now I'm scared. We put in some long hours, usually starting a 5 pm and going until 2 or 3 am (a couple of times, even later) and everyone was a trooper. Our crew was ready to do what had to be done to get the shot. I never once heard an actor complain. Our lead actress was getting married shortly after our shoot was scheduled to end, so in between shots, she was planning her wedding. While waiting for a setup or their scene, the actors either; went over their lines, read, took a smoke break or even pitched in to help with the setup. I've probably been spoiled and will never see that again, but we had a marvelous cast and crew.

We averaged about six scenes a night with all the coverage.
 
These actors never complained but I did notice they lost their zip at the end of
a long hard day and the director didn't reenergize them. They had their breaks,
etc. The point however was not the actors, it was the overshoot. I just said
I felt bad for the actors because of the overshoot.

Charli
 
I'm not a very visual person so I can't really plan out the shot beforehand unless I'm seeing it through the camera, which of course means that I have to have all the actors, props at the right location. This is usually not an option for me. So I never make a shot list. 95% of all my shots are stuff that I came up with on the fly. Strangely enough, 90% of the time they actually work! I guess as you do more and more film, you get a kind of sixth sense that tells you when a shot is good and when it's bad.
 
About indie filmmakers overshooting, i guess it is because they have the luxury of time and not just tape. in big budget movies, directors and producers goes through tremendous pressure from the studio funding them and that's why they will spend 50 to 75 percent of the time doing pre-production, planning every shot complete with storyboards, animatics and so on, before the principal photography.

Whereas, indie-filmmakers sometimes (or perhaps most of the time) plan shots right on the set or during the actual take. which in this case will have the editor spend 50 to 70 percent of the time editing, searching for the right shot (because of overshooting) for opting to go the "let's do it again but with more intensity #25" and the "we'll fix it in post" path. if you're the director and you happen to be the editor as well...have fun editing. it's like watching el'mariachi 100 times a day until you finish the 2 hour movie (if it's a feature). And depending on how good an editor you are, it will take 3 to 15 months to edit a feature...which makes watching el'mariachi 30,000 times. no wonder there are so many unfinished feature films.

And back to the subject about actors... in any case whether studio or indie, getting the perfect shot (which is determined in the dailies) is more important than actors complaining of exhaustion. but then again, if you want them to look good even when they're exhausted...well, you have to feed them realllly gooooood.
 
Last edited:
It all depends on what you mean by Overshooting, but I think you DO need to get as many shots and setups as you need and want plus extra. I usually take extra setups that came to my mind on the set due to the influence of the location and I think that is quite normal and what filmmaking is about.

However I like this comment from above:
Barry_Green said:
You can't squander an entire day just because you didn't pre-plan the shots through... Think through the shots, get the shots you need, and then get out and move on...
Click to expand...
Despite getting ALL the shots you want and need, I think a problem with indie filmmaking is people not doing the pre-production right. I think that is wrong. I've seen student films where professional actors cursed the director out because he wasted everybody's time (and mine that day) :furious3: and he did kind of deserve it because he was talented but extremely unprepared.

RANT*** Getting extra coverage DOES NOT MEAN walking around aimlessly, wasting people's time, and not completing a shot list and pre-production ... :violent5:
 
Last edited:
zoostory said:
Get a 35mm camera package and a budget and your whole perspective on coverage as a director will change instantly....Then again Kubric would shoot the same shot over 80 times. So who knows!
Click to expand...

Didn't Kubric have money?

Anyways, yeah, when you go to film, and processing and filming adds another whole dimension to the cost, you learn to really be conservative and only film what you need. Doing a shot 15 times with film isn't great when one 10 minute stock might end up costing you 1500 dollars or more.

Michael Mann has started to shoot his films in HD under the notion that "tape is cheap". He can throw in a 60 minute tape and get amazing footage, if a scene is really rolling.

Jamie Foxx said (in the Extras of the Collateral DVD) that when you're shooting on film you'll run out of time, and you might be in a great take of a scene, and you'll have to stop. So when Michael Mann is using his 60 minutes of HD, he can get great takes. From a production standpoint this is awesome, but as stated above, even though the tape is cheap, the crew, the catering, transportation, everything else isn't cheap, and that's why unless I have a huge budget and can afford a huge feature film, I would try to avoid overshooting as much as I can.

z
 
What I am doing for my upcoming film is REALLY pre-planning... detailed shot lists, going to ALL the locations before we shoot and taking photos... anything I think will help us have a smoother set and shoot when the time comes.
 
Um, you guys are kidding about the actors/cattle thing, right? 'Cause... if you're serious... I can't believe what I'm reading!

Yes the crew works hard, yes the director works harder than all of them, yes the actors spend a lot of time waiting. So? YOU'RE POINTING THE CAMERA AT THEM. Everything you do, everything every bit of your work all comes down to, is those actors.

If they don't "sparkle" (as Bus No. 8 said) then all your hard work is wasted.

If someone doesn't want to take the effort to work with their actors (and all that that entails), maybe they should take up writing instead? Or stop-motion animation? Anime? I mean, come on... there's lots of reasons that the best-paid cinematographer in the world is only ever going to make 1/100th as much as the best-paid actor in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top