shot composition

J

jkc123

Well-known member
Hi guys
I've read that while a scene is being shot a director should stand next to the camera to observe the actors perfomances. Wouldn't this be detrimental to shot compositon because the director wouldn't be able to spot bogys in the frame by standing next to the camera. Or is it the DP's job to maintain shot composition after the director sets up the scene? I think that this would make an inexperienced DP job that much more difficult. Wouldn't it be easier to observe both the actors and composition by watching the monitor.
In most filmmaking books, authors (Judith Weston) advise against it and in a few of the behind the scenes, making of, extras, included on dvds actors seem to enjoy knowing that the director is actively participating in the scene and watching the performance carefully.
What do all of you do when shooting?
 
I agree with this advice. The director's job is to get performances. Lots of people work in lots of different ways, but I consider it the DP's job to get the shot once the shot is rolling, and the director's job to get the performance. I can tell you from experience that it is very difficult to catch the subtleties of performance if 100% of your attention isn't on that.

The best compromise you could make is watching the scene on a LARGE monitor.
 
Yeah, you gotta trust your DP - especially if you've rigorously planned beforehand what kind of compositions you want. You can always watch playback to make sure he/she's doing their job. Ideally you have ADs and script supervisors watching for continuity errors, so you can concentrate entirely on the actors.

I think it also is reassuring to the actors to have you there nearby, not off watching a monitor in video village.
 
I agree once again. My favorite directors are the ones who concentrate on actors. I also prefer when there is an AD and a Script supervisor to watch continuity, because that is definately not the DPs job. It is a huge waste of money and talent to have the DP/Operator focusing on continuity instead of getting the best shot that they can.

Case in point, George Lucas watches his actors work from about 50 feet away, on an HD monitor, where he isn't actually anywhere within eyeshot of the actors. And we all know how consistant the performances are in his films.
 
Wow. I respect everyone's answers but I personally have to say the best way is to always be by the monitor. I read a book along time ago and it said the same about watching the performance and not the monitor to get the best but I think that is just dead wrong. I've been an professional editor for many many years since I was 19 years old and have seen many mistakes by directors because they didn't really pay attention to the performance THROUGH the monitor. That is the end result of what you are going to see. I agree that you must get the best performance but it must be made through that screen. That's what the audience is going to see. You'll get the best emotional impact seeing how they are acting in relation to the space given on the screen. Also you can get better ideas emotionally about how they should be positoned to get the maximum emotional result. Instead of pointing out all the bad try working with the dp. Give him space yet still make sure you have everything in agreement. And if you see a mistake by a dp point it out. If not you'll regret it. You should be living and dying by that monitor. You can have the greatest acted emotional scene but if it is framed and lit wrong you'll see it immediately. Even if you're a director and not a DP you'll feel it in the shot, just as the audience will. I've seen scenes that have gone to waste because the director didn't stick to the final result, which is coming out of that monitor. I can net stress this enough. Getting in post and seeing this stuff is a bad thing to do. Also if your dp is good you won't have to point out mistakes and poking. Even if you do invade his space, it is well worth it. It all comes down in the end to what is captured on screen. Good luck.
 
After reading that last comment, let me make a major caviat to my previous post... If the director has a handheld monitor, or a wireless monitor, and can watch the action in both, going back and forth, I believe that is ideal. If any of you have read the article on "Mystic River" it talks about Eastwood walking around with a wireless monitor so that he can go back and forth. I think that if you had to choose between the two, watching the performance over the monitor is preferable, but I agree, it is important for the director to know what their image is going to be before it hits the editors lap.

However, Draven, it sounds like some of the people you were working for were watching the performances, but not doing their homework beforehand. They weren't ever checking the monitor, or the eyepiece, and were just allowing the D.P. to shoot without guidance. This is the mark of inexperience by many directors, and also it is the mark of a poor support staff (Scripty, A.D. etc.) Once a Director really gets a feel for working, they can check the monitor during rehearsal to understand the confines of the frame, and the situation of shooting within the marks, and once they have that, they should be able to feel that framing without looking at a monitor. Just a thought.
 
draven-4

Did you read that in book or are you speaking from experience? With all due respect to your opinion and my lack of practical director experience; I'd rather be as up front and personal with the scene/shot/talent as possible and not stuck in Video Village.

I'll watch the shot after I shoot it.
 
John Hudson, this is from personal experience. I think you have me misunderstood. What I mean is watch the monitor but of course the director should be close to the action. It's like a glance at the actors and a glance at the monitor. But a director has to feel out when to look at which. But you don't want to stand next to the camera all the time. I'm talking about instances where you have lots of camera movement ect ect. Unless...you don't move the camera around. As for the video village comment, I'm sorry. I work on a small independent film where we don't even have a video village. If we do it is usually pretty close to the action and it is only one monitor. In fact one monitor is all we always have. Nothing too crazy. I can literally see the actors about 10 to 15 feet away on the average. Sounds like you come from a big budget background. "Watch the shot after you shoot it" but in all reality on lower budget films you don't always have the opportunity for playback, or it is limited. Don't always have a playback person and don't always have the time. When comments are made you need to think on a bigger scope and not the only one your on, ....with all due respect. Thanks for your interest. And now back to something useful to the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top