cinematography Dialogues with a single camera are so frustrating

Pedro Monteiro

Pedro Monteiro

Really frustrated at the moment with a dialogue scene that I quite simply am unable to shoot the way I want without 2 cameras. Framing 2 actors in the shot just takes away the dynamism from the scene.
I feel that it does work when you don't want to focus on the actors, and on the reactions and emotions during the conversation, but when you do, it simple is not the way to go.
Apologize for the rant!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
yes, it would be easier to have a 2 camera setup.

but u can do it with one camera. it just takes more work.

eg.

1. have them do the scene and frame them both a in master.

2. then have them do the scene again and this time focus on one actor over the shoulder.

3. then have them do the scene and focus on the other actor over the shoulder.

and if u want reactions, then do 2 and 3 again but this time focus on the actor not delivering lines.

then edit.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Ernest, yep that's exactly what we are doing, but it just takes away a lot of the "natural flow" from the scene. If you are working with top notch actors its something that can be go unnoticed, but amateur actors usually don't have good abstraction skills.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've often thought about this:

If you have one of those Digitial "photo" cameras that record footage, has anyone ever tried to use one of those as a "second" camera? Or maybe tried using two different formats (say digital and Super 8)?


I can certainly the flow issue-ah to have a second camera and switcher....:)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pedro Monteiro said:
If you are working with top notch actors its something that can be go unnoticed, but amateur actors usually don't have good abstraction skills.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is an opportunity for the director to be doin' somethin'. Just mentionin'.
smiley_banjo.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
Maybe this is an opportunity for the director to be doin' somethin'. Just mentionin'.
smiley_banjo.gif
Click to expand...

But...but Zensteve...it's just the director's job to sit in the chair and munch the bagels-let the assistant director handle the talent....;)

Seriously, the director for indie films wears many hats complimenting/consoling/begging/pleading talent is one of them :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
lol, well that changes things a bit. :lol:

Well, you might just have to make notes on what to fix (or be prepared for) next time.
Click to expand...

Or just fire his untalented a**. ;)

We are actually making it work, but you are right, the screenplay should have predicted these difficulties and should have approached the dialog scenes differently.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't know how good your actors are, but if they are then you could try what Lars von Trier did in almost all of his later films: instead of cutting from actor A to actor B you film the dialogue in one take and pan (more or less) rapidly between them. this might or might not work in your case, depending on the look of the film; as the "home-video-look" was basically what he was heading for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is how we shoot dialog. I prefer this approach for two reasons.

1. It allows us to adjust lighting a bit for each camera angle.

2. It allows us to only have to worry about boom shadow from one camera position at a time.

Ernest Worthing said:
yes, it would be easier to have a 2 camera setup.

but u can do it with one camera. it just takes more work.

eg.

1. have them do the scene and frame them both a in master.

2. then have them do the scene again and this time focus on one actor over the shoulder.

3. then have them do the scene and focus on the other actor over the shoulder.

and if u want reactions, then do 2 and 3 again but this time focus on the actor not delivering lines.

then edit.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bhikkhu said:
I don't know how good your actors are, but if they are then you could try what Lars von Trier did in almost all of his later films: instead of cutting from actor A to actor B you film the dialogue in one take and pan (more or less) rapidly between them. this might or might not work in your case, depending on the look of the film; as the "home-video-look" was basically what he was heading for.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion, I think its something that is worth trying, although the home-video look is definitely something we are trying to stay away from.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Acting is a LOT harder than most people think and
acting for film is a different challenge all together.
Most movies are shot with one camera, the same
scene over and over and over from different angles.
And actors have to repeat their performance (including
reactions and emotions) over and over and over.

It's a hell of a challenge, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You should definitely take some acting classes, even if you intend on just directing in the future.

Many acting schools offer "acting for directors" classes, which is essentially a crash-course in acting - it won't turn you into a great actor, but you'll be able to communicate much better with them, as well as understand the basics of the process that they go through... and being to talk to them (and empathise with) on their level can make a huge difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
More rehearsal time?

I don't know if that's the answer to your problem, but it's the first thing that popped into my head.

No, actually, it's the second thing that popped into my head. More coverage is what popped into my head, first.

So, both. More rehearsal and more coverage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't forget that a multi-cam shoot is occasionally a false economy. It's one thing to go TV style and have your A camera do the main setups, and B camera getting ECUs and reactions on the fly.

It's another thing entirely to set two cameras on a pair of actors having a conversation at a table, say for a pair of OTS shots, and get them both lit, mic'd, and shot without stuff for one camera setup getting in the shot of the other.

There's a reason that single camera dominates film production, with valid exceptions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't understand exactly what the point of this thread is...is it that the OP is frustrated by shooting a dialog scene with one camera? Just that simple?

Maybe I'm missing something.

This is just the way it's always been done (for the most part). If you have actors worth a damn (and you always should), this is never a problem for them. No actor is perfect and won't always perfectly match their head angle, hand placement, etc...but usually a good actor understands editing and does their best.

Shooting a scene from different angles isn't hard. You learn pretty quickly about coverage, angles, and choices. Of course there are always infinite choices to make, but the basics are always there for you to capture first, and then you can experiment. Depending on your comfort level with your equipment and composition.

Multiple cameras can be done, yes...but it should never be the goal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I Just did the two camera thing for the first time.. had "A cam" on traditional coverage, "B cam" getting CU's, on faces, hands, a lip here, a ear there.. the gun on the table.. etc.. and other great stuff. Its real nice to have the footage to go through for just the right cutaway or reaction shot..

B cam operator was invisible.... cept he did end up in one shot from A cam.. funny bit that..


As for the OP...

"Shooting for coverage" is know as the safest, most conservative way to film because it almost always yields good results. Try it, you'll like it! :-)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top