So, I'm kicking around this experimental/educational idea...

jmac5000

jmac5000

I am starting a Los Angeles-based experimental film group. The theory is this:

1) Working with actors is a difficult task made better through experience.

2) Easily 50% of filmmaking is post-production and marketing/distribution

So, I thought about starting a semi-regular group that shoots and edits everything in-camera. That's right, little to no post-production; just script, performance, and seat-of-your-pants filmmaking. Then, a screening to be held at the end of the month-or-so.

Now, before too many critics shoot me a new one, I'll admit a few things:

1) This concept is probably not new, and I'm not claiming it is. If you know of a guerilla group already doing this, I'd much rather join that than start a new one.

2) This is different from the "contest" you have going already. For one, it's in-camera, so it will be of a different quality compared to those you're making in the Indietalk contest. Another, since it's in-camera, it will take far less time to do. I'm trying to build directing skills, namely writing, directing actors, blocking, and on-the-fly shot composition.

3) I realize how horrible the audio can be in something like this, so I will concede that it would probably be better if people feel free to do at least the most basic amount of audio editing. (I realize this takes away from the in-camera aspects, but I think it will help overall...)

If anyone is interested in this, I'd like to brainstorm it a bit more. I think it is important to set some limitations in order to concentrate on the intended goal: to become better filmmakers...
 
"That idea is so crazy, it just might work!"
smiley_dance.gif


Send me an e-mail if you need a hammy actor. (E-mail button below) I'm in Orange County.

Sounds like you may be making this hard for yourself, limiting yourself to in-camera edits only though. What if you have footage on two or more tapes that you need to use?

I think it is important to set some limitations in order to concentrate on the intended goal: to become better filmmakers...
Click to expand...

I'd replace that with:

"I think it is important to utilise whatever tools are available to you in order to concentrate on the intended goal: to become better filmmakers."

smiley_badger.gif
 
I see your point in the broad sense but this is more focused

Glad to see there's at least a small amount of dialogue on this. However, I believe your statement misses the point by broadening the experiment.

According to your statement, if I have access to a 35mm camera, shoot on multiple rolls, and spend a week editing what I've shot in one day, then, while I am in fact utilizing these tools, I am not acheiving my intended goal. I have, actually, done exactly what I did not want to concentrate on, which is post production.

It's like this. If one can free their mind of the pressures typically associated with making a film, do you think one could conceivably use that freedom to concentrate more fully on the core elements of directing?

And that is not to say that editing is not a core element of directing. Quite the opposite, actually: in-camera-editing means you MUST pre-visualize. How you cut it in your head WILL BE what you see on camera...

I'll preface this with the statement that we should do this not to make short films that rock, but to become better filmmakers. If great films are a byproduct of this, fantastic. Ultimately, though, I'll stick with my initial statement for this particular exercise:

I think it is important to set some limitations in order to concentrate on the intended goal: to become better filmmakers...

Beyond that, I agree with you in the broad sense; every filmmaker should use whatever tools they feel are necessary to do create what's in their heart. I don't want to seem all hoity-toity about this, because at the core of the experiment is guerilla filmmaking: shoot whenever, wherever, whatever. Fuck the permit, fuck the police. Let's make a film!

Again, if anyone is interested in this experiment, let's brainstorm on the implementation.


Jim
 
The main reason people do their editing in post is because it's more economical. To edit in camera you more or less have to shoot your scenes in the order they appear in the film.

If I have a scene at home, then a scene in New York, and another scene at home, and then one in Toronto, I have to travel back and forth between home and the places I want to shoot a lot more.

If I just shoot, and edit later, I can go from home to NY to Tdot and back home, and not have to call actors back twice to shoot the next "home scene".
 
I say go for it. I started doing in-camera edits when I was 18 and just started screwing around with a video camera, and it forced my friends and me to be a lot more creative (and practical) than we would have been otherwise -- or than I am now, with the luxury of post.

Granted, I'm an editor by trade so I prefer the luxury of second-guessing myself for hours over every cut, but doing everything in-camera negates that aspect of the process. The only two things I can think to say are:

Pre-plan like a fiend because you can't go backwards, and
Make sure you have complete control over any rollback or tape delay while filming something with in-camera edits. Otherwise, you may have some odd timing at the beginning and end of otherwise prefectly scripted scenes.

Here's why the concept of your experiment puzzles me, though: you're basically forcing yourself to direct extremely well, and your actors toa ct extremely well, on the first take. Sure, you can always rewind and try again if you miss the mark the first time out, but I'm not entirely certain that staking every scene on a succession of "do or die" shots is the best way to improve the director-actor relationship -- I would imagine the pressure would be much higher, and there'd be a mentality of taking what's "good enough" simply because it means you can move forward to the next shot rather than having to rewind and start again. And woe to the actor who blows a line and stalls the process...

Interesting idea, though.
 
While I realize I did, in fact, use the term "experimental" in the subject line of this thread, it appears only stbd1 actually got that.

I am aware that we tend to shoot out of order. It's a given, in traditional, non-experimental film, to shoot out of order. One would assume that we're not shooting a multi-city epic on a project such as this.

Really, this isn't getting quite the response I had hoped.

The actors would be part of the experiment. The actors I have in mind might relish the chance to act out a 5 minute script, improvising as it goes, and be able to see their work, not months later, but immediately. Then, maybe we go out and do it again. I'm talking about grabbing a camera, a couple of buddies to hold a boom mic and a bounce card, and a couple of actors. Let's go to the beach and shoot a scene or two in an hour.

Then watch it. Learn from it. And do it again. Directors can find out what's working, actors can see their subtleties (or lack thereof) and the next one is that much better. Then, conceivably, at the end you've got a group that has made a great learning tool. Not a great film, but a great experience.

That's all I'm saying, and I know that most filmmakers would not want to "waste" that time doing something so insignificant, creation-wise. when it comes down to it, WE'RE ONLY BUILDING SKILLS. If anyone might be interested in this, feel free to let me know.

I think a great part of this dialogue is that it helps me to really define what's in my head.

Sorry for the confusion.

Jim
 
Hey Jim,
I think the idea is pretty cool. I don't know if any groups that have the same focus (in-camera editing, improvising on the spot, etc.).

I think it has a lot of potential not just for learning about direction, photography, visualization, etc., also about working with different people (I think this should also focus on working with different actors/crew), and discussing the films would be a big plus - how this was accomplished...where did u find that...etc.

I'm not gonna elaborate anymore cause it's been a very long day for me and I don't think I make much sense as it is anymore. So, I would do something like this, but then again I'm also the kind of guy that would be just fine locked up in a cell with nothing but his camera.
 
yeah good thought.
i suppose it really does show what limitations you've got to deal with without a lot of post production. Shows you what you can build with.
 
I think you should use this experiement to increase your skills with the actors by doing a lot of rehearsal. If you just improvise it every time, you're not really seeing what does and doesn't work, you're seeing what did and didn't work that day. Does that make sense?

Actors can have good and bad days, also what works with a particular actor one day won't necessarily work with him/her the next or the day after that, not to mention other actors. If you do this experiment for the purpose of increasing you report with the actors you need to care less about improvising and more about increasing the amount of time you spend with actors.

I once worked (as an actor) with a director that did something similar to this. He would set his shot up run two or three lines, then set up the next shot and run two or three lines (some overlapping with the previous and the next shot). As actors we all felt stiff and never really felt in character. I never saw the footage, the film was never finished, but I know the way I felt, and I felt like it hindred me to shoot in that fashion.

But if you are thinking that doing away with focusing on post is a good idea, then you probably feel the same about doing away with prepro.

On the other hand ...

This would be an interesting way to spend an afternoon, and it would be beneficial in the arena of Being More Creative. Also, everyone would be energized to do things right the first time, at least that would be the thing you'd hope for.

Poke
 
Last edited:
It's about what you want from the experiment

The truth is, that you don't need either our permission or approval to go ahead with your project, so I guess you were looking for constructive criticism.

I guess I'm struggling to understand what it is you are hoping to achieve, by working the way you propose.

I can see the value in getting more experience in working and developing scenes with actors. I can see the sense in taping the scenes to give the actors feedback. What I can't get my head around, is the idea of editing in camera, which it seems to me serves nobody's interest.

As has been pointed out, editing in camera breaks the actor's flow in the scene and is counter productive to creating good working relationships with actors. It also give actors a false impression of good working practice for film acting, which is as much about being able to reproduce the same performance multiple times as it is other skill areas.

Can I offer a different idea, which I think would get you round the whole post production problem and give the actors a good experience.

Gather your actors, devise and rehearse a scene together, based on a location near to your rehearsal spot. Go out and shoot it hand held, getting basic coverage, a master shot of the whole scene and individuals mid-shots of all the actors. Take your camera, a mac laptop and go for coffee. Cut the scene together roughly on imovie whilst you're having coffee or even better find some student film maker who wants the practice to edit the scenes whilst you're filming.

The thing is, post production is only a chore if you want to do broadcast quality work. A rough cut on imovie of a three minute scene is going to take less than forty minutes to achieve.

Like I said, if you don't want to do the editing, find someone who'd love the practice. It shouldn't be that hard.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck with it. Tell us how it works out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top