Using improv in an entire film

[laurenvictoria]

is it a good idea? i know you would have to have actors really good at improv.
Are there any features that have done this?
i dont plan on doing this anytime soon, i'm just curious on peoples opinions.

 

[Uberswamy]

I did a project like this not too long ago. It was brutally difficult.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Recipe for disaster.

Elements of improvisation are fine. Actors elaborating on their lines, to a concept, to designated points of direction. I'm a fan of improvisation to the extent that it's necessary. But a whole film?

Purely from a Writers point of view. It's harrowing. Ofcourse, this would have been decided with cooperation from the Director. But handing over a finished screenplay of this calibre would be frightening.

But more importantly, from a Directors point of view. The whole project becomes a "What if".

What if we only have the location for two days and don't get what we want?
What if we don't get enough coverage of the improvised dialogue?
What if we can't recreate the improvised dialogue?
What if we go over our time of the shoot and have to find more money to pay catering, crew, cast etc?

I couldn't direct purely from an improvised script. But maybe some can.

I haven't even started on the editing room...

 

[MichaelPaul]

The Christopher Guest movies, "Best in Show," and "A Mighty Wind," (there may be more he's done this way), are known for their improv performances. The script had a basic plot structure and detailed characters and motivations and scenes. But the scenes themselves, from what I understand, had an intro and an exit. How we get in the scene and what needs to be accomplished when we end the scene. The dialog and interactions and just bizarre and fun character behavior in the scenes were largely improvised (improved ).

However, the actors in the movie all have a long history with each other and a strong improv background, so they are all really good at reading each other and responding naturally, which would have to be key. Otherwise you risk a bunch of people saying random things to try to make themselves look good and none of them trying help one of the other actor's performance by being a good supporting character.

Also, both of those movies are filmed in a mockumentary style which definitely helps that type of story telling. Guest also wrote Spinal Tap which has many of the same actors. It's a mockumentary too but I do not know if it was made the same way. Very possibly I imagine.

EDIT:
Of course I responded before getting through all the posts. Christopher Guest's movies were mentioned several times and I totally forgot about "Waiting for Guffman." I do imagine editing something like that has to be pretty brutal. A single camera mockumentary with the rare coverage shot would probably be the best way to do it. You do the whole scene several times with a roaming camera and keep the best performance of the entire scene - use your cutaway of the dog to cover the flub, rather than trying to cut together a back and forth conversation traditionally or edit together the multiple variations of the scene..

 

[Uberswamy]

The Christopher Guest movies, "Best in Show," and "A Mighty Wind," (there may be more he's done this way), are known for their improv performances. The script had a basic plot structure and detailed characters and motivations and scenes. But the scenes themselves, from what I understand, had an intro and an exit. How we get in the scene and what needs to be accomplished when we end the scene. The dialog and interactions and just bizarre and fun character behavior in the scenes were largely improvised (improved ).

This is basically how we did it. Editing wasn't as bad as you would think. The best part was that the performances were very natural. The worst part was that for the vast majority of scenes, the first take totally sucked, and it was up to the director to come up with something right there on the spot to fix the scene. Having a story outline instead of a screenplay can work, but it's like walking a tightrope without a net.

 

[MichaelPaul]

the first take totally sucked, and it was up to the director to come up with something right there on the spot to fix the scene.

Glad you had good luck with it. I would imagine the first take would be bad as people try to get a handle on the scene and each other, but that it would improve with subsequent takes. A director who is also well versed in improv would likely help a project like that. They would have a better idea what expect and how to guide the performance. One who isn't would probably just go nuts.

 

[Utopia]

Improv is a bad idea unless you have Jim Carrey in your cast.

But do encourage any ideas they might have and shoot alternate dialogue.