What do you filmmakers prefer?

[harmonica44]

I have been experimenting with cutting takes in a scene. In a movie, when you watch two people talk to each other from across a desk, let's say... The camera will be on one guy's face, while he's talking, then the other guy, when he is talking. Sometimes though the camera will be on the guy who is not talking and show him listening.

Do you guys find it's best to film both sides of the conversation entirely? Put the camera one guy while the other guy is speaking? Just filming both guys listening without talking, then decide after which scenes of listening only, are best to splice into the cutting? Or do you guys think it's best to come up with a shot list beforehand and decide exactly when in the dialogue, the camera will be on the person listening?

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Surprise me, as long as the method you use is relevant to the story that is being told and the feeling you want to invoke.

 

[harmonica44]

Well I was wondering what you guys think is best. Shooting each actor for the whole time during a scene, when they have no dialogue does take a up a lot more footage, but you can decide which cuts are best when they are not speaking, and if a scene take screws up or anything like that, but too late to correct, you can just cut to the actor listening, and it works kinda well.

The other method uses less footage though, but you have to make sure you get it all right in one take, before the shot of the persons face is over.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Sorry, i thought you were wondering artistically.

If you're asking about how a conversation scene should be filmed...

1. Film character A talking over character B's shoulder
2. Film character B talking over A's shoulder
3. Film A as he listens/reacts to character B
4. Film B as he listens/reacts to character A
5. Film a master shot of character A and B as they talk to each other

Do several takes until you get the performances you want. Edit.


Note: You may need even more shots. For eg, you may want a close up of just one characters eyes as he reacts to something the other character said. So customize according to your needs.

 

[Cracker Funk]

When shooting a conversation, it'd be kinda weird to shoot one single line of dialogue at a time. For each shot, you normally shoot the entire conversation. If it's a conversation, then, and not a monologue, that means that each shot will have an actor sometimes speaking, and sometimes listening, all in the same shot.

Do a search (on here, and google) for the term "coverage". Maximum coverage makes an editor's job incredibly easier.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I hope my post didnt come across as meaning film a single line each time. Each of the numbered point i wrote down means film the entire scene that way, then move onto number 2 and film it all that way and so on.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I hope my post didnt come across as meaning film a single line each time. Each of the numbered point i wrote down means film the entire scene that way, then move onto number 2 and film it all that way and so on.

Of course I know you know. I was just making sure the OP (and anyone else listening) got it.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Of course I know you know. I was just making sure the OP (and anyone else listening) got it.

Good call bc after ur comment when i looked back at my post, i saw how it could mean that u film one person say a line, cut, film the other person say a line, cut, get a reaction shot, cut.... hahaha. I think anyone doing it that way would figure out a better way by themselves.

 

[CamVader]

Good call bc after ur comment when i looked back at my post, i saw how it could mean that u film one person say a line, cut, film the other person say a line, cut, get a reaction shot, cut.... hahaha. I think anyone doing it that way would figure out a better way by themselves.

That's why you need wheels for your tripod, silly.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

That's why you need wheels for your tripod, silly.

Hahaha, stop picking on a guy who's had 2 much bourbon at 3am.

Still, i might mention, i had wheels on my tripod b4 u knew u had a tripod








^Oh what a bad joke, please excuse me

 

[CamVader]

I prefer the tennis match two shot where you quickly pan back and forth depending on who is speaking. The longer the shot, the better.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I prefer the tennis match two shot where you quickly pan back and forth depending on who is speaking. The longer the shot, the better.

You just reminded me of Strangers on a Train

Not that it was filmed like that haha



On a separate note: I know you're watching everything CF. I feel you looking right over my shoulder. I think you can involve yourself in IT a bit more without overdoing it as u felt u were. I still remember THE GAME we played.

 

[Murdock]

I prefer the tennis match two shot where you quickly pan back and forth depending on who is speaking. The longer the shot, the better.

+1 Only the real pros can pull this off

 

[CamVader]

+1 Only the real pros can pull this off

If you can induce your audience into motion sickness right before a key plot element is introduced, you have them in your hand. They're grateful for the break.

 

[Murdock]

I prefer the tennis match two shot where you quickly pan back and forth depending on who is speaking. The longer the shot, the better.

You can combine this with the Tarantino look by adding a revolving dolly shot around the table. So basically you're circling the table going back forth. Advance cinematography, but it can be done by the hobbyist as well.

 

[Cracker Funk]

On a separate note: I know you're watching everything CF. I feel you looking right over my shoulder. I think you can involve yourself in IT a bit more without overdoing it as u felt u were. I still remember THE GAME we played.

I prefer the tennis match two shot where you quickly pan back and forth depending on who is speaking. The longer the shot, the better.

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of creative opportunity to shoot even a "simple" conversation. I really like the scene on the train, in "Unbreakable" (remember when Shyamalan movies were good?). The camera is in the seat in front of them, it pans, tilts, gives us only the information we need, when we need it (and feels so voyeuristic, to boot).

 

[CamVader]

You can combine this with the Tarantino look by adding a revolving dolly shot around the table. So basically you're circling the table going back forth. Advance cinematography, but it can be done by the hobbyist as well.

I think the technical term for that shot combination is "Continuous dolly loop with contrasting whip pans using the vertical 180 degree rule." Very highbrow and European.

 

[Murdock]

I think the technical term for that shot combination is "Continuous dolly loop with contrasting whip pans using the vertical 180 degree rule." Very highbrow and European.

 

[CamVader]

Yeah, there's definitely a lot of creative opportunity to shoot even a "simple" conversation. I really like the scene on the train, in "Unbreakable" (remember when Shyamalan movies were good?). The camera is in the seat in front of them, it pans, tilts, gives us only the information we need, when we need it (and feels so voyeuristic, to boot).

I was only kidding, but you bring up a good point about creativity and non-traditional approaches. That's where innovation hides in creating new shots that wow people. Even though it appears all the shots that could be imagined have already been done, there are new discoveries for those that dare.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I was only kidding, but you bring up a good point about creativity and non-traditional approaches. That's where innovation hides in creating new shots that wow people. Even though it appears all the shots that could be imagined have already been done, there are new discoveries for those that dare.

Oh. Haha. I took your comment at face-value. This conversation makes me want to watch "Unbreakable" again (Dammit, it's not on Netflix instant queue, I guess I'll have to pull out one of the two Shyamalan DVDs that I own).