Once More For Safety: Why You Should Always Do Two Takes (At Least)
The following is from a series of essays re-imagining the entertainment industry for a digital age. If it ever becomes a book, the title will be Hollywood 2.0.
The Two Takes Minimum Theory of Filmmaking
An actor expects two takes, minimum. There are some exceptions. I believe Sidney Lumet advised directors to do only one take of some unimportant shot, early on in a shoot, to show the crew they should always remain vigilant. Steven Spielberg has said he doesn't like to rehearse actors in front the camera, since the first time is always the most spontaneous. But of course that's just a preference, and he still does as many takes as he needs to get the right performance.
You would expect indie films to have fewer takes. I have heard of footage ratios as low as 4:1 -- for every one minute you see on screen, four minutes were shot. You only get that by being very very careful what you shoot. The inexpensiveness of digital recording compared to film has flipped the equation. Now there are probably more indie films which depend only on 1/100 minutes being worth watching (and plenty of bad minutes get in).
The Difference Between Tom Cruise and Michael Jordan
I think what professional actors do is amazing. They are like athletes: they have to perform on demand, and under incredible scrutiny. But film is not like sports. In film, you can take that shot at the goal over and over (and over) until you make it. The magic of multiple takes makes every film a real-life Groundhog's Day, reliving the moment until you reach perfection.
It's hard to know for sure, but my suspicion is this would be Stanley Kubrick's theory. As you may recall, the director of 2001: A Space Odyssey was notorious for his profligacy with camera takes. He wanted to reach a point where the action felt second-nature, something that requires repetition. And he would have appreciated the recent research that shows repetition to be a critical part of success. But this idea is not unique to Kubrick, even if the single-minded application of it is. Common sense has always maintained the notion, as with the classic joke... "Q. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? A. Practice!"
Even the most non-demanding directors will call "That was perfect, do it again" or "Once more for safety." It's not a hollow demand. Any number of things could have been missed on the first take (focus, sound, etc.), and getting all sets, props, lights, and actors aligned again later is costly. And so, even though the performance was "perfect," the actors are ready go again, once more, "for safety."
The great actors even relish this second chance. Trusting the editor, they will try a new variation on the performance in each take, or improvise new business or lines. It is the Japanese philosophy of kaizen, continuous improvement. Strive to beat your own record. Be a little better each time.
The One Time the Crew Should Behave More Like Actors
What occurred to me recently is that the best directors don't just demand multiple takes from actors, they demand it from everyone involved in the film. Composers, editors, costume designers, cinematographers -- everyone. I don't think this is an accident, and it probably wasn't far from the joke Martin Scorsese made in that credit card commercial... after looking at the lackluster pictures from his nephew's birthday party he calls up and asks, "Hey Timmy, how would you like to turn five again?"
Just as most producers budget for re-shoots (one big 'second take' at the end of the process), they should plan on paying for pre-production 'second takes' on costumes, sets -- etc. Now I don't mean doubling the entire budget. But a director should have the encouragement to do trial and error in every department. And there will always be things that don't add up 'on the day'.
Composer Marc Shaiman wrote and recorded an entire score for The Emperor's New Groove. As told in the never-released documentary The Sweatbox, it wasn't a bad score; it just didn't work. Somebody made the tough call to scrap it, even though the movie, at that point, was already legendary for its production delays.
Barring a parallel universe where everything is the same except that one decision, we'll never know for sure if that was the right thing to do. I might argue that Shaiman should have been given another shot provided he was willing to start from scratch. Yes, starting over would be a tough thing to do. I think it's one of the deepest and most primal fears of any creative person: they will be asked to throw everything out and start from scratch. But, in fact, this is a baseless fear.
A "page-one rewrite" is a chance to take everything you learned doing it the first time but have the complete freedom to deviate from previous choices. And at the end, you'll have something that is truly comparable to the original, something that you should be able to say "this is worse" or "this is better" about with confidence.
You can say "writing is re-writing" over and over, but you don't get it until you read an early draft of something like American Beauty and find it's a courtroom drama that ends with a statutory rape (SPOILER ALERT: The Best Picture-winning movie is not like this) and you realize how much the process of a 'second take' can open up creative possibilities. You start to think it is naïve, if not foolish, to presume that the first take is the best that can be done.
Yes, sometimes it is. Sometimes that first draft of the screenplay is the purest, and best. And it takes acumen and humility for a director to acknowledge that their notes have not improved the script, or music cue, or costume. Why does every great director seems to resist the impulse to say yes on the first try? Is it because they wish to take credit for the best ideas, not necessarily "their" ideas? The great ones challenge, they cajole and yes, sometimes they yell. But when they they throw down the gauntlet to the crew, asking, "Is that the best you can do?" they inspire the team to do something better.
And so my "two takes minimum" theory of directing is this:
Comparisons are impossible without at least two alternatives. You will never know for sure if you've made the best choice. But with two (or more) choices, you can always be confident you had a solid basis to make a decision.
Corollary: If it is hard to decide between two choices, they probably aren't that different, so just flip a coin.
Rickey's Self Abuse by Flickr user Lomo-Cam used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.
Movie Review: The Avengers
Well, I'm willing to eat some crow. I said The Avengers would have a lot of hype to live up to, seeing as five movies have been building up to it. Sometimes the exposition of the build-up seemed to cripple those movies, especially Iron Man 2 and Thor.
But -- sorry, almighty Thor -- it was worth it. Hype achieved. The prime virtues of The Avengers are old-fashioned: great character work and crackling dialogue. Writer/director Joss Whedon (Zak Penn is also credited on the screenplay) even seems to do some course-correction on the characters he inherited, making them better -- wittier, more psychologically interesting -- than they've ever been. Black Widow, Hawkeye, The Hulk and even Agent Coulson suddenly pop as never before. And Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark has always been funny, but never quite so funny as in this film. Whedon not only has the comic book sense to see how the Avengers will fight together (and against each other), he has the writerly sense to see how they will spar verbally.
If you are among the few who haven't already seen the film, I recommend a packed auditorium and soon. Even if you don't keep reading this review, you are bound to encounter spoilers. This movie is so water-cooler-friendly, I guarantee you will hear plot details discussed in public. (Also, I recommend seeing the 2D version, as there have been quality-control issues with the 3D prints).
Okay, now for my nitpicks... and spoilers. Keep reading (major spoilers!)...
Movie Review: The Five-Year Engagement
I don't know whether to applaud The Five-Year Engagement (written by Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel, directed by Stoller) for generating its comedy and drama -- even the broad comedy -- so skillfully out of the characters or whether to dismiss it for being so middle-of-the-road in its conclusions. I know that it is repeatedly retrograde in the jokes it makes at the expense of Asian Americans. (Too much Breakfast at Tiffany's?)
Produced by Judd Apatow, the movie is firmly in his school. It will not feel out of place with 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up or previous Segel/Stoller collaboration Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Segel plays Tom, a chef who wants to marry his girlfriend of one year, Violet (Emily Blunt). In the opening scene of the movie, they get engaged. But life events keep getting in the way. The life events are real and (mostly) believable, and the reactions that the characters make are understandable. This should be expected in basic screenwriting, but for a romantic comedy, this is unusual. Nigh on a miracle.
There are other unique elements to the film. You would not expect a romantic comedy to have a strong theme of disfigurement, but a minor character chopping off a digit early in the film presages mishaps with hunting bows and frostbite to come. There is a real sense of peril in this comedic world, and I liked that. It didn't buy the soggy ending, and I don't approve of jokes that encourage bigotry, but I have to give respect to this aspect of the storytelling.
The acting is great. Segel and Blunt are both dripping with charm and you can't help but root for them to get married (forgetting marriage is not going to solve all their problems). Supporting players are generally great, with Lauren Weedman, Chris Pratt and Rhys Ifans as my personal faves. Alison Brie, playing Violet's sister, is unconvincing with her British accent, but gets a fantastic scene where she puts on an Elmo voice. It slays.
How does Segel's performance here compare to Jeff Who Lives at Home? In Jeff, Segel played a superstitious naif, a character unlike anything I've seen in his other roles (except perhaps his doe-eyed Gary in The Muppets). Segel does not appear to be a classic movie star at first glance, but Engagement is making me think he might be the real deal. So what kind of movie star will he be known as 20 years from now? An actor who trades on an affable persona -- like a Tom Hanks? Or will he be more chameleon-like -- a Mike Myers? So long as he has collaborators like Stoller who can protect his persona, I think he's on track to become the rare Hanksian leading man. But of course, there's always the chance that life events will intervene. His awareness of that, as shown through the knowing script to this film, makes it seem more likely to me that he'll stay on the trajectory.
Your Wednesday Links: McNelly’s Crowdfunding Stats
Most of these links come from the @makingthemovie Twitter stream. If you'd like to see them as they come, follow us on Twitter.
Lucas McNelly (@lmcnelly) on crowdfunding. Always a must-read. Part 1. Part 2.
Laforet: New Zeiss wide angle SLR Lenses – and how they stack up against their Canon EF counterparts (and the CP2s)
ScriptMag: A Story of Casting on a Budget
Open Culture: Ray Bradbury Gives 12 Pieces of Writing Advice to Young Authors (2001)
Randy Coppinger on shotgun mics: Mysteries of the Shotgun Microphone Revealed! and Shotgun Mics Battle!
Time lapse of Hitchcock's Rear Window - Awesome!
Tyler Cowen's short, amazing review of MIRROR, MIRROR
paidContent: Did ‘Hunger Games’ Create A New Digital Marketing Template For Hollywood?
SlashFilm: The Mystique of Mondo And How It’s Changing The Face of Movie Posters
YOUR WEEKLY WISDOM:
Pick one piece of filmmaking advice and ignore it.
OLD POSTS UPDATED:
Film Collaboration Websites - added StudioVox and The Film Collaborative
IF YOU MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME:
That song "Somebody I Used To Know" by Gotye is topping the charts. In case you missed it, check out the post all about how the amazing music video was made.
Your Weekend Viewing: Frame of Mind
Frame of Mind from Steven Alan on Vimeo.
[via @_jeremybaril]
DVD Review: Like Crazy
At the age of 28, writer/director Drake Doremus brought a film to Sundance for the second time (2009's Douchebag was the first). It won the Grand Jury Prize, then went on to a profitable theatrical run. (The movie was reportedly shot for $250,000 and made around $3.5M worldwide).
Like Crazy is the story of two college students, Anna (Felicity Jones) and Jacob (Anton Yelchin). They have a passionate love affair and Anna, who is British, opts to overstay her student visa to extend the lovemaking. This creates problems with US Immigration, who bars her from the country. Anna and Jacob drift apart, see other people, but can't seem to shake each other. And so the romance is rekindled when Jacob visits Anna in London. Further complications separate them, and by that point in the film you're either rooting for their love or pretty sick of it.
I fell into the latter camp. Much hay was made of the film's "French New Wave style" but I'd say it is more a 'French New Wave awareness' than a conscious use of the style. The film is told very conventionally and linearly, with a few artsy montages here and there, and some plot gapping which forces the audience to fill in the B between A and C. Dramatically, the first part where the lovers have a passionate affair is cute but dull, since there is no conflict. (They fall in love with each other instantly.) It is only when Anna and Jacob become separated that the film gets interesting. But then, they do things that defile their sacred relationship, and as an audience member I stopped rooting for them to get back together.
Not that the actors didn't do a fine job, especially considering the dialogue was reportedly improvised. Both Yelchin and Jones were exceedingly natural and believable, and Jennifer Lawrence and Charley Bewley (as the other woman/other man) were good enough that I wish the film had spent more time exploring how their characters were dealing with the situation. Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead, as Anna's parents, also deserve a nod.
Shot on Canon 7D, Like Crazy features the contrasty look (low dynamic range) and blown highlights you would expect from the camera's limitations, while making great use of shallow depth of field in the many artsy closeups. If there was rolling shutter artifacting, I did not notice it. Impressive, since a majority of the film is shot hand-held. Overall, this a textbook for DSLR shooting and essential viewing to anyone who plans to shoot this way.
Your Wednesday Links: Canon 5D Mark III Gets a Workout
Most of these links come from the @makingthemovie Twitter stream. If you'd like to see them as they come, follow us on Twitter.
Cinema5D: Canon 5DmkIII vs RED Scarlet test
DareDreamer: Three Reasons Not to Buy the 5D Mark III Right Now
Philip Bloom's first impressions of the Canon 5DmkIII and his video review - The big takeaway seems to be to plan on doing a sharpening pass in post. UPDATE: Stu agrees with Bloom.
LATimes: Slingshotting 'Battle Royale' DVD off 'The Hunger Games'
Letterboxd - Currently in invite-only beta. I tried it out. It's kind of like Pinterest for film nerds. A good way to keep a movie diary.
Film Bakery: The Secret World of Color Correction
MovieLine: Disney’s Dark Arts Exposed in Little-Seen Sweatbox
Cartoon Brew: How much does YouTube pay their top animators? - These revenue numbers should apply to all filmmakers, not just animators.
Wired: From Reddit forum to screenplay
LATimes: Internet to surpass DVD in movie consumption, not revenue - Wow, that was fast.
YOUR WEEKLY WISDOM:
If you know the story you are telling, you know the answer to any question a crew member can ask you.
OLD POSTS UPDATED:
Film Lights Comparison - added link to Shane Hurlbut's Home Depot Lighting Kit
HD Cameras Comparison - lots of updates centering around the 5DmkIII
A Guide to Lenses for DSLR Filmmaking
It used to be that the cameras an indie filmmaker could afford had one lens, and it was stuck on. Sure, you could do complex hacks with lens adapters, but they cut down on light so that meant more time and money spent gaffin' and grippin'. Indies did what they always do: made due.
No longer. We now live in a world where camera bodies with interchangeable lens systems are standard. The prices on camera bodies have fallen a great deal, but the lenses are still expensive. If you're buying -- really, investing -- in lenses, you better know what you want. It's going to cost an arm and a leg and several thousand dollars. (The good news is, lenses go obsolete a lot lot slower than camera bodies, and thus hold their value. The bad news is, that means used lenses are still expensive.)
Having just produced a shoot where I had to put together a fairly complicated package of lenses, I thought it might be worthwhile to do a brain dump. I want to organize the categories of lens by cost and use so that I can easily reference it for the next shoot. I'll also talk about the different types of lens mounts (EF, PL, B4 etc.) and adapters therefor. (more...)
Movie Reviews: The Hunger Games and 21 Jump Street
I haven't read the books. So this film was my initiation into the dystopian future created by Suzanne Collins. In this world, the 1% lives in opulence and splendor in The Capitol (it's all very Roman) while the districts full of laborers are forced to send two teens every year to fight to the death in a televised spectacle called "The Hunger Games".
Our main protagonist is Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) who, since her father's death and her mother's dissolution, looks after her sister by hunting and selling squirrel meat. (Those who have seen Lawrence Winter's Bone will note how it was a film-length audition for the Katniss role.) She is selected to fight in the Games.
Also selected from Katniss' disctrict is Peeta, the baker's son (Josh Hutcherson). He harbors a crush on Katniss, and he once saved her life. Thus the dramatic set-up is that neither of them like the thought of having to kill each other. Katniss also has a hunk back home, but that's love triangle's being saved for the sequel, it seems.
There is really very little I can fault in this film, although I can't say I was blown away, either. The story is surprisingly violent for a teen girl novel. But Katniss is about as strong a female role model as one can imagine, so I'm guessing that's the appeal. She kicks ass, stays true to her morals, protects her family and friends -- oh, and all the teen boys desire her. One thing that took me out of the film was the small ways she compromises her survival skills, like wailing loudly out in the open and forgetting to grab the arrows she's shot. Either this is 'movie logic' or she makes some dumb mistakes.
Some of the production design and especially costumes/makeup for the denizens of the Capitol are quite extreme and I bet will rankle some people. I loved them! The parade of the Hunger Games contestants, especially, was bad-ass. It made me forget that the movie takes a long long time to get to the action of the games.
The music was good, especially the eerie whistling 'mockingjay' theme. The sound design was also top-notch -- note how the growls upstaged the CGI visuals on the man-faced dogs in terms of invoking terror.
The camera-work was very visceral, and at times you could see shots were under-exposed and had to be boosted severely in color correction. I'm not a fan of staging action with quick cuts and no sense of geography, but post-Bourne that's the trend and director Gary Ross doesn't buck it. Ross deserves a lot of credit. The difference in the quality of the performances of the young actors in this film versus the Twilight movies is night and day.
P.S. Did anyone else find the scene where Katniss and Peeta stick their fingers in each others wounds one of the most bizarre ways of adding sexual tension to the story?
I have not seen the original T.V. show. So this film was my initiation into the world of 21 Jump Street. From what I understand, the original series was not comical, except of course looking back, now, from 20 years distance, at how cheesy it all was.
Thankfully, writers Jonah Hill and Michael Bacall take a self-aware comedic approach to the premise of undercover cops pretending to be high school students. Hill plays Schmidt, a smart but un-athletic kid who had a terrible high school experience. His friend and partner Janko (Channing Tatum) was a dumb jock but, of course, ruled the school. The twist is that, when they go back undercover, enough has changed in student mores that Schmidt is now the cool one and Janko can only find friends among the geeks.
I laughed a lot at this film and that's all that really matters. Maybe fans of the original show will have fun with some of the references that went over my head. (Korean Jesus, was that a thing?)
Anyway, it's well worth renting for some good laughs, and to preview Dave Franco, who seems talented enough that he may soon eclipse his older and better-known brother James, if James keeps phoning in performances.
Have Fun and Make a Movie: An Interview with Misti Boland
I got a DVD from one of the Kickstarter projects I backed, a short film called "Goodnight Jane" written and directed by Kansas filmmaker Misti Boland. It was so nicely done I had to talk to Boland about some of the tricks she used to pull it off. We spoke via email.
Making the Movie: This short gave me the creeps. For those who don't know, can you explain what it's about?
Misti Boland: "Goodnight Jane" is a short film that starts with two eight-year-olds at a slumber party and ends like a Hitchcockian thriller. I first got the idea for "Goodnight Jane" a few years ago while writing several short film scripts in my downtown Lawrence, Kansas apartment.
Tell me about the shoot.
"Goodnight Jane" was a one day shoot. 
We shot on the RED ONE MX camera, using Zeiss Super Speed prime lenses. The sound was recorded with a Sound Devices 702T. All the lighting equipment was provided by the Lawrence-based company TAG Lighting and Grip.
And what about post-production?
It was edited with Final Cut Pro and the post sound was done in Pro Tools.
The production design is great -- I'm thinking of that old piano and other little details on the set. Can you talk a little bit about that?
I really wanted to capture an idyllic children's scene with touches of old Hollywood. Our production designer, Sally Sinn, and prop master, Jerry Koukol, did a fantastic job pulling all these elements together from the musical ballerina with the broken hand, the glass jar of marbles, the beautiful vintage toy piano, to the costume design of Traci Feuerbach and creative choices of our key hair and make up stylist, Emilie Newell.
What was the biggest challenge you faced during shooting?
We did extensive pre-production and rehearsals prior to shooting. During the shoot, our talented assistant director, Emily Herold, kept us ahead of schedule. We had a fun and smooth shoot and didn't change anything at the last minute.
This is truly a short short. It left me wanting more. Was it always this short or did you cut out parts that had been scripted or shot? Are there plans to explore this character in a longer movie?
I really enjoy reading short stories and decided to make a collection of short films. "Goodnight Jane" is intended to be a part of this collection and there are not plans to explore this character in a larger movie.
Another thing I loved was the sound design. Can you talk about working with sound designer Chris Blunk and composer Sara Huslig?
Sound designer Chris Blunk and composer Sara Huslig are both extremely talented and it was an amazing experience to work with them. It was exciting to hear their attention to detail and creative choices. Sara had the idea to create a musical theme for Emily's character and to have our actress, Alexis Michelle Bartkoski, hum the theme over the end credits, which adds a layer of spookiness to the film.
What was the budget for the film? Talk about using Kickstarter to raise funds.
Most of our budget for the film was self-financed and we only used Kickstarter to help cover part of our art and catering costs.
What is next for you as a filmmaker? Any other projects in the works?
In April I'm directing a short drama called, "Picture A Girl With Red Hair," written by Eric Caughey.
What advice to you have for filmmakers who are just starting out?
I would advise beginning filmmakers to write or find a good script. Then be as creative as you can be putting together a crew, equipment, cast, have fun and make a movie! With each project you will learn things to improve your next film.
MORE:
Read Misti's Kickstarter blog on the making of the film
Call Sheet
In the Can
- Once More For Safety: Why You Should Always Do Two Takes (At Least)
- Movie Review: The Avengers
- Movie Review: The Five-Year Engagement
- Your Wednesday Links: McNelly’s Crowdfunding Stats
- Your Weekend Viewing: Frame of Mind
- DVD Review: Like Crazy
- Your Wednesday Links: Canon 5D Mark III Gets a Workout
- A Guide to Lenses for DSLR Filmmaking
- Movie Reviews: The Hunger Games and 21 Jump Street
- Have Fun and Make a Movie: An Interview with Misti Boland
Word of Mouth
Favorites Re-Released
Back Catalogue
Balance Sheet
See other ways to support.
Help us go ad-free. Our pledge:
when donations beat ad money, we'll remove the ads.
