At what point do you decide to reveal a twist in a screenplay?

[Brian Drysdale]

No, you should understand the line, otherwise things won't cut together, it should be a natural process for you, not a struggle.

They are televisual because you're relying on dialogue without much sub text.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay. Thanks, I will try work on subtext more then.

There is one thing I was thinking of doing for this next project. In the past, I would shoot a master shot first, then go in for closer ups after. The actors always gave the better performances in the later takes. But this means that if I want the best performance, I have to use the close up almost all the time, if I shoot the close ups last.

I was thinking, I should shoot the coverage shots in the order of what shot I want the performance to be the best one. So for example, if I want to have a scene where most of the scene is the master shot in the edit, then I should shoot the master last, cause the performances will be best in the master more likely then. Does that sound like a good idea, to shoot the last shots, where you want to have the best performance?

[Brian Drysdale]

That's why it's usual to shoot the master shot first because the better takes are usually in the closer shots, where you want them.

In practice, the master shot may not be used in the final cut, so it acts as a rehearsal for the closer shots, especially if you've got limited time.

If using master shot for most of the scene, shoot the number of takes needed for a good performance. The master allows everyone to see where everything goes including the DP and director, otherwise you risk painting yourself into a corner, so best shot first.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh yes I thought we could set it up so that nothing would be in the way of the master if we did it last. But if shooting more takes on it instead is best than I can do that... I just feel in past projects I relied on close ups too much for performance and want wider shots used more.

[Brian Drysdale]

Just do more takes, so you get the performance in the wider shots. If those are the ones you're going to use you need the performance.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh okay thanks I will do that. Another thing I don't want to do in what other filmmakers I worked with have done, is they go for more of that soap opera look where, it's a master shot, and singles of each actor after. But it feels like of soap opera-ish or sitcom-ish, at least to me to shoot that way, so I feel I need to choose my own shots based on emotional beats instead. Is this overcomplicating things for myself?

[Brian Drysdale]

I think this was covered in another thread, You don't need to shoot everything, don't cover every actor with a CU if you/re not going to use them all and you've got MCUs or other shot sizes. however, make sure you've got overlaps to allow choice in cutting points and the actors to ramp up their performances.

[Paul R Johnson]

Emotional beats? Not quite sure I understand what you mean?

I must admit I'm often confused now between genres. My favourite US TV series is NCIS, and watching it last week noticed a very unusual shot and I'mnot sure I liked it or not. Two people have a calm and serious conversation, and the camera went round in a circle around each actor - but it still did the usual cuts between them as one stopped speaking and the other started, but they blocked it so that as the person out of shot's head appeard about to block the face, they cut, then repeated it over and over again. This isn't conventional TV, but it's not really cinema either? I don't know that I liked it - I found it a bit intrusive. It made me think about technical aspects, and stop following the plot?

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm not sure about the emotional bests aspect or if Ryan has any sense of these, although the term "beats" within a scene does get used, but less in the shot coverage and more with the dramatic points during script writing (or at least on courses), it also gets used for timing purposes for the actors.

There was less coverage when shooting film, because of the cost and you needed a reasonable budget to get over 6 to 1 shooting ratio, This may have affected the style of shooting on films, together with the cutting speed, which is generally faster today because you can shoot the greater coverage. TV producers also like the latter, because it gives them greater control of the final cut.

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I think this was covered in another thread, You don't need to shoot everything, don't cover every actor with a CU if you/re not going to use them all and you've got MCUs or other shot sizes. however, make sure you've got overlaps to allow choice in cutting points and the actors to ramp up their performances.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Emotional beats? Not quite sure I understand what you mean?

Oh well sometimes I feel I need to shoot enough coverage though. For example one of the short films I did before, every take of the master shot was slightly out of focus I noticed later. So I had to scrap the master shot completely and rely on the close ups. But if I didn't have those close ups, then I couldn't have done that.

I must admit I'm often confused now between genres. My favourite US TV series is NCIS, and watching it last week noticed a very unusual shot and I'mnot sure I liked it or not. Two people have a calm and serious conversation, and the camera went round in a circle around each actor - but it still did the usual cuts between them as one stopped speaking and the other started, but they blocked it so that as the person out of shot's head appeard about to block the face, they cut, then repeated it over and over again. This isn't conventional TV, but it's not really cinema either? I don't know that I liked it - I found it a bit intrusive. It made me think about technical aspects, and stop following the plot?

Oh that's interesting. Well in my experience with other filmmakers I worked with they will get a master and CUs, but if there is an emotional change in the character or situation, I feel that the shot should be changed along with that emotional change sometimes, but they never do it, which made me think I should have shot changes like that marked throughout the script, rather than allowing the same shots, to carry the entire scene if that makes sense?

[Ryan Elder]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I think this was covered in another thread, You don't need to shoot everything, don't cover every actor with a CU if you/re not going to use them all and you've got MCUs or other shot sizes. however, make sure you've got overlaps to allow choice in cutting points and the actors to ramp up their performances.

Oh well sometimes I feel I need to shoot enough coverage though. For example one of the short films I did before, every take of the master shot was slightly out of focus I noticed later. So I had to scrap the master shot completely and rely on the close ups. But if I didn't have those close ups, then I couldn't have done that.

Originally Posted by Paul R Johnson

Emotional beats? Not quite sure I understand what you mean?

I must admit I'm often confused now between genres. My favourite US TV series is NCIS, and watching it last week noticed a very unusual shot and I'mnot sure I liked it or not. Two people have a calm and serious conversation, and the camera went round in a circle around each actor - but it still did the usual cuts between them as one stopped speaking and the other started, but they blocked it so that as the person out of shot's head appeard about to block the face, they cut, then repeated it over and over again. This isn't conventional TV, but it's not really cinema either? I don't know that I liked it - I found it a bit intrusive. It made me think about technical aspects, and stop following the plot?

Oh that's interesting. Well in my experience with other filmmakers I worked with they will get a master and CUs, but if there is an emotional change in the character or situation, I feel that the shot should be changed along with that emotional change sometimes, but they never do it, which made me think I should have shot changes like that marked throughout the script, rather than allowing the same shots, to carry the entire scene if that makes sense?

[Paul R Johnson]

I've still not understood Ryan - the shot should be changed with the emotional change? I have no idea what you mean?

I think I've just lost the plot here.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's up to the DP/camera operator to call soft shots. On a wide shot, with shorter focal length, there can be issues like the back focus being out, however, this should be checked before the production starts shooting. If they can't spot the shot being soft, it's probably due to the monitoring not being up to the job, which is likely given the budget levels.

You don't need to cut or have a change of shot for an emotional change, the actors are capable of doing that with their performance. It all depends on the nature of the scene, there's no rule.

[Ryan Elder]

Oh well what I mean is, is that sometimes if the director wants to change to do a different emotional perspective, they will change the angle of the shot, if that makes sense?

[Josh Bass]

Allow me to (attempt to) translate Ryanese:

I believe he means a scenario (and this is cheesy and hamfisted I know) like two women friends chatting merrily. Maybe we’re going back and forth between 2shot and medium CUs of each. One casually says something about seeing the other’s husband at a bar other night. Mood changes... other lady says wait, her husband said he was working late that night! This line gets a closer CU/maybe more dead on angle than we’ve seen before in the scene thus far. I assume THAT’s the kind of thing he means