Reply With Quote
I have often wondered the same thing!
I think it could be something to do with maybe they zoom into the actors' faces (each of the cameras) so that they are cutting out the cameramen.
During conversations normally, surely there's 2 cameras behind the shoulder of each of the characters. So when the sequence is constantly switching between each of them, how do we not see the other cameraman? If you get me? Cheers
I have often wondered the same thing!
I think it could be something to do with maybe they zoom into the actors' faces (each of the cameras) so that they are cutting out the cameramen.
Erm, wouldn't they film it (if it is a film/TV drama etc production and not a live interview) more than once from different angles and cut together the shots, or sometimes for pre-recorded interviews they film each side of the conversation, reaction shots etc seperately. (I've probably just demonstrated my vast ignorance here now I feel!)
If it is a 'live' interview situation (that is to say one with an audience present), as far as I can see in the pic above, whichever of those cameras you switched to you wouldn't see another camera in shot.
I presume for 'shoulder' shots as the original poster asked, they would maybe use a step ladder for the cameraman to sit on or failing that, they might shoot the scene in steadicam mode (as pictured below.)
I don't know if modern technology has changed it, but old fashioned movie making it was one camera. First they shoot it in a master shot with both actors in the scene. Then they shoot it with the focus on one actor with the other actor saying his lines off-camera. Then they reverse it. And the editor goes through it and cuts it together.
Maybe I didn't make it clear, but they don't change the camera for each close-up change. The entire scene is one close-up for one actor until the scene is over, then they repeat the process with the other actor. It's the editor through cutting who decides when the camera switches from one actor to the other.
will.15 has the correct answer.
Although multi-camera shooting became the norm in studio-based television drama with 'live' cutting between the cameras, filming continued to use, usually, one camera and repeated takes of the action were shot from different viewpoints. A true POV was generally not possible in multi-camera shoots unless the actor cheated his eyeline or the shot in question was a pick-up dropped in during post production. Nowadays most multi-camera drama is restricted to soap operas where speed and cheapness is all important.
The main reason why action often mismatches between shots in a film is because continuity was not rigidly observed during different takes... and speaking of poor continuity... I was watching 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence' the other day on television and towards the end a packed hall is filled with supporters of two political factions, all carrying supporting banners with each party occupying one side of the room. In the cuts between action at the stage end of the hall and action at the rear of the hall the entire audience with their banners repeatedly changes sides! How on earth a mistake of that magnitude was allowed to occur, God only knows.
name='will.15']I don't know if modern technology has changed it, but old fashioned movie making it was one camera. First they shoot it in a master shot with both actors in the scene. Then they shoot it with the focus on one actor with the other actor saying his lines off-camera. Then they reverse it. And the editor goes through it and cuts it together.
Exactly, and often the actor who is off camera will leave for the day or is not even required on set at all , leaving someone else (the A.D) to read the lines from a script and the editor matches the dialogue from the master shot! If you want to endear yourself to your fellow actor its very considerate to stick around and feed them your lines even if your not on camera! Bob Hoskins never actually met Pierce Brosnan on "The Long Good Friday" even though they appear to face each other in the motor car at the end with Brosnan pointing a gun at him, they filmed their parts on different days with no master of them in the same shot so it is possible to appear in a film with someone and have a convesatation on camera with them yet in reality never actually meet!
In the 'good old days' in Hollywood a director was expected to shoot even a simple conversation between two people sitting at a table in master wide, two singles and two over-shoulders. That way the scene could be cut together in any way the producer and/or editor chose. The poor old director's role was analogous to that of a stage director, guiding the performances. His participation often ended on the studio floor before post-production (in my view the most crucial part of the process) even began. Only big-name directors could overcome this and the best known example of this was perhaps Hitchcock who edited each scene in his mind first and only shot enough material to make his version work.
Posting Permissions
