TRyanMooney

“New management” is double speak.

A Notable subversion of this technique is Sorkin’s “walk and talk” shots where 2 or 3 characters have a walking conversation facing camera as it leads them through a path.

It will take more time to light that entire path upfront, but then you are free to let your actors live in the moment without cutting and there’s no need for turn around. You get something feels more real, but you rely on your dialogue and your actors for the pacing instead of editing.

Typically you need “character” actors to pull this off which is a phrase that generally means “good at acting.”

It’s real and the reason is mostly money.

A 101 approach to a filming a conversation is to

1. A wide shot establishing the actors geography in the scene.

2. a medium shot of both of them facing each other.

3. A “dirty” over the shoulder shot where the foreground actors head fills a third of frame with the focus on the background actor. This is usually as the conversation heats up, and focused on the actor giving the most exposition.

4. Close up single shots of each individual actor as they talk and react to the information

5. Finally a medium or wide as the actors leave the conversation. This would have already been filmed on step 2 or 3, but edits in at the end.

Financially this make sense as you generally light for one direction before “turning around” and moving all your lights to the other side and shooting in the opposite direction. It ensures that you get the most footage without have to spend lots of time moving lights over and over. It also allows you to get your highest paid actors off the clock sooner, as you don’t need them for the dirty or single shots. Everything about making films is trying to catch magic while not spending all your money.

The Director and Director of Photography would immediately reposition them. It would look very awkward.

What does happen often is impactful news will be delivered causing the foreground actor to turn to camera and contemplate as they rack focus from the background actor to the foreground. See also, a door slamming or an event happening just off camera.

It’s an easy way to get a nice little two shot of both actors faces

My Fire burn reel - https://youtu.be/3JpNBj3-Xjw

Look at the different movements and interactions I have with the fire and the fire has with itself as I move and spin. Not impossible to replicate digitally, but would require so much painstakingly detailed work that the cost of it outweighs the cost of doing it practical. Budget wise, you have 2 options. Pay for a vfx version that is good but not perfect, or pay for a practical fire burn.

Practical burns come with an added benefit of getting a better performance from your actors - https://www.instagram.com/p/Cy31ycnv300/?img_index=2

The second slide of this series is a very small burn. It would have been easy to do with a light effect and vfx. What you would likely lose is the performer reacting in an authentic way. The head tilt from feeling the warmth. The delicateness of removing the jacket swiftly without touching the fire. All these things get lost when there is not a real fire element to influence it.

Professional Stuntman opinion here. I've both been on fire and laid in pre-comped fire for reference videos.

It's hard because of the randomness associated with flame physics. It's near impossible to look good because of the lack of interaction of the set and performers.

Where VFX fire shines is in layering additional fire elements into a shot with with real fire. It makes a bigger scene without adding safety concerns to the crew.

I'll list some examples below.