Directing the Camera
Page 23
This was the strategy utilized by my friend and colleague, John Badham, to shoot a fight sequence from the TV show Las Vegas. Badham had the two participants in the fight, James Lesure, playing the part of Mike, and Rick Peters, playing Tim, stand facing each other throwing punches and then filmed it with two cameras, one over Peters’ shoulder and one over Lesure’s shoulder. By shooting the fight with these two matching over-the-shoulder shots, first wide, and then tight, Badham could be certain that in the final edit of the fight he could be tight and on-axis when he needed to convey impact and he could be wider and more off-axis when he needed to convey range of motion and establish geography. The first half of the fight as shot by the A camera operator when wide can be seen in Figure 8.001 to 8.012. After he knew he had a good “print” take on the fight in the wide size, the A camera operator tightened up on his lens. This tighter coverage can be seen in Figure 8.013 to 8.026. The first half of the fight as shot by the B camera operator when wide can be seen in Figure 8.027 to 8.043. When the B camera operator tightened up on his lens in later takes what he shot can be seen in Figure 8.044 to 8.066.
8.001
8.002
8.003
8.004
8.005
8.006
8.007
8.008
8.009
8.010
8.011
8.012
The uncut dailies of this fight from Las Vegas, as well as the final cut sequence, can be viewed online by following this link: http://hollywoodfilmdirecting.com/
directing-the-camera.html
In the final cut sequence the first punch in the fight is a big, roundhouse right that Lesure, the bald black actor, throws at Peters’ jaw. Peters is the lanky, white actor. Badham was able to use the wider angle to show Lesure wind up for the punch by bringing his fist behind his back before throwing it at Peters’ jaw (Figure 8.067 to 8.069). This effectively conveys range of motion. Then to sell the impact of Lesure’s fist landing on Peters’ jaw he was able to cut to the longer lens shot, since it made Peters’ jaw look bigger and closer to Lesure’s fist (Figure 8.070 to 8.072). Lesure’s fist actually passes in front of Peters’ jaw, missing it. (The “miss” is momentarily evident in Figure 8.070.) But because the shot is on-axis this is effectively disguised. On the whole, this “miss” looks like a “hit”, especially in Figure 8.071.
The best way to sell the force of the punch is to show the full range of motion of the fake reaction mimed by the stuntman who is pretending to have been hit. So Badham had the editor cut back out to the wide to see the full range of motion when Peters spins his body around and falls back on the car behind him, dramatically miming the way the force of a real punch would knock him backward (Figure 8.073 to 8.075).
THE TWO SETUP RULE
Having two pieces on each blow is absolutely key. With two pieces the editor and director have control and can shape the fight in editorial to make it appear violent and chaotic when it was not. This is how all the most successful directors working today shoot their fights. Look at any one of the Bourne or Dark Knight films or any of the successful, top-grossing action films that have come out since. Count the number of angles used to film each blow. You will come up with at least two, and in many cases, more.
There are four good reasons why a director should always aim to energize his fights by shooting each blow from at least two angles. Reason #1 is because with two angles you can convey both impact and range of motion. With one angle you can only show one or the other. And the whole actually exceeds the sum of the parts. By cutting back and forth between the two, the director can make the audience feel both more intensely.
Reason #2 is because montage generates energy. With two separate angles the editor and the director are able to shift the vantage point from which the audience views the fight. These shifts in vantage point energize the frame, especially if one is on-axis and the other is off-axis. So when Peters throws his first punch back at Lesure, Badham’s editor starts the punch in an on-axis shot on Lesure (Figure 8.076) and then cuts to a tight, straight side-angle on Peters’ fist traveling to Lesure’s jaw (Figure 8.077 to Figure 8.080) before cutting back to the tight shot over Peters’ shoulder to see the punch (seemingly) land on Lesure’s jaw (Figure 8.081 to Figure 8.083). The cut to the straight side-angle (Figure 8.077 to Figure 8.080) is a jarring cut. This is because the side-angle is more off-axis. For a fraction of a second, it throws the vantage point from which the audience views the fight out into the space between Peters and Lesure. This sudden, brief shift in the vantage point makes the audience feel like they are being hurtled around in space to view the fight, and this adds to the seeming chaos of the fight.
Reason #3 is that montage disguises the fact that a stunt fight is choreographed. If the audience is allowed to watch the fight without interruption from a single vantage point, it will very quickly become apparent that they are watching a series of well-planned maneuvers executed by actors or stuntmen who are not hitting each other and doing any damage.
Many low-budget, martial arts films suffer from this flaw. The makers of these films mistakenly assume that the more blows thrown in a fight, the better. So they stage a fight in which two to three hundred blows are thrown, but because their time and money are limited, they can only shoot the fight from five to ten different angles. This approach makes a fight sequence look like men dancing around throwing their arms and legs at each other and never landing a punch. If you turn down the soundtrack, which is loaded to the brim with the sound of breaking bones, and furious shouts of “Yeow! Ugh! Yahh!”, suddenly, that which is supposed to be violent and spontaneous, immediately looks like a well-choreographed dance, not unlike a performance by the all-male Les Ballets Trockedero de Monte Carlo.
8.013
8.014
8.015
8.016
8.017
8.018
8.019
8.020
8.021
8.022
8.023
8.024
8.025
8.026
8.027
8.028
8.029
8.030
8.031
8.032
8.033
8.034
8.035
8.036
8.037
8.038
8.039
8.040
8.041
8.041a
8.042
8.043
8.044
8.045
8.046
8.047
8.048
8.049
8.050
8.051
8.052
8.053
8.054
8.055
8.056
8.057
8.058
8.059
8.060
8.061
8.062
8.063
8.064
8.065
8.066
8.067
8.068
8.069
8.070
8.071
8.072
8.073
8.074
8.075
8.076
8.077
8.078
8.079
8.080
8.081
8.082
8.083
Reason #4 for shooting each blow for two angles is because with two angles an editor can often shape the character of the blow. He can repeat the motion of the punch. This slows it down, but makes it seem heavier and more powerful. Or he can eliminate frames between the A side of the cut and the B side of the cut. This accelerates the punch and makes it look like it was delivered too quickly to be blocked.
The editor of the fight sequence from Las Vegas uses this strategy to slow down Peters’ punches and to speed up Lesure’s. This editorial technique, in tandem with the fight choreography, reinforces the story point that Lesure’s character (Mike) is a superior fig
hter who is intentionally allowing Peters’ character (Nick) to beat him up, until the end of the fight, when he suddenly puts his opponent down with one powerful punch.
To slow down Peters’ second punch in this fight and make it look heavy and ponderous the editor starts the punch in the B camera, long lens shot over Lesure’s shoulder. He lets the entire punch play out in this shot. We see Peters cock his left arm, bring his fist past Lesure’s jaw, and follow through (Figure 8.084 to 8.087). Then the editor shows us the same punch for a second time. He cuts back to the A camera, long lens shot over Peters’ shoulder at the point where Peters’ fist is in mid-air headed for Lesure’s jaw (Figure 8.088) and lets the fist cross Lesure’s jaw for a second time (Figure 8.088 to 8.091). This allows the audience to see the same punch twice in rapid succession. The final result is that punch appears powerful, but lumbering and slow — a punch that Lesure deliberately lets hit him.
Conversely, the editor shrinks rather than expands the screen time of the last punch in the fight — the one with which Lesure puts Peters down for good — in order to make it look lightning fast and unexpected. He does this by using the long lens shot over Lesure’s shoulder to show him start the punch. In this angle Lesure cocks his arm and then brings it halfway up (Figure 8.092 to 8.094). But then, rather than show Lesure’s fist cross Peters’ jaw, the editor cuts into the next shot — the wide shot over Peters’ shoulder — after Lesure’s fist has passed Peters’ jaw and entered into its follow-through (Figures 8.095 to Figure 8.097). By eliminating frames from the A side of the cut to the B side of the cut, the editor is able to shorten the screen time of the punch. This accelerates the punch and makes it look like a knock-out blow — the kind of punch that Lesure could deliver and put Peters down before Peters knew what hit him.
And, as in the first punch in the fight, what most effectively “sells” the punch and makes it look violent and out of control (when it was harmless and choreographed) is the way that Peters mimes his reaction to the force of the punch that never hit him by throwing himself backward onto the ground. To convey the full range of motion of this mimed reaction and help make it look violent, the editor cuts back to the long lens shot over Lesure’s shoulder, which show Peters hitting the ground (Figure 8.098 to 8.102).
Since it is absolutely essential to have two angles on every blow, the only logical way to shoot a fight is with two cameras and two operators. With two cameras everybody who is getting paid to be on the set — actors, stuntmen, crew, caterers, drivers, etc. — only have to be there half as long, and so the fight will cost half as much to shoot. Any line producer who will not supply his director with an extra operator and assistant to film a fight is cutting off his nose to spite his face. The second camera enables the director to produce a fight that is exponentially superior.
8.084
8.085
8.086
8.087
8.088
8.089
8.090
8.091
8.092
8.093
8.094
8.095
8.096
8.097
8.098
8.099
8.100
8.101
8.102
SEGMENTS AND COVERAGE
To shoot the fight for Las Vegas, Badham kept Peters and Lesure standing more or less on the same two marks and filmed them first with a wide lens and then with successively tighter lenses from more or less the same two camera positions. Again, this is the most efficient way to shoot a fight and make it come to life by following the Two Setup Rule. Badham and the DP, John Newby (who, in all fairness, is probably responsible for at least half of the decisions I attribute above exclusively to Badham), wisely kept it as simple as possible because they were shooting exterior night and had to light everything. Once they set the lights and started shooting, they did not have to relight much (if at all), because the fighters stayed on the same marks. This was a wise strategy, given that they were shooting on the limited budget of an episodic series TV show. Most first-time directors will be similarly constrained by the limitations of the budget of their debut film, and would be advised to adopt this same strategy when shooting a fight, exterior night. But if you are shooting your fight during the day, you can make your fight longer, more varied and interesting by having your fighters fight from room to room to room, if you are shooting interior, or from spot to spot to spot, if you are shooting exterior.
Not only does this make the fight more varied and interesting, it also makes it easier to shoot. If the fighters fight from A to B to C then you shoot a master of the A segment of the fight and all the coverage you need of the A segment before moving on to the B segment and shooting a master and coverage of that segment. Since only five to ten blows are thrown in each segment, this enables everyone — the director, the DP, and the operators — to retain an exact picture in their mind’s eye of each blow and piece of the action so that they can make sure they shoot all the pieces of coverage needed to make the action come alive. This way you do not waste time rewinding your footage to check if you have all the coverage you need.
To illustrate this strategy for a directing class, I invited Randy Hall, a stunt coordinator I had worked with, and two stuntmen to stage a fight in a classroom. I then shot the fight using two video cameras, which played through monitors in the classroom. The classroom was an amphitheater-style classroom.
In Segment A (not shown) Mr. Dark chases Mr. Blond into the classroom and down the steps into the pit of the amphitheater, where he tackles him. Figure 8.103 to 8.120 shows how we covered the next segment of the fight — Segment B — in a wide master that shows both fighters from head to toe. At the end of this segment Blond knocks Dark out of the left side of the frame and then goes out of frame after him (Figure 8.117 to Figure 8.120). The fight then continued in another part of the room and this portion of the fight, which could be considered Segment C, was covered in a separate master with separate coverage.
8.103
8.104
8.105
8.106
8.107
8.108
8.109
8.110
8.111
8.112
8.113
8.114
8.115
8.116
8.117
8.118
8.119
8.120
THE IMPORTANCE OF MASTERING FIGHTS
Shooting a fight is like shooting a chase because both are action sequences and so the way to make them great is to:
1. Put the camera in the right place.
2. Put the right lens on the camera.
3. Get the right number of pieces (of coverage).
However, the way you go about doing the above when shooting a fight is often different from the way you go about shooting a chase. When you shoot a fight (or a dance sequence) you do it much as you would shoot a dialogue scene. First, you shoot a master showing everything that everyone in the fight does to everyone else. Then you shoot the necessary coverage.
But, when you are shooting a chase, you avoid shooting a master — a shot wide enough to see both parties in the chase in the same frame — because such a shot would be a tie-in shot, and, as I explained in the previous chapter, tie-in shots in chases are more trouble than they are worth. (You establish and maintain geography in a chase using only tighter pieces of coverage. See pages 142 to 147 in Chapter 7, above, for an explanation of how this is done.)
But it is counterproductive to try to establish and maintain geography in a fight using only coverage shots. Even though the tighter shots do a better job of making the fight look violent and out of control, they often fail to reveal exactly who is doing what to whom. They can conceal geography. When this happens the editor needs to be able to cut out to a wider shot that shows the fighters from head to toe — a master. These masters re-establish geography and enable the audience to continue to piece together in their mind’s eye a complete picture of ever
ything that happens in the fight from beginning to end. Therefore these masters are needed to most effectively convey the all-important story of the fight.