American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1942)

Portable sound projectors like this one permit studying the 16mm.. "blueprint" scenes on the set. ing and "business." One may require twice as much film as the other. Inexperienced actors will "muff" more takes than experienced ones. In the same way, two different directors might give the same sequence entirely different treatment: one might play almost the entire sequence in short cuts and simple setups, while the other might use longer scenes, with extensive use of footageconsuming camera-movement and followshots. One might virtually cut the sequence in the camera, while another might shoot each cut with generous overlaps, and include, as well, a very generous assortment of ad-libbed business and added angles to give the cutter an abundance of material with which to work. In each case, an entirely different amount of film would be required. On one extreme, you might finish shooting with a picture which required little more than cutting out the slates to get it to its release footage. On the other extreme, you might emerge with a picture which, disregarding the excess footage shot for protection and cutting purposes, would still require the elimination of 10,000 or 20,000 feet between the first cut and the final release-cut version. And of course as regards entertainment quality, the amount of negative exposed or conserved in producing the picture need have no bearing on the film's intrinsic merits. But — suppose that before a picture went into actual production, everyone concei-ned, including the producer, the director, the players, cinematographer, writers and film-editor had had a chance to make and analyze a working blueprint of that picture? Not a mere written or sketched outline, but an actual working model of the picture, in the motion picture medium, so that they could study every detail of the picture beforehand, in terms of actual footage, cuts, angles, timing and business. They could tell in advance precisely what scenes were necessary to tell the story to best advantage, and exactly how they would cut together. They could predetermine with almost lOO*;? accuracy just how much footage to allow for the picture as a whole, and for every given action. Each scene could be shot right to the desired frame, with no overlaps and almost perfect efficiency. There should be no retakes, for the picture as shot would fit together precisely as indicated by the blueprint! This sounds like an absurdly impossible ideal — but it is thoroughly practical. The means and methods are already at hand, if we want to use them. For several years, a number of our studios have been making extensive use of 16mm. as a means of making tests quickly and economically. My suggestion is that we simply extend this idea to its logical conclusion, and instead of confining ourselves to the making of individual tests in 16mm., " pre -photo graph" the entire production in 16rmn., to provide that needed blueprint! It could be done with existing equipment, very easily, quickly and economically, and it would show the way to immensely worthwhile savings of film and other critical inaterials, to say nothing of effort. Making a test-production like this would require the services of the director, cast and technical staff for a few days in addition to the film's normal production schedule, together with the expenditure of perhaps four or five thousand feet of 16mm. film. But it would result in saving from 50 to 90% of the 35inm. film that would otherwise be used in making the picture, and it would in all probability shorten the 35mm. production's shooting schedule appreciably, since everyone concerned would have the advantage not only of having done each scene and sequence previously, but of working almost literally from a blueprint, since they could use the IGmni. scene as a direct guide while filming the corresponding 35mm. ones. I see no reason why the 16mm. "preproduction" should be made with any particular attempt at making it a perfectly finished production. Cameraangles, directorial treatment and action should of course be treated with painstaking accuracy, as should timing and tempo. But photographically, for example, the 16mm. version should be of almost elemental simplicity. Dramatically important photographic effects (like the silhouetted murder-scene fi'om "Algiers") might be sketched in roughly, but in general the lighting and photographic treatment should be kept routine, in the interests of speed. The perfecting polish (not to mention the glamorizing personal lightings) could come in the final version. It would seem logical to shoot these test-scenes, wherever possible, using the actual sets erected for the production itself, certainly, at least, in the case of key sets. Less important sequences, and particularly those where there might be any reasonable question as to whether or not that action could not be satisfactorily telescoped into other sets or scenes, might as well be filmed on standing sets of the general type required for that action. If after this try-out it was found that the set or action could be eliminated, it could be done before the set was constructed, rather than afterward. These test-productions could be shot in sound, and probably should be, to reap the fullest advantage from the idea. Excellent direct-16mm. recording equipment is available in both doublesystem and single-system types. Some (Continued on Page 382) Single-system 14mm. sound-cameras like this "Auricon" are stripped to minimum essentials yet give picture and sound quality that is more than adequate tor "pre-photographing" a 35mm. production. American Cinematographer August, 1942 343 ifli