Off with the old.....

[Mick]

Another aspect of current shooting protocol is the lack of rehearsal, the prospect of which at first didn't thrill me at all. Having cut my teeth in the film world like so many of us I was initially appalled when the first scene was blocked by second team and then we were informed by the AD's that there would be no rehearsal. But as the day went on I found the concept both challenging and exciting, instilling in me a sense of anticipation when I had six wires, multiple crosses, overlaps and of course the ubiquitous simultaneous wide and tight shots. It was fun! I now am sitting comfortably in the certainty that no rehearsal is a good thing for directors, in this genre anyway, because it has its own peculiar energy that elevates it above the standard one camera talking head norm that has permeated the TV biz for quite a while. I'm seeing more and more that this wild and sometimes chaotic approach to episodic TV is now replacing the established paradigm and making the job way more absorbing. My job anyway.

Just a thought

Mick

[Philip Perkins]

"No rehearsal" can be spontaneous and work well esp with non-actors, but trained actors are used to using the rehearsal process to refine their performances in concert with the director.  A no-rehearsal scene also means that the director is not exercising real content control on the set, beyond what they might have done in off-set or readthru rehearsals on another day, and the casting choices.  It is kind of an abdication of control and responsibility.  Sometimes it works (in my experience, the less experienced and trained the actors the better it works), and sometimes it just means that you "shot the rehearsal" and then there are changes to the blocking.  Many actors hate this situation--they aren't sure what the director wants from them, in this case because the director might not know what they want (maybe they'll know what they want when they see it, etc.).  I've worked a few directors who were on the forefront of the "natural and unrehearsed" method through the years, and I have to say that the results are highly variable.

 

philp

[RPSharman]

I think it sucks and is a waste of time.

For scripted drama work, there needs to be a plan, or it'll look and sound like shit. We're not working in live theatre or sit-coms. Comedies can work this way, because the words and movement must be flexible to find the funny. But asking actors to present a dramatic and convincing performance while the camera and sound crew are just guessing at what needs to be captured is just wrong.

Time and time again I find myself saying, "What happened to storytelling?" We're professional storytellers. Movies and TV should be written, rehearsed, performed, and captured in way that will delight audiences. I'm tired of producing content. I want to tell stories!

[al mcguire]

I love your attitude Mick,

surfing it rather than resisiting

there is a lot to be said for take1 and take 2 having more excitement than take 251

[studiomprd]

At first I wasn't sure how to respond to this, but Philip and RPS have made a good start.

We hear a lot of "mumbo-jumbo" about the director's vision, and the role of the director (and in episodic the producers, too), in the storytelling.  I've also seen this no rehearsal crap going way back, and, it is often associated with with lack of experience and, frankly, not knowing what 'they' are doing or what 'they' want.

sure, they may be some gems that result, but also a hell of a lot more CRAP, too.

I guess if I really knew, I wouldn't be doing sound...

but, bottom line: it's the way many gigs are, so "adapt, or perish"  tends to apply!

[old school]

Ya can't stop running water. If it flowing as described you can go with it or get left behind. I certainly like the old way better but I also like to work. If I can afford to turn down say night work I will but if I need or want to work with someone then I will. The pay's the same for crap as it is for great works of cinematic art.

CrewC

[Mick]

All valid points and I respect them, but on this particular show it works and works well. The actors are all experienced and well known for the most part, so the thespians are all good with it because it creates its own kind of energy. It's all well and good for us non actors to opine on the effect it has on story telling et all, but folks, The Times They Are A Changin' and I personally like the way it's goin'

And like Crew says, Art and crap pay the same.

[Philip Perkins]

I've done entire feature films under the "no-rehearsal" rule and they made their directors famous--it was a shrewd choice for those situations so I don't deny that the technique can work well.  But many smaller jobs I do, incl commercials, corpo and that wonderful amorphous category now called "web" try to employ this strategy mostly because their directors really have no idea how to talk to actors, and the actors they are talking to may not be professional "actors" anyhow.  The results of this are of a very mixed quality, and force us into ever-increasing numbers of cameras needing to be deployed to allow the scene to cut properly.   I take their money the same as the rest of you, but I see what is going on….

 

philp

[taylormadeaudio]

the show I'm on right now is one perpetual "roll-hearsal"... it's aggravating - especially when I'm trying to mix a 4-page scene with 7 speaking roles. It rarely produces anything screen-worthy, and doesn't really help us make our day any more efficiently.

The one good side to it is that I can instruct my boom ops to be very liberal, knowing that when on the rare occasion, they break frame, it's much more easily forgiven as no one has seen the shot(s) prior to the roll.

It is frustrating, but as mentioned above, it all pays the same.

I do aspire to eventually be mixing a show that has a better budget, lower page count, and a more "traditional" approach to capturing moments that have been more carefully sculpted and crafted, but until then I'm doing this - and getting paid for it just the same. I've actually created a pseudonym for such jobs when asked how I want to be "credited":

~Mort Orecchio

[pkautzsch]

No rehearsal - usually ten or more bad takes.

Two rehearsals - three good takes.

[VASI]

No rehearsal - First take will be the rehearsal.

[BWilson]

Just finished a doco with a well known A-List actor, and the normal became "Let's rehearse on film".

On the second last day, after 5 weeks of shooting, we set up a shot, and during the "rehearsal" I got a few splats on my radio mic. The producer and director looked at me and asked "did you hear that?" To which I replied "it's ok, it's only a rehearsal"...

[stevegrider]

This is the way I look at it... I have a mix going and isos, too. These are the days of multiple camera shoots and my mix usually is useless because I don't know whether they will use the surveillance camera wide or the XCU. As long as I can keep the isos clean I am happy to hit the big red button on the rehearsal. That said, I honestly can never remember rolling on a rehearsal and having the director and crew sign off on the take. It seems the only times it comes up is when cast and crew has some really tight blocking, and they want to watch a playback before "take 1".