Jump to content

Setiquette: Wardrobe & Sound


syncsound
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great topic. I worked with a wardrobe woman who never, ever had any appreciation for sound problems. I tried to get her to listen to the lousy takes so she might understand. It was festival of polyester and tight clothing. On one scene where booming was out of the question, I went to the trailer to wire 'em up. "Oh, do you have to put mics on them? It won't look good." I said: maybe you could talk to the director and convince him to change the shot. I'm sure he'll be happy to. End of conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friday night football game lighting with lights coming from all around.

I assumed he meant the TV show: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758745/combined

I've only seen a few episodes, but it has a lot of documentary-styled camera work, lots of zooms and I would guess lots of Wide/Tights. If that was all happening at once, it's an easy recipe for lots of wires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed he meant the TV show: http://www.imdb.com/...758745/combined

I've only seen a few episodes, but it has a lot of documentary-styled camera work, lots of zooms and I would guess lots of Wide/Tights. If that was all happening at once, it's an easy recipe for lots of wires.

Yes. Nervous unchained cameras, lots of them, everywhere, actors doing their own blocking on the fly, very few takes, everyone surprised all the time. I'd guess they didn't have a lot of issues with visible mic bulges due to how frequently the cameras were out of focus.

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name calling seems to be a trend, and from what i've seen here and heard of other boards it isn't very new or uncommon. This does not justify it. While I feel like it's acceptable to critique another persons body of work or written comments made here, I don't think it's ever necessary to resort to personal attacks.

Lets try to be as professional on these forums as we are on set. I doubt you'd openly call anyone a weenie at work, let alone your fellow peers.

Many people here have strong feelings towards one another whether good or bad. It's not each persons job to point out in a public forum how we feel about each other though.

Guys and gals,

I've been out of the mix a bit, fortunately working, and this "thing" seems to have grown legs.... so now - time to respond.

Alex -

For starters, we are all big boys here (and some big girls, too.

RVD doesn't need you "standing up" for anyone. Nor was I making any "personal attack".... rather, I feel somewhat attacked here.

I do think there is just a bit of over-sensitivity going on. Not any advanced "name-calling".

I don't know how better to put it, but I guess there is a chasm of actual distance here,

and the bit of inferred informality I thought might exist - well I guess isn't really here after all. It used to be....

Perhaps if I was in person, I'd say the very same thing face to face with a smile, and a pat on the back, and then take to opportunity to

better make my point a bit more clear, a point that now seems to be lost in defensive emotion.

Please consider THAT possibility for a just a moment.

To infer any semblance of a "personal attack" only adds fuel to a truly non-existent fire, and is a statement from outer space.

Nor do I need you to aim comments to me about professionalism. I've been mixing sound for a living since 1978,

have a national Emmy, and good friends in the world of professional sound all over the world. 34 plus years in this biz will generate some strong opinions, and I trust you will someday get there too....

BTW - My first wireless work was done with "state-of-the art" Cetecs bigger than two lunchboxes stacked high, packed with D-Cells. (or C, not sure now... ) My first lav was an EV as big as your thumb. Praise the lord when Sony came out with the ECM-50. Double-down sing to the heavens with the release of the ECM 30. And then Sennheiser got involved and it finally started to get good.....

I most certainly respect RVD and his body of work - but I hold onto my opinion - especially in his "own" example.

I really don't see the visual issue, and I don't need to. I just don't see the need to illuminate such a thing.

The "persistence of sound" works for us just like the "persistence of vision" works for picture. It would not interrupt my enjoyment of that scene or that film - Let it go, I say. Watch the movie, for crying out loud. To call that a "failure" is just too much.

Nobody sees or hears it, save for the .0000000001 percent of the viewing and listening public that might actually be sound mixers or wardrobe people - and of that tiny tiny number, even fewer that would or should take the time to freeze the frame or even focus on such "grave violation" of the film-making / sound mixing process. Instead, we should enjoy such license and put it to work, iMO.

For example, I just got to watch "Lincoln".... with many many instances of dark scenes and complex costumery that would invite, to ME, actually exposing a mic, god forbid, and get great sound without any chance of it being seen... why the heck not?

Because of some unwritten rule to the contrary? Or fear that someday five years later someone will freeze the frame and actually spend time seeking out the "violation"... and "expose" ME?

I was reacting to what seemed to me to be an unnecessary criticism - and I'll will say it again -

Freezing the frame, cranking up the brightness, and spending valuable life-seconds playing "Where's Waldo" for any sign of a microphone is, IMO, a wrong way to analyze anything in our world - Especially if it feeds the "trend", apparently, towards cutting down a fellow sound mixer (Oscar-winning BTW). And especially in our changed "all-at-once" wide and tight and medium and tiny cam, wireless-heavy, time-crunched universe.

And to answer your question YES - there are many mixers here in Atlanta that have heard me use that VERY statement and that VERY word - "weenie", with regard to this VERY thing. I don't believe it to be proper to take a magnifying glass to set and search for my mic placement at an 8" distance either. Thus I will say it again, for additional impact - as there are newbies and impressionable mixers-in-development that frequent this newsgroup - If you have to freeze the frame to see my mic, well, "I win".

Additonally, my opinion also applies for some things visual, as well. Sometimes, I have to laugh (or cry) at the great pains sometimes caused in the picture arena that costs time and money and frustration to eliminate the vaguest of present reflections or the slightest indication of visual imperfection that sometimes last milliseconds in the overall picture. There most are certainly weenies in the picture world that freeze the frame and criticize any slightly soft focus pull / buzz with equal vigor and enthusiasm, on vicious and difficult handheld stuff with the same lack of adequate proper rehearsals that we so frequently endure. (shoot the rehearsal - sound familiar?)

I feel for their victims as well.

So, with regard to wireless mics in ties, or anywhere else - when you get up to a few multiple thousands, you'll probably understand my opinion / philosophy a bit more.

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freezing the frame, cranking up the brightness, and spending valuable life-seconds playing "Where's Waldo" for any sign of a microphone is, IMO, a wrong way to analyze anything in our world...

As god is my witness, I have done picture sessions in post where a QC guy spotted a problem because they check the entire show with the monitor brightness cranked all the way up! I argue, "but no one will ever see this at normal levels," and the studio fires back, "if this guy can see it, it's a mistake! Shut up and fix it!" And we do. I'm just saying, there is a facet of studio execs that can and often do check technical issues on a level this crazy and obsessive.

Sometimes, I have to laugh (or cry) at the great pains sometimes caused in the picture arena that costs time and money and frustration to eliminate the vaguest of present reflections or the slightest indication of visual imperfection that sometimes last milliseconds in the overall picture. There most are certainly weenies in the picture world that freeze the frame and criticize any slightly soft focus pull / buzz with equal vigor and enthusiasm, on vicious and difficult handheld stuff with the same lack of adequate proper rehearsals that we so frequently endure.

I absolutely agree. As I've said here before, I'm often amazed by the minute details a director, an editor, or some other person in charge will sieze upon and complain about in post, while they overlook vast, gigantic problems that seem very obvious to me. (I won't mention names, but let's just say I have dealt with some billion-dollar directors on issues like this.) As long as their feet control the gas and brake pedals on the session, we have no choice but to appease them.

Still, I think when it comes to something as relatively minor as a lav bulge in a tie, I would lean towards the old Warner Bros. editor who used to often tell me: "Marc, if the audience notices something this trivial and is not paying attention to our characters and the story, then we have far bigger problems to worry about it. Let it go."

BTW, I just had a very funny thing happen this week where I'm finishing up the color-correction on a feature for which Mr. Deichen and I worked last year as the sound department. In one shot, the director had a minor heart attack when a character lifted his coat and you could plainly see a Lectro transmitter clipped to his belt -- even though it was in deep shadow. It was only visible for 6 frames. I jumped in, isolated the Lectro, then darkened it by half and completely eliminated the green LED... and now it looks fine. We figured, "eh, it could be a cell phone," and everybody was happy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What seems to have transpired in this topic/thread, again in my opinion, is a discourse on "standards."

Well said RVD, I'm always a little (selfishly) grateful when you Titans start grappling a bit, because there's so much to learn here; and not just the technical stuff you start hashing out. You both model the wonderful ability to be respectful, and vulnerable.

I'm always humbly grateful for everyone's virtual mentorship.

Best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My input in this thread. I think the world of the costume and wardrobe dept. They have helped my team over come many of the challenges of costumes. They have made the actors comfortable with the sound team and themselves making adjustments. These guys and gals have always have been very supportive of the sound dept. Compromises sometimes have to be made but everyone has supported us and what we need. I have even made some of theses guys and galls "honorary sound dept peeps" They are great with helping us wrangle packs and mics as well as helping wire and sometimes doing it themselves per actresses request. My hat is off to the guys and galls. I have had the opportunity to work with some of the best in the costume dept.

Anyone who has worked in windy conditions with ties and other wardrobe this is always a challenge, trying to get the right amount of wind protection with it out being seen in knots, bumps, and bulges in the wardrobe.

I still like and try to consider film making a team sport! We all have deal with wide, tight, and multi cameras so wireless mic are still a main tool that we use these days.

I guess I'm saying what RVD and others are saying in this thread. It always may not be ideal but we ALL make it work.

Cheers,

Whit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you must……


@Mr. Filosa, in your second post within this topic/thread, you quote me and then open your reply with the comment, "Jeesh, Don't be such a weenie - " I don't know how else to perceive this posting, other than to take it personally.

Well that is too bad - beyond my previous explanation / answer to your near-over-the-top response, then I just can't help you, other than hope that you can lighten up just a little bit. Life is too short.

You state in your most recent post, that if I were one of your cronies in the ATL, that I would know that being called a "weenie" by you is a term of endearment and a sign of friendship.

That is not at ALL what was said - not at all. Read it again, I guess, but take a breath first. Your interpretation is not even close.

I don't ever use the word "crony" - these are working colleagues of mine that often go through the same frustrations.

In actuality, I don't know of ANY people around here that would go through the trouble of freezing the frame on someone else's work on a "Where's Waldo" hunt for perceived mic irregularities that might lie below other's peoples apparently "higher standards". My statement / opinion - of those that do so - has indeed been heard from my lips many times, though. Many of my colleagues here have heard me state that anyone who goes through such a process to cut down another's work is a being a weenie. My opinion.

However, if you called me a "weenie" to my face, I would still take offense to it, regardless of the physical gesticulations that might accompany the comment.

Then you probably wouldn't have any understanding of what a friendlier, more collegial personal delivery might be like.

It must be difficult reading scripts then, given how hard it might be to imagine anything beyond only the strictly printed word. 



In my comments, I was merely offering my opinion to the topic/thread, and I felt that they were just that and clearly stated as that. I tried to bring up the question of extensive radio mic use to Kathryn Bigelow and Paul Ottoson, during the Q&A with them, but unfortunately I was not called on by the moderator. As to "cutting down a fellow mixer...." in my mind I'm offering up my opinion of this person's work, I mentioned that I was also not a fan of their combined work on "The Hurt Locker," and I accept that I'm in the minority, as they received several "awards" for their efforts, yet it remains my opinion.

Then I guess you accept my opinion, with those in the majority, that the film was excellent. Great.

We, in the majority as you so declare, probably all enjoy a larger focus on the big picture and not the petty minutia.

Regarding any judgement - your opinion, nor "ours" nor anyones has a flippin' iota of value -

Ms Bigelow's film will be a monster and deserved success, I gues she will have a great 1099 in 2013, which is the real final judgement on wether or not a film (and it's soundtrack) is good or bad. And in case there is any further question, it is apparent that this master director has indeed "learned from past experiences" - from Hurt Locker and her war film process - that she's got the right team behind her and they get it DONE, minutia or no minutia. End of story.

By the way, you most certainly DID cut down a fellow mixer based, again, on something most no one would initially see, nor attempt to see, nor stop the film and then attempt to discover. You basically stated that the team did not "do enough work" to satisfy your standards regarding the barely perceptible.

For what it's worth, that rather veiled attack that most absolutely did trigger my first response to your posting.

One could infer, from your comments in regard to the film, "Lincoln," that you are criticizing the work done by Ronald Judkins and crew, Mr. Judkins is a multiple Oscar winner, when you comment about how you might have achieved "great sound..." by exposing a lavalier mic.

Forgive me group, but now I'm starting to get a little pissed off -

For you to infer that of me in this public forum is idiotic and unacceptable, and from outer space.

It now begs me to question how you see and read things.

In absolutely no way did I criticize the work of this excellent sounding film. It did sound great. I loved it. I never once stated otherwise, nor ever thought or professed that I could do anything better.

For starters, I happened to have watched that movie the night before (without stopping it even once, btw, as the filmmakers intended) and I decided to used it as an example of a point that you have apparently let your emotion completely obscure….

Though I think said point to be initially clear, I guess it needs extra translation, - I was talking about the tremendous license that a sound mixer could take advantage of - to eliminate any possibility of "buried lav syndrome" - by actually exposing tiny lavs on complex costumes coupled with darkly lit sets, conditions that would actually permit the exposure of tiny mic heads - again save for the "worry" that some weenie will freeze the frame someday to search for such "grave offenses" and then lob public criticism at the mixer for taking such license. In the rare air of resources, conditions, and process that he and many mixers of his stature enjoy on projects of that magnitude - maybe lavs don't even come into play. I would hope none ….. 



What seems to have transpired in this topic/thread, again in my opinion, is a discourse on "standards." I originally stated that I seem to have a different standard than you, and I believe this to be true from your most recent posting. You seem to think, or believe, that I should accept your standards, while I prefer to maintain my own.

Where did I state "accept my standards" ? Again, from outer space. My opinion is clear on freezing the frame, that's it. No one's is telling you to do anything, rather to consider, perhaps, another perspective on conditions-driven MOs. The perspective that hardly any consumer would ever see said problem, nor care.

I don't leave "big bulgy tie knots" unless I have to. But I am not afraid to, if the conditions so dictate - nor am I afraid of being "exposed" by a frame-freezer, because, as I stated clearly -

If you have to freeze the frame to see anything - well I (and my team) WIN.

That is my mantra, I guess!

Please do maintain your standards, by all means, if that's the way you want to be.

I maintain mine, and they are plenty "high", I assure you.

It is my personal opinion, that if one sets a high water mark for standards, that if and when you might fall short, you are still closer to the high standard, rather than a lower standard. I have always felt that working within the constraints of a high page count television series daily schedule, if you have a high standard for what you're trying to achieve, when you fall short, you will still be turning in a quality recording, in the minds and ears of most people.

This is fairly coherent and understandable statement. Let me assure you that my standards are at least as high as yours.

Conditions often force compromises, probably as often for you as for me. I don't obsess - and prefer to move on. 



I would again point out to you, and the other posters, that I don't set my standard for the "general audience," or "layperson." My standards are set to be judged by other sound people, which is presumably the "audience" here at JWSound. I did suggest that your standards seem to be directed at the "general audience," and that's fine, that's your opinion and your standard.

Sorry, are you first suggesting, and now declaring my standards to be somewhat "plebeian"?

Again, I assure you that my standards are at least as high as yours.


I didn't solicit anyone to "stand up" for me.

No one said you did any such thing. Where did that come from?

instead I solicited their criticism of my work, and offered an example of a similar "tie knot" mic placement, by which I was unhappy.

If, and when, my work is bad, I can accept it and will gladly discuss it with the group.

Forgive me, but I don't think anyone here ever said anything bad about this scene or this movie except you yourself.

Jeesh - stop the public self-flagellation -- I stated, quite clearly, that I didn't see the problem on your YouTube, nor would I care to, nor try to. No one really cares…. which is my sort of my whole point, BTW. Can you, for a moment, grasp that possibility? Seriously.

There are going to be some supporters for your opinion, and less supporters for my opinion, that doesn't make either one of us right, or wrong, it merely makes it opinions.

I do accept that there will be less supporters for your opinion. And I did not ever state anything about "right" or "wrong".

Are we still talking about freezing the frame and criticizing someone elses work without any knowledge whatsoever of the particular issues a fellow mixer is dealing with at that moment? Is that the right or wrong we are talking about?

I accept that they are just opinions. It appears to me, that your opinion on this matter, is that the costume department must bend to the needs and demands of the sound department, I respectfully disagree.

You read waaay too much into things - my statements have not been at all about adversarial demands nor "bending to the needs" of the sound dept. My comments are much more about working together, offering the possibility of, and often getting, a bit of leniency from wardrobe on mic placements, because the camera and lens are 10-15-20+ feet away, and the shot is medium or wider, and not 12" away staring only at the chest, like the human eye can. My "mantra" often helps in these negotiations, however expressed or translated.

I wish you and all the other "weenies" down in the ATL, a prosperous New Year!

Great!

As stated previously, I don't know of anyone that performs any of the time-consuming, arduous tasks that would earn that classification down this way, but if I ever come across someone, I'll certainly convey your wishes.

Now if I typed "Jeesh, don't be a Richard…. " - would we be having this strange discussion?

Good luck to you, and hear's to a prosperous, lav-less 2013 !

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, I just got to watch "Lincoln".... with many many instances of dark scenes and complex costumery that would invite, to ME, actually exposing a mic, god forbid, and get great sound without any chance of it being seen... why the heck not?

Because of some unwritten rule to the contrary? Or fear that someday five years later someone will freeze the frame and actually spend time seeking out the "violation"... and "expose" ME?

One could infer, from your comments in regard to the film, "Lincoln," that you are criticizing the work done by Ronald Judkins and crew, Mr. Judkins is a multiple Oscar winner, when you comment about how you might have achieved "great sound..." by exposing a lavalier mic.

At the risk of your own embarrassment,

Please do explain to me how you could possibly "infer", from this one simple paragraph, that I've conveyed the least bit of any negative criticism whatsoever, of Mr Judkins' work on "Lincoln", and then publicly call me to task on such.

That is simply retarded.

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I never said anything about "freezing the frame" in order to see a tie knot bulge. This is something that you brought up, I'm speaking of normal viewing in real time.

So then you are staring at anything else but the big picture. And encouraging others to do so in an effort to be overly critical of a an Oscar-winning sound team on a movie you didn't work on. I thought that maybe you pore over DVDs in similar fashion, actually posting a YouTube of such mic placement "offenses". Thus, I guess you never watch a DVD and freeze the frame looking for fellow mixers' "violations" in your mind. If you never ever do that and If that is not the case - then sorry! What you missed here is that no one really cares about that minutia.

Now, at the risk of my own embarrassment, in your quote of "Lincoln" in which you stated, "...that would invite, to ME, actually exposing a mic, god forbid, and get great sound...." From that part of your statement, one might or could, infer that you are stating that YOU could GET GREAT SOUND, by exposing a lavalier. The inference, is that YOUR statement leads one to believe that YOU would have gotten better sound, had this technique been employed.

One might or could? That interpretation is ridiculous. I can't see anyone inferring the word "better" into anything I said.

You are more like "inserting". Maybe he DID utilize this technique. My statement was clearly about taking license to "expose" lavs, if conditions permit, and running with it. Presented as an example as I just watched the movie - Those scenes have the conditions that I feel would permit that. In absolutely no uncertain terms was there ever mention or implication that a better job could even be done, or even needed to be. I never take that familiar path of yours - period. Lincoln has a great chance at getting an Oscar.

I wish them and all the other candidates well.

An inference, is merely someone's interpretation of someone's comments, just as you inferred that I was attacking the sound mixer's work on "ZDT" and "THL," while instead I was being critical, if your inference of my criticism is that I'm attacking him, then so be it.

Spoiler alert, the film "Zero Dark Thirty," is a tie knot bulge fest, most embarrassing in my opinion. Tie knots only bulge when mics are present, a little more work, should have made those bulges smaller, in my opinion.

There is no "inference" here - you clearly announce to our world of a "tie knot bulge fest" and I guess they didn't "work enough".

Sounds kinda "attack-y" to me. If you read somewhere a similar statement about your own work, it would be an attack, given your apparent hypersensitivity.

Calling out mixers and teams, pretty much by name as they are rather publicly available, on perceived flaws like that is what I object to and what this whole thing is all about. That is wrong. In this particular instance, it could clearly take many sound people watching the movie completely OUT of the picture looking for your minutia BS, which if feel is way out of line. On a movie that isn't even on the streets yet. Shame on you.

My comments are entirely intended for all, but especially intended for newbies and impressionable developing mixers and sound people. Guys and gals, please don't focus on such minutia like "tie knots" and then pass judgement on mixers.

I encourage all of you to watch films and shows a bit more objectively, to take in the big picture first.

If you want to take any self-educational elements out of a film then analyze it later - but give it a fair objective viewing / listening first.

At this point, you've called me a "weenie," said that my statements are from "outer space," and further stated that I'm "retarded."

No, read again - as in your "statements from outer-space", your weak attempt to imply that I am being the least bit critical of Mr. Judkins on Lincoln is absolutely retarded and ridiculous. Never called you that..... just the attempt. You need a slightly thicker skin.

But hey, if the shoe fits, then wear it. If it doesn't than don't.

This was an attempt to use the word within the context that Mr. Filosa seemed to think appropriate.

?? Then right off the bat, you clearly don't understand the word or it's context. Then what are we doing here?

I don't happen to think it's really all that bad, but weenie certainly applies to the overly hyper-critical where "dick" is just too much.

Should we take a poll? Fortunately, none of us in Atlanta fits that mold, as stated.

In closing, I would suggest you might want to refrain from the statement of your "National Emmy" as imdb.com has been unable to support this "fact?" Nor do they make mention of any nominations for you or other wins you might seem to think you have.

Wow. Are you calling me a liar now? Is that low-blow your last defence? To rush to imdb and do a background check and question my credentials ??? For starters, I barely pay attention to imdb - The WikiPedia of our business, where far many more lies exist ON than "off" their pages. For your information, my Emmy precedes the existence of IMDB, and involves the evolution of a fabulous new development in TV Sound at that time called "Stereo". If you are ever in Atlanta, come on by and I'll let you see it and kiss it -

the statue that is.

Good Luck to you Mr. Filosa, I now must return to my planet in outer space, where I live amongst all the other retarded weenies.

Ok then - bye bye now

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RVD, MF - you both mean a lot to me (and others i am sure) in terms of your vast experiences in the field and the work you both have done, i want to ask you both to feel differently that what you have written, after all, its only one life and we have so much to bother about with all the ignorance and platitudes towards our work as sound professionals that we all have to encounter nowadays.

I am writing to you from a country that makes probably as many if not more films than the USA, and we out here are struggling to make out what we can inching ahead every time we get another chance to work...

The situation is grave and it is my humble opinion that we all have a great task before us - to make people in the business of movie making (of any kind) sensitive towards sound.

-vin

Bombay, India

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a story circulating on one of the boards a few years ago, when the B6 first came out. Somebody had miked talent who was wearing a patterned, open-weave sweater or jacket by sticking the capsule through, maybe 1/8". Not only didn't read to the camera; you hardly could see it with the naked eye.

First takes went fine.

Then the sound went dead. Mixer went crazy, checking receiver, transmitter, connections... only to find that the mic didn't exist any more!

Wardrobe: "I thought it was a loose piece of thread, so I snipped it off."

I had a costumer cut the neck of a t-shirt to expose the actor's neck for a vampire bite. I had hid the wire so well, she didn't see it and cut the head off the mic.

a few years later, the story had made the rounds and had come back to me from another costumer on another show. "a sound team hid a lav so well on an actor that wardrobe cut the mic, so our department is always extra careful"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" As long as their feet control the gas and brake pedals on the session, we have no choice but to appease them. "

I notice that this thread is a little short on considering the pressures and constraints on many, perhaps most, of todays professional sets, where someone like Ms. Bigelow says, 'never mind, that's fine, lets shoot it'...

" I had hid the wire so well, she didn't see it and cut the head off the mic. "

perhaps she should have been involved in the hiding process..??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" As long as their feet control the gas and brake pedals on the session, we have no choice but to appease them. "

I notice that this thread is a little short on considering the pressures and constraints on many, perhaps most, of todays professional sets, where someone like Ms. Bigelow says, 'never mind, that's fine, lets shoot it'...

PRECISELY

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate it when wardrobe insists on burying the necktie mic even though the actor is 100 yards away and 3 pixels tall.

I have given up on trying to explain to directors that we could save a lot of time by declaring the shot MOS.

The younger they get, the less they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The younger they get, the less they know.

I worked a smaller commercial shoot recently that involved a dozen wardrobe changes for the husband-wife "couple" onscreen, which they were instructed to bring. Lav on the female in the usual place. On one of the last scenes, out comes a wool scarf.

I question this just a bit - and I am told by the very young wardrobe lady that it's just for a "pop of color" ... I let it slide, and we proceed with part 1 of the scene. Then the scene evolves into "wife" cooking. On a gas stove!

Everyone wears a scarf around open flames, right? I let it slide - it was New Year's Eve after all.....

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot to mention there was no actual gas working - sort of pantomiming the action of refrigerator - to - cooking.

I would not have let that slide otherwise - the funny part to me was the assumption that the scarf absolutely had to "play" for the

pop of color, regardless of it's functional incorrectness. It was also easy to let it slide as the verbage was short, sweet, and barely affected. Scarves are simply not lav-friendly, and I often cringe at their initial presentation, but I only choose my real battles when absolutely necessary.

MF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...