Overlapping dialog

[Jeff Wexler]

Are you saying that if you one uses radios on the wide then one should stick with them for the C/U's and don't boom the C/U's? (or maybe boom them whilst intending to use the radio mic's to match. Or get a long gun mic (816) on the wide with obvious perspective and then same mic on the C/U even if the wide shot is not really captured with the 816?

regards to all.

I know what RVD is getting at here and I understand completely the questions that it poses but I have a somewhat different view of this. The discussion now, that of matching sound and use of microphones throughout a scene, is somewhat different than the original thread of overlapping dialog, but there are obvious implications.

There are NO steadfast unalterable rules on this and if you do make such rules there will be times when the soundtrack will suffer. The most important thing RVD said, in my opinion, is the importance of considering the WHOLE scene you are doing, the context of how it should play in the movie, the scenes before and the scenes after (and even, when possible, the totality of the movie or project itself). These are often not easy things to discern particularly on the day, because the moviemaking process is so piecemeal, disjointed and approached so many times with such intense chaos, disorganization and lack of clarity.

The goal is to have the dialog, the quality and experience of the words, affect the audience in the desired manner, and to sustain this experience and coherence through the cuts (the editing process, both picture and sound) as seamlessly as possible. In any given scene, this may involve using body mics in a wide shot and continuing on with those mics in coverage, it may involve using a long mic in a wide shot with true camera perspective and then a short mic in closeups, it may involve and mixture of all of these techniques even in one scene, even cut to cut.

So, has my take on this answered anybody's question about whether to stick with the same mics throughout? I doubt it. I will point out one factor, just to zero in on what RVD said about thinking about the whole scene, the master, the coverage, etc., and that is general approach on most projects towards the coverage of a scene. In a traditional sense (before multiple cameras and coverage while shooting the master, etc.) it was always important to try and predict how the MASTER shot will be used because it is this angle that usually is the most challenging (actually, challenging for all involved, including the actors) and most probably will not be on the screen for very long. On the master, many mistakes can be made, including the choice of microphones (on the actor's bodies for example), and the shot can still serve the scene well. Coverage is needed for many, many reasons, not just editorial, and there is the opportunity to STOP using the body mics when you are into the coverage. All of this is made that much more difficult with multiple cameras wherein the coverage is being done at the same time as the master (the old "wide and tight" problem). In these instances, the "choice" to stick with the body mics is not your choice, the style of moviemaking will dictate their use. This style will also dictate things about the quality of the dialog --- where's the perspective when the mic is on the actor? Again, this is not your choice.

With multitrack recording we have other possibilities. When the style of moviemaking (or the location and other factors) dictates that the actors need to be wired, I am still able to pursue a course where I do use the wireless on the master shot (and this sound would have to be used for the cameras that are shooting at the same time) and change to an open mic on coverage when possible. This gives post BOTH (creating more work for them but that's what options are all about) and decisions about matching, tone, quality and so forth, can be made in the context of the EDITING rather than by the SHOOTING (where we are forced into all sorts of techniques just to record the dialog).

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

A mic on a stand is appropriate if you don't have a third person on your crew, however if you have a third person, this will enable them to jump up to the boom rate when they have boomed that day.  This can be an inticement to getting a good third, I'll boom the off camera every day and so you'll be able to move up to the boom rate. 

Is the rate still different in LA for boom ops and thirds?  Here it always seems to be about the same (if not exactly the same). 

But, the actor not giving their full performance off camera and you recording it, then makes that much more work for the editor to cut out the "off camera" performance and put in the "on camera" full tilt boogie performance.

I don't understand this idea...they are going to have to do this work whether the off camera actor is on mic or off mic.

[Noah Timan]

Some thoughts on this interesting thread -- thanks to everyone for sharing their ideas!

It seems like there's some folks searching for a one-size-fits-all rule about overlaps that you can apply to every situation.  Unfortunately, that almost never comes up.  Without shirking our primary responsibilities to the post production sound team, we also need to remember our (and their) ultimate role as collaborators in the film.  Maintaining and pushing a really hard line about overlaps will make the dialog editor's job easier, but it may completely sink the actors' performance.  If that happens, is it worth it, or do we all lose by having a technically proficient and easily cut together scene that's badly acted (and may subsequently be cut altogether for performance reasons)? 

Acting and performances can be fragile, elusive beasts, and while it's easy enough to say "you're paid to act, so act" I believe most of us realize that it doesn't really work out that way, and the assumption that ANY actor can deliver the same quality performance regardless of the number of distractions and techinical limitations placed on that person can be a foolish one.  I'm sure many of us would end up with worse mixes if we were given something that took us out of our flow in the middle of a shot -- say, fix a producer's comtek in the middle of a six microphone mix of a dialogue scene with five principals in noisy traffic.  On the other hand, we might be doing a one-microphone shot on the stage with no impediments, and fixing that comtek might be much less of an impediment.

So each scene really needs to be looked at.  Are the actors experienced?  Inexperienced?  How are they going to be affected by the request?  Is it a heavy emotional scene that's going to be difficult to add technical limitations to, or is the actor doing a scene where the character buys eggs at the supermarket?  Can the actors easily avoid the overlap without trouble, or is it going to really change the nature of the dialogue and performances to have pauses in it?  How is it going to be covered?  How is it likely to be cut together?  Precisely what limitations is allowing the overlap going to place on the picture editor?  The dialog editor?  If it's going to require dialog replacement, are they going to have to loop the whole line?  The whole scene?  Or can a word stolen from another take or wild line solve the problem?  And so forth.  The answers to all of these questions always lie in the particulars of the scene you're shooting, and those answers are rarely the same all the time. 

Obviously, not having overlapped dialogue in clean shots affords the most flexibility later on.  Whether the sacrifices everyone would have to make to get them (do another take, potentially limit the action or the performance, etc) is a game time decision.  I've certainly blown that decision before, where I asked for an overlap to be avoided and watched the energy of the performance die or the actor not even say the line any more because it no longer made emotional sense in that context, or other times where avoiding the overlap was easy but the actors just kept forgetting and the director didn't give me another take to get it clean.  It's delicate, and determining when to push and when to take one for the team and double mic everything is one of those things that can't really apply as a blanket rule to apply to every situation.

The same argument somewhat applies to switching microphones in the course of a scene.  If you can tell from the nature of the scene, the nature of the coverage, and the director's previous work that the master is going to be used for the first few seconds just to establish geography and get the actors into the room, do you really want the whole ensuing five minutes of dialogue to play on lavaliers under clothing just to avoid a possible audible transition in the one cut from the master to the coverage?  Sure, you've done your diligence and insured that the track will have continuity from one shot to the next.  But does the whole track of the scene -- and subsequently the scene itself -- then benefit, or suffer?  Or is it a situation where the editor is going to need to continue to return to the master in the course of the scene -- say, another actor walks in from the opposite side of the room, or someone walks across the room and smashes a lamp, etc etc, and the audio cuts are going to keep jumping out?  If the latter is the case, can you sell the transition by carefully listening and maintaining an even sounding track between a judicious combination of lavs and booms, or do wardrobe/location/background noise/frameline/etc issues make that impossible?  I think learning to make those decisions on set and make them well is one of the most difficult -- and the most rewarding -- aspects of our job, but I do believe that this process comes from experience and not from applying blanket rules to every situation.

My .02

nvt

[Guest Ken Mantlo]

Do you guys think we should record the overlapping dialoge that happens at video village during the scene?

[Jeff Wexler]

Do you guys think we should record the overlapping dialoge that happens at video village during the scene?

That's funny...  or is it. Reminds me of working with Jim Brooks who insists on laughing and giggling all through the take, often to the point that the actors just stop performing. I spoke several times with Ritchie Marks, Jim Brooks' editor forever, and he said there is nothing we can do about it. I jokingly suggested that if he keeps it up I should probably put a mic on him.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

Do you guys think we should record the overlapping dialoge that happens at video village during the scene?

A boom operator I used to work with told me a funny story about that -- he had one of those directors who liked to comment mid-scene on how he found the performances and shout out "Great!" or "Brilliant!" from the monitor while the dialogue was going on.  So one day this operator swung the mic off the set and over the director's head during one of his commentaries.  When asked what he was doing, he said, "What?  I was taught to put the mic over whoever is talking."

[old school]

Thats funny Ken, I have had the same thought. If you guys run into it on TV shows and films, multiply that by 100 and you are on a commercial. On friday I was working on a Parkay spot and our script supervisor says something out loud to the 1st AC who was talking to the cameraman during the shot as the dolly grip talked on his cell phone. The Director calls cut and says WTF? I think that everyone had spaced out on take 17 and was in their own world at that point and not doing the job at hand for which they were getting paid. I can't count how many times I've been on set as 10 plus people talk on their cells during a shot. I have had endless conversations with AD's about lock ups. As for video village, well that is a circus that never shuts up unless the Director yells at them. That is usually good for a couple of takes then back to SNAFU time. I am always amazed at how little of that horse shit makes it through to the final on air spot.

CrewC

[Bash]

When I started doing my first TV dramas in Wales (some of them in Welsh - interesting for my English booerator) I worked with a very mad Welsh director.

He was a regular talker through the scenes and takes.

I had a chat with my boomerator and asked that he would swing to the director if he talked during the take. About 2 days later (2 lots of rushes) he simply stopped. Not a word was ever spoken...

Same director at some point on a big passionate love scene. The two actors are going at it hammer and tongs, and part way through he whispers 'grab a bit of tit'. Well it was the actress that went first, then the actor, followed by me, and then the operator, and so it went on until we cut amongst raucous laughter. We never did get that shot.

Kindest regards,

Simon B

Thats funny Ken, I have had the same thought. If you guys run into it on TV shows and films, multiply that by 100 and you are on a commercial. On friday I was working on a Parkay spot and our script supervisor says something out loud to the 1st AC who was talking to the cameraman during the shot as the dolly grip talked on his cell phone. The Director calls cut and says WTF? I think that everyone had spaced out on take 17 and was in their own world at that point and not doing the job at hand for which they were getting paid. I can't count how many times I've been on set as 10 plus people talk on their cells during a shot. I have had endless conversations with AD's about lock ups. As for video village, well that is a circus that never shuts up unless the Director yells at them. That is usually good for a couple of takes then back to SNAFU time. I am always amazed at how little of that horse shit makes it through to the final on air spot.

CrewC

[RPSharman]

Something came up in this thread which I think is really important to remember, and that is thinking of the scene as a whole.  When I was booming, some mixers simply wanted me to have the mic on the frameline, regardless of coverage.  Once I started mixing, and employing techniques I learned from more "experienced" mixers, it became very difficult for me to stand working as a boom op for certain mixers during my transition.

Mixing a scene is not recording a scene.  The teamwork of a mixer and his boom operators, and their critical understanding of how films are put together, make for good production tracks.  This is why good information is so critical.  I get upset when I watch rehearsals and listen to the discussion about blocking for coverage, only to have shots dropped later which affected how I was approaching the scene as a whole.

I like to believe my job as a mixer is an important part of the whole creative process, and we are more than technicians.

Robert

[John Coffey]

Every situation is different as we work with different people.  Some of the issue is simply us being put in a policing position.  It can turn into a political football where we have to tread delicately.  Do we want to be loved on set and hated in post?  No, but when we bring it up on set, we get varying degrees of reactions. 

On Mad City, director Costa Garva, gave me a big speil about how important good sound was to him, but on the actual shoot, I found him less than receptive to my suggestions.  The editor was haranging me after dailies about letting background sound of unseen trolley cars get on the track. So whenever she was on set at bad locations, I would call her over and give her a set of earphones.  Then when the inevititable trolley bells went of, I would push her towards the set to go tell Costa it was no good.  It was hilarious.  Eventually, after getting bad reactions too, she stopped talking to me about background problems and even snuck around me on set to avoid me asking her to listen in...

On The Practice (started the first season filling in until Clark became available), a director specifically told me and actors he did not want overlaps on a scene's coverage between the prison windows,  so I yelled out "overlap" immediately upon it happening as I thought we all agreed upon, when one took place, so the actor could back up and re-do the line.  Something I would never do without permission.  Then all hell broke loose.  Dylan started ranting and raving about my "atrocity" and the director let him do it.  After the scene was over, the director just sheepishly grunted something to me that was supposed to let me know he wanted to defend me, but lost his nerve. 

Sometimes, it's just a no-win business and you take your lumps.

[Izen Ears]

  Wow, getting publicly chastised for following the director's advice.  That's tough, being myself I probably would have spoken (not yelled) back that the director told me to do it and to take it up with him.  Then I probably would have been fired, but at least I would have kept my dignity...

  Anyway my original question may have been unclear, but in a wonderful way that really opened up some amazing dialogs.  I was just wondering what the 'proper' way to record overlaps are, or if there is any such thing.  I mean this in terms of post and how they need it to be able to cut smoothly.  For example, is there a way to record every shot with overlaps and have it work in post?  I should probably seek out some dialog editors on one of those other forums since there doesn't seem to be any career dialog editors here that wish to comment.

  Dan Izen

[John Coffey]

at least I would have kept my dignity

Izen Ears - believe me, I did.  I was covering the job until the real mixer was available, so I had some responsibilty to him to stay cool, but I handled it my way and kept my dignity intact. 

When I came up as a kid, thirty year plus years ago (like Crew), it was actually normal and expected for a mixer to yell out "over-lap" immediately when it happened, but only during coverage.  In fact, if a mixer wasn't sure, he might not yell it out and then a director would ask to hear a playback if they thought one occurred.  Then, the mixer would be embarrassed because he didn't catch it and a razor blade couldn't cut it without an overlap. 

Isn't it funny how things have changed? 

[Kevin Sorensen]

In one of the last scenes of the movie " Pineapple Express ", three main actors are sitting in a booth of a restaurant

They seem to be following the script very loosely and improving and ad-libing throughout the scene .There is quite

a bit of overlapping with three different camera angles , with medium-ish sizes and I suspect it was done with at

least three cameras all at the same time . No shot was to wide , so an overhead mic or two , would have been able to smear it all out . All of the dialog was quite intelligible and I doubt the would have been believable without the

overlaps and impossible to shoot clean and be believable . So smart director , DP. or ?

[Jeff Wexler]

All of the dialog was quite intelligible and I doubt the would have been believable without the

overlaps and impossible to shoot clean and be believable . So smart director , DP. or ?

No one in this thread is saying that overlapping dialog should not be done --- some of the best sounding scenes, when appropriate, done properly, are scenes with realistic and engaging overlapping dialog. As far as who was "smart" in your above mention of that scene, it probably worked because everyone involved was smart...  at least smart enough to give the scene a chance to play well. As far as intelligibility with dialog and getting the meaning in a scene, the biggest responsibility usually rests with the actors. What often destroys the scene is the artificial interrupting for sake of interruption that is attempted by many actors in an ensemble scene (often at the urging of a director hoping to inject a little "life" into a scene that doesn't work (badly written, etc.).

-  Jeff Wexler

[Noah Timan]

Isn't it funny how things have changed?   

Indeed.  I started later than you guys did, and probably by the time I did calling out "overlap" in the midst of a take was already unacceptable, but I do remember earlier in my time that it wasn't really uncommon for the mixer to call "cut" if the track was ruined mid-take.  These days, if I did that, they'd all look at me like I had three heads. 

I think in this day and age the standard status quo is to report any issues at "cut" and let the director decide for himself or herself whether or not to go again.  If the director needs to be notified in the middle of the take about it, in my experience it has to be done silently through looks between the boom op and the AD or the director, or over the IFB system -- and in my experience it's still as often as not that they may well call "cut" themselves (and keep us out of the kind of shitstorm that J.C. described).  Sometimes there's good reason for this -- sometimes the director needs to let the actors go through things because the performance he or she wants isn't there yet, but throwing a wet blanket on the actors at that point is just going to make things worse and make everything take that much longer (and require even more takes, most of which are going to end up on the floor).  In this case, the helicopter landing behind set isn't an issue because the director has no intention of ever using the take in the first place -- it's just to let the actors go through the motions and find a feel for what the director wants.  Some directors are aware that you have to fall off the bike a few times when you're learning to ride, and you have to let the actors go through that if they're going to eventually deliver what you want.

I think that what we have to remember is that it's their film, and it's a collaborative process -- that means that sometimes, no matter how eager we may be to do our diligence and cover our own asses, that sound may not be the end all and be all of what makes a take work.  That makes us vulnerable because we don't always know when a certain take is the "one" or not, and might make us prone to dirty looks on set and/or calls from the editor when the track in "the one" take didn't work, but I think repeated experience with the same set of individuals we are working with and careful observance of their work habits and preferences can go a long way toward knowing when it's appropriate to bust a take or not. 

.02 nvt

[Kevin Sorensen]

Jeff , I was really just stating an observation of an example of a really  well played out scene , and yes as your

very well made explanation pointed out , every one involved was on their game . Thank you for the clarity and

insight , this thread have been very inlightning .

[old school]

Hmmm. Dan, I can't understand what you don't get as far as what post wants. They want it all so that all options are open to them, in focus shots, clean dialog, and actors who deliver. Sometimes that happens. You and your team are the guys/gals on the set and you gotta figure out the best way forward given all the factors. No one always get what they want.

  John is right about how it was in the old days. Hard to believe it was that way. People were afraid to make a peep. Sound was very important. Still is, but in a different way for sure.

    Velatropa, I haven't seen the movie, but I would bet a good boom op made the scene work. More well recorded scenes have been mixed on the pole with one person and one mic than I could ever count. Overlapping dialog with the right mic in the hands of a zen master mic man/woman is sound mixer heaven. As Jeff implies, good decisions were made along the way. BTW, I always thought of myself as a Soundman even when I was a Cableman, or Boomman. I am not a fan of 'Big Time Mixer'. I would prefer to be labeled a film maker if it was up to me, but we get put into boxes.

  Noah is right, burn the film and then have a conversation after cut. Relationships are communication, so do it and learn what your director wants from you.

CrewC

 

[Kevin Sorensen]

Hey Crew , its ok if you call me Kevin . First of all I didn't say " Big Time Mixer " , Your projection perhaps ?

That line, to which you refer, could easily be followed by " and gosh darn it people like me " ah al "Stuart Smally"

of Saturday Night Live fame who OD"s on self help books , Merely tongue in cheek , not to be taken seriously .

Couldn't agree with you more about the zen booming part .

I don't choose to " label " my self by a career that chose me , Sound Mixing is what I do to make a living ( not what I am ) .

[RPSharman]

So today I was mixing a second unit, and we had a lot of overlapping dialog.  It was clear that the director and actors wanted the overlaps.  We boomed all dialog, and all was good.  But at one point the off camera overlap changed and bled more severely into the on camera lines.  The guilty part was #1 on the call sheet.  I had dealt with this director before, as well as the actor, so decided to approach the actor.  I approached him , and before I could speak he acknowledged the overlap.  He said the cues were "really tight" - I told him that I was micing the off camera, so it was fine, but he was no longer overlapping the end of the line as before, but was getting into the middle of the line, which was inconsistent and he was not longer on camera.  He compensated.

Just wanted to give a practical and live example of what Richard was writing about before.

Robert

[Izen Ears]

  So to J. C. and the other old schoolers: that place exists where sound is sacred and a mixer can signal the director to cut at the slightest nod: it's in the under $100,000 range!  Some of the cleanest sound I ever got was on a tiny budget and the director understood the importance and wouldn't proceed until I gave him the thumb's up.

  Crew: I've heard a lot of cool theories and methods to record overlaps described here; it makes sense that everyone's got their own ways but also that there are some standards.  These replies did make me stop and think about the bigger picture which I hadn't really done.  I usually just focus on getting the dialog and sound effects clean.

  I was hoping a dialog editor-type would chime in on *exactly* what works best for them when overlaps occur.  Closest thing I've got an answer is to try and avoid all overlaps on singles, and mic the off-camera talker with the same boom mic as they were on their coverage with camera perspective in mind.  This is good to know because it makes my Sanken-on-the-outside-for-off-screen-lines not useful and isn't a free pass for the actors to overlap.

  And it was ME that called Crew a big time mixer, not himself!  (And dammit he is and I'm really lucky to be able to brain-pick among his ilk here.)

  Dan Izen

[Philip Perkins]

  So to J. C. and the other old schoolers: that place exists where sound is sacred and a mixer can signal the director to cut at the slightest nod: it's in the under $100,000 range!  Some of the cleanest sound I ever got was on a tiny budget and the director understood the importance and wouldn't proceed until I gave him the thumb's up.

  Crew: I've heard a lot of cool theories and methods to record overlaps described here; it makes sense that everyone's got their own ways but also that there are some standards.  These replies did make me stop and think about the bigger picture which I hadn't really done.  I usually just focus on getting the dialog and sound effects clean.

  I was hoping a dialog editor-type would chime in on *exactly* what works best for them when overlaps occur.  Closest thing I've got an answer is to try and avoid all overlaps on singles, and mic the off-camera talker with the same boom mic as they were on their coverage with camera perspective in mind.  This is good to know because it makes my Sanken-on-the-outside-for-off-screen-lines not useful and isn't a free pass for the actors to overlap.

  And it was ME that called Crew a big time mixer, not himself!  (And dammit he is and I'm really lucky to be able to brain-pick among his ilk here.)

  Dan Izen

I am a dialog editor, about 50% of the time that I'm not doing location sound.  I do a lot of docs and indie dramas.  As you might expect there are no hard rules about how to deal w/ overlaps as far as editorial goes.  We ask that you get things as clean as you can, but no experienced editor will second guess a location sound person on this issue--we know that it is up to the directors and the actors and believe that if the overlaps continue after the first few scenes or takes that that is director preference, for some good reasons, often.  What we do about it is also what you'd think--adjust where cuts happen, search for alts. to cover cuts made at a point not thought of during production, do a little overlapping of our own, and finally, when all else fails, ADR.  That said, I really can't remember a time when we did ADR to deal with overlaps--we managed them another way, it seems.

And just to disprove my own ideas on prefade isos:  we did a scene yesterday w/ 4 actors, very fast repartee, on both sides of a noisisome RED camera, that had to be done ultra fast because the OT monster was at the door.  Everyone was wired, and everyone had either wardrobe or handprops or action that messed up their lav mics--going to the iso tracks--perfect storm.  No one wanted to wait for much of any fixes--wardrobe changes were out of the question: WE GOTTA GO.  So who was the hero of this scene?  Mademoiselle Frances, my fearsomely intuitive boom op, who followed the ball, feathered thru the overlaps and then got some clean reads on everyone as the "sands ran out".  Yay!

Crew IS the Godfather of commercials.

Philip Perkins  (location sound and Bulk Dialog Cleanup)

[old school]

What did John Hustons character say in "Chinatown" something like    "Old whores and ugly buildings, if they last long enough, all become respectable" .....  I have always thought of my old mentor Roger Daniell as the Godfather of commercials. I know it's meant as a complement, but for me it is a toss up between Big Time Mixer and the Godfather as to the most embarassing way to be described. Too much attention. Like I said earlier, I think of myself as a Soundman or a Filmmaker

CrewC

[Jeff Wexler]

I know it's meant as a complement, but for me it is a toss up between Big Time Mixer and the Godfather as to the most embarassing way to be described.

CrewC

You are too humble (and too honest so I know it's genuine) so I won't think of any of the far more embarrassing ways to describe you...  I do agree with you completely and it is important to acknowledge Roger Daniell who was really there first before all of us. I am reminded how much my father hates being referred to as "2 time Academy Award winning..." or "celebrated legendary cinematographer..." We can all only hope to have earned a place in this world where someone would want to refer to us that way, but I think we would all rather NOT have people SAY those things.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Philip Perkins]

You are too humble (and too honest so I know it's genuine) so I won't think of any of the far more embarrassing ways to describe you...  I do agree with you completely and it is important to acknowledge Roger Daniell who was really there first before all of us. I am reminded how much my father hates being referred to as "2 time Academy Award winning..." or "celebrated legendary cinematographer..." We can all only hope to have earned a place in this world where someone would want to refer to us that way, but I think we would all rather NOT have people SAY those things.

-  Jeff Wexler

OK.  How about "Major Dude"?

Philip Perkins

[old school]

    With a name like Crew, and my million nick names, I should never complain about whatever anyone calls me as long as they call. Life is good. I love to work and learn as I earn. The main difference between the BTM/old guys and the next generation is Time. One learns a lot over time. If you love it you will learn it, and love it even more. Whatz this thread about? Oh yea, overlapping. I think I have said all I can about this subject, but I thought that awhile back.

CrewC