Starting off on Set

I think I officially became a production assistant this week.

Now this title is intentionally vague because there is no standardized job description for a production assistant. On the set of When I Sing, I showed up with my onsite adviser to learn what it was actually like on the set of a movie set and record notes about how the director, Robin Russin, and how the director of photography, who also happened to be my adviser, set up shots to create certain effects. Nevertheless upon walking in the door with Evan, we instantly started packing up some equipment to go shot a quick scene at a neighboring house. I found myself carrying equipment in and out of the small Prius that had been converted into a shuttle and acting as a flesh-and-blood stand for a flapjack, a portable square light, as we shot the scene. Idle hands just taking notes would not be permitted on set. I may have been observing but there was always some way that I could help set up or move equipment for a scene.

I realize that this description makes it sound like my time on set was incredibly busy and frantic; however, in reality it was comprised mostly of me waiting around trying to remain as silent as possible. In one of the moments where Linda Chorney, the movie’s star, was changing for a scene, Robin informed me that most of film making was actually about waiting around; however, he said that film making was also an interesting and unique art form because when you do move, you have to jump into action and grasp the feeling of a moment that may have already occurred. He was referring to how we had been filming scenes that took place in different spaces chronologically within the movie and how he, Linda, and the rest of the company would have to work to make sure the scene “read” correctly. Scenes shot midday were manipulated to appear like they were shot in the early hours of dawn and windows were covered with blankets by those without any other task to create some scenes that took place at night within the movie. In fact, Robin gave me a lot of helpful explanations that gave me new insight on all the ways a director can manipulate a scene to “read” how he wants it to. Specifically, there were six instances but I’ll focus on the most relevant ones.

Brief Aside: I keep quoting “read” because I heard Linda ask Robin if certain elements of a scene “read” correctly and I really just liked the term. From this point on forward, I’ll incorporate it normally while going into Robin’s insights.

When we moved the whole company to the parking lot of the Skyline Country Club Parking Lot, we set up to film a scene where Linda and her husband were leaving the airport in Newark, New Jersey. Rather than waste daylight flying out to the east coast of the United States, Evan and Robin decided to keep the frame of the shot tight around Linda and Max, the actor playing her husband. By keeping the frame tight, they cut out the green sticks and mountains that gave away the true location of the shoot. Furthermore, it turned out that there was a car with a Jersey license plate right next to an empty spot where we could film the shot. While Linda and Max were prepping the car, Robin explained to me that “ luck is a large part of film making” and that shooting from a certain angle can be used to keep the identity of a certain location anonymous, making it easy for the audience to believe that it was shot in the location that the film wants them to believe it was. They weren’t closing in on Linda to illustrate her importance but rather to maintain continuity.

That was actually the second time that day that Robin had expanded on why he was closing in on a scene.

Earlier that day, while filming a scene of dialogue between Linda and Max, Robin had the camera moved and filmed the exchange from a different angle. I assume that my curiosity was painted plainly across my face because he came over and explained why he had taken a different angle of the conversation after what was seemingly a successful take. What he told me was that while you zoomed in you built emotional intensity of whatever emotion you were focusing in that shot and that it is incredibly hard to return to the to the wide shot because you end up deflating the emotion that you had been building up. What he was doing was making sure that he had good coverage in the close ups so that the editor would have a lot to work with at the tight angle and not be forced to use a wide shot that had something he needed. However, it was something that Linda said that distracted me from this moment of directorial zen. Upon reviewing one of her close ups she said “ that’s pretty (insert expletive here) unflattering” and the company moved to reshoot that part a few more times.

For this project, I wanted to explore how a certain angle or cut could contribute to a narrative and share something about a scene that didn’t need to be expanded on by an actor’s dialogue. Never did it once cross my mind that one of them might perceive the angle as unflattering. This got me thinking. Though the first day of my project took place of the set of a Biopic the rest of my project will take place helping Evan on the set of the movies he shoots the most: documentaries. What if a subject for a documentary had the same thought about a shoot? What is the responsibility of a documentarian to his subject and telling the story that he wants to in a compelling way. I remembered seeing all the ways that Robin and Evan manipulated the camera to fit with the limitations of the set or to portray Linda in a certain light and I wondered to what degree these considerations came into the art of documentary film making.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder, but what if you make that spectator look through a certain lens?

I want to explore this thought further and see how it’s applied on the set of a documentary, where exploring certain details may be compelling but have no relation to the topic of the film as a whole.