HIERARCHY OF COMMAND
Sound like an army? Don't worry, it's only a superficial
resemblance. There is a hierarchy of command when you do a picture.
As I've discussed earlier, the cast and crew go only to the Producer
with matters relating to money. As for all other creative things, the
Director is the leader.
Each department reports to the head of that department.
The Director tells the Assistant Director (on low budget
movies this role should be combined with the Production Manager's
role,) "Get me 'these' actors for this scene." The actors take their
place on the scene where the Director indicates.
The rehearsal commences. The Director tells the DP at a certain point
during the rehearsal (I prefer at the outset) where the camera will be
and what the shot will encompass.
The DP tells his crew where to place the camera. The Grip, the Gaffer,
the Sound crew, in fact everyone positions themselves for the optimum
position of filming that scene. As the rehearsal progresses, every
member of the crew draws certain conclusions about what they have to do.
The Sound Person, working with the DP finds out where to
place the mic. The main concern is mic shadow over the face of the
actors or the background. It's important that there is mutual respect
between the DP and the Sound Person. No job is more important than any
other job!
The Focus Puller doesn't go over to the Director and ask, "Shall we use
an 85mm lens?" or anything! He talks only with the DP. The Camera
Operator doesn't ask the Director, "Do you want me to pan with the
actors?" Unless he's also the DP, the Operator only talks to the DP.
And the good Director doesn't tell the Camera Operator, "Give me a
Close-up" or anything. The Director should talk only to the DP about
anything having to do with photography.
The same goes for sound. The Director shouldn't tell the
boom man, "Over here with the boom." He tells the Sound Person what the
shot is and what is peculiar, if anything, about what the sound should
be, and the Sound Person will take care of the recording.
The Prop Person doesn't bother the Director about how many coffee cups
there should be on the table or whatever. The Art Director is head of
that department. The Art Director works with the Director on those
aspects of the "look" of the film that have to be modified and
finalized on the set. Everything else would've been already discussed
in Pre-Production.
The hierarchy of command makes the workings of the
production run smoothly, efficiently and effectively.
The Assistant Director handles all minor details which the Director has
no time to take up during production. The Director's main attention
should be on the actors!
An actress walks over to the Director, "Is this hat all right?" She may
have grabbed that hat from her own closet. The Director should deal
with that question without hurting the actress's feelings and with
sensitivity.
An actor tells the Director about his concern for being over-staged in
a particular scene (given less prominence by some other element of the
production, usually by another actor's interference or position). The
Director has to explain and if necessary modify the scene. Because
sometimes the concern is not trivial and important to the effectiveness
of the scene.
Experienced actors guard against technical problems which
affect them during the filming of a scene. Barbara Streisand is said to
be very aware of "her light" (the light that is positioned by the
Gaffer to light her) in a scene. She'll walk through her scene and if
she "loses" the light at a certain point, she'll announce, "Where's my
light?" The Director then tells the DP to solve the problem. The DP
tells the Gaffer. It's all done very mechanically and without much
commotion, although there may be some grumbling (and hopefully Barbara
may not hear about it, because she produces some of her movies! "Out
with that one" who grumbled!
If the DP is told by his Focus Puller that focus was lost at
a certain point in the shot, the DP asks the Director for another shot.
"Can we do another one?" If the Director was happy with the take (one
of many shots that may or may not end up in the final cut of the
movie,) the Director may wonder by gesture or through question as to
why the scene has to be re-shot. Then the experienced DP may add, "For
protection." To protect against something happening to the take, for
example a lab scratch or hair in the gate. It's best not to alert the
cast or the Director about any technical mistake committed by any crew
member. It shakes the confidence of the crew and has no beneficiary
result to the workings of the production. In low light level
situations, as is the trend to film with as much realism as possible,
the job of keeping focus in a complex scene is difficult. There is no
need to explain during production every time some technical aspect
requires careful attention or repetition. Professionals work smoothly,
unobtrusively, harmoniously to achieve the best results possible
(without drawing attention to themselves, one way or another) and for
the sake of making successful movies and maintaining a sense of pride
in their industry.
I say all this to make it clear that it has nothing to do
with dishonesty when the DP says, "Let's do another one ... for
protection." I remember one time the
Director bumped into the handle of the camera during the shot and
didn't say, "Cut," (probably not being aware that the bump was
noticeable). The shot resumed and at the end the DP called for another
take "For protection." The DP covered for the Director, in case an
actor gets upset that maybe the performance cannot be repeated as well
as the first take. The Director should always say to the actors when
requesting another take, "That was great, now let's do another one --
do that line with that expression one more time!" or say some such
thing. That way the actors feel appreciated and rarely do they
complain, "But, that was great, why do it again?" Actors love to act
and be filmed anyway. The point is that it has nothing to do with lying
when the Director or crew member asks for another take. It has to do
with the complex nature of film and with the desire and enthusiasm of
film people in making great entertainment.
It may be that the sound was bad, the make up wasn't right,
the prop was in the wrong place, the actor fluffed a line or whatever
technical problem that may arise -- it's all minor stuff and such
problems should be handled with sensitivity by each department head, so
that the team spirit or esprit de corps (this may be the only time I
can use this expression in writing) of every member of the production
can be maintained at a high level.
Of course there are exceptions, when things can't be quite
glossed over so well. Take for example, the story I heard in a TV
interview about a location shoot in Italy. An American movie company
had traveled to a beautiful location in Italy, which the script called
for, and had set up camp for three months.
A bridge had to be built over a river. It was a very important element
in the story. So the cast and crew had to spend quite a bit of time
just relaxing and doing nothing -- all at company expense.
The bridge had to be blown up in the story. And the Special Effects
department had taken a lot of precautions to make sure that the safety
of personnel was paramount. The Special Effects expert had hired an
Italian team who was very familiar with the terrain and also very
experienced with explosives.
The bridge was built and the company was ready to commence production.
The actors and crew were finally excited to begin after the three
months wait.
The training that went into setting up the explosives was thorough and
comprehensive. They even had a special effects man who was especially
trained to push the lever of the detonator box that would blow up the
bridge.
The Director started by telling this very dedicated native
crewman about the importance of setting off the explosion in as safe a
manner as possible. The explosion should occur when there is no one
near enough to be possibly injured. The crewman understood.
The Director told him, "When I say now! ..." The crewman pushed the
lever and the whole bridge exploded into smithereens before everyone's
eyes, a huge cloud of dust and debris, a magnificent scene and there
was not one camera rolling. In fact there was not one camera in place
yet.
So the interviewer asked if the production still went ahead
with the filming, and the person, who'd been a member of that
production, said that the whole project was canceled and everyone went
back home. There was no way they could afford to rebuild that bridge
and spend another three months waiting with the whole cast and crew.
Ironically, the Director just threw up his hands and walked off and no
one else said anything. What would be the point, right?
You see, hierarchy of command is important. The Director had
no business telling the crewman, who probably didn't speak a word of
English, what to do. He should've only explained to the head of the
Special Effects team about what the procedure would be.