Improvisational Shooting

In the last year or so, I've made a few videos that were shot without a script. One of these follows eight passers by who discover a mortally injured man. He dies, but not before making a mysterious inquiry and a critic accusation. He was apparently assassinated. The group descends into an intense debate about what to do with the situation. Matters are complicated as mysterious events unfold.

A group of my friends and I had agreed to make a movie that night, and met downtown to shoot it. We had no final idea of what the plot of the movie would be. After we discussed for a couple hours, and shot some extra montage footage, the last member of our group showed up, and quickly sketched out a skeleton plot or more of a premise. The paragraph above outlines most of what we had.

With no script, the actors improved each take. I would shoot until I felt like I'd shot for long enough, whether to break up the shot and move to the next or to keep the dialogue from dragging or becoming too chaotic. Sometimes I broke it up for no conscious reason at all. In between a some takes, I would talk to the actors about what basic information or plot development we needed to convey through the take; then, when the camcorder was rolling, the actors improved their lines. This method of shooting yielded results that had both pros and cons.

One of the greatest advantages of shooting like this was that what the actors said sounded more natural than is common in a scripted movie. The lines constantly overlapped, like the discussion of a chaotic and confused group of people really might. People ignored what others where saying and interrupted. They even made errors in their wording. The camera style I had to use matched the type of dialogue. Because I had no planned shots and didn't even know who would be speaking at what time, I had to spin and pan the camera from person to person. This however, can add to a feeling of being caught up in the confusion. The camera, and hopefully the audience, becomes part of the arguing group.

The problem with this kind of shooting was, because we were shooting at night and outdoors, there was not enough light. While this too added to mood and confusion in some ways, it was a bit too dark. The video would have been better and easier to follow if it had been visually clearer. A better camera (I used a SD consumer camcorder) may have helped. It would have been nice to be able to see the characters better. Additionally, continuity was a bit harder to maintain with this kind of shooting.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of filming the movie was the ending. We realized that we had set ourselves up for an interesting ending without realizing it. It seemed to fit excellently. In postproduction, I realized that one small section blatantly contradicted the ending, but was able to edit it out, causing the end to mostly make sense.

One perk of shooting in this improvisational style was that the whole movie was shot in one night.

Here you can decide for yourself how well the video works:

CONVERGENCE

I shot another video in a similar style. This one was a more subdued gangster movie. Most of its plot was determined ahead of time, and we were a little more selective, reshooting a few of the takes, I believe. I also used a less chaotic camera style. However, there still was no script, and the movie was shot in one night. I broke it into four parts for YouTube posting. The aim was to make a subtle but tense or suspenseful movie about gangster intrigue. Whether we succeeded or just made a slow movie, you can judge for yourself. At very least, I think the two guys who played the mob bosses gave interesting and colorful performances.

High Stakes, All In (A Mobster Movie in 4 Parts)